Simple is incredible. It was shortly after my father died that I was grieving that suddenly and unexpectedly the profound reality of Christ’s resurrection hit my like a brick. I sensed, I think, exactly the same thing His friends and disciples experienced seeing Jesus, the Christ, ALIVE three days after seeing Him brutally beaten, crucified, stabbed with a spear to the heart, dead and buried and there He was, alive and eating and talking with them!
My God, ain’t that enough? We have to replace THAT with this spiritualized BS to replace the real miracle - the launching of the faith and hope of the world.
I have to ask you, John and Christine - if you had been there - would you still be spouting your stuff for THAT?
I would rather, as a Christian, be repeating and affirming THAT witness - than creating something new and different and claiming to be a sole witness to an innovation.
‘When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?’ That’s not a rhetorical question by Christ.
Repent of the BS while you can - because you are surely not advancing His kingdom while you do.
Yes, once you experience it, it is simply incredible and incredibly simple. It is a knowing that even escape the intellect.
“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.” Acts 4:13
Horse hockey! This is not a battle of ‘experiences.’ It’s about the witness. We are only Christians because we believed the witness, not every jerk off with a ‘vision’.
I don’t want to ‘escape the intellect’ of the witness, I want to believe the intellect of the witness who attested to something quite impossible but saw and attested to and died for their testament. You ain’t got nothing better or anything to add.
Why the hell is so hard to realize time moves differently in different states Ran. What seems like a seventy years on earth can be as instant in Heaven. You have to have the working of the cross in people lives with patience and long suffering and God will get it done in life and in death. in what we think as an instant in death or the gulf between heaven and earth, for those experiencing the cross it it will take just long enough and no more. But believe me it will be a process of long suffering and patience, a **process **never forgotten! Why do so many want an easy way around the cross! After you have experinced the cross and learned to embrace it, you wouldn’t want any to be cheated of the experience. By God, pick up the cross, Pilgrim! Learn to love it!
What Christine and I share is readily understood by others on other UR forums. Nothing so damn innovative. Get out a little Ran. Get out amongst the simple commoners and away from the din of the Theologians and you might see, that which you label “innovation” is really old hat.
Yeah, if He can step through all the gum you been laying in His path!
Jeepers Ran! You got a little bit of my ire up with that last one.
‘Spiritualists’ are their own witness. OK? The superior position that you may take is that the ‘nonspiritual’ don’t see things your way. Fine. But who has joined you? I mean, really joined you in all points?
And if I join with the communion of saints, you’ll what? Call us blind idiots? Get with the program, dude, it’s lonely in left field, where you want to rewrite Christianity. Ego-centric pride - yeah, you’re special and due attention. Not. But you can talk about humility all the day long.
I’ve already given the example of “death”. There is physical death which involved a physically dead body (a corpse) and there is spiritual death which involves a living human being who is “dead” in sin being separated from God (who is our “life”). Other examples might be:
The physical Sabbath vs The spiritual Sabbath
Temples made of stone vs Temples made without hands
Water baptism vs Spiritual baptism
Most don’t seem to have a problem with these ‘types’. When it comes to the Sabbath they realize that it’s NOT about physically resting on the seventh day, but about entering into God’s rest (which we do only after being released from “captivity” and after much “wandering in the wilderness”, etc, as typified in Israel’s physical journey into ‘the promised land’). Many don’t have a problem with the fact that God does not dwell in earthly temples but in “us” and very few still believe that one must be "physically dunked in water” to be saved. But when it comes to “death”, we just can’t seem to let go of the physical (making death “the last enemy” in more way than one, I suppose; and maybe that’s why).
I’m not sure, exactly. I think it’s scattered throughout scripture - OT and NT. It’s just a matter of “rightly dividing” the word between the natural/temporal and the spiritual/eternal. When it comes to some things (like the few examples listed above) we don’t seem to have a problem separating the two and which is “the full truth” but we seem to have a huge problem doing that with “death”.
The temples, Priests, animal sacrifices (etc) were all “important” but not in and of themselves. They were “important” because of the spiritual things that they represented and revealed. The same is true of “death”. Were it not for the fact that “the body of this death” dies and is buried and is no longer seen or known among the living how would we know what (spiritual) “death” (being separated from the living/God), is?
God commanded Moses to build a temple after the pattern of that which was in heaven. What “temple” is that? God made “the heavens and the earth and the seas” (all seen). What do they represent? He also made the sun and the moon and stars (all seen). What do they represent (especially in relation to the “celestial bodies” of which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15 when it comes to “the resurrection of the dead”)?
Yes, I do.
I don’t think that he was trying to establish “a similarity”; he was trying to establish “the resurrection of the dead”, of which Christ’s physical resurrection both typifies and proves.
Yes!
I thought you said that you don’t believe that corpses will start popping out of graves at the resurrection of the dead? So just how “literal” or “similar” do you really think “the resurrection of the dead” is to Christ actual/physical/bodily resurrection? (Be fair! )
The natural body is not the spiritual body. The seed that is sown is not that which is reaped.
See above. I believe that you are putting too much emphasis on the physical when we are not even given a hint of what eternity will be like, except that we will be with the Lord and God will be all in all. Might that include a physical existence? Sure! But not even you believe that the bodies of all those who have died are going to start popping out of their graves when “the resurrection of the dead” takes place. So if our natural body is not required to be resurrected for ANYONE who has already died (even though CHRIST’S BODY was raised and HIS TOMB was empty) in order for “the dead” to be “resurrected” and be GIVEN “a spiritual body” then why do you have the two so tightly wound around each other that you think that “the resurrection of the dead” is dependent upon “soul sleep”?
Lots of things are “highly questionable” to lots of people. That doesn’t make them untrue. Even Peter spoke about the fact that Paul’s epistles were “hard to be understood” and something that the “unlearned” did wrest with, to their own destruction.
Do you believe that when Paul said “I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man” that he was addressing men and women after the flesh? (I believe that he was speaking allegorically. )
I don’t think I have ever claimed to be anywhere near “sure” of what you, personally, believe. What I presented earlier was what I, myself, was familiar with in relation to what “some” who believe in soul sleep do believe (from my own perspective when I held that belief). While I may have assumed that at least some of your beliefs would be the same, I never attributed any of them to you specifically (I don’t think), so I am sorry if you got that impression (or inadvertently did do that).
Not sure what you are saying? Are you referring to “he that liveth and believeth shall never die”? And saying that he doesn’t mean “never” in the sense that he will live beyond his natural death? If so, I disagree.
I agreed (if I am understanding you correctly).
I’d probably agree, but how do you see the resurrection of John 5:29? And how is it different from the resurrection Paul speaks of in Philippians?
I disagree. As I said in my previous post (I think) Paul did not say he had not yet attained unto it; he merely said: “I count it not”. Paul continued to strive for it, as though he had not already attained it. And he tells us to walk by the same rule… even whereunto we have “already attained”. Granted not all know “the power of His resurrection” (even though all have been gathered together “in Christ”) I believe that Paul certainly did. But there is a reason why Paul said “I count not myself to have already attained” (if we bear witness of ourselves our witness is not true).
I disagree for the reasons previously stated with regard to who “the angels of the churches” (the “stars” in His right hand) are. I believe that they are “men” in both Rev and 1 Cor.
The “angels” of the churches (who are also “the reapers”) are the “stars” in His right hand; they are the “bodies celestial” that make up “the heavens’. It’s about the natural (outward) man and the spiritual (inward) man. One is sewn (the natural) the other is reaped (the spiritual). This is not about a physical resurrection of physical bodies in physical graves (or unseen/hidden “in Hades”) being resurrected…except as it applies, spiritually, to those “in the earth” who are prisoners to “the body of this death”.
No one who is “physically dead" is “dead in sin”, are they? It is only the living who are “dead in sin”. But there was One who “overcame death” by condemning death “in the flesh”. Right?
Jesus Christ is God (The Word) “manifest in the flesh” and God (The Word) was no more “dead” when Christ descended “into His physical grave” (the abode of the dead, ie Sheol/Hades) than He was when “The Word” was “made flesh” and descended “into this world” (the abode of the dead, ie Sheol/Hades).
This which is seen is temporal and that which is not seen is eternal and we are not to be looking upon that which is seen, but upon that which is not seen, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. No? So what do all of those physical things point to? What do they reveal about that which is “not seen”?
No, I do not agree. Was Christ not lifted up on the cross? What do you think that it means that God was in Christ “creating one new man”? What does it mean that we have all been baptized by one spirit into “one body”? Why do you think that we are told not to forsake “the assembling of ourselves together” (episynagōgē) “as the manner of some is”?
Do you think that I believe that it takes place while men are physically dead?
Well, the dead can certainly bury the dead.
How does the meaning change with vs without the word “blood”? I simply quoted it as it is written, but don’t know why you don’t think that it has anything to do with the church since the church is His body and we are His body when the two preceding verses are talking about the fact that God doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands and neither is He worshipped with men’s hands and the two verse following say that He is not far from any one of us for “in Him” we live and move and have our being for we are His offspring.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but when did I call the literal body of Paul (or anyone) “the church”? It is the body of believers that make up “the church” (ie “the body of Christ”). And is it not true that “God, who is rich in mercy… even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ… and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”? So what does “a great cloud of witness” and “the angels of the churches” (who are “the stars in His right hand”) and the fact that Christ said that the field was “white already to harvest” and that He sent His disciple “to reap” and “the reapers are the angels” have to do with “the church” and “the resurrection of the dead”? A great deal, as far as I can tell. Aren’t clouds, angels, and stars “celestial bodies” and aren’t “the stars” mentioned specifically in 1 Cor 15 wherein the glory of the stars (ie “the angels of the church” –Paul having been received “as an angel of God, even Christ himself”) differ from one star to another?
It’s not a physical resurrection. No.
Not the way you see it, perhaps. But I believe that we have “put on” immortality and incorruption by being “clothed” with Christ, which is when mortality is swallowed up of life.
I agree. And I believe that is a direct result of “Christ in you”, but not only is Christ “in us” but we are “in Him”.
Physical death is not the enemy. The carnal mind is the enemy. And the Word being made flesh and coming into the world to be crucified and lay dead three days and three nights in the heart of the earth before being resurrected from the dead ‘typifies’ that which is happening “within” us through we are “born again” and “resurrected from the dead”.
And if you didn’t believe in soul sleep would you still see it that way? When Paul is talking about the outward man (which is perishing) and the inward man (that is being renewed day by day) when he tells us that we not to be looking upon that which “is” seen (which is temporal) but on that which is “not” seen (which is eternal) and goes on to say that we know that if this earthly house WERE DISSOLVED that WE HAVE a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens? And that is it “in this” that we do groan, not desiring “to be unclothed” but to be “clothed up” with that house not made with hands? Would you believe that you have to “wait for” that body if Paul told you that you should know that if this earthly body were dissolved that you “have it”, if you didn’t already believe in soul sleep and didn’t have to reconcile it that way?
“Or anything else” is a rather broad statement, don’t you think? You don’t think that the fact that the “invisible things” of God are “clearly seen” and “understood” BY “the things that are made” has nothing to do with those things that are made/seen (temporal) revealing those things that are not seen (eternal) besides God’s “eternal power and divine nature”? What about the angels/stars/clouds (heavenly/celestial bodies) and the earth/sand/seas (earthy/terrestrial bodies)? These things that are “made” (seen/temporal) do not help us to see and understand certain spiritual truths that are “invisible” (not seen/eternal)?
It is Christ who has the keys of death and hell and the Word was made flesh that He might condemned sin in the flesh and destroy him who has the power of death, so I could say that same to you; that you are trying to hang onto the type (physical death) seeing it everywhere in the NT when the dead are no longer seen as just physical corpses of rotting flesh but as those who have “no life” in them because they partake not of His flesh and His blood - He being the resurrection and the life, and the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. The mystery that was kept hid from the ages and generations that is now revealed being Christ in you.
They may have authenticated Christ’s Messiahship, but you are not going to tell me that was their primary function and they do not reveal the truth that Christ came to heal the SPIRITUALLY lame, deaf, blind and dead (with “that” being His primary function – to redeem us from the wages of sin, death – which is most assuredly still happening today).
I didn’t say it was the “only” reason. But, either way, I think you’re missing a lot of beautiful stuff if you can’t see them on at least every other page!
The scriptures themselves tell us that “they” were given “as example to us”; that they ministered “not unto themselves but unto us”. So how does that make them “pretty unimportant” and that their “secondary” function - rather than their primary function (as far as that which is written about them)? What was their “primary” function then? Besides, Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It is not only those who have lived since the advent of Christ who have walked in faith and entered into the Promised Land and the rest of God, which is the true Sabbath.
I think you are missing my point.
You are still looking at if from only a “physical life” perspective and missing my point, I think.
And “the breath of life” that was breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make him “a living soul” is ‘allegorical’ of God sending forth His spirit to quicken the dead and conform them into the image of His Son, in the day that they are “created in His image and after His likeness”.
First the natural, then the spiritual. Those things that are invisible are clearly seen and understood by those things that are made (seen).
And yet you claim that there is no allegorical meaning in the Genesis account above, wherein God breathes “the breath of life” into Adam/man to make him “a living soul” and God “sending forth His spirit” to quicken “the dead” and make them “alive”?
When are the truths of God ever “straight-forward” and “simple” to be understood? You can’t even see God sending forth His spirit to quicken the dead and give them life is seen allegorically in the Genesis account of God breathing the breath of life into Adam to make him a living soul, but I’m supposed to be ashamed of believing that this (and many others things) have a “spiritual application” (that shouldn’t be overlooked or just brushed aside because “the natural” application (that which “is seen”) is what I am supposed to be “looking upon”? What is more important? The type or the anti-type?
So you believe that Jesus Christ exist somewhere in a physical body all by himself?
I though you said that you don’t believe that physical death is the result/penalty for sin? If so, then how is physical death “the sin problem” that need to be resolved?
I disagree, but ok.
I believe that physical death is a type of spiritual death. And while men “die” (fall asleep) physically they are also “asleep” (“dead” in sin) “in Christ” in whom they have been “gathered together into one body”. One does not negate the other, but one (the natural; that which is seen) reveals the other (the spiritual; that which is not seen). And I believe that we are to be “rightly dividing the word of Truth” (and His words are spirit and they are life) by “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” and that we are to be looking upon that which is “not seen”.
By letting the scriptures interpret themselves and comparing spiritual things with spiritual. We are very clearly told in Revelation who “the stars in His right hand” are (the angels of the churches). We are also told by Christ that “the reapers are the angels” and we know that Jesus send His disciples “to reap” (saying that “the field is white, already to harvest”). And we know that Paul was received “as an angel of God, even as Christ himself” and, going back to Revelation, who do we see flying “in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on (in) the earth”? Is it not “an angel”? And who is pouring out the wrath of God in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ? Is it not “the angels”? And who is it that is given the honor “to execute” judgment? Is it not the Saints?
I see the "sun” as Christ ( who is THE LIGHT of THE DAY)
I’m not as sure about the “moon” because I think it can represent several things and possibly all of them together, since I see them as related (the natural man, that which is born of a woman, of whom John the Baptist - who also is representative of “the prophets” - who was “the greatest”). For me, this needs more study and I haven’t had the time to delve into it further yet.
I see the “stars” as above (the spiritual man, the saints, the angels).
Because I believe that Adam (man) was always mortal and therefore always subject to physical death – which means that physical death has nothing to do with “sin” but is simply the result of man’s “mortality”. Therefore, the “death” that Adam (and all men) suffered due to sin is spiritual death and it is ‘this’ death from which we need to be redeemed in order to have “eternal life” (which is “to know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent”, which “few” find).
So if the point is for us to know God and Jesus Christ so that we can have eternal life (something that applies to those who are physically alive) then I can see the point in God making men “mortal” - so that men know what “death” is. And I can see why Christ had to die physically and be resurrected physically when physical death is not the penalty for sin. First, because His blood was required; second, so that we would know what “the resurrection of the dead” is.
But I don’t see the point of “death” existing beyond the point of physical death when physical death is not the penalty for sin and it is those who are dead in sin (who are physically alive) who need to be “resurrected from the dead” so that they can “have life and have it more abundantly” (by being redeemed from sin and death).
These posts are getting longer and longer and taking longer and longer to address (and editing to add that, as I post this I see that there are more posts, at least one of which is probably as long still to address) … but we are up to 12 pages in length now. And I don’t know if I can keep going at this rate. I just don’t have the time to spend hours on every post. Perhaps we can narrow this down? Or perhaps we are simply at an impasse and just need to agree to disagree, I don’t know.
I don’t believe that Jesus “waits to resurrect humanity”. He is THE RESURRECTION.
Nor does the fact that I don’t believe that Christ currently abides in the same body of flesh and bones (All by himself somewhere, as you obviously do? Doing what, I don’t know?) that he has between His resurrection and ascension mean that I don’t believe that He is a man or that he CAN’T manifest Himself physically - even in a locked room - if He wants to. But Christ doesn’t live in this physical world any more does He?
I believe that the Last Adam was made A QUICKENING SPIRIT (just as the scripture say) and a spirit has not a body of flesh and bones, as did Christ after His resurrection, until He ascended to the Father. And, as a quickening spirit, I believe that Christ now abides in us, just as He said He would when He said: “I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you” and “in that day you shall know that I am in the Father and He in me and I in you”.
And the natural body is not the spiritual body and a man with a spiritual body still has a body, though not a natural body.
Then perhaps you won’t mind explaining how Christ can be “in us” and yet be elsewhere in a physical body? Or tell us where He is exactly and what He is doing? Or what it mean to be made “a quickening spirit” or why God is called “the Father of spirits”?
And yet the Lord is that spirit and there is but one Lord, the man Jesus Christ.
And yet men are likened to “living stones”.
I understand that there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body and that which is sewn is not that which is reaped.
I don’t believe it is a natural body, which is apparently what you believe. And I don’t believe that a body has to be “natural” to be “real”.
I never said otherwise.
I never said otherwise.
And why did he need to be separated from His body in order to be dead if his body was also dead?
Christ’s body went into a tomb/grave (the abode of the dead) after His physical death. Likewise, Christ descended into “the abode of the dead” when “the Word was made flesh”.
I never once said I am in Christ “because I believe”. I have said repeatedly that ALL MEN are “in Christ”. Do all men believe?
Try to look past the physical grave and see “the body of this death” that is “full of dead men’s bones” whose THROAT is “an open sepulcher” and whose TONGUE (remember the rich man IN HADES, who wanted a drop of water to cool HIS TONGUE?) is “a world of iniquity… set on fire of hell/Gehenna”.
Get over sensing it and experience it Ran! Those same friends and disciples you mention would go on to drink of the same cup as Jesus. Each member of the body of Christ, which is made up of all mankind eventually drinks of the Lord’s cup. They share in communion (Greek. koinonos: partnership, participation) with the death and sufferings of their Savior. And this shared communion ain’t just some Sunday service wine tasting party.
Some of you guys want to “sleep” away, “sense” away or “instant” away the experiencing of the Cup, which is the Cross. Ain’t going to happen because it is a stony-heart, carnal mind breaking experience and man needs it, to know the very Love of God. The processing of the Cross will be experienced and it won’t be cut short by a mans last breath.
Aaron, I am going to read through your last post to me (the long one up there ) and see if I can answer some of your questions without going through and re-posting the whole thing (try to “shorten it up” some). But I haven’t read the whole things yet.
But I will say that it’s not that I have a problem with the idea of ‘soul sleep’, I certainly don’t. I just don’t see it supported by scriptures any more, though I once did and know how it “can” be supported.
You may see that as a result me “over-spiritualizing” the scriptures and focusing “too much” on the types/shadows/allegories, at the expense of the natural applications of the word, but I think that it part of “rightly dividing the word of truth” (“dividing” the natural from the spiritual, the flesh from the spirit) so that we can compare “spiritual things with spiritual” and hear “what the spirit is saying unto the churches”, hearing “the spirit” of the word, which is “life”.
Frankly, I find BOTH of you straying from the resurrection of bodies to bodies by fiat.
But scripture repeatedly speaks of resurrecting bodies from the bones, dust, elements of the old. i.e. bodies from the graves, not from thin air or the immaterial. So we have Christine’s depiction of Christ shedding (somewhere!) His very material body to become Christ the ghost - something He said He was not! That doesn’t seem to bother her, but it bothers me.
I believe the witness that the resurrection IS a resurrection - not this spiritualized goo claiming a new witness.
“Plant a turnip get a turnip - not a brussel sprout.”
I’ve attempted to clarify my position on this in another thread (“The Resurrection Body”) if want to check it out. And as far as narrowing our discussion down to a more specific topic, I’d be interested in getting your thoughts on 1Thess 4:13-18, since it seems pretty relevant to a lot of what we’ve been talking about concerning death and resurrection. If you want to discuss this passage (I would especially like to know how you understand v. 13!), here’s a link to the thread I started on it the other day: 1 Thess 4:13-18
But if you’d rather discuss something else, that’s fine with me too!
Was finally able to get back to the other post. I’m not quoting the whole thing but I think I answered all of the questions:
I don’t see where Paul says: “at some time after the destruction of this earthly home”. He said that if this earthly home (a natural body) were dissolved that we know that WE HAVE that house which is from heaven (a spiritual body). That is my whole point, and I believe his; that it is not about taking something off, it is about putting something on. It is not about being unclothed, it is about being clothed upon. It is about the body that is being sown (a natural body, BARE GRAIN) and the body that shall be (WHEAT or some other grain). And that which is being sown is not QUICKENED unless it DIE (and Paul said I DIE DAILY). I see the natural man vs the spiritual man in relation to the outward man vs the inward man and the natural man perishes while the spiritual man is renewed day by day.
Christ came that man (“this mortal”) might have life and have it MORE ABUNDANTLY and that comes by “knowing God and Jesus Christ whom he sent” and ~having~ ETERNAL/AIONIOS LIFE, which comes not by being “unclothed” but by being “clothed upon” (by being quickened by the spirit of God). It is not about attaining unto a physical resurrection from a physical death, it is about knowing THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION so that we can pass from death unto life and enter into “His rest” and experience “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding” by being “caught up to the third heaven” and being allowed to partake of THE TREE OF LIFE, that is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Just 3 verses earlier (2 Cor 4:16) Paul is talking about the outward man vs the inward man and telling us that we should not to be looking upon that which is seen but that which is not seen.
Paul telling us that from now on we should know no man after the flesh because if any man be in Christ he is a new creature is talking about physical death?
Yes, Christ died physically. But before Christ died on the cross THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH and came and dwelled “among the dead” (who are physically alive).
Christ died “for the ungodly” (those “dead” IN SIN). Are you saying that not all are/were “dead" in sin?
True, which is why I see “all were dead” as speaking of a spiritual truth in relations to the wages of sin being “death” for “as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” and “sin when it is finished bringeth forth death”
Paul transitions because Paul is using Christ physical resurrection to teach us about this “spiritual transformation” (which is “the resurrection of the dead”, after a spiritual truth).
Without quoting the whole text, you said that you don’t believe that the “day of Christ” is future for us, but that it was fulfilled in 70AD with destruction of Jerusalem. I don’t see it future or past, I just see it relations to THE DAY vs THE NIGHT. Christ comes (I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you) as a thief IN THE NIGHT (unto those who sleep) to awake them (Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee LIGHT). Peter said: “be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. Many people associate the “thousand years” with the millennial reign of Christ, which they see as “the day of the Lord” (that is how I used to see it) but “a thousand years” also appears in the Psalms where it says: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but AS YESTERDAY when it is past, and as a watch IN THE NIGHT”. So I see THE NIGHT and THE DAY in relation to YESTERDAY and TODAY and both connected to “a thousand years” (a thousand years twice told) that is all ONE DAY to the Lord. (We leave THE NIGHT and enter into THE DAY of the Lord when we awake out of sleep and rise from the dead; ie “pass from death into life”). But God has a covenant with both the night and the day, whereby he leads “by day in a pillar of a cloud” and “by might in a pillar of fire”.
I disagree. All have been baptized by one spirit into ONE BODY – the body of Christ. Paul said “be ye reconciled to God” because “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself”. It is finished! But it is now up to us to realize it and walk in it!
To answer you other question (without quoting the whole text)… yes, you are correct, my rejection of the dead being unconscious was an indirect consequence of some of my other views changing. It didn’t start with me changing my view of “the resurrection of the dead”; that also came later as an indirect consequence of my views changing on other things. I believe that the “first” thing that I began to question was my belief that the elect are resurrected first, in “the first resurrection” to rule and reign with Christ for “a thousand years” before the rest of the dead will live again. I could not reconcile that with Christ’s words when he said that in the time of harvest he would send forth His angels, telling them “gather ye first the tares”, which led to more questions. I then had to reconcile that with Paul’s words when he said “the dead in Christ shall rise first” (having previously believed that Paul was talking about dead believers who were coming forth in the first resurrection to rule and reign with Christ in His kingdom). Then both of those things had to be reconciled with “blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection”. Eventually many of my beliefs changed, including my belief in soul sleep.
To answer your question about Ecc 9:5… no, I was not saying that it is about spiritual death, rather than physical death. I was just comparing Ecc 9:5 to Pro 9:13-18 to demonstrate that the same is said of the spiritually dead in Pro as is said about the physically dead in Ecc, which is why I see physical death as a ‘type’ of spiritual death. And maybe that will answer your points 1, 2 and 3 as well. I believe that Paul used Jesus’ physical resurrection to teach us about “the resurrection of the dead” after a spiritual truth, much the same way he used Adam and Eve and the marriage relationship to teach us spiritual truths about Christ and the church.
I said He was going to the Father (but He had to be crucified first). Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
I don’t think it matters whether it’s “mansions” or “rooms”, my point is just that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. But not only does God dwell is us, but we in Him, for in Him we live and move and have our being… so Christ saying “in the Fathers house are many mansions” (or rooms… or “abodes”) “I go to prepare a place for you” doesn’t make me think of Beverly Hills or something, ya know?
Aaron, “After this, (no the, in the Greek) Judgment” … a view of Hebrews 9:27:-
View:- This verse is not a reference to a FUTURE resurrection & judgment. Read properly, in context, it is a reference to the work of the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement. The context contains a comparison of the typical work of the High Priest, & the anti-typical work of Jesus.
The incumbent High Priest died SYMBOLICALLY EVERY YEAR, when the sacrifice was offered, & then after he returned from the “Holy of Holies”, God’s annual judgment (of forgiveness) was complete. Compare that with the work of Jesus, who has made ONE sacrifice (only), but effective for all time. Like the High Priest, Jesus is now in the “Holiest Place” (not the earthly tabernacle, but the real one in heaven), from which (like the High Priest) he will return, “not to deal with sin**, but to save those who are waiting for him” (Heb 9:28 RSV).
My (Temple Farrar) Conditionalist/Wider Hope Comment (to the above view):-
I agree with you (above) that Hebrews 9:27 (in context) compares Israel’s High Priest (HP) every year on the Day of Atonement, entering the Holy of Holies (ta hagia) “with blood belonging to others”, see verse 25 … with the “one-time offering (to annul Adam’s sin + bear the repented sins of many)”, of Jesus, c.f. verses 26 & 28.
However, the offering of animal blood, Lev 17:11, both for himself (HP) & the entire people of Israel, “each year”, on the Day of Atonement, seems to me to represent/picture the necessity for “substitution” (animal blood in place of human blood), rather than a picture of the High Priest “symbolically dying each year” (although that picture could have been intended too !!) … because he (HP) didn’t bring his own blood [on this point of substitution, note 1 Peter 3:18:- “Christ once died for mankind’s sins, a righteous man on behalf of/in place of, UNrighteous ones, dikaios huper a-dikon”].
View:- This verse is not a reference to a FUTURE resurrection & judgment. Read properly, in context, it is a reference to the work of the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement. The context contains a comparison of the typical work of the High Priest, & the anti-typical work of Jesus.
The incumbent High Priest died SYMBOLICALLY EVERY YEAR, when the sacrifice was offered, & then after he returned from the “Holy of Holies”, God’s annual judgment (of forgiveness) was complete. Compare that with the work of Jesus, who has made ONE sacrifice (only), but effective for all time. Like the High Priest, Jesus is now in the “Holiest Place” (not the earthly tabernacle, but the real one in heaven), from which (like the High Priest) he will return, “not to deal with sin**, but to save those who are waiting for him” (Heb 9:28 RSV).
My (Temple Farrar) Conditionalist/Wider Hope Comment (to the above view):-
I agree with you (above) that Hebrews 9:27 (in context) compares Israel’s High Priest (HP) every year on the Day of Atonement, entering the Holy of Holies (ta hagia) “with blood belonging to others”, see verse 25 … with the “one-time offering (to annul Adam’s sin + bear the repented sins of many)”, of Jesus, c.f. verses 26 & 28.
However, the offering of animal blood, Lev 17:11, both for himself (HP) & the entire people of Israel, “each year”, on the Day of Atonement, seems to me to represent/picture the necessity for “substitution” (animal blood in place of human blood), rather than a picture of the High Priest “symbolically dying each year” (although that picture could have been intended too !!) … because he (HP) didn’t bring his own blood [on this point of substitution, note 1 Peter 3:18:- “Christ once died for mankind’s sins, a righteous man on behalf of/in place of, UNrighteous ones, dikaios huper a-dikon”].
The comparison in verse 27, is more likely IMO to be a comparison between what actually happened when Israel’s Levitical High Priest did literally die i.e. when his personal blood “left his own body” (see Numbers 35:12,24,29) … with what happened when a man (an anthropos, 1 Timothy 2:5) Christ Jesus, mankind’s new Melchisedec Priest, died by offering himself in mediation to God, as a “human sacrifice”*: viz. Judgment.
Heb 9:26 says that “the sacrifice of Jesus annuled SIN”. Most expositors understand (correctly) that the death of Jesus takes away/cancels out, all repented sin, but (in addition to this), the death of Jesus also took away/cancelled Adam’s (original) sin, imputed to Adam’s descendants (which resulted in the UNavoidable 1st death of all mankind), by paying a universal substitutionary-ransom, see 1 Timothy 2:6 [this is why Jesus, as God’s agent, is called the “Saviour, soter, of all mankind”, in 1 Timothy 4:10; 2:4; John 1:29; 3:17; 4:42; 6;33,51; 12:47; Titus 2:11 c.f. 1:3,4; 3:4,6; & 2 Cor 5:19 … where “save”, sozo, means “physical resurrection” from the dead (for reward OR judgment) !!].
This “universal substitutionary-ransom”, anti-lutron huper panton, therefore, guarantees “universal resurrection” in the future (for reward OR judgment), & is explained in Romans 5:18 & in Romans 6:7:-
“just as one man’s [Adam] act of sin, resulted in condemnation for all men, so too one man’s [Jesus] act of righteousness, resulted in life-giving acquital for all men” (c.f. 1 Cor 15:22, zoopoieo; also in John 5:21,22,27).
“the one * having died, has been justified from sin”.
** Although Heb 9:28 is notoriously difficult to translate, I wonder if the usual “this time not to deal with sin”, is actually correct. I wonder if it could not mean, that all those involved during Jesus’ Parousia/Presence (which will last 1,000 years), will be “without/free from the consequences of Adam’s original (imputed to all mankind) sin” … not personal sin, unless/until they repent of it … either during the Millennial Judgment DAY, or the subsequent Last Judgment period !!! ??
The 3-fold context of Hebrews 9:27 seems to be, therefore:-
the death of Israel’s Levitical High Priest (see Numbers 35:25, 28, 32), at which time all those living in the 6 cities of refuge could safely*** return to their homes throughout the Promised Land (like a type of Jubilee release !!);
blood atonement (Heb 9:22; Numbers 35:33 c.f. Lev 17:11); &
judgment (Heb 9:27; Numbers 35:12,24,29).
*** the very fact that someone was allowed to stay in one of the 6 cities of refuge, meant that the congregation/elders of the city (see Numbers 35:24,25) had already judged the case & determined that the individual was innocent of premeditated murder (c.f. the fact that “all mankind” is innocent of Adam’s original sin, yet all must suffer the 1st death !!), & did not deserve to die, but nevertheless, he/she still had to stay in the city UNTIL the death of the High Priest (c.f. Christian believers today who are declared/imputed to be righteous, but nevertheless have to patiently wait until Christ returns, before we receive our freedom from this present, evil Age & receive the gift of immortality).
The death(s) of the Levitical High Priest(s) is/are, therefore, being compared in Heb 9:27 (I believe) with the unique, one-time death of the high-priestly, Melchisedec Messiah (Heb 9:11,26,28): Jesus Christ, & emphasising the consequences (“annuling Adam’s sin-penalty” + “bearing the personal sins of many”) of that ONE, very special death, in 30 AD.
I’m not saying that the content of verse 27 (if read in isolation !!) doesn’t apply to all men & women (because all mankind are reserved to die at least ONCE, as a consequence of Adam’s original sin) … just that (in CONTEXT) the verse is primarily i.e. specifically, referring to the consequences following on from the deaths of the Levitical High Priests: freedom from the Cities of Refuge & the constant threat of revenge killing or injury; compared with the consequences following on from the death of Jesus: the Melchisedec priest & Messiah: universal resurrection from the dead for either reward OR judgment (not condemnation necessarily, but the opportunity to choose a future life !!). “Judgment” (John 5:29) offers all mankind the opportunity of a future life (the opportunity to repent & choose “life” rather than death i.e. future probation. Many do not receive this opportunity during this life.
Are Conditionalists not justified, then, in slipping in that extra word “immediately” as an ellipsis (as some do), in order to “prove” that human destiny is determined/fixed for all, at death) … as follows:- “And as it is appointed/reserved unto men once to die, but/& [immediately] AFTER THIS [the] judgment (interpreted to mean “condemnation”)” ??
YES, if “men” is correctly understood to mean Israel’s Levitical High Priests, because “immediately” following their death, all men/women confined to the cities of refuge, were then freed to return home (in safety).
NO, if “men” is INcorrectly understood to mean “all mankind” … & “judgment” is assumed to mean the Lake of Fire/2nd Death condemnation for most.
Why does “judgment” (c.f. John 5:29) have to mean final sentence/condemnation. Could it not refer, instead, to God working with someone from beginning to end (over a period of time), in order to “decide/determine” their future i.e. decision-making ??
Do Conditionalists really need Heb 9:27 to disprove the existence of a “conscious, intermediate state” ? I don’t think so. From beginning to end, the Scripture says that man returns to dust when he dies (& his NOW inert, UNconscious, “sleeping” spirit returns to God), until his/her promised resurrection from the dead (1 Timothy 2:6) … for either reward OR judgment/decision time [a living “soul”/personality = human spirit + body; a dead “soul”/personality = human spirit (see 1 Cor 2:11; Rom 8:16) - body: “soul sleep” should be re-named , “spirit-sleep” !!] Temple Farrar*
)
