Certainly the passage as a whole (indeed, the entire epistle and NT) is about Christ and not about the death that all men die once. But v. 27 most certainly is about the death of all men (at least, if tois anthropois denotes all men here!). Even you admit this. But then you do what I think the grammar itself does not allow (i.e., connect the krisis with that which follows Christ’s death instead of what follows the death of tois anthropois). Again, I do in fact understand Christ to be the subject and reason for which the death of all men (and the judgment that follows after, meta, every man’s death), was introduced. The death of all men is not the subject of this epistle, or even this chapter. But it is introduced briefly, for a purpose that is consistent with the larger emphasis on Christ’s death. So again, it’s not that I fail to understand your interpretation or am “misreading the intent of the passage”; I think I understand the intent well enough. It’s that I don’t think your interpretation of these verses is even grammatically tenable.
So let’s say that there is a law that says that “every man must visit the moon once in his lifetime”.
Now let’s say that It is my time to go visit the moon so I say: “I am going to visit the moon, as it is appointed unto all men to do once in their lifetime, and after this I am going to the movies.”
Are you going to tell me that this means that every man must now go to the movies after he has made his required trip to the moon, just because I pointed out that every one is required to take that trip and I told you what was going to happen after my trip to the moon?
In order for your statement to be parallel to the text it would have to read, “every man must visit the moon once in his lifetime, and after this the movies.” So yes, when expressed in a way that is consistent with the original statement, it would mean that every man has to go to the movies after visiting the moon. Meta (“after this”) connects the krisis with the death that every man must die previous to the krisis.
OK, well we are going to have to agree to disagree, I guess, since to me it says that Christ came once to die, as it is appointed unto men, and after this the judgment. So, again to me, the “but after this” refers to Christ death (“once” for all).
And since it’s not about every man’s death, but about one man’s death, and it is at the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (which happened soon after Christ was crucified and resurrected) that the world was “judged” and you say yourself that there is no scriptural support a post-mortem judgment, I am not quite sure why you see it as speaking about a judgment that takes place “after physical death”. But, it is what it is, I guess. 
Just wondering “out loud” as I think some more about this…
We DIE “in Adam”
We DIE “in Christ”
We DIE physically
But it is appointed unto me “ONCE to die”. ???
The passage is talking about Christ’s physical death and surely we all die “physically” only ONCE.
But it also seem to me that physical death is a ‘type’ (that which “is seen”, which is temporal) of the actual “death” that we all suffer as “the wages of sin” (which is spiritual death).
And we know that Christ said; “I AM the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”
This takes “physical death” out of the way, as the one who is “dead” (in sin) is “resurrected from the dead” (according to a spiritual truth) and has already passed FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE and Jesus says “he shall never die” (despite the fact that he will die, physically).
And even the one who is “dead” IN ADAM (in sin) is “twice dead” when baptized into the death of Jesus Christ… and it by being found in Christ (being baptized into HIS death, this “second death”) that one can overcome death and be “resurrected from the dead” (by being raise WITH HIM)… but then comes physical death.
hmmmmmmmmm… it’s getting late and I just can’t THINK. 
Oh well, thought I was going somewhere with that… 
Maybe if I sleep on it…
-
I don’t believe in post-mortem judgment in the sense of conscious, post-mortem punishment for sin.
-
The judgment (krisis) that I think v. 27 is talking about (i.e., man’s return to the dust) is a judgment from the perspective of the living, not the dead.
Keep working at it, atHisfeet.Three weeks ago I realized physical death was not the penalty of Adam’s partaking of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. The world from the get go tended toward disorder and Adam was formed of the corruptible substance of the world. Since then I have been wrestling day and night with the understanding of the two deaths, both physical and spiritual.
The answer to the puzzle will come,
John
Yes, I read that at Tweb, but I don’t think that I agree with it, in that I don’t think judgment (the wrath of God) has anything to do with the physically dead. What good does it do to judge “corpses”? the wrath of God abides upon those who believe not (ie “the dead”). Granted the “the dead know not anything” (and therefore might not “percieve” God’s judgment for what it is) but neither are they physically dead corpses.
HI John!
AMEN!! Men die physically simply because men are mortal. It is THIS MORTAL that must “put on” immortality (that ONLY CHRIST has). Life and immortality was never to come through the first Adam/man but throught Christ, the last Adam, the second man (which also has nothing to do with physical death because it is not about being “unlcothed”, but about being CLOTHED UPON; 2 Cor 5:1-4)
The natural man (the first man/Adam) was made subject to vanity, to the lust of the flesh and to the things of this world (mortal and corruptible). We can see this when we compare 1 John 2 to the Genesis account of “the fall” (as it is called by so many):
1Jo 2:15-16 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
The penalty (wages) for sin is death; the soul (nephesh = a breathing creature) that sinneth is shall die (but die how?):
Jam 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
God said IN THE DAY that thou eatest DYING, thou dost DIE.
Adam did not wait 930 years to die physically to pay the penalty for his transgression. He died “in the day” that he sinned. And it it only when God sends forth HIS SPIRIT (seen allegorically in Gen when God breathed the breath of life into Adam making him “a LIVING soul”) that “the dead” are made “alive”… and it is THEN that they are “created in the image and likeness of God”. Adam was FIRST FORMED out of the dust of the ground… it is not until God sends for His spirit AND RENEWETH the face OF THE EARTH - dust, right? - that men are CREATED in HIs image… it is a process. God did not “create” (past tense) man in His image, but He is creatING man in His image. it is not “the first man” but “the second man” that is created in the image and likeness of God, having been conformed into the image of His Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit by which he is “born again” (begotten from above).
So, to me, the second death has to do with being baptized into the death of Jesus Christ (the Last Adam and the second man, through whom the resurrection of the dead comes). But still trying to connect it to this “it is appointed unto man ONCE to die”. Though I still tend to think that physical death is not “counted” (as the flesh is not counted, not even in Genesis in the generations of Adam, as the flesh profits nothing).
Surely judgment is connected to “the second death” (being cast into the lake of fire) and “the second man” IS the Lord from heaven (and we have been baptized into HIS DEATH).
Getting ‘glimpses’ here but still not sure of what I am seeing in relation to it being appointed unto men ONCE to die, but will let you know if I have any sudden epiphanies.
Not all krisis is the expression of the wrath of God, and I don’t think this krisis is. A krisis can simply be understood as being a decisive act or event, not necessarily a punishment from God inflicted upon the guilty. In this case, the krisis would simply be the post-mortem event by which death is given the appearance (to the living) of finality. But since Christ, by bringing life and immortality to light, delivers us from the fear of death, this krisis is seen for what it is: something that makes death look seemingly final, through it is not actually so.
I agree! And man has been mortal since creation. But is the death which is spoken of in 1Cor 15 literal death, or figurative death? On a similar note, I’m curious about something in regards to your view on the resurrection of the dead. Do you think all “resurrection language” in Scripture is figurative when mankind in general is in view, or do you think some is also literal (and by “literal” I mean pertaining to the resuming of one’s conscious, embodied existence at some point after death)?
Revelation is not scripture - especially, the last few chapters. Ignore all this ‘second death’ nonsense. Look at the needless confusion it causes. If you can’t ignore it, don’t call the mess that is left, ‘theology’ - it can’t be reconciled with scripture - you can try, but it can’t be done. There is no answer to that puzzle.
Meanwhile, I’m watching this crazy labyrinth you guys are building - it’s a house of cards. Men die, they come back to life at the resurrection. There’s your epiphany. A child can understand it.
Men die ONCE - just stick with scripture! God help us if we make the Gospel is so confusing that no one can understand it.
The penalty for sin is death, so even if “the wrath of God” is death, it is not physical death, as that is not the penalty for sin. Correct?
In which verse? If the penalty for sin is not physical death, then the resurrection of the dead has nothing to do with physical death either.
I used to believe in soul sleep, but I no longer do. I do not believe that “the resurrection of the dead” has anything to do with physically dead bodies in physical graves. One is not “disembdies” just because they died physically. The scriptures say that God gives it a body, as it pleases Him and to each seed it’s own body (the flesh profits nothing, the flesh returns to dust).
Indeed! I never understood how someone could look at a corpse and console themselves with the thought that the person is “in a better place now.” Perhaps in one’s imagination, but until the Lord raises them from the dead the only “place” they’re in is Sheol/Hades, where “there is no activity or thought or knowledge or wisdom.” Thank God for the resurrection.
I beg to differ. But if you want to throw it out of the Bible, ok.
And they “die” even while they live, physically.
I am sticking with the scriptures; they also say that a man can be “twice dead”.
We’ve talked about what must be the actual experience of the dead. They are not ‘waiting’. They go into nothingness and come out in what appears to be an instant TO THEM.
‘They’re in a better place…now.’ is only inaccurate if we can finish the sentence before the resurrection occurs. 
Correct! For my views on “death” as the “penalty for sin,” see here:
Every verse in which death is referred to. 
The fact that the penalty for sin is not physical death (at least, not as a universal principle; a premature death certainly could be a punishment for sin, though that’s beside the point) in no way means that the resurrection of the dead “has nothing to do with physical death.” The argument simply does not follow.
I don’t care much for the expression “soul sleep,” unless the word “soul” is meant to refer to the person in a holistic sense. I don’t understand the word “soul” (as used in Scripture) to ever denote some “part” of us that exists as a substantial or immaterial “something” that continues either in a conscious or an unconscious condition. And no, one is not “disembodied” when they die, because there is no “part” of our person that continues in a disembodied state. When Christ was dead, where was he? According to Scripture, he was where is body was (Matt 12:40; Acts 2:39, 13:29; 1 Cor 15:3-5; cf. John 11:17, 43-44). You’re also assuming (wrongly, I think) that the only alternative between your view is one in which the same bodies in which we die are raised again. But this is not the only option. I believe the dead will be given new bodies, and that the bodies of those who are still alive when Christ returns personally (John 14:2-3; Acts 1:9-11; 3:19-21; 1 Cor 15:22-23; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 John 3:2) will be “changed.” The immortal resurrection will not be the reanimation of the same bodies with which we die. But neither is it something that happens at (or immediately following) death.
Christ died ONCE and cannot die again. That’s the way the resurrection works for everyone. There’s one redemption from death and it’s an eternal redemption, as in permanent. If men want to find 100 deaths for men to undergo, men will still be redeemed from ALL of them. Christ won, death lost. Game over.
Let the dead invent more death - there must be some love of the enemy driving that invention. Christ DESTROYS death and some want to resurrect it. Their own confusion is their reward. Shame on them. It’s like clutching defeat out of the jaws of victory - they just can’t get enough of death.
When Christ took away the sins of world - men find ways to heap sin back on mankind. When Christ destroys death - men find ways to resurrect death and give it another existence. It’s the exact same mindset.
So ‘twice dead’, ‘thrice dead’, ‘deader than dead’, whatever you can come up with, I will show you that amongst the resurrected, ALL the resurrected, there is no death, it’s been destroyed, it has no dominion because it has no where to reside, hell is destroyed the moment it is empty. And death’s destruction is not a process - it’s gone with a WORD.
Perhaps, it’s because it feels so religious, but claiming that Christ threatens the resurrected with death - is laughable, if it weren’t so pathetically bizarre.
], that you would conceal me until your wrath is past, and that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me" (vv. 11-13). Here, Job reveals his understanding of where man is when he “breathes his last.” According to Job, he is in Sheol (i.e., the domain of death). Here, man is said to “sleep” in silence. It would appear from these verses that Job had no knowledge of a conscious existence for anyone immediately following death. Instead, Job’s hope for any kind of life after death was in a resurrection alone (cf. vv. 14-15).
Sharing a similar view regarding man’s state following death is Solomon, who declares, “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. Their love and their hate and their envy have perished” (Eccl 9:5-6). He goes on to say (v.10), “There is no activity or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol.” That those who die lose all capacity to engage in any conscious, vital activity (of which worship was seen as the greatest) is also taught throughout the Psalms: “The dead do not praise the Lord, neither do any that go down into silence” (Ps. 115:17). “For in death there is no remembrance of you: in Sheol, who shall give you thanks?” (Ps. 6:5) “Shall the dust praise you? Shall it declare your truth?” (Ps. 30:9) “Will you show wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise thee? Shall your loving kindness be declared in Sheol, or your faithfulness in destruction? Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?” (Ps. 88:10-12; cf. Isa. 38:18-19)
Now, if the dead in Sheol “know nothing,” and are no longer engaged in any activity or thought, then it follows that they are no longer able to consciously experience “judgment” (at least, as long as they remain dead they’re not!). While it’s remotely possible that a judgment following the resurrection may be in view, it’s unlikely that this is what the author had in mind. Had that been the case, it would have been more appropriate for him to have said, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after the resurrection, judgment…” Moreover, the preposition translated “after” (meta) suggests that the judgment in view so closely follows death in sequence as to be nearly accompanying it (as opposed to a judgment taking place after a long and indefinite span of time, and then only after the dead have first been raised). So to what then does the krisis after death refer? Well, as the word krisis can denote a decisive or critical event or action (as our English word “crisis” means), given the close association of this krisis with man’s death we may understand it to simply refer to the decisive event by which man’s death is given the appearance of finality and permanence. And what event is that? Answer: the decay and decomposition of the human body. This inevitable process is so closely associated with death in Scripture that God represents it as the event by which Adam’s life of pain and toil under the sun would come to an end: “By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread,till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19).
In the OT, both death and Sheol (the state of the dead) are commonly associated with the corruption and destruction that follows death when man begins to return to the elements from which he was made (see Job 26:6; 28:22; Ps. 16:10; 49:9-20; 88:11; Prov. 15:11; 27:20). Using typical Hebrew parallelism, Job speaks of going down to “the bars of Sheol” and “descending into the dust” as being equivalent (Job 17:16). Job also refers to the sleep of the dead as being “in the dust” (Job 7:21). Psalm 30:9 describes those who are in Sheol (here referred to as “the pit”) as being “dust.” And as his death was quickly approaching, David told a young Solomon that he (i.e., David) was about to “go the way of all the earth” (1 Kings 2:2; cf. Josh 23:14). The fact that we must inevitably return to the elements from which we were made is a sobering thought for those contemplating death, and serves as a solemn and humbling reminder of our human frailty and utter dependency on the One who both created and sustains us: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goes forth, he returns to the earth; in that very day his plans perish” (Ps. 146:3-4). Here the Psalmist fully explains the verse under consideration: “It is appointed for men to die once (“his breath goes forth”) and after that, judgment (“he returns to the earth”).”
Significantly, it is this otherwise inevitable event (i.e., the bodily decomposition that follows death) that we are specifically told didn’t happen to Christ after he died. In Acts 2:31, the apostle Peter declared to his Jewish brethren that David “foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” Similarly, Paul exclaimed in Acts 13:36-37, “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption, but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.” Just based on the fact that it was prophesied that the Messiah’s flesh would not “see corruption,” it would appear that bodily decomposition and decay was not something that was looked upon as a desirable thing by the Hebrew people - and the fact that Jesus was spared from this fate was likely seen as further evidence that he was God’s Anointed one.
So how does all of this tie in with the verse that immediately follows the one under consideration? Verse 27 is often quoted as if v. 28 were completely disconnected from it. But together they form a complete sentence: “And AS it is appointed (or “allotted”) for men to die once, and after that judgment, SO Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” But what is meant by Christ’s appearing “a second time?” First, the word here translated “appear” (optanomai optomai) need not refer to a literal, visible sight. That this is the case is evident from John 1:51, where Jesus tells Nathanael he would “see (optanomai optomai) heaven being opened, and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” Similarly, in Matthew 26:64 (cf. Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69) it is unlikely that Jesus was telling the High Priest that he (i.e., the High Priest) would be looking out his window one day and see Jesus riding in on a cumulous cloud! Jesus is here referring to a vision from Daniel 7 concerning the Messiah, and the prophesied scene is set in Heaven’s throne room (thus, even if it did describe a literal scene, it’s not something people on earth could visibly observe). Second, the time at which this “appearance” of Christ was to take place likely corresponds to the “Day” that the original readers of this epistle (written circa AD 60-68) could, in their generation, “see drawing near” (Heb 10:25) - i.e., the overthrow of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus, Christ’s appearing “a second time” would refer to his coming to establish the Messianic kingdom in the world before that first-century generation passed away (Matt 10:17-23; Matt. 16:27-28; Mark 8:38-9:1; Luke 21:20-32; cf. Luke 17:30-31). This was a promised kingdom which the believers to whom this epistle was addressed were apparently expecting to receive in their lifetime (Heb 12:25-29; 11:39-40; cf. 13:14). Moreover, we are told earlier in the epistle that the time in which they were living was “the last days” (Heb 1:2), as well as that Christ had appeared to put away sin “once for all at the end of the ages” (Heb 9:26) - which suggests that a new age (i.e., the age of the Messianic reign) was about to dawn at that time.
But what is the connection between v. 27 and v. 28? It is possible that the only point the author is making is simply that, just as certainly as man is appointed to die once and then return to the earth, so Christ would certainly appear a second time to “save those eagerly waiting for him” (understood in this way, the parallel being made would simply be between man’s one-time death and Christ’s one-time death). But I submit that there is more to it than a mere simple comparison. The terms here translated “as” (or “just as”) in v. 27 (kay hoson) can also be understood to mean “inasmuch as” (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown). The same expression occurs in Heb 3:3: “For this one has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as (kay hoson) he who built the house has more honor than the house.” Thus, understood in this sense, the expression would be pointing to the reason or occasion for which Christ appeared “a second time” to “save those who [were] eagerly waiting for him” - with that reason being the universally-known fact that “it is appointed for men to die once (his breath goes forth) and after that, judgment (he returns to the earth).”
It may initially appear strange to view this fact of human experience as being the reason for why Christ would “appear a second time.” But the larger context of Hebrews may help us appreciate what the author is saying. Back in chapter 2, we were told that the Messiah had to share in flesh and blood in order that, through death, he might “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the slanderer, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (Heb 2:14-15). From these verses we may infer that the salvation that Christ appeared a second time to bring those who were eagerly waiting for him was a deliverance from the fear of death (a fear that was only confirmed and accentuated by what inevitably followed death - i.e., our return to the dust!). Those who were converted to faith in Christ after his ascension to Heaven did not get the opportunity see Jesus in his resurrected state; consequently, their faith in the fact that Jesus had indeed “abolished death and brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim 1:10) was based solely on the testimony of others. But when Jesus’ prophetic words concerning the overthrow of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple came to pass before that generation passed away, it was viewed by the believers as Jesus himself appearing “a second time” to announce to the world his victory over death and the grave, and to proclaim his Lordship over both the living and the dead. In this way, Jesus’ coming at the end of the Jewish age was the ultimate source of hope and consolation for those who believed on him as the promised and risen Messiah, for it was (and continues to be for us today!!) a powerful and permanent reminder that death, the last enemy, will ultimately be destroyed.
Aaron, from what I see with regards to your picture, the statement “I’ve gleaned many insights over the years” doesn’t refer to very many years!
Haha, I guess “over the years” is a pretty relative expression.
Yes! Thank God for Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection!!