Heb 9:27

[atHisfeet]

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”.

[RanRan]

I agree; let’s try to pick a more specific topic and narrow it down a bit.

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.”

[Aaron]

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.

“Plant a turnip get a turnip - not a brussel sprout.”

Ran, I’m going to respond to the above comment over on the other thread I started (“The Resurrection Body”) if that’s ok.

[Aaron]

atHisfeet wrote:
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! )

and

The natural body is not the spiritual body. The seed that is sown is not that which is reaped.

and

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”?

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!

[atHisfeet]

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:

What do you think Paul meant by his “tent” or “earthly home” and its being “destroyed?” And what do you think he meant by his “heavenly dwelling” that he expected to “put on” at some point after the “destruction” of his “earthly home?” Again, some clarification and elaboration on how you understand this passage would be much appreciated.

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.

While I agree that the inner transformation and the maturity of the believer is Paul’s focus in other places, I don’t see it as being in view in 2Cor 5:1-9.

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.

But Paul clearly is “talking about dying” here, AHF.

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?

Christ’s death for all was a literal death, was it not?

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).

So it seems reasonable to understand the expression “all died” (v. 14) to refer to literal death as well.

Christ died “for the ungodly” (those “dead” IN SIN). Are you saying that not all are/were “dead" in sin?

Because all are certain to die (with the exception of those who will be alive when Christ returns!), it could be said that all have already died (even if one understands the “death” to refer to “spiritual death” it would have to mean this!).

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 then transitions to the topic of the “spiritual transformation” that results from believing the truth previously under consideration (i.e., that Christ died for us and rose again, thereby giving us the assurance that we, too, will be raised from the dead - 2Cor 4:14, etc.). It is our hope in this fact that brings about the inner change that Paul calls being a “new creation” in Christ.

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”.

Unbelievers have only be reconciled in a prospective or anticipatory sense, not in a realized sense (that’s why Paul could go on to implore unbelievers, “be reconciled to God!” immediately after saying that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; see also Col 1:20-21). They have not yet been “gathered” or “drawn to Christ.” The “new man” of which Paul speaks in Eph 2:15 refers to believing Jews and Gentiles, not unbelievers.

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.

So when Christ said, “where I’m going you cannot come” he was simply talking about dying? Because I’m pretty sure they all died (and I’m fairly positive some of them were even crucified). Do you not think that when Christ said, “where I am going” he was talking about going to the Father? That’s my understanding, anyway.

I said He was going to the Father (but He had to be crucified first). Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

First, I think the more accurate translation is, “In my Father’s house are many rooms” (as the ESV has it). Second, the “place” that Christ is to prepare for us appears to correspond to the “rooms” or “mansions” in view. But you seem to understand the “many mansions” (or “rooms”) to refer to us, and the “place” that Christ was going to prepare for us (the “many mansions/rooms,” according to your view) to refer to something else. Could you please clarify?

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?

[Temple_Farrar]

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:-

1. 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 !!);
2. blood atonement (Heb 9:22; Numbers 35:33 c.f. Lev 17:11); &
3. 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*