View Full Version : first/second death
We're interested in exploring the "second death" further. Some thoughts so far are:
It helps me to understand the first death as an exile.
Gen 2:17, "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
From the story told, we know the death was a separation from God (exile). Adam (and the rest of humanity) was never again allowed access back to the Garden and the ToL that was there. The story illustrates the far reaching consequences of the first Adam's failure. If you remember, Adam bore the image of God when created, but what did he pass on? Gen. 5:1, "...In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God." Gen. 5:3, "...and begot a son in his own likeness, after his own image."
What was humanity in need of according to 1 Cor. 15? Vs.48-49, " As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man."
IMO, this explains what it meant for humanity to be dead in Adam (in exile from God) as opposed to being alive in Christ (no longer in that exile).
I like Page's exile comments.
This is my take:
The first creation was natural and the second creation spiritual.
The natural man the spiritual man.
This is two kinds of relationship.
The natural is tribal and ethnic and puts confidence in independent human potential. It looks to justification of life in appearance issues.
The spiritual is married with God. It is not independent. It is justification of life in the presence of God. It looks to neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free. It makes peace! It loves unconditionally.
Now the first creation had a place a standing. It however was destined to pass away. Those who were identified as "old creatures" would experience the second death. The first death is sin or condemnation. A relentless seeking for vindication of life which did bring insecurity, and needing to prove something about ones self all the time and low self worth and low self esteem and always comparing ones self with someone else and trying to measure up or down, ECT. The second death is the ending of the status of the old creature.
In my personal theory, the first creation was to have the natural man populate the earth (or land). So male and female were brought into a relationship that would make this happen. "As natual brute beasts, bred to be slaughtered".
Our relationship IMHO is far more spiritual now. It's up to us to realize this truth.
I think this comment is related since she is mentioning a "barrier" which she afore equated to "death" (correct me if I'm wrong):
The way I see relationship in the OT was that there was always a barrier. There was a barrier between God and man, which made it necessary for a human intercessor to be a representative (Moses, Priests, etc...). There was a barrier between Israel and the rest of humanity. There was a barrier between men and women, between free men and slaves.
What I see from the practice of OC Religion is how it continued to reflect and reinforce this barrier to the people.
Christ broke down all the barriers between God and man, and man and man (women included). God is all in all (1 Cor. 15:28) Death, law, heirarchy, you name it. We have been restored to the full presence of God.
I think this deals with death:
1 Cor 15
22 "for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
Adam died by transgressing the law/breaking covenant with God:
Hosea 6
7 But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant; they have acted like traitors against Me there.
Death reigned over the Gentiles as well:
Romans 5
14 but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even on those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the coming One.
The Adamic covenant:
Genesis 2
16 ¶ And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Eating you may eat of every tree in the garden;
17 but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.
The Mosaic law was "added to increase the trespass" (Romans 5:20)
I believe that death entered through Adam in that the law/covenant was passed on through Adam. He therefore received it on our behalfs, just as Christ later (the "second Adam" 1 Cor 15:45) received and passed on the New Covenant on our behalfs. The trespass of the OC increased in Israel, as did Grace increase in the NC through Israel.
I agree with Paige and Barry's takes. Under the Old Covenant, man pursued God and could not reach him on his own. As you can see in Romans 5:15, "death reigned until Moses", there was some semblance of life in the Law. I think that it twinkled in as hope and faith for the future resurrection. "Where sin abounded grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20).
Sin ("sin" defined as "trespass of the law") now, no longer abounds. Paul asks the rhetorical question that I think means "Shall the law ordinance remain in place that grace might abound?" I think it means that because if no law convicts us/them, then there is no sin. Here's the reference:
Romans 6
1 ¶ What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
Whether or not Grace still abounds, brings this to mind:
John 1
16 And out of His fullness we all received, and grace on top of grace.
17 For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Keeping the law was the only way to have a covenant relationship with God back then. God said to Moses:
Exodus 19
5 And now if listening you will listen to My voice, and will keep My covenant, you shall become a special treasure to Me above all the nations, for all the earth is Mine.
6 And you shall become a kingdom of priests for Me, a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the sons of Israel.
So if they kept the covenant passed on through Moses, they would be a special treasure, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. The people accepted the covenant offered by God through Moses (Exodus 24:7). Problem -- no one was able to keep the law (All were sinners/trespassers Romans 3:23). If Israel could not keep the law, then Israel would not become Priests (intercessors) for God to humanity. Gentiles would remain separate from God and dead, and the Abrahamic covenant couldn't be fulfilled.
Abrahamic covenant: "In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:3). "All the land which you see I will give to you, and to your seed always. And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count the dust of the earth, then your seed also will be counted." (Gen 12:15, 16). The covenant given to Abraham was unconditional and required no agreement or effort on Abraham's part (Gen 15).
The New Covenant (see also Hebrews 8:8):
Jer 31
31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah).
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.
The New Covenant was also unconditional. When Hebrews was written, the Old Covenant was "growing aged is near disappearing." (Hebrews 8:13). Hebrews 12:24 declares Jesus as the mediator of the New Covenant.
All things were fulfilled in him, and through him, Israel was enabled to become "Kings and Priests".
The New Covenant sort of becomes God's pursuit of humanity - rather than the other way around. So you are right, nothing is required on our behalf. God is present with all of humanity and will wait patiently for those who don't notice, to notice - or to know him in the next life.
Bill brought up a new perspective:
I have a different thought on the first death and I wonder what you all think. It's my own thought so I hope you can show me why it's wrong.
I think that the first death is Christ's death on the cross as the fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the second death is the death of the Law of Moses in 70ad.
I think that the first resurrection is Christ's resurrection from the tomb as a sign that death had been overcome and the second resurrection is the resurrection of believer's in 70ad as a result of death and hades, whose power was the Law, being destroyed.
Just a thought.
And I said:
I think the first death was when "all died in Adam". I think the second death was when all were made alive in Christ (the death of the first death).
1 Cor 15:22
...then offering to get a thread going dedicated to the subject as there appears more to be explored :).
Looking forward to it!
Amie
Here's a link to my commentary on Revelation 21. Writing this is what gave me my idea on the second death. I welcome any feedback anyone might have.
Bill
http://billsbloggins.blogspot.com/
Hey all,
I think that Christ was the “first resurrection;” in other words, the firstfruits of THE resurrection. Therefore, he was the first to “die” to the “body of death.” That which was the body of death was the Old Covenant creature in (the first) Adam, who died in the day he ate the forbidden fruit.
Sorry I’ve been away for so long. I don’t mean to be antisocial. There’s been a lot going on in my life lately!
God Bless,
Dan
The first death was the death of Christ on the cross which was the spiritual destruction of the old covenant system.
I think that Christ was the “first resurrection;” in other words, the firstfruits of THE resurrection. Therefore, he was the first to “die” to the “body of death.” That which was the body of death was the Old Covenant creature in (the first) Adam, who died in the day he ate the forbidden fruit.
Looks like y'all are saying very similar things. My thought is that the death of the Old Covenant creature was the death of death. For that to occur, for there to even be a need for resurrection, death must have already been an existing problem and I think that happened in Adam. The Law was added to increase the offense (the increase of knowledge and that resulting death).
The second death is the physical destruction of the old covenant system and the death of death and hades. With the old covenant law removed once and for all there is no more fear of death or of hades.
I don't separate the beginning of the resurrection (at the cross) with the end of the resurrection (the physical removal of that system). I see the happening as an ongoing process from the cross. As the "body of Christ" was rising, the "body of Moses" was passing away.
Interesting topic :)
Sorry I’ve been away for so long. I don’t mean to be antisocial. There’s been a lot going on in my life lately!
You'll find no forgiveness here, let us be a burden in your daily life - ever an unfinished task! hahahaha! I am soooo kidding! I've missed your presence, but I realize that people (other than me, lol - kidding again) have lives :D.
Amie
Amie,
You said,
I don't separate the beginning of the resurrection (at the cross) with the end of the resurrection (the physical removal of that system). I see the happening as an ongoing process from the cross. As the "body of Christ" was rising, the "body of Moses" was passing away.
I didn't see it that way either until I started writing my commentaries for my blog. I adopted that view because that's the way I was able to understand the passages in Thessalonians and Corinthians and Revelation.
Bill
christyG
04-21-2006, 05:16 PM
Hi All,
As a new convert to "Borgianity":biggrinbounce: ROFL:biggrinbounce: (sorry, inside joke that some of you should be able to follow) I am including this comment here, because I think it applies to this discussion:
I find it VERY interesting that he does not mention 70AD and rarely uses the terms OC and NC at least not in his work -- The Heart of Christianity. I am ordering his other books that discuss Jesus and the Bible in more detail. I will let you know what I learn. Namely, if there is an important piece that he is missing -- OR -- if there is maybe an unnecessary focus that we have.
Looks like y'all are saying very similar things. My thought is that the death of the Old Covenant creature was the death of death. For that to occur, for there to even be a need for resurrection, death must have already been an existing problem and I think that happened in Adam. The Law was added to increase the offense (the increase of knowledge and that resulting death).
I don't separate the beginning of the resurrection (at the cross) with the end of the resurrection (the physical removal of that system). I see the happening as an ongoing process from the cross. As the "body of Christ" was rising, the "body of Moses" was passing away.
Interesting topic :)
You'll find no forgiveness here, let us be a burden in your daily life - ever an unfinished task! hahahaha! I am soooo kidding! I've missed your presence, but I realize that people (other than me, lol - kidding again) have lives :D.
Amie
Actually I was saying that I dont think the first death was Christ. I think he was the first to die to the OC creature...to the body of death (that was already there). That is why he was the firstfruits of the resurrection. Resurrection because there was a need to rise out of death. Death because of Adam.
Amie, I dont separate 2 resurrections either, but I see it as ONE progressive resurrection reaching it's consummation in AD 70 with its beginning at the cross. I think we agree.
First Death (1st Adam) Out of the Garden.
Beginning of second death (2nd Adam/Christ)
Firstfruits of the Resurrection
Die and rise with Christ, until...
Second Death (death of OC creature)
Harvest at the end of the age/OC world
Brought back into the Garden/presence of God
Thanks for teasing me about my lack of presence too, lol!
Love,
Dan
christyG
04-24-2006, 12:08 PM
typed a great question twice, but got cut off both times!
will try later:(
christyG
04-24-2006, 12:42 PM
I have a resurrection question for whoever will field it.
What is the resurrection from?
Death? Death brought by the OC?
I am seeing resurrection with a more metaphorical meaning. (Metaphor is NOT synonymous with false!) If we see resurrection as a dying to an old identity – an identity centered on self and full of self-concern – and a rising to a new identity centered on the sacred – on God, then it seems that 70 AD played no part in this resurrection. This seems a resurrection that has been playing out throughout history.
We could see our old identity as something that is unavoidable and Adamic in the Christian/Judaic sense. It is a realization that we are selves and that we can affect the world around us. We can negatively affect the world around us and this begins to wear on our conscience and we become full of self-concern. We then need to “let that die” and be resurrected to a new identity that becomes centered on God.
It could be said that the transition period between the cross and 70 AD mimicked the transformation that is still taking place today on a personal level. But it seems that 70AD played no role in this personal transformation or resurrection.
I have read that the theme of resurrection is a theme central to all of the enduring religions. It is seen as a means of personal transformation. It seems that personal transformation is necessary before any collective transformation could occur.
So again, what was resurrected in 70 AD?
I am not sure that I any longer see a difference between pre-Jesus and post Jesus in regards to our standing with God. It seems that Jesus was the embodiment of a transformed or resurrected life. Was this type of life possible before Jesus? My first thought is yes.
Christy
I’ll take a shot at it.
What is the resurrection from?
Resurrection from (out of) the world of sin and death. Adam died, therefore death spread to all. I think that in a corporate/macro/covenental level, humanity was resurrected out of the Old Covenant world. As the old “man” would die, there was a need for the new man to rise. But are there really two different “men,” or was it ONE man in two modes of being? One Old Creature transforming into a New Creature (corporately), universally inclusive of new creatureS (Individuals). Because the Old Creature died and rose, there is no one on earth today (or after AD 70 the point of maturity) who could legitimately be an Old Covenant creature.
On an individual/micro/covenental level, however, many did, and many did not experience any personal transformation from the changeover of the worlds/ages during the first century. Resurrection placed humanity on resurrection soil; a new stance in the new Kingdom, but if one doesn’t “see” that how can they transform (individually) as a result of it? And does that mean they were not transformed just because they didnt believe? In other words, can they be placed in a New Covenant world and not know it? What does that mean if there is no more old covenant world other than they had to have transformed to life (belief or not) if death was swallowed up in victory!
The part of “resurrection playing out throughout history,” as you mentioned, IMO is part of realizing redemption, or even realizing the resurrection. I think the fact of resurrection will always actively transform those who come to “see” it throughout history, but they come into believing what Has Been accomplished. What has been established is the New Covalent reality. Do we make reality by believing? Does my belief make something real? Or did God make it real first?
It could be said that the transition period between the cross and 70 AD mimicked the transformation that is still taking place today on a personal level. But it seems that 70AD played no role in this personal transformation or resurrection.
Or perhaps we are mimicking those of the first century?
It seems that personal transformation is necessary before any collective transformation could occur.
Currently I tend to see the the collective transformation as that which transformes me personally as a more inclusive man ... loving my neighbor and treating him/her as I would like to be treated. So a realization of the collective transformation is continual through history and works in uniting people to walk in the footsteps of God's inclusive embrace.
We love because he first loved us! Amen.
Just some rambling
Love,
Dano
christyG
04-24-2006, 06:05 PM
Hey, thanks Dano.
I think I see what you are saying here:
Currently I tend to see the the collective transformation as that which transformes me personally as a more inclusive man ... loving my neighbor and treating him/her as I would like to be treated. So a realization of the collective transformation is continual through history and works in uniting people to walk in the footsteps of God's inclusive embrace.
and here:
Resurrection from (out of) the world of sin and death.
So do you see that death as spiritual death? Separation from a possibility of a life in communion with God? The OC had to be done away with to bring about spiritual life?
I definitely see that the writers of the New Testament saw life with God in this way. After all the OC was all the world they knew. It was all the world that mattered to them really, couldn't you say that?
Thanks,
Christy
I think so, Christy. Spiritual separation. It seems that the NC elevated humanity to this new plane of existance; spiritual, and "seated us in the heavenly places," so to speak. The OC, because of one's inability to be "perfect" with respect to following the Law just showed how "dead" he/she was (not being able to measure up against this standard). In order to bring humanity back intothe "garden" (NC-world), God had to reverse the separation as caused by Adam in another Adam (Christ). I think that humanity's relationship with God is restored and "face to face" with Him now... and Christ is the realtionship and the faith.
christyG
04-25-2006, 11:30 AM
Thanks again Dano. I'm enjoying the dialogue!
You said:
the separation as caused by Adam
What do you see as the cause of Adam's separation? What did Adam do? Did he violate a covenant? If so, how is it that we now can no longer break a covenant?
I am honestly not trying to be annoying, so I hope no one is taking it that way. I am searching---digging! I know I have discussed these things before with some of you. I just am needing to revisit them now. I appreciate your time.:)
Thanks,
Christy
Paige
04-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Christy,
Just to chime in a little with my 2 cents...
God said "don't eat". I think this is symbolic for law. (Feel free to correct me if you disagree.) Adam ate, so he "violated law".
I'm not so sure that I see "us" today as being in covenant with God. I rather see us living in the new age that the NC brought about. Does that make any sense? Its a little like comparing husband/wife with parent/child. A husband or a wife can break their vows, their child can never erase its DNA. Have I just confused the issue even more:confused: ? I hope not.
Paige
What do you see as the cause of Adam's separation? What did Adam do? Did he violate a covenant? If so, how is it that we now can no longer break a covenant?
Christy,
Just to chime in a little with my 2 cents...
God said "don't eat". I think this is symbolic for law. (Feel free to correct me if you disagree.) Adam ate, so he "violated law".
Christy,
I am on the same page as Paige on this question. And you are definitely not annoying... not one bit!
I'm not so sure that I see "us" today as being in covenant with God. I rather see us living in the new age that the NC brought about. Does that make any sense? It’s a little like comparing husband/wife with parent/child. A husband or a wife can break their vows, their child can never erase its DNA. Have I just confused the issue even more I hope not.
Paige,
I think that sounds good. If there was the marriage (covenant) between the called-out church (bride) and the Lamb (bridegroom) back in the first century, we must be the children. In other words we cannot be the “bride” today, but we can be the children of the Husband and Wife.
christyG
04-25-2006, 05:19 PM
Hey thanks guys!
Paige your analogy was great, and your follow-up as well Dano:)
So if it is possible to see the creation story as a metaphor for the OC, (stop me if I'm off on that) then, could it be possible to see the whole story as a metaphor as well?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that right now I am seeing that maybe this whole story (from creation through the "new age" -- "age to come" -- new Jerusalem -- whatever we call it) is a metaphor for how our religion and that of the ancient Hebrews has chosen to express our relationship to God. I see that ultimately the story of humanity is that we (collective) see ourselves as having a problem -- self-concern -- self-preoccupation -- we are in exile -- we are enslaved -- we feel separated from the sacred, from God. We realize that this is not a problem with just us, but the others around us appear to be in the same boat. We look for guidance, we look for people that seem to be able to communicate the sacred and we follow those people hoping to catch a glimpse of something that can help us. These people are the people of religion -- any religion. God communicates with those that have become attune to the sacred, to him and these people then communicate what they have learned and this becomes religion, in a sense it seems. God can communicate with us now just as he could communicate with humanity throughout history. In my mind this takes NOTHING away from the story of Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. In my mind it takes NOTHING away from the story or the importance of Jesus. But, I can see how it could for others.
I am not trying to gain "converts", just trying to express where I'm at right now -- throw some thoughts out there- and see if I get my head cut off, or sewn on straight if that is what's needed. Again I feel safe here to do that:) .
Thanks,
Christy
Christy,
I know other folks with the fulfilled view who seem to share the opinion that you shared. They don't really have a label associated with their eschatology and call themselves "evangelical universalists" (though not all "EUs" have the fulfilled view).
I can understand that we can keep backing up and looking at the bigger picture and think that whether big or little, there is much to draw from the bible and things surrounding it.
God definately used symbols to help humanity relate to him. The whole "raining fire" thing for example, was metaphor for God's judgement being wrought upon a nation. There was no literal fire. If the entire bible story is understood as metaphor, that could be taken to say without words that the history of the bible wasn't literal (no real Jesus, etc). I'm wondering how that connotation could be avoided.
All --
Why do you think the first Adam died from taking into himself knowledge of good and evil?
He and those under the Mosaic law were "after the flesh", and I'm wondering what the flesh was after. I'm thinking that it was God-status amongst humanity.
Just some thoughts, would love to hear feedback.
Amie
Paige
04-25-2006, 08:26 PM
Why do you think the first Adam died from taking into himself knowledge of good and evil?
He and those under the Mosaic law were "after the flesh", and I'm wondering what the flesh was after. I'm thinking that it was God-status amongst humanity.
I don't have any concrete answers. I am wondering if "God-status amongst humanity" could go hand in hand with "being my own God". Is it possible?
Paige
If the entire bible story is understood as metaphor, that could be taken to say without words that the history of the bible wasn't literal (no real Jesus, etc). I'm wondering how that connotation could be avoided.
IMO, having a little understanding of types and fullfillment helps. Didn't there have to be literal descendants of Abraham for the new meening of being a descendant of Abraham to have any substance? Also, trusting that metaphor doesnt have to mean not historical. We can read a parable and understand that it's not meant to be interpreted as a litteral event, but as in the case of the wicked tenants, for example, we can see prallels to the historical Jesus. The Gospel of John is so colored in irony and symbolism that many reject its historical reliability. I presonally do not. I just think John had a special ability to draw our attention to some deeper meanings to Christ's words and actions.
Why do you think the first Adam died from taking into himself knowledge of good and evil?
He and those under the Mosaic law were "after the flesh", and I'm wondering what the flesh was after. I'm thinking that it was God-status amongst humanity.
Just some thoughts, would love to hear feedback.
Maybe it wasn't so much his newfound knowledge of good and evil but how he may have responded to it? I'm not sure. It brought sin-consciousness and shame; could we relate this to death? Similar to Paul's explanation that he died when sin became alive even though he knew the commandment of God was good. If Adam died the day he ate the fruit, could we likewise say that was the day sin became alive?
I'm thinking "after the flesh" was like you said, Amie... a status. They were following in that manner; after the flesh.
Sometimes because I was taught that God spoke to the Biblical writers directly and they wrote it down I forget that it was spoke in terms that they understood. I often look at the Bible as being in stoic wooden literal terms. To ancient Israel God's word was literal but the writers used language they understood. Even today people see atmospheric disturbances as God's judgments. Also since much was communicated verbally the advents were told in ways that would make the best impact and easily remembered.
christyG
04-26-2006, 08:51 AM
Thanks ALL!
Amie,
I’ll type in the term and see what I can find out….although evangelical is a word that scares me just a bit.:eek:
And:
If the entire bible story is understood as metaphor, that could be taken to say without words that the history of the bible wasn't literal (no real Jesus, etc). I'm wondering how that connotation could be avoided.
It would be nice to avoid that connection. Again that is why I felt safe here, I really am not out to rock anyone’s boat too much, I do not think that is such a good thing. I see that introducing some people to new ideas in ways that they can handle and are familiar with is the best way to go. Actually that is what I see the bible doing.
And Dano, I agree with:
Also, trusting that metaphor doesnt have to mean not historical.
I see historical, but now I see it in a little different way.
For me this new way of looking at the bible makes it more beautiful, more ancient. It makes it seem more like a book of ancient wisdom instead of a book of unbelievable stories. (I do not mean that statement to offend.) Other religions seem to have their rich stories that explain the hard to explain – the sacred. And we have it too, I just wasn’t able to see it. As Lou so very well put it, it was what I was taught that has clouded my views just a bit ... but now the cloud is lifting and I’m able to appreciate it more (Am I making sense? I feel like I am being a little fluffy?)
Lou, very good point, thanks!
Sometimes because I was taught that God spoke to the Biblical writers directly and they wrote it down I forget that it was spoke in terms that they understood. I often look at the Bible as being in stoic wooden literal terms. To ancient Israel God's word was literal but the writers used language they understood. Even today people see atmospheric disturbances as God's judgments. Also since much was communicated verbally the advents were told in ways that would make the best impact and easily remembered.
And back to Amie’s question:
Why do you think the first Adam died from taking into himself knowledge of good and evil?
What do you think of: the T of K of good and evil brought a conscious awareness of wrong doing? The same could be said for the law which seemed to highlight our failures. Thus, this brought “death” or an end to a life of limitless possibilities or the “life” that the tree of life brought. It seems that Jesus came to show us how we could live with knowledge of G and E and have “life”. I see this as eternal life – a life of the age to come but yet a life of the ages – that has existed for all time. But they forgot how to have this life because they were so focused on the law – on death?
This is what I see Paul referring to when he says he was once alive. He was once a child – he once lived in a world where he could do nothing wrong. He lived apart from the law. Death then entered as his conscious grew.
“Adam” died as he came into “the law” , but humanity died when they came into consciousness, so to speak, when they partook of the knowledge of good and evil that was for humanity.
????:confused:
Not sure what you are meaning here:
He and those under the Mosaic law were "after the flesh", and I'm wondering what the flesh was after. I'm thinking that it was God-status amongst humanity.
Thanks
Christy
I don't have any concrete answers. I am wondering if "God-status amongst humanity" could go hand in hand with "being my own God". Is it possible?
I guess that it could and I used to think that, then I think it was Bill that caused me to reconsider. He suggested that it is possible that their effort was to impress God. I haven't come to any conclusion of my own, I'm still thinking about it. I'm inclined to hang on to my old view (that it was an effort to rule self, rule others, and reap the benefits) -- which is why I'm taking time on it.
The Gospel of John is so colored in irony and symbolism that many reject its historical reliability. I presonally do not. I just think John had a special ability to draw our attention to some deeper meanings to Christ's words and actions.
I think that it is that reason that I find John to be the most thorough and understandable (speaking wholly about me and my own experience with it).
I agree with your thoughts on what would help.
Maybe it wasn't so much his newfound knowledge of good and evil but how he may have responded to it? I'm not sure. It brought sin-consciousness and shame; could we relate this to death? Similar to Paul's explanation that he died when sin became alive even though he knew the commandment of God was good. If Adam died the day he ate the fruit, could we likewise say that was the day sin became alive?
I'm thinking "after the flesh" was like you said, Amie... a status. They were following in that manner; after the flesh.
"could we relate to this death" is what I am exploring. Though no law holds us accountable today, are we still able to choose to live "for the flesh" or "in the spirit" (or even fluctuate)?
To ancient Israel God's word was literal but the writers used language they understood.
That is a really great point! Can you imagine God stopping the writer saying "Now hold on, let me explain this -- the earth revolves around the sun.. oh eh, the sun isn't in YOUR sky, it's out there; well, it's visible in your sky, but not actually there, I mean in your sky - it is there...."
Why do you think God allowed humanity to develop at its' own pace? He got involved, but he didn't send out science books explaining the universe, you know?
It reminds me of the "prime directive" (Star Trek). It is "Star fleet's order #1" which "dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society, chiefly meaning that no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or alien races. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret."
There have been many episodes exploring the dangers of going against that code, though it was necessary in some cases. I don't think reality can be predicted with a TV/movie show, but the idea has been pondered and shared via the "Star Trek" series/movies outlet. "In the philosophical view of Star Trek, no matter how well intentioned the more advanced peoples are, interaction between advanced technology and a more primitive society is invariably destructive."
The Hebrew civilization as it were, could not exist had such explanations been given. It seems like it was important that they did exist as they were. I wonder why. I wonder too, if God still allows humanity to develop at its' own pace.
I’ll type in the term and see what I can find out….although evangelical is a word that scares me just a bit.
Yeah, it has connotations of it's own. The people that I know see it as raising awareness rather than converting people. Some of them doubt the historical realiability of the bible. Lots of folks that are members here (whether transmillennialist, pantelist, or no-labelist -- haha) believe that the bible story is symbolic of a bigger picture, but do not dismiss its' historical reliability. What do you think?
I see that introducing some people to new ideas in ways that they can handle and are familiar with is the best way to go. Actually that is what I see the bible doing.
Yep, like Lou pointed out. I agree and am glad that you can see it from so many perspectives.
When I first stumbled on "satan as adversary" rather than "supernatural being" ie, I thought that I first needed to explain that and things like it, before I could relate my theological view. I learned though, that I can use "satan" in a conversation neutrally/generally. Often details just get in the way of really good conversations, know what I mean?
the T of K of good and evil brought a conscious awareness of wrong doing?
I think that it must have had a lot to do with that. Suddenly, they were measuring themselves and one another with what basically boils down to "super ego" (defined: "Rules/laws protecting our/their interpretation of reality.") rather than the heart.
Dano suggested that maybe their response to their knowledge is what "killed" them. It sounds like it, and it also sounds like their response was "human" and I'm not sure that "human response" equates "evil" and "bad" UNLESS - "human" is being compared with "God". I wonder if that was the measuring stick they used in the garden, and later with the Law of Moses. Perhaps they became more self-aware and defined that as "bad" and "shameful", rather than "what God created and was happy with"?
I'm not sure, but I appreciate everyone exploring this with me.
“Adam” died as he came into “the law” , but humanity died when they came into consciousness, so to speak, when they partook of the knowledge of good and evil that was for humanity.
The law meant that Adam was accountable if he broke it. Adam passed the knowledge of the law on to Eve - she too becoming accountable.
From God came the knowledge "of" the law. Later Adam and Eve got a knowledge "from" the law. Whatever that knowledge was, "opened their eyes" and resulted in their death.
Still exploring what that was, lol!.. but am beginning to suspect something related to "self-awareness".
Amie
christyG
04-26-2006, 07:42 PM
Amie said:
Lots of folks that are members here (whether transmillennialist, pantelist, or no-labelist -- haha) believe that the bible story is symbolic of a bigger picture, but do not dismiss its' historical reliability. What do you think?
Right now I see the Bible as symbolic, with definite historical truth. I do see some historical realiability, ie: I beleive that Jesus was a true human that did walk upon this earth. I am however flexible on fine details about his life. Another example: I tend to lean to the side that there was a man named Noah that did exist, but as to the details of the Flood story, again I am flexible. I do not think this makes me less appreciative of the Bible and it's stories. I do not think that it makes me less Christian ( just stating where I stand so that there is no question later).
I see the entirity of the Hebrew scriptures and New Testament as Hebrew teachings of the sacred. I see them as a means to explain the sacred to their audience. I see the entire story of the Hebrews as stated in their scriptures as their effort to connect to the sacred. I have just come to really "see" this for the first time. The thought has always been in me that something was missing in what I was learning about the scriptures, I just wasn't able to put my finger on just what that was until recently. I now see them as the truly wonderful and rich history that I have always wanted to see them for.
I think what I was missing was the spiritual connection. I saw other religions with their focus on changing, truly transforming, individuals and their focus and history of spirituality and I guess I felt that my Judaic Christian history was somehow less spiritual. From what I had learned about scripture and what I even practiced and to some extent still practice is precision. I must know precisely what is being discussed: what happened to whom, when and how did it happen. And then, why? But now I am seeing that the beauty is not in the details as much as it is in the big picture. I thought that Christianity had THE prescription for salvation, and I thought that that prescrpition could be decifered within the scriptures. As many with a traditional Christian background this first came to be defined as: you do this and you are "saved". Then I uncovered other ideas and salvation then became defined as: this happened to them, then, and now we are "saved". Now, where I am at is that I see that Christianity has A prescription for "salvation" and it can be defined as relevant to it's followers and most specifically to the Hebrew culture to whom the scriptures were written. BUT, I see salvation differently. I see it as experiencing the sacred here and now. This is where the importance of Jesus fits in in my mind. Jesus brought experience of the sacred to us and showed us how it was possible -- thus making him and his history relevant for our "salvation" today. We can learn to experience the sacred through our study of Jesus. Jesus bridged the gap between the Eastern mystical and western logical. Today, I see "salvation" as an on-going process of our human evolution. We are becoming more spriritual and it becomes easier as we begin to let go of the "baggage" of traditional Christianity and the logical/scientific western mindset.
I give you the fact that this is a new concept for me, but I truly feel it is the right track for me. For me, I feel I can become more spiritual with this understanding and then really transform myself and others. But each of us seems to come to spirituality in our own way. I feel this truth in my bones, but the finer "details" may shift as I learn more, but I believe the core of what I see now will remain intact. It is just the way i felt when I first learned of 70AD. It is what I felt when I first uncovered comprehensive grace. The details of these concepts have changed in my mind as I have learned more, but the core truths remain. Thats why I appreciate Amie for continuing to bring up that the truth is in us. I truly believe that as well, I have experienced that first hand.
Whew...thanks for letting me get that out. :)
Christy
PS -- Amie--
Still would like to know what you are meaning by:
I'm wondering what the flesh was after.
and:
I'm thinking that it was God-status amongst humanity.
Thanks:)
Christy,
Looks like we're on the same track :). I really get what you're saying -- and maybe that part that can't be put into words.
Sorry about overshooting your question!! "I'm wondering what the flesh was after."
I'll start in the garden. Gen 3:6 reads "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise. And she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." What did she see that she considered "good for food", what was "pleasant to the eyes" and what was "desirable to make one wise". What was the payoff for human beings for gaining all of that knowledge in the garden?
The Law of Moses was "increase of trespass". As best I can figure, it was the continued consuming of knowledge and under Adam #1 it continued to result in death. What was the payoff for human beings for consuming all that knowledge under the law?
What were they going after, what did they desire? I still suspect some sort of world domination, but I'm still working on this (when are we not growing and learning, lol). "God status" would be that they controlled everything, including whether or not humanity would be in touch with God (in their minds).
In Daniel, the King of Babylon sees that Daniel's God is real (though he probably believes in many of them). To have that God, he only needed to continue to have Israel. It seems like that was the cost of "owning" God (that others would want to own you). Of course, you and I know that they didn't have the monopoly on God -- nor did the fulfill their end of the covenant to be acting Priests without Jesus as High Priest.
Amie
Here's something I wrote a while back on the story of the fall. I still like it and I think it will make even more sense if you read Marti's story first. It's my own parable to explain the fall.
Marti's story
http://home.insightbb.com/~leo724/Introduction.html
In the Garden
http://home.insightbb.com/~leo724/In_The_Garden.html
Feel free to ask questions. I would love to try to defend my persepective on this. :biggrinbounce:
christyG
04-27-2006, 11:37 AM
Thanks so much Amie. Even just taking the time to read my banter and then bothering to respond means a lot!:)
As far as the law of Moses goes: I have read and studied some of Jewish teachings, both ancient and contemporary to get a better handle on their mindset, mostly from the time of Jesus. What I gather from that is that the Jews definitely believed the law to be teaching them about God ---- THE way to God. Torah means “teachings” in Hebrew. Paul calls the law a schoolmaster leading to Christ. So, it seems in that sense that what you say would be true Amie:
"God status" would be that they controlled everything, including whether or not humanity would be in touch with God (in their minds).
Also, along these lines --- if the tree of Knowledge of g and e is synonymous with the law then:
What did she see that she considered "good for food", what was "pleasant to the eyes" and what was "desirable to make one wise".
The law as THE means to God.
And:
What was the payoff for human beings for gaining all of that knowledge in the garden?
THE way to know God ---- ( as they saw it anyway.)
And (let me think out loud a little)
Paul also calls the law death, but could he be saying that knowing about God is not what brings life, it is the direct interaction with the sacred that brings life – which is what Jesus brought. The law was good as a tool for preparing them for interaction with the sacred, but if the law becomes the sacred then that is the problem. The law brought the death that is necessary for interaction with the sacred, BUT it did not bring life --- it did not bring resurrection – which is also necessary for interaction with the sacred. Jesus brought Both death and life. He was “the way” AND “the life”.
Sounds good, but making that fit with “The Fall” story is another trick!:confused: will be back later with more…..
Christy
Bill,
Not sure if you saw it amongst all of these posts, but I did mention your point of view earlier. I'm still thinking on it. How though, would in essense controlling God to the world, please God in their minds?
Thanks,
Amie
Amie,
I really appreciate that you have taken the time to read my articles. They are the result of much thought and reading.
Could you please rephrase your question for me though. I would love to give you a thoughtful reply but I'm having a hard time understanding what you are asking.
How though, would in essense controlling God to the world, please God in their minds?
Thanks,
Bill
Bill,
I really have been thinking this over for some time and more and more I agree. Humanity's attempt at world domination may have been motivated by the desire to please God -- and maybe even a group's desire to be favored.
I was in another forum and someone brought up "sin nature". The words touch on a sore spot in my heart, and past because they are so often associate with "humanity = nasty, dirty, mean, bad, etc". Human beings are not God and to compare them with such, well, didn't it cause death and separation and self loathing in the past?
We're human and frankly I'm glad that God made me this way. I'm grateful that you came and shared this.
Amie
Bill,
I really have been thinking this over for some time and more and more I agree. Humanity's attempt at world domination may have been motivated by the desire to please God -- and maybe even a group's desire to be favored.
I was in another forum and someone brought up "sin nature". The words touch on a sore spot in my heart, and past because they are so often associate with "humanity = nasty, dirty, mean, bad, etc". Human beings are not God and to compare them with such, well, didn't it cause death and separation and self loathing in the past?
We're human and frankly I'm glad that God made me this way. I'm grateful that you came and shared this.
Amie
That said Bill,
How do you see "sin nature"?
Amie
Thanks for the question Amie.
I see "sin nature" as an unfortunate mistranslation of the greek word for "flesh". Sin nature is found about 20 times in the New International Version of the New Testament. It is not found at all in the New American Standard Version. The writers of the NIV have let their theological biases influence their translation. As I see it this mistranslation has had a huge harmful impact on modern theology.
"Sin nature" implies that we are prone to sin. That may be true but I don't think that is the meaning of "flesh". The term "flesh" is neutral. It is often used in contrast to "Spirit". Here is an example from the NIV.
Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
From this theologians deduce that we can live our lives according to our sinful nature or our natural evil desires or we can choose to live by the "power" or "energy" of the Holy Spirit. I would rather interpret the passage to mean that the "flesh" means that we use our own natural God-given abilities to try to earn God's favor. The "Spirit" means that we rely on God's favor as declared to us by God's Spirit (which in Greek just means breath or word). To me, living according to the flesh is trying to please God with our abilities while living according to the Spirit just means resting in God's word that He favors us no matter what we do and has demonstrated this love by giving His life for us when we were still His enemies.
This is all at the very heart of my Marti story. Instead of resting in her father's love she tried to please him by her abilities and earn the love that she already had from him.
Does that make any sense?
Bill
Barry
05-05-2006, 04:58 AM
Those are some really good points Bill.:clap2:
Matt. 19:26
Barry
Paige
05-05-2006, 09:31 AM
Bill,
I'm inclined to agree with your thoughts. I find it interesting that whole doctrines have been built upon the word 'sin nature', which can't be found in the original texts. (It reminds me a little of what has happened to the word 'satan', but that is another story, lol.)
Also, it personally bothers me when this word is used to describe us today. If the work of Christ has restored humanity, why do we use a term that seems to deny that very fact?
Almost everyone would agree that Adam was not created with a 'sin nature'. Yet, Adam sinned. I'm not connecting the dots as to why we would say that we sin because we have a 'sin nature'.
Paige
Paige
05-10-2006, 10:07 AM
I have a bit more to add to this discussion on "sin nature".
I must share that a former full 5-pt. calvinist pastor taught us that "sin nature" was not in the original texts of the bible. His claim was that we do have the word "sarx" for flesh. He also claimed that everytime the word "sarx" is used, it implied sinful flesh. Now, here is where I started to dig:
I began a search and found that sarx was indeed used for flesh. But, get this, it is the very "flesh" that Christ came in.
1 John 4:2&3, "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already. "
Jesus was God manisfested in flesh. It sure seems that the bible tells us that He had the same flesh that we do. If sarx is an indication of "sinful" flesh, then we have some serious problems, IMO.
Paige
Hi Paige,
I think that if we look at John's "in the flesh" in accordance with how Paul uses it in Phil 3:3-6 where Paul uses "flesh" as indicative of life lived according to the old covenant mode of existence, then it can be seen that those denying Jesus as having "come in the flesh" were in fact denying Jesus' messiahship - they were denying that Jesus came by way of [was a part of] the old covenant [the flesh].
That had huge ramifications -- one being that if Jesus did not rise neither did/would Israel, etc.
Paige
05-11-2006, 09:29 AM
I agree davo. When I first stumbled onto all of this, I didn't have that covenantal understanding of what it meant to be "in the flesh". I still think that it is erroneous (sp?) to use the word "sarx" as an indication that being a human is fundamentally bad. (Referring back to those arguments over 'original sin'.)
Paige
Laren
01-28-2007, 08:34 PM
I'm pretty late into this discussion, and but thot i'd comment on the original question.
For me, at least at this time in my thinking, this is first death:
2 Corinthians 5:14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
What is 'First' Death? It is Jesus Christ who died for all and therefore all are already dead.
2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
The first century saints who were given eyes to see, ears to hear, realized that Christ died for them. They that put their trust in the 'First' Death and live for Christ would never see death!
John 8:50-51 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Matthew 16:25b...whoever loses his life for me will find it.
But many turned away from the truth, to go back to law abiding for their righteousness.
Those who did, suffered second death at Christ's return. This was the death of death. Law was the ministration of death.
Matthew 16:25a For whoever wants to save his life will lose it...
That is Second Death, which occurred in 70 ad.
just my thoughts.
Laren,
I realize that this is a fairly long thread, so I don't expect you to read it all, haha. I agree completely that the second death is the death of death.
..death and hell were thrown into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
It was not only the death of death, but it was also the death of the grave (hell/hades). What do you think that means? If anything different or additional at all?
Amie
Laren
01-29-2007, 04:43 PM
It was not only the death of death, but it was also the death of the grave (hell/hades). What do you think that means? If anything different or additional at all?
Amie
I am just taking a guess at it, but I think that death of death meant no more seperation between God and man. Union complete.
Regarding, hades??? hmm, maybe, before the consumation, when a person physically died, his spirit returned to the Lord, his body/flesh went back to dust, and the soul went to a non existent state, called hades, much lilke "turning the TV off", the picture is gone. The person was in a state of "sleep" until the resurrection at Christ's return. After the consumation, "soul sleep/hades" is no longer existent. At a person's physical death, they immediately are in the presence of the Lord, no more "waiting" is necessary. Just a guess.
sarahb
02-01-2007, 05:15 PM
I'm pretty late into this discussion, and but thot i'd comment on the original question.
For me, at least at this time in my thinking, this is first death:
2 Corinthians 5:14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
What is 'First' Death? It is Jesus Christ who died for all and therefore all are already dead.
2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
The first century saints who were given eyes to see, ears to hear, realized that Christ died for them. They that put their trust in the 'First' Death and live for Christ would never see death!
John 8:50-51 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Matthew 16:25b...whoever loses his life for me will find it.
But many turned away from the truth, to go back to law abiding for their righteousness.
Those who did, suffered second death at Christ's return. This was the death of death. Law was the ministration of death.
Matthew 16:25a For whoever wants to save his life will lose it...
That is Second Death, which occurred in 70 ad.
just my thoughts.
Hey Laren, total agreement until the very last when you said "which occurred in 70ad." It seems that Christ did away with death when he died. The second death would be when someone physically dies who has not received Jesus. He does not participate in the first death, because he still lives as a servant to the dead nature, therefore when he dies physically, he suffers loss, a spiritual lake of fire if you will, but he is saved as through flames.
I quoted this from someone off another forum but it made a lot of sense.
"John 11:24-25a
Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life.
Martha treated the ressurection of the dead as a day, but Jesus treated the resurrection of the dead as Himself. He is the Last Day. He is the Sabbath Rest.
John 11:25b-26 (1) He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and (2) whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
(2) is the First Resurrection
(1) is the Second Resurrection, it happens during Second Death.
1 Timothy 2:3-5
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
There is only One Mediator."
Revelation 20 says that those who had been given judgment (who were the apostles - Mt 19:28) reigned with Christ "a thousand years". On those, the second death had no authority. After the thousand years, all hell breaks loose (haha). The "beloved city":
15 Truly I say to you, It will be more bearable to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in Judgment Day than for that city.
36 Truly I say to you, All these things will come on this generation.
37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those sent to her. How often I desired to gather your children in the way a bird gathers her chicks under her wings! And you did not desire it.
38 Behold, "your house is left to you desolate." Jer. 22:5
..and especially:
20 ¶ And when you see Jerusalem being encircled by armies, then recognize that its destruction has come near.
21 Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains; and those in its midst, let them go out. And those in the open spaces, let them not go into her.
22 For these are days of vengeance when all things that have been written are to be fulfilled.
So, the "beloved city" (Jerusalem) is surrounded in Revelation 20 which brings upon the oppressors the wrath of God. After that, the "second resurrection" happens and "death and hades are cast into the lake of fire", which is defined as the "second death" (vs14). That is the time of the end which Jesus talked about in Matthew 24, and the end would be known when the temple was cast down.
The Law of Moses was the "ministry of death":
7 But if the ministry of death having been engraved in letters in stone was with glory, so as that the sons of Israel could not gaze into "the face of Moses" because of the glory of his face, which was to cease, Ex. 34:34
When would death be destroyed:
22 for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit; afterward those of Christ at His coming.
24 Then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.
25 For it is right for Him to reign until He puts all the hostile ones under His feet; Psa. 110:1
26 the last hostile thing made to cease is death.
...not until after Christ's coming.
So, I agree that death ceased to have power on the cross. The ministry of it wasn't fully removed though, until His coming. And until the ministry of it was removed, it had not been put under His feet.
Jesus was the resurrection -- so all who entered into Him were given life. That doesn't mean that there was no process of folks entering into him. First were the firstfruits (the "bride") in Him, then God becomes "all in all":
28 But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all things in all.
When Jesus answered Martha, "I am the resurrection", he was telling her that it was the last day.
These historical applications do not detract from what can be and is gained from the bible. Isn't it beautiful to know that there is no death other than what is in our own minds? That God doesn't condemn us?
Amie
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.