What is death? What is resurrection? And why do we care?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Greetings Derf!
It is impossible that the "death" under discussion is in regard to a "physical" death because people do not die physically as a result of their own sins. As a result of Adam's sin all of mankind has been denied the very thing which would allow a person to live for ever in his mortal body--the Tree of Life:
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen.3:22-24).
Beginning with Adam all men have been denied the benefits of the Tree of Life to live for ever and therefore all die physically:
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27).
I think that the death that we are discussing must be spiritual death, or the separation of the soul from the spirit of the LORD. And that is why when a person sins they must be made spiritually alive by the word of God which comes in the spirit, as witnessed by the words of the Lord Jesus here:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).
What do you think?
Thanks!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
True.
But I am talking about this spirit:
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God" (1 Cor.2:11-12).
Derf
Well-known member
Are you asking about the first life or the resurrected life?
Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Derf
Well-known member
I think you're presupposing a particular viewpoint. If you don't mind, please consider whether your viewpoint is sufficiently established before assuming it for this thread.
Thanks Jerry.
Derf
Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Reading the whole account (I should have put Luke's up):
Luke 20
27Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28“Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30The second 31and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32Finally, the woman died too. 33Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
34Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’b 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
This shows Jesus was talking specifically about those who are resurrected and as Revelation shows there are 2 resurrections, the first that is for the 144,000 will rule with Christ during the 1000 year reign, as Revelation also says. The 144,000 will be like the angels ruling over the people who are born into the world with normal bodies. At the end of the 1000 years then the second Resurrection will be for the great multitude.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why did you presuppose that the death spoken of at Romans 5:12 is in regard to a physical death since the facts I provided prove that you are wrong?
I gave an alternative but you don't seem to want to discuss my alternative. Since you started this thread on "death" among other things let us look at the following passage which speaks of death:
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).
Paul is not speaking of "physical" death because he was alive physically when he wrote those words. He is speaking about breaking one of the Ten Commandments (v.7) and it was that which resulted in his "spiritual death."
In his commentary on this passage John A. Witmer writes, "As a result Paul 'died' spiritually (cf. 6:23a) under the sentence of judgment by the Law he had broken...so this sin deceived him...and 'put' him 'to death' (lit., 'killed' him), not physically but spiritually" (John A. Witmer, "Romans," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983], 467).
Is Witmer wrong? What "death" do you think Paul was referring to at Romans 7:9-11?
Thanks!
Derf
Well-known member
Derf
Well-known member
Without other explanation, the only kind of death we know about is physical death. Paul's essay doesn't exclude its application to physical death. Thus, when you introduce a new term into the discussion, it needs more definition and substantiating text, IMO.
Edited to add:
Paul's "death" could very easily be a physical death that was made certain, even if not yet realized.
Derf
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
If Jesus was talking about those who WILL BE resurrected, then they aren't currently alive (during Jesus' time). Thus he applied a future state to his logic. He said, "in the resurrection..."
Added with an edit:
And it still doesn't address or use the word "spiritually", unless I've missed something.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
His death was certain as a result of Adam's sin because all of mankind has been denied the very thing which would allow a person to live for ever in his mortal body--the Tree of Life. Beginning with Adam all men have been denied the benefits of the Tree of Life which allows people to live for ever and therefore all die physically:
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb.9:27).
Since Paul was going to die physically regardless of any sin which he might commit then when he said that the commandment slew him it is impossible that death had anything to do with a physical death.
You haven't even defined physical death yet. I think that it is the separation of the soul from the physical body. I think a spiritual death is the separation of the soul from the spirit of God. When the Lord Jesus said that the spirit gives life (Jn.6:63) what kind of life do you think the spirit gives?
The only way that I can figure that a person can receive spiritual life is if that person is spiritually dead:
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (Eph.2:1).
Those words are addressed to those who are physically alive but dead in some other sense but now have the spirit of God:
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God" (1 Cor.2:11-12).
Do you want to make a guess as to what kind of death Paul is speaking about at Ephesians 2:1?
Thanks!
Derf
Well-known member
Good questions, Jerry!
If we can only die once, prior to judgment, how is it that judgment happens to those who have died BOTH physically and spiritually? Are these two deaths NOT full deaths, but only partial deaths? Is there any such thing as a partial death?
How could those words be addressed to anyone who is physically dead? If we die because of trespasses and sins, then those who have sinned or trespassed are "as good as dead", right? Death is unavoidable for them. Jesus said that death IS avoidable for those that are born of the spirit (John 3:16), but we know they die spiritually. Does that mean Jesus was only talking of a spiritual death that is avoidable? Maybe. That's part of the reason for this thread--to see if we can find out what is meant by "death".
In the case of Lazarus, he was "asleep", but also "dead"--John 11:11,14. Can his spirit have been "asleep", since his body was "dead"?
If the beginning of the problem of death came with Adam, and in some way Adam's sin imparted death to all, then all of Paul's listeners were at one time, "dead", even if their deaths hadn't been realized yet.
I'm not denying that your way of looking at it CAN make sense. What I'm questioning is whether it DOES make sense, based on the descriptions in the bible. Does the bible really talk about a spiritual death? Or have we just interpreted it that way so long, we're used to the terminology?
For instance, if people that are spiritually dead die physically, what happens to their spirit? Does it return to God as in Eccl 12:7? Does that mean God wants a dead spirit coming to Him?
Or does that "spirit" mean something else? If "something else", then does that mean we have two kinds of "spirit" associated with us before we are born in the spirit (John 3:5)?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You seem to think so:
I think that no one is dead physically until they actually die. You also said:
If their physical deaths had not been realized yet then they had not yet died. There is no in between!
I have already told you that all men will die physically regardless of sin since all men have been denied the very thing which allows a person to live for ever-- the Tree of Life. so when Paul spoke about the commandment killing him it cannot have anything with a physical death.
Here Paul speaks of two different spirits:
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God" (1 Cor.2:11-12).
I think that all people have the spirit of man. I also think that only believers have received the spirit which is of God. And I also believe that those who have received the spirit which is of God are spiritually alive. And those who do not have the spirit which is of God are spiritually dead.
It's that simple. What kind of death do you think is in view here?:
"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).
Thanks!
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Yes that's right, Jesus said it in the future tense because the resurrections are in the future.
When someone becomes a Christian they become alive in Christ spiritually because they were dead in the their sins; spiritually dead:
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
This isn't just talking about the future Resurrection but also about the fact that we are made spiritually alive when we believe in Christ
Romans 6:11
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:4-5
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.
This is because death entered Adam the day he sinned:
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
Genesis 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Adam eventually physically died too at 930 years old which was within the 1000 year prophetic day:
Psalm 90:4
A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Jesus died on the 4000th year and will return for His 1000 year reign on the 6000th year to complete the prophetic 7000 year week. Jesus is the Lord of the Millennial Sabbath reign:
https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guidechronologylatest1.pdf
Derf
Well-known member
Jerry and Watchman,
I combined your two posts for my reply, because you are both bringing up good points and they seem to go together.
So, then, what is that spirit that knoweth the things of "a" man? Isn't it his own will? Is it not the things which that man desires to do? But if we receive the "spirit which is of God" (which seems to be different in this verse from the "Spirit of God", at least according to the translators, since they didn't capitalize the second "spirit"), is this not that we now want to do the things of God?
Here's a personal example. My employer sent out a message to us employees several years ago stating that while they wanted us to follow the "letter" of the company policies, they also wanted us to follow the "spirit" of them as well. In other words, they wanted us to do the company policy even in areas that weren't specifically mentioned, the "company policy" being the "will" of the company.
I don't know why the "death" in Jas 1:15 needs to be anything other than physical death. Are there any sins that if you continue doing them don't lead more quickly to death? Does the passage have to be "spiritualized" to make sense? I don't think so.
Both of you have been making the same argument--possibly from the same starting point--where you take for granted that there is a separate thing called "spiritual life" that is different from "physical life". This is not foreign to me at all, having been brought up with these explanations and using the same verses. But I've recently tried to divorce my mind from those teachings momentarily to see if I will rediscover them through reading these scriptures. In most cases, I've found that the "spiritual" life and death are not necessary for the texts to make sense. And I'm still wondering if we have done some harm in using this terminology when it doesn't apply.
Derf
I combined your two posts for my reply, because you are both bringing up good points and they seem to go together.
This quote from Watchman was referring to the passage where Jesus refuted the Sadducees by explaining that the resurrection is a foregone conclusion because "God is the God of the living, not the dead." Luke 20:38. So Jesus is here telling us that the future state is assumed, but not yet realized. But I don't think Watchman meant it that way, as he goes on to say:
Maybe it is also talking about being made "spiritually alive", but I don't know that it is required for the verse to make sense.
As in the case above, if Jesus used "God of the living" to indicate not the current state, but the future state, then does Paul do ill by using the future state of death to argue that men need a savior now? Or to encourage those that have believed by reminding them of where they were heading and now aren't?
Yes, I know you said that, but I don't know if the bible agrees with you (again, thanks to the passage Watchman brought up):
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. [Luk 20:36 KJV]
The reason they can't die anymore is not related to the tree, according to this passage, but to their nature--being like angels. How they are like angels is a big question to me. It appears to make the case for angels never being able to die, which then would support a permanent state of torment of some sort for the devil and his angels in the lake of fire.Since the verse is talking of "who" knows the things of "a" man, it appears you might have conflated two things here. All people don't have the spirit of "a" man, do they, else we would all know the things of that particular man, and your verse would be false?
So, then, what is that spirit that knoweth the things of "a" man? Isn't it his own will? Is it not the things which that man desires to do? But if we receive the "spirit which is of God" (which seems to be different in this verse from the "Spirit of God", at least according to the translators, since they didn't capitalize the second "spirit"), is this not that we now want to do the things of God?
Here's a personal example. My employer sent out a message to us employees several years ago stating that while they wanted us to follow the "letter" of the company policies, they also wanted us to follow the "spirit" of them as well. In other words, they wanted us to do the company policy even in areas that weren't specifically mentioned, the "company policy" being the "will" of the company.
If only it were "that simple". Then we would never argue and debate about it. But how boring TOL would be if that were true.
I don't know why the "death" in Jas 1:15 needs to be anything other than physical death. Are there any sins that if you continue doing them don't lead more quickly to death? Does the passage have to be "spiritualized" to make sense? I don't think so.
Both of you have been making the same argument--possibly from the same starting point--where you take for granted that there is a separate thing called "spiritual life" that is different from "physical life". This is not foreign to me at all, having been brought up with these explanations and using the same verses. But I've recently tried to divorce my mind from those teachings momentarily to see if I will rediscover them through reading these scriptures. In most cases, I've found that the "spiritual" life and death are not necessary for the texts to make sense. And I'm still wondering if we have done some harm in using this terminology when it doesn't apply.
Derf
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Jerry and Watchman,
I combined your two posts for my reply, because you are both bringing up good points and they seem to go together.
This quote from Watchman was referring to the passage where Jesus refuted the Sadducees by explaining that the resurrection is a foregone conclusion because "God is the God of the living, not the dead." Luke 20:38. So Jesus is here telling us that the future state is assumed, but not yet realized. But I don't think Watchman meant it that way, as he goes on to say:
Maybe it is also talking about being made "spiritually alive", but I don't know that it is required for the verse to make sense.
As in the case above, if Jesus used "God of the living" to indicate not the current state, but the future state, then does Paul do ill by using the future state of death to argue that men need a savior now? Or to encourage those that have believed by reminding them of where they were heading and now aren't?
Yes, I know you said that, but I don't know if the bible agrees with you (again, thanks to the passage Watchman brought up):
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. [Luk 20:36 KJV]The reason they can't die anymore is not related to the tree, according to this passage, but to their nature--being like angels. How they are like angels is a big question to me. It appears to make the case for angels never being able to die, which then would support a permanent state of torment of some sort for the devil and his angels in the lake of fire.
Since the verse is talking of "who" knows the things of "a" man, it appears you might have conflated two things here. All people don't have the spirit of "a" man, do they, else we would all know the things of that particular man, and your verse would be false?
So, then, what is that spirit that knoweth the things of "a" man? Isn't it his own will? Is it not the things which that man desires to do? But if we receive the "spirit which is of God" (which seems to be different in this verse from the "Spirit of God", at least according to the translators, since they didn't capitalize the second "spirit"), is this not that we now want to do the things of God?
Here's a personal example. My employer sent out a message to us employees several years ago stating that while they wanted us to follow the "letter" of the company policies, they also wanted us to follow the "spirit" of them as well. In other words, they wanted us to do the company policy even in areas that weren't specifically mentioned, the "company policy" being the "will" of the company.
If only it were "that simple". Then we would never argue and debate about it. But how boring TOL would be if that were true.
I don't know why the "death" in Jas 1:15 needs to be anything other than physical death. Are there any sins that if you continue doing them don't lead more quickly to death? Does the passage have to be "spiritualized" to make sense? I don't think so.
Both of you have been making the same argument--possibly from the same starting point--where you take for granted that there is a separate thing called "spiritual life" that is different from "physical life". This is not foreign to me at all, having been brought up with these explanations and using the same verses. But I've recently tried to divorce my mind from those teachings momentarily to see if I will rediscover them through reading these scriptures. In most cases, I've found that the "spiritual" life and death are not necessary for the texts to make sense. And I'm still wondering if we have done some harm in using this terminology when it doesn't apply.
Derf
Okay I'm not sure what scriptures and arguments Jerry has used but I think part of the problem is looking too much at Paul and not enough at Jesus' words, which is why I used them first;
Luke 20
27Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28“Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30The second 31and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32Finally, the woman died too. 33Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
34Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’b 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
This shows Jesus was talking specifically about those who are resurrected and as Revelation shows there are 2 resurrections, the first that is for the 144,000 will rule with Christ during the 1000 year reign, as Revelation also says. The 144,000 will be like the angels ruling over the people who are born into the world with normal bodies. At the end of the 1000 years then the second Resurrection will be for the great multitude.
Did you look at this?:
https://guidetothebible.files.wordpr...ogylatest1.pdf
Also watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGhGk9LYuUE
Which proves we are all from one of the tribes of Jacob and because most Christians read:
Revelation 7:3
“Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel."
- they think that some how you have to be Jewish to be in the 144,000 but there are two major wrong assumptions they make by doing so:
1. Jews only come from the tribe of Judah and not the other 11 tribes.
But putting this mistake to one side there is the much bigger mistake:
2. Only Christian's can be part of God's Eternal Kingdom, Jews and all the other so called tribes (that don't exist genetically speaking anyway) will all go to Hell.
Revelations is clear that the 144,000 will rule with Christ on Earth during His Millennial reign:
Revelation 20
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
Understand all this is helpful in understanding the issue of being spiritually alive or dead in Christ.
Derf
Well-known member
I think you're going to have a hard time using all of that to help with "spiritually alive or dead" discussions. I'm open to hearing a bit of it, but I think it's going pretty far away from the actual topic. If you feel the need to go further down that path, please don't just give your theology, but explain it, too--tell me why you feel it applies, using scripture to back it up. Please don't just throw a bunch of links and verses in your post and expect any decent response.
Since you did that in your first section, I'll respond to that here. The rest I don't think applies, and you haven't really shown that it does, either.
Those verses show nothing of the kind. What you seem to be doing is taking this thread and trying to jam a bunch of unrelated teaching into it. Go do that somewhere else. I'd like this thread to stay on topic.
Thanks,
Derf
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
NONSENSE!
Anyone who was not one of the children of Israel was considered to be a Gentile. And here James makes it plain that there will be some Gentiles who will be saved:
"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things" (Acts 15:13-17).
Stephen Anderson, who is on the youtube to which you gave a link, flew over the cuckoo's nest!