The Second Death

[_Derek]

Good points all! I will be thinking about this throughout the day.

Derek, you asked why, if it is a purification process, would it be called a death. Christians are commanded to crucify our flesh, with its passions and desires. What should it be called when this process happens (unwillingly - at least at first) to those who have not already done this?

I'm not convinced that "crucifiying the flesh" is what happens in the lake of fire, but if it were, it would not be untenable to call it death, I suppose.

This has been a great discussion. Thanks.

[Guest]

The Greek word "apollumi" is a wonderful word. It's primary meaning is "destroy", although the English words "perish" and "lose" seem to fit it better in some contexts.

Today, when we speak of something being "destroyed", we often mean that it is completely obliterated or annihilated, or if not, at least reduced to rubble. And I suppose the meaning is much the same in the New Testament. The difference in the NT seems to be the object of what is destroyed. When the NT says a thing is destroyed it often means the undesireable aspects of the thing are destroyed, and not the thing itself.

A prime example can be found in I Peter 1:7 where Peter speaks of "gold which is being destroyed through fire". We all know that fire doesn't obliterate or annihilate gold. It does no more than melt it. So that cannot be Peter's meaning. It seems that Peter was speaking of the raw form of gold, the gold ore which is destroyed by fire. After being refined by fire, the original gold ore no longer exists; it has been destroyed. What remains is the pure, refined, gold.

Death, too, does not refer to a final state. After our first death (physical death), we are only temporarily destroyed. But we shall be raised to life again.

Jesus speaks of a grain of wheat falling into the earth and dying:

And Jesus responded to them, "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life destroys it, and he who discounts his life in this world will keep it for permanent life." John 12:23-25

It seems that Jesus made a double application of the death of the grain.
He himself died, and was raised, and bore much fruit. But he also applied the parable to everyone who discounts his own life. Such a person "dies", as far as his self-chosen life and self-will are concerned. But such a person is also "raised" to a new life in Christ, and bears much fruit.

Someone pointed out to me that a grain of wheat does not die when cast into the earth; the fact that it grows into a wheat plant, is evidence that it does not die. And that was Jesus' point. That which dies or is destroyed, is the original form of the wheat, that is, the seed. But the true life comes forth into a wheat plant which bears many more wheat grains.

Thus it is with the second death. John wrote clearly in Revelation that the second death is the Lake of Fire. The original form of those who will be in the Lake of Fire will be utterly destroyed, so that the beautiful people God meant them to be will shine forth!

He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death. Revelation 2:11

Of course not! The overcomers have already gone through the death-to-self process. As "grains of wheat" they have fallen into the earth and died. Their new life has come forth. No further death is needed.

In Revelation, John also tells us that the overcomers will share in the first resurrection (the resurrection of the righteous at the coming of Christ). So it is no wonder that he also states the second death has no power over those who have a part in the first resurrection.

Just as we all need to die physically in the first death. So we all need to die spiritually (that is, to our old natures) in the second death. True disciples of Christ have already done this. People who haven't will have to do so in the Lake of Fire.

[_Derek]

Paidion,

apollumi

When the NT says a thing is destroyed it often means the undesireable aspects of the thing are destroyed, and not the thing itself.

It doesn't appear to me that the word carries this meaning the vast majority of the time it is used. I am not sure that it "often" means what you are implying, but only in a relatively small number of verses.

In fact, I am not able to find any verses in which being destroyed means "only the undesirable aspects of the thing are destroyed".

When John 12 and other verses that speak of "losing" (apollumi) our lives, though the loss of our old lives is a good thing for us, and is an undesirable aspect of our being, it is still the case that our "old lives" are lost, destroyed etc. So when the word is used of our final end, it should mean the same for us as it does for our "old lives". i.e. lost, destroyed, etc.

Take the use of the word in Matt. 5:29.

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish (apollumi), and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

The destruction of our eye would ultimatly be a good thing in this instance. If it is causing us to sin, it is an "undesirable aspect", and it would be good for it to be destroyed. But the fact remains that the eye is destroyed by being plucked out. So when we are "apollumi" the word should have the same meaning it carries for our eye.

Again, when our "sinful eye" is "apollumi", it is an undesirable aspect of a thing (us) that is being purged. But the sinful eye itself is not being improved in any way, but is destroyed altogether. So when we are "apollumi", it should be understood that the same thing is happening to us as happened to the "sinful eye".

I looked at all 95 occurences (albeit breifly) and couldn't see any of them as meaning "only the undesirable aspects of a thing are destroyed". But hey, I can be kinda dense. :-) Again, I found instances where the undesirable things themselves were "apollumi" (our old lives, eye that causes us to sin, etc), but that's different than what you are saying.


1 Peter 1:7

In 1 Peter 1:7, I don't think that Peter's meaning when speaking of gold "perishing" is that it is refined by that act. Even if gold is purified by fire, it is not "apollumi" in the fire in any way that the word is used in scripture.

I think his meaning is that it is temporary. The fact that the gold "perishes", (which it ultimatly does, though not literally in the case of fire), is one of the many things that makes our faith "more precious".

To paraphrase, "your faith is worth more than gold, even if the gold has been tried by fire, because it eventually perishes." (I realize that's a loose paraphrase).

I think the NASB rendering brings this out:

1Pe 1:7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, (lit. is perishing), even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

The word is used the same way in John 6:27:

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

It's not only the undesirable aspects of the food that are "apollumi". The food itself perishes. It goes away; It's temporal. I think this is exactly the same meaning that Peter intends.



The "second death.

Just as we all need to die physically in the first death. So we all need to die spiritually (that is, to our old natures) in the second death. True disciples of Christ have already done this. People who haven't will have to do so in the Lake of Fire.

So we die our "second death" before our "first death"?

In Revelation, John also tells us that the overcomers will share in the first resurrection (the resurrection of the righteous at the coming of Christ). So it is no wonder that he also states the second death has no power over those who have a part in the first resurrection.

It seems that one's position on the millenium will affect how they interpret the "first ressurection". Being amillenial, I see those that "have part in the first resurrection" reigning with Christ during the "thousand years" a.k.a. the "church age".

I think that a case can be made that the "first resurrection" is a spiritual phenonmenon, and is different than the ressurection in Rev. 20:13.

We know that there's only one physical resurrection, which happens on the "last day" (Jn. 6:39,40,54 and 12:48). However, it seems very odd that John would call the only resurrection the "first" resurrection.

There is a lot of "resurrection language" applied to our life with Christ on this side of eternity. If the amillenial position is correct, being regenerated by Christ is the first resurrection. At least, I'm not sure how else someone who is amillenial could interpret it.

Here are some of those verses which use "resurrection language".

Joh 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Col 3:1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Rom 6:13 ...and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

In all of these verses we are spoken of as formerlly dead, and now alive. This must apply spiritually. These verses, coupled with the fact that John refers to the resurrection in 20:5 as the "first", and, (in my opinion), the strength of the case for amillenialism leads me to believe that there is a spiritual, as well as physical resurrection.


I would identify "dying to self", and "to our old natures" and the like with the "first resurrection", (because it happens as a result of having new life), as opposed to the "first death".

I would identify the "first death" as that which Adam has brought to us. The state of separation from God through sin. Death both spiritually and physically. We are freed from this in a sense, by coming to Christ, (see above verses), however, most of us will still have to die physically, so there is a sense in which we are still affected by the first death.

The second death, I still think, is the final destruction of those that are separated from God, and that which we do not have to fear, since we are believers.

God bless,

[_Derek]

Hi,

I realize that in my first post I identified the "first death" as a purely spiritual reality, and I have changed that a bit to include the physical death that we all die (see my last post).

This is a result of our discussion here, and Todd's last questions to me and Mike's statements following that (regarding "Adam bringing the first death").

I really don't see the spiritual and physical aspects of the "first death" to signify two separate events. Hopefully that doesn't seem inconsistent, but I reserve the right to modify my position! :-) (due to debating with, and being forced to think by, much smarter brothers than myself!).


God bless,

[Guest]

Derek,

One thing I think we can all agree on is that physical death (which takes place at the end of this life) is not the second death. We know this because both believers and unbelievers are subject to it; whereas, the second death has no power over believers.

Setting aside Revelation for the moment, I do not know of any reference to "death" which occurs after the resurrection. This (to me) makes for a weak case. Maybe you know of some NT verses which use the word "death" as occuring after the resurrection. However, we do find many references throughout the New Testament which refer to "death" as it relates to being overcome in sin. You pointed this out in your post. So, IMO the two deaths are spiritual and physical. Since physical death cannot be the second death, then I suggest that spiritual death must be the second death.

This is a little counter-intuative because (as you pointed out) this places the second death before the first death. That is unless you look at it as a second [kind of] death rather than trying take it to mean the order of the deaths.

That's how I see it (for now, anyway).

Todd

[_Derek]

Todd,

Setting aside Revelation for the moment, I do not know of any reference to "death" which occurs after the resurrection. This (to me) makes for a weak case. Maybe you know of some NT verses which use the word "death" as occuring after the resurrection.

You are kind of "stacking the deck" there brother. You are basically saying "show me a place that mentions death after the resurrection, aside from the place that mentions death after the resurrection".

There are no other verses to my knowledge, that use the word "death" after the resurrection. But Revelation does so very clearly!

Of course, I see the "resurrection of damnation" in John 5:29, and the "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" in 2 Thes. 1:9, as signifying "death" after the ressurection, but those interpretations remain controversial for now. :-)

This is a little counter-intuative because (as you pointed out) this places the second death before the first death. That is unless you look at it as a second [kind of] death rather than trying take it to mean the order of the deaths.

I see them as being sequential, just like the two resurrections.

I do not think of the two deaths as purely physical or spiritual. It appears that they both have an element of each.

Let me try to articulate the conclusion I think I'm coming to.

The first death, brought into the world by Adam separates us from God, and causes both physical and spiritual death. Coming to Jesus raises us spiritually, however, we still may die physically (assuming we die before Christ returns) as we await the final resurrection.

The second death happens after the (physical) resurrection, and is the final consumation of the first death.

In both cases, the believer, or unbeliever faces the fulfillment of their choice on earth. The first resurrection is fulfilled when Christians are finally fully restored, (no more physical death). They are saved both body and soul.

For unbelievers the first death is fulfilled. They die both body and soul in the lake of fire.

The nature of this discussion, it seems, can't help but bring out some speculation, as I am doing here. Since after all, there is no mention of "the second resurrection" or "the first death". Also, when we read things like"the soul that sins, it shall die" and similar expressions, there's no clear indication which "death" is meant.

I'm not trying to be dogmatic at all. Feel free to point out any inconsitencies here. And there may be some, because I'm nodding off as I write this! To bed I go!

God bless!

[Guest]

Todd,

Setting aside Revelation for the moment, I do not know of any reference to "death" which occurs after the resurrection. This (to me) makes for a weak case. Maybe you know of some NT verses which use the word "death" as occuring after the resurrection.

You are kind of "stacking the deck" there brother. You are basically saying "show me a place that mentions death after the resurrection, aside from the place that mentions death after the resurrection".

There are no other verses to my knowledge, that use the word "death" after the resurrection. But Revelation does so very clearly!

Derek,

It seems to me that the only "clear" language in Revelation ends at Chapter 3. From that point on it is only symbols and metaphors. For that reason I think that any doctrinal conclusion based on Revelation that has no scriptural support elsewhere is treading on shaky ground. I prefer to draw "conclusions" from other NT books and then turn to Revelation to see if there is any additional support. But that is just me.

You did list some other scriptures that you believe support your conclusion. Of course, you might even be right.

Todd

[_Derek]

It seems to me that the only "clear" language in Revelation ends at Chapter 3. From that point on it is only symbols and metaphors.

I don't think that "symbols and metaphors" translates into "can't be understood", or "can mean whatever you want".

I do not base annihilationism on Revelation. I was just saying, in response to your question, that it is the only place, to my knowledge, which uses the word "death" after the resurrection.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

All of the dead are before the throne being judged by their works (c.f. Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom 2:1-16; etc.).

This is an event that is set forth very clearly in scripture. It is not ambiguous at all, to me, that Rev. 20 is speaking of the resurrection at the end of time. It could not depict the judgement set forth in these scriptures more clearly. The fact that it is a vision, and has symbolic imagery, does not take away from the clarity of what's being described.

As I have said, there is much "resurrection language" applied to the receiving of new life by believers. However, to my knowledge, none of those passages mention us "being judged according to our works" after this new life is given. Of course you say that John 5:28-29 says just that, but. I strongly disagree that your interpretation of those verses is correct. To my knowledge, in all of scripture, we are "judged according to our works" at the resurrection on the last day.

That's not to say that God doesn't judge people in this life. But in Rev. 20 we have all the dead, both small and great; The grave and even death itself are said to give up the dead that are in them. Surely this is meant to convey the scope of this event; and it depicts perfectly the scene of judgement in the above verses.

Can you provide a verse that says that we will be "judged according to our works" before the resurrection?

God bless bro,

[Guest]

In 1 Peter 1:7, I don't think that Peter's meaning when speaking of gold "perishing" is that it is refined by that act. Even if gold is purified by fire, it is not "apollumi" in the fire in any way that the word is used in scripture.

I think his meaning is that it is temporary. The fact that the gold "perishes", (which it ultimately does, though not literally in the case of fire), is one of the many things that makes our faith "more precious".

That cannot be. For when he speaks of "gold which is destroyed through fire" the Greek word translated as "through" means "through" in the sense of "by means of". It is the same word which says that God created everything "through" Christ. Christ was the means.

Furthermore, he does not say your "faith" is more precious, but the "proving of your faith." Let me give you my paraphrase.

Gold (the original form) is destroyed by fire and the pure gold comes forth. But the proving of your faith through various trials which you must painfully endure is a much more valuable refining. For through this refining, you will be given praise and glory and honour when Christ is revealed in the second coming.

[_Derek]

For when he speaks of "gold which is destroyed through fire" the Greek word translated as "through" means "through" in the sense of "by means of".

Where are you getting "destroyed through fire" from".

KJV 1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

ESV 1Pe 1:7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

NASB 1Pe 1:7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;


Jay P. Green Literal 1Pe 1:7 so that the proving of your faith, much more precious than perishing gold, but having been proved through fire, may be found to praise and honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Young's Literal 1Pe 1:7 that the proof of your faith--much more precious than of gold that is perishing, and through fire being approved--may be found to praise, and honour, and glory, in the revelation of Jesus Christ,

Geneva 1Pe 1:7 That the triall of your faith, being much more precious then golde that perisheth (though it be tried with fire) might bee founde vnto your praise, and honour and glorie at the appearing of Iesus Christ:

Revised Version 1Pe 1:7 that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire, might be found unto praise and glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ:


In all of these versions the gold is "tried" (dokimazō) through (dia -by means of) fire which is how I undestand it.

It is not "perishing" (apollumi) through fire, but "tried" (dokimazō) through fire.

The statement "is perishing" is parenthetical and is there to show the temporality of gold (riches). The verse still means exactly the same thing without it.

1Pe 1:7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold... even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

To paraphrase: The trial of your faith is more precious than gold which has been tried (to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals-Thayers) by means of fire.

Again, the only thing that happens "dia" fire, is the trying of the gold, not it's destruction. This is a very different meaning.

Furthermore, he does not say your "faith" is more precious, but the "proving of your faith." Let me give you my paraphrase.

That's true, but my point still stands. To rephrase: "That gold is perishable, is one of the things that makes the trial of our faith more valuable."

Gold (the original form) is destroyed by fire and the pure gold comes forth.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the gold in this verse is not said to be "destroyed through fire" but is "tried through fire". It says "Gold, which is perishing, though proven through fire". The way you are rephrasing it, (without explanation) completely changes the meaning!

Also, as I've shown, gold is not "apollumi" in fire the way that the word is used anywhere else in scripture. If it was used anywhere to mean "only the undesirable aspects are destroyed" it would be here, but it isn't because of the way the sentence is structured (at least going on the authority of these translators). But rather is "apollumi" in the same way as the bread in John 6:27. It is "perishing", which is rightly translated "perishable" in the NASB.