In my studies of the various views of after-life-judgment and the consequences of the same, my views have changed over the years, being raised in a dispensationalist environment, accepting the views of of the same (by default), and eventually coming to see the Conditionalist (or Annihilationist, or Conditional Immortality) view as the best or most acceptable view in terms of scripture. It has been or was(?) my default position over the last seven years or so. I say "was(?)" because I'm essentially agnostic these days as I continue my studies.
Related to how my opinions have morphed would be: 'preterism' in general. From Latin, praeteritus, meaning: "having gone by, occurred, obtained, i.e., fulfilled, has happened." Studying what has been fulfilled -- and what is yet to come -- is what we all do.
Getting to the topic: while I don't see myself as a full-preterist, I've come to understand how they came to believe as they do (largely from posters on this forum). I've always attempted to interpret scripture with the least about of bias possible. Again, 'something we all do or at least should try to do.
I've come to understand how many, and possibly most, texts that have been traditionally taken to refer to post-mortem judgment -- in our future -- are probably about a (or the) judgment of God against rebellious Jerusalem, circa 70AD. Some of these seem undeniable, as most would agree (even dispensationalists to a degree).
Hebrews 9:27, 28 (and most specifically v. 27) are two verses that have seemed to give irrefutable support to an after-life judgment.
(These verses are the only ones that I can currently think of to support the view -- in a 'seemingly irrefutable way' -- that would be)!!!
As always, however, I tend to question everything!
Thus . . . .
-----------------
The topic: Does Heb 9:27,28 teach (say) there is a post-mortem judgment?
Heb 9 (ASV, a more literal translation)
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this [cometh] judgment;
28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.
The "[cometh]" is equivalent to how some versions italicize words (in translation) which are not in the Greek.
Another example with the italics, MLT (Modern Literal Translation)
Heb 9:27And inasmuch as it is laid up for men to die once and after this is the judgment;
I'm not a Greek expert, but have sent possible alternate translations to a friend who knows Greek and teaches Religious Studies at Rutgers. He hasn't had time to reply. Here are two possible renderings:
(More literal)
Heb 9:27 and in as much as it is apportioned to men once to die, moreover, with this judgment;
28 thus, also the Christ, having once been offered in order to
bear the sins of the many, from a second time, separate from sin, will
appear to those of his awaiting -- unto salvation.
(Old Living Bible Style)
Heb 9:27 as every one of us will die, which is our death penalty for sinning;
28 so also Christ came the first time to bear the sins of many people, and he will appear again to those whose sin is gone and they will be saved.
If my limited knowledge of Greek has any merit or potential; with these two verses, it could be that they do not refer to post-mortem judgment.
Thanks for reading!
Any opinions?
at this parousia notion. It amazes me that dispensationalists and preterists alike can make such a big deal out of a word that was used in order to shore up diametrically opposed ideas. To me, having been weaned on this distinction, I now see that approach as the error that it is. Parousia, epiphaneia, apokalypsis, and erchomai are essentially interchangeable terms. When Jesus "erchomai" or "elthon" to Peter's house in the Gospel, was he not already "parousia"? Is Jesus not "parousia" with His disciples since Matthew 28? Consider the following (NWT citations): 