Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [revelation-list] Second death

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    ... _______________ The term second death is peculiar to the Apocalypse so the only context which we have by which to determine its meaning is that of the
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
      On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:01:11 EST KennethGentry@... writes:
      > In a message dated 11/11/2005 2:15:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      > bobmacdonald@... writes:
      >
      >
      > > to the author of Revelation, what death is first?
      >
      > I believe John the Apostle wrote both Revelation and the Gospel. I
      > suspect
      > John 5:24-29 is the backdrop for the imagery of Revelation 20. The
      > first death
      > is spiritual death into which we are born. The second death is
      > eternal
      > punishment into which those who do not turn to Christ descend.
      >
      > This would fit with the Pauline conception, as well: Ephesians 2:1,
      > 5 speaks
      > of the original spiritual death overcome by the new spiritual life
      > -- which is
      > entered into by a spiritual resurrection (Eph. 2:6).
      >
      > The first death / second death parallel in some respects the "born
      > again"
      > concept that appears in John 3. In that case, however, the first
      > birth is the
      > physical birth, the new or second (born again) experience is the
      > spiritual birth
      > by the grace of God (cp. also John 1:12-13.
      >
      >
      >
      > Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., M.Div, Th.M., Th.D
      > www.KennethGentry.com
      > "Serious Studies for Serious Christians"
      >
      > Chancellor and Research Professor in Theology
      > Christ College, Lynchburg, Virginia
      > www.Christ-College.edu
      _______________

      The term "second death" is peculiar to the Apocalypse so the only context
      which we have by which to determine its meaning is that of the book
      itself. In Re 2.9-11 he contrasts the condition of the Church at Smyrna
      as being about to suffer persecution in which he encourages them to "Be
      faithful unto death" with that which is promised to them if they
      "overcome." This term is used throughout the Apocalypse with respect to
      the faithful as indicating the suffering of persecution and even death.
      "To conquer" is to suffer for the name. The church is considered to be
      martyrs as Jesus Christ himself was the first martyr. As such they are,
      in the words of Paul, "being killed all the day long" yet living. Thus
      in Re 20.4-6 they are viewed as already having been beheaded. The "first
      death" is thus an actual physical death which all, including the
      followers of Christ must undergo and which they are viewed proleptically
      as having suffered in the persecution which they undergo. The 1000 yrs
      is thus the life of the Christian who experiences the new life
      (resurrection) in Christ. This is in keeping with Is 65.20
      No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an
      old man who does not fill out his days, for the child shall die a hundred
      years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
      This is part of the view that the Kingdom is even now present in the New
      Jerusalem "coming down from God out of heaven."

      george
      gfsomsel
      ___________

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dtrini
      The Fall. West Band and Gaza threat: After Shabbat comes Sunday Helen http://caribpundit.com
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
        The Fall.

        West Band and Gaza threat: "After Shabbat comes Sunday"

        Helen

        http://caribpundit.com



        On Nov 11, 2005, at 2:37 AM, MORIAH wrote:

        > shhhhh. You will awaken a monster!
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Bob MacDonald
        > Sent: 11 November 2005 09:19 AM
        > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [revelation-list] Second death
        >
        >
        >
        > quiet list,
        >
        > what precedent is there for the phrase second death?
        >
        > to the author of Revelation, what death is first?
        >
        > thanks
        >
        > Bob
        >
        > Bob MacDonald
        > http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
        > Victoria, B.C., Canada
        >
        > Catch the foxes for us,
        > the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
        > for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
        > ~-->
        > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
        > home page
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/D1XolB/TM
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        > ~->
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • ottoerlend
        Hello, Usually pistin Iesou in Rev 14:12 is translated as faith in Jesus (NET, NAB) or faith of Jesus (NRSV) . I guess it s possible to understand the
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
          Hello,

          Usually "pistin Iesou" in Rev 14:12 is translated as "faith in Jesus"
          (NET, NAB) or "faith of Jesus" (NRSV) . I guess it's possible to
          understand the genitive as both subjective and objective; I am not
          able to see that the context favours either of them. I have also seen a
          translation like "faithful to Jesus" (cannot remenber where).

          Now, I was wondering if the following translation might be possible /
          likely: "faithfulness of Jesus". ("Faithfulness" does seem to be within
          the semantic realm of "pistis".)

          What do you think? All kinds of comments (context, semantics, syntax,
          etc.) might be useful!


          Best wishes

          Otto E. Nordgreen
        • Christian Maymann
          Dear Otto Nordgreen The Greek text runs hoi têrountes tas entolas tou theou kai pistin Iesou In 13:10 the referent for pistis most likely is the faith of the
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
            Dear Otto Nordgreen

            The Greek text runs hoi têrountes tas entolas tou theou kai pistin Iesou


            In 13:10 the referent for pistis most likely is the faith of the holy one.
            I think that we compare 13:10 and 14:12 for several reasons:
            i) They belong together, as part of the "Sign" running from 12:1 to 14:20
            ii) They have two themes in common the pistis and the hypomonê.

            Therefore pistis Iêsou most likely referees to something that describe the
            Christians, not Jesus himself, and therefore Iesou is (as I see it) an
            objective genitive.

            As You know, there have been an For several years debate about exactly that
            problem in the letters of Paul. For some general semantic consideration You
            can read the article "Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians" in Carson et
            al. Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 2, Mohr Siebeck 2004


            Christian Maymann
            M.Theol.
            Copenhagen

            -----Original Message-----
            From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ottoerlend
            Sent: 11. november 2005 20:07
            To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [revelation-list] Rev 14:12 ("pistin Iesou")

            Hello,

            Usually "pistin Iesou" in Rev 14:12 is translated as "faith in Jesus"
            (NET, NAB) or "faith of Jesus" (NRSV) . I guess it's possible to understand
            the genitive as both subjective and objective; I am not able to see that the
            context favours either of them. I have also seen a translation like
            "faithful to Jesus" (cannot remenber where).

            Now, I was wondering if the following translation might be possible /
            likely: "faithfulness of Jesus". ("Faithfulness" does seem to be within the
            semantic realm of "pistis".)

            What do you think? All kinds of comments (context, semantics, syntax,
            etc.) might be useful!


            Best wishes

            Otto E. Nordgreen





            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
            fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/D1XolB/TM
            --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


            Yahoo! Groups Links






            --
            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10-11-2005


            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10-11-2005
          • Bob MacDonald
            George writes: proleptically as having suffered Ken references a suspicion of a link to John 5:24 George - thanks for the note. I think your explanation is not
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 12, 2005
              George writes: proleptically as having suffered
              Ken references a suspicion of a link to John 5:24

              George - thanks for the note. I think your explanation is
              not far off from supporting my thesis that the implied first
              death in Rev is like Paul's image of baptism in Romans, a
              real identification with the suffering and death of the
              firstborn and an overcoming through this death. Thank you
              for the interpretation of the 1000 years - nice work and
              good idea - one day in thy courts is better than a thousand
              also comes to mind as an indication of the notion of
              'eternal' - a subject that has been debated at least since
              Aquinas

              Ken - re John 5:24-29; these verses are part of a double
              chiasm with the centre of each focussing on opposites -
              believing and non believing. Given the complex concentric
              structures in Revelation, it is possible that the same poet
              wrote both - but hardly necessary. (For the double chiasm
              see http://bmd.gx.ca/synoptic/tuej_only_viii.htm#141

              I have no axe to grind on this - but sometimes I wonder if
              the reputed young man in the rich young man story (only in
              Mark) might not have been the poet of G John (but not John
              of Patmos) - too many inferences to resolve...

              Bob

              Bob MacDonald
              http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
              Victoria, B.C., Canada

              Catch the foxes for us,
              the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
              for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
            • KennethGentry@cs.com
              In a message dated 11/12/2005 8:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Bob: I do not used the seeming relationship between Rev 20 and John 5 as evidence for
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 12, 2005
                In a message dated 11/12/2005 8:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                bobmacdonald@... writes:


                > Ken - re John 5:24-29; these verses are part of a double
                > chiasm with the centre of each focussing on opposites -
                > believing and non believing. Given the complex concentric
                > structures in Revelation, it is possible that the same poet
                > wrote both - but hardly necessary.

                Bob:

                I do not used the seeming relationship between Rev 20 and John 5 as evidence
                for Johannine authorship of Rev. 20. I already have in mind (from other
                evidence) that John is the author of both the Gospel and the Revelation. Having that
                in mind, I see a double resurrection in John 5 and suppose that since (on
                other grounds) John wrote Rev 20, that he would be picking up on his already
                established two resurrection motif.

                I see Rev 11:2 as reflecting Luke 21:24 also. But I (obviously) wouldn't say
                this is evidence Luke wrote Revelation.

                I am afraid I may have made you think I was using the Rev 20 / John 5
                similarity as evidence of authorship. That was a mistaken impression that I didn't
                intend.

                Thanks,

                Ken

                Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., M.Div, Th.M., Th.D
                www.KennethGentry.com
                "Serious Studies for Serious Christians"

                Chancellor and Research Professor in Theology
                Christ College, Lynchburg, Virginia
                www.Christ-College.edu


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.