|
Pineknoll SS class- 2nd death
|
Ron Corson
|
Apr 29, 2005 07:49 PDT
|
The lesson from this class began with a question from some church in WA
asking how to show from the Bible that Jesus died the second death.
It is interesting to see how they answered this question. In fact they
did not, it is a dramatic demonstration of how weak a position it is.
The religion professor was asked to explain this second death doctrine.
The only text he gave was:
(Rom 6:23 NIV) For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is
eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
He reasoned that since the death in the first clause must be the
opposite of eternal life that this text is referring to the second
death.
He ignores that there is no mention of second death outside of
Revelation. And worst of all he ignores the context of all the
references to death that preceed this one text. For instance:
(Rom 5:21 NIV) so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace
might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord.
(Rom 6:16 NIV) Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone
to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether
you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which
leads to righteousness?
(Rom 6:20 NIV) When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the
control of righteousness.
(Rom 6:21 NIV) What benefit did you reap at that time from the things
you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!
(Rom 6:22 NIV) But now that you have been set free from sin and have
become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the
result is eternal life.
As with much of Pauls writing he repeats himself. Verse 23 is actually a
statement of what he has already said, much of it found in v. 20-22
Of course death is the end of life, the only reason John brings up
second death is because he talks about the supernatural life given to
everyone at the judgement. Naturally most when talking about death do
not deal with God given supernatural life given at the judgement because
it would simply be confusing and really adds nothing to the discussion.
The problem is with their larger view and the traditional SDA view. They
want to assume that Jesus death was a dramatic demonstration of those
who suffer the second death. But to do that they have to reinterpret the
second death and say Jesus died it but he also rose from it. But it is
hardly a demonstration when 3 days later He rose from the grave. It
demonstrates life after one has died but in no way shows that He
underwent a second death.
This is really just an example of how people allow a tradition, in this
case one developed from Ellen White to over-ride the actually words of
the Bible. So much so that much has to be inferred into the Bible
account and much has to be redefined in the Bible account of Second
death. Why is this the case? In other words what does the Second death
teaching offer. In the larger view it is just used to say that God did
not punish Jesus but merely seperated from Jesus. Divinity left Divinity
and Jesus died. When in fact the Bible is clear that man killed Jesus.
Why is there such a need to have God cause the death of Jesus?
My opinion is that it is because they who hold the larger view are not
really seing what the moral influence theory really teaches and they
have distorted it with the very Penal view of Ellen White. But in any
case they have shown no Biblical reason for their belief that Jesus
suffered the Second death. But take time to listen to the program which
is for the lesson study April 30
http://www.pineknoll.org/adventist/realmedia/ssl/2005/q2/pkpssl20050430.mp3
|
|
 |
|
