class: center, middle ## Could You Explain More How All This Works with Respect to the Finality of Death? --- ### Summary The word that some English versions translate as "once" in Hebrews 9:27 is the Greek adjective *hapax*. This lesson argues that the best way (and in fact only correct way) to take the sense of this verse is that "it is appointed for people to die once for all" rather than "it is appointed for people to die one time (as opposed to two times, three times, etc.)." If the correct interpretation of this verse really is the "once for all" sense of things, then there is no contradiction in resuscitated people facing physical death more than once, since even those people who are brought back to life for a time will still face eventual permanent physical death. --- #### Outline - [Q: Could you explain more how all this works with respect to the finality of death?](#4) - [Luke 16 - on the chasm of separation](#5) - [Hebrews 9:27 - Perhaps speaking in terms of "types of death" was a poor choice on my part](#6) - [A better way to talk about it, perhaps: focusing on the vocabulary and context of Hebrews 9:27 more](#7) - [Hebrew 9:27's wider context](#8) - [The Greek adverb *hapax*](#9) - [The Greek adverb *hapax* in Hebrews 9](#10) - [The importance of the "once for all" concept as it pertains to Christ's work completely forces our hand in translating Hebrews 9:26, 28](#11) - [So Hebrews 9:27 does not contradict the idea of resuscitation, QED](#12) --- ### Q: Could you explain more how all this works with respect to the finality of death? In Luke 16, a chasm is described as separating the two parts of Hades (such that no one on either side can cross over). Also, Hebrews 9:27 says that each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment. So how does the concept of resuscitation affect the finality of death? It seems to me like Luke 16 and Hebrews 9:27 describe death as final, but then these people die twice...? What gives? --- ### Luke 16 - on the chasm of separation See our [previous video](TODO) for more on "heavenly geography", and the subdivisions of Hades. I am not entirely sure what bearing the chasm mentioned in Luke 16:26 has on the finality of death, as you see things, but assuming you take its mention to be something along the lines of "there exists not only an uncrossable separation between Abrahm's Bosom and Torments in Hades, but also between Hades and our world", well that is very true. Those in the afterlife are "contained", if you want to look at things that way, but looking at things from the other direction, so are we. We cannot cross over there any more than they can cross over here. In fact, the unyielding nature of this separating boundary between life in the world and death in the underworld has always been a major theme in mythological systems. Consider the story of [Orpheus and Eurydice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpheus_and_Eurydice) in Greek myth, for example. If the conceptual hang-up is that in resuscitation people once in Hades somehow exit and traverse the boundary said to be so vast and uncrossable, well resurrection poses just as much a problem in this regard as resuscitation, does it not? And *that* is certainly completely central to our faith (as Paul argues most eloquently in 1 Corinthians 15:16-19). Christianity does not "work" without the resurrection of the dead. So what to make of this? How do we puzzle it out? The key point is that in resurrection and resuscitation both, it is not humans that do the crossing of the uncrossable boundaries on our own, but God that causes it to happen. Compare Matthew 19:26. --- ### Luke 16 - on the chasm of separation I also don't think we should lose sight of the fact that raising people from the dead (resuscitation) was clearly recognized as being utterly miraculous. It is *not* normal, but completely extraordinary---that's the whole point! So far from arguing "well, resuscitation can't actually be a thing, because it would mean that dead people have to cross an uncrossable boundary", we should instead be emphasizing how awe-inspiring it is that God, out of His overflowing grace and mercy and love, actually Himself violates the natural order He has set up, for our benefit! This reminds me in some respects of people struggling with exactly how the divine nature of Jesus Christ could possibly come to be bound to a physical body in the incarnation. It is fine to wonder and ponder and meditate upon (for it is certainly not easy to metabolize), but past a certain point, the important thing is that God *did* send His one and only Son into the world to take on humanity and die for our sins, so that we might be reconciled to Him. Shouldn't we focus on the wonder and awe of that, rather than focusing on raising objections to the "logic" of it, so to speak? That's not meant to be a rebuke or anything, by the way. We just need to be sure to keep our focus upon what is truly important, and not let ourselves get tripped up by trying to apply human logic to God... who is decidedly *not* bound in the ways that we are as humans. God created the Universe in the blink of an eye; He can do whatever He pleases within it. Even things that are completely impossible from the human perspective. --- ### Hebrews 9:27 - Perhaps speaking in terms of "types of death" was a poor choice on my part I'm afraid in the prior video [when I discussed Hebrews 9:27](), I was not as clear I should have been. I spoke in terms of of a type of death leading to resuscitation, and a type of death leading to resurrection/judgment. I argued that Hebrews 9:27 is referring to the second kind and not the first kind, and that while human beings cannot know the difference between the two states (that is, whether someone who has died will come back or not), God does, based upon his perfect foreknowledge and foreordination of everything. While I don't think there is anything technically wrong with what I said, perhaps this is not actually the ideal framework for trying to explain the concept, now that I think about it. Since it's not so much that the "dying" is different (so to speak), so much as what comes after it. That is, the difference comes from the following condition of the human being's existence more than it comes from how they left the physical world the first time around. So, for example, if Jairus' daughter died of illness (as is likely, given that she was only about 12 years old per Luke 8:42, and the text gives us no reason to think it was anything different), then her death from illness was no different than that of someone who would not ultimately be resuscitated. There was nothing special about this part, *per se*. What was special came only afterwards: that someone who was once dead (well and truly dead, not merely asleep) once again had life. *That* is the special thing---the miracle---not the "type of death". What I had been trying to get at before was that there is a sort of death after which one stays dead, and that is true of all humans, even those who were resuscitated in the interim. Permanent physical death eventually comes for us all, and cannot be avoided by anyone. --- ### A better way to talk about it, perhaps: focusing on the vocabulary and context of Hebrews 9:27 more This will be a bit detailed and technical, which is sort of why I hadn't done the deep dive the first time around. However, I do hope it will help you make sense of Hebrews 9:27 better, despite the complexity. --- #### Hebrew 9:27's wider context Leaving aside a wider thematic analysis of the entire book of Hebrews (although see [here](https://ichthys.com/Hebrews-Home-Page.htm)), chapter 9 specifically of Hebrews can be broken down as follows: Hebrews 9:1-15 contrasts the sacrifices of the Earthly Sanctuary with the sacrifice (singular) of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The sacrifices in the Earthly Sanctuary cleansed only the outside, but the blood of Christ won for Him entrance into the Heavenly Most Holy Place once for all (verse 12), and allows us to cleanse not only our exteriors, but also our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God (verse 14). We are now under a new covenant (verse 15). Hebrews 9:16-24 speaks of the role of blood in covenants. We are told that these sorts of covenants are sealed with blood (verses 16-18). Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (verse 22). In the prior sacrifices, the earthly tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies had to be cleansed with the blood of calves (verse 21), but the heavenly things had to be purified with better sacrifices than these (verse 23). For the blood of Christ was not payment to enter a sanctuary made with human hands, but rather payment to enter heaven itself (verse 24). Hebrews 9:25-28 makes it clear that unlike the prior ritual sacrifices that had to be offered again and again, Christ does not enter heaven to offer himself repeatedly, since "He appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (verse 26). When He returns again, it will not be to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him (verse 28). --- #### The Greek adverb *hapax* To better explain the "once" in Hebrews 9:27---part of the wider statement "people are destined to die once"---we will primarily be focusing in on the last few verses of the chapter (Hebrews 9:25-28), and even more specifically, the usage of the Greek adverb *hapax* ([ἅπαξ](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g530/esv/mgnt/0-1/)), which is the Greek word that many versions translate as "once" here. Put simply, sometimes this adverb can be used in the sense of "one time, as opposed to more times", but sometimes it also takes on the meaning "once for all". This second meaning has overtones of completion and finality: in this case, the adverb is modifying something that has been rendered done in such a way that it will be perpetually valid, and never need repetition. So, for example, contrast these uses: - Last month I crashed my car once (i.e., one time, as opposed to more times) when someone cut me off in traffic. Thankfully, the damage from that accident was quite minor, but then I dented the bumper again yesterday when the power steering suddenly stopped working when I was backing up! - Unlike normal people, Johnny only ever seems to total cars when he crashes them. While the rest of us get into fender-benders occasionally, Johnny crashes a car once (i.e., once for all), and then that's it; the car will inevitably be toast after that. This is why Johnny's car insurance rates are sky high. See the difference? I quite like the analogy of a single fender-bender (the "single time" meaning) vs. totaling a car completely (the "once for all" meaning), as I think it illustrates the differing concepts well. --- #### The Greek adverb *hapax* Before we look at how *hapax* is used in Hebrews 9 specifically, let's look at a couple other examples from scripture to make sure we understand the difference between these two meanings of *hapax*. 2 Corinthians 11:25 is a good example of a verse where the sense of the *hapax* is most certainly "one time, as opposed to more times" rather than "once for all". Since why would Paul be beaten with rods three times, shipwrecked three times, but then be stoned once for all rather than stoned one time? Contextually, that would make no sense. Jude 1:3 is a good example of a verse where the sense of the *hapax* is most certainly "once for all" rather than "one time, as opposed to more times". Since how could the faith be delivered unto the saints multiple times? What would that even mean? --- #### The Greek adverb *hapax* in Hebrews 9 In Hebrews 9, the Greek adverb *hapax* shows up in verses 7, 26, 27, and 28. As in all translation, we determine how to translate primarily based upon context. In Hebrews 9:7, we must translate the *hapax* as "one time" rather "once for all" because Hebrews 9:25 says that the high priest entered the inner room every year (Greek: κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν), not just one time and then never again. In Hebrew's 9:26, we ought to translate that *hapax* as "once for all", since it is obviously being contrasted with the "often" or "frequently" (Greek: [πολλάκις](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4178/esv/mgnt/0-1/)) of Hebrews 9:25. So too in Hebrews 9:28---the sense is still clearly contrasting the effectiveness and finality of Christ's sacrifice with the feebleness of the repeated sacrifices of the Law. This means the *hapax* of Hebrews 9:27 is set directly parallel with the "once for all" usage of Hebrews 9:28. In fact, the verses begin with with "**27** καὶ καθ᾽ ὅσον... **28** οὕτως καὶ", which translates to something like "**27** and just as... **28** so also". We thus conclude that the sense of the *hapax* in Hebrews 9:27 *must* be "once for all" rather than being "one time". --- ##### The importance of the "once for all" concept as it pertains to Christ's work completely forces our hand in translating Hebrews 9:26, 28 This latter part of Hebrews 9 is not the only place the finality and completeness of Christ's work is clearly emphasized in scripture. For example, see: - 1 Peter 3:18 - Romans 6:10 - Hebrews 7:27 - Hebrews 9:12 - Hebrews 10:10 1 Peter 3:18 is using *hapax*, but the rest are actually using the Greek adverb *ephapax* ([ἐφάπαξ](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2178/esv/mgnt/0-1/)). This different word has two meanings: - "At once" in the sense of "at the same time" (you can see this usage in 1 Corinthians 15:6). - "Once for all", just like *hapax*. That second meaning of *ephapax* is in view in Hebrews 9:12. Even though this verse is using this different adverb in Greek, it means the same thing as the *hapax* in Hebrews 9:26, 27, 28. I just hadn't mentioned before in our discussion of *hapax* in Hebrews 9 since it is in fact a different word. At any rate, all of this is to show how it is irresponsible to take Hebrews 9:26 and Hebrews 9:28 as anything other than "once for all". We *must* translate that way, if we care at all about interpreting scripture with scripture, as we should. And if the *hapax* Hebrews 9:28 must be translated as "once for all", then so too must the *hapax* in Hebrews 9:27, as we covered just previously. --- ##### So Hebrews 9:27 does not contradict the idea of resuscitation, QED The reason why all this is important is as follows: - If the *hapax* in Hebrews 9:27 means "one time", any cases of resuscitation would contradict this verse. Since then those people die not one time, but more than one time. - But if the *hapax* in Hebrews 9:27 means "once for all", then there is no contradiction whatsoever. Because it is a true statement that all humans die once for all (since even those people who are brought back to life for a time will still face eventual permanent physical death), then Hebrews 9:27 does not contradict the idea of resuscitation in the least. <!-- Footnote List --> <div class="footnotes"> <ol> </ol> </div> --- #### Outline - [Q: Could you explain more how all this works with respect to the finality of death?](#4) - [Luke 16 - on the chasm of separation](#5) - [Hebrews 9:27 - Perhaps speaking in terms of "types of death" was a poor choice on my part](#6) - [A better way to talk about it, perhaps: focusing on the vocabulary and context of Hebrews 9:27 more](#7) - [Hebrew 9:27's wider context](#8) - [The Greek adverb *hapax*](#9) - [The Greek adverb *hapax* in Hebrews 9](#10) - [The importance of the "once for all" concept as it pertains to Christ's work completely forces our hand in translating Hebrews 9:26, 28](#11) - [So Hebrews 9:27 does not contradict the idea of resuscitation, QED](#12)