Friday, August 9, 2019

The Second Death (Part Three)

Literal or figurative?

Thus far in this study I’ve argued that the second death/lake of fire is to be understood literally, and that every human who is going to be “injured by the second death” and “cast into the lake of fire” will be destroyed (and must remain dead until the time comes for them to be saved). And insofar as the dead are not alive (and thus are not conscious), the lake of fire can be understood as the means by which the lives of everyone who must be cast into it are temporarily “put on hold.”

In contrast with this understanding of the scriptural expressions “second death” and “lake of fire,” it’s more commonly believed that one or both of these expressions should be understood in a non-literal way. However, in accord with the rules of communication, I believe we ought to try and understand Scripture according to the normal, plain, ordinary and straightforward meaning of what is being said unless we have good reason to believe that figures of speech have been employed, or that the speaker/author intended a word or expression to be understood in a way other than how it would normally or ordinarily be understood (this method of scripture interpretation is sometimes referred to as the “grammatical-historical method”). This is an approach to scripture interpretation that, while recognizing and appreciating figures of speech, begins from the “starting point” that scripture should be understood in accord with the plain, ordinary, straightforward meaning of words and statements unless certain contextual considerations dictate otherwise, and make such an interpretation unlikely or untenable. Whenever this method of scriptural interpretation is abandoned (whether fully or in part), the imagination, preferences, conjecture and suppositions of the reader inevitably ends up becoming the only “rule” of interpretation.[1]

Not everyone, of course, would agree with what’s said above. For example, in part one of his “Lake of Fire” series, the late L. Ray Smith remarked as follows concerning what John wrote in the first verse of the Book of Revelation:

“…God plainly tells us in chapter one, verse one, that an angel "signified" this whole "Revelation of Jesus Christ" contained in this book. He "SYMBOLIZED" it, for that is what "signifies" means--to make known by signs, and signs are symbols. Therefore it can't be literal.” https://bible-truths.com/lake1.html

Although I have much respect for L. Ray Smith as a defender of certain important scriptural truths (such as the absolute sovereignty of God and the salvation of all), I think that his bias against the grammatical-historical method of interpretation caused him to make a rather easily avoidable blunder here (I refer to his blunder as “easily avoidable” only because a quick consultation with a concordance would, I think, lead one to a completely different conclusion). In his article, “The Book of Revelation: Literal or Figurative?”[2] Martin Zender demonstrates how the term translated “signify” in Rev. 1:1 does not at all mean what Mr. Smith thought it did:

It is almost universally pointed out that, since the root of “signify” is “sign,” then the word must mean, “to make known by signs or symbols.” If that’s the case, then the book contains not a single literal element; it’s all signs and figures. But if Revelation is all signs and figures, meaning becomes subjective. Everyone reading—even so-called experts—has a different opinion, a different slant, a different view. The result: a colorful but mystifying puzzle; THE OPPOSITE OF REVELATION.

But what if the word “signifies” does not, in either scriptural or common English usage, mean, “to make known by signs?” Putting aside common English usage for the moment, let’s agree that scriptural usage is the only way to safely define a word the way the writers understood it, and therefore, the way God meant it. Is there another place in Scripture where this word “signifies” occurs? Thankfully, there is.

Acts 25:26-27. Festus to King Agrippa concerning Paul, a prisoner of Rome:

“Wherefore I led him before you, and especially before you, king Agrippa, so that, the examination occurring, I should have something to write. For it seems to me irrational, sending a prisoner, not also to signify the charges against him.”

Festus planned to detail Paul’s charges to Caesar by means of a letter. The only “signs” involved here would be the letters of the alphabet. The common meaning of the word signify is, “to make known,” and the word in this context in Acts fits that definition perfectly. Even our dictionary defines signify as: “To make known.”

Can you imagine Festus writing Caesar with a puzzle to decipher? Imagine him drawing pictures, or inventing word games, and telling Caesar: “I am not going to make known to you, specifically, what Paul’s charges are, dear Emperor—for what fun would that be? Try my little word game! See if you can interpret my hand-drawn pictures! I want you to guess what the charges may be against this man!”

I don’t really think Caesar was the enigma-loving, “signs” type. And neither do I think that Festus was so stupid to have mystified the emperor with signs.

Another sure way to know that this book is more than unending signs is: it contains signs. Three distinct signs are called so by name:

the woman clothed in the sun (12:1)
the dragon (12:3)
the seven messengers (15:1)

There are many figures of speech in the Unveiling, and three signs. They all mean something. In the three signs above, we should not look for a literal woman, a literal dragon, or seven literal messengers; these are what John saw; the signs are figures. But the things that the figures represent are literal, and are meant to be looked for. The explanations of figures are always literal. This is how God writes. Without knowing this, there can be no revelation, for you, in the book of Revelation.

Thus, it would seem that L. Ray Smith unwittingly based his interpretation of the entire Book of Revelation on an erroneous premise concerning the meaning of the word “signify.” As noted earlier, had Smith simply consulted his concordance and looked at how this word was used elsewhere in Scripture (see also John 21:18-19 and Acts 11:27-28), he might have avoided this particular mistake.

Later on in the same article, Mr. Smith wrote the following:

Understand this! Some think that by accepting the Scriptures as they are given (in the case of Revelation that means AS SYMBOLS), that somehow this "spiritualizes away" the teaching. What? It is the "spiritual" aspect of these symbols that IS THE REAL THING; THE REAL UNDERSTANDING! Physical things "pass away" whereas spiritual things are eternal! The very FACT that this book is written in "symbols" is proof positive that the understanding of them is SPIRITUAL and not physical or literal.

The first point that needs to be made here is that Smith is assuming a false dichotomy between that which is “spiritual” and that which is “physical” and “literal.” Smith is even more emphatic elsewhere concerning the supposed distinction between that which is “spiritual” and that which is “physical” and “literal:

“Can we not get it into our heads that GOD IS SPIRIT and that all He is building and creating is SPIRITUAL. We will have SPIRITUAL bodies, we are SPIRITUAL temples, we are to produce SPIRITUAL fruit, we will live in SPIRITUAL Jerusalem, in SPIRITUAL Zion, in SPIRITUAL heaven, as members of a SPIRITUAL kingdom, Headed by a SPIRIT GOD! The physical and natural will all pass away. The two laws of thermodynamics are at work on every piece of matter in the physical universe. EVERYTHING PHYSICAL is growing older, colder, and darker-it will all come to an end one day.”

Smith is all over the place here, lumping lots of different things together as “spiritual” in order to support his overall position concerning the supposed non-literal nature of the fire and sulfur referred to in Revelation. First, he correctly affirms the fact that “God is spirit.” But is God a literal spirit or merely a figurative spirit? Does God literally exist, or is God simply a figure, or symbol, for something else? Obviously, God is a literal spirit, and literally exists. Does this mean God is “physical?” No, but neither does it mean that God is “spiritual” in the same sense that Smith thinks other things are “spiritual.” Nor does it mean that things that are physical can't also be “spiritual” (I should also add that, in contrast with Smith's last claim, Scripture nowhere reveals or suggests that “everything physical” is eventually going to come to an end). 

What about the “spiritual bodies” that Smith goes on to mention next? Let’s consider the body that Jesus Christ currently possesses (i.e., the incorruptible, glorified body he has had since he was vivified by God on the third day after his death). Is Jesus Christ’s body – i.e., the body with which he ascended from earth to heaven – a literal body or a figurative body? Although it could be accurately described as a “spiritual body” (in accord with what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:44-46), it’s just as literally a body as your body or mine. Christ's body was perfected when he was vivified, but he didn't stop having a body. In Luke 24:39-43, it’s clear that Christ’s body was just as physical and tangible after his resurrection as it was before he died. Clearly, Christ’s human body underwent a radical change and gained amazing new properties and capabilities, but Christ still had (and has) an essentially human form. Even with his body’s new capabilities, it’s just as tangible and spatially present now as it was before he died. 

In the same way, when our human body is delivered (Rom. 8:23) and conformed to the body of Christ’s glory (Phil. 3:21), we’ll still be essentially human and essentially embodied beings. When applied to a person or thing, the adjective “spiritual” (pneumatikos) does not mean that the person or thing to which it’s applied lacks any physical qualities/characteristics. Things that are completely physical – and even perishable – in nature are described as “spiritual” (e.g., the food and drink that the Israelites ate and drank in the wilderness; see 1 Cor. 10:3). In many cases, the adjective “spiritual” (pneumatikos) seems to express the idea of something’s being directly created, influenced, or controlled by spirit (as opposed to its being directly created, influenced or controlled by “flesh”). A “spiritual body” is neither a non-literal body nor an “immaterial body” that can’t be seen or touched; it’s simply a body that is dominated by, and under the full influence of, spirit. Moreover, the body we’ll have after we’ve been glorified shouldn’t be understood as completely distinct from our present body; it will be the same human body (only it will have been “delivered,” as affirmed by Paul in Rom. 8:23). Notice the little word “it” in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (it is sown in corruption; it is roused in incorruption,” etc.). What Paul had in mind was clearly one body that will be undergoing a change (rather than being completely replaced). Just as Christ’s body underwent a change or transformation in the tomb (rather than being replaced) when he was roused from among the dead by God, so will our bodies undergo the same sort of change.

In contrast with Christ’s literal body (as well as our literal body), we know that the company of the saints that are figuratively referred to by Paul as the “body of Christ” (or “the ecclesia which is his body”) do not constitute the literal body of Christ. But the figurative “body of Christ” referred to in Paul’s letters is, of course, comprised of physical beings who occupy time and space (and this will, I believe, remain true even after we’re vivified and receive the same kind of incorruptible, spiritual body that Christ currently possesses). Smith goes on to say that believers are “spiritual temples.” In 1 Pet. 2:5, Peter told the saints to whom he wrote that they were “living stones” who were “being built up a spiritual house.” Obviously, Peter wasn’t saying that the “house” which they were being built up as was a literal house (any more than he was saying that they were literally “living stones”). But the “spiritual house” that Peter had in mind here did not consist of non-physical beings. Nor did it consist of figures of speech. It consisted of physical beings with literal bodies who occupied time and space. Thus, Smith's assumption that something cannot be both “spiritual” and literal/physical (or cannot be inseparably connected with that which is literal and physical) is simply false. 

In addition to Smith's false dichotomy between that which is “spiritual” and that which is “physical” and “literal,” what Smith wrote in the above paragraph reflects a certain degree of confusion on his part that caused him to misunderstand much of what’s being communicated in the Book of Revelation. The fact is that all of the figurative language and “symbols” that we find used in Revelation point to literal things and events that exist (or will exist) in time and space. This isn’t just my own personal opinion, either. Whenever we’re provided with an inspired interpretation of something that was symbolically represented in a vision seen by John, that which is being symbolically represented in the vision is always something literal. That is, it is always to be understood as something which exists – or will exist – in time and space (and which could, in that sense, be considered “physical”).

For example, in Rev. 17:12 we’re told that the “ten horns” of a certain seven-headed “scarlet beast” are “ten kings.” Are the ten horns to be understood as literal horns of a literal, seven-headed beast? No. But the ten kings that these horns are implied to figuratively represent are most certainly literal, flesh-and-blood kings that will exist in time and space. And the “woman” who is seen riding the seven-headed beast is said to represent “the great city which has a kingdom over the kings of the earth” (Rev. 17:18). And these literal ten kings will be carrying out God’s sovereign plan by playing a role in the destruction of the literal city that is symbolically represented by the “woman” (Rev. 17:16-18).

Another example of symbols being explained as representing literal things is found early on in the book. In Rev. 1:12 and 16 we read that John is given a vision of Jesus Christ standing in the midst of “seven golden lampstands” and holding “seven stars” in his right hand. Are we to understand these “seven golden lampstands” and “seven stars” as literal, physical things? No. But that which they are explained by Christ as representing most assuredly are actual entities that exist (or will exist) in time and space. In Rev. 1:20 Christ went on to explain that the seven stars in his hand “are the messengers of the seven ecclesias,” and that the seven lampstands “are the seven ecclesias.”  The seven ecclesias symbolized by the seven golden lampstands must be understood as literal and physical entities (insofar as ecclesias are constituted by real, flesh-and-blood human beings). And whether we understand the seven messengers as human or non-human beings, they can be understood as being just as literal (and just as existent in time and space) as the messenger at whose feet John fell (Rev. 22:8-9) or Christ himself.

It must be kept in mind that in these and other similar examples we know for a fact that what John saw represented literal realities that occupy time and space (for John is provided with an inspired explanation of what he saw). But are there examples in Revelation where the things and events that John saw didn’t symbolically represent something else? That is, are there examples where John saw something in a vision that can reasonably be understood as a depiction of a literal thing or event that either exists now or will exist in the future? I think so. Here are some examples of things perceived by John that (1) are not explained/interpreted as meaning something else, and which (2) we have no good reason to think are, in fact, symbolic/figurative representations of something else that is literal:

·         Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:12-18).

·         God’s heavenly throne, the four animals “in the center of the throne and around the throne,” and the twenty-four elders seated on twenty-four thrones around God’s throne (Rev. 4:2-6, 10; 5:5; 11:16; etc.).

·         Various angels/messengers perceived by John (e.g., Rev. 7:1-2, 11; 8:2-6; 10:1-10; 22:8-10; etc.).

·         The supernatural locusts which shall be tormenting people for five months (Rev. 9:3-10).

·         The two hundred million troops of the supernatural cavalry by which a third of mankind will be killed (Rev. 9:16-19).

·         The “temple of God” which John was given a reed to measure, and the court outside the temple which he was told not to measure (Rev. 11:1-2).

·         The “hundred forty-four thousand” Israelites who will be “standing on mount Zion” (Rev. 14:1-5).

·         The fire which we’re told is going to descend from God out of heaven and devour those who, after the thousand years are finished, will “surround the citadel of the saints and the beloved city” (Rev. 20:7-9).

·         The “new heaven and new earth” and the “holy city, new Jerusalem,” which will be “descending out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21:1-2, 9-21).

·         The “river of life, resplendent as crystal, issuing out of the throne of God and the Lambkin,” and the “log of life” on either side of the river that will be “producing twelve fruits” (Rev. 22:1-2).

Now, it’s true that people have attempted to interpret the things referred to in these and other passages as symbols of other things (for example, some so-called “prophecy experts” have claimed that the two hundred million troops described in Rev. 9 symbolize the Chinese army!). However, unlike the inspired explanations of the “ten horns” or the “woman” of Rev. 17 (for example), we simply have no good reason to think that the various interpretations that have been given to the things referred to in the above verses are at all valid, or that one is at all justified in seeking to interpret them as symbols of something else entirely. And this, I believe, includes the lake of fire.

In John’s first reference to the lake of fire, we read the following:

And I perceived the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered to do battle with Him Who is sitting on the horse and with His army. And the wild beast is arrested, and with it the false prophet who does the signs in its sight, by which he deceives those getting the emblem of the wild beast, and those worshiping its image. Living, the two were cast into the lake of fire burning with sulfur. And the rest were killed with the blade which is coming out of the mouth of Him Who is sitting on the throne. And all the birds are satisfied with their flesh.  Revelation 19:19-20

Why are we told that the “wild beast” and “false prophet” are “living” when they’re “cast into the lake of fire burning with sulfur?” Answer: John is contrasting the fate of these two individuals with that of everyone else in their company (i.e., the “kings of the earth and their armies”). Among all those who are to be “gathered to do battle with Him Who is sitting on the horse and with His army,” it is only the “wild beast” and “false prophet” who aren’t going to be “killed with the blade which is coming out of the mouth of Him Who is sitting on the throne.”

The next reference to the lake of fire is in Revelation 20:10 (I’ll include verses 7-9 for context):

And whenever the thousand years should be finished, Satan will be loosed out of his jail. And he will be coming out to deceive all the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to be mobilizing them for battle, their number being as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and surround the citadel of the saints and the beloved city. And fire descended from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also. And they shall be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons.

It should be noted that, irrespective of how one understands the nature of the lake of fire referred to in these passages, it is clearly something that will be in existence before the “thousand years” of Satan’s imprisonment begin (and will thus exist more than a thousand years before the “new heaven and new earth” are created). Not only is it clear that the “wild beast” and “false prophet” will be cast into the lake of fire before the thousand years of Satan’s imprisonment begin, but it’s further evident that they will still be in the lake of fire when, after the thousand years are finished, Satan is subsequently cast into it as well.

Now, based on the prophetic background of the event being described in Rev. 20:6-9 (i.e., the mobilization and destruction of “Gog and Magog”), it’s reasonable to conclude that the fire being referred to in Rev. 20:9 will, in fact, be literal fire. The original Jewish readers of Rev. 20:6-9 would’ve likely understood this passage as a more succinct description of an event that had already been foretold by the prophet Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 38, we read of a similar confederation of nations (led by someone named “Gog,” who is said to be of “the land of Magog”) which attempts to attack Israel. However, these nations are said to be supernaturally destroyed by God before they’re able to carry out their evil plan. Here is how their destruction is described in Ezekiel 38:18-23 (ESV):

But on that day, the day that Gog shall come against the land of Israel, declares the Lord God, my wrath will be roused in my anger. For in my jealousy and in my blazing wrath I declare, On that day there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. The fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field and all creeping things that creep on the ground, and all the people who are on the face of the earth, shall quake at my presence. And the mountains shall be thrown down, and the cliffs shall fall, and every wall shall tumble to the ground. I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Lord God. Every man's sword will be against his brother. With pestilence and bloodshed I will enter into judgment with him, and I will rain upon him and his hordes and the many peoples who are with him torrential rains and hailstones, fire and sulfur. So I will show my greatness and my holiness and make myself known in the eyes of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

Notice that we’re told that God will rain down “fire and sulfur” upon them. There’s no good reason to deny that the fire and sulfur referred to here will be any less literal than the fire and sulfur which we’re told rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed the inhabitants of these cities (Luke 17:29). And since the event being described in Rev. 20:6-9 can be understood as a summarized account of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the same can be said for the fire referred to in v. 9. And insofar as we have no good reason to deny that the fire of Revelation 20:9 is going to be a literal fire (or that the fire and sulfur of Luke 17:29 was literal fire and sulfur), there is also no good reason to deny that the “fire and sulfur” of Rev. 20:10 will be literal fire and sulfur.

In neither of the above passages, then, do we find any good, contextually-informed reason to understand the “lake of fire” as something other than a literal place into which individuals can be (and will be) “cast.” Some have claimed that a literal lake of fire burning with sulfur is physically impossible, and so must be figurative. However, there is actually nothing physically impossible about an enclosed body of water – or some other liquid – in which (or on which) sulfur is continuously burning. It should also be noted that, even if it were physically impossible (or simply unlikely to occur naturally), God has complete control over his creation and the “laws of physics” according to which it normally operates (such “laws” are simply an expression of his will, and he can “break” or “modify” them as he sees fit). The supposed “physical impossibility” of a lake burning with fire and sulfur is, therefore, no objection to a straight-forward interpretation, and the reader would be perfectly justified in understanding the lake of fire literally.[3]




[1] That holding to this principle does not mean failing to take figures of speech into consideration is clear from the fact that E.W. Bullinger (who held to this so-called “literalist” principle of interpretation) is probably most well-known for having written the most extensive scholarly treatment of figures of speech available today.

[3] It should be noted that a literal lake of fire that is “burning with sulfur” would actually be blue in appearance (as opposed to reddish-orange, as some may be inclined to imagine it).  

No comments:

Post a Comment