The Narrow Path Ministries

Every futurist that I have ever encountered (including myself a few years back) believes that 1 Corinthians 15:54 is to occur in the future at some time. I would dare say that it is related to "their" end time scenario of time and history at the final parousia of Christ. Here is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:54:

1 Corinthians 15:54 - So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Paul is quoting from Isaiah 25:8...

Isaiah 25:8 - He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

Isaiah tells us when this happens in the very next verse...

Isaiah 25:9 - And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

This is the day of salvation, unless "he will save us" and "in his salvation" does not refer to salvation... Some futurists have validly pointed out that this passage might be referring to the parousia event. Fine. I will go with that too.

[From the futurist point of view]

If Isaiah spoke of conversion as being the day of salvation, then why would Paul express the death being followed up in victory as a future event? And if the Apostle Paul was saved when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15:54, then death WAS swallowed up in victory – that is if Isaiah was referring to conversion as being the day of salvation.

If Isaiah spoke of the parousia event as the day of salvation, then salvation has not come to anyone. We are yet in our sins. If the Apostle Paul was NOT saved when he wrote the above text, then I guess he wouldn't be saved until the future parousia event – that is if Isaiah was referring to the parousia as being the day of salvation.

In other words, futurism has a contradiction. It can’t be both – at least not in their paradigm.

[From the preterist perspective]

First of all, let me state that I can only speak for myself. I am fairly certain that most preterists believe that salvation had not been “fully” completed until 70 AD. Sure enough, the promise of the Spirit had sealed believers unto that day. This is why we take Scriptures like these two very seriously:

Luke 21:28 – And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

And…

Hebrews 9:28 – So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

It also seems that those first century pre-parousia believers for looking for the future hope of "Christ in you" to be realized.

Colossians 1:27 - To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Futurists already believe they are indwelled by Christ at conversion. So it seems that a simliar contradiction is showing itself.

We believe that the saints from 30AD to 70AD needed to wait for the parousia coming to finalize all things. Everything arrived in fullness. The old covenant economy was obliterated with no trace left. All that remained was the new covenant in Christ. The kingdom was fully here. This is why I believe some could fall away and is also why there were many warnings to that effect.

Isaiah 25:8-9 is VERY CLEAR that "death is swallowed up in victory" at the day of salvation. Now, whether you consider this the moment an individual trusts Christ as being the day of salvation (as I do TODAY), then Isaiah 25:8's "death" is swallowed up in victory because Jesus Christ IS the victory. We are victorious in Christ.

Now, if you are saying that today's individual doesn't get that death swallowed up until the parousia event (which futurists are quite adamant about), then according to Isaiah 25:8-9, the day of salvation has NOT YET ARRIVED. Millions of Christians are still in THEIR sins and awaiting redemption.

TODAY is very different. The parousia is past. Upon the moment of conversion death is swallowed up in victory…BECAUSE THE DEATH BEING SWALLOWED UP IS DEATH DUE TO SIN, NOT PHYSICAL DEATH.

Why is it that we refuse to associate immortality with the Gospel? Has the TV series "The Highlander" defined our biblical definitions for us?

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Your points are very confusing. Just because death isn't swallowed up in victory completely yet, doesn't mean I'm still in my sins. "Salvation" in the Old Testament often refers to "deliverance". It's true that Jesus Christ has given us the victory through the cross, but the victory is still progressing. It has not reached its full completion yet. I still sin. I still weep. I will still die. But I'm saved, too. But the fullness of that salvation will happen at the resurrection when Christ returns bodily to the planet.

I don't understand why this is so difficult. Paul was writing about a future event (then shall be brought to pass the saying "Death is swallowed up..."

You're saying that Death was swallowed up when we got saved. Paul was already saved at this point and received a "spiritual" victory in Jesus Christ. However, Paul still makes the case that death has not fully been swallowed up yet. Why wouldn't He just say, "Death will be swallowed up when the Old Covenant is officially wiped out!"..? Paul makes no comments about anything significant happening when God judges the Jews. In fact, Paul never really mentions anything that important about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. I'm sure he knew that what Jesus prophesied would be soon taking place... but why would he barely mention it if it is so important?

Also, I mention 2 Corinthians 3:11 in the other thread. I don't think you ever answered my point.


Here we see that the Jewish system is passing away... Paul mentions nothing about anything special happening when it does pass away.. but he only mentions the fact that it was passing away. He emphasizes that the New Covenant that remains is much more glorious. He makes no effort to expound on the spiritual significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in any of his writings.

Hi Mellontes,

I believe that Rich is correct in saying that Paul does not focus on the significance of the destruction of the Jews—unless, of course, that destruction is the parousia of which he so frequently does write. I agree also with Rich that that parousia has never been convincingly demonstrated (to my knowledge) to be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem, but is merely an assumption that informs all full-preterist hermeneutics.

I also agree that your arguments are confusing. I find all the arguments of the full-preterists at this forum to be confusing. My impression is that some of them would say that this is because I am spiritually dull and have not gotten the revelation about this yet. I am more than willing to acquiesce to the possibility of my being spiritually dull, and I also know there are many passages in scripture that are obscure to me, and about which I have yet to receive personal revelation. However, the mere claim that when one has received "the insight" he will then embrace a particular viewpoint is not self-validating. Correct biblical viewpoints, in my experience, do require the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to be fully grasped. However, things that are true can also be demonstrated to be true by coherent biblical exegesis. This is where I see a glaring lack in the claims of the full-preterists who post here.

I am no rocket scientist, but I am usually competent to follow the logic of a coherent biblical presentation. However, I consistently lose the thread of logic early on in my reading of the full-preterist postings here. This confuses me. If the view is correct, why can't anything resembling a logical, understandable, exegetical case be presented in its favor?

RICHinCHRIST wrote:Your points are very confusing. Just because death isn't swallowed up in victory completely yet, doesn't mean I'm still in my sins. "Salvation" in the Old Testament often refers to "deliverance". It's true that Jesus Christ has given us the victory through the cross, but the victory is still progressing. It has not reached its full completion yet. I still sin. I still weep. I will still die. But I'm saved, too. But the fullness of that salvation will happen at the resurrection when Christ returns bodily to the planet.

Rich,

I guess I should ask what "death" is swallowed up in victory? If you think physical death, then we are going to be miles apart. I think sin death because this is what redemption is all about. Salvation is deliverance. It depends upon what the deliverance is from. Is Isaiah speaking of deliverance from sin or just some other kind of trial. Is the day of salvation related to salvation from sin or something else? I would say sin because of the usage of death being swallowed up in victory and in connection with Paul's usage as well. I find it very odd that you "sort of" say the same thing as us. Listen to what you said: "But the fullness of that salvation will happen at the resurrection when Christ returns bodily to the planet." Aside from your bodily return, you also agree that salvation is not complete until the parousia. We say the same thing. By the way, you ASSERTED the bodily return. You have not proven that assertion from Scripture. So how come when we say that salvation wasn't complete until the parousia, we are wrong, but when you say salvation isn't complete until the parousia, you are right? I noticed that you said "I will still die." Is their a time when humans will not die? And if not, why would you even say that? But I gather that you believe you are not fully saved, right? Because you still believe something else must happen...

RICHinCHRIST wrote:I don't understand why this is so difficult. Paul was writing about a future event (then shall be brought to pass the saying "Death is swallowed up..."

Yes, he was. The parousia was in HIS future. But Christ promised to return in their generation remember? You know, the end of all things is at hand sort of stuff that is everywhere in the NT. But the parousia is not in our future.

RICHinCHRIST wrote:You're saying that Death was swallowed up when we got saved.

Actually, I don't think I give an opinion on the Isaiah verse. I do believe that TODAY (post-parousia) once we get saved that death is swallowed up in victory.. And I noticed that on another recent thread you said I believe it was in 70 AD. TODAY, and I emphasize TODAY, when we get saved death is swallowed up in victory because Jesus Christ is that victory.

RICHinCHRIST wrote:Paul was already saved at this point and received a "spiritual" victory in Jesus Christ. However, Paul still makes the case that death has not fully been swallowed up yet. Why wouldn't He just say, "Death will be swallowed up when the Old Covenant is officially wiped out!"..? Paul makes no comments about anything significant happening when God judges the Jews. In fact, Paul never really mentions anything that important about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. I'm sure he knew that what Jesus prophesied would be soon taking place... but why would he barely mention it if it is so important?

I completely disagree. The Thessalonian epistles are a great example of that! Especially 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8. But unfortunately, like Steve said, the parousia is assumed to be in our yet future. And if Paul did write the book of Hebrews as many futurist scholars believe? And if you really do believe that Paul knew that what Jesus prophesied would be soon taking place, why do you ignore it? Soon means soon. 1 Corinthains 10:11 talks about the end of the ages. Your constant desire to have the Jewish apostles explain things in Western terms is so unnecessry. Luke's explanation of the Olivet Dicourse is in Gentile terminology (to make it easy for folks like you) but it is flat out rejected as having anything to do the THE Parousia event.

RICHinCHRIST wrote:Also, I mention 2 Corinthians 3:11 in the other thread. I don't think you ever answered my point.


Here we see that the Jewish system is passing away... Paul mentions nothing about anything special happening when it does pass away.. but he only mentions the fact that it was passing away. He emphasizes that the New Covenant that remains is much more glorious. He makes no effort to expound on the spiritual significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in any of his writings.

Must have missed it . Sorry. I have about 50 things that haven't been addressed...I am glad that you realize that the old system was in process of passing away. Hebrews is especially clear that it was ready to vanish away, although it was written several years after Calvary. Jerusalem with the temple still standing and the hundreds of thousands of Jews who still kept the law (even though it was made void in Christ) represented the continuing old covenant economy. As for your assertion that Paul never expounded on the temple destruction, I think you are grasping for straws. The end of the age is connected to that event. What did Peter say regarding all the letters of Paul? Now, I know that you don't accept 2 Peter 3 as being related to a first century event, but to say that Paul never spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem because you don't belive the at hand timing, is not a good thing to do. I am sure you will say the same thing to me... So, what did Peter say?

2 Peter 3:15-16 - And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in ALL his epistles speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I realize you view this as a yet future event but I don't see how you could if you accept the definition for "elements" (Strong's 4747) as given by Paul in Galatians 4:3,9; Colossians 2:8,20; Hebrews 5:12.

And something quite apt. Does Peter say that the letters were being written to YOU ("hath written unto you") in the 21st century or to those first century saints?

steve wrote:Hi Mellontes,

I believe that Rich is correct in saying that Paul does not focus on the significance of the destruction of the Jews—unless, of course, that destruction is the parousia of which he so frequently does write. I agree also with Rich that that parousia has never been convincingly demonstrated (to my knowledge) to be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem, but is merely an assumption that informs all full-preterist hermeneutics.

I also agree that your arguments are confusing. I find all the arguments of the full-preterists at this forum to be confusing. My impression is that some of them would say that this is because I am spiritually dull and have not gotten the revelation about this yet. I am more than willing to acquiesce to the possibility of my being spiritually dull, and I also know there are many passages in scripture that are obscure to me, and about which I have yet to receive personal revelation. However, the mere claim that when one has received "the insight" he will then embrace a particular viewpoint is not self-validating. Correct biblical viewpoints, in my experience, do require the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to be fully grasped. However, things that are true can also be demonstrated to be true by coherent biblical exegesis. This is where I see a glaring lack in the claims of the full-preterists who post here.

I am no rocket scientist, but I am usually competent to follow the logic of a coherent biblical presentation. However, I consistently lose the thread of logic early on in my reading of the full-preterist postings here. This confuses me. If the view is correct, why can't anything resembling a logical, understandable, exegetical case be presented in its favor?

Hi Steve,

I think a lot of the difficulties encountered on both sides are the definitions. I think we have got to go all the way back to the beginnings to get our framework right. If the basics of the foundation are skewed then so will everything afterwards be skewed.

For example (and I will state just two), when man was told that he would die on the day he ate, it isn't believed to be on the day he ate. Apparently his eyes would be opened on that same day (and they were) but somehow his dying wouldn't take place for several hundreds of years later. We see what we want to see. Because we are so oriented to physical death as the curse for sin, we must push it off into the future. And since physical death is assumed to be the result of sin, it is read that way all through the NT, as well. But isn't it strange that all Christians still die? I thought Jesus paid the penalty for sin for us! I guess not...And this is just one example. Death by sin is separation from God, not physical death. This one concept alone needs to be examined thoroughly.

The other is dispensational in nature but Rich touched upon the same kind of principles. Dispensationalists believe the following verses will be literally and physically fulfilled one day in our future:

Isaiah 11:6-7 - The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 11:10 speaks about this same day...

Isaiah 11:10 - And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

The Apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 from Romans 15:12 in regard to the Gentiles coming into the faith IN HIS DAY AND TIME FRAME. Paul is expressing the present fulfillment of that portion from Isaiah THEN. Dispensationalists cannot accept what Paul said because of their millennial paradigm.

The reason they believe the literal, physical fulfillment of those animals acting like that is based upon what they believe the curse of sin did in the original garden story. More skewed foundational stuff.

We jump into revelation with all of its symbols and we haven't even got the beginning sorted out...

Oh, yeah...my personal favorite. Somehow earth means planet Earth. That is really contemporary analysis. Another is the end of the "world" meaning planet again...

Gotta go. It is past my bed time...