All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

[Davidpt]

Jesus taught in parables and stories about the kingdom, its manifestation, and those who would partake. An important aspect (not the entire point) of the Kingdom, its manifestation, and those that would be brought into inherit it, is the destruction of Jerusalem:

• Matthew 8:11-12 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
• Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.
• Matthew 22: 7-10 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
• Luke 21:31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near

The point wasn't that YOU believe the parable has anything to do with the millennium. The point was that when Premil interprets the parable of the minas THROUGH THEIR FRAMEWORK so as to confirm their already held position that its not about the final judgment, but the millennium, you agree, its eisegesis. But for some reason when you interpret the parable through your framework so as to confirm your already position that its not about 70 ad nor the millennium, but the final judgement, its all the sudden not eisegesis. It's quite ironic.



I think looking at surrounding context is the first step in helping to interpret a passage. If the surrounding context helps to interpret the passage, and that interpretation fits in with my subjective framework, then great! If the surrounding context interprets the passage in such a way as to disagree with my subjective framework, then my framework is the problem. not the surrounding context. Cutting out surrounding context that doesn't agree with my framework is eisegesis.

All frameworks have contradictions, its just a matter of what contradictions are you willing to put up with. But What specific contradictions, from the historical context of the gospels being written pre 70ad and not YOUR personal framework, are produced by understanding the parable of the minas in luke 19 as having the destruction of jerusalem in 70ad occur at the same time as the return of the king?



only according to your subjective framework.

You have to yet to explain WHY vs 38-41 are not a part of the context, other than it disagrees with your framework - eisegesis

WHY are vs 38-44 not a part of the same narrative flow as vs 11-37? Verses 11-44 all take place “near Jerusalem” and with the “same crowd”? There is no distinct setting change nor audience change to suggest that 38-44 is all of the sudden not a part of the context. What reason, besides your own personal, subjective framework, are you using to suggest they are not a part of the context?

Matthew 25:14 ¶For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Maybe it’s just me, but Matthew 25:14–30 appears to be essentially the same parable as Luke 19:11–27. Given their similarities, how can you interpret Luke’s version based heavily on its surrounding context—like verse 43—while interpreting Matthew's without any comparable contextual anchor? In Matthew 25, where exactly is the kind of immediate historical backdrop (such as the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction) that you're relying on in Luke? There’s no clear mention, nor even a subtle hint, that places Matthew 25 within a first-century or 70 AD framework.

You clearly have a sharp mind, but in this case, it seems you're leaning too heavily on a hermeneutical method at the expense of spiritual discernment. These parables do not naturally point to the specific historical application you're insisting on. Sound interpretation must be guided not only by contextual analysis, but by the wisdom to recognize when a passage speaks to a broader, more timeless reality than just one historical event.

BTW, my thoughts but not my typical writing style. IOW, chatgpt re-worded some things for me here and there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 25:14 ¶For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Maybe it’s just me, but Matthew 25:14–30 appears to be essentially the same parable as Luke 19:11–27.

I agree 100%.

Given their similarities, how can you interpret Luke’s version based heavily on its surrounding context—like verse 43—while interpreting Matthew's without any comparable contextual anchor? In Matthew 25, where exactly is the kind of immediate historical backdrop (such as the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction) that you're relying on in Luke? There’s no clear mention, nor even a subtle hint, that places Matthew 25 within a first-century or 70 AD framework.

You clearly have a sharp mind, but in this case, it seems you're leaning too heavily on a hermeneutical method at the expense of spiritual discernment. These parables do not naturally point to the specific historical application you're insisting on. Sound interpretation must be guided not only by contextual analysis, but by the wisdom to recognize when a passage speaks to a broader, more timeless reality than just one historical event.

Well said. You make a great point here. He focuses a lot on exegetical principles, but never talks about the most important one, which is spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-16). One thing the Holy Spirit guides us to do is not just look at surrounding verses for possible help in determining the context of a passage, but to also look at other scripture like you have done here with Matthew 25:14-30. I pointed to Matthew 25:31-46 as having similarities and he acted as if it wasn't a legitimate thing to do to look at Matthew 25:31-46 for help in understanding what the parable in Luke 19:11-27 is about because he thinks that is eisegesis and not exegesis. I completely disagree.

The parable clearly is talking about the return of Jesus and about rewards being given to believers at the same time as punishments being given to unbelievers. No such thing happened in 70 AD, so we can rule out the parable having anything to do with 70 AD. He calls this eisegesis, but I call his opinion on that nonsense. Comparing scripture with scripture is exegesis. Of course, not all similar scriptures are necessarily directly related to each other, but it's still something that should be taken into consideration. In this case, there is only one event that involves rewards and punishments being given at the same time when Jesus returns and that's in relation to His future return at the end of the age.

 

[claninja]

Matthew 25:14 ¶For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Maybe it’s just me, but Matthew 25:14–30 appears to be essentially the same parable as Luke 19:11–27. Given their similarities, how can you interpret Luke’s version based heavily on its surrounding context—like verse 43—while interpreting Matthew's without any comparable contextual anchor? In Matthew 25, where exactly is the kind of immediate historical backdrop (such as the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction) that you're relying on in Luke? There’s no clear mention, nor even a subtle hint, that places Matthew 25 within a first-century or 70 AD framework.

You clearly have a sharp mind, but in this case, it seems you're leaning too heavily on a hermeneutical method at the expense of spiritual discernment. These parables do not naturally point to the specific historical application you're insisting on. Sound interpretation must be guided not only by contextual analysis, but by the wisdom to recognize when a passage speaks to a broader, more timeless reality than just one historical event.

BTW, my thoughts but not my typical writing style. IOW, chatgpt re-worded some things for me here and there.

Good stuff here David. Yea, I completely agree, the lesson is the same in each parable:

• For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.

Interestingly enough, this same lesson is also found in regards to the parable of the sower and lesson of the lamp in Luke 8:18.

That being said, the parables of the Minas/talens contain significant differences and different contexts.

The parable of the Minas is set in the context of Jesus teaching that the kingdom was not to manifest immediately upon arrival to Jerusalem. The parable also vastly differs from that talents in its addition of the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughter. The surrounding context echoes these these thematic points - Jesus arrives to Jerusalem, the kingdom does not immediately appear, the Pharisees reject his kingship, and Jesus prophesies of Jerusalems slaughter as a result.

In contrast, The parable of the talents has a different context, Jesus is on the mount of Olives, and nestles this parable between 2 parables of separation and judgment. Additionally, it completely leaves out the citizens rejecting the king and their eventual slaughter. This should demonstrate that while the parables themselves have similar lessons, the contexts in which they are situated are not the same, resulting in different uses

You would think that if Luke 19:14, 27 (citizens rejecting the king and their slaughter) had nothing to do with the surrounding context of the Pharisees and the prophecy of Jerusalems destruction, but are instead about the final judgement as others insist, then it seems odd that Matthew doesn’t keep these same elements in his use of the parable, no?


i like this chatgpt that thinks I have a sharp mind lol. You may missing my point, and the AI may be missing some context- I agree the parables themselves have a spritual lesson that doesn’t point to a specific historical application -“those who have will be given more…..” , but the context surrounding the parable does have historical application —> Luke 19:28-44.

Can parables with the same spiritual lesson, be used in different contexts to demonstrate different points? I think so.

 

[claninja]

We are just repeating ourselves at this point. Nothing new is being brought to the table. The bottom line here is that you have no reasonable explanation for any rewards having been given when Jesus supposedly returned in 70 AD, so that is a MAJOR weakness in your interpretation of the parable.

Also, scripture does not teach anywhere that Jesus would return more than once. If you think He returned in 70 AD and will return again in the future, then show me where scripture ever teaches Him returning more than once. Scripture only teaches about Him leaving BODILY and returning BODILY and never anything about Him returning non-bodily to deliver God's wrath.

The rewards seem to mostly be described as “eternal life” and “kingdom inheritance, and are often described as “in heaven”. The NT also often portrays the believers as having these now (especially in gospels and epistles of John, and even parts of Paul’s theology) but also possessing these rewards upon the resurrection of the just (Luke 14, Matthew 25).

In simple terms, I think the “righteous” have already inherited eternal life and the kingdom, and then take possession of these when they go to heaven to forever be with the Lord - and think the destruction of Jerusalem and the removal of the old obsolete covenant was, in part, a manifestation of this.

• Daniel prophesied the saints would posses the kingdom after 4 gentile nations
• Several parables associate the gathering of peoples into kingdom/ transition of kingdom to new people in associate with destruction of Jerusalem
• Jesus states “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur” seemingly connecting the destruction of Jerusalem with arrival of the kingdom (Luke) and the coming of the son of man on the clouds
• Many of the epistles claim, the coming was near, without delay, and that it was the end demonstrating they believed it to occur in their lifetime.

Audience relevance, historical context, literary context, and grammatical structures all suggest strong evidence that first century audience thought it was going to occur in generation. My framework is based around that. So when I read the parable of the Minas, I see no problem with closeness at which it links the destruction of Jerusalem with the giving of rewards, especially from a first century audience perspective, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The problem comes in post 70ad - for all frameworks, each having their own sets of issues to deal with and negotiate.

Your example of acts 1:11 is a great example- a straight forward reading implies a literal bodily ascension and literal body descension.

But a straightforward reading of Matthew 24:34 implies the coming of the son of man would occur in within Jesus’ generation.

in the above example, what are we willing to negotiate with? I’m willing to negotiate will exact literalness of Matthew 24:30 and acts 1:11, but not with the grammatical usage and structure of Matthew 24:34. On the other hand, you are not willing to negotiate on the literalness of Matthew 24:30 and acts 1:11, but are absolutely willing to negotiate with the grammatical definition and usage of words and context, like “this generation” in Matthew 24:34.

You’re asking me for a literal understanding of the rewards (eternal life, kingdom inheritance) in a literal instance in 70ad, but that’s not how I negotiate with the text. All I can provide are the teachings from the gospels about the proximity of the destruction of Jerusalem to the gathering into the kingdom, and say “in heaven” is where the rewards are given.

And to that , You can’t seem to provide any grammatical or literary reason as to why vs 38-44 in Luke 19 should be excluded because of how you negotiate with the text.

 

[David in NJ]

Greetings again Scott Downey,

I do not agree with your overall perspective. Please also consider:
Zechariah 14:16–19 (KJV): 16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. 17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Signing out now. Late at night here in Australia. I have stated my position adequately.

Kind regards
Trevor

@Scott Downey

JESUS commands us to BELIEVE every word that God has Spoken = Matthew 4:4

Religion/denominations command us to only believe what they teach from God's word.

SEE the difference???

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The rewards seem to mostly be described as “eternal life” and “kingdom inheritance, and are often described as “in heaven”. The NT also often portrays the believers as having these now (especially in gospels and epistles of John, and even parts of Paul’s theology) but also possessing these rewards upon the resurrection of the just (Luke 14, Matthew 25).

In simple terms, I think the “righteous” have already inherited eternal life and the kingdom, and then take possession of these when they go to heaven to forever be with the Lord - and think the destruction of Jerusalem and the removal of the old obsolete covenant was, in part, a manifestation of this.

• Daniel prophesied the saints would posses the kingdom after 4 gentile nations
• Several parables associate the gathering of peoples into kingdom/ transition of kingdom to new people in associate with destruction of Jerusalem
• Jesus states “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur” seemingly connecting the destruction of Jerusalem with arrival of the kingdom (Luke) and the coming of the son of man on the clouds
• Many of the epistles claim, the coming was near, without delay, and that it was the end demonstrating they believed it to occur in their lifetime.

Audience relevance, historical context, literary context, and grammatical structures all suggest strong evidence that first century audience thought it was going to occur in generation. My framework is based around that. So when I read the parable of the Minas, I see no problem with closeness at which it links the destruction of Jerusalem with the giving of rewards, especially from a first century audience perspective, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The problem comes in post 70ad - for all frameworks, each having their own sets of issues to deal with and negotiate.

Your example of acts 1:11 is a great example- a straight forward reading implies a literal bodily ascension and literal body descension.

But a straightforward reading of Matthew 24:34 implies the coming of the son of man would occur in within Jesus’ generation.

in the above example, what are we willing to negotiate with? I’m willing to negotiate will exact literalness of Matthew 24:30 and acts 1:11, but not with the grammatical usage and structure of Matthew 24:34. On the other hand, you are not willing to negotiate on the literalness of Matthew 24:30 and acts 1:11, but are absolutely willing to negotiate with the grammatical definition and usage of words and context, like “this generation” in Matthew 24:34.

You’re asking me for a literal understanding of the rewards (eternal life, kingdom inheritance) in a literal instance in 70ad, but that’s not how I negotiate with the text. All I can provide are the teachings from the gospels about the proximity of the destruction of Jerusalem to the gathering into the kingdom, and say “in heaven” is where the rewards are given.

And to that , You can’t seem to provide any grammatical or literary reason as to why vs 38-44 in Luke 19 should be excluded because of how you negotiate with the text.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have nothing to add to what I've already said about all of this, which has been a lot.

Well, I guess I do have one question for you. You said: "In simple terms, I think the “righteous” have already inherited eternal life and the kingdom, and then take possession of these when they go to heaven to forever be with the Lord".

So, is it your view that when a believer dies they are then immediately bodily resurrected and changed to have an immortal body and go to heaven with an immortal body at that point? If so, how does that line up with 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 which talks about the dead in Christ being resurrected and all believers being changed to put on immortality at the same time at the last trumpet?

Edit: Okay, one more question. You talk a lot about things like "Audience relevance, historical context, literary context, and grammatical structures". And those things are important considerations, for sure. However, you never talk about spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit. How important of a role do you think the Holy Spirit plays in our understanding of scripture? Keep in mind that Paul said we need spiritual discernment to understand the deep things of God and that human wisdom itself is not something we can lean on to understand the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

 

[LittleTuneAlright]

What does it even mean " to be taken up to meet the Lord in the air?'
sounds like some kind of flying experience. Like getting on a plane and going to heaven.

 

[Scott Downey]

What does it even mean " to be taken up to meet the Lord in the air?'
sounds like some kind of flying experience. Like getting on a plane and going to heaven.

My thoughts, is we are taken up off the earth by the angels to be with Christ when He returns, and then we shall ever be with the Lord. Wherever Jesus is, we will be there, there is no more separation of Godhead and men.

At Jesus return, this world ends in a fiery destruction, we though are preserved in Christ. We shall see it, but not feel the destruction personally like the wicked do.

1 Thess 1
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, 3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, 4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.

6 And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe. 8 For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything.

9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

 

[LittleTuneAlright]

My thoughts, is we are taken up off the earth by the angels to be with Christ when He returns, and then we shall ever be with the Lord. Wherever Jesus is, we will be there, there is no more separation of Godhead and men.

At Jesus return, this world ends in a fiery destruction, we though are preserved in Christ. We shall see it, but not feel the destruction personally like the wicked do.

1 Thess 1
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, 3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, 4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.

6 And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe. 8 For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything.

9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Sounds good How will we know Jesus/angels when they/He comes? I dont want to be taken by just anyone.

EDIT: ah, I see you added some scriptures.... and it makes sense that we will be preserved in Him...

 

[Scott Downey]

Hebrews 9

Greatness of Christ’s Sacrifice​

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be [j]purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are [k]copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.

To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

****************
When Christ returns it is for our salvation, but the wicked world's destruction

 

[claninja]

So, is it your view that when a believer dies they are then immediately bodily resurrected and changed to have an immortal body and go to heaven with an immortal body at that point? If so, how does that line up with 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 which talks about the dead in Christ being resurrected and all believers being changed to put on immortality at the same time at the last trumpet?

In general, I agree with what today’s Christianity traditionally teaches: starting in the in the first century, the dead righteous were raised to heaven, and the living righteous no longer go to hades upon physical death, but immediately rise to heaven.

I guess I would reconcile it with the following questions: Does Hades, today, still have victory over the righteous? Does sin, today, still have its power from the Law?

• 1 corinthians 15:54-56 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55“O Death, where is your victory? O Hades, where is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

But it still raises problems that need to be negotiated for any framework, definitely including mine - A straight forward reading of 1 corinthians 15:51-52, absolutely suggests that resurrection of the dead, and changing of the living occur at the same time. However, a straightforward reading also suggests that Paul believed it would occur in his lifetime: "the dead will rise imperishable, and WE, the living will be changed". So which part do we negotiate, the nature of the resurrection or Paul's belief that it would occur in his lifetime?

Edit: Okay, one more question. You talk a lot about things like "Audience relevance, historical context, literary context, and grammatical structures". And those things are important considerations, for sure. However, you never talk about spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit. How important of a role do you think the Holy Spirit plays in our understanding of scripture? Keep in mind that Paul said we need spiritual discernment to understand the deep things of God and that human wisdom itself is not something we can lean on to understand the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

in the context of 1 corinthians 2 - the spiritual discernment He is talking about, is the cross (1 corinthians 1). The cross is a stumbling block to the Jews and the old covenant ways that were still being practiced, and it was foolishness to Greek wisdom. IMHO, Spiritual discernment is understanding God desires mercy, NOT animal sacrifice. Spiritual discernment is understanding that God desires us to cloth the naked, provide for the sick, etc...out of love for God and our neighbor, NOT living according to the standards of the world (hoarding wealth, stocks, clothes, houses, etc...) or attempting to earn favor with God on our own. Spiritual discernment is understanding God's kingdom is not of this world. I struggle to find any spiritual discernment in those who take current events and try to make them fit into jigsaw puzzle eschatology they have created in order to predict what is going to happen because they believe they are the special ones living through the "end times". So far that has a 0% success rate over the last 2000 years.

So when it comes to matters of eschatology, yea, you are not likely going to see me mentioning spiritual discernment.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In general, I agree with what today’s Christianity traditionally teaches: starting in the in the first century, the dead righteous were raised to heaven, and the living righteous no longer go to hades upon physical death, but immediately rise to heaven.

Not bodily, though. The change that will occur at the last trumpet is of our bodies.

I guess I would reconcile it with the following questions: Does Hades, today, still have victory over the righteous? Does sin, today, still have its power from the Law?

• 1 corinthians 15:54-56 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55“O Death, where is your victory? O Hades, where is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

But it still raises problems that need to be negotiated for any framework, definitely including mine - A straight forward reading of 1 corinthians 15:51-52, absolutely suggests that resurrection of the dead, and changing of the living occur at the same time.

Do you not differentiate between the body, soul and spirit? Paul indicated in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Philippians 1:21-24 that being in the body means you are separate from the Lord and that it's far better to be separate from the body and present with the Lord. To me, that obviously means that our souls and spirits separate from our bodies when we die and then go to be with the Lord in paradise (the third heaven) while we wait for our bodily redemption.

However, a straightforward reading also suggests that Paul believed it would occur in his lifetime: "the dead will rise imperishable, and WE, the living will be changed". So which part do we negotiate, the nature of the resurrection or Paul's belief that it would occur in his lifetime?

It suggests no such thing. Read the text more carefully.

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The first thing Paul points out here is that we will all be changed at the last trumpet and it will take only a moment for that to happen. So, the context of "we" here is all who are believers up until the last trumpet sounds and not just those who were either dead or alive at that time. Then Paul points out that when the trumpet sounds, the dead will be raised incorruptible and we will all be changed. In no way, shape or form did Paul say he expected to be alive when the last trumpet sounds. He simply included himself as being among those who will be changed because that will include both those who are alive when the last trumpet sounds and those who had died before the last trumpet sounds. So, he knew that he was guaranteed to be changed whenever it sounded.

I can say the same thing Paul said right now. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed at the last trumpet. The trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised and we will be changed. Did I just say that I expect this to occur in my lifetime? No, I did not. I don't know when the last trumpet will sound. But, since I am alive right now I am guaranteed to be changed at the last trumpet even if I die before it sounds. So, I can then say "we" will be changed because I know I will be changed whether I die before the last trumpet sounds or not.

in the context of 1 corinthians 2 - the spiritual discernment He is talking about, is the cross (1 corinthians 1). The cross is a stumbling block to the Jews and the old covenant ways that were still being practiced, and it was foolishness to Greek wisdom. IMHO, Spiritual discernment is understanding God desires mercy, NOT animal sacrifice. Spiritual discernment is understanding that God desires us to cloth the naked, provide for the sick, etc...out of love for God and our neighbor, NOT living according to the standards of the world (hoarding wealth, stocks, clothes, houses, etc...) or attempting to earn favor with God on our own. Spiritual discernment is understanding God's kingdom is not of this world. I struggle to find any spiritual discernment in those who take current events and try to make them fit into jigsaw puzzle eschatology they have created in order to predict what is going to happen because they believe they are the special ones living through the "end times". So far that has a 0% success rate over the last 2000 years.

So when it comes to matters of eschatology, yea, you are not likely going to see me mentioning spiritual discernment.

In 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 Paul is talking about the words he spoke which came from the Holy Spirit and what he taught has to be spiritually discerned and cannot be understood only with human wisdom. It requires the the help of the Holy Spirit. So, you are telling me you don't need any help from the Holy Spirit to understand scripture?

 

[jeffweeder]

Not bodily, though. The change that will occur at the last trumpet is of our bodies.


Do you not differentiate between the body, soul and spirit? Paul indicated in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Philippians 1:21-24 that being in the body means you are separate from the Lord and that it's far better to be separate from the body and present with the Lord. To me, that obviously means that our souls and spirits separate from our bodies when we die and then go to be with the Lord in paradise (the third heaven) while we wait for our bodily redemption.

Very nice.
Here is something very beautiful...,

Rom 8
22 For we know that the whole creation has been moaning together as in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only this, but we too, who have the first fruits of the Spirit [a joyful indication of the blessings to come], even we groan inwardly, as we wait eagerly for [the sign of] our adoption as sons—the redemption and transformation of our body [at the resurrection]. 24 For in this hope we were saved [by faith]. But hope [the object of] which is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait eagerly for it with patience and composure.

 

[claninja]

Do you not differentiate between the body, soul and spirit? Paul indicated in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Philippians 1:21-24 that being in the body means you are separate from the Lord and that it's far better to be separate from the body and present with the Lord.

I think I would differentiate between the soul, spirit, and body, with the soul going to hades prior to the first century, the spirit returning to the Lord, and the body to the tomb. But my point was hades - Hades no longer has victory WHEN the mortal puts on immortality. the dead are released from hades to be judged when heaven and earth pass away. However, church tradition teaches the dead saints were released from hades, and those that die in the Lord from the first century onward no longer go to hades.

• Acts 2:27a, 31For you will not abandon my soul to Hades; he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
• Revelation 20:13-15 Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire
• 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 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. 55O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?

As to 2 corinthians 5:6-8, that seems to be about the resurrection

• vs 2-5 : For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3if indeed by putting it ona we may not be found naked. 4For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

It suggests no such thing. Read the text more carefully.

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The first thing Paul points out here is that we will all be changed at the last trumpet and it will take only a moment for that to happen. So, the context of "we" here is all who are believers up until the last trumpet sounds and not just those who were either dead or alive at that time. Then Paul points out that when the trumpet sounds, the dead will be raised incorruptible and we will all be changed. In no way, shape or form did Paul say he expected to be alive when the last trumpet sounds. He simply included himself as being among those who will be changed because that will include both those who are alive when the last trumpet sounds and those who had died before the last trumpet sounds. So, he knew that he was guaranteed to be changed whenever it sounded.

I can say the same thing Paul said right now. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed at the last trumpet. The trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised and we will be changed. Did I just say that I expect this to occur in my lifetime? No, I did not. I don't know when the last trumpet will sound. But, since I am alive right now I am guaranteed to be changed at the last trumpet even if I die before it sounds. So, I can then say "we" will be changed because I know I will be changed whether I die before the last trumpet sounds or not.

The context is: "I shall shew you a mystery". What do you believe the mystery is that Paul is revealing? To me, it seems to be about what happens to the living at the resurrection of the dead.

In vs 51, the subject is the word "ALL" in the first and second clause. The verbs "shall sleep" and "shall change" are first person verbs, future, passive, and plural which indicates the action of the verbs happens to both Paul and his audience. In otherwords, it reads

• Clause 1: "All (of us) shall not sleep" - grammatically, exclusive of those that live unto the parousia, and not the church in general.
• Clause 2: "but all (of us) shall be changed" - grammatically, likely inclusive of both those that sleep and those live unto the parousia

I agree, from a grammatical standpoint, that we cannot exclude Paul and his contemporary audience from the action of the verb (shall change) in clause 2 because its a first person, plural verb. However, solely from a grammatical standpoint, we also cannot exclude both Paul and his contemporary audience from the action of the verb (not shall sleep) in clause 1 because again, its a first person, plural, verb.

So if your framework states that Paul, and by extension his audience, in no way, shape or form, expected to be alive when the last trumpet sounds, and therefore must be excluded from the action of the verb in clause 1, then you have to negotiate grammatically with the text - "All (of us) shall not sleep" doesn't really mean We as in Paul and his contemporaries, but is a universal, pastoral, or rhetorical "we" specifically for those that are alive unto the parousia.


As to vs 52, and the "we shall be changed" - This is contrasted to the dead being raised, and within the context of a mystery being revealed So, it makes more sense grammatically and contextually that the "we shall be changed", in vs 52, refers to the living.

• Ellicot: "The dead shall be raised, but we (the living) shall be changed."
• Matthew Poole: "There shall (saith the apostle) be such a sound made; and upon the making of it, the saints, that are dead, shall be raised out of their graves; not with such bodies as they carried thither, (which were corruptible), but with such bodies as shall be no more subject to corruption; and those who at that time shall be alive, shall one way or another be changed, and be also put into an incorruptible state."
• Gill: "and the dead shall be raised incorruptible; free from all frailty, mortality, and corruption, when the trumpet shall sound:
  and at the same time also, we shall be changed; the saints that will be found alive; the apostle speaks in the first person, because of the uncertainty of Christ's coming, and of the blowing of the last trumpet, he not knowing but it might be in his time; what this last trumpet will be, is not easy to say;"
• Meyer: " for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead (the Christians who have already died up to that time) shall be raised incorruptible, and we (who are still alive then) shall be changed. The paratactic expression (instead of ὅτε γάρ, or some other such form of subordination) should of itself have been sufficient to prevent the divesting the ΣΑΛΠ. ΓΆΡ. of its emphasis by regarding it simply as an introduction to what follows in connection with ἘΝ Τ. ἘΣΧ. ΣΆΛΠ. (Hofmann); comp. Kühner, § 720, 4; Winer, p. 585 [E. T. 785]. A special attention is to be given to the ΣΑΛΠΊΣ. Instead of ἩΜΕῖς ἈΛΛΑΓ., Paul might have written ΟἹ ΖῶΝΤΕς ἈΛΛΑΓΉΣΟΝΤΑΙ; but from his persuasion that he should live to see the Parousia, he includes himself with the rest.[97] Comp. on 1 Corinthians 15:51. Van Hengel is wrong in referring οἱ νεκροί to those now (when Paul wrote) already dead, and ἡμεῖς to those now still alive, of whom a part will then be also dead; ἀλλαγ. can apply only to the change of the living."
• Cambridge: "and we shall be changed] The we is emphatic; therefore the Apostle here expresses once more his belief that he will be alive at the coming of Christ; for, “since the last times were already come, the saints expected that day from hour to hour.”

n 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 Paul is talking about the words he spoke which came from the Holy Spirit and what he taught has to be spiritually discerned and cannot be understood only with human wisdom. It requires the the help of the Holy Spirit. So, you are telling me you don't need any help from the Holy Spirit to understand scripture?

Spiritual discernment is about understanding that Christ fulfilled everything written about him in law of moses, book of psalms, and prophets. Spiritual discernment is about understanding the parables as they relate to the Kingdom of God. Spiritual discernment is recognizing the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Spiritual discernment is storing up treasures in heaven. Spiritual discernment is recognizing the prophets spoke about the days of the apostles (acts 3:24).

Spiritual discernment is not fitting current events into one's eschatological framework like a jigsaw puzzle - so far this type of discernment has 0% success rate.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think I would differentiate between the soul, spirit, and body, with the soul going to hades prior to the first century, the spirit returning to the Lord, and the body to the tomb. But my point was hades - Hades no longer has victory WHEN the mortal puts on immortality. the dead are released from hades to be judged when heaven and earth pass away. However, church tradition teaches the dead saints were released from hades, and those that die in the Lord from the first century onward no longer go to hades.

• Acts 2:27a, 31For you will not abandon my soul to Hades; he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
• Revelation 20:13-15 Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire
• 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 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. 55O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?

The 1 Corinthians 15 passage is about the resurrection and change of the body in particular. Just read the verses before it for the context.

As to 2 corinthians 5:6-8, that seems to be about the resurrection

• vs 2-5 : For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3if indeed by putting it ona we may not be found naked. 4For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

Being absent from the body and present with the Lord is about the resurrection? Huh? The resurrection is a bodily resurrection, so it has nothing to do with being absent from the body.

The context is: "I shall shew you a mystery". What do you believe the mystery is that Paul is revealing? To me, it seems to be about what happens to the living at the resurrection of the dead.

Yes, of course that's what it's about. The mystery is in relation to our bodies being changed from being mortal and corruptible to immortal and incorruptible. And that it will happen at the last trumpet might be part of the mystery as well since there is no OT scripture written about this.

In vs 51, the subject is the word "ALL" in the first and second clause. The verbs "shall sleep" and "shall change" are first person verbs, future, passive, and plural which indicates the action of the verbs happens to both Paul and his audience.

Goodness gracious sakes. No. He is talking about something that would happen at the last trumpet for any believer who is alive at the time and any believer who has died before that time.

In otherwords, it reads

• Clause 1: "All (of us) shall not sleep" - grammatically, exclusive of those that live unto the parousia, and not the church in general.
• Clause 2: "but all (of us) shall be changed" - grammatically, likely inclusive of both those that sleep and those live unto the parousia

Yes, it includes all of them alive at the time and all who were dead at the time, but that does not mean it would not also include anyone alive at the time the last trumpet sounds along with anyone who died before that. Paul knew that he could include himself because even if he died he knew he would be resurrected and changed in that case. So, in no way, shape or form was Paul implying that he expected to be alive when the last trumpet sounded.

I agree, from a grammatical standpoint, that we cannot exclude Paul and his contemporary audience from the action of the verb (shall change) in clause 2 because its a first person, plural verb. However, solely from a grammatical standpoint, we also cannot exclude both Paul and his contemporary audience from the action of the verb (not shall sleep) in clause 1 because again, its a first person, plural, verb.

Come on. I cannot believe some of your arguments. They are ridiculous. Paul was talking about the church in particular there. He was not limiting what he was talking about to only those who were alive at the time. He was including the church as a whole and making the claim that not all in the church will die. If you compare that to 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, you should see that when Jesus comes in the future and we are caught up to Him, that it will include those "who are alive and remain". The reason that Paul said we will not all sleep is because some in the church will be alive when the last trumpet sounds and Jesus returns. They, together with the resurrected dead in Christ, will be changed and then be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air.

So if your framework states that Paul, and by extension his audience, in no way, shape or form, expected to be alive when the last trumpet sounds, and therefore must be excluded from the action of the verb in clause 1, then you have to negotiate grammatically with the text - "All (of us) shall not sleep" doesn't really mean We as in Paul and his contemporaries, but is a universal, pastoral, or rhetorical "we" specifically for those that are alive unto the parousia.

Your ridiculously rigid grammar rules make me ill. This is why I talk about spiritual discernment. You think you can figure this all out with human wisdom. Wrong. You need the Holy Spirit's help to understand this, but you won't get it because you don't think you need it. When Paul says "we" and talks about "us" in that passage he is talking about the church, not just in his time, but all the way until the last trumpet sounds. But, your ridiculous grammar rules are not allowing you to see this.

As to vs 52, and the "we shall be changed" - This is contrasted to the dead being raised, and within the context of a mystery being revealed So, it makes more sense grammatically and contextually that the "we shall be changed", in vs 52, refers to the living.

I disagree 100%. Nothing you're saying makes any sense if you don't compare this passage to all of scripture and reconcile it with all of scripture. You're always trying to interpret a passage in complete isolation from the rest of scripture. I disagree with that approach. In 1 Thess 4:14-17, it's clear that not all in the church will be dead before Jesus comes, so that's why Paul says that we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. When Jesus comes, the dead in Christ will be resurrected and then they, along with those who are alive and remain until His second coming, will all be changed, and then they together will be caught up to meet Christ in the air.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

• Ellicot: "The dead shall be raised, but we (the living) shall be changed."

Are you aware that Ellicot has that happening at the future return of Christ and not in the first century as you believe? Apparently not. Oops.

Ellicot: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be Changed.—There are here a considerable variety of readings in the Greek, but the text from which our English version is taken is probably correct. The Apostle believed that the end of the world might come in the lifetime of some then living. We shall not all, he says, necessarily sleep, but we shall all be changed. The change from the earthly to the spiritual body is absolutely necessary. To some it will come through the ordinary process of death; to those who are alive at Christ’s advent it will come suddenly, and in a moment. The dead shall be raised, but we (the living) shall be changed."

• Matthew Poole: "There shall (saith the apostle) be such a sound made; and upon the making of it, the saints, that are dead, shall be raised out of their graves; not with such bodies as they carried thither, (which were corruptible), but with such bodies as shall be no more subject to corruption; and those who at that time shall be alive, shall one way or another be changed, and be also put into an incorruptible state."

This says exactly what I've been saying and does not support what you're trying to say. Are you aware that Matthew Poole believes that will occur at the future return of Christ when the last trumpet sounds? Apparently not. Oops.

Matthew Poole: "They might object: How can this be? There will be many saints alive in the world at the day when Christ shall come to judge the world, they will have natural bodies, such as they were born with, and grew up with in the world until that time. Saith the apostle: I now tell you a secret thing; for so the term mystery signifieth, Romans 11:25 16:25, and in many other texts.

We shall not all sleep any long sleep: some think all shall die, but some for a very short time, and then they shall revive.

But we shall all be changed, either dying for time, or by some other work of God, their natural, corruptible bodies shall be turned into spiritual bodies, not capable of corruption."

• Gill: "and the dead shall be raised incorruptible; free from all frailty, mortality, and corruption, when the trumpet shall sound:
  and at the same time also, we shall be changed; the saints that will be found alive; the apostle speaks in the first person, because of the uncertainty of Christ's coming, and of the blowing of the last trumpet, he not knowing but it might be in his time; what this last trumpet will be, is not easy to say;"

Again, are you somehow not aware that Gill believe that will happen at the future return of Christ at the last trumpet rather than in the first century as you believe? Apparently not. Oops.

Gill: "others read the words thus, "we shall all die, but we shall not all be changed"; and so the Ethiopic version and the Alexandrian copy seem to have read; which is just the reverse of the text, and arises from a wrong sense of Hebrews 9:27 where it is not said, it is "appointed unto all men", but "unto men once to die"; from which rule there has been some exceptions, as the instances of Enoch and Elijah show; and there will be more at the time of Christ's coming, for all will not sleep in their graves, or die, for death is meant by sleeping; they will not die as men ordinarily do, and continue under the power of death, but they will be changed at once from corruption to incorruption, from dishonour to glory, from weakness to power, from being natural to be spiritual bodies; this change all the saints will undergo, whether dead or alive, at Christ's coming; the dead by a resurrection from the dead, and the living by a secret and sudden power, which will at once render their bodies, without separating them from their souls, immortal and glorious: and this reading and sense are confirmed by the Syriac and Arabic versions.

• Meyer: " for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead (the Christians who have already died up to that time) shall be raised incorruptible, and we (who are still alive then) shall be changed. The paratactic expression (instead of ὅτε γάρ, or some other such form of subordination) should of itself have been sufficient to prevent the divesting the ΣΑΛΠ. ΓΆΡ. of its emphasis by regarding it simply as an introduction to what follows in connection with ἘΝ Τ. ἘΣΧ. ΣΆΛΠ. (Hofmann); comp. Kühner, § 720, 4; Winer, p. 585 [E. T. 785]. A special attention is to be given to the ΣΑΛΠΊΣ. Instead of ἩΜΕῖς ἈΛΛΑΓ., Paul might have written ΟἹ ΖῶΝΤΕς ἈΛΛΑΓΉΣΟΝΤΑΙ; but from his persuasion that he should live to see the Parousia, he includes himself with the rest.[97] Comp. on 1 Corinthians 15:51. Van Hengel is wrong in referring οἱ νεκροί to those now (when Paul wrote) already dead, and ἡμεῖς to those now still alive, of whom a part will then be also dead; ἀλλαγ. can apply only to the change of the living."

It's amazing to me that you didn't even bother to dig a bit deeper to see when exactly these guys believed that the last trumpet would sound at which point we all will be changed. Meyer believed that the passage will be fulfilled at the future return of Christ at the last trumpet and not in the first century. Oops again.

Meyer: "In our text the repetition of πάντες ought to have sufficed of itself to prevent misapprehension of the plain meaning: all we shall at the return of the Lord, in order to our entering glorified into His kingdom, not need first to fall asleep, but shall all be changed living (1 Corinthians 15:52), so that our ΨΥΧΙΚῸΝ ΣῶΜΑ shall become a ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌΝ."

• Cambridge: "and we shall be changed] The we is emphatic; therefore the Apostle here expresses once more his belief that he will be alive at the coming of Christ; for, “since the last times were already come, the saints expected that day from hour to hour.”

Did you not read this from Cambridge...

but we shall all be changed] “For we who have gone to rest in faith towards Christ, and have received the earnest of the Spirit in the time of our corporeal life, shall receive the most perfect favour and shall be changed into the glory which is of God.” Cyril of Alexandria (on St John 10:10). The Apostle explains that this change shall also take place in those who ‘are alive and remain’ until the coming of the Lord. See Php 3:21.

A Cambridge commentator saying that he thought Paul believed that he would be alive at the coming of Christ when 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 is fulfilled is nothing more than speculation. Whether Paul believed that or not is fairly pointless because it didn't happen when he was alive, regardless. But, that commentator himself said that he sees 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 as being fulfilled at the future second coming of Christ.

It's very strange that none of the Bible commentators agree with you that the passage was fulfilled in Paul's lifetime. So, I have no idea why you would reference commentators who disagree with you about how that passage should be interpreted.

 

[claninja]

Being absent from the body and present with the Lord is about the resurrection? Huh? The resurrection is a bodily resurrection, so it has nothing to do with being absent from the body.


Yes, of course that's what it's about. The mystery is in relation to our bodies being changed from being mortal and corruptible to immortal and incorruptible. And that it will happen at the last trumpet might be part of the mystery as well since there is no OT scripture written about this.





Yes, it includes all of them alive at the time and all who were dead at the time, but that does not mean it would not also include anyone alive at the time the last trumpet sounds along with anyone who died before that. Paul knew that he could include himself because even if he died he knew he would be resurrected and changed in that case. So, in no way, shape or form was Paul implying that he expected to be alive when the last trumpet sounded.


Come on. I cannot believe some of your arguments. They are ridiculous. Paul was talking about the church in particular there. He was not limiting what he was talking about to only those who were alive at the time. He was including the church as a whole and making the claim that not all in the church will die. If you compare that to 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, you should see that when Jesus comes in the future and we are caught up to Him, that it will include those "who are alive and remain". The reason that Paul said we will not all sleep is because some in the church will be alive when the last trumpet sounds and Jesus returns. They, together with the resurrected dead in Christ, will be changed and then be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air.


Your ridiculously rigid grammar rules make me ill. This is why I talk about spiritual discernment. You think you can figure this all out with human wisdom. Wrong. You need the Holy Spirit's help to understand this, but you won't get it because you don't think you need it. When Paul says "we" and talks about "us" in that passage he is talking about the church, not just in his time, but all the way until the last trumpet sounds. But, your ridiculous grammar rules are not allowing you to see this.


I disagree 100%. Nothing you're saying makes any sense if you don't compare this passage to all of scripture and reconcile it with all of scripture. You're always trying to interpret a passage in complete isolation from the rest of scripture. I disagree with that approach. In 1 Thess 4:14-17, it's clear that not all in the church will be dead before Jesus comes, so that's why Paul says that we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. When Jesus comes, the dead in Christ will be resurrected and then they, along with those who are alive and remain until His second coming, will all be changed, and then they together will be caught up to meet Christ in the air.

Are you aware that Ellicot has that happening at the future return of Christ and not in the first century as you believe? Apparently not. Oops.

Ellicot: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be Changed.—There are here a considerable variety of readings in the Greek, but the text from which our English version is taken is probably correct. The Apostle believed that the end of the world might come in the lifetime of some then living. We shall not all, he says, necessarily sleep, but we shall all be changed. The change from the earthly to the spiritual body is absolutely necessary. To some it will come through the ordinary process of death; to those who are alive at Christ’s advent it will come suddenly, and in a moment. The dead shall be raised, but we (the living) shall be changed."


This says exactly what I've been saying and does not support what you're trying to say. Are you aware that Matthew Poole believes that will occur at the future return of Christ when the last trumpet sounds? Apparently not. Oops.

Matthew Poole: "They might object: How can this be? There will be many saints alive in the world at the day when Christ shall come to judge the world, they will have natural bodies, such as they were born with, and grew up with in the world until that time. Saith the apostle: I now tell you a secret thing; for so the term mystery signifieth, Romans 11:25 16:25, and in many other texts.

We shall not all sleep any long sleep: some think all shall die, but some for a very short time, and then they shall revive.

But we shall all be changed, either dying for time, or by some other work of God, their natural, corruptible bodies shall be turned into spiritual bodies, not capable of corruption."


Again, are you somehow not aware that Gill believe that will happen at the future return of Christ at the last trumpet rather than in the first century as you believe? Apparently not. Oops.

Gill: "others read the words thus, "we shall all die, but we shall not all be changed"; and so the Ethiopic version and the Alexandrian copy seem to have read; which is just the reverse of the text, and arises from a wrong sense of Hebrews 9:27 where it is not said, it is "appointed unto all men", but "unto men once to die"; from which rule there has been some exceptions, as the instances of Enoch and Elijah show; and there will be more at the time of Christ's coming, for all will not sleep in their graves, or die, for death is meant by sleeping; they will not die as men ordinarily do, and continue under the power of death, but they will be changed at once from corruption to incorruption, from dishonour to glory, from weakness to power, from being natural to be spiritual bodies; this change all the saints will undergo, whether dead or alive, at Christ's coming; the dead by a resurrection from the dead, and the living by a secret and sudden power, which will at once render their bodies, without separating them from their souls, immortal and glorious: and this reading and sense are confirmed by the Syriac and Arabic versions.


It's amazing to me that you didn't even bother to dig a bit deeper to see when exactly these guys believed that the last trumpet would sound at which point we all will be changed. Meyer believed that the passage will be fulfilled at the future return of Christ at the last trumpet and not in the first century. Oops again.

Meyer: "In our text the repetition of πάντες ought to have sufficed of itself to prevent misapprehension of the plain meaning: all we shall at the return of the Lord, in order to our entering glorified into His kingdom, not need first to fall asleep, but shall all be changed living (1 Corinthians 15:52), so that our ΨΥΧΙΚῸΝ ΣῶΜΑ shall become a ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌΝ."


Did you not read this from Cambridge...

but we shall all be changed] “For we who have gone to rest in faith towards Christ, and have received the earnest of the Spirit in the time of our corporeal life, shall receive the most perfect favour and shall be changed into the glory which is of God.” Cyril of Alexandria (on St John 10:10). The Apostle explains that this change shall also take place in those who ‘are alive and remain’ until the coming of the Lord. See Php 3:21.

A Cambridge commentator saying that he thought Paul believed that he would be alive at the coming of Christ when 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 is fulfilled is nothing more than speculation. Whether Paul believed that or not is fairly pointless because it didn't happen when he was alive, regardless. But, that commentator himself said that he sees 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 as being fulfilled at the future second coming of Christ.

It's very strange that none of the Bible commentators agree with you that the passage was fulfilled in Paul's lifetime. So, I have no idea why you would reference commentators who disagree with you about how that passage should be interpreted.

Welp, you’ve missed the entire point. Not surprising. As a reminder, I am in no way attempting to prove 1 Corinthians 15 fulfilled. The original argument is that we all have to negotiate with the text.

All commentators provided were not to support fulfillment. That would be absolutely ridiculous. The main point of commentators was to show the support for “we shall be changed” refers to the living and not the dead, in vs 52. I thought that was apparent by the statement i made right before the pasted commentators, talking about the “we shall be changed” referring to the living PLUS literally high-lighting in red the words of the commentators in regards to “we shall be changed” referring to the living. It was only a minor point that several commentators address that because Paul uses “we”, there was an expectation that he could be alive unto the parousia.

You seem to think, we shall be changed, in vs 52, refers to both living and the dead. I disagree. The context is what Happens to the living, when the dead are raised.

Anyways, you’ve demonstrated my main point - like the rest of us you have to negotiate with the text, and in your case it is the grammar and context - “We” and the first persons verbs, in clause 1 of vs 51 and clause 2 in vs 52, in no way shape or form can refer to Paul and his contemporary audience based on your framework, therefore they must be universal, pastoral, or rhetorical.

As to 2 Corinthians 5 - I disagree with your understanding of vs 6-8 because it appears to leave out the surrounding context of vs 1-5. Unless, you don’t believe vs 1-5 are about the resurrection?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Welp, you’ve missed the entire point. Not surprising. As a reminder, I am in no way attempting to prove 1 Corinthians 15 fulfilled. The original argument is that we all have to negotiate with the text.

All commentators provided were not to support fulfillment. That would be absolutely ridiculous. The main point of commentators was to show the support for “we shall be changed” refers to the living and not the dead, in vs 52. I thought that was apparent by the statement i made right before the pasted commentators, talking about the “we shall be changed” referring to the living PLUS literally high-lighting in red the words of the commentators in regards to “we shall be changed” referring to the living.

Good grief. You really need to learn to communicate more clearly. I'm not going to go back and see if that's what they were really saying at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if you're not even correct about that, but whatever.

It was only a minor point that several commentators address that because Paul uses “we”, there was an expectation that he could be alive unto the parousia.

Could be, sure, but none of those commentators believe he was because they all believed it didn't happen in his lifetime. But, I guess that has nothing to do with the reason you referenced them. This is not the first time that you've referenced commentators in a post to me without making it clear as to why you were referencing them. It's weird to me that you would reference commentators who don't even support your preterist doctrine. How do you decide that you can trust anything they say to be true?

You seem to think, we shall be changed, in vs 52, refers to both living and the dead. I disagree.

I think that is very obviously the case and it completely boggles my mind how anyone can think otherwise. Paul specifically references the resurrection of the dead in that same passage, so why would they not also be changed? That makes no sense. Do you think he was saying they would be resurrected, but not changed? Why would only those who are alive be changed?

The context is what Happens to the living, when the dead are raised.

Huh? As if the resurrected dead would not also be changed? You think he was talking about the living being changed to have immortal bodies while the dead would just be raised with mortal bodies. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Anyways, you’ve demonstrated my main point - like the rest of us you have to negotiate with the text, and in your case it is the grammar and context - “We” and the first persons verbs, in clause 1 of vs 51 and clause 2 in vs 52, in no way shape or form can refer to Paul and his contemporary audience based on your framework, therefore they must be universal, pastoral, or rhetorical.

Uh huh.

As to 2 Corinthians 5 - I disagree with your understanding of vs 6-8 because it appears to leave out the surrounding context of vs 1-5. Unless, you don’t believe vs 1-5 are about the resurrection?

I believe that verses 1-5 speak of the future time when we will all be changed to have immortal bodies and Paul points out in verse 5 that "God...has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.". So, God gives us the Holy Spirit to make us born again and save our souls while we continue to wait for the redemption of our bodies. But, then he transitions in verse 6 to talk about what happens in the meantime while we wait for that. When we die, Paul says we are then "absent from the body". What does that mean? Well, there is more to us than just our bodies. We also have a soul and a spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Paul says when we are absent from the body when we die we are then "present with the Lord". That means our souls and spirits go to heaven to be with the Lord when our bodies die. The souls of the dead in Christ are in heaven with the Lord now waiting for the redemption of their bodies.

Paul made it quite clear in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and in Philippians 1:20-24 that he fully expected to go and be with the Lord immediately following his bodily death. That's why he said he was torn between the two in the latter passage because he knew it would be "better by far" to depart from the body (physically die) so that he could then be with the Lord, but he knew that there were people who needed his help, so he didn't want to leave them since he knew it was God's will for him to continue helping them for awhile longer. Being the unselfish guy he was, he didn't just ask God to let him die so that his suffering would end and so that he could go to a far better place and he instead continued to provide the help to other believers that they needed from him.