Present Tense in John 5 Counters Futurist Argument

[HankD]

Well, that is interesting. Hmm. I will have to digest that. Could very well be. At any rate, thanks for some food for thought. (No pun intended.)

LOL!

HankD

 

[ituttut]

[

QUOTEJohn of Japan;1673512]Forgive me, but seldom have I seen a statement with less evidence behind it on the BB. Where in the world did you get this???

quote]Hello John. We haven't talked in a good number of years. Scripture, as always is the source, which comes from accepted versions of Christians.

 

[ituttut]

Since the events following Revelation 4:1 have yet to happen then they are still yet future events.

Scripture understood.

 

[John of Japan]

Hello John. We haven't talked in a good number of years. Scripture, as always is the source, which comes from accepted versions of Christians.

Hello yourself! So enlighten me. Where in Scripture did that particular statement come from?

 

[John of Japan]

Present Tense Counters Futurist Argument

John 5 argues for an earlier date of writing​

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water." - John 5:2-3

Did you ever notice this little description from the Apostle John? "There is in Jerusalem... a pool." "In these lay...sick people."

In both cases John is describing a scene that exists at the time of his writing. Why is this important? It goes against the common assumption that John wrote his Gospel (along with his letters and Revelation) in the 90s. It shows Jerusalem as it was before the cataclysmic destruction brought on by the Romans.

I think Hank answered this very adequately. The entire city of Jerusalem was not completely destroyed in 70 AD. The pool could very easily have been still there after 70 AD.

Likewise, when John writes in Rev. 11:1 about measuring the temple the present tense is used. The assumption is that the Temple is still standing.

No, that's not the assumption at all. This shows a lack of knowledge of premillenial interpretation of Rev. The premil view, interpreting the Bible literally of course, is that Israel will rebuild the Temple in the tribulation period.

 

[asterisktom]

I think Hank answered this very adequately. The entire city of Jerusalem was not completely destroyed in 70 AD. The pool could very easily have been still there after 70 AD. [/FONT][/SIZE]
No, that's not the assumption at all. This shows a lack of knowledge of premillenial interpretation of Rev. The premil view, interpreting the Bible literally of course, is that Israel will rebuild the Temple in the tribulation period.

There is absolutely no way there can ever be a physical temple that means anything to God. He himself tells us that that time is passed. How ca anything be defiled that is no longer holy?

When all is said and done I am confident that those who have open minds - once exposed to this interpretation that I presented here (having received it from others) will in due time accept it. You can have your dwindling number of Premills. I just know that Preterism is growing more and more as people are just made aware of the option.

BTW, an interesting fact in this dating of Revelation is Schaff's change of view. I thought it spoke well for him that he was willing to publish his change of mind in the later editions of his Church History. When I had read this I thought there must be more to this than the late-daters let on. And there was. There was much less to their evidence (mostly built on one or two sources) and greater scope of validity in that earlier date, internal and external evidence.

 

[John of Japan]

There is absolutely no way there can ever be a physical temple that means anything to God. He himself tells us that that time is passed. How ca anything be defiled that is no longer holy?

The Jews build the temple during the tribulation period--not due to a command by God but due to their misunderstanding of God's plan of salvation as already revealed in Christ--the Messiah they rejected.

When all is said and done I am confident that those who have open minds - once exposed to this interpretation that I presented here (having received it from others) will in due time accept it. You can have your dwindling number of Premills. I just know that Preterism is growing more and more as people are just made aware of the option.

How can you be so against the premil view, something you understand so little (as judged by your posts on the BB)?

Care to prove that supporters of the premil view is dwindling? I consider this to be just one more Internet myth unsupported by facts, spread by people with an agenda.

BTW, an interesting fact in this dating of Revelation is Schaff's change of view. I thought it spoke well for him that he was willing to publish his change of mind in the later editions of his Church History. When I had read this I thought there must be more to this than the late-daters let on. And there was. There was much less to their evidence (mostly built on one or two sources) and greater scope of validity in that earlier date, internal and external evidence.

Care to give chapter and verse from Schaff so that people can answer this?

 

[thomas15]

How can you (asterisktom) be so against the premil view, something you understand so little (as judged by your posts on the BB)?

I think it's the culture. Looking at R.C. Sproul in The Last Days According To Jesus on pages 196-197 preterist Sproul defines Dispensational Premillennialism, his definition basically consists of a random paragraph quote from Ryrie and a listing of 8 tenets by preterist Ken Gentry. The sum total is less than one full page and half of that is offered up by a non-dispensationalist, actually a foe of dispensationalism. In the glossary in the back of the book, the definition of dispensationalism takes up one (1) sentence. In the culture of preterism, you don't have a need to understand the competition, you just need to believe that the competition is false.

Question: If Jerusalem is really Babylon, then what is Babylon?

 

[John of Japan]

I think it's the culture. Looking at R.C. Sproul in The Last Days According To Jesus on pages 196-197 preterist Sproul defines Dispensational Premillennialism, his definition basically consists of a random paragraph quote from Ryrie and a listing of 8 tenets by preterist Ken Gentry. The sum total is less than one full page and half of that is offered up by a non-dispensationalist, actually a foe of dispensationalism. In the glossary in the back of the book, the definition of dispensationalism takes up one (1) sentence. In the culture of preterism, you don't have a need to understand the competition, you just need to believe that the competition is false.

Thanks for the information. To be completely honest, I don't have either Sproul's book or Gentry's though I have a good library on prophecy and an excellent one on hermeneutics (which is the difference after all). The modern preterist belief is of fairly recent origin. But I feel no shyness about answering the preterist position because again, it's all in the hermeneutics.

But really, to define dispensationalism and/or premillenialism this way is simply ridiculous. Can we spell "pre-understanding"?

Question: If Jerusalem is really Babylon, then what is Babylon?

I'd like to hear our preterist answer this one. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

There is absolutely no way there can ever be a physical temple that means anything to God. He himself tells us that that time is passed. How ca anything be defiled that is no longer holy?

I'd like Scripture for your view here, please. Since Rev. is very clear that there is a temple in Heaven, why do you conclude that (1) the temples in Rev. are all the same as the Jewish temple, and (2) a physical object (the temple) is defiled, when Jesus clearly taught that defilement is from within? (You're not a Gnostic, right?)

 

[HankD]

I'd like Scripture for your view here, please. Since Rev. is very clear that there is a temple in Heaven, why do you conclude that (1) the temples in Rev. are all the same as the Jewish temple, and (2) a physical object (the temple) is defiled, when Jesus clearly taught that defilement is from within? (You're not a Gnostic, right?)

One of the greatest difficulties, if not the greatest, of full preterism IMO is that it teaches "all is fulfilled" e.g. that the resurrection of the dead has already happened.

What of this passage (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)? How can it be viewed to say anything other than the obvious?

When did this happen if all is fulfilled? AD70? What then is the final state of the modern Christian at physical death? If all is fulfilled including 1 Thessalonians 4, then we cannot know.

1 Thessalonians 4

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.​

Also, not one scripture can tell us anything about the final disposition of this world and/or if it will and when it will end.

This world which is still under the domination of the evil one and sin and death and that without remedy if all has been fulfilled. Just read the newspaper, watch the news - war, rumors of war, earthquakes, the nations roaring, violence waxing and abounding and on and on in spite of:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;​

In addition a myriad of scripture must be spiritualized or re-interpreted to accomodate preterism.​

If it were one or two scripture, well, granted (maybe) understanding the manner in which Jesus often taught in parables and metaphors. But scripture after scripture is just too much of a stretch.​

Tom can you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 as having been fulfilled from a full preterist point of view for those who are new to the hearing of this concept.​

Will this present world filled with sin and death continue on into eternity?

Thanks.

HankD​

 

[asterisktom]

Care to give chapter and verse from Schaff so that people can answer this?

Let me just answer this one for now. As I have time I will get back to the rest of your post. Book 1, pages 834-837 of Hendrickson's edition is the first place I would turn to. See also his comments in the Preface to the Revised Edition, v-vi.

On a related note from this same volume are his suggestive comments on why Babylon should not be understood as the Roman Catholic Church, p.844ff.

 

[asterisktom]

How can you be so against the premil view, something you understand so little (as judged by your posts on the BB)?

Let me get the tedious business out of the way first: This is the third time in recent posts where you resort to snide aspersions on my understanding. Just to be clear, feel free to continue this. It doesn't really hurt me. It shoots your cause in the foot. And it only impresses those people reading these threads whom I am least interested in winning over to my view. Moreover, it doesn't reflect well on your argument. Just saying.

The Jews build the temple during the tribulation period--not due to a command by God but due to their misunderstanding of God's plan of salvation as already revealed in Christ--the Messiah they rejected.

The issue here is not the Jews' willingness to build a temple. It is the impossibility of there ever again being an abomination in that temple. The "abomination that causes desolation" is a concept no longer possible on this Earth. To "desolate", in this sense, is to desecrate. To is desecrate, acc. to Webster's, to "violate the sanctity" of something. No building anywhere has that special sanctity anymore, so there can be no violation. Consider John 4:19-24

19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Care to prove that supporters of the premil view is dwindling? I consider this to be just one more Internet myth unsupported by facts, spread by people with an agenda.

Just look around on the different web boards. The evidence is all over. It used to be that the Premill view was prevalent merely because the other views were not accessible. But now, thanks to the Internet, many people are able to not only be exposed to, but discuss and Bereanize a variety of views.

And this is why the Preterist view is growing. As people are merely willing to consider it on its own scriptural merits - defanged and dehorned - a substantially number of believers are coming into the fold.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom can you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 as having been fulfilled from a full preterist point of view for those who are new to the hearing of this concept.​

Will this present world filled with sin and death continue on into eternity?

Thanks.

HankD​

Hank, I had saved this post for the last thinking I would have more time than I do at the moment. Let me just answer in short for now with these following points.

As far as 1 Thess. 4:16-17 (verse 18 too) is concerned, I would suggest comparing that passage with Matt. 24:29-31. There are some very revealing points of connection.

Also, about death. We need to understand death from the Bible's point of view, not ours. Death, according to the Bible, is not, primarily, the cessation of bodily functions, but separation from God. Adam, the very day that he sinned - just according to God's forewarning - died: He was separated from God.

That death in Genesis helps us to understand the death of 1 Cor. 15. It also helps us to put 1 Thess. 4 in clearer context.

 

[HankD]

Hank, I had saved this post for the last thinking I would have more time than I do at the moment. Let me just answer in short for now with these following points.

As far as 1 Thess. 4:16-17 (verse 18 too) is concerned, I would suggest comparing that passage with Matt. 24:29-31. There are some very revealing points of connection.

Also, about death. We need to understand death from the Bible's point of view, not ours. Death, according to the Bible, is not, primarily, the cessation of bodily functions, but separation from God. Adam, the very day that he sinned - just according to God's forewarning - died: He was separated from God.

That death in Genesis helps us to understand the death of 1 Cor. 15. It also helps us to put 1 Thess. 4 in clearer context.

Hellow again Tom, please bear with me as well.

Genesis literally says "dying you shall die" translated as "you shall surely die" and also means that death (presumaby physical) is a process resulting eventually into a state of being as well as an immediate spiritual condition.
for Adam.

Obviously physical and progressive:

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.​

For Adam as well as his descendants.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

If Christ death has authority only over spiritual death then a physical bodily resurrection (namely His) would not be necessary.

1 Thessalonians 4

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.​

So it must be assumed that if the above happened AD70 then no one was fully aware of it except those privy to the doctrines of preterism and perhaps not even they.

This seems highly unlikely considering the other elements of this passage and the fact that certain apostolic church fathers (contemporaries of the apostles - Clement, Papias, etc) seemed to know nothing of these doctrine as well, or at least in the writings I have read.

Comparing verses:

Matthew 24

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.​

My focus is upon a bodily resurrection of believers.​

Personally, I don't see the connection apart perhaps from a "gathering" (somewhat "bodily" neutral) of believers when He comes (or came) in His Great Glory and I hope you will elaborate for my benefit as well as others reading your responses.​

I believe I remember you saying that you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day after which He met with the disciples and apostles, they ate and drank with Him and they saw and touched His wounds which requires a body on the part of both He and they.​

In 1 John we have:
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

In addition He promised certain things to His own which require a body to perform (and which also require the nation of Israel to exist).​

Luke 22
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

If preterism teaches only a spiritual resurrection then there is the presumption that Jesus Christ will be the only human being
post-parousia with a resurrected material human body and Luke 22 is a most unlikely event.

Finally (and of course secondarily) the history of the majority of orthodox christianity as well as the early church fathers for these 2000 plus or minus years has been the teaching of a bodily resurrection of believers.

Granted it has been a confused and confounded dogma in many cases but nonetheless a classic belief as well as the bodily return of Christ to judge the living and the dead in conjunction with their bodily resurrection.

Looking forward to your response(s).

HankD​

 

[ituttut]

Your whole post, if one missed it

Revelation 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.​

This is in the context of a "little book".​

Might that "little book" be the Book of Revelation which John was presently writing which would be his recorded legacy for generations to come?​

Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.​

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.​

HankD​

Excellent insight, and see depth here. Thought perhaps you may be able to get a glimpse of what I have come to see in scripture? Many believe what I say is "far out", if they are kind. To a certain extent it is. There is a Temple present, and future for it is still not finished. This may be hard to absorb due to my inability of words, but scripture bears this out. I'll give it a try of tying together Prophecy, and Mystery Gospel (Galatians 1:6-7).

Today we are a walking Temple, if we be in the Body of Christ. At the Rapture this part of the building will be solidly on the foundation, growing into a Temple. We can identify what part of the Temple we are in, and it is called the Holy of Holies. Our Lord Jesus Christ entered into the Holy of Holies once, and He shedding His own blood makes a way for us to approach God the Father. Of course this is by the Grace of God, through Him whose name is Jesus Christ. We are told this is the Mystery Gospel.

The Saints of Prophecy Gospel, those that are of the Covenant, and their proselytes? Where are they? That foundation was laid before the Mystery Gospel, which Gospel was also before the beginning. The foundation will become one foundation, as it is fit together. For the present this part of the Temple is the Holy Place (with proselytes in the outer court). Ephesians 2, here specifically verses 18-22.

I see free choice of where we will be in the Temple. In the Kingdom of God I believe, today, He allows us to choose. Ephesians 4-6 we find the one Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of All.

 

[John of Japan]

Let me get the tedious business out of the way first: This is the third time in recent posts where you resort to snide aspersions on my understanding. Just to be clear, feel free to continue this. It doesn't really hurt me. It shoots your cause in the foot. And it only impresses those people reading these threads whom I am least interested in winning over to my view. Moreover, it doesn't reflect well on your argument. Just saying.

I laughed out loud at this, coming from the guy who said to me on the other thread:

You glossed over my other points - but I pretty much expected this. I see also that you just state facts as if they are true, just because you found an author that asserted it, like the dates from Clement. Well, where did Moyer find out that Clement lived from 30 to 100? Don't be so gullible, relying on OPS (Other People's Scholarship). I suppose I should ask you what you asked of me: Have you really read and studied out this epistle of Clement's? I don't think you have.

And of course you had stated categorically as a "facts as if they are true" (alert--facts are by definition true--JOJ :smilewinkgrin:) that

"Clement of Rome and the Didache...were written before the catastrophic events of AD70."

Yet you never gave one iota of historical, external support for this view.

The issue here is not the Jews' willingness to build a temple. It is the impossibility of there ever again being an abomination in that temple. The "abomination that causes desolation" is a concept no longer possible on this Earth. To "desolate", in this sense, is to desecrate. To is desecrate, acc. to Webster's, to "violate the sanctity" of something. No building anywhere has that special sanctity anymore, so there can be no violation. Consider John 4:19-24

And you haven't answered what I wrote. How do you know the temple in Heaven in Rev. is the same plan as the Jewish temple? And if John, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote specifically that there is a temple in Heaven, who are you to say there is not, that there can no longer be a temple because one was defiled?

19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Once again, you show your lack of knowledge of the position you oppose. The heavenly temple and/or the temple of the millenium, are not for purposes of worship (very obviously), since Christ Himself will reign on earth at that time, and we can worship Him directly.

You want respect for your knowledge. But you show over and over again your lack of knowledge of the views you oppose.

Just look around on the different web boards. The evidence is all over. It used to be that the Premill view was prevalent merely because the other views were not accessible. But now, thanks to the Internet, many people are able to not only be exposed to, but discuss and Bereanize a variety of views.

And this is why the Preterist view is growing. As people are merely willing to consider it on its own scriptural merits - defanged and dehorned - a substantially number of believers are coming into the fold.

Aha. You looked around on the Internet, saw some people that agreed with you and decided all of evangelicalism will come your way.

News flash: many Christians are not on the Internet at all, and most who are have internet access only for email. Also, the vast majority of Christians who are on the Internet spend no time on web boards, many who are on the web boards are the same people as on other boards.

The literal view of prophecy will always be prevelant, because the vast majority of evangelical schools teach grammatical-historical hermeneutics. A preterist view of prophecy is impossible with Biblical hermeneutics simply because all OT prophecies about Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally: Bethlehem, tribe of Judah, virgin birth, etc. etc. Yet you would have us believe that prophecies about the second coming are different, that they won't be fulfilled literally. That won't wash with the vast majority of evangelicals who know their Bibles and Biblical prophecy.

 

[asterisktom]

I laughed out loud at this, coming from the guy who said to me on the other thread:

etc. etc.

Look, John. You constantly miss the point of my posts. And the ones you do answer to some degree you still misconstrue or misrepresent. For instance, I know the Bible speaks of temple in Heaven) though I do not think it is a physical one). The issue is not the existence of a temple but the fact that no physical temple can now be abominated, be desecrated. For that to happen it has to first be sacred in God's eyes.

That is why the abomination of desolation will never happen.

[/quote]
Yet you never gave one iota of historical, external support for this view [concerning Clement's epistle and the Didache being pre AD70].

I gave you support from the writings of Clements itself. And could have likewise from the Didache. How can you claim I gave no support?

These are the reasons I am going to spend my BB time elsewhere. Discussing with you is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

BTW, I don't "want respect from you". I don't get my respect from BB - though it does come at times, and is appreciated. I usually come here with sword and helmet - and thick skin. For people like you.

 

[John of Japan]

etc. etc.

Look, John. You constantly miss the point of my posts. And the ones you do answer to some degree you still misconstrue or misrepresent. For instance, I know the Bible speaks of temple in Heaven) though I do not think it is a physical one). The issue is not the existence of a temple but the fact that no physical temple can now be abominated, be desecrated. For that to happen it has to first be sacred in God's eyes.

But you never answered my question about a temple in Heaven until now.

So you don't believe the temple in Heaven is physical? Is heaven itself physical? Are we all floating around as spirits in a spiritual heaven? Jesus went to prepare a spiritual place? You don't believe in a physical resurrection? That's what this sounds like.

I gave you support from the writings of Clements itself. And could have likewise from the Didache. How can you claim I gave no support?

Pay attention. I said "no historical, external support." Do you know the difference between "external" and "internal" in Biblical scholarship?

 

[HankD]

Excellent insight, and see depth here. Thought perhaps you may be able to get a glimpse of what I have come to see in scripture? Many believe what I say is "far out", if they are kind. To a certain extent it is. There is a Temple present, and future for it is still not finished. This may be hard to absorb due to my inability of words, but scripture bears this out. I'll give it a try of tying together Prophecy, and Mystery Gospel (Galatians 1:6-7).

Today we are a walking Temple, if we be in the Body of Christ. At the Rapture this part of the building will be solidly on the foundation, growing into a Temple. We can identify what part of the Temple we are in, and it is called the Holy of Holies. Our Lord Jesus Christ entered into the Holy of Holies once, and He shedding His own blood makes a way for us to approach God the Father. Of course this is by the Grace of God, through Him whose name is Jesus Christ. We are told this is the Mystery Gospel.

The Saints of Prophecy Gospel, those that are of the Covenant, and their proselytes? Where are they? That foundation was laid before the Mystery Gospel, which Gospel was also before the beginning. The foundation will become one foundation, as it is fit together. For the present this part of the Temple is the Holy Place (with proselytes in the outer court). Ephesians 2, here specifically verses 18-22.

I see free choice of where we will be in the Temple. In the Kingdom of God I believe, today, He allows us to choose. Ephesians 4-6 we find the one Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of All.

The scripture indeed makes a kind of "class" distinction of believers at least at the Bema Seat of Christ and apparently this judgment has to do with the quality of Christian service here on earth and in the very context of which you speak, the body of believers as the Temple of God.

1 Corinthians 3
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

...him shall God destroy... that is - the expectation of his/her life of service gone up in smoke yet he himself saved so as by fire.

HankD