The Personhood View of the Resurrection Immortalis Persona Decessus by Charles S.

Meek There is a raging debate among full preterists as to the meaning of biblical resurrection. Howe er! there is general! though not unanimous agreement that" a. The term resurrection is used in the #ible to describe certain e ents that happen to both li ing and deceased belie ers $and unbelie ers%. b. &esurrection ne er means! as some $though not all% futurists belie e" fleshly bodies coming out of their gra es $#'(%. )e re*ect the notion that our physical bodies will be re+united with our souls at the end of time. c. The saints who died physically before ,D -. were resurrected from hades into hea en at the Parousia per &e elation /.0the 1second resurrection.1 d. The #ible describes living people as 1dead in their sins!1 and belie ers are 2raised up3made ali e!1 that is! 1resurrected1 spiritually3metaphorically upon belief per 4phesians /"5+-6 Colossians /"55+576 etc. e. 8i ing belie ers were 1changed1 in some sense at the Parousia per 5 Corinthians 59"95! which may or may not be a resurrection e ent. f. #elie ers today *oin the saints of old in hea en at our own physical deaths. In hea en we will ha e individual identity and personality. ,s indi iduals we will also en*oy the benefits of community as being part of the body of Christ. #ut what is the nature of our eternal e:istence in the afterlife; )hat is hea en; The #ible tells us ery little indeed of what we will e:perience in hea en! thus much of what we belie e is based on inference or e en speculation. )hen one begins to think about this! innumerable <uestions arise" )hat earthly age will we be in hea en0the age when we were in our 2prime= or the age at which we died; )ill someone who died as an infant be an infant in hea en0or an adult $at the age they would

ha e attained if they had reached maturity%; )ill there be any semblance at all to our old life on earth in our fleshly bodies; Can we sin in hea en; If not! what kind of life would that be; ,nd so forth. The resurrection is a particularly difficult sub*ect. 4 en &. C. Sproul! perhaps the most acclaimed theologian of our age! has e:pressed his unwillingness to take a stand on the resurrection0 lea ing the issue to future generations of theologians to figure out. Se eral things make the discussion of resurrection confusing and contro ersial. 'ne issue is that the #ible speaks of two kinds of death0physical body death and spiritual death. So! two kinds of resurrections are implied0bodily and spiritual. Thus! 2resurrection= is a term used in different senses about what happens to li ing indi iduals as well as to dead persons. These must be two different things! as discussed below> ?urther! the word 2body= in 4nglish and in (reek $soma% has different meanings" a li ing indi idual! a dead indi idual! and a corporate group. Paul certainly uses multiple meanings of 1body1 in his writings to indicate both the body of Christ $the church% as well as our personal body $the indi idual%. If all of that is not complicated enough! a greater conte:t is that mankind as a whole suffered relational separation from (od0that is! 2death= in a covenantal sense. So! in ol ed in the discussion is the consideration of collecti e redemption02resurrection.= There are two main camps within preterism. 'ne camp holds to a 2corporate $collecti e% body iew= $ CBV% of the resurrection! while another camp holds to an 1indi idual body iew= $ IBV%! the latter being sometimes also formulated as the 2immortal body at death iew.= The 1essential body iew1 is still another ariant that re*ects certain aspects of both iews. 5 #ut these iews are not rigid! and indeed are o er+simplifications. There are differences within each camp! and many interpreters fall in between the two camps with considerable o erlap. There are superb thinkers in both camps. / )hile I lean toward the I#@ iew! I suggest that there are weaknesses in each iew! and that a better! more irenic paradigm is possible. I ha e dubbed this the Personhood @iew $PV%. Anfortunately! the discussions among Christian brothers ha e at times been unnecessarily heated. 4ach side accuses the other of being obstinate and thick+headed. It can be as threatening to challenge some full preterists as it is to challenge futurist orthodo:y. The tone of these discussions needs to change! especially on this topic! gi en its degree of difficulty. The wrangling o er this and related issues is likely a factor holding back the preterist mo ement.

)e can benefit from the e:ample of the early church fathers! who seemed less likely to separate into a plethora of sects and bickering on non+essential issues. ?or e:ample! Bustin Martyr belie ed that many #ible prophecies would be literally fulfilled during the millennium. #ut he recogniCed the di ersity of thought among his brothers. Dotice the amicable spirit of how he e:pressed his own iews" 2,s I mentioned before! I and many others are of this opinion! and belie e that such prophecies will take place in this manner. #ut on the other hand! I told you that many who belong to the pure and righteous faith and are true Christians0think otherwise.= E 8et me *ust say at the outset that I am e:pressing my current iews in this article. #ut I could be wrong. I reser e the right to change my mind. I ha e in ited proponents of each iew to gi e me their thinking on this matter! and ha e arri ed at my own conclusions after studying writings from both camps. 'n a curious note! I ha e been personally accused by indi iduals from both camps of spending too much time studying the iews of the other camp> The C#@ iew was de eloped by Ma: &. Fing $born 5GE.%! who applied resurrection principally! if not exclusively! as a corporate occurrence. In this iew! resurrection was a metaphorical e ent $renewal! regeneration! restoration! rebirth% that had been prophesied to take place in the last days. Per Fing" 2The primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Budaism! and to the rise of Christianity.=7 This CBV-only view as a systematic eschatology was unknown prior to Fing! e en though apparently &obert Townley taught traces of it in an 5H79 book. Perhaps surprisingly! Fing acknowledged that he drew from the iews of liberal scholar Bohn ,. T. &obinson $5G5G+5GHE%0in &obinsonIs book The Body. &obinson was a skeptic that e idently e en doubted the physical bodily resurrection of Besus. ,ll modern C#@ proponents draw from Fing. There is found in the #ible! certainly! a motif of corporate resurrection. 4 en I#@ proponents acknowledge this. In C#@ thought! what was being resurrected was the 2house of Israel=0or! in Dew Co enant terms" the church body! i.e. the 2body of Christ= $5 Corinthians 5/"5/+E56 4phesians 5"//+/E6 9"/E6 Colossians 5"5H%. This iew harkens back to such te:ts as the dry bones passage in 4Cekiel E- in which (od resurrects his people $4Cekiel E-"55+57% into the new co enant $4Cekiel E-"/J+/H%. Paul! in his writings on this

topic! included the resurrection of 'ld Co enant Israel from the death of its broken fellowship with (od. So resurrection refers! in part! to the hope of Israel $inclusi e of all belie ers collecti ely% to life in Christ. That is! resurrection can be iewed as recovery of relational death between man and God that stood since the (arden of 4den. , charge le eled against C#@ ad ocates is that the afterlife e:istence of belie ers melds into some sort of a #org+like corporate oneness without indi idual recognition. $It is unclear how this might be applied to the damned! though some preterists ha e adopted annihilationism which eliminates the problem of e:plaining a corporate body for those unfortunate people.% This 2borgness= idea would be an egregious error that sounds like eastern religions $2oneness with the creator=% or (nosticism $2merger with the supreme (od that begins e en before death=%. Howe er! while there are clear o ertones of this in the teaching of C#@ ad ocates! this charge is largely a red herring. 4 ery C#@ ad ocate with whom I ha e corresponded has readily acknowledged that we will ha e indi iduality in the afterlife! perhaps similar to what we ha e on earth0while remaining part of a corporate body. $It is unclear what passages of Scripture they rely on to reach this conclusion! as they insist on corporatiCing the passages that the I#@ proponents use to support indi iduality in hea en.% , alid concern remains! howe er! that the C#@ concept of membership in the group is emphasiCed so strongly that it renders the concept of sal ation as ery impersonal. This! in my iew! is in contradistinction to the ery personal nature of Besus. More serious charges are that the C#@+ only iew $a% hyper+ spiritualiCes the resurrection and $b% leads to biCarre inferences. I fear that! as they re*ect futurism! C#@ ad ocates may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Is the foundational hope of the Christian being compromised; ?or e:ample! some ad ocates of the C#@+ only iew ha e e en suggested that we ha e heaven on earth now! and that we do not ac<uire anything new or better in the afterlife. 'ne leading ad ocate of this iew put it this way" 1I primarily see hea en as Iin ChristI and where er and whate er He is. . . . )e donIt ha e to ha e a new inheritance when we shed our physical body. )e simply get the opportunity to see and e:perience more of what we already ha e.1 In response to this interesting proposal! I suggest that there is a big difference between saying li ing belie ers ha e 2hea en now= $a serious error% and saying we ha e earned 2eternal life now= $which is accurate%.

Perhaps a point of potential confusion for some is that there is a difference between the terms 1new hea en and earth!1 which is a symbolic co enantal term0 ersus heaven itself! which is the 1place1 of our eternal e:istence after mortal death. I belie e that the #ible uses these terms to describe ery different things. This should not be a surprise. )e speak similarly in modern 4nglish. )e may say something like! 1I will mo e hea en and earth for you.1 Here! the idiom 1hea en and earth1 has nothing to do with our concept of the afterlife in hea en itself. )e e en use the term 2hea en= in different ways. )hen we refer to the 2stars in the hea ens= we are speaking of a physical reality. )hen we speak of hea en as the afterlife! we are speaking of reality outside of time and space. ?rankly! I ha e found it difficult to understand e:actly what some of the C#@ ad ocates really belie e about the afterlife! as their terminology sometimes becomes pretty esoteric. There is a tendency to present the Christian hope of the afterlife in a murky and guarded way. Perhaps this ser es the purpose of eiling its potentially discouraging implications. Hyper+spiritualiCation of our resurrection hope should be re*ected. In addition! Fing embraced universalism! which is a remarkable biblical error! gi en the numerous passages of the #ible that proclaim that belief in Besus is the only way to sal ation. There is other e idence within preterist camps of throwing the doctrinal baby out with the bath water. Some preterists $not necessarily associated with the C#@+only perspecti e% ha e also re*ected the Trinity! which is a doctrine0unlike eschatology0that has been fully and ade<uately debated by the church! and is foundational to Christianity. These errors of bad fruit do not necessarily pro e the C#@+only iew wrong! but does suggest some introspection within the preterist mo ement is in order. 'ne mistake that some interpreters from both camps seem to ha e made is that they assume that biblical resurrection is either3or $C#@ s. I#@%. Correctly understood! it is both3and. &esurrection is indi idual and corporate! bodily and spiritual. These concepts con erge in 5 Corinthians 59! the most important single te:t on the resurrection. The Major Point of isa!reement

The cru: of the matter is whether there is a <ualitati e difference between 1resurrection1 of the li ing and resurrection of the

physically dead. C#@ers think they are the same thing! while I#@ers think they are different things. Perhaps the confusion arises in part from the use of a single term resurrection to describe two different things. Bust as we considered about the word heaven! duality of meaning is certainly common in language. ?or e:ample! if we pray for 1peace!1 we could mean either $a% the absence of war! which is a physical thing! or it could mean a ery different thing altogether! i.e. $b% inner spiritual contentment. 4 en the word 1spiritual1 itself has multiple connotations that can lead to confusion. )e can understand the word spiritual in strictly metaphorical terms! and we can understand it as applied to a type of immaterial glorified body in the afterlife. )e e en speak of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity! etc. Physically dead belie ers residing in hades at ,D -. had already recei ed spiritual3metaphorical resurrection prior to their physical death0when they first belie ed $&omans 7! etc%. They didnIt need to recei e $again% something they already possessed> Thus! the resurrection of the physically dead must ha e been <ualitati ely different from 1resurrection1 of the li ing. The distinction here is similar to one becoming spiritually a 1new creation in Christ1 $/ Corinthians 9"5-% while remaining the same old fleshly person0compared to really and truly ha ing a new personal e:istence outside of time and space! which one recei es upon physical death. I prefer to think of the spiritual3metaphorical 1resurrection1 of the li ing per &omans J"556 4phesians /"5+-6 Colossians /"5E+57! and 5 Bohn E"57 as being in <uotation marks. This was the first resurrection of &e elation /."7. It is soteriological in nature rather than eschatological. Apon physical death! belie ers today $unbelie ers too! if you are not an annihilationist% are transformed to a new type of body. I use the term 1body1 loosely as we do not really know what our afterlife body will be like. Paul assures us in 5 Corinthians 59 that it will ha e some continuity from our old self. Prior to ,D -. that body went to hades. ,t the Parousia! hades was abolished and e eryone! both the sa ed and the damned! were sent to their eternal destiny at what is often referred to as the general resurrection $Daniel 5/"/6 Bohn 9"/H+/G6 Matthew /9"E.+7J6 ,cts /7"596 etc.% or the great white throne judgment $&e elation /."55+59%. This second resurrection was eschatological. ,s a full preterist! I am persuaded that the #ible teaches that when belie ers die today we immediately step into our new immortal glorified body in hea en as the hadean step has been eliminated.

In one sense! there is no resurrection past ,D -.. ,ccording this notion! the first metaphorical3soteriological resurrection post ,D -. is now better considered as being 1born again.1 ,nd we today no longer e:perience the second resurrection at death! at least in the same sense! since we do not go to hades. Howe er! I consider this distinction a matter of semantics. I belie e that the two types of resurrection still happen to the li ing and to the dead. ,ctually! this is pretty simple" )e get sa ed while we are li ing! and we go to hea en when we die. This! of course is generally consistent with what Christians ha e always belie ed. $I can hear the howls of protest and charges of ?uturism>% )hat makes preterism so attracti e is that ChristKs work to secure our hea enly reward has been accomplished in the past. #elow are brief comments on some passages that both C#@ and I#@ ad ocates use to support their case. Dote that some of these passages actually do not speak to resurrection at all! but do speak of death! so they ha e implications for resurrection. Preterist interpreters approach these passages from arious perspecti es. Some seem bent on seeing words symbolically at e ery turn e en when not necessary! while others prefer to see things word+for+word literally e en if it creates more problems than it sol es. &easonableness may be pushed aside in order to support a particular iewpoint. There are often unfortunate battle+ready reactions to reasonable contributions from the other camp in attempts to defend oneKs own turf. $Human nature at work again.% I ha e concluded that while there remain sharp disagreements! there is enough in common in the two iews around which most preterists should be able to unite. This article is merely an effort to offer some considerations about these passages in a straightforward! but logical! methodology that does not re<uire a theologian to grasp the meaning. The assumption is that (odKs )ord does not torture us with labyrinths and riddles. Lour response in rebuttal is welcome. The "romises of #esus. 'ur hope and understanding of eternal life should begin with Besus. 'ur 8ordKs promises establish a critical backdrop for the rest of Scripture. Besus promised that belie ers will ne er die $Bohn E"5J6 9"/56 J"7.+956 5."/H6 55"/7+/J6 57"E6 etc.%. C#@+only ad ocates either $a% gloss o er these passages! or $b% argue that since belie ers all die biologically! Besus must ha e been

speaking only of a metaphorical death and resurrection. #ut the latter is not a necessary inference at all. These passages $2whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life % demand that Besus was promising that after biological death all indi idual belie ers will li e fore er in at least some sort of indi idual e:istence with identity and personality. Certainly! despite ob*ections from C#@ers! this is how the original hearers would ha e understood these passages! including Martha in Bohn 55 $cf. 8uke -"//6 G"-%> The disciples would ha e understood this when Besus promised that in (odKs house there are many rooms and that Besus would take them there $Bohn 57"/+E%. , plain reading of the promises of Besus demands our understanding of a guarantee by Besus to ha e an identifiable 2persona= in hea en! not a corporate meld0albeit not in the self+same body as our earthly body! a concept upon which Paul later elaborated. Genesis $-% And God said !Behold " have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth and every tree with seed in its fruit# $ou shall have them for food#% # # # And the &'() God commanded the man saying !$ou may surely eat of every tree of the garden but of the tree of the *nowledge of good and evil you shall not eat for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die#% # # # But the serpent said to the woman !$ou will not surely die# +or God *nows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be li*e God *nowing good and evil#% ,o when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to ma*e one wise she too* of its fruit and ate and she also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate# Then the eyes of both were opened and they *new that they were na*ed# And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths# $(enesis 5"/G6 /"5J+5-6 E"7+-% Comment" Scholars ha e wrestled with (enesis throughout history. 4 en conser ati e scholars disagree on how much of it is to be taken literally and how much is figurati e. The <uestion for us is" )hat is meant by death in these passages; 'ur understanding of this may influence subse<uent passages on resurrection. 8etKs gi e it a go. Here are four points"

a. Most Christians assume that actual physical death was the

penalty for eating of the forbidden fruit. This seems to be confirmed by 4 eKs discussion about it with the 2serpent!=

e en though the interpreti e difficulties surrounding a talking snake are legendary.

b. Howe er! it seems more than a bit ob ious! upon reflection!

that these passages do not! in fact! teach that man was born immortal and could only e:perience physical death after the +all. (od created ,dam and 4 e fully complete with digesti e systems! and ga e them food to eat in the beginning. It is a necessary inference that they would ha e died physically had they not eaten. (od created the uni erse 2good= or 2 ery good=0not perfect in a utopian sense in which neither men nor animals did not die physically pre+?all. $)ould ,dam and 4 e still be ali e today if they had not disobeyed (od;% (enesis /"5- reinforces the notion that death at the ?all was not physical death because ,dam did not die physically on the literal day that he ate the fruit as (od warned. ,dam li ed to be GE. years old. ManKs physical mortality seems further confirmed by such passages as (enesis /"-6 E"5G6 Bob 57"96 Psalm 5EG"5J! and Hebrews G"/-. So! death in (enesis is best understood as referring to spiritual death rather than literal physical death. Dote the reaction that ,dam and 4 e e:perienced afterward. They realiCed their nakedness because of shame of their sin.

c. , plausible $and uncommonly simple% conclusion is that

indeed men were made mortal in the beginning0but with the potential to ha e eternal life $in hea en% after physical death. )hat was forfeited at the ?all was life after physical death. This reward would only be restored by Christ.

d. Some I#@ ad ocates insist that (enesis has to be teaching

physical death at the ?all in order for there to be indi idual resurrected bodies in hea en. I personally do not see that as a necessary inference. These two things do not correlate because our earthly life and our hea enly life are not of the same nature. &emember! we do not ha e our old physical fleshly bodies in hea en. &ather we ha e new! glorified! immortal bodies of a nature suitable for our eternal habitation. $See below.%

Revelation &'" &e elation /. implies two resurrections! with the second one being specifically placed at the end of the millennium! and the first one at least beginning before the millennium. Comment" I am persuaded that the first resurrection was $and is>% a purely spiritual3metaphorical3soteriological resurrection that people e:perience when they accept Christ. This is the same resurrection of which Paul spoke in 4phesians /"5+- and Colossians /"55+57! in which he e:plained that we are by nature children of wrath and dead in our sins! but are 2raised up= together with Christ by his grace unto sal ation. This resurrection began with ChristKs ministry on earth! and continues to this day. The second resurrection was the general resurrection of all residents of hades at ,D -.0both the sa ed and the damned0to *udgment and their eternal destiny. $Compare" Daniel 5/"/6 Matthew 5E"EJ+7E6 /9"E.+796 ,cts /7"596 / Timothy 7"56 5 Peter 7"9! 5-6 &e elation 55"59+5H6 //"5/.% This was a 2bodily= eschatological resurrection! though it was not bodily in the fleshly sense. The two resurrections of &e elation /. match perfectly with the ones described by Besus in Bohn 90first 2resurrection= $of the li ing! Bohn 9"/7+/9%! second resurrection $of those from their tombs! Bohn 9"/H+/G%. Besus! by the way! spoke of two types of death elsewhere. )hen Besus said! 18et the dead bury the dead.1 $Matthew H"//6 8uke G"J.%0He was most certainly referencing both types of death. ,n interesting passage upon which C#@ ad ocates rely is &e elation /."9a! which reads 2The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.= This passage would suggest that both resurrections were similar in nature. Howe er! in all likelihood this passage is spurious! and was added hundreds of years after+the+fact. It does not appear in the Code: Sinaiticus manuscript! which is a ery early and reliable manuscript of the #ible. Indeed! this manuscript! which dates to the fourth century! is the oldest e:tant manuscript that contains &e elation /.. Dor does it appear in many manuscripts subse<uent to that one. It seems that someone added the phrase at a later date0probably a confused millennialist who felt that he was li ing in the millennium and was concerned that there were no apparent resurrections occurring! as should ha e been happening per their millennial theory. If you remo e this phrase! the circular and wordy nature of the te:t is cleared up. The entire erse thus becomes" 2This is the first resurrection.=

5.

It also is clear enough that coincident with the (reat )hite Throne Budgment of &e elation /."55+59! all of the dead were raised from hades at the second resurrection. Thus! the first resurrection by necessity was <ualitati ely different from the second. $)hy would people need to be resurrected in the same way twice;>% The final point for consideration is this" The indi iduals in hades did not go there as a group. They went there one+at+a+time as indi iduals when they died. So they were indi iduals in hades and would ha e been raised in the same way! gi ing further confirmation to the I#@ iew as the correct one. (cts &)-&* " worship the God of our fathers believing everything laid down by the &aw and written in the -rophets having a hope in God which these men themselves accept that there will be .about to be $&T/ a resurrection of both the just and the unjust# # # # "t is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that " am on trial# # # # And now " stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers to which our twelve tribes hope to attain as they earnestly worship night and day# And for this hope " am accused by 0ews ' *ing1 2hy is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead3 # # # To this day " have had the help that comes from God and so " stand here testifying both to small and great saying nothing but what the prophets and 4oses said would come to pass# # # # +or this reason therefore " have as*ed to see you and spea* with you since it is because of the hope of "srael that " am wearing this chain# $,cts /7"57! 59! /56 /J"J! -! H! //6 /H"/.% Comment" C#@ ad ocates rely hea ily on these passages to suggest that the resurrection is purely collecti e and spiritual! and not in any sense indi idual and bodily. This seems weak. ,s this passage is a reference to the 'ld Testament! the most prominent te:t in the 'ld Testament about the resurrection is Daniel 5/"/" 2,nd many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake! some to e erlasting life! and some to shame and e erlasting contempt.= This passage critically weighs against the C#@ iew in fa or to the I#@ iew. 2Dust of the earth= can only be referring to indi idual bodies in their gra es. ?urther! what was the 2hope of Israel;= $cf. Bob 57"-+57% )as it limited to some concept of collecti e resurrection; Certainly not! as the te:t describes death as being in 2the soil= and in 2Sheol.= The Dew

55

Testament clarifies that hope of Israel was the Messiah and the forgi eness of sins for all indi iduals who belie e. Romans +,+ 2e *now that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin# Comment" The body of sin could indeed be interpreted in a C#@ way! but only if one ignores the conte:t. Subse<uent erses! it seems to me! highlight the indi idual perspecti e of PaulKs teaching" 2?or one who has died has been set free from sin. Dow if we ha e died with Christ! we belie e that we will also li e with Him. )e know that Christ! being raised from the dead! will ne er die again6 death no longer has dominion o er Him. ?or the death He died He died to sin! once for all! but the life He li es He li es to (od. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and ali e to (od in Christ Besus. 8et not sin therefore reign in your mortal body! to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness! but present yoursel es to (od as those who ha e been brought from death to life! and your members to (od as instruments for righteousness. ?or sin will ha e no dominion o er you! since you are not under law but under grace.= etc. $&omans J"-+57! 4S@% How could one mistake the indi idual aspect to this passage; Romans -,&%-&) But " see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and ma*ing me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members# 2retched man that " am1 2ho will deliver me from this body of death3 Comment" 2#ody= here may appear to be a corporate body0the 2body of Moses= $Bude G%. #ut in conte:t! one can only understand this as an I#@ te:t. Paul is speaking about his personal sins! so 2body= refers to his physical personal body iewed as the means by which sin is expressed. ,s Paul said" 2?or we know that the law is spiritual! but I am of the flesh! sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. ?or I do not do what I want! but I do the ery thing I hate. $-"57+59%.= 2)retched man that I am $-"/7a%.=

5/

Romans *,$'-$$ But if 5hrist is in you although the body is dead because of sin the ,pirit is life because of righteousness# "f the ,pirit of him who raised 0esus from the dead dwells in you he who raised 5hrist 0esus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his ,pirit who dwells in you# Comment" I am persuaded that &omans H is speaking mostly! though not entirely! about the completion of our spiritual sal ation3redemption that Christ guaranteed at the cross! and perfected at the Parousia $8uke /5"/H6 &omans H"5H! //! /E6 &omans 5E"55+5/6 Hebrews 5"576 5 Peter 5"E+G6 etc.%. I donIt think that any of these passages are understood ade<uately in a C#@ way. &omans H"5.+55 could possibly be interpreted as a C#@ te:t! speaking about the 'ld Co enant 2body= as a collecti e. 2Lou= may be understood as plural. ,nd 2righteousness= here is the righteousness of Christ as applied to all belie ers in the Dew Co enant! thus the church 2body.= Howe er! a plain reading of both the immediately preceding passages $H"5+G% and the immediately following passages $H"5/+5-% bring us back to the I#@ iew. Paul was speaking to the &omans about the $spiritual% death that might happen to them in the future if they li ed according to the flesh. #ut corporate entities do not ha e flesh! only indi iduals. ,nd corporate death had already occurred in ,dam! so by putting that warning in the future! Paul could only ha e been speaking of indi idual death and resurrection. "mmortal bodies $plural% of which Paul speaks in H"55 was about the belie erKs physical aspect! further supporting the I#@ iew. )hen Paul spoke of mortality! he was always referring to corruptible 2flesh=0e en though! indeed! there is a relationship between the flesh and the co enantal concepts that free the indi idual from fleshly as well as spiritual death $&omans J"5/6 H"556 5 Corinthians 59"9E+976 / Corinthians 7"556 9"76 etc.% This suggests that the C#@ iew and I#@ iews can hardly be di ided as clearly as the proponents of each want to do.

Romans *,&% And not only the creation but we ourselves who have the firstfruits of the ,pirit groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons the redemption of our body .Gree* somatos/# Comment" C#@ ad ocates *ump on this in an attempt to pro e that our 2body= $somatos% is best interpreted as singular $e en though

5E

some translations render it as plural" 4S@! DI@! D8T! and &S@%. Thus! by using a plural possessi e pronoun $2our=% with a singular noun $2body=%! Paul is teaching a collecti e body being adopted or transformed $cf. Philippians E"/5%. This argument has little force or effect! and C#@ ad ocates appear to be backing away from it. 4 en if somatos is correctly understood as singular! in e ery language we find plural ad*ecti es to <ualify singular nouns. Here is an e:ample" , psychologist speaking to a national radio audience might say! 2)hen our MpluralN child MsingularN misbeha es! there are certain steps we should take.= Such construction is not uncommon in the #ible either $Matthew J"556 8uke -"96 Bohn E"556 -"956 / Corinthians J"556 etc.% ,s argued by 4d Ste ens" 2)hen we say! O)hen we get to hea en! we will get a new body there!K we all know what we are talking about. )e know that it means each of us gets a new body! not that we all share a common body in hea en. 4nglish speakers and (reek speakers both talk that way. It is understood by looking at the conte:t. ?or instance! since Paul had already referred to their indi idual bodies in the plural M(reek somata in &omans H"55N! the conte:t indicates that meaning in &omans H"/E also. It is a conte:tual consideration from which translators are working.= 9 So! in conte:t! erse /E is probably correctly understood as plural! which would e:plain why so many translators render it plural also.

Romans *,&*-%$ "And we *now that for those who love God all things wor* together for good for those who are called according to his purpose# +or those whom He fore*new He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his ,on in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers# And those whom He predestined He also called and those whom He called He also justified and those whom He justified He also glorified#6 Comment" This passage gathers up both the process and the purposes of election. )hile a plurality of persons is in iew! there is no doubt of their indi idual calling! predestination! *ustification! and glorification as well as (odKs grace towards indi iduals who lo e him

57

and are indi idually being conformed to the image of His Son. These phenomena characteriCe the actions of (od in the li es of his people who are called out of darkness into his mar elous light! e:periencing the life of the kingdom in a real sense now and in its fullness after physical death. Moreo er! the idea of glorification! while carrying certain implications for the present life of belie ers! is widely understood as a token of the resurrected life of hea en.

$ Corinthians %,$%-$- 7ach one%s wor* will become manifest# # # # )o you not *now that you are God8s temple and that God8s ,pirit dwells in you3 "f anyone destroys God8s temple God will destroy him# +or God8s temple is holy and you are that temple# $5 Corinthians E"5E! 5J! 5-% Comment" In conte:t! the 2you= in this passage could be the church! so a collecti e body iew helps the C#@ ad ocate here. #ut there is an indi idual conte:t as well" 2each oneKs work= in erse 5E! and 2if anyone destroys= in erse 5J. These statements are about the indi idual. So Paul seems clearly to be suggesting both a collecti e iew and an indi idual iew" both3and. It should be more than ob ious these passages do not imply that people lost their indi idual bodies by being part of a group! the body of Christ> $ Corinthians +,$.-&' )o you not *now that your body is a temple of the Holy ,pirit within you whom you have from God3 $ou are not your own for you were bought with a price# ,o glorify God in your body# Comment" The conte:t is the sin of individuals. The immediately preceding erse $J"5H% states" 2?lee from se:ual immorality. 4 ery other sin a person commits is outside the body! but the immoral person sins against his own body.= Does a corporate body commit sin! or rather its indi idual members; ,nd! do we sin against a corporate body! or against (od; $ Corinthians $/ +or this perishable body must put on the imperishable and this mortal body must put on immortality# 2hen the perishable puts on the imperishable and the mortal puts on

59

immortality then shall come to pass the saying that is written9 !)eath is swallowed up in victory# ' death where is your victory3 ' death where is your sting3% $5 Corinthians 59"9E+99% Comment" C#@ ad ocates argue that all of the erses in 5 Corinthians 59 that speak of the resurrection refer to the 'ld Co enant e:istence transformed into the Dew Co enant e:istence. ?or confirmation! they see the erses in which Paul spoke of ,dam $59"79% as references to the dead body of the 'ld Co enant kingdom 0Christ being the immortal body as perpetuated by his church. They also suggest that the cited <uotation within erses 97+99 is from Isaiah /9"H and Hosea 5E"57 and is probably a reference to fulfillment of the 'ld Co enant doctrine of the resurrection of Israel. My sense is that while the corporate body iew is an element of what Paul describes in 5 Corinthians 59! it is wholly inade<uate to fully e:plain the nature of resurrection in this passage! or elsewhere in the #ible. If Paul was speaking of a collecti e body only! he has misled a lot of people for a long time. The first and ob ious problem for the C#@ ad ocate is that Paul begins his discussion describing the bodily resurrection of Besus! clearly implying a correlation to the indi idual resurrection of each belie er. In 5 Corinthians 59"5/+/. Paul set this earthly life o er against the resurrection life in hea en! confirming his teaching of our personal life after bodily death. It also seems impossible to miss that in erses E9 to 9. Paul was describing the nature of the individual body in hea en. Dote erse EH" 1and to each of the seeds its proper body1 $L8T%. This demands the I#@ iewpoint. Thus the conte:t of 5 Corinthians 59"95! when Paul said that 2we will all be changed in a moment! at the last trumpet= demands that Paul was referring to indi idual bodies more so than the corporate 2body of Christ.= ,nd after all! the corporate body is merely a collection of indi idual bodies! as -aul himself explains in : 5orinthians :;9;<. Dote" It is worth mentioning that there is e idence that the modern translations of 5 Corinthians 59"95 may be incorrect. , ma*ority of ancient manuscripts read" 2)e shall all fall asleep! but we shall not all be changed in a moment! in the twinkling of an eye! in the last trump.= This gi es a ery different meaning to this te:t! so caution is in order here. #ut what was the 1change1 that all li ing belie ers would e:perience at the Parousia! assuming that we accept this as the correct rendering

5J

of the te:t; )hat were they changed into; )ere they cogniCant of the change; Some I#@ers see this as a literal rapture of the saints. Howe er! I think that the conclusion with the fewest problems is that this was the finishing touch! if you will! of BesusI sal ation3redemption work as described elsewhere in the Dew Testament. Christ guaranteed our sal ation at the cross and subse<uent resurrection $5 Corinthians 59"5+/56 4phesians 5"-6 Hebrews G"55+//6 5 Peter 5"5H+ 5G6 etc.%! and perfected3completed it at the Parousia $8uke /5"/H6 &omans H"5H+/96 &omans 5E"55+5/6 Hebrews 5"576 5 Peter 5"E+G6 etc.%. Perhaps an analogy might be this" a dying patient recei ing a life sa ing in*ection. The in*ection from the needle guarantees that the patient is spared! but it takes a little while for the medicine to work inside the body to kill the infection. ?or the li ing belie ers at the Parousia! as well as us today! ChristIs work of sal ation became complete. This is the great news of hope emanating from the preterist iew. 'ur sal ation has been sealed. )e need only die to step into our new immortal immaterial glorified bodies suitable for our eternal habitation. ChristKs death on the cross paid the penalty for our sins $&omans E"/7+/-6 H"5+76 5 Corinthians 59"E6 4phesians 5"-6 Colossians 5"576 5 Timothy /"J6 Hebrews G"55+//6 5 Peter 5"5H+5G6 &e elation 9"G%. His resurrection pro ides our hope for eternal life $5 Corinthians 596 / Timothy 5"5.6 etc.%. His Parousia sealed our sal ation $8uke /5"/H6 &omans H"5H+/96 5E"556 Hebrews G"/J+/H6 5 Peter 5"E+G%. The old pre+Christ world of shadows and prophecies! the things which were 2imperfect= and 2in part= $Daniel G"/76 5 Corinthians 5E"H+5/6 etc.%! were brought to completion. Anlike the futurist paradigm in which the Christian age is but a comma! co enant eschatology confirms Christ as completely triumphant0 ictorious e en in the midst of sin. & Corinthians /,$-$' +or we *now that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed we have a building from God a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens# +or in this tent we groan longing to put on our heavenly dwelling if indeed by putting it on we may not be found na*ed# +or 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# He who has prepared us for this very thing is God who has given us the ,pirit as a guarantee# ,o we are always of good courage# 2e *now that while we are at home in the body we are away from the

5-

&ord for we wal* by faith not by sight# $es we are of good courage and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord# ,o whether we are at home or away we ma*e it our aim to please him# +or we must all appear before the judgment seat of 5hrist so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body whether good or evil# C#@ ad ocates argue that 2away from the body and at home with the 8ord= is in the conte:t of the new co enant found in such passages as / Corinthians E"J! 55. C#@ ad ocates see the 2tent being torn down= and argue that 2torn down= is used in the Dew Testament as the temple being torn down to describe the destruction of the 'ld Co enant. C#@ ad ocates also find the term found in Bude G! 2the body of Moses!= to apply all o er the Dew Testament about 2body!= including in / Corinthians 9

Comment" )e would merely ask one to re+read / Corinthians 9"5+5. without any preconception and determine whether the C#@ ad ocates are forcing a meaning into such te:ts as this one as well as 5 Corinthians 59. )hy would Paul! writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! ha e confused both his first+century audience and those of us today; If he meant the corporate body! wouldnKt he ha e clarified that; 'ur 1earthly house1 $ erse 5% certainly refers to our indi idual physical bodies $cf. / Peter 5"57%. ,lso consider the term 2away from the body= $ erse H%. To hold that 2body= here means 2corporate body= makes no sense. )hy would it be significant that we might be away from the corporate body; Paul e<uates being away from the body to being with the &ord. C#@ ad ocates e<uate the opposite" that to be away from the body $corporate% is to be absent from the 8ord> So! the C#@ cannot be correct in this important passage. It only makes sense to understand this as a comparison of our earthly body erses our new life in hea en. 1Mortal1 can only refer to the indi idual! as corporate entities! though they can morph! do not die like indi idual bodies. PaulKs use of the term 2mortal flesh= in / Corinthians 7"55 laid the groundwork supporting the I#@ iew in chapter 9. ?urther! by what force of logic and interpreti e method must we assume that 1body1 per Bude G must

5H

mean the corporate body e erywhere else; )hile it is correct to say that many of PaulKs discussions on this topic usually assume a background of the dying 'ld Co enant! this does not preclude an indi idual perspecti e as well> 2Hea enly dwelling= means! it seems to me! e:actly what we ha e always thought it to mean0the place of our eternal residence! where we ha e indi idual identity and personality. ,t the end of this section! Paul puts an e:clamation mark for the I#@ iew" 2?or we must all appear before the *udgment seat of Christ! so that each one may recei e what is due for what he has done in the body! whether good or e il.= Phili""ians %,&'-&$ 2But our citi>enship is in heaven and from it we await a ,avior the &ord 0esus 5hrist who will transform our lowly body to be li*e his glorious body by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself# Comment" 8ike in &omans H"/E! we find the plural possessi e pronoun $2our=% with a singular noun $2body=%. #ut! as indicated pre iously! this in no way pro es a corporate body. 'n the other hand! some I#@ ad ocates insist that this is the same change as we see in 5 Corinthians 59"95+97! 5 Thessalonians 7"59+5-! etc. and that this change demands a literal rapture. They argue that $a% it must ha e been a physical body change! and $b% it would happen at the Parousia. )ithout getting into the pros and cons of a literal rapture! I really donKt think that this is a necessary conclusion either. Paul could either be speaking of $a% a metaphorical change that was the capstone of our soteriological sal ation! as discussed abo e under 5 Corinthians 59! or $b% since Paul is speaking specifically of hea en! he is looking into the future e en beyond the Parousia to each belie erKs death. Paul was certainly anticipating his own death! and was surely concerned for other belie ers beyond his own generation. In other words! I think it is plausible that complete fulfillment of erse /5 does not follow immediately in time after erse /.. Certainly Paul! in his letters! was focusing his attention on the imminent Parousia! but had more distant things in iew as well as he spoke elsewhere! for e:ample! of the coming ages $4phesians 5"/56 /"-6 E"/56 cf. Hebrews /"9%. ,nd it should be noted that the word 2transform= in Philippians E"/5 is the (reek word metaschemati>o ! which is a different word from 2change= $allasso% in 5 Corinthians 59"95! and also different from the word for 2caught up3rapture= $ harpa>o% in 5 Thessalonians 7"5- so these erses may not be precise parallels.

5G

$ Timothy $,*-$$ "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our &ord nor of me his prisoner but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God who saved us and called us to a holy calling not because of our wor*s but because of his own purpose and grace which he gave us in 5hrist 0esus before the ages began and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our ,avior 5hrist 0esus who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel# # # #6 Comment" In passages like these! C#@ ad ocates always see the community conte:t $1us!1 1our1%. #ut while 1our works1 is plural! it doubtless means the works of indi iduals. 18ife and immortality1 must certainly e<uate to the eternal life gi en to indi idual belie ers without any real hint of an impersonal collecti e body concept. 0ummary (odKs co enants were de eloped corporately through Israel! but are applied indi idually. ?or e:ample! the &ich &uler in 8uke 5H did not ask Besus how Israel would be sa ed. He asked" 2)hat must I do to earn eternal life;= Many Israelites may ha e thought of themsel es as part of their collecti e group! *ust as Christians of different iews today think of themsel es in the same way> ThereIs no shortage of group+think then or now. #ut was their eternal reward connected to the group; The Dew Testament corrected any such understanding by teaching that we are sa ed not by blood or e en of the will $Bohn 5"5E6 &omans G"H! 5J%. Anless you follow the thinking of dispensationalists! we understand that 'ld Testament Bews were sa ed as indi iduals by (odIs so ereign election! howe er we might understand election $&omans G"5E+EE%0through the ehicle of their personal faith $&omans 7+J6 G"E.+EE%. 'f course! the Bews did not ha e the benefit of knowing Besus in a personal way as we do today. They were sa ed by faith in the totality of (odKs promises including the promised Messiah! but certainly not e ery indi idual Bew possessed that faith. Sal ation was and is personal. (od used Israel as a corporate entity for service to bring the Messiah to the world. It was the Messiah as an indi idual that brought

/.

salvation to other indi iduals0not in any sense a corporate work of Israel. #y the way! I ha e noticed a degree of inconsistency among C#@ers. 'n the one hand some attempt to support their case by saying that Bews always understood their sal ation in terms of their corporate identity. #ut I ha e had other C#@ers say that! well! yes the Bews did understand their sal ation as personal and indi idual but they were simply wrong. Lou canIt ha e it both ways. )hat did the Bews actually belie e; Here is an e:cerpt from an essay by ?la ius Bosephus! in which I see no hint of corporate resurrection" 2)e ha e therefore belie ed that the body will be raised again. ?or although it be dissol ed! it is not perished. ?or the earth recei es its remains! and preser es them6 and while they are like seed! and are mi:ed among the more fruitful soil! they flourish6 and what is sown is indeed sown bare grain6 but at the mighty sound of (od! the Creator! it will sprout up! and be raised in a cloathed and glorious condition" though not before it has been dissol ed! and mi:ed Mwith the earthN. So that we ha e not rashly belie ed the resurrection of the body. ?or although it be dissol ed for a time! on account of the original transgression! it e:ists still6 and is cast into the earth! as into a potterKs furnace! in order to be formed again. Dot in order to rise again such as it was before6 but in a state of purity! and so as ne er to he destroyed any more. . . . #ut the *ust shall remember only their righteous actions! whereby they ha e attained the heavenly *ingdom. In which there is no sleep! no sorrow! no corruption! no care! no night! no day measured by time.=J Doteworthy is the seed analogy! <uite similar to PaulKs in 5 Corinthians 59. It cannot be emphasiCed too strongly that Bosephus was talking about indi idual bodies! as corporate bodies are not mi:ed with earth and dissol ed> ,s preterists! we unite in re*ecting the commonly held futurist idea that actual fleshly bodies will come flying out of the gra es at the end of time to be united with their souls. #ut it seems that it is often

/5

implied by C#@ ad ocates that I#@ preterists belie e in fleshly bodies in hea en. 'f course! that is a false charge. I#@ ad ocates feel that their iews ha e been wrongly characteriCed in this way. )hile I#@ers re*ect fleshly resurrection! they also argue that all Christians should also re*ect the purely metaphorical+corporate iew of resurrection which was instituted by Ma: Fing. There is a better 1middle ground1 understanding about the nature of our e:istence in the afterlife. It is neither purely metaphorical on the one hand! nor in a body of flesh on the other hand. Dor! by the way! can our afterlife e:istence be narrowly defined as our 2soul.= $See the appendices of my book for a discussion of how soul is used in Scripture.% #elie ers will ha e a new e1istence0which is described in the #ible as a spiritual body or a glorified body which is immaterial! immortal and incorruptible0a state suitable for eternal life outside of time and space $5 Corinthians 59"7.+776 / Corinthians 9"5+ H%. Metaphorical resurrection of the living prepares the way for glorified+body resurrection at physical death. The second death has no power o er those who e:perienced the first resurrection! per &e elation /."J. 'ur eternal hope as indi iduals is in hea en! not on earth $Matthew 9"5/6 &omans H"556 Philippians 5"//+/76 Colossians 5"/.6 / Timothy 7"5H6 Hebrews 55"5E+5J6 etc%. It seems to me that one would ha e to read these passages with a C#@ presupposition to miss this. ?ocusing on points of agreement! most C#@ ad ocates agree with I#@ ad ocates that our hope is eternal life in hea en0in a state! while not in a body of flesh in the earthly sense! still possesses personality and identity. Dobody can tell us precisely what this might mean because the #ible does not tell us! and because it is impossible for mortal humans to grasp e:istence outside of time and space. Deither the Corporate #ody @iew $C#@% nor the Immortal #ody at Death iew $I#@% iew is ade<uate to e:plain eternity. &easonable thinkers from both camps should be able to acknowledge that their acronyms are potentially misleading. My further obser ation is that these distinctions create more di ision than is necessary! as many in both camps ha e more in common than the debates suggest. 4:cept for a few really hard+core preterists ehemently committed to one side or the other! there is usually a blending of iews from both sides. Some clarification would be helpful! not only to correctly encompass biblical resurrection but also one which would find some common ground! not only with preterists but futurists as well> 8et us

//

attempt here to de elop a concept that better e:plains the probable nature of our eternal state without relying on o er+speculation about what the #ible does or does not teach us. Consider a concept as it would be e:pressed in 8atin" immortalis "ersona decessus. In 4nglish this is loosely understood as "mmortal -erson ?at@ )eath. The 8atin word persona! *ust as in 4nglish! embodies a sense of personality and identity in the afterlife. This seems to be a better concept than 2indi idual body at death= for our purposes because it detaches itself from the idea of 2fleshly body.= The 8atin word decessus is also interesting in that it imparts a meaning not only of physical death! but also 2departure= or 2disappearance.= This is consistent with what we belie e about bodily death. )e Christians do not merely die6 we depart this life and enter into a new one. The Personhood View 2PV3 This iew does not insist on an understanding of a corporeal e:istence $bodily human shape% in the afterlife! but neither does it eliminate it as a possibility. This concept only insists upon indi idual personality and identity as a minimum understanding of the nature of our hea enly e:istence. The ast ma*ority of supporters of both the C#@ and the I#@ iew with whom I ha e communicated agree on this basic concept. In other words! we will ha e personhood in hea en. So we simply call this the Personhood View $P@%. In conclusion! there is certain to be continued igorous debate among theologians on the nature of the resurrection! as it is increasingly recogniCed that the standard models are untenable. In the meantime! we appeal for as much unity as possible among preterists. Indeed! there may be more agreement than meets the eye! as most can agree on the concept of individual personhood in hea en. )e must be discerning as to who our true opponents are. The Cealous defense of their positions by a few preterist parties is cancerous and unbecoming $Matthew 9"5H! //6 5/"EJ6 &omans 5/"5H6 Colossians E"5H6 Bames 5"5G+/.%. )e are too often neither winsome nor outwardly focused. Preterists are often dismissed out of hand by futurists for 2spiritualiCing the resurrection= and for 2destroying the belie erKs hope.= In fact! futurists ha e a alid point as some of our members ha e indeed hyper+spiritualiCed the resurrection and confused and

/E

discouraged belie ers about our eternal hope. The beauty of preterism is that it enhances rather than denigrates the hope of the belie er because the re<uirements for our eternal hope of hea en ha e been satisfied by Christ. I discuss this at length in my book. It is critical that we not be a stumbling block that keeps people from considering the preterist iew. (i en that none of us can define the nature of the afterlife with any accuracy! we should be able to show a degree of unity on the Personhood View $PV% of the resurrection. )e can present it to futurists as an eminently reasonable concept! while acknowledging that differences among oursel es continue to e:ist. The preterist mo ement is at a crossroads. )ill the leadership emerge to take the mo ement forward to Christians seeking answers to the futurist confusion! or will it die from its own death+spiral wranglings; It is critical for the preterist mo ement to present a common front of reasonableness! being the aroma of Christ $/ Corinthians /"59%! for our hope of our eternal life. 5harles 4ee* is the author of 5H(",T"AA H'-7 through +B&+"&&7) -('-H75$9 "s $our 5hurch Teaching 7rror about the &ast )ays and ,econd 5oming3 The ,urging -reterist 5hallenge to 7schatology. He is the editor and principal writer of www.faithfacts.org! one of the oldest apologetics sites on the Internet. He is also an administrator of two ?acebook sites" https"33www.facebook.com3?aithfacts.org https"33www.facebook.com34 angelicalPreterism Scriptures from the 7nglish ,tandard Cersion $4S@%. Copyright September 5-! /.5E

/7

http"33preterism+preterist+taffy.blogspot.co.uk3search3label35+4#@+Summary Some websites that support the C#@ iew include" http"33www.eschatology.org http"33www.bibleprophecy.com http"33www.allthingsfulfilled.com http"33www.lastdays+eschatology.net http"33preteristcosmos.com3.

)ebsites that supports the I#@ iew include" http"33www.preterist.org http"33www.charlescoty.com3Theology.html ?or an e:tensi e list of preterist websites see one of Charles MeekKs websites" http"33prophecy<uestions.wordpress.com3/.5E3.53.53preterist+websites Bustin Trypho! Chapter H.! paraphrased by Da id ). #ercot! 2ill the (eal Heretics -lease ,tand Bp $Tyler! Te:as" Scroll Publishing Company! 5GHG%.
E 7

http"33www.preteristcentral.com3PuothQ/.HeQ/.+Q/.Ma:Q/.Fing.html

http"33www.preterist.org3. 4dward 4. Ste ens has numerous articles on the resurrection a ailable upon re<uest.
9 J

http"33penelope.uchicago.edu3*osephus3hades.html