Personhood View of the Resurrection - Booklet 4x7 28

8/13/2019 Personhood View of the Resurrection - Booklet 4x7 28

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/personhood-view-of-the-resurrection-booklet-4x7-28 1/25



ha e attained if they had reached maturity%; )ill there be anysemblance at all to our old life on earth in our fleshly bodies; Can wesin 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! hase:pressed his unwillingness to take a stand on the resurrection0lea ing the issue to future generations of theologians to figure out.

Se eral things make the discussion of resurrection confusingand contro ersial. 'ne issue is that the #ible speaks of two kinds ofdeath0 physical body death and spiritual death. So! two kinds ofresurrections are implied0bodily and spiritual. Thus! 2resurrection= isa term used in different senses about what happens to li ing

indi iduals as well as to dead persons. These must be two differentthings! as discussed below> ?urther! the word 2body= in 4nglish and in(reek $ soma % has different meanings" a li ing indi idual! a deadindi idual! and a corporate group. Paul certainly uses multiplemeanings 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 thatis not complicated enough! a greater conte:t is that mankind as awhole suffered relational separation from (od0that is! 2death= in acovenantal sense. So! in ol ed in the discussion is the considerationof collecti e redemption02resurrection.=

There are two main camps within preterism. 'ne camp holdsto a 2corporate $collecti e% body iew= $ CBV % of the resurrection! whileanother camp holds to an 1indi idual body iew= $ IBV%! the latter beingsometimes also formulated as the 2immortal body at death iew.= The1essential body iew1 is still another ariant that re*ects certainaspects of both iews. 5 #ut these iews are not rigid! and indeed areo er+simplifications. There are differences within each camp! andmany interpreters fall in between the two camps with considerableo erlap. There are superb thinkers in both camps. / )hile I leantoward the I#@ iew! I suggest that there are weaknesses in eachiew! 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 ofbeing obstinate and thick+headed. It can be as threatening tochallenge some full preterists as it is to challenge futurist orthodo:y.

The tone of these discussions needs to change! especially on thistopic! gi en its degree of difficulty. The wrangling o er this and related



)e can benefit from the e:ample of the early church fathers! who seemed less likely to separate into a plethora of sects andbickering on non+essential issues. ?or e:ample! Bustin Martyrbelie ed that many #ible prophecies would be literally fulfilled duringthe millennium. #ut he recogni ed the di ersity of thought among hisbrothers. otice the amicable spirit of how he e:pressed his owniews"

2,s I mentioned before! I and many others are of thisopinion! and belie e that such prophecies will takeplace in this manner. #ut on the other hand! I told youthat 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 currentiews 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 metheir thinking on this matter! and ha e arri ed at my own conclusionsafter studying writings from both camps. 'n a curious note! I ha ebeen personally accused by indi iduals from both camps of spendingtoo much time studying the iews of the other camp>

The C#@ iew was de eloped by Ma: &. Fing $born 5GE %! who applied resurrection principally ! if not exclusively ! as a corporateoccurrence. In this iew! resurrection was a metaphorical e ent$renewal! regeneration! restoration! rebirth% that had been prophesiedto take place in the last days. Per Fing" 2 The primary application ofthe resurrection is applied to the death of Budaism! and to the rise ofChristianity.= 7 This CBV- only view as a systematic eschatology wasunknown prior to Fing! e en though apparently &obert Townleytaught traces of it in an 5 79 book. Perhaps surprisingly! Fingacknowledged that he drew from the iews of liberal scholar Bohn ,.T. &obinson $5G5G+5G E%0in &obinson s book The Body . &obinson

was a skeptic that e idently e en doubted the physical bodilyresurrection of Besus. ,ll modern C#@ proponents draw from Fing.

There is found in the #ible! certainly! a motif of corporateresurrection. 4 en I#@ proponents acknowledge this. In C#@ thought!

what was being resurrected was the 2house of Israel=0or! in ewCo enant terms" the church body! i.e. the 2body of Christ= $5

Corinthians 5/"5/+E56 4phesians 5"//+/E6 9"/E6 Colossians 5"5 %.This iew harkens back to such te:ts as the dry bones passage in



topic! included the resurrection of 'ld Co enant Israel from the deathof its broken fellowship with (od. So resurrection refers! in part! to thehope of Israel $inclusi e of all belie ers collecti ely% to life in Christ.That is! resurrection can be iewed as recovery of relational deathbetween man and God that stood since the (arden of 4den.

, charge le eled against C#@ ad ocates is that the afterlifee:istence of belie ers melds into some sort of a #org+like corporateoneness without indi idual recognition. $It is unclear how this might beapplied to the damned! though some preterists ha e adoptedannihilationism which eliminates the problem of e:plaining acorporate 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 ofC#@ ad ocates! this charge is largely a red herring. 4 ery C#@ad ocate with whom I ha e corresponded has readily acknowledgedthat 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 isunclear what passages of Scripture they rely on to reach thisconclusion! as they insist on corporati ing the passages that the I#@proponents use to support indi iduality in hea en.% , alid concernremains! howe er! that the C#@ concept of membership in the groupis emphasi ed so strongly that it renders the concept of sal ation asery impersonal. This! in my iew! is in contradistinction to the erypersonal nature of Besus.

More serious charges are that the C#@+ only iew $a% hyper+spirituali es the resurrection and $b% leads to bi arre inferences. I fearthat! as they re*ect futurism! C#@ ad ocates may be throwing thebaby out with the bath water. Is the foundational hope of the Christianbeing compromised;

?or e:ample! some ad ocates of the C#@+ only iew ha ee en suggested that we ha e heaven on earth now ! and that we donot ac<uire anything new or better in the afterlife. 'ne leadingad ocate of this iew put it this way" 1I primarily see hea en as inChrist and where er and whate er He is. . . . )e don t ha e to ha e anew inheritance when we shed our physical body. )e simply get theopportunity 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 bigdifference between saying li ing belie ers ha e 2hea en now= $a



physically dead. C#@ers think they are the same thing! while I#@ersthink they are different things. Perhaps the confusion arises in partfrom the use of a single term resurrection to describe two differentthings. Bust as we considered about the word heaven ! duality ofmeaning is certainly common in language. ?or e:ample! if we pray for1peace!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 hasmultiple connotations that can lead to confusion. )e can understandthe word spiritual in strictly metaphorical terms! and we canunderstand it as applied to a type of immaterial glorified body in theafterlife. )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 - hadalready recei ed spiritual3metaphorical resurrection prior to their

physical death 0when they first belie ed $&omans 7! etc%. They didn tneed to recei e $again% something they already possessed> Thus! theresurrection of the physically dead must ha e been <ualitati elydifferent from 1resurrection1 of the li ing. The distinction here is similarto one becoming spiritually a 1new creation in Christ1 $/ Corinthians9"5-% while remaining the same old fleshly person0compared toreally and truly ha ing a new personal e:istence outside of time andspace! which one recei es upon physical death. I prefer to think of thespiritual3metaphorical 1resurrection1 of the li ing per &omans J"5564phesians /"5+-6 Colossians /"5E+57! and 5 Bohn E"57 as being in<uotation marks. This was the first resurrection of &e elation / "7. Itis soteriological in nature rather than eschatological .

Apon physical death! belie ers today $unbelie ers too! if youare not an annihilationist% are transformed to a new type of body. Iuse the term 1body1 loosely as we do not really know what ourafterlife 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/"/6Bohn 9"/ +/G6 Matthew /9"E +7J6 ,cts /7"596 etc.% or the great whitethrone judgment $&e elation / "55+59%. This second resurrection waseschatological. ,s a full preterist! I am persuaded that the #ible

teaches that when belie ers die today we immediately step into ournew immortal glorified body in hea en as the hadean step has been



In one sense! there is no resurrection past ,D - . ,ccordingthis notion! the first metaphorical3soteriological resurrection post ,D- is now better considered as being 1born again.1 ,nd we today nolonger e:perience the second resurrection at death! at least in thesame sense! since we do not go to hades. Howe er! I consider thisdistinction a matter of semantics. I belie e that the two types ofresurrection still happen to the li ing and to the dead. ,ctually! this ispretty 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 whatChristians ha e always belie ed. $I can hear the howls of protest andcharges of ?uturism>%

)hat makes preterism so attracti e is that ChristKs work to secure ourhea 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. ote that some of thesepassages actually do not speak to resurrection at all! but do speak ofdeath! so they ha e implications for resurrection. Preterist interpretersapproach these passages from arious perspecti es. Some seembent on seeing words symbolically at e ery turn e en when notnecessary! while others prefer to see things word+for+word literallye en if it creates more problems than it sol es. &easonableness maybe pushed aside in order to support a particular iewpoint. There areoften unfortunate battle+ready reactions to reasonable contributionsfrom the other camp in attempts to defend oneKs own turf. $Humannature at work again.%

I ha e concluded that while there remain sharpdisagreements! there is enough in common in the two iews around

which most preterists should be able to unite. This article is merelyan effort to offer some considerations about these passages in astraightforward! but logical! methodology that does not re<uire atheologian to grasp the meaning. The assumption is that (odKs )orddoes not torture us with labyrinths and riddles. Lour response inrebuttal is welcome.

The "romises of #esus . 'ur hope and understanding of eternal lifeshould begin with Besus. 'ur 8ordKs promises establish a critical

backdrop for the rest of Scripture. Besus promised that belie ers willne er die $Bohn E"5J6 9"/56 J"7 +956 5 "/ 6 55"/7+/J6 57"E6 etc.%.



speaking only of a metaphorical death and resurrection. #ut the latteris not a necessary inference at all. These passages $2 whosoeverbelieves in Him shall have eternal life” % demand that Besus waspromising that after biological death all indi idual belie ers will li efore 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 theoriginal hearers would ha e understood these passages! includingMartha in Bohn 55 $cf. 8uke -"//6 G"-%> The disciples would ha eunderstood this when Besus promised that in (odKs house there aremany rooms and that Besus would take them there $Bohn 57"/+E%. ,plain reading of the promises of Besus demands our understanding ofa guarantee by Besus to ha e an identifiable 2persona= in hea en! not

a corporate meld0albeit not in the self+same body as our earthlybody! 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 withseed in its fruit# $ou shall have them for food#% # # # And the & '() Godcommanded the man saying !$ou may surely eat of every tree of thegarden but of the tree of the *nowledge of good and evil you shallnot eat for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die#% # # # Butthe 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 willbe li*e God *nowing good and evil#% ,o when the woman saw thatthe tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes andthat the tree was to be desired to ma*e one wise she too* of itsfruit and ate and she also gave some to her husband who was withher and he ate# Then the eyes of both were opened and they *newthat they were na*ed# And they sewed fig leaves together and madethemselves 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 takenliterally and how much is figurati e. The <uestion for us is" )hat ismeant by death in these passages; 'ur understanding of this mayinfluence 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



e en though the interpreti e difficulties surrounding a talkingsnake 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 bornimmortal and could only e:perience physical death after the+all . (od created ,dam and 4 e fully complete with digesti esystems! and ga e them food to eat in the beginning. It is anecessary inference that they would ha e died physically hadthey not eaten. (od created the uni erse 2good= or 2 erygood=0not perfect in a utopian sense in which neither mennor 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 wasnot physical death because ,dam did not die physically onthe literal day that he ate the fruit as (od warned. ,dam li edto be GE years old. ManKs physical mortality seems furtherconfirmed by such passages as (enesis /"-6 E"5G6 Bob 57"96Psalm 5EG"5J! and Hebrews G"/-. So! death in (enesis isbest understood as referring to spiritual death rather thanliteral physical death. ote the reaction that ,dam and 4 ee:perienced afterward. They reali ed their nakednessbecause of shame of their sin.

c. , plausible $and uncommonly simple% conclusion is thatindeed men were made mortal in the beginning0but with thepotential 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 teachingphysical death at the ?all in order for there to be indi idualresurrected bodies in hea en. I personally do not see that asa necessary inference. These two things do not correlatebecause our earthly life and our hea enly life are not of thesame nature. &emember! we do not ha e our old physicalfleshly 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 thesecond 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>% apurely spiritual3metaphorical3soteriological resurrection that peoplee: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 deadin our sins! but are 2raised up= together with Christ by his grace untosal ation. This resurrection began with ChristKs ministry on earth! andcontinues to this day. The second resurrection was the general

resurrection of all residents of hades at ,D - 0both the sa ed andthe damned0to *udgment and their eternal destiny. $Compare" Daniel5/"/6 Matthew 5E"EJ+7E6 /9"E +796 ,cts /7"596 / Timothy 7"56 5 Peter7"9! 5-6 &e elation 55"59+5 6 //"5/.% This was a 2bodily=eschatological resurrection! though it was not bodily in the fleshlysense. The two resurrections of &e elation / match perfectly withthe ones described by Besus in Bohn 90first 2resurrection= $of theli ing! Bohn 9"/7+/9%! second resurrection $of those from their tombs!Bohn 9"/ +/G%. Besus! by the way! spoke of two types of deathelsewhere. )hen Besus said! 18et the dead bury the dead.1 $Matthew"//6 8uke G"J %0He was most certainly referencing both types ofdeath.

,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 thethousand years were ended.= This passage would suggest that bothresurrections were similar in nature. Howe er! in all likelihood thispassage is spurious! and was added hundreds of years after+the+fact.It does not appear in the Code: Sinaiticus manuscript! which is a eryearly and reliable manuscript of the #ible. Indeed! this manuscript!

which dates to the fourth century! is the oldest e:tant manuscript thatcontains &e elation / . or does it appear in many manuscriptssubse<uent to that one. It seems that someone added the phrase at alater date0probably a confused millennialist who felt that he wasli ing in the millennium and was concerned that there were noapparent 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"



It also is clear enough that coincident with the (reat )hite ThroneBudgment of &e elation / "55+59! all of the dead were raised fromhades at the second resurrection. Thus! the first resurrection bynecessity was <ualitati ely different from the second. $)hy wouldpeople need to be resurrected in the same way twice;>%

The final point for consideration is this" The indi iduals in hades didnot 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 ebeen 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 everythinglaid down by the &aw and written in the -rophets having a hope inGod which these men themselves accept that there will be .about tobe $&T/ a resurrection of both the just and the unjust# # # # "t is withrespect 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 Godto our fathers to which our twelve tribes hope to attain as theyearnestly worship night and day# And for this hope " am accused by

0ews ' *ing1 2hy is it thought incredible by any of you that Godraises the dead3 # # # To this day " have had the help that comes fromGod and so " stand here testifying both to small and great sayingnothing but what the prophets and 4oses said would come to

pass# # # # +or this reason therefore " have as*ed to see you andspea* with you since it is because of the hope of "srael that " amwearing this chain#” $,cts /7"57! 59! /56 /J"J! -! ! //6 / "/ %

Comment" C#@ ad ocates rely hea ily on these passages to suggestthat the resurrection is purely collecti e and spiritual! and not in anysense indi idual and bodily. This seems weak. ,s this passage is areference to the 'ld Testament! the most prominent te:t in the 'ldTestament about the resurrection is Daniel 5/"/" 2,nd many of those

who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake! some to e erlastinglife! and some to shame and e erlasting contempt.= This passagecritically weighs against the C#@ iew in fa or to the I#@ iew. 2Dustof 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 limitedto some concept of collecti e resurrection; Certainly not! as the te:t



Testament clarifies that hope of Israel was the Messiah and theforgi eness of sins for all indi iduals who belie e.

Romans +,+ “2e *now that our old self was crucified with him inorder that the body of sin might be brought to nothing so that wewould 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 tome! highlight the indi idual perspecti e of PaulKs teaching" 2?or one

who has died has been set free from sin. ow 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 hasdominion 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 sintherefore reign in your mortal body ! to make you obey its passions.Do not present your members to sin as instruments forunrighteousness! but present yoursel es to (od as those who ha ebeen 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 waragainst the law of my mind and ma*ing me captive to the law of sinthat dwells in my members# 2retched man that " am1 2ho will deliverme from this body of death3”

Comment" 2#ody= here may appear to be a corporate body0the2body of Moses= $Bude G%. #ut in conte:t! one can only understandthis as an I#@ te:t. Paul is speaking about his personal sins! so2body= refers to his physical personal body iewed as the means bywhich 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 myown actions. ?or I do not do what I want! but I do the ery thing Ih $ ) h d h $



Romans *,$'-$$ “But if 5hrist is in you although the body is deadbecause of sin the ,pirit is life because of righteousness# "f the ,piritof him who raised 0esus from the dead dwells in you he who raised5hrist 0esus from the dead will also give life to your mortalbodies through his ,pirit who dwells in you#”

Comment" I am persuaded that &omans is speaking mostly! thoughnot entirely! about the completion of our spiritual sal ation3redemptionthat Christ guaranteed at the cross! and perfected at the Parousia$8uke /5"/ 6 &omans "5 ! //! /E6 &omans 5E"55+5/6 Hebrews 5"5765 Peter 5"E+G6 etc.%. I don t think that any of these passages are

understood ade<uately in a C#@ way. &omans "5 +55 could possiblybe interpreted as a C#@ te:t! speaking about the 'ld Co enant2body= as a collecti e. 2Lou= may be understood as plural. ,nd2righteousness= here is the righteousness of Christ as applied to allbelie ers in the ew Co enant! thus the church 2body.= Howe er! aplain reading of both the immediately preceding passages $ "5+G% andthe immediately following passages $ "5/+5-% bring us back to the I#@iew. Paul was speaking to the &omans about the $spiritual% deaththat might happen to them in the future if they li ed according to theflesh . #ut corporate entities do not ha e flesh! only indi iduals. ,ndcorporate death had already occurred in ,dam! so by putting that

warning in the future! Paul could only ha e been speaking ofindi idual death and resurrection. "mmortal bodies $plural% of whichPaul speaks in "55 was about the belie erKs physical aspect! furthersupporting the I#@ iew. )hen Paul spoke of mortality! he wasalways referring to corruptible 2flesh=0e en though! indeed! there is arelationship between the flesh and the co enantal concepts that freethe indi idual from fleshly as well as spiritual death $&omans J"5/6"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 asclearly as the proponents of each want to do.

Romans *,&% “And not only the creation but we ourselves whohave the firstfruits of the ,pirit groan inwardly as we wait eagerly foradoption as sons the redemption of our body .Gree* somatos /#”

Comment" C#@ ad ocates *ump on this in an attempt to pro e that



some translations render it as plural" 4S@! I@! 8T! and &S@%.Thus! by using a plural possessi e pronoun $2our=% with a singularnoun $2body=%! Paul is teaching a collecti e body being adopted ortransformed $cf. Philippians E"/5%. This argument has little force oreffect! and C#@ ad ocates appear to be backing away from it. 4 en ifsomatos is correctly understood as singular! in e ery language wefind plural ad*ecti es to <ualify singular nouns. Here is an e:ample" ,psychologist speaking to a national radio audience might say! 2)henour pluralN child singularN misbeha es! there are certain steps weshould take.= Such construction is not uncommon in the #ible either$Matthew J"556 8uke -"96 Bohn E"556 -"956 / Corinthians J"556 etc.% ,sargued by 4d Ste ens"

2)hen we say! O)hen we get to hea en! we will get anew body there!K we all know what we are talkingabout. )e know that it means each of us gets a newbody! not that we all share a common body inhea en. 4nglish speakers and (reek speakers bothtalk that way. It is understood by looking at theconte:t. ?or instance! since Paul had already referredto their indi idual bodies in the plural (reek somatain &omans "55N! the conte:t indicates that meaningin &omans "/E also. It is a conte:tual considerationfrom 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 allthings wor* together for good for those who are called according tohis purpose# +or those whom He fore*new He also predestined to beconformed to the image of his ,on in order that He might be thefirstborn among many brothers# And those whom He predestined Healso called and those whom He called He also justified and thosewhom He justified He also glorified#6

Comment" This passage gathers up both the process and thepurposes of election. )hile a plurality of persons is in iew! there isd b f h i i di id l lli ! d i i ! * ifi i ! d



and are indi idually being conformed to the image of His Son. Thesephenomena characteri e the actions of (od in the li es of his people

who are called out of darkness into his mar elous light! e:periencingthe life of the kingdom in a real sense now and in its fullness afterphysical death. Moreo er! the idea of glorification! while carryingcertain implications for the present life of belie ers! is widelyunderstood 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 ,piritdwells in you3 "f anyone destroys God8s temple God will destroy him#+or God8s temple is holy and you are that temple#” $5 CorinthiansE"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 isan indi idual conte:t as well" 2each oneKs work= in erse 5E! and 2ifanyone destroys= in erse 5J. These statements are about theindi 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 iousthese passages do not imply that people lost their indi idual bodies bybeing part of a group! the body of Christ>

$ Corinthians +,$.-&' “)o you not *now that your body is a templeof 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 yourbody#”

Comment" The conte:t is the sin of individuals . The immediatelypreceding erse $J"5 % states" 2?lee from se:ual immorality. 4 eryother sin a person commits is outside the body! but the immoral

person sins against his own body.= Does a corporate body commitsin! or rather its indi idual members; ,nd! do we sin against acorporate body! or against (od;

$ Corinthians $/ “+or this perishable body must put on theimperishable and this mortal body must put on immortality# 2hen the



immortality then shall come to pass the saying that is written9 !)eathis swallowed up in victory# ' death where is your victory3 ' deathwhere is your sting3%” $5 Corinthians 59"9E+99%

Comment" C#@ ad ocates argue that all of the erses in 5Corinthians 59 that speak of the resurrection refer to the 'ldCo enant e:istence transformed into the ew 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 kingdom0Christ being the immortal body as perpetuated by his church. Theyalso suggest that the cited <uotation within erses 97+99 is fromIsaiah /9" 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 whatPaul describes in 5 Corinthians 59! it is wholly inade<uate to fullye: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 alot of people for a long time. The first and ob ious problem for theC#@ ad ocate is that Paul begins his discussion describing the bodilyresurrection of Besus! clearly implying a correlation to the indi idualresurrection of each belie er. In 5 Corinthians 59"5/+/ Paul set thisearthly life o er against the resurrection life in hea en! confirming histeaching of our personal life after bodily death. It also seemsimpossible to miss that in erses E9 to 9 Paul was describing thenature of the individual body in hea en. ote erse E " 1and to eachof 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 willall be changed in a moment! at the last trumpet= demands that Paul

was referring to indi idual bodies more so than the corporate 2body ofChrist.= ,nd after all! the corporate body is merely a collection ofindi idual bodies! as -aul himself explains in : 5orinthians :;9;< .

ote" It is worth mentioning that there is e idence that the moderntranslations of 5 Corinthians 59"95 may be incorrect. , ma*ority ofancient manuscripts read" 2)e shall all fall asleep! but we shall not allbe 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.



of the te:t; )hat were they changed into; )ere they cogni ant of thechange; Some I#@ers see this as a literal rapture of the saints.Howe er! I think that the conclusion with the fewest problems is thatthis was the finishing touch! if you will! of Besus sal ation3redemption

work as described elsewhere in the ew Testament. Christguaranteed our sal ation at the cross and subse<uent resurrection $5Corinthians 59"5+/56 4phesians 5"-6 Hebrews G"55+//6 5 Peter 5"5 +5G6 etc.%! and perfected3completed it at the Parousia $8uke /5"/ 6&omans "5 +/96 &omans 5E"55+5/6 Hebrews 5"576 5 Peter 5"E+G6etc.%. Perhaps an analogy might be this" a dying patient recei ing alife sa ing in*ection. The in*ection from the needle guarantees that thepatient 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 theParousia! as well as us today! Christ s work of sal ation becamecomplete. This is the great news of hope emanating from the preteristiew. 'ur sal ation has been sealed. )e need only die to step intoour new immortal immaterial glorified bodies suitable for our eternalhabitation.

ChristKs death on the cross paid the penalty for our sins $&omansE"/7+/-6 "5+76 5 Corinthians 59"E6 4phesians 5"-6 Colossians 5"576 5Timothy /"J6 Hebrews G"55+//6 5 Peter 5"5 +5G6 &e elation 9"G%. Hisresurrection pro ides our hope for eternal life $5 Corinthians 596 /Timothy 5"5 6 etc.%. His Parousia sealed our sal ation $8uke /5"/ 6&omans "5 +/96 5E"556 Hebrews G"/J+/ 6 5 Peter 5"E+G%. The oldpre+Christ world of shadows and prophecies! the things which were2imperfect= and 2in part = $Daniel G"/76 5 Corinthians 5E" +5/6 etc.%!

were brought to completion. Anlike the futurist paradigm in which theChristian age is but a comma! co enant eschatology confirms Christas completely triumphant0 ictorious e en in the midst of sin.

& Corinthians /,$-$' “+or we *now that if the tent that is our earthlyhome is destroyed we have a building from God a house not madewith hands eternal in the heavens# +or in this tent we groan longingto put on our heavenly dwelling if indeed by putting it on we may notbe found na*ed# +or while we are still in this tent we groan beingburdened=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



&ord for we wal* by faith not by sight# $es we are of good courageand we would rather be away from the body and at home with theLord # ,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 of5hrist so that each one may receive what is due for what he hasdone 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 insuch passages as / Corinthians E"J! 55.

• C#@ ad ocates see the 2tent being torn down= and argue that

2torn down= is used in the ew Testament as the templebeing torn down to describe the destruction of the 'ldCo enant.

• C#@ ad ocates also find the term found in Bude G! 2the bodyof Moses!= to apply all o er the ew 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 ocatesare forcing a meaning into such te:ts as this one as well as 5Corinthians 59. )hy would Paul! writing under the inspiration of theHoly Spirit! ha e confused both his first+century audience and thoseof us today; If he meant the corporate body! wouldnKt he ha eclarified that; 'ur 1earthly house1 $ erse 5% certainly refers to ourindi idual physical bodies $cf. / Peter 5"57%. ,lso consider the term2away from the body= $ erse %. To hold that 2body= here means

2corporate body= makes no sense. )hy would it be significant that wemight be away from the corporate body; Paul e<uates being awayfrom the body to being with the &ord . C#@ ad ocates e<uate theopposite" that to be away from the body $corporate% is to be absent from the 8ord> So! the C#@ cannot be correct in this importantpassage. It only makes sense to understand this as a comparison ofour 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 theterm 2mortal flesh= in / Corinthians 7"55 laid the groundwork



mean the corporate body e erywhere else; )hile it is correct to saythat many of PaulKs discussions on this topic usually assume abackground of the dying 'ld Co enant! this does not preclude anindi idual perspecti e as well> 2Hea enly dwelling= means! it seems tome! e:actly what we ha e always thought it to mean0the place of oureternal residence! where we ha e indi idual identity and

personality . ,t the end of this section! Paul puts an e:clamationmark for the I#@ iew" 2?or we must all appear before the *udgmentseat of Christ! so that each one may recei e what is due for what hehas done in the body! whether good or e il.=

Phili""ians %,&'-&$ 2But our citi>enship is in heaven and from itwe await a ,avior the &ord 0esus 5hrist who will transform our lowlybody to be li*e his glorious body by the power that enables himeven to subject all things to himself#”

Comment" 8ike in &omans "/E! we find the plural possessi epronoun $2our=% with a singular noun $2body=%. #ut! as indicatedpre iously! this in no way pro es a corporate body. 'n the otherhand! some I#@ ad ocates insist that this is the same change as wesee in 5 Corinthians 59"95+97! 5 Thessalonians 7"59+5-! etc. and thatthis change demands a literal rapture. They argue that $a% it mustha e been a physical body change! and $b% it would happen at theParousia. )ithout getting into the pros and cons of a literal rapture! Ireally donKt think that this is a necessary conclusion either. Paul couldeither be speaking of $a% a metaphorical change that was thecapstone of our soteriological sal ation! as discussed abo e under 5Corinthians 59! or $b% since Paul is speaking specifically of hea en!

he is looking into the future e en beyond the Parousia to eachbelie 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! buthad more distant things in iew as well as he spoke elsewhere! fore: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 wordfrom 2change= $ allasso % in 5 Corinthians 59"95! and also different from



$ Timothy $,*-$$ " Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimonyabout our &ord nor of me his prisoner but share in suffering for thegospel by the power of God who saved us and called us to a holycalling not because of our wor*s but because of his own purposeand grace which he gave us in 5hrist 0esus before the agesbegan and which now has been manifested through the appearing ofour ,avior 5hrist 0esus who abolished death and brought lifeand 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! itdoubtless means the works of indi iduals. 18ife and immortality1 mustcertainly e<uate to the eternal life gi en to indi idual belie ers withoutany 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 5did not ask Besus how Israel would be sa ed. He asked" 2)hat must Ido to earn eternal life;= Many Israelites may ha e thought ofthemsel es as part of their collecti e group! *ust as Christians ofdifferent iews today think of themsel es in the same way> There s noshortage of group+think then or now.

#ut was their eternal reward connected to the group; Theew Testament corrected any such understanding by teaching that

we are sa ed not by blood or e en of the will $Bohn 5"5E6 &omans G" !5J%. Anless you follow the thinking of dispensationalists! weunderstand that 'ld Testament Bews were sa ed as indi iduals by(od s so ereign election! howe er we might understand election$&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 knowingBesus in a personal way as we do today. They were sa ed by faith inthe totality of (odKs promises including the promised Messiah! but

certainly not e ery indi idual Bew possessed that faith. Sal ation wasand is personal .



salvation to other indi iduals0not in any sense a corporate work ofIsrael. #y the way! I ha e noticed a degree of inconsistency amongC#@ers. 'n the one hand some attempt to support their case bysaying that Bews always understood their sal ation in terms of theircorporate identity. #ut I ha e had other C#@ers say that! well! yes theBews did understand their sal ation as personal and indi idual butthey were simply wrong. Lou can t ha e it both ways. )hat did theBews actually belie e; Here is an e:cerpt from an essay by ?la iusBosephus! in which I see no hint of corporate resurrection"

2)e ha e therefore belie ed that the body will beraised again. ?or although it be dissol ed! it is not

perished. ?or the earth recei es its remains! andpreser es them6 and while they are like seed ! and aremi:ed among the more fruitful soil! they flourish6 and

what is sown is indeed sown bare grain 6 but at themighty 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:edwith the earthN. So that we ha e not rashly belie edthe resurrection of the body. ?or although it bedissol ed for a time! on account of the originaltransgression! it e:ists still6 and is cast into the earth!as into a potterKs furnace! in order to be formedagain. ot in order to rise again such as it wasbefore6 but in a state of purity! and so as ne er to hedestroyed any more. . . . #ut the *ust shall remember

only their righteous actions! whereby they ha eattained the heavenly *ingdom . In which there is nosleep! no sorrow! no corruption! no care! no night! noday measured by time.= J

oteworthy is the seed analogy! <uite similar to PaulKs in 5Corinthians 59. It cannot be emphasi ed 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



implied by C#@ ad ocates that I#@ preterists belie e in fleshly bodiesin hea en. 'f course! that is a false charge. I#@ ad ocates feel thattheir iews ha e been wrongly characteri ed in this way. )hile I#@ersre*ect fleshly resurrection! they also argue that all Christians shouldalso 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 metaphoricalon the one hand! nor in a body of flesh on the other hand. or! 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 usedin Scripture.% #elie ers will ha e a new e1istence 0which is

described in the #ible as a spiritual body or a glorified body which isimmaterial ! immortal and incorruptible 0a state suitable for eternal lifeoutside of time and space $5 Corinthians 59"7 +776 / Corinthians 9"5+%. Metaphorical resurrection of the living prepares the way for

glorified+body resurrection at physical death. The second death hasno 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 "556 Philippians 5"//+/76 Colossians 5"/ 6 /Timothy 7"5 6 Hebrews 55"5E+5J6 etc%. It seems to me that one wouldha e to read these passages with a C#@ presupposition to miss this.?ocusing on points of agreement! most C#@ ad ocates agree withI#@ 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 . obody can tell us precisely what thismight mean because the #ible does not tell us! and because it isimpossible for mortal humans to grasp e:istence outside of time andspace.

either 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 acknowledgethat their acronyms are potentially misleading. My further obser ationis that these distinctions create more di ision than is necessary! asmany in both camps ha e more in common than the debates suggest.4:cept for a few really hard+core preterists ehemently committed toone side or the other! there is usually a blending of iews from both

sides.Some clarification would be helpful! not only to correctly



attempt here to de elop a concept that better e:plains the probablenature 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 understoodas "mmortal -erson ?at@ )eath . The 8atin word persona ! *ust as in4nglish! embodies a sense of personality and identity in the afterlife.This seems to be a better concept than 2indi idual body at death= forour purposes because it detaches itself from the idea of 2fleshlybody.= The 8atin word decessus is also interesting in that it imparts ameaning not only of physical death! but also 2departure= or2disappearance.= This is consistent with what we belie e about bodily

death. )e Christians do not merely die6 we depart this life and enterinto a new one.

The Personhood View 2PV3

This iew does not insist on an understanding of a corporeale:istence $bodily human shape% in the afterlife! but neither does iteliminate it as a possibility. This concept only insists upon indi idual

personality and identity as a minimum understanding of the nature ofour hea enly e:istence. The ast ma*ority of supporters of both theC#@ and the I#@ iew with whom I ha e communicated agree on thisbasic 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 igorousdebate among theologians on the nature of the resurrection! as it isincreasingly recogni ed that the standard models are untenable. Inthe meantime! we appeal for as much unity as possible amongpreterists. Indeed! there may be more agreement than meets the eye!as most can agree on the concept of individual personhood inhea en. )e must be discerning as to who our true opponents are.The ealous defense of their positions by a few preterist parties iscancerous and unbecoming $Matthew 9"5 ! //6 5/"EJ6 &omans 5/"5 6Colossians E"5 6 Bames 5"5G+/ %. )e are too often neither winsomenor outwardly focused.

Preterists are often dismissed out of hand by futurists for2spirituali ing the resurrection= and for 2destroying the belie erKs



discouraged belie ers about our eternal hope. The beauty ofpreterism is that it enhances rather than denigrates the hope of thebelie er because the re<uirements for our eternal hope of hea enha e been satisfied by Christ. I discuss this at length in my book. It iscritical that we not be a stumbling block that keeps people fromconsidering 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 onthe Personhood View $PV % of the resurrection. )e can present it tofuturists as an eminently reasonable concept! while acknowledgingthat 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 Christiansseeking answers to the futurist confusion! or will it die from its owndeath+spiral wranglings; It is critical for the preterist mo ement topresent 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"A H'-7 through+ &+"&&7) -('-H75$9 "s $our 5hurch Teaching 7rror about the&ast )ays and ,econd 5oming3 The ,urging -reterist 5hallenge to7schatology . 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

http://www.faithfacts.org/

https://www.facebook.com/Faithfacts.org


https://www.facebook.com/EvangelicalPreterism

http://www.faithfacts.org/


https://www.facebook.com/EvangelicalPreterism



5 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

E Bustin Trypho ! Chapter ! paraphrased by Da id ). #ercot! 2ill the (eal Heretics -lease ,tandp $Tyler! Te:as" Scroll Publishing Company! 5G G%.

7 http"33www.preteristcentral.com3 uothQ/ HeQ/ +Q/ Ma:Q/ Fing.html

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

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

http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/1-EBV-Summary

http://www.eschatology.org/

http://www.bibleprophecy.com/

http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/

http://www.lastdays-eschatology.net/

http://preteristcosmos.com/

http://www.preterist.org/

http://www.charlescoty.com/Theology.html

http://prophecyquestions.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/preterist-websites

http://www.preteristcentral.com/Quoth%20He%20-%20Max%20King.html



http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/hades.html


http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/1-EBV-Summary

http://www.eschatology.org/

http://www.bibleprophecy.com/

http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/

http://www.lastdays-eschatology.net/

http://preteristcosmos.com/


http://www.charlescoty.com/Theology.html

http://prophecyquestions.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/preterist-websites

http://www.preteristcentral.com/Quoth%20He%20-%20Max%20King.html



Personhood View of the Resurrection - Booklet 4x7 28

Documents

Transcript of Personhood View of the Resurrection - Booklet 4x7 28