The Church and Israel in the New Testament

One of the most common questions asked by students of the Bible concerns the relationship between Israel and the church. We read the Old Testament, and it is evident that most of it concerns the story of Israel. From Jacob to the exile, the people of God is Israel, and Israel is the people of God. Despite the constant sin of king and people leading to the judgment of exile, the prophets look beyond this judgment with hope to a time of restoration for Israel. When we turn to the New Testament, the same story continues, and Israel is still in the picture. Jesus is described as the one who will be given “the throne of his father David” and the one who “will reign over the house of Jacob [Israel] forever” (Luke 1:32–33). He is presented as the One the prophets foresaw.

The first to believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah are Israelites— Andrew, Peter, James, John. But in the Gospels, we also hear Jesus speak of building His church, and we see growing hostility between the leaders of Israel and Jesus. We hear Jesus speak of destroying the tenants of the vineyard and giving it to others (Luke 20:9–18). In the book of Acts, the spread of the gospel to the Samaritans and Gentiles leads to even more conflict with the religious leaders of Israel. So, is Israel cast aside and replaced by this new entity known as the “church”?

There are those who would say yes, but the answer is not that simple, for we also run across hints that God is not finished with the nation of Israel. At the end of His declaration of woes on the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus says, “You will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matt. 23:39). In the Olivet Discourse, He speaks of Jerusalem being trampled underfoot “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). In Acts, Peter says to a Jewish audience: “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:19—21). Finally, Paul says things about Israel that seem to preclude total rejection. Speaking of Israel, he writes, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” (Rom. 11:1a).

In order to understand the relationship between Israel and the church as described in the New Testament, we will need to look at the question in the context of the different answers Christians have given over the years. The traditional dispensationalist view maintains that God has not replaced Israel with the church but that God has two programs in history, one for the church and one for Israel. Traditional dispensationalism also maintains that the church consists only of believers saved between Pentecost and the rapture. The church as the body of Christ does not include Old Testament believers. Progressive dispensationalism has modified some of these views, but the traditional dispensationalist view remains very popular. Some covenant theologians have adopted a view that many dispensationalists describe as “replacement theology.” This is the idea that the church has completely replaced Israel. Jews may still be saved on an individual basis by coming to Christ, but the nation of Israel and the Jews as a people no longer have any part to play in redemptive history.

A careful study of the New Testament reveals that both of these interpretations of the relationship between Israel and the church are wanting. The relationship between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament is better described in terms of an organic development rather than either separation or replacement. During most of the Old Testament era, there were essentially three groups of people: the Gentile nations, national Israel, and true Israel (the faithful remnant). Although the nation of Israel was often involved in idolatry, apostasy, and rebellion, God always kept for Himself a faithful remnant—those who trusted in Him and who would not bow the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18). This remnant, this true Israel, included men such as David, Joash, Isaiah, and Daniel, as well as women such as Sarah, Deborah, and Hannah. There were those who were circumcised in the flesh and a smaller number who had their hearts circumcised as well. So, even in the Old Testament, not all were Israel who were descended from Israel (Rom. 9:6).

At the time of Jesus’ birth, the faithful remnant (true Israel) included believers such as Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:25–38). During Jesus’ adult ministry, true Israel was most visible in those Jewish disciples who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Those who rejected Jesus were not true Israel, regardless of their race. This included many of the scribes and Pharisees. Though they were physically Jews, they were not true Israel (Rom. 2:28–29). True Israel became def ined by union with the true Israelite—Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16, 29).

On the day of Pentecost, the true Israel, Jewish believers in Jesus, was taken by the Holy Spirit and formed into the nucleus of the New Testament church (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit was poured out on the true Israel, and the same men and women who were part of this true Israel were now the true new covenant church. Soon after, Gentiles began to become a part of this small group.

This is an extremely important point to grasp because it explains why there is so much confusion regarding the relationship between the church and Israel. The answer depends on whether we are talking about national Israel or true Israel. The church is distinct from national Israel, just as the true Israel in the Old Testament was distinct from national Israel even while being part of national Israel. The remnant group was part of the whole but could also be distinguished from the whole by its faith.

However, if we are talking about true Israel, there really is no distinction. The true Israel of the Old Testament became the nucleus of the true church on the day of Pentecost. Here the analogy of the olive tree that Paul uses in Romans 11 is instructive. The tree represents the covenant people of God—Israel. Paul compares unbelieving Israel to branches that have been broken off from the olive tree (v. 17a). Believing Gentiles are compared to branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted in to the cultivated olive tree (vv. 17b–19). The important point to notice is that God does not cut the old tree down and plant a new one (replacement theology). Neither does God plant a second new tree alongside the old tree and then graft branches from the old tree into the new tree (traditional dispensationalism). Instead, the same tree exists across the divide between Old and New Testaments. That which remains after the dead branches are removed is the true Israel. Gentile believers are now grafted into this already existing old tree (true Israel/the true church). There is only one good olive tree, and the same olive tree exists across the covenantal divide.

What does this mean for our understanding of the relationship between the church and Israel? It means that when true Israel was baptized by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, true Israel became the New Testament church. Thus, there is continuity between true Israel and the church. This is why the Reformed confessions can speak of the church as existing from the beginning of the world (for example, Belgic Confession, Art. 27). Yet there is discontinuity between the church and national Israel as well, just as there was discontinuity between the faithful remnant and apostate Israel in the Old Testament.

So, what does this mean for national Israel, the branches that have been broken off from the true Israel because of unbelief? Is God finished with this people as a covenantal entity? In order to answer this question, we must turn to Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11.

In Romans 1–8, Paul denied that Jews were guaranteed salvation on the basis of their distinctive privileges as Jews. Faith was the key, not ethnicity or any kind of works. Paul argued that all who believe in Jesus are children of Abraham. He also argued that none of God’s promises would fail. All of this would raise serious questions in the minds of his readers. What about Israel? What has become of God’s promises to her in light of her rejection of the Messiah? Has the faithlessness of Israel negated God’s promises? Has Israel been disinherited? Has the plan of God revealed throughout the Old Testament been derailed or set aside? Paul answers these questions in Romans 9–11.

Paul begins Romans 9 with a lament for Israel—his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (v. 3). He then recounts all the privileges that still belong to Israel—including the adoption, the covenants, and the promises (vv. 4–5). In verses 6–29, Paul defends the proposition he states in verse 6a, namely, that the promise of God has not failed. In verses 6–13, he explains that the corporate election of Israel never meant the salvation of every biological descendant of Abraham: “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v. 6b). In verses 14–23, Paul expands on this, explaining that salvation was never a birthright based on biological descent. It has always been a gift based on God’s sovereign election.

In Romans 9:30–10:21, Paul elaborates on the turn that redemptive history has taken, namely, that while Israel has stumbled over Jesus, Gentiles are now streaming into the kingdom. It is important to observe that in Romans 10:1, Paul writes, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.” He’s talking about Israel. The very fact that Paul can continue to pray for the salvation of unbelieving Israel indicates that he believes salvation is possible for them.

What Paul has said thus far raises the big question, which he now states: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” (11:1a). This is the basic theme of chapter 11. In verses 1–10, Paul demonstrates that God has not rejected Israel by distinguishing between the “remnant” and the “hardened.” Building on what he has already said in 9:6–13 and 9:27, Paul indicates that just as in the days of Elijah, there is also now a believing remnant (11:2–5). In contrast with the remnant, chosen by grace (v. 5), is “the rest,” the nation of Israel as a whole, which has been “hardened” (v. 7). God has dulled the spiritual senses of Israel (v. 8), and they have stumbled (vv. 9–10).

Paul then asks, “Did they stumble in order that they might fall?” (11:11a). What is his answer? “By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous” (v. 11b). What is the present significance of Israel’s stumbling? Paul explains that it has happened as a means to bring a multitude of Gentiles into the kingdom. The hardening of Israel is serving God’s purpose. Their trespass has served as the occasion for the granting of salvation to the Gentiles. Paul states, “Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (v. 12, emphasis mine).

In verses 11–12, Paul mentions three events: the trespass (or “failure”) of Israel, the salvation of the Gentiles, and the full inclusion of Israel. The first of these leads to the second, and the second leads to the third. Israel’s trespass, in other words, started a process that will ultimately lead back to Israel’s restoration. This is the first of five places in this short passage where Paul explains the purpose and future of Israel in terms of three stages. Douglas Moo provides a helpful summary:

•vv. 11–12: “trespass of Israel”— “salvation for the Gentiles”— “their fullness”

•v. 15: “their rejection”— “reconciliation of the world”— “their acceptance”

•vv. 17–23: “natural branches broken off”—“wild shoots grafted in”—“natural branches” grafted back in

•vv. 25–26: “hardening of Israel”—“fullness of Gentiles”— “all Israel will be saved”

The repeated occurrence of this “three-stage” process reinforces the idea that Paul is looking forward to a future restoration of Israel. Israel’s present condition is described as “failure” and as “rejection.” Paul characterizes the future condition of Israel in terms of “full inclusion” and as “acceptance.” Israel is not simultaneously in the condition of “failure” and “full inclusion,” of “rejection” and “acceptance.” The “full inclusion” will follow the “failure.” The “acceptance” will follow the “rejection.”

Paul anticipates a potential problem in verses 13–24. Gentile believers who had been taught that they were now God’s people could be easily misled into thinking that this was cause for boasting against the Jews. In these verses, Paul warns against such arrogance. In 11:16–24, Paul explains the development of redemptive history and the place of Israel within it by using the olive tree analogy that we discussed above. Here again, Paul points to three stages in redemptive history: “natural branches broken off”—“wild shoots grafted in”— “natural branches” grafted back in.

Paul’s teaching in verses 25–27 has been at the center of the debate concerning the proper interpretation of chapter 11. Paul writes in verse 25: “Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Here Paul is still speaking directly to the Gentiles (see v. 13). He wants them to understand a “mystery.” In this context, the mystery involves the reversal of Jewish expectations concerning the sequence of end-time events. The “mystery” is that the restoration of Israel follows the salvation of the Gentiles.

In verse 26, Paul continues the sentence begun in verse 25: “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” The biggest debate here is the meaning of “all Israel.” Charles Cranfield lists the four main views that have been suggested: (1) all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles; (2) all the elect of the nation Israel; (3) the whole nation Israel, including every individual member; and (4) the nation Israel as a whole, but not necessarily including every individual member. Since Paul repeatedly denies the salvation of every single Israelite, we can set aside option (3).

John Calvin understood “all Israel” in verse 26 to mean all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles. Paul does use this language in other places in his writings. The problem with understanding “all Israel” in 11:26 in this sense is the context. Throughout verses 11–25, Paul has consistent ly dist inguished between Jews and Gentiles. We also have to remember that Paul’s concern in these chapters is for his kinsmen according to the flesh (9:1–5). His prayer in this context is for the salvation of unbelieving Israel (10:1). In Romans 11:26, Paul is revealing that the prayer of 10:1 will be answered once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Other Reformed theologians, such as O. Palmer Robertson and Herman Ridderbos, have argued that “all Israel” refers to all the elect of the nation of Israel throughout the present age. As with the view that understands “all Israel” to be the church, there is truth in this interpretation. The Jews who are being saved in the present age are not any different from the Jews who are to be saved in the future. The problem with this interpretation, as with the previous one, is that it conflicts with the immediate context. As John Murray observes, “While it is true that all the elect of Israel, the true Israel, will be saved, this is so necessary and patent a truth that to assert the same here would have no particular relevance to what is the apostle’s governing interest in this section of the epistle.” Paul is not in anguish over the salvation of the remnant. They are already saved. He is in anguish over unbelieving Israel. It is this “Israel” for whose salvation he prays (10:1), and it is this Israel that he says will be saved in verse 26.

The interpretation of “all Israel” that best fits the immediate context is that which understands “all Israel” as the nation of Israel as a whole, but not necessarily including every individual member of ethnic Israel. Paul consistently contrasts Gentiles and Israel throughout this chapter, and he continues to do so in the first half of the sentence we are examining (v. 25). There is no contextual reason to assume that Paul changes the meaning of the term Israel in mid-sentence here. The “Israel” that will be saved (v. 26) is the “Israel” that has been partially hardened (v. 25). This partially hardened Israel is distinct from the Gentiles (v. 25) and is also distinct from the present remnant of believing Jews, who are not hardened (v. 7).

The relationship between Israel and the church in the New Testament is not always easy to discern, but it can be understood if we remember the differences between national Israel and true Israel in both the Old Testament and the New, and if we keep in mind what Paul teaches in Romans 11. Israel’s present hardening has a purpose in God’s plan, but this hardening is not permanent. The future restoration of the nation of Israel will involve their re-grafting into the olive tree, the one people of God. The restoration of Israel will mean their becoming part of the “true Israel” by faith in Jesus Christ the Messiah.

>>>No, this was a discussion here and now, not deflecting or referencing some other discussion.<<<

The only reason I started that new thread was in response to one of your questions (#48). Did that slip by you? This was your question:

>>>Why is your application (without explanation BTW) that all of the Revelation up to 20:8 has been fulfilled, and was fulfilled by the end of AD 70 any more or less "adding words to the Book of Revelation" than the application I suggest (with supporting scripture and evidence BTW) of 2000-year fulfillment of Chapters 2-3?<<<

This was my response to your question, from my post #50.

I don't have to add anything to the scripture to arrive at that conclusion: it is derived directly from the words of Christ, the apostles, and some old testament prophecy. You will not find it in Scofield's Reference Notes. LOL!"

"I have started a new thread with the scripture that I used to derive that conclusion at:"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3156462/posts

I started the new thread at 2:50:47 PM. I responsed to your question at 2:52:53 PM. I was trying to give you as much information as I could. If you were expecting a sound byte answer to a serious theological question, you asked the wrong person.

Philip

>>>You need to be able to support your assertions and conclusions with relevant evidence and facts in a coherent argument which should be clear and concise. Starting a new thread or referencing something somewhere else is not a valid argument. <<<

Read it. You might learn something useful.

>>>That's like walking off the stage in a middle of a debate, going into the next room recording something and then telling your opponent and the people listening that they need to go to the next room and listen to your recording. If it's not a diversionary, deflecting tactic, it's close.<<<

I asked you before not to lecture.

>>>No, this in-depth discussion is obviously not about "sound bytes". You need to be able to put together a clear and concise argument live and in color in the forum or thread of the debate. And this is much easier, of course, than live debate because here, you have time to develop your answers and arguments.<<<

Please find some else to lecture.

Philip

>>>Call it what you want Phillip. Walking off the stage (thread) and going into another room (another thread) in the middle of a discussion doesn’t cut it nor do conclusory statements.<<<

I gave you clean access to much of the derivation of my doctrine. You rufused to read it. I believe it had something to do with some self-imposed rule. I still have not figured out your reasoning, other than sheer stubbornness.

BTW, now that you seem to be taking your ball and running home: let me come clean on this one point. Your notion about a 2000 year fulfillment of the simple instructions Jesus gave to the seven, first-century Churches, to keep them in line in the days of the great tribulation, is about the most unbiblical, nonsensical thing I have read since reading some of the wild-eyed imaginations of Hal Lindsey and Grant Jeffrey that they put to print.

May I recommend you be a little more condescending to those you are debating? That is always a debate enhancer.

Philip

Look, man, I have told you I am a postmillennialist.

I think you are the only one on these many threads where you've posted your doctrine that believes you. You teach as a preterist.

“Ideas by themselves do not lead anywhere and those who pursue the path of their own ideas end up in a labyrinth from where they can’t get out again! It’s for this reason that heresies have existed from the very beginning of the Church. Heresies are this: trying to understand with our minds and with only our personal light who Jesus is. A great English writer wrote that a heresy is an idea that’s gone crazy. That’s right! When they are ideas by themselves they become crazy… This is not the right path!”
This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

I thought you were through with me?

Since you bring it up, that was a different topic (you blamed the Jews for the Holocaust). I hope won't repeat that.

But since you responded, do you still NOT believe in the permanency of the “one blood” church on earth?

Do you mean the permanency of the holy catholic apostolic church which is in the Nicene Creed ? Or are you trying to argue there is no more Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Bond and Free on this earth, whether in Messiah or not ? Are you still trying to argue the nation of Israel no longer exists ?

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried. On the third day he rose again. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Recopied and formatted

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

>>>Since you bring it up, that was a different topic (you blamed the Jews for the Holocaust). I hope won't repeat that.<<<

When did I do that? I assume you will provide a thread/post# so the readers will not think you are little more than hot air.

>>>Do you mean the permanency of the holy catholic apostolic church which is in the Nicene Creed?<<<

There is nothing holy about the catholic church.

>>>Or are you trying to argue there is no more Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Bond and Free on this earth, whether in Messiah or not ? Are you still trying to argue the nation of Israel no longer exists?<<<

Thanks for asking. I believe both questions are true, from a biblical sense. It is true there is a secular nation called Israel, but it is not the biblical Israel. On the first point, the bible says, over and over again, that there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile; so I am obliged as a Christian to believe it. For more info of the Lord's elimination of the barrier between Jew and Gentile, see Acts 17:24-26, 20:21; Rom 3:9, 10:12-13; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28-29; Eph 2:12-18; and Col 3:11.

The biblical Israel: the Great Whore of Babylon (Rev 17:1; 19:2,) was destroyed in AD 70, and the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. See Hebrews 8 and 9 for details on the replacement of the old covenant with the new.

A small remnant of Israel--the righteous--were saved (called) from the biblical Israel and became the early Church (Joel 2:32; Zec 8: 6-8, 11-13; Rom 9:27-29, 11:24-29.) Many of the remnant, if not all, are permanent "pillars" of the Church, such as the apostles of the Lamb who serve as the foundations of the Church (Rev 21:14; Heb 12: 22-24.) You may have heard of some of them: Paul, Peter, James, and John. The remainder of Israel was rejected (Matt 4:8-10.)

From the "tone" of your questions, today and in the past, I tend to believe that you avoid the Words of God that contradict your ideology; but you should not. All of God's word is given for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16.)

Philip

When did I do that? I assume you will provide a thread/post# so the readers will not think you are little more than hot air.

We are not supposed to reference other threads; I'll ping you to it over in that thread so we can keep this thread on topic. There is nothing holy about the catholic church.

There is one holy catholic apostolic church, founded on the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. You believe it is not on this earth because your ideology is preterism. You teach the rapture and resurrection already occurred in 70AD, even though there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition that confirms it.

On the first point, the bible says, over and over again, that there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile; so I am obliged as a Christian to believe it.

So you believe there is no difference in this current world between Jew and Gentile, man and woman, bond and free. I find that position untenable. Even the Apostle Paul taught otherwise: What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety..

All of God's word is given for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16.)

Yes, we were warned in 1 Tim and 2 Tim. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

>>>I think you are the only one on these many threads where you've posted your doctrine that believes you. You teach as a preterist.<<<

I certainly hope they do not believe you! But thanks for bringing it up. As I have stated over and over again, I am a postmillennialist. This is the definition:

Postmillennialism (from Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism

"In Christian end-times theology, (eschatology), postmillennialism is an interpretation of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation which sees Christ's second coming as occurring after (Latin post-) the "Millennium", a Golden Age in which Christian ethics prosper. The term subsumes several similar views of the end times, and it stands in contrast to premillennialism and, to a lesser extent, amillennialism."

"Postmillennialism holds that Jesus Christ establishes his kingdom on earth through his preaching and redemptive work in the first century and that he equips his church with the gospel, empowers her by the Spirit, and charges her with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) to disciple all nations. Postmillennialism expects that eventually the vast majority of men living will be saved. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men and of nations."

I believe all of that, except I believe in an additional resurrection: a first resurrection that preceded the "millenniumm" (that "kicked it off," if you will,) exactly like it is written in Revelation chapter 20. More on postmillennialism from Wikipedia …

"After an extensive era of such conditions Jesus Christ will return visibly, bodily, and gloriously, to end history with the general resurrection and the final judgment after which the eternal order follows."

I believe he will return, and every knee will bow before him; but I do not believe history will end; rather I believe the Church and this earth will last forever, as written:

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)

"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." (Ecc 1:4 KJV)

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17 KJV)

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2 KJV)

So, with slight shades of difference, I am a Postmillennialist.

Again, thanks for bringing it up.

Philip

>>>There is one holy catholic apostolic church, founded on the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.<<<

That is a gross exaggeration, and misinterpretation of the scriptures. There is, and never will be anything holy about the catholic church. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong (with scripture.)

>>>You believe it is not on this earth because your ideology is preterism.<<<

You tend to get your facts wrong, in most every case. It is almost as if you are intentionally casting aspersions. I recently quoted Wikipedia on this thread which shows I am a postmillennialist. So you are also wrong on that point.

Worse, you are claiming that a self-serving organization, founded contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, is "the church?" Did Jesus not say, "Call no many father on this earth?" Did Jesus not reject the wearing of exaggerated clown suits, like rabbis and the pope wear? Did any of the apostles cling to elaborate dress, and desire magnificent cathedrals (built on the backs of poor peasants?) You know very well that the catholic church, on a good day, is an apostasy.

>>>You teach the rapture and resurrection already occurred in 70AD, even though there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition that confirms it.<<<

I will agree that there is little or no scripture to support the rituals of the catholic "church," nor the modern-day secular state called Israel. However, I would welcome it if you could prove me wrong with scripture.

There is, however, plenty of scripture to support my understanding of the first resurrection. Recently (two days ago, in fact) I posted a thread on the first resurrection of AD 70 titled, "The 144,000 on mount Sion." The URL is http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3156462/posts.

Philip

>>>I'm not a big believer in that Rapture stuff<<<

Neither am I, in the future tense. I believe that around AD 70 Christ sent his angels to gather his elect, and that was the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20. The second, general resurrection will occur much later, in our future, after Satan is defeated. That is also mentioned in Revelation 20.

This is Christ on gathering his elect: the second passage is from the Olivet Discourse:

"And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:7-8 KJV)

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven." (Mark 13:26-27 KJV)

Note that he gathered his elect from both heaven and earth. Many were already dead. After their resurrection, they began their permanent service to Christ in heaven:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years … Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:4,6 KJV)

And they do serve Christ forever, as explained in Daniel 7:18, below. They were the elect--the holy ones--those who received the holy spirit on the day of Pentecost, or shortly thereafter. Those mentioned above who sit on thrones as judges (highlighted in red in verse 4) include the disciples:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mat 19:28 KJV)

Those of the first resurrection were the true Saints of the Most High, mentioned in Daniel, who reign for ever with Christ:

"But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever." (Dan 7:18 KJV)

Daniel also wrote of the first resurrection. Note in this passage that the resurrection is a partial resurrection ("many" instead of "all,") and includes only Daniel's people, the children of Israel. The great tribulation is also mentioned:

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)

So much for a secret rapture of only Christians. As it turned out, it was a "secret rapture" (if you will) of the children of Israel at the end of the Jewish age and old covenant

Anyway, that was the early Church that was resurrected to everlasting life; and they serve as foundations of our faith in the holy temple and holy city on mount Sion in heaven. Praise God for them!

Philip

>>>So you believe there is no difference in this current world between Jew and Gentile, man and woman, bond and free. I find that position untenable. Even the Apostle Paul taught otherwise: What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.<<<

Your pretense that Paul's statement contradicts all his other statements is puzzling. Of course they were given the oracles of God: Moses is an example, as is Paul, who, like Moses, was called to serve God as a receptor and minister of His oracles via the Holy Spirit. In fact, I am on record as stating that all those of the first Resurrection of AD 70 were children of Israel; and they, and they alone, serve and reign with Christ in his holy city and temple, for ever.

But, the rest of us, Jews and Gentiles alike, must call on the name of the Lord to be saved. Then, and only then will we be destined to become fellowcitizens with the Saints.

>>>Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.<<<

That is another puzzling red-herring? What does administration have to do with salvation? Everyone (that is, except for those of the first resurrection: the elect) must call on the name of the Lord to be saved, whether Jew or Greek, or man or woman, or etc..

BTW, I particularly liked the verse about wearing "modest apparel." Maybe the pope will read 1 Timothy 2:9 and quit wearing that silly clown suit.

>>>Yes, we were warned in 1 Tim and 2 Tim. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.<<<

Amen to that.

>>>But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.<<<

Amen to that.

>>>And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.<<<

Amen to that. No one will be able to convince me that the general resurrection--our destiny--is past. However, don't you think it odd that Paul was concerned about the timing of the resurrection 2,000 years before it was to occur? LOL!

As a matter of fact, Paul was very concerned, but only because the first resurrection was imminent: designated for his generation; and he and his fellow Saints were eagerly anticipating it as a reward for their services. Hymenaeus and Philetus were like modern day false prophets, such as Hal Lindsey, Harold Camping and Edgar C. Whisenant, who in a similar, but opposite manner, made false predictions about the timing of the resurrection, thus overthrowing the faith of some.

This is Paul on the imminence of the resurrection:

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." (2 Th 2:1-2 KJV)

Does that sound like 2,000 years away, to you? How about this one:

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Th 4:13-18 KJV)

It certainly appears that Paul was expecting to be alive when the first resurrection occurred.

Philip

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.