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.

Here the analogy of the olive tree that Paul uses in Romans 11 is instructive. The tree represents the covenant people of God—Israel.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT HARLEY, I disagree with this statement...It is the branches that represent the covenant people of God...

Paul compares unbelieving Israel to branches that have been broken off from the olive tree (v. 17a).

That is true...But believing Israel is the branches that were not broken off...Only some of the branches were broken off...

Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

What is receiving the believing branches??? It's the root and the trunk...

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Just as the cake is the first fruit of the dough, and the grapes are the firstfruit of the vine, the believing branches are the first fruit of the root...

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

These are speaking of part of the firstfruits of the ROOT...

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Israel is not the root...Jesus is the root...

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).

The dispensationalism that I believe in does not teach that...

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.

Rom_9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom_10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

As we can see, unsaved Israel is still Israel...

The church doesn't become Israel...Israel has not attained righteousness...Saved Israel has become the church...Large difference...Gentiles were added to the church, the root, Jesus Christ...

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).

I don't agree with that one either...Had natural Israel not crucified Jesus but accepted him as their Messia, there would be no need of a church...There certainly was no spiritual Body of Christ...

I do agree with the rest of the article except for the last sentence...

The restoration of Israel will mean their becoming part of the “true Israel” by faith in Jesus Christ the Messiah.

I do not believe the 'saved' Israel will become part of the church...Saved Israel along with the saved Gentiles (the church) will be saved during the Great Tribulation AFTER tahe Rapture of the church...

This saved Israel will survive the Tribulation and move on into the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ while he sits on the Throne of David...

ut anyway, I am convinced by reading the same scriptures that you read that the church is NOT Israel...Saved Israel and saved Gentiles are the church...

This is an excellent article by Dr. Mathison. One particular theme I appreciated was summarized here:

>>>"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."<<<

Recall that Christ rejected the claims of some who touted Abrahamic ancestry, as follows:

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (John 8:39 KJV)

John the Baptist mocked their claims of descendancy:

"Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Luke 3:8 KJV)

How can one be "Israel" and not be a descendant of Abraham? In reality, he can't. But Dr. Mathison got around this by identifying two Israel's: 1) national Israel; and 2) the true Israel. National Israel is the same Israel we know today, consisting primarily of those who reject Christianity. The "true Israel" were the elect, chosen from the foundation of the world, and called by Christ to serve him.

Mathison also "identified" a third Israel, which are non-elect, national Israelites who call upon the name of the Lord; that is, unbelieving Israelites who learn of the Lord and are saved.

In the early Church, none were saved except they met one of two criteria that Joel mentioned for deliverance:

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." (Joel 2:32 KJV)

The faithful remnant (the true Israel) were called to be the elect, and serve as the foundation of the Church, with Christ the chief cornerstone. True Israel is not the entire Church; but it was in the beginning. Today, Israel is in the Church, but the Church is not Israel. That is an important distinction.

Back to the elect: this is Paul speaking about the elect, which included himself:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . . In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ." (Eph 1:4-5, 11-12 KJV)

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom 11:5-7 KJV)

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified . . . Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." (Rom 8:30, 33 KJV)

So, the elect were saved by grace, from the beginning, and became the branches of the tree that were not cut off. They were glorified in the Church.

I am not implying that Christ does not call upon others for his purpose, even today (though I have no scripture supporting that notion.) But in the beginning, the elect were those who were of the remnant (even all the remnant;) and were delivered by being called, exactly as Joel stated.

Daniel also wrote of the deliverance in his statement about the first resurrection; but he did not separate the remnant from the non-remnant:

"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)

The non-remnant were saved by faith: that is, rather than being called by the Lord, they themselves called upon the name of the Lord after learning of Him:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom 10:13-15 KJV)

Those included both Jews and Gentiles: the ones who were grafted into the tree. This is the primary way (maybe the only way) Christians are added to the fold, even today.

Philip

The Preterists are at it again, I see. Sneaky as always. Ligonier Ministries is a Preterist website. Preterists, you’ll notice, don’t want you knowing that is what they are, they post articles like this about the Church and Israel, which is truth, while hiding the fact that that they are Preterists. This is how they suck people into Preterism.

The Church is the Israel of God - true.
Prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD - utterly false.

Yes, we’ve all heard the quibble, “But I’m a Partial Preterist not a Full Preterist,” as if that gets them off the hook. There is very little difference between the two. A Preterist is a Preterist is a Preterist, period.

Preterism is not historic Christianity. There is no evidence that Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc., believed this doctrine or had ever heard of it. They wrote volumes “against heresies,” they weren’t shy at all about attacking false doctrines. None of the aforementioned believed Christ had came in 70 AD, partially or fully, they were Chiliasts, they saw the first resurrection of Rev. 20 and the rapture as future events, they were post-tribulationists and pre-millennialists.

If there were such an eschatology that taught as its central precept, prophecy had been fulfilled in 70 AD - including Revelation - they assuredly would have dealt with it like they did other heresies - to them, THIS would have been a major heresy. They didn’t attack it, because it hadn’t been invented yet. It’s a modern theory, like Postmillennialism.

You wrote:

>>>The Preterists are at it again, I see. Sneaky as always. Ligonier Ministries is a Preterist website. Preterists, you’ll notice, don’t want you knowing that is what they are, they post articles like this about the Church and Israel, which is truth, while hiding the fact that that they are Preterists. This is how they suck people into Preterism. <<<

>>>The Church is the Israel of God - true.
Prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD - utterly false.<<<

Your insinuations: FALSE!

Anyone who can read can plainly see this article by Dr. Mathison makes no such claims: to the contrary. I checked out the Ligonier website, and the articles I read show that they believe in a future second coming. That is, they believe that the Revelation has not been fulfilled. I researched Keith Mathison, and it appears he is actively against any interpretation that claims the Revelation has been fulfilled. If you are still unconvinced (that is, if you were swayed by this tirade by sasportas,) check out the book, "WHEN SHALL THESE THINGS BE? A Reformed Response To Hyper-Preterism," which was edited by Dr. Mathison.

May I suggest that if you are going to display an air of self-righteousness, at least do it without sneaky, dishonest insinuations.

Of course, dispensationalism, and futurism generally, cannot be biblically defended (except by the wildly imaginative;) so aspersions must be cast to redirect the conversation away from the truth. I see you have mastered that slanderous technique.

>>>Yes, we’ve all heard the quibble, “But I’m a Partial Preterist not a Full Preterist,” as if that gets them off the hook. There is very little difference between the two.<<<

So, you believe there is little difference in the belief that all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70, and a future coming of Christ? That is truly a strange comparison. No one with even the slightest grasp of scholarship will believe you.

>>>Preterism is not historic Christianity. There is no evidence that Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc., believed this doctrine or had ever heard of it. They wrote volumes “against heresies,” they weren’t shy at all about attacking false doctrines. None of the aforementioned believed Christ had came in 70 AD, partially or fully, they were Chiliasts, they saw the first resurrection of Rev. 20 and the rapture as future events, they were post-tribulationists and pre-millennialists.<<<

It is a foregone conclusion that you will not find dispensationalism in the early Christian writings. But even one of the most ardent defenders of the new-age cult called dispensationalism, Tommy Ice, has stated that there is early preterism in works of those like Eusebius, whose work, The Proof of the Gospel, is full of preterism regarding the Olivet Discourse. This is an example:

"And from that time a succession of all kinds of troubles afflicted the whole nation and their city until the last war against them, and the final siege, in which destruction (b) rushed on them like a flood with all kinds of misery of famine, plague and sword, and all who had conspired against the Saviour in their youth were cut off; then, too, the abomination of desolation stood in the Temple, and it has remained there even till to-day, while they have daily reached deeper depths of desolation. And perhaps this will be so until the end of the world, according to the limit set by the prophet when he said, 'And unto the consummation of time a fulfilment shall be given to the desolation.'" [Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, W. J. Ferrar translation, MacMillan, NY, 1920, Vol II, Book VIII, p.138]

Eusebius also stated the old testament prophecies have been fulfilled:

"And the importance of my writing does not lie in the fact that it is, as might be suggested, a polemic against the Jews. Perish the thought, far from that! For if they would fairly consider it,- it is really on their side. For as it establishes Christianity on the basis of the antecedent prophecies, so it establishes Judaism from the complete fulfilment of its prophecies." [Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, W. J. Ferrar translation, MacMillan, NY,1920, Vol I, Book I, p.5]

That last statement by Eusebius should not be so alarming to those who have actually read the words of Christ. In the Gospel of Luke, Christ prophecies the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of all old testament prophecy:

"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22 KJV)

That leaves only the remainder of the new testament prophecy to be fulfilled.

It makes perfect sense that the new covenant would do away with the old, as written in the Hebrews:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:7-13 KJV)

The New Covenant is explained to be the New Testament in Hebrews 9, and was created by the blood of Jesus Christ. New-age cults tend to marginalize His sacrifice in their attempts to Judaize Christianity.

>>>If there were such an eschatology that taught as its central precept, prophecy had been fulfilled in 70 AD - including Revelation - they assuredly would have dealt with it like they did other heresies - to them, THIS would have been a major heresy. They didn’t attack it, because it hadn’t been invented yet. It’s a modern theory, like Postmillennialism.<<<

That is typical new-age, cult-style deception. Note, everyone, that sasportas never proves that Ligonier believes that the Revelation has been fulfilled. He simple makes a didactic proclamation (with no proof whatsoever,) and expects the gullible to accept it. Shame.

It is time everyone understands where dispensationalists/futurists are coming from! When the truth is revealed: that the Olivet Discourse, and most of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, was referring to the early Church and the destruction of Jerusalem, their house of cards will come crashing down, accompanied by a hardy "good riddance."

Philip

>>>Interesting viewpoint. I think in that sense, yes that's true. But God's Word is quick, powerful, deep, and multi-layered. Oftentimes, prophecies are fulfilled, at least partially, around the time given, but also have a main, future application.<<<

I know that is claimed, but I have found no proof. Can you provide scripture that clearly shows some prophecies have dual-fulfillment? I would appreciate it.

>>>Your application is a good one and I think correct as far as it goes, but doesn't explain the sealing (saving) of 12,000 of each of the twelve tribes of Israel.<<<

The 144,000 were the firstfruits, resurrected during the "first resurrection" of A.D. 70 during the generation that witnessed the coming of Christ, as Jesus promised his disciples in several ways:

"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Mat 24:34 KJV)

This verse in the Revelation partially identifies the "144,000:"

These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb." (Rev 14:4)

Note they followed Christ everywhere. That sounds like those in the earliest Church. Few (if any) today could make that claim.

They were a part of the first resurrection:

"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." (Revelation 20:4)

If you recall, Jesus gave future judgement over the twelve tribes to the twelve apostles:

"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." (Matthew 19:28)

But Paul implied that the saints would judge the world:

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? . . ." (1 Cor 6:2)

All the earliest Christians were considered to be saints, so there is no contradiction.

>>>"All Israel" (the remnant) has yet to come to Jesus as their Messiah. They will soon.<<<

"All Israel" was a term coined by Paul in reference to those of the promise, which he explained in Romans 9:6ff. The remnant, which included Paul and the disciples, was resurrected in A.D. 70, exactly as Jesus predicted, and as the disciples and Paul expected.

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.