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.

>>>You are the Preterist-Postmill combo, I can’t imagine a worse eschatology<<<

Why not? You seem to be able to imagine everything else. All dispensational/futurist prophecy is based on vivid imaginations. If you don't believe that, you have not been following the Antichrist-of-the Month Book Club. LOL!

BTW, who is the Antichrist this month? LOL!

>>>your posts are no more than sophistry in my view<<<

At least they are not sour grapes. Would you care to post scripture supporting your unsubstantiated claims; or are you going to continue to cast aspersions, hoping the naive will fail to see through your deceptions?

>>> I don’t pay any attention to what you’ve got to say, quite frankly. Consider the source.<<<

It appears you have been paying quite a bit of attention!

>>>As to myself, I am historic premill, I am not dispensationalist.<<<

Not historic enough. I see you failed to challenge my quotes from Eusebius. Of course, you cannot; but I assumed you would at least try.

>>>Re: the Ligonier site, I went to its link in the lead article, first time there, when I saw the site featuring R. C. Sproul, which everybody knows is a prterist, I read no further, I assume Mathison is probably preterist. The site likewise.<<<

That is typical of dispensational/futurist hysterics. Dr. Mathison is a postmillennialist. And there are no preterists on the site: at least not in the narrow-minded way you define a preterist. Everyone check out Mathison's book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1999.) Find out what the doom-and-gloomers don't tell you (e.g., "the rest of the story.") LOL!

>>>What I said about preterists being sneaky, in my personal experiences with them I’ve found to be true. It is like getting blood out of a turnip getting them to admit that is what they are.<<<

That is deceptive. Many postmillennialsts also claim to be partial preterists; for example, Ken Gentry. The reason they, like I, tend to avoid discussing "labels" with futurists is explained by the hysterical, unscholarly tirade you presented. They don't have the time or the patience for such antics.

When are you going to defend your doctrine with some scripture? You know your slanders will no longer work on this thread now that you have been challenged and exposed?

Philip

Scripture is alive ("quick") (Hebrews 4:12). It is not dead letter but of God's spirit (2 Cor 3:6). Jesus Christ is the very Word of God himself - alive and giving life. A word that is spoken will minster to the hearers at the time spoken while still referring to something in the future. A simple example is Jesus saying, "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to me" (John 12:32). Although this referred to how he would be hoisted up on the cross, it also refers to 2000 years of lifting up the name of Jesus drawing men to himself.

You can do a study yourself of all the Old Testament prophesies that point to Jesus and yet also had a least a partial fulfillment around the time spoken. For example, the bulk of Jeremiah and others' prophesies around that time, pointed to the imminent Babylonian overthrow of Israel, but also to events surrounding the birth and second coming of Jesus.

Another example is Chapter 2 & 3 in the Book of Revelation itself. What Jesus spoke to the seven churches is applicable personally and corporately at any time as all those conditions spoken of can be seen in individuals and the main characteristics of various churches.

Also, the names, descriptions, and words to the seven churches can be precisely mapped to the 2000-year history of the world since Christ. Examples are after age of the initial birth of the Christian church (Ephesus) came the suffering Smyrna age where many Christians were slaughtered in the Roman world (Cf. Fox's Book of Martyrs). Another example is the dark ages of Thyatira (Thyatira means "continued sacrifice"). The Catholic Church is well described as the church that demands "continued sacrifice" even though Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:12). We've just come out of the great Christian Philadelphia age of world evangelization which ended around 1900 and are now steeped in the final age, the lukewarm Laodicean age, before Jesus comes back.

Don't discount the layout of the Book of Revelation: "the things which you have seen [Chapt One], and the things which are [Chapt 2-3], and the things which shall be hereafter [Chapt 4-22]" (Rev 1:19). The sealing of Israel who will evangelize the world may have happened in part and in a shadow in the past, but Revelation 7:3-10 will be fully realized in the future.

>>>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. <<<

I couldn't let that misconception slide. In a previous post I referenced partial-preterism from Eusebius. In this post I will present partial-preterist commentary from several early Church Fathers; and all can be verified online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL;) http://www.ccel.org. All books listed are according to the CCEL naming schemes.

This is Justin Martyr, AD 100-165:

"And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: 'For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' And it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For out of Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the world of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we might not lie or deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ." [The First Apology of Justin, Chapter XXXVIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1]

"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." [The First Apology of Justin, Chapter XI, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1]

Irenaeus, AD 130-200

"If any one, however, advocating the cause of the Jews, does maintain that this new covenant consisted in the rearing of that temple which was built under Zerubbabel after the emigration to Babylon, and in the departure of the people from thence after the lapse of seventy years, let him know that the temple constructed of stones was indeed then rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord's advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight." [Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXIV, Par 4, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1]

1. … Even as Esaias saith, “The children of Jacob shall strike root, and Israel shall flourish, and the whole world shall be filled with his fruit.” The fruit, therefore, having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem) was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a beginning in time must of course have an end in time also.
2.Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John." And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation when the new covenant was revealed. " [Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter IV, Par 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1]

"CHAP. VII.--RECAPITULATION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT, SHOWING THAT ABRAHAM, THROUGH THE REVELATION OF THE WORD, KNEW THE FATHER, AND THE COMING OF THE SON OF GOD. FOR THIS CAUSE, HE REJOICED TO SEE THE DAY OF CHRIST, WHEN THE PROMISES MADE TO HIM SHOULD BE FULFILLED. THE FRUIT OF THIS REJOICING HAS FLOWED TO POSTERITY, VIZ., TO THOSE WHO ARE PARTAKERS IN THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, BUT NOT TO THE JEWS WHO REJECT THE WORD OF GOD. . . .
2. For not alone upon Abraham's account did He say these things, but also that He might point out how all who have known God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have received the revelation from the Son Himself; who also in the last times was made visible and passable, and spake with the human race, that He might from the stones raise up children unto Abraham, and fulfil the promise which God had given him, and that He might make his seed as the stars of heaven,(5) as John the Baptist says: "For God is able from these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."(6) Now, this Jesus did by drawing us off from the religion of stones, and bringing us over from hard and fruitless cogitations, and establishing in us a faith like to Abraham. As Paul does also testify, saying that we are children of Abraham because of the similarity of our faith, and the promise of inheritance." Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter VII, Title and Par 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1]"

Hegesippus (from Eusebius) on the martyrdom of James the Just:

"James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time . . . The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven."" [The Church History of Eusebius, Book II, Chapter XXIII, Para 4, 12, 13, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol I]

Clement of Alexandria, AD 150-220:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." [The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book I, Ch XXI, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 2]

Pseudo-Clement (attributed to Clement of Alexandria):

"But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and every-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: "See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . ." And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken. [The Clementine Homilies, Book III, Chapter XV, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8]

This is a partial list. There are many more examples of early partial-preterism among the early Church Fathers.

Philip

>>>Scripture is alive ("quick") (Hebrews 4:12). It is not dead letter but of God's spirit (2 Cor 3:6). Jesus Christ is the very Word of God himself - alive and giving life. A word that is spoken will minster to the hearers at the time spoken while still referring to something in the future. A simple example is Jesus saying, "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to me" (John 12:32). Although this referred to how he would be hoisted up on the cross, it also refers to 2000 years of lifting up the name of Jesus drawing men to himself.<<<

That is a novel interpretation. However, I believe that in John 12:32, Jesus was simply explaining in another manner how his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, in which he will eventually put all things under his feet, even death. Jesus was using that particular phraseology as another way to inform his disciples that he and the Father are one. For example, Jesus also said this:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44 KJV)

So which is it, Jesus or the Father? That appears contradictory to 12:32, until you recollect this:

"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30 KJV)

>>>You can do a study yourself of all the Old Testament prophesies that point to Jesus and yet also had a least a partial fulfillment around the time spoken. For example, the bulk of Jeremiah and others' prophesies around that time, pointed to the imminent Babylonian overthrow of Israel, but also to events surrounding the birth and second coming of Jesus.<<<

I recall that some of Jeremiah's prophecies also point to the ministry of Christ; but as part of the chronological sequence, and not as dual-fulfillment. Do you have any specific examples?

>>>Another example is Chapter 2 & 3 in the Book of Revelation itself. What Jesus spoke to the seven churches is applicable personally and corporately at any time as all those conditions spoken of can be seen in individuals and the main characteristics of various churches.<<<

There is no evidence of that whatsoever. The "seven churches in Asia" were simply seven churches in Asia at the time John received the revelation from Christ. I personally would hesitate to add any words to that prophecy that are not already written.

>>>Also, the names, descriptions, and words to the seven churches can be precisely mapped to the 2000-year history of the world since Christ. Examples are after age of the initial birth of the Christian church (Ephesus) came the suffering Smyrna age where many Christians were slaughtered in the Roman world (Cf. Fox's Book of Martyrs). Another example is the dark ages of Thyatira (Thyatira means "continued sacrifice"). The Catholic Church is well described as the church that demands "continued sacrifice" even though Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:12). We've just come out of the great Christian Philadelphia age of world evangelization which ended around 1900 and are now steeped in the final age, the lukewarm Laodicean age, before Jesus comes back.<<<

There is no evidence that Christ intended any of that. The only evidence we have is he was using his servant John to get messages to those churches at or about the time of the great tribulation that occurred around AD 66-70. I have read some rather imaginative interpretations of the seven Churches; but they are all simply that: imaginative interpretations. One that comes to mind is by Cyrus Scofield:

"The messages to the seven churches have a fourfold application:

(4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A.D. 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period, there should be no such foreview. These messages must contain that foreview if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after Rev 3.22. Again, these messages by their very terms go beyond the local assemblies mentioned. Most conclusively of all, these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and in this precise order. Ephesus gives the general state at the date of the writing; Smyrna, the period of the great persecutions; Pergamos, the church settled down in the world, "where Satan's throne is," after the conversion of Constantine, say A.D. 316. Thyatira is the Papacy, developed out of the Pergamos state: Balaamism (worldliness) and Nicolaitanism (priestly assumption) having conquered. As Jezebel brought idolatry into Israel, Song Romanism weds Christian doctrine to pagan ceremonie. Sardis is the Protestant Reformation, whose works were not "fulfilled." Philadelphia is whatever bears clear testimony to the Word and the Name in the time of self-satisfied profession represented by Laodicea."

This is from a fellow who frowned on "spiritualization" of the prophecy; that is, unless he was the one doing the spiritualizing. LOL!

Other imaginative works on the seven churches include:

"The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, William Mitchell Ramsay , 1904"

"Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, Richard Chenevix Trench, 1862"

"Seven Lectures on the Prophetical Addresses to The Seven Churches, John Nelson Darby, 1862"

It takes quite an imagination to stretch seven short epistles, with little if any scriptural or historical documentation, into an entire book.

Philip

>>>Not so novel - in black and white in the next verse. To discount he is also describing being hoisted up on the cross ignores the very next verse: This he said, signifying what death he should die (vs. 33).<<<

You left out a part of what you wrote. This is all of it:

>>>[part 1]Scripture is alive ("quick") (Hebrews 4:12). It is not dead letter but of God's spirit (2 Cor 3:6). Jesus Christ is the very Word of God himself - alive and giving life. A word that is spoken will minster to the hearers at the time spoken while still referring to something in the future. [part 2]A simple example is Jesus saying, "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to me" (John 12:32). Although this referred to how he would be hoisted up on the cross, it also refers to 2000 years of lifting up the name of Jesus drawing men to himself.<<<

I responded to both parts.

To the first part I responded as being "novel," which is defined in Merriam-Webster as "original or striking especially in conception or style." That is exactly the way I see it.

The second part I gave my own interpretation, which is not too dissimilar to yours; but with a twist about the Jesus-Father relationship. However, I believe the "theme" (if you will) of your comment was based on dual-fulfillment; and that particular example was weak, to be kind. I was hoping you could point to something where it is written, "this will be fulfilled both now and in the future."

For example, dispensationalists claim there will be a dual-fulfillment of Malachi's "Coming of Elijah" prophesy. If that was an accurate interpretation, one would think there would be at least one prophetic record of a dual fulfillment in the New Testament. Rather, Jesus gave not so much as a hint of a future fulfillment when he stated that John fulfilled the Malachi prophecy.

>>>It takes the living and powerful Word of God, and you've been given historical evidence.<<<

There is no historical or biblical evidence whatsoever that the messages of Jesus Christ to the seven churches in Asia meant anything other than what is written; and you have provided none.

>>>Well, Phillip, although it looked like a good-faith question you asked about God's Word being multidimensional, it looks like you're not interested other than to just argue against the idea of a living and powerful Bible. That's OK, but I'm not interested in sharing with one who's mind is closed.<<<

It appears your definition of "closed minded" is anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you ever want an honest, non-fluffy debate on the scriptures, look me up. If want to play lecturer, please pick someone else.

Philip

>>>Again,

1) after age of the initial birth of the Christian church (Ephesus) came the suffering Smyrna age where many Christians were slaughtered in the Roman world (Cf. Fox's Book of Martyrs).

2) Another example is the dark ages of Thyatira (Thyatira means "continued sacrifice"). The Catholic Church is well described as the church that demands "continued sacrifice" even though Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:12).

3) We've just come out of the great Christian Philadelphia age of world evangelization which ended around 1900 and are now steeped in the final age, the lukewarm Laodicean age, before Jesus comes back.
<<<

I truly do not understand how anyone came up with those "ages," because I cannot find a shred of evidenced for them in the scriptures. The only scriptural reference provided, Hebrews 10:12, relates to continual burnt offerings of animals in the Jewish temple vs the single, permanent offering the Lord provided with his own, bodily sacrifice. It is no more related to the so-called "continual sacrifices" to the Catholic Church than to the "continual sacrifices" of Protestant tithing and offerings. Recall that Abraham gave ten-percent of his worth to Melchesidec: but he did it only once. Maybe Christians should adopt the faith of Abraham, tithe only once, and then forget about it. After all, we no longer have the Levitical priesthood to support.

>>>Sorry about blurting out "closed minded" but I question the good-faith of your inquiry to me meaning that you'd be at least willing to consider what I'm saying (it's not about "agreeing" with me).<<<

I consider everything that is written to me. On many occasions I do not respond as expected; but it is, in all cases, sincere.

>>>BTW, it looks like you've sort of proven my point by coming up with more than one way John 12:32 is/was fulfilled.<<<

As aforementioned, I believe that to be a weak example. In the scheme of things, it is completely fulfilled only one way: after Jesus draws all men to himself; and we both agree that will happen. I must be missing your point.

Philip

I Wrote: "In this post I will present partial-preterist commentary from several early Church Fathers."

You wrote: Yeah, right.

You can read, can't you? I see you have failed to dispute a single quotation I presented from the early Church Fathers. Therefore I must assume you either cannot read, or you cannot find anything to dispute. Whatever the case, your only recourse would be to either acknowledge your doctrinal weakness, or cast aspersions and redirect the conversation. I see you have chosen the latter. But I do understand: you are, after all, only a futurist.

>>> … just like your fellow preterist, Hank Hanegraaf, “presented” at this debate on the dating of the book of Revelation. Hanegraaf’s “presentation,” to an unbiased observer, was laughable, I actually felt sorry for poor old Hank, all he had to offer was the typical preterist twisting of the scripture and history...like you just did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlT8S6KgOl4&list=PL0osYxTc0WTMkqnpnVM9UNefs-p5r6FNv<<<

LOL! You are absolutely correct about Hank's presentation! I watched the entire video last summer (very long and boring,) and Hanegraaf is truly a lightweight. Why else would a lightweight like Mark Hitchcock choose him to debate? You did notice that one of the "moderators" was another dispensational lightweight named Tommy Ice, didn’t you?

>>>Mark Hitchcock, on the other hand, presented the truth in a very sensible way. <<<

Mark Hitchcock doesn't know the truth. He is a dispensationalist.

>>>Hanagraaf didn’t even attempt to respond to 90% of Hitchcock’s arguments for the late date writing of Revelation. I suggest anyone confused by Freneau listen to the debate. The debate is quite lengthy, but well worth the time.<<<

I also recommend watching the debate, not for Hanegraaf's presentation (which is almost non-existent,) but for Hitchcock's. Be certain to read (actually read) the references that Hitchcock claims support his late-date theory. In particular, carefully read the reference by Polycarp (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter XI.) It is an eye-opener, exposing Hitchcock for the charlatan he truly is, since the claim he makes about Polycarp is not to be found in Polycarp's epistle. But it is a common claim by futurists, and helps expose the weakness of their arguments.

>>>If Revelation was written in the very late part of the first century, which it was, then all this twisting of scripture and history, which you’ve just seen, is exposed for what it is, worthless and contrived.<<<

It would not affect me one way or the other. I go wherever the scripture leads. I have no cult/clique to defend. However, those with "set in stone" doctrines, like dispensationalists/futurists, have a lot to lose, including a massive book industry (which is affectionately called, the "Fundamentalist Industrial Book Complex.") Be certain to join their "Antichrist-of-the-Month Book Club" if you want to keep current on the name of latest antichrist. LOL!

One dirty little dispensationalist/futurist secret is this: when it is proven (and it will be) that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, the entire, dreary, dispensationalist/futurist house of cards comes crashing down. Good riddance!

>>>I know, Hitchcock is a dispensationalist, which I’m not, however, he is a futurist and a premillennialist, which I am, I agree with him on those points. I think he did a great job debating Hanegraaf.<<<

We debated (briefly) a dissertation by Hitchcock on this forum several months ago in a related thread. The Hitchcock-Hanegraaf debate was also mentioned. The link is below, if you are interested:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3129149/posts

Philip

I am certain I could never arrive at the conclusions you arrived at because I do not believe they are biblical.

"I could never arrive...": "Could never"? I don't know how to say it any other way - it sounds close minded to me.

"because I do not believe they are biblical"

What's not biblical? The Greek meaning of the second church, "Smyrna" means "crushed myrrh", a symbol for suffering which took place in the early church under Rome's heal about which Jesus said "you will suffer" and have "tribulation" and "be faithful unto death" about which Foxes Book of Martyrs" goes into detail. What about that isn't "biblical"?

What about the fourth church, "Thyatira" which means "continued sacrifice" which I mentioned? It's order of placement in these two chapters maps with the end of the state religion of Constantine and before the Reformation - the dominance of the Catholic Church in the dark ages for about 1000 years. Jesus rebukes the church for allowing spiritual fornication and misdirected sacrifice, exactly what the Church did during those years of selling indulgences and forbidding the Bible to be read by anyone other than church officials. What about that isn't "biblical"?

What about the sixth church, the Philadelphia Church, which means "brotherly love"? Jesus said he set before them an open door because they kept his word and did not deny his name. It's order of placement in these two chapters maps around 1700-1900, after the Reformation period and before the present godless age. You are very aware of the exploits of Christians all over the world during this time. Great Awakenings in the New World and America, Spurgeon, Sunday, and Wigglesworth, missionaries all over the world, the birth of a nation founded on the very principals of the Bible, never before seen. The church was strong and vibrant and went through "the open door" Jesus spoke of and evangelized the world. What about that isn't "biblical"?

What about the last, seventh church, the Laodicean church, the "people-centered" church? Jesus had not ONE good word to say to this church. He called them lukewarm, that they think they are rich and have need of nothing certainly not God. Jesus is seen outside knocking on the door to be let back in. Is that not the dominant state of the world today? Never since the flood has the whole world turned away from the God of the Bible like this. "God is dead" is echoed around the world except for those fanatics who will kill you in the name of their false "God" (Allah) for naming Jesus. What about that isn't "biblical"?

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.