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.

>>>Ah, remember, we have gone over this point before. You’re a literalist, so you can’t read “in heaven” into those verses. <<<

I never said I was a "literalist." That label is claimed by the dispy/futurist crowd, of which you are a part.

>>>They’ll be with the Lord, but the verses don’t specify where that will be.<<<

Actually, it does:

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air . . ." (1 Th 4:17 KJV)

I suspected you were experiencing reading comprehension difficulties.

>>>Better be consistent with your interpretive principles, because if you insist on being wrong, at least you can aspire to be consistent.<<<

You must be talking to yourself.

>>>I agree, that is the first resurrection, when all dead Christians are resurrected, and all living Christians are transformed and go to the Lord as well. You say that happened in 70 AD, yet nobody bothered to record this event, and somehow there has never been an interruption in the presence of Christians on Earth.<<<

Who was left to record it, if all were resurrected, except for the millions slaughtered by the Roman Armies, and those who had fled to Pella? Again, who was left to record it?

Don't you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies. What about John? It is claimed he lived to the end of the century. Why did he not write even a whisper about it?

I'll tell you why. That was not John, but a false apostle claiming to be John (we were warned about false apostles.) St. John was resurrected along with his fellow Saints.

>>>You’re the one making the argument, when you say the first resurrection has already happened.<<<

I am in good company. Jesus prophesied in several ways that he was coming in his own generation. I believe I mentioned some of them in my article.

>>>You are still here, so you must have missed the boat on the first resurrection, and therefore, you are not a Christian.<<<

That is truly a cult-like, red-herring argument.

>>>"If the first resurrection has happened, then as you have told us in your last post, the Christians are with the Lord forever.<<<

Only the saints, the earliest Christians, and holy men of old were resurrected in the first resurrection. Do you think you are a saint?

>>>Revelation tells us that, for those who are part of the first resurrection, the second death (the lake of fire) has no power over them. The converse then must be true.<<

That is true. Therefore, I recommend you clean up your act and quit slandering Christians, or you might not be found worthy to avoid the second death.

>>>Those who are not part of the first resurrection are at risk of hellfire. Do you believe that Christians are at such risk?<<<

True Christians? No. Of course, Jesus gave us examples of those who would be rejected, including some who claimed righteousness (e.g., the self-righteous.) Perhaps you recall some of those examples by the Lord.

Philip

There have been no prophets since John [according to] The Bible... Who were the prophets after John?

Is that how you derive Biblical truth, by Biblical silence? You err when you interpret the silence of the Bible about something as Biblical denial of the thing's existence. That's like saying there are no longer any cats because cats are not in the Bible after John. It is a logical and interpretive fallacy to assume that no mention of prophets after John proves there have been no prophets after John. Therefore, Scriptural silence about prophets after John does not prove there were no prophets after John.

Where does the Bible expressly say there have been no prophets after John? If not, your statement is based on your understanding and interpretation of circumstances, not based on definite Scripture. You may call it YOUR interpretation, that's fine. Just don't pretend you are expressing God's Word or YOU are "adding to God's Word."

So although it is up to you, not me, to prove scriptural foundation for your assertion, I'll respond anyway.

Acts 11:27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets

Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.

Beyond this, if the Bible implies anything, it implies an ongoing prophetic ministry as evidenced by Paul's instruction to the Corinthians about setting prophets in the church (1 Cor 12:28) and instructions to the prophets (1 Cor 14: 29,32).

You're really way off on this one my FRiend.

Jerusalem is just a mass of land within a secular nation.

So what? You claim Jerusalem was destroyed and it was not, so you have a false premise that has lead to erroneous conclusion. In fact, your description starts to sound like the Great Whore, Babylon the Great.

>>>Is that how you derive Biblical truth, by Biblical silence?<<<

Sometimes.

>>>You err when you interpret the silence of the Bible about something as Biblical denial of the thing's existence.<<<

I would agree that in certain circumstances Biblical silence is revealing. For example, there is not a whisper about a dual fulfilment of Malachi's prophecy on Elijah. Nor is there a hint of a reign of Christ on earth.

>>>That's like saying there are no longer any cats because cats are not in the Bible after John. It is a logical and interpretive fallacy to assume that no mention of prophets after John proves there have been no prophets after John.<<<

Maybe you could steer us toward some of those prophecies? I don't recall reading a single line of prophecy after John.

>>>Where does the Bible expressly say there have been no prophets after John?<<<

I look at the Bible, and it ends with John's book. Should I be reading somewhere else?

>>>So although it is up to you, not me, to prove scriptural foundation for your assertion, I'll respond anyway.

Acts 11:27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets
Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.<<<

So? Jesus said he would send some prophets. Where are their letters; their books? Isn't the work of the prophets--the parts we need--typically written in a book somewhere?

>>>Beyond this, if the Bible implies anything, it implies an ongoing prophetic ministry as evidenced by Paul's instruction to the Corinthians about setting prophets in the church (1 Cor 12:28) and instructions to the prophets (1 Cor 14: 29,32).<<<

When was the last time anyone received the power of the holy spirit to prophesy?

>>>You're really way off on this one my FRiend.<<<

No, you are if you think there have been any prophesies after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. If there were, the early Church Fathers would have found them.

>>>You claim Jerusalem was destroyed and it was not, so you have a false premise that has lead to erroneous conclusion. In fact, your description starts to sound like the Great Whore, Babylon the Great.<<<

Did you ever bother reading the history of those days? Everyone knows that Jerusalem was leveled: completely destroyed.

I believe the reason God gave us the Bible is so we would not have to make stuff up. Men's imaginations are dangerous, to be kind.

BTW, you really should consider dropping the condescending attitude.

Philip

>>>So are you disputing the words of Jesus and Paul about an ongoing prophetic ministry?<<<

No. I believe every word they say. It is, after all, the Holy Ghost speaking, and God is always right. I simply don't believe your understanding of what they wrote is correct.

All who received the power of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, or received the power from one of them shortly thereafter, had the power to prophesy. But the power to prophecy is conditional upon a need for the prophecy.

Those who received the power of the Holy Ghost had other powers, as well: all conditional upon need:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17-18 KJV)

There has not been anyone with that kind of faith since around AD 70.

Philip

>>>Around and around we go.<<<

You got that right.

>>>Where does the Bible clearly and unequivocally declare that Jerusalem exists no more as far as the Lord is concerned so that in no way can Jerusalem be the Great Whore, Babylon the Great?<<<

Would you rephrase that question? Never mind.

>>>Again, your description of Jerusalem supports the idea of Jerusalem being the Great Whore.<<<

That is correct. Jerusalem was the Great Whore of the Revelation.

>>>Maybe you should follow your own advice once in a while about condescension.<<<

I'll keep that in mind. In the meantime, if you feel an urge to make the following statement again, like you did in #48, please follow through:

>>>"I'll quit wasting my time with someone who won't participate in a reasonable discussion."<<<

Philip

>>>No Phillip, I’m not going support your assertions for you. That’s your job.<<<

I am perfectly comfortable with my interpretations. I don't consider it a job; but rather a privilege and a blessing.

>>>You’re the one asserting no ongoing prophetic ministry after John even though Jesus said he would send prophets, they were in Acts, and Paul gave instruction about the office of the prophet in the church and instruction on using the words of prophecy.<<<

Paul was speaking to the early Church. Some of them had powers beyond our comprehension.

>>>If you can’t show scripture supporting your view that on the face is contrary to scripture, then you are the one adding to God’s Word.<<<

Show me the prophecy. Never mind. You can't.

I hope you are not claiming that some in your denomination are prophets? The modern-day claim of "speaking in tongues" is bad enough.

Philip

>>>Where does the Bible clearly and unequivocally declare that Jerusalem exists no more as far as the Lord is concerned?<<<

"And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." (Rev 18:21 KJV)

"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." (Rev 18:23 KJV)

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:24 KJV)

"And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." (Rev 19:1-2 KJV)

Did you really think they could get away with killing the prophets, apostles and the Son of God?

Philip

My inital question to you:

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?

If an when you get around to explaining this I may be interested. So far, you have not supported your assertion with definitive Scripture. Rather you have supported it with the lack of Scripture and your interpretation of things that are not explicit in the Bible.

We're probably done. I can't say I haven't enjoyed it aside for some personal side-swipes. I enjoy an good, intelligent discussion. Although I believe you could benefit from being a little more open, I wish you the best and God speed.

>>>If an when you get around to explaining this I may be interested. So far, you have not supported your assertion with definitive Scripture. Rather you have supported it with the lack of Scripture and your interpretation of things that are not explicit in the Bible.<<<

If you have read my thread on the 144,000, and you are not satisfied with what I wrote, or do not understand it, then I don't know what else to tell you.

>>>We're probably done. I can't say I haven't enjoyed it aside for some personal side-swipes. I enjoy an good, intelligent discussion. Although I believe you could benefit from being a little more open, I wish you the best and God speed.<<<

Back at ya.

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.