Millennial Series: Part 10: The Historical Context of Premillennialism

While modern premillennialism depends upon Scriptural foundations for its apologetic and theological statement, it has nevertheless a significant historical context. It is regrettable that some historians have held low views of premillennialism, with the result that premillennialism has seldom had fair consideration in historical treatments of Christian doctrine. Liberals and skeptics surveying the evidence with theological indifference have often arrived at a fairer view of the evidence for premillennialism in history than those endeavoring to defend another millennial position.

It is hardly within the province of a theological study of premillennialism to include an adequate history of the doctrine. An exhaustive modern study of the subject remains for someone to undertake. Fortunately, the main issues are clear in even a casual study, and the significant evidence in relation to premillennialism can hardly be disputed by any scholarly sources produced to date. The evidence for premillennialism in the Old and New Testaments and in the literature and theology of the early church at least in its main elements is commonly recognized. It needs here only to be restated as forming the historical context of modern premillennialism. This testimony unites in one river of evidence that the theology of the Old and New Testament and the theology of the early church was not only prellennial, but that its premillennialism was practically undisputed except by heretics and skeptics until the time of Augustine. The coming of Christ as the prelude for the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness on earth in fulfillment of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies was the almost uniform expectation, both of the Jews at the time of the incarnation and of the early church. This is essential premillennialism however it may differ in its details from its modern advanced counterpart. Old Testament supports the premillennial viewpoint and that the Jews at the time of Christ held just such views of the Old Testament.

Amillenarians have followed two main routes to escape the logical result of this admission. The first has been to hold that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament was wrong. This is essentially the position of Hamilton quoted above. While he admits, “In fact, the Jews were looking for just such a kingdom to be set up by the Messiah in Jerusalem,”3 he continues, “Jesus Himself, in speaking of that whole idea said, ‘The kingdom of God is within (or, in the midst of) you’ (Luke 17:21), thus contradicting the idea that it was to be an earthly, literal, Jewish kingdom.”4 As he goes on to explain, the error in the premillennial interpretation is that they interpret the prophecies literally, just as the Jews did.

The other route followed by amillenarians is another expedient for disposing of the prophecies of the Old Testament without literal fulfillment. This line of thought is to admit that the Old Testament prophecies rightly promise the Jews a kingdom on earth as usually presented by premillenarians, but to cancel this promise on the ground that it was conditioned on faith and obedience. In other words, the promise will never be fulfilled because Israel failed. As Allis puts it, “…obedience is the precondition of blessing under all circumstances.”5 He goes on to argue that obedience is the condition for fulfillment of all God’s covenant relations, specifically the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the Gospel of grace.6

These two lines of amillennial argument, are, of course, contradictory. One assumes that a literal interpretation is right but fulfillment is forfeited for disobedience. The other assumes that literal interpretation is wrong and therefore only spiritual fulfillment is to be expected. Amillenarians like Allis use both principles even though their respective premises nullify each other. It is plain that they are determined at all costs to dispose of these kingdom promises without being too particular as to what method is followed. Premillenarians hold, of course, that the promises are unconditional and to be interpreted literally, and that premillennialism as found in the New Testament confirms the premillennialism of the Old Testament in no uncertain terms.

The answer to the amillennial objection to premillennial interpretation of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament in two principal forms. First, the expectation of the Jews for literal fulfillment of the kingdom promises is confirmed. Second, this confirmation proves that the Old Testament promises are unconditional as to ultimate literal fulfillment.

It has been noted that rightly or wrongly it was the universal expectation of the Jews that the kingdom promises would be literally fulfilled. What does the New Testament have to say about this expectation? In Luke 1:32-33, Mary is told by the angel, in relation to the child Jesus, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” In view of the common Jewish expectation, how would Mary interpret such a prophecy? It should certainly be clear that she would consider it a confirmation of the literal interpretation and literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. She would naturally expect that her child Jesus would sit on an earthly Davidic throne. In spite of the disobedience of Israel in the Old Testament, and the long years in which no one sat on the throne of David, here was confirmation of the precise expectation common among the Jews. Did Mary for one moment hold the amillenarian view? Would she spiritualize this passage—the throne of David is God’s throne in heaven; the kingdom is a spiritual kingdom; Israel is synonymous with the church? Certainly not! It was totally foreign to her thinking. If the amillenarians are right, Mary was sadly deceived. The prophecy of the angel could hardly have been better worded to confirm the ordinary Jewish hope as well as the exact essentials of the premillennial position—the literal and earthly fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.

It is, of course, true that Christ taught much concerning the spiritual aspects of God’s kingdom. The Messianic kingdom on earth following the second advent by no means exhausts kingdom truth. The important point is, however, that whenever the precise kingdom promises of the Old Testament are introduced, these promises and their literal fulfillment are never denied, corrected, or altered, but are instead confirmed.

There is much positive evidence in the New Testament for premillennial teachings. It is clear that the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as their King and Messiah, not as their Savior, and in so doing fulfilled literally those prophecies dealing with His rejection and death. His rejection did not alter the kingdom promises, however. When the mother of James and John sought special privilege for her sons in the kingdom (Matt 20:20-23), her request was not denied on the ground that she had a mistaken idea of the kingdom, but rather that the privilege she requested was to be given to those chosen by the Father. Again Christ the night before His rejection and crucifixion told His disciples that they would sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom (Luke 22:29-30). In Acts 1:6, when the disciples wanted to know when the kingdom was going to be restored to Israel, they were not told that they were in error, that the kingdom would never be restored to Israel, but only that it was not for them to know the “times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:7). When Paul raises the question concerning the future of Israel, in Romans 9-11 , and considers the possibility of God rescinding His promises to them as a nation and casting them off forever, he exclaims, “God forbid” (Rom 11:1). The whole tenor of Romans 9-11 is to the point that while Israel for the present is cut off the olive tree of blessing, Israel is scheduled to be restored at the second advent, when the Deliverer will come out of Zion. It is expressly stated in this regard that “the gifts and callings of God are without repentance” (Rom 11:29), i.e., that God will fulfill His purpose regarding the nation Israel.

The book of Revelation is, of course, the classic passage on premillennialism. Revelation, while subject to all types of scholarly abuse and divergent interpretation, if taken in its plain intent yields a simple outline of premillennial truth—first a time of great tribulation, then the second advent, the binding of Satan, the deliverance and blessing of the saints, a righteous government on earth for 1000 years, followed by the final judgments and the new heaven and new earth. The only method of interpretation of Revelation which has ever yielded a consistent answer to the question of its meaning is that which interprets the book, however symbolic, as having its general revelation plain, one to be fulfilled literally, and therefore subject to future fulfillment.

One of the most eloquent testimonies to premillennial truth is found in the absolute silence of the New Testament, and for that matter the early centuries of the church, on any controversy over premillennial teaching. It is admitted that it was universally held by the Jews. It is often admitted that the early church was predominantly premillennial. Yet there is no record of any kind dealing with controversy. It is incredible that if the Jews and the early church were in such a serious error in their interpretation of the Old Testament and in their expectation of a righteous kingdom on earth following the second advent, that there should be no corrective, and that all the evidence should confirm rather than deny such an interpretation. The general context of the New Testament is entirely in favor of the premillennial viewpoint. The amillennial interpretation has not one verse of positive testimony in the New Testament and can be sustained ony by spiritualizing the prophecies of the Old Testament as well as the teaching of the New.

The available evidence in regard to the premillennialism of the first century is not extensive by most standards, but such evidence as has been uncovered points in one direction—the premillennial concept. Peters in his classic work, The Theocratic Kingdom, cites no less than fifteen advocates of premillennialism in the first century.7 While his classification in some cases no doubt is debatable, in others it is undisputed. The notable testimony of Papias, who was associated with the Apostle John, is of special weight. Papias who lived in the first century and the beginning of the second lists as adherents of premillennialism Aristio, John the Presbyter and the Apostles Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew. He certainly was in a position to know their views, and his testimony is an important link in sustaining the fact that the disciples continued in the Jewish expectation of a kingdom on earth. Peters also lists as premillenarians Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. In previous discussion of amillennialism, it was shown that the prevailing opinion of both amillenarians and premillenarians that Barnabas is premillennial in his views is fully justified. Hermas also is conceded by practically all parties as premillennial. In other words, there are clear and unmistakable evidences of premillennialism in the first century. Further, this viewpoint is linked extra-biblically with the apostles themselves. In contrast to these clear evidences, not one adherent, not one line of evidence is produced sustaining the idea that any first-century Christians held Augustinian amillennialism—that the interadvent period was the millennial. Further, there is no evidence whatever that premillennialism was even disputed. It was the overwhelming-majority view of the early church.

The second century like the first bears a sustained testimony to the premillennial character of the early church. Even the amillenarians claim no adherents whatever by name to their position in the second century except in the allegorizing school of interpretation which arose at the very close of the second century. Premillennialism was undisputed for the first ninety years of the second century. Among those who can be cited in this century as holding premillennialism Peters names Pothinus, Justin Martyr, Melito, Hegesippus, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Apollinaris.8 Of these Justin Martyr (100-168) is quite outspoken. He wrote: “But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned, and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17 ), ‘Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,’ etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God.”9

While even modern premillenarians might not accept the details of Justin’s interpretation, the notable fact is that he clearly states the essentials of premillennialism—the second advent, followed by a thousand-year reign and the separating of the resurrections before and after the millennium. Further, Justin declares that this view which he advocates is generally accepted as the orthodox view of the church. Peters accordingly cites the conclusion of Semisch in Herzog’s cyclopaedia, “Chiliasm constituted in the sec. century so decidedly an article of faith that Justin held it up as a criterion of perfect orthodoxy.”10

The testimony of Justin is by no means unsustained by others, as Peters shows. Pothinus taught his churches at Lyons and Vienne premillennial doctrine which was continued by Irenaeus his successor. Melito, the bishop of Sardis, is declared a premillenarian by Shimeall in his Reply, based on Jerome and Genadius. Tertullian is generally regarded as a premillenarian. Others are less certain but the evidence, such as it is, seems to point to their holding similar positions.

In general, the second century, then, has a similar testimony to the first. All characters who have anything to say on the subject are premillennial and this is set forth as the orthodox opinion of the church. Those who may have denied it were classified as heretics, not simply for being opposed to premillennialism but for other reasons. The first opposition to premillennialism did not become vocal until the opening of the third century. Amillenarians and postmillenarians have not only no positive evidence in favor of their position but no evidence that there was even a reasonable minority in the church contending against premillennialism. Apparently no one of the orthodox Fathers thought of challenging this important doctrine in the first two centuries.

In the third century premillennialism began its historic decline, and it is admitted by all that opposition arose to premillennial ideas. Opponents of premillennialism are found in Gaius, Clement, Origen, Dionysius, and others. The form in which the attack came consisted in the adoption of the allegorizing method of interpreting Scripture in a manner which is no credit to amillennialism. Rutgers, though a determined foe of premillennialism, analyzes Clement, for instance, as follows: “Clement, engrossed and charmed by Greek philosophy, applied this erroneous allegorical method to Holy Writ. It was a one-sided emphasis: opposed to the real, the visible, phenomenal, spacial and temporal. A Platonic idealistic philosophy could not countenance carnalistic, sensualistic conceptions of the future as that advanced by chiliasm. It shook the very foundations on which chiliasm rested. Robertson observed that ‘it loosed its [chiliasm’s] sheet-anchor,—naïve literalism in the interpretation of Scripture.’“11

It is not surprising that opposition to premillennialism should arise. All forms of true doctrine have opposition and even the majority view in the history of doctrine is not necessarily the right one. The point of great significance is the form in which the opposition arose. It was not the product of orthodox studies in the Scripture, nor of the application of tried and true hermeneutics. It was rather the subversion of the plain meaning of Scripture not only as applied to the millennial question but all other areas of doctrine. The church today with one voice condemns all of the early opponents of premillennialism as heretics. Opposition to premillennialism had its rise in the attackers of true Scriptural doctrine, and it was not until the time of Augustine (354-430) that one reputable adherent of amillennialism can be cited. The opposition of premillennialism in the third century is no asset to amillennialism. While amillenarians may hail the conclusions of the enemies of premillennialism, they accept neither the general method nor the theology of those who participated in the attack. Usually, like Allis, amillenarians abandon the early centuries as a lost cause and begin with Augustine.

The third century had its own continued witness to premillennialism, however. Among those who can be cited are Cyprian (200-258), Commodian (200-270), Nepos (230-280), Coracion (230-280), Victorinus (240-303), Methodius (250-311), and Lactantius (240-330). Some of these like Commodian and Nepos are undisputed premillenarians. Nepos early recognized the heretical tendencies of the Alexandrian school of theology, which was the first effective opponent of premillennialism, and he attacked them with vigor. Methodius is conceded as premillenarian by Whitby himself. It is clear, however, that a rising tide of opposition was beginning to manifest itself against premillennialism, and while the church managed to extricate itself from much of the other bad doctrine of the Alexandrian school, premillennialism became in time one of the fatalities. Premillennialism from the Third Century to Modern Times

All admit that premillennialism after the third century waned and lost its hold on the majority of the church. It was the time of the rising strength of the Roman Church. Both the theological and political atmosphere was against it. While there was a continued minority who held premillennialism both within and without the Roman Church, they were not very vocal and were quite ineffectual in continuing a strong testimony. The Reformers, while returning to true doctrine in many areas, accepted Augustine as the starting point for their theology, and for the most part accepted without much consideration his opposition to premillennialism. The fact that premillennialism was held by some fanatical sects did not give it much standing. It remained for the renewal of Scriptural studies some time after the Reformation to turn the attention of a large portion of the church again to the premillennial question. The last hundred years have brought premillennialism out of its partial eclipse, and among those who accept the inspiration of Scripture it continues to be an area of lively discussion. Most Bible institutes as well as some theological seminaries are today propagating premillennial truth, and scores of evangelical preachers, teachers, and missionaries, as well as widespread publications present premillennialism.

The general features of modern premillennialism are highly significant and need to be outlined before assuming the larger task of the analysis and defense of premillennial doctrine. Even a casual observer of the premillennial movement in the twentieth century can see certain important tendencies.

Infallibility of Scripture. Premillennialism is based on the thesis of the infallibility of Scripture. It stands or falls not only on the method of interpretation of Scripture, but also on the question of the infallibility of the Holy Scripture. For this reason, premillennialism is entirely confined to those who are conservative in their general theological position. Premillennialism has always been the foe of liberal theology and of unbelief in the Scriptures. It has often been attacked for this very reason. Much of the modern zeal of its opponents has not arisen in love for doctrinal purity, but in hatred of conservative Biblical theology. To be a premillenarian exposes one at once to all who have departed from conservative theology. Premillennialism remains a bulwark against the inroads of modern theology.

Literal interpretation. Modern premillennialism is dependent upon the principle of literal interpretation. Premillennialism is a result of the application of this method to Scriptural interpretation. It is accordingly the foe of modern liberal spiritualization of all areas of theology as well as the more confined spiritualization of conservative amillenarians. The literal method of interpretation is also vitally related to Biblical dispensationalism. The recognition of Biblical dispensations and the proper statement of dispensational distinctions is not in itself a method of interpretation but rather a result of a method—the application of the literal method. Anti-dispensationalists are always guilty of various degrees of spiritualization of Scripture. The dispensational method is the literal method. In this connection it should also be noted that extremes in dispensational distinctions do not have their rise in a more rigid literal method, but rather in the area of general interpretation. Extreme dispensationalism which divides the interadvent period into Jewish and Gentile churches, and makes much of the New Testament non-applicable to modern churches, is not more or less literal than ordinary dispensationalism. It is misapplication of the literal method rather than its proper use.

Evangelicalism. Premillennialism has been definitely an evangelical movement. While often charged with pessimism regarding this world and with “other-worldliness,” premillennialism has been a large factor in modern effective Gospel preaching. A premillenarian is usually a believer in the orthodox Gospel and an adherent of Biblical theology in all major areas. Premillennialism among other things has opposed legalism or the Galatian error as it exists today and has upheld the doctrine of grace both as the ground of salvation and as a rule of life for the believer.

Opposition to ecclesiasticism. Premillennialism has tended to be more independent of human and ecclesiastical opinions and more inclined to exalt the Scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit as a basis for conduct. The modern tendency to exalt church programs often pursued in the energy of the flesh rather than in the power of the Spirit, and the trend to exalt submission to church authority rather than to the Holy Spirit have had no encouragement from premillennialism. Premillennialism has supported exegetical preaching, informal church services, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and extemporaneous prayers in contrast to the ritualism, formalism, and mechanical tendency of modern Christianity.

Emphasis on prophetic studies. It is transparent that premillennialism has also exalted the study of prophetic truth. In contrast to the common neglect of even the essential doctrines of the second advent, heaven, hell, and final judgment, usually omitted from liberal theological preaching, premillennialism has focused the white light of careful investigation on Scriptural teachings concerning future things. Prophetic Bible conferences are inevitably premillennial in their doctrine. Neither amillennialism nor postmillennialism ever aroused much interest in prophecy.

Such is the historical context of modern premillennialism. Rooted in the Old and New Testaments, a product of literal interpretation, nurtured by the Apostles and the early church, eclipsed for centuries by the dark shadows of pagan philosophies and allegorizing methods of interpretation, emerging once more as a dominant strain in Biblical theology in these eschatological times, premillennialism is more than a theory, more than a doctrine. It is a system of Biblical interpretation which alone honors the Word of God as infallibly inspired, literally interpreted, and sure of literal fulfillment. It has stirred the coals of evangelicalism, created interest in Biblical study, and constituted a preparation of God’s people for the coming of the Lord for His saints. Premillennial truth has been an inestimable blessing to those who have received it. To them the Bible has become a living book to be interpreted in its ordinary sense. It is significant that the Bible study movements have usually been premillennial, and institutions which emphasize the study of the text of Scripture, as illustrated in the Bible institute movement, have often been an integral part of the premillennial movement.

The larger task of examining the foundations of Biblical premillennialism remains before us. The method of approach will be first of all general, then specific, and we trust with profit to the readers.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

1. I have a rule that never fails - when engaged in debate, when your opponent can’t correctly state what your position is, but instead must “mis-represent” it, you know they have lost the debate. a good example is when Catholics are accused of worshipping Mary, the saints, statues, bread, etc. etc. or that we worship 3 Gods. when someone says that, you know they have no confidence in their position and MUST resort to strawmen or falsehoods ( or they just aren’t that bright and don’t understand the Christian Faith )
2. that said, it makes a HUGE difference to the D if the Church is Israel or “replaced” Israel. if it didn’t, why not state the position correctly? the answer is, if indeed there was a “replacement” than there are TWO peoples of God ( the Church and Israel ), whereas if the Church IS Israel, there is only One people of God. ( as in one flock, one olive tree, one wedding etc )
3. here is an analogy to explain Israel:

think of Israel like Major League Baseball prior to Jackie Robinson. membership in MLB was restricted based on race ( being white ) white people are like national Israel. the commissioner of MLB is like Jesus Christ. Gentiles are like non-white players. so up until 1949, the Commissioner of MLB restricted members to white people, but in 1949 decided to switch and open MLB up to anyone based on ability. Ability is like Faith. so in 1949, MLB was now comprised of whites and non-whites, based on ability and not race. It is still MLB, still same Commissioner, only now the players are not only just white, but non-white as well, BASED ON ABILITY. but some pre-1949 white players objected to MLB baseball being opened to non-white players and refused to play MLB anymore. in fact, they started a different league and continued to restrict membership to the white race rather than ability. they called their league MLB as well, so to the general public it appeared there are TWO MLB leagues. but to the Commissioner, there is only ONE legitimate league and one league that is an enemy of the true MLB. now the Commissioner allows anyone from the other league to play in the true MLB, but they have to agree that ABILITY ( faith ) should determine membership and not race.

so as in the above analogy, we must look at Israel not from man’s perspective, but from God’s.
God has made a NEW, EVERLASTING COVENANT WITH ISRAEL and it is based on FAITH in Jesus Christ and his once for all blood sacrifice on the cross. NO ONE who rejects this FAITH is in ISRAEL.

4. there is a hardening towards Christ by physical Jews, but God did not do this to anyone who would have been a believer without the hardening. that is what your article implies when it states God always kept a faithful remnant. except in this case, it seems you are saying He is keeping an unfaithful remnant until some time in the future, but in the meantime the 100 million or so Jews who have lived the past 2,000 years rejecting Jesus are condemned to hell without a chance due to this hardening. this thinking violates 1 Timothy 2:4. God only hardens those he knows through foreknowledge would not believe.

5.the belief that somehow national Israel will turn to Jesus and accept the Gospel in mass sometime in the future disregards the fact that Jesus cursed the fig tree ( national Israel ) and said it would NEVER bear fruit again. this prophecy has been born out by history as a small number have come to faith and been re-grafted into the olive tree, the overwhelming majority have not only rejected the Gospel, but have been active opponents to Christianity. I don’t think Jewish families still hold funerals if someone in their family converts, but they used to.

6. the Scriptures don’t say the blindness will be taken away when all the Gentiles enter the olive tree. it says it will last that long, i.e. until the end of the world.

7. when someone comes to faith in Jesus, the vail is removed. this has been happening for 2,000 years now.

8. you say the Lord’s return awaits his recognition by all Israel. THIS IS BACKWARDS. anyone in Israel is a believer and already recognizes Jesus, the sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd. the Lord’s return can happen any minute.

9. I am glad you agree the new everlasting covenant Jeremiah says will be made with Israel, has been fulfilled.
but what is not understood is the “land” promised is not some dirt in the Middle East, no the land is something far superior, that is the new heaven and the new earth. and Israel, that is those in Christ will inherit this land at His second coming. those who have Jewish DNA, but reject the new covenant in His blood are not Israel, they will not inherit anything except eternal separation from the ONE TRUE GOD.
it would be helpful to read Ezekiel 36:22-32 with spiritual eyes, in light of the NT rather than a first century Pharisee.

I have a rule that never fails - when engaged in debate, when your opponent can’t correctly state what your position is, but instead must “mis-represent” it, you know they have lost the debate. a good example is when Catholics

Then you have already lost, as you basically began with defining dispensationalism as requiring they hold that "ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED" in Rm. 11:16 logically means all Jews will be are saved who ever lived or do will be saved even though they rejected Jesus and His offer of salvation.

This would indeed by a radical view, and requires treating dispensationalism as a uniform doctrine, while you also seem to require all who hold to the Lord's return awaiting His recognition by all living Israel/Jews, and the 1k reign of Christ to subscribe to your definition of dispensationalism. Why debate with such a sophist?

that said, it makes a HUGE difference to the D if the Church is Israel or “replaced” Israel. if it didn’t, why not state the position correctly? the answer is, if indeed there was a “replacement” than there are TWO peoples of God ( the Church and Israel ), whereas if the Church IS Israel, there is only One people of God. ( as in one flock, one olive tree, one wedding etc )

This also is based upon your insistence of what replacement must mean, while if the church has become Israel as an entirely redeemed community, then it has replaced the Israel of God which is called Israel as being a mixture of saved and lost. Thus Paul calls them Israelites,

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; (Romans 9:3-4)

Under your model there are no more Israelites, these effectively being replaced by always making Israel to refer to the church. Yet even the CCC states "Israel is the priestly people of God," (63: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm)

I could change the intro of my page to clarify the issue and which would take away your argument by semantical outrage, but the issue you deny and it basically addresses would remain, that the Lord's return awaits the recognition by all Israel, upon whom a hardening has come due to their "unbelief" toward Jesus.

the Commissioner of MLB restricted members to white people, but in 1949 decided to switch and open MLB up to anyone based on ability.

The analogy is faulty as the MLB always consisted of those (along with their bat boys) who were there due to a promise made to their father (the "National league") signified by a mark in their flesh, although only those who had their "ability" (faith) would get the world series ring. Later, under your model the Commissioner drafted foreigners with ability from outside this race, and reconstituted the old MLB by replacing the National league with the Abrahamic league, only made up by new creations, irrelevant of race, though a few from the National League were able to join them. The National League was rendered irrelevant except as a historical artifact.

But in reality after drafting foreign players the Commissioner yet loved all those in the National League due to their father, and promised to one day give them the ability to be in the Abrahamic league, having regard to his promise made to their fathers, and thus all under the name of major league baseball would be world champions.

there is a hardening towards Christ by physical Jews, but God did not do this to anyone who would have been a believer without the hardening.

What you deny is just what Paul has been leading up to from Rm. 9, that a judgment of blindness was placed upon the Jews overall after their overall rejection of Christ, and God opened to the door to the Gentiles. But which blindness shall be removed when the full number of the Gentiles are entered into the spiritual kingdom of Christ. The remnant of Jews that are now saved is a precursor of what is to come for all remaining Jews.

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Romans 11:7)

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (Romans 11:12)

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? (Romans 11:15)

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Romans 11:25-26)

but in the meantime the 100 million or so Jews who have lived the past 2,000 years rejecting Jesus are condemned to hell without a chance due to this hardening. this thinking violates 1 Timothy 2:4. God only hardens those he knows through foreknowledge would not believe.

Even if you hold to the cause of election being according to foreknowledge, it is clear that men cannot be saved unless God draws, opens hearts, and grants repentant faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8) so that in conversion man does what he otherwise could not and would not do.

But God owes no man grace, or the same amount, and it is evident that men receive different degrees of grace, and are judged according to their response to such. Jews who are lost, like all others who are, were given the grace to acknowledge God, but did not continue on that light, and so their foolish heart was darkened.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21)

And as regards 1 Timothy 2:4, while the Lord's desire is for men to be saved, and thus the Lord wept over Jerusalem, yet this does not mean He must do all that He could do so save them, for even Sodom would have repented if God had granted them more grace. (Mt. 11:23)

Even if not granted "repentance unto life," by rejecting the light of conscience that man innately has (thus Gentiles by nature can do the things contained in the law: Rm. 2:14) then in essence one is rejecting Christ. The 100 million or so Jews who have lived the past 2,000 years rejecting Jesus will be condemned to hell along with even more Gentiles, but all in essence have rejected Christ by rejecting the light they did have and could have responded to. And eternal judgment is based upon what you did do, not someone else. You may protest that this is not fair since others received more grace, but that is faulting God for being gracious, as all are worthy of eternal damnation even if not realizing salvific grace.

.the belief that somehow national Israel will turn to Jesus and accept the Gospel in mass sometime in the future disregards the fact that Jesus cursed the fig tree ( national Israel ) and said it would NEVER bear fruit again.

Then if this represents Israel eternally, versus certain representing them as souls presently who were given grace but who turn back as in Heb. 6, then it mean Israel could never bear fruit, yet many Jews have been saved, thanks be to God.

But here you are contradicting your own church which plainly states,

The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. Rom 11:20-26; cf. Mt 23:39. ...

"For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" Rom 11:15.The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", Rom 11:12, 25; cf. Lk 21:24. will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all". Eph 4:13; 1 Cor 15:28.

As a http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/replacement_theology.php states,

In 1994, the new Catholic Catechism made it clear that Scripture predicts a full conversion of the Jewish people to Christ in the end times (#674). And Augustine wrote,

It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them.

Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed. (City of God, book 20: cps. 29,30; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.txt)

You are simply interpreting your church contrary to others, or are more Catholic than the CCC.

Some other Catholics even espouse a fuller evangelical view. Roy H. Schoeman of ignatiusinsight.com states.

Sometime before the Second Coming, two-thirds of the Jews in "the whole land" will be exterminated (Zechariah 13:8-9

–The Jewish nation will be reborn in a single day (Isaiah 66:5-8):

-Jews will be regathered to Israel from around the entire world.

—There will be a widespread conversion of the Jews. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: "The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by 'all Israel,' for 'a hardening has come upon part of Israel' in their 'unbelief' toward Jesus" (Rom 11:20-26; Cf. Mt 23:39). [9] This has been the understanding ever since the Church Fathers

the Scriptures don’t say the blindness will be taken away when all the Gentiles enter the olive tree. it says it will last that long, i.e. until the end of the world. What? This goes beyond interpretation, as the text clearly states,

In context this teaches that as blindness came, so it will be removed, and "so" - in this way - all Israel shall be saved, just the opposite of this curse of blindness being perpetual.

when someone comes to faith in Jesus, the vail is removed. this has been happening for 2,000 years now.

Indeed, but the whole chapter leads up to the corporate veil being removed.

you say the Lord’s return awaits his recognition by all Israel. THIS IS BACKWARDS. anyone in Israel is a believer and already recognizes Jesus, the sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd. the Lord’s return can happen any minute.

Wrong; it is not backwards, but forwards, as this refers to the natural branches collectively hearing the voice of the shepherd before, at the hours of the Lord's return. And again as even your own CCC states,

The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.

I am glad you agree the new everlasting covenant Jeremiah says will be made with Israel, has been fulfilled. but what is not understood is the “land” promised is not some dirt in the Middle East, no the land is something far superior, that is the new heaven and the new earth.

It is that, but the new heaven and the new earth Rv. 20 speaks of is preceded by the 1k reign of Christ, in which the Lord reigns in Jerusalem, ruling the nations (unbelievers who survived the tribulation) with a rod of iron,

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (Revelation 19:15)

And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (Zechariah 14:17)

And in which believers have a part.

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. (Revelation 2:26-27; cf. Dan. 7:22)

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)

And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (Revelation 20:9)

it would be helpful to read Ezekiel 36:22-32 with spiritual eyes, in light of the NT rather than a first century Pharisee.

It would indeed be helpful to read Ezekiel 36:22-32 with spiritual eyes, seeing how it cannot refer to any known temple, in light of the NT which foretells the Lord's 1k year reign, rather than an old man "who will no more be admonished." (Eccl. 4:13)

Daniel, I have been asking where one can find the 1,000 year millennial reign in Matthew 24-25, and have been unable to have someone point it out to me.

The better question is how can one eliminate it from so many other places without spiritualizing away eternal punishment as well, and more. Yet this is not a salvific issue, and some disagreement should be allowed, except by those who are intractably committed to their own (or church's) opinion. Who tear at holy things in their arrogance.

As regards Matthew 24 this a prophetic utterance, in which i see tentatively see the Lord responding to "when shall these things be" by answering it in the context of "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

There is no 1k year reign of Christ in Mt. 24 because all that is described therein occurs before that. "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (v. 34) refers to the people who "shall see all these things" the Lord just described. (v. 33)

The 70 AD destruction is only a precursor of the complete fulfillment of the abomination of desolation. "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2:4) Who is not revealed until the day of Christ, with the believers "gathering together unto him" (v. 1) and all go to be with the Lord, (1Ths. 4:17) in the "the resurrection of the just," (Lk. 14:14; cf. Acts 24:15) "the resurrection of life," vs. the "resurrection of damnation" (Jn. 5:29) the "first resurrection," as separate from resurrection of the unjust by a 1k years:

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection . (Revelation 20:5)

This AoD sitting in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God, did not completely occur in 70AD, nor with Antiochus Epiphanes of the 2nd century B.C., though like 70AD, it would seem to be fulfill it.

With a rebuilt temple "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet," (v. 15) does stand in the holy place as God, who "shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect," (Matthew 24:24)

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, (2 Thessalonians 2:9)

As said, in my view "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (v. 34) would refer to the people who "shall see all these things" the Lord just described. (v. 33) And,

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (Matthew 24:29)

This corresponds to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17;

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Which is at the end of the Tribulation, and which saints apparently then go with the Lord to the battle of Armageddon spoken of by Jude and John, and to be rewarded and sit in judgment:

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. (Revelation 19:14)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14-15)

The resurrected saints are first rewarded according to their manner of workmanship in building the church, (1Cor. 3:8ff) and consequentially reign with but under Christ for a thousand years.

During which the devil is bound, this being the last condition in which man reveals his sinfulness, as while man first sinned in yielding to the devil, and later sin without law as well as under the law, and under grace, now he sins despite the devil being bound. (The elect will not sin in Heaven even if they can, as that is what the longed to be free from.)

After which the devil is loosed, leading an army which God annihilates:

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (Revelation 20:7-9) Then redeemed souls, who have already been rewarded with thrones, shall then judge both lost angels and men:

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)

Like as the interval btwn the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ is not always apparent in all prophetic descriptions in the OT, or distinguish btwn the two in one place, (Isaiah 2:1-4; 25:8,9; 26:19; Psalm 50:3-5; Isaiah 66:5-16; Dan 7:13,14) thus lost Jews use such to reject Christ as being the Messiah, so this 1,000 year interval is not apparent in such prophetic summaries in the NT as Matthew 16:27:

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.

Likewise,

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: (Matthew 25:31-32)

The Lord does separate the nations during His 1k year reign, for thus He rules over them as shown, but the final judgment occurs after that:

..they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years...they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired..And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:4,6,12)

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)

Finally, one can disagree on eschatology, but not on the necessity of having a day of salvation by coming to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart have cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And thus such will follow Him.

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.