Debate: Church/Israel

[brody196]

brody196 wrote:
Hey Kauf,

Can you please define what a Jew is today? Thanks.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
[...blah, blah, blah...]

brody196 wrote:
So..what do you think the New Testaments definition of a Jew is?

(a) Your question supposes that the New Testament has "a" definition of a Jew, as opposed to more than one understanding and/or usage of the diction.

(b) Given my religious orientation, I think the New Testament's definition of a Jew is ... not as such definitive .

Thanks for answering my question.

Given the fact that this is a Bible forum, I assumed we could discuss what the bible says and assumes on the subject. But seeing that you do not believe the bible, I don't guess there is much to discuss.

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
Given the fact that this is a Bible forum, I assumed we could discuss what the bible says and assumes on the subject. But seeing that you do not believe the bible, I don't guess there is much to discuss.

This is not exclusively a bible forum, of course.

There are various topics having to do with the Christian bible that I am interested in discussing, whether or not I personally agree with what it has to say. The topic of what the New Testament has to say about Jews and Israel would require a larger effort for me to address, and I have other claims on my time at present.

But thank you for asking, and maybe at another time I will be up for tackling the topic.

[steve]

I wrote (on page 3 of this thread), concerning Romans 11:28—

I know of no grammatical rule that would make the second "they" refer to anyone other than the nearest nominal antecedent ("the election"). It seems only to be an assumption of dispensationalism to make both occurrences of "they" refer to the same group, despite the fact that a new noun has been introduced between them.

I believe I have found a flaw in this argument of mine. Without knowing Greek grammar well enough, I was not sure whether the nouns—"enemies," "election," and the adjective "beloved" agreed with each other in gender. I had checked with Zodhiates' "Word Study New Testament," but, while telling a great deal about the grammar and status of each word, I was not able to find information about gender (a rather important omission, it seemed to me!). Therefore, I just purchased a copy of the "Analytical Greek New Testament" (I had lost an earlier copy), and it does note the genders. If I am understanding the notations correctly, then my thesis disproved by the grammar.

Here is what seems to be the case:

In Romans 11:28, "[they are] enemies" (one word in Greek: echthroi) is apparently a masculine noun; "the election" (ten eklogen) is a feminine noun; and "[they are] beloved" (agapetoi), is masculine.

This being so, it does not appear to me that "beloved" could refer to "the election," because they do not agree in gender.

When we turn our attention to verse 12, "Gentiles" is neuter, whereas "their" (in both cases) is identified as a masculine pronoun in the Analytical Greek New Testament. This would argue against the second "their" being applied to the word "Gentiles," as I have suggested, since both words would need to be neuter. But here I find a problem. The word "their" (Gr. auton) is the very same in both the masculine and the neuter forms. This makes me wonder if the choice of the Analytical Greek New Testament. to list them as masculine (when they are the same as the neuter forms) was influenced by the editors' opinions of what Paul was saying.

In verse 15, "the world" is masculine, but there is no pronoun attached to it. The pronoun "the" (not "their"), following the word "world," is feminine, and belongs to the word "acceptance," which is also feminine.

This is all very confusing, but the bottom line is that my suggestions for the interpretation of Romans 11:12 and 15 seem to be possible when the gender of nouns and pronouns are compared, but my suggested interpretation of verse 28 seems flawed. If anyone knows Greek well enough to tell me if I am reading this wrong, please let me know.

[mikew]

Sean,
Yes indeed, as Steve said, you have a good argument (the post on page 3) for explaining what Paul said.

One difference I see is that the fullness of the Gentiles had almost been achieved but not quite fully.

So most of the Jews still had been hardened. The elect of the Jews, the remnant, had just about fully come to salvation. So Paul's effort was to remove the boasting of Gentiles so that the rest of the election wouldn't be hindered. This may match with your evaluation though.

How could Paul make that claim if the fullness of the Gentiles has not yet come? Paul is saying that the hardened part of Israel can now, in Paul's own day, obtain mercy! That's why he also said:

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Paul was cautious with his words here. He didn't say that any more Jews would be saved. Paul merely said that there was a path to salvation if they came to have faith. And Paul's purpose was to reach more Jews.
But only the non-elect were hardened. This hardening was as expressed in Matt 13:

For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.'

There is some room for the idea that this was just a general hardening from which some Jews were freed. But it seems more likely that there were individuals who were the elect. It doesn't make sense to harden someone just to next show mercy.

They must come to belief, that means they are no longer enemies of the Gospel.

Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

Sorry but I see the mention of the election as significant. These are the people who are grafted back in again. Those who are enemies do not all stay that way. To be perfectly honest I believe Romans 11 teaches corporate election. There is no other theological answer to the issues raised. The Jews who are enemies become part of the elect when the come to faith. They move from broken off to grafted in by faith.

Those who were broken off likely referred to Jews who hadn't accepted Christ. But Paul wasn't saying that all of these broken branches were enemies. He only was pointing to the Jews that were bothering the Roman believers. Though, the gentiles were treating the situation as if it were all Jews. (I don't know whether the detail of 'corporate election' or 'individual election' comes into play here.) So the elect probably were those Jews who weren't enemies, at least weren't hardened.
Paul definitely was one specifically chosen of God. But Paul wasn't an enemy of the gospel (as among the Roman believers) since Paul had now been a friend of the believers.

Don't give up on the lost Jews, God has not. This text means what Paul has already said, his desire is that he cause some to envy the Gentiles and save some. How is this possible? It is because the gifts and calling have not been revoked. This does not mean they are saved in unbelief. They are grafted in by faith. And it can not mean a fulfillment in the "last days" because that is way to late for the context of those Paul said he was trying to save then.

So overall it seems I mainly agree with you. The only disagreement was about the scope of who was hardened.

Then when Paul mentioned about "all Israel shall be saved" he was not completing the previous paragraph about boasting and hardening of the Jews. Instead Paul was saying that God's promise was fulfilled to Jacob by virtue of the remnant of Jews described in Rom 9:6. The whole point of chapters 9 to 11 was to show God's faithfulness to His promise and to show that remnant among the Jews were being saved as part of that promise "for the sake of the forefathers." (Rom 11:28)

This means also that "Israel" did not include gentiles since gentiles were not included in the promise to Jacob. (In your post, I couldn't discern a clear view on who Israel was.)

[postpre]

Steve,

You know what I'm going to say You are making those verses more confusing than they need to be. You didn't respond to my last post on verses 12,15, and 28 of Romans 11. I'm not going to reiterate those points again, but I will add some ancillary observations on verses 12 and 15, since you seem to think that your interpretation is still tenable.

No one questions that (unbelieving) Israel is the topic of Paul's discussion in verse 7 of chapter 11. They had not obtained what they sought (many were blinded), but the elect had obtained it (remnant in Paul''s day). All the pronouns thereafter reference the unbelieving majority of Israel.

verse 8: "God has given to them"

verse 9: "their table" (article, noun, pronoun)

verse 10: "their eyes" (article, noun, pronoun); "their back" (article, noun, pronoun)

verse 11: "they stumble", "they should fall", "their transgression", "provoking them"

verse 12: "their fall" (article, noun, pronoun); "their failure" (article, noun, pronoun); "their fullness" (article, noun, pronoun)

You are correct that "auton" is the same in both the masculine and neuter forms (feminine as well). But, IMO, there is nothing in the context which would allow for such an interpretation, especially since it is so clear that Paul is emphasizing and contrasting "their current fall and failure to an ultimate fullness." Why set up an argument in such contrasting language and then finish to make your point by veering off in an altogether different trajectory of thought?

Paul's thoughts continue:

verse 14: "and save some of them"

verse 15: "their being cast away"- then Paul speak of "the reception," clearly connecting it to those who have been cast off. Their are no pronouns as you have observed, so there isn't really a chance that "the reception" is referring to the "world." Additionally, both "casting off" and "acceptance" are nominative, feminine, singular forms, while the world is in the genitive form (better rendered "of the world").

I'll get to Sean's post later.

Brian

[postpre]

Sean,

After quoting Romans 9:3-8 and then Romans 11:25-29, you made the following observation:

Paul can't change his mind now and say that enemies of the Gospel will be saved because of thier fathers. Nor can he say the mystery is that all Israel NOW means something different then he just explained in Romans 9.

In Romans 9, "the children of the flesh" represent unbelieving Jews (always a majority). "The children of promise" represent believing Jews (always a remnant). Paul's point is that just because one claims descendancy from Jacob (Israel) does mean that he is true Jew from God's perspective. He must also have the faith that God requires. Throughout Jewish history, only a remnant had followed God (i.e., only a remnant entered the promised land and returned from the Babylonian captivity), and so it was in Paul's day (only a remnant accepted the New Covenant). Paul needed to hammer home the point that a true Jew from God's perpective mixed their physical lineage with faith.

I am not advocating that any enemy of the gospel is going to be saved by God. Nor am I suggesting that literally all of Israel will be saved (from Paul's day to whenever). In context, Paul was lementing over the Jews of his day because if they died without Christ (and most did), then there is zero chance for them to partake in the coming kingdom. This caused him great consernation and grievousness of heart because of the privileges and honor God bestowed on Israel in establishing them as a nation to reflect His glory.

What Paul does, however, in Romans 11: 25-32, is forecast a future influx of salvation for his countrymen, at the second coming of Christ. In this sense the nation was beloved for the sake of the fathers. Paul saw the salvation of this future remnant as a fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham. What's important to consider is that God is not going to save even these Jews irrespective of their choice to submit to Jesus. He is going to remove the blinders from the Jews (and some will submit to Christ). This will happen at the second coming and not before.

Paul mentioned the branches broken off as unbelieving Jews living in his day who he was indeed trying to reach. He's not talking about a generation living in the last days. What good would it do to those he was trying to reach to say "don't be ignorant about these Jews right here and think they are broken off for good because all those living in the last days, thousands of years from now will get saved after the church is removed." That certainly doesn't make sense and doesn't seem to be Paul's point.

But, Paul quotes the following as still in the future: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." If you don't believe that this is still a future prophecy, then when did it occur? That the Jews of Paul's day could be grafted back in is quite clear as well (11:23). Yet, this should not be an argument against a future remnant being saved at the second coming. Remember, also, that Paul did not know how long in the future this would be. From 1 Thessalonians 4, he thought thay he may be alive when Christ returns ('we who are alive and remain").

When you mention the church being removed, you are probably speaking traditional dispensational language which I do not subscribe to.

Brian

[steve]

You are making those verses more confusing than they need to be.

Paul does that sometimes. Hadn't you noticed?

I disagree with your analysis. Your statements might be true, but they are not self-evidently true, and you seem to present them as if they are. I have answered above, that Paul has nowhere in any of his writings suggested that he expects a conversion of the Jews en masse. If he is suggesting that now, in verses 12, 15 and 28, why does he speak as if he is referring to something familiar to his readers? I simply see his argument differently than you do. I see no predictions about the future. Even if they are "beloved for the father's sake," this does not tell us whether they will be saved (the whole world is loved by God, but not all are saved).

You wrote to Sean:

But, Paul quotes the following as still in the future: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." If you don't believe that this is still a future prophecy, then when did it occur? That the Jews of Paul's day could be grafted back in is quite clear as well (11:23). Yet, this should not be an argument against a future remnant being saved at the second coming.

Paul does not say he is applying Isaiah 59:20f to the future. I believe the quote (which is in the future tense because Isaiah wrote it before the fulfillment) is an elaboration on Paul's statement, "All Israel will be saved." When did that happen? It is still going on. "Israel" (as Paul has labored to demonstrate in the immediate context preceding) consists of believing branches, both Jew and Gentile. Jews and Gentiles were being saved even as Paul wrote, and have continued to be saved throughout history, and will be until the end. When all the branches are finally on the tree, it will be seen that "all Israel" has been saved, as Isaiah wrote.

You apparently believe that the Isaiah passage is only speaking about a remnant of Israel in the last days (as per your last sentence quoted above). Yet, there is a remnant being saved at all times. How would the saving of a remnant at the end of time represent a different development? Since you believe that "all Israel" means "ethnic Israel," it makes no sense to say that this phrase speaks of only a remnant. In Paul's teaching, a remnant of Israel was already saved (vv.1-7). Why would he mention that a remnant of Jews were now saved (v.25), but then predict (as if a striking eschatological change) that "all Israel" (meaning a remnant of the Jews) will be saved at the end of time (v.26ff)?

Bringing eschatology into Paul's discussion is uncalled-for, and misses the point that Paul has been arguing since the beginning of chapter 9.

Now, please do me a favor and answer the points I made on page 3, which I will here bring forward from there:

Brian,

I am still not getting it. You believe that the Gentiles are partakers with the Jews of all the promises made to Israel, but you still have trouble allowing that the Jews and Gentiles who are the partakers of these promises are "the Israel of God"? You seem to want to retain a strictly ethnic definition of "Israel"—but this is entirely artificial, since there never was a time in history when all of Israel were Jewish by blood. There were always proselytes, who had no ancestry from the patriarchs, but who, after being circumcised, were included in Israel. This is because "Israel" was never a strictly racial designation. All of Jacob's sons married Gentile women, which means that every descendant of theirs was at least 50% Gentile by blood. It is obvious from both testaments that bloodline has never been the primary concern in defining who is a "child of Abraham" (God could turn stones into them!) nor in deciding who is included in "Israel."

A racially-mixed multitude left Egypt and and became "Israel" by entering into the covenant at Sinai. Later, Gentile bondservants and "strangers within the land" were able to be a part of Israel, simply by accepting the terms of the Old Covenant. In fact, in the days of Esther, many of the Persians also "became Jews" (Esther 8:17). They had no pedigree of descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but that did not prevent them from becoming part of Israel.

Today, when a Gentile becomes part of Israel, it is not by accepting the terms of the Old Covenant, but by accepting the terms of the New Covenant that God made with Israel (the remnant) in the upper room. Instead of circumcision, the terms require that one becomes a new creation in Christ (Gal.6:15). If a Gentile could be part of Israel under the terms of the Old Covenant, why do you object to Paul including Gentiles in Israel under the terms of the New Covenant? "Israel" has always included ethnic Gentiles as well as ethnic Jews.

You acknowledge the obvious fact that Romans 9:6 excludes some Jews from what Paul is calling "Israel," because we can all see that Paul is only including the believers among them (the remnant) under that label. Thus, you recognize that an actual Jew (as in Old Testament times, so also now) can be excluded from the people of Israel by his betrayal of the Covenant, but you inconsistently want to deny that a Gentile who embraces the Covenant can be included in Israel (see Isaiah 56:6-8).

Strangely, you allow the Gentile believers to be recognized as "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"(Gal.3:29), and to be "the [true] circumcision" (Phil.3:3) and to be "the children of promise"(Gal.4:28), and even "a chosen race, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood" (1 Pet.2:9—all terms used in the Old Testament distinctly of Israel)—but you do not extend to them the right of being called "Israel." If you are right, then, since Christ came, we are in the only period of history during which Gentiles cannot be a part of Israel. Are you aware that this means that privileges for Gentiles under the New Covenant are less than they were under the Old Covenant—and we are kept more "at arm's length" from Israel today, after "the middle wall of partition has been broken down," and "we who were afar off have been brought near," and have been made "one new" man with them? This is bizarre theology, my brother!

[postpre]

Steve,

I will address your comments soon (I've already addressed some of them). But, as I was listening to your radio program yesterday, I heard you again say that your eschatological view is the one that the church had embraced embraced for the first 1800 years. I've posted some remarks from some very early witnesses to the apostolic faith (Justin and Irenaeus (who credited Papias as well). It's notable that Papias was apparently was a disciple of John, and Irenaeus a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. That said, these men were in a good position to know the eschatological views of John the apostle. I will need to further examine some of the comments, but at first glance it appears that they are not entirely consistent with your eschatological view.

And Trypho to this replied, “… But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? …”

Then I answered, “… I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. … For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines by Him. … But I and others, who are right - minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.- AD 150 – Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew), chapter lxxx

“The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times.” ..... And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book....Then, too, Isaiah himself has plainly declared that there shall be joy of this nature at the resurrection of the just, when he says: "The dead shall rise again; those, too, who are in the tombs shall arise, and those who are in the earth shall rejoice. For the dew from Thee is health to them." And this again Ezekiel also says: "Behold, I will open your tombs, and will bring you forth out of your graves; when I will draw my people from the sepulchres, and I will put breath in you, and ye shall live; and I will place you on your own land, and ye shall know that I am the LORD." And again the same speaks thus: "These things saith the LORD, I will gather Israel from all nations whither they have been driven, and I shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the sons of the nations: and they shall dwell in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell in it in peace; and they shall build houses, and plant vineyards, and dwell in hope, when I shall cause judgment to fall among all who have dishonoured them, among those who encircle them round about; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God, and the God of their fathers."."Now I have shown a short time ago that the church is the seed of Abraham; and for this reason, that we may know that He who in the New Testament "raises up from the stones children unto Abraham," is He who will gather, according to the Old Testament, those that shall be saved from all the nations, Jeremiah says: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, who led the children of Israel from the north, and from every region whither they had been driven; He will restore them to their own land which He gave to their fathers."... Again John also says the very same in the Apocalypse: "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection." Then, too, Isaiah has declared the time when these events shall occur; he says: "And I said, Lord, how long? Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses be without men, and the earth be left a desert. And after these things the LORD shall remove us men far away (longe nos faciet Deus homines), and those who shall remain shall multiply upon the earth." Then Daniel also says this very thing: "And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of those under the heaven, is given to the saints of the Most High God, whose kingdom is everlasting, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him."And lest the promise named should be understood as referring to this time, it was declared to the prophet: "And come thou, and stand in thy lot at the consummation of the days."...And they shall come and rejoice m Mount Zion, and shall come to what is good, and into a land of wheat, and wine, and fruits, of animals and of sheep; and their soul shall be as a tree bearing fruit, and they shall hunger no more. At that time also shall the virgins rejoice in the company of the young men: the old men, too, shall be glad, and I will turn their sorrow into joy; and I will make them exult, and will magnify them, and satiate the souls of the priests the sons of Levi; and my people shall be satiated with my goodness.".... Then again, speaking of Jerusalem, and of Him reigning there, Isaiah declares, "Thus saith the LORD, Happy is he who hath seed in Zion, and servants in Jerusalem. Behold, a righteous king shall reign, and princes shall rule with judgment" And with regard to the foundation on which it shall be rebuilt, he says: "Behold, I will lay in order for thee a carbuncle stone, and sapphire for thy foundations; and I will lay thy ramparts with jasper, and thy gates with crystal, and thy wall with choice stones: and all thy children shall be taught of God, and great shall be the peace of thy children; and in righteousness shalt thou be built up."... If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: "When the cities" of the Gentiles "shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate." "For, behold," says Isaiah, "the day of the LORD cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it." And again he says, "Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God." And when these things are done, he says, "God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth." "And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves." For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: "And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth," And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that [His] kingdom shall be in it, saying, "Look around Jerusalem towards the east, and behold the joy which comes to thee from God Himself. Behold, thy sons shall come whom thou hast sent forth: they shall come in a band from the east even unto the west, by the word of that Holy One, rejoicing in that splendour which is from thy God. O Jerusalem, put off thy robe of mourning and of affliction, and put on that beauty of eternal splendour from thy God. Gird thyself with the double garment of that righteousness proceeding from thy God; place the mitre of eternal glory upon thine head. For God will show thy glory to the whole earth under heaven. For thy name shall for ever be called by God Himself, the peace of righteousness and glory to him that worships God. Arise, Jerusalem, stand on high, and look towards the east, and behold thy sons from the rising of the sun, even to the west, by the Word of that Holy One, rejoicing in the very remembrance of God. For the footmen have gone forth from thee, while they were drawn away by the enemy. God shall bring them in to thee, being borne with glory as the throne of a kingdom. For God has decreed that every high mountain shall be brought low, and the eternal hills, and that the valleys be filled, so that the surface of the earth be rendered smooth, that Israel, the glory of God, may walk in safety. The woods, too, shall make shady places, and every sweet-smelling tree shall be for Israel itself by the command of God. For God shall go before with joy in the light of His splendour, with the pity and righteousness which proceeds from Him." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, xxxiii- xxxv

“Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature; and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behooves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards. For it is just that in that very creation in which they toiled or were afflicted, being proved in every way by suffering, they should receive the reward of their suffering; and that in the creation in which they were slain because of their love to God, in that they should be revived again; and that in the creation in which they endured servitude, in that they should reign. For God is rich in all things, and all things are His. It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous; and the apostle has made this plain in the Epistle to the Romans, when he thus speaks: “For the expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creation has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; since the creation itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, xxxii

According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

Brian

[steve]

I do not believe that we can claim that the views of Justin and Irenaeus alone constitute the unanimous position of the whole church of his day. It is clear that there were others like Justin who held to his positions, though he himself, in the passage you cited, acknowledges that there were "many" Christians in his time who disagreed with him ("but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise").

I never claimed that amillennialism was the universal belief of the early centuries of the church. This development did not occur, in the Western Church, until about the fifth century, under the influence of Augustine. Prior to that, it would appear that amillennialism and a form of premillennialism shared the field, as Irenaeus tells us. For example, Origen was regarded as one of the most able theologians of his day (later popes declared him a heretic—putting him, eventually, in the company of Wycliffe, Hus and Luther). Origen's views would have to be categorized as "amillennial" (as would, incidentally, the views of the others in the above list), though he was a century earlier than Augustine.

While a form of premillennialism existed in the first three centuries after the death of the apostles, it was not a dispensational form of premillennialism. It was a form that included "supersessionism," or "replacement theology." Most authors, including those hostile to "replacement theology," admit that this view was the predominant view in the first centuries following the apostolic era.

“…highly revered Church Fathers who, in their allegorical approach to interpretation, ignored the clear teaching of the Bible concerning the Nation of Israel…concluded that all the blessings of God to Israel had been transferred to the church (obviously without the curses!).” —David Hocking (Replacement Theology, pp.3-4)

“Virtually every major Christian writer of the first five centuries either composed a treatise in opposition to Judaism or made this issue a dominant theme in a treatise devoted to some other subject.” —Jaroslav Pelikan (The Christian Tradition, 5 Vols, 1:15)

“During the formative period of the Christian tradition, the common view was that what was promised to Israel found its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus the Israelite par excellence. It follows that the Church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working out of God’s plan as the recipient of Old Testament promises originally addressed to Israel. Although this view, variously known as “supersessionism” or “replacement theology,” is now widely rejected, both popular opinion and Christian theology remain profoundly influenced by it.” —Ronald E. Diprose (Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology, p.2)

I take this summary, coming, as it does, from unsympathetic witnesses, to be significant. I think you will find that most historians of church doctrine will agree with these few quotes (I am talking here about the Western Church, primarily—which is the easiest to find information about. Our friend Priestly1 can, and probably will, fill us in on the divergent views of the Syriac Church and the Thomas Christians in the East. When I say my views are consistent with those of "the church" throughout history, I am speaking of the Western Church, of which I—partially by an accident of birth—am a part. I am not claiming that every Christian around the world, at every age, held the same viewpoint—just as not every Christian has held to the doctrine of the Trinity).

[postpre]

Steve,

When you have time, check out the following article:

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/amill_001.pdf

It touches on how (and when) the apostles teaching regarding eschatology was corrupted. Early on, the premillennial (not traditional dispensationalism) view abounded; only later can amillennialism be traced. I think we should seek to disover what the earliest Christians (after the apostles) believed (before Greek philosophical belief pervaded the infant church).

It's not a long article. It can be read in less than 10 minutes.

Brian