You are hereIsrael Between AD 30 and 70

Israel Between AD 30 and 70

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 20 October 2007

Amillennialism teaches that Israel was cut off at the Cross, i.e., God’s covenant with Old Israel ended in AD 30. So, the argument goes, the events of Matthew 24 were more important to first-century Jews than Christians then or since. This means physical Israel, the city of Jerusalem, the Temple, the Law, etc. were replaced at the Cross or the Resurrection or Pentecost. (While Amils might want to argue over which is the day, a difference of less than two months is not the issue.) This “cut off” date has the advantage of undercutting Dispensationalism with its insistence on a continuing relationship between God and ethnic Israel. But pragmatism cannot be proof of a doctrine. While I sympathize with Amillennialism’s goal—I believed and taught this very doctrine for years—it’s still not correct. I encountered verses that didn’t seem to fit and finally concluded Israel was not “cut off” at the Cross but in AD 70. I offer the following passages in support:

The Covenant is Key

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear (Hebrews 8:10-13). The Old Covenant hadn’t passed yet (c. AD 68) but soon would. A covenant doesn’t outlast its parties and the Old Covenant’s parties were God and … Old Israel. That means God wasn’t through with Israel at the Cross but at the Judgment. This should be sufficient to demonstrate that physical Israel wasn’t “cut off” in AD 30. While it is not a good idea to hang a doctrine on one verse alone (especially if others contradict), this Scripture does provide the framework for fitting the rest. If they fit, the scheme is probably good.

The Temple

“For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joining together and is growing to become a holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:18-21). The New Temple was not finished at the Cross (or Pentecost) but was being built in the church’s early days. It succeeded Judaism’s Temple when it was destroyed in AD 70.

“The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing” (Hebrews 9:8, NASB). Most translations get the tense wrong (wonder why) but New American Standard Bible, noted for literalness, has it right. The way into the Most Holy wasn’t created at the Cross, Matthew 27:51 not withstanding. While the Temple stood, access to God wasn’t complete.

The Law

“The Law is only a shadow of the good things that are almost here—not the realities themselves” (Hebrews 10:1a). Again, the Jewish Law was still in effect—it just didn’t apply to those who had died to it.

Jerusalem and the Land

“For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is soon to be here” (Hebrews 13:14). Old Jerusalem was covenantally God’s dwelling place until judgment was executed.

“At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth [or Land] but also the heavens.’ The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ‘God is a consuming fire’” (Hebrews 12:26-29). The Old “Heavens and Earth” of Judaism hadn’t passed away yet. Early Christians were in the process of receiving the Kingdom.

Present Tenses

“Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (Hebrews 7:22). Doesn’t say Jesus was the guarantee but still was guarantying the New Covenant in agreement with Hebrews 8:10-13.

“For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen” (Romans 9:3-5). Again, note Paul’s tenses. Jusaism’s position and possessions were a present reality in Paul’s time—between AD 30 and 70.

“For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs” (Romans 15:8). Again, present tenses, incomplete action.

Two Parables

Matthew 21:33-46 In the Parable of the Wicked Tenant Farmers, notice that the “tenants” are legally such until “the owner comes.” “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.” At His coming, He would put them to a wretched death (v.40-41). The chief priests and Pharisees knew He was talking about them (v.45). “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (v. 43). They were God’s Landholders/Kingdom citizens until AD 70 when the Land/Kingdom was taken away from them. Why tell this parable unless AD 70 was the time when tenancy changed hands? (Note: the destruction of Old Israel is said to be the time of the Lord’s Coming!)

Matthew 22:1-14 In the Parable of the Son’s Marriage Feast, those originally invited didn’t come and “the king was angry and He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city” (v. 7). Then He invited foreigners in. The time is undeniably AD 70 and the City is Jerusalem, removed from its position as God’s City. It’s a Marriage Feast, the time for the old wife to be replaced by the Bride of Christ. This corresponds to Revelation’s destruction of Babylon.

Wife and Bride

The destruction of Old Jerusalem, naturally enough, is followed by the descent of the New Jerusalem—Revelation 18 and 21. This is probably as good a place as any to mention that I always taught the Marriage of the Church to Christ took place on Pentecost and was surprised to learn Amillennialists did not but held it out as something to look forward to. This was inconsistent to me and should have been a wakeup call. (Christ did not divorce His adulterous wife to “bach” it for two thousand plus years.) Then I noticed Amils also postponed the New Jerusalem. So we’ve had no place to live all this time either!

“I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him” (2 Corinthians 11:2). Paul’s intention proves the Church didn’t become Christ’s wife at Pentecost. Why? Because Israel was still the Wife (Jeremiah 31:32).

In Revelation 19:1-3 the adulterous wife is divorced/killed and replaced by the “Bride of Christ (19:7). The “food” for the wedding celebration is provided by the Battle, placing the wedding at the same time.

It is instructive that Christ’s Apostles (if not our Lord Himself) participated in the Jewish sacrificial system.

Finally, eminent scholar NT Wright has an illuminating comment on Romans 10:6-8. He says Deuteronomy is quoted because “Israel is still suffering the curses of Deuteronomy 29, separated from God and ruled over by foreign nations. Second, God has now provided the way for Israel to return, to be transformed, to be saved. Third, this way consists of God giving to Israel a fresh gift of grace …. Fourth, those who embrace this new way will be marked out in the present as the people whom God will save, vindicate, and declare to be his people in the [near] future” Whether he means to or not, NT Wright is saying Old Israel is still Israel When Paul pens Romans.

I should add that Amillennialists may cut off Israel at the Cross but generally teach a future conversion of their descendants, i.e., the Jews. While some scriptures are quoted, I suspect some sentimentality is creeping in here. But adding this “exception” brings Amillennialists closer to Dispensationalists than they realize. Both say Old Covenant Israel is dropped from God’s plans—for the time being. Of course, Dispensationalism imagines far more than simple conversion in the future but the parallel is there.

I conclude that terminating Old Israel’s relationship with the God of the Covenant in AD 70 is alone consistent with the New Testament’s teachings. And while I didn’t bring it up, the end of the Age at Jerusalem’s destruction should mean the end of everything associated with it. I welcome comments—and more verses!

davo's picture

“For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs” (Romans 15:8).

“I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him” (2 Corinthians 11:2).

Whether he means to or not, NT Wright is saying Old Israel is still Israel When Paul pens Romans.

I conclude that terminating Old Israel’s relationship with the God of the Covenant in AD 70 is alone consistent with the New Testament’s teachings.I'm inclined to think that to "conclude that terminating Old Israel’s relationship with the God of the Covenant in AD 70 is alone consistent with the New Testament’s teachings " is to actually misconstrue what Jesus, Paul and others have taught. Wright would be right to conclude that "Old Israel is still Israel When Paul pens Romans" – Paul's "Israel of God" i.e., true Israel etc was the first-fruit saints of that transitional period, saints that became inclusive of Gentiles ON BEHALF OF "all Israel" i.e., historic [old] Israel. So far from abandoning the promises of Scripture to fleshly Israel, rather, these were fulfilled through what we call like to call "spiritual Israel" i.e., the first-fruit saints, ON BEHALF OF the greater whole – Israel; the first-fruits being the first portion set apart to sanctify the whole – Christ the first-fruit pioneering the trail for those 'called ones' to follow in kind, i.e., "…that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth…" and "for all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us [the first-fruit saints]."

What is so often NOT taken into account or seldom realised is that the wedding motif actually has THREE participants involved: the Groom – CHRIST; the Bride – the FIRST-FRUIT saints; and the INVITEES – Old Covenant Israel.

Rev 19:7, 9 Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb [Christ] has come, and His wife [the first-fruits] has made herself ready.” …Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called [Israel] to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’”

Israel was called first to the feast, those that neglected the call forfeited the blessing of it. Those who had scant regard for a kingdom that did not fit their paradigm were primarily the chief priests and Pharisees – those from whom the kingdom [rule] was taken, i.e., the privileged position of being the custodians of the orals and covenants of God etc, the key-holders or authorised ones if you will of the kingdom ON BEHALF OF their brethren; hence the "keys" [authority] then given to Peter etc. Thus "the kingdom" was stripped not so much from Israel as a nation BUT FROM those leaders whom had charge over it ON BEHALF OF the nation:

Mt 21:43-45 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.


JohnRiffe's picture

Terry Benton did a fine job of addressing this subject in a recent written debate with one of 30-70 Millennialism's better known proponents, Don Preston. Benton's major arguments are presented here:

Starlight's picture

Here is the link for Don's final negative in this debate.

chrisliv's picture


I don't buy into the idea, as some Preterists do, that the Old Covenant was still binding on Jewish Christians between 30 and 70 AD, i.e., that they (Jews) had to obey the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, too.

Apostle Paul, who was a Jew, stated, in front of James, recorded in Acts 21:

20 "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21 "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

Obviously, the 30-70 AD period was an opportunity for unbelieving Jews to transition to the New Covenant before Jerusalem and the Old Covenant system was destroyed.

But, it seems clear to me that, at the Crucifixion, as the Veil of the Old Covenant Temple was miraculously "rent in twain from top to bottom" that that was the end of the Old Covenant in God's eyes.

Of course, Peter and James seemed to have trouble adjusting to that fact in Jerusalem, and Paul confronted Peter directly, as recorded at Galatians 2:11-14, for being such a chameleon:

11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Paul goes on to say, at Galatians 3:

13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Notice how Paul, a Jew, uses the pronouns "us" and "we" to include himself among the Gentiles in a New Covenantal sense, completely free from the Old Covenant during 30-70 AD.

And Galatians 3:

19 ¶ "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed."

Christ has been the Mediator of the New Covenant for so-called Jews and Gentiles ever since His Ascension. "Faith came" is a past tense in 30-70 AD, as Paul again uses the "we" pronoun to equate Jews and Gentiles alike, in a covenantal sense.

Or, Galatians 3:

28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Notice at Galtians 6, how Paul talks about the Jewish Christians who were seeking to influence the Gentile Christians:

13 "For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh."

Apostle Paul goes on somewhere to say that the Jewish Christians who are still practicing cimcumcision as a covenantal requirement, even for Jews, during 30-70 AD, ought to go ahead a just cut their whole penis off.

So, the Old Covenant ritual of Circumcision could not still be binding on Jewish Christians between 30-70 AD, in my Preterist observation of the Bible.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Starlight's picture


Chris stated … “I don't buy into the idea, as some Preterists do, that the Old Covenant was still binding on Jewish Christians between 30 and 70 AD, i.e., that they (Jews) had to obey the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, too.

Chris, these statements and illustration are all about context. Was it directed toward Jew or Gentile? If the Jewish believers (thousands of them) were not under the Law when Paul visited them in Acts 21 then there were thousands of them in open rebellion. If that was the case then there was a massive failure of the Holy Spirits guidance for the Jerusalem church. If they were still under obligation as Jews then the Law was still binding on them and they simply wanted clarification concerning Paul’s handling of their Jewish Christian brothers.

If we pay close attention to the discussion in Acts 21 we see that they were concerned about the proper teaching of the “Jews living among the Gentiles” and not the Gentiles themselves as it is stated later that the Gentiles were exempted. The reason for the seemingly contradiction is because of how vigorously Paul protected and defended the Gentile believers in Galatians and other letters from Judizers who wanted to impose the Law on the Gentiles. Because of our classic misunderstanding of the proper termination of the Law this has been a confusing issue for many Christians because of this misunderstanding over Jew and Gentile requirements. Once we recognize this dualistic practice which is spelled out pretty clearly in Acts we should ease our minds concerning what we perceive as complicity about what was actually going on.

(Acts 21:18 NRSV) The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. … Then they said to him, "You see, brother, how many THOUSANDS OF BELIEVERS there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. 21 They have been told about you that YOU TEACH ALL THE JEWS LIVING AMONG THE GENTILES TO FORSAKE MOSES, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. 24 Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF OBSERVE AND GUARD THE LAW. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." 26 THEN PAUL TOOK THE MEN, AND THE NEXT DAY, HAVING PURIFIED HIMSELF, HE ENTERED THE TEMPLE WITH THEM, MAKING PUBLIC THE COMPLETION OF THE DAYS OF PURIFICATION when the sacrifice would be made for each of them.

Also Jesus states explicitly in Matt 5 that the Law would not pass until “all is accomplished”.
(Mat 5:18 NRSV) For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Again the problems encountered were from Judizers imposing improper standards upon the Gentiles who were not Jews and did not have to become Jews. But those already Jews were under the law until all had been accomplished, which was taking the gospel to the Jew first and then to the rest of the world and then the end would come.



chrisliv's picture


When Christ said "It is finished" from the Cross, and as the Veil in the Temple was miraculously "rent in twain from top to bottom" was a pretty good indication that the Old Covenant was not going to be in force for another 40 Years.

The whole above article goes astray with its very first half of its first sentence:

"Amillennialism teaches that Israel was cut off at the Cross..."

Israel never was considered to be Israel by God, except for those ones who had faith (not works of the Law), who were always called "A Remnant" in contradistinction to the "natural Israel" which was never to be considered to be Israel.

Honestly, Christ was the True Israel, alone. And He was the Seed of Abraham, alone.

The Jews of the Old Covenant and even churchgoers today may still believe that Jews are the Seed of Abraham and the Israel of God, but the New Testament refutes that:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

"That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Romans 9:6-8

"Now to Abraham and his Seed (singular) were the promises made. He saith NOT, And to seeds (plural/genetic Jews), as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ." Gal 3:16

"And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s Seed (not genetic Jews), and heirs according to the Promise." Gal 3:29

And, Romans 9:24-27:

"Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

"As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

"And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

"Esaias also crieth concerning [genetic] Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, [only] a Remnant shall be saved:"

You see, God always and only respected those who are of Faith in Christ (or His coming Kingdom), as His People and the Israel of God.

Only a Remnant (small portion) of genetic Israel/Jews who believed in Christ [or His Coming/1st Century] were considered to be Israel, along with believing so-called Gentiles, of course.

It should be obvious, Abraham wasn't Jewish or an Israelite, and he didn't haw the Law of Moses. Neither did Noah, or Job. But they were accepted by God, through their Faith, and not through a particular DNA structure.

Jesus stated this same sentiment over and over again:

"I know that ye are Abraham’s seed [genetically speaking]; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." John 8:37

"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Mat. 3:9

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

"Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

" Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:39-44

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews {the genetic Jews], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Rev 2:9

This concept and failure to understand that Israel is NOT Israel, except to us in a cultural or collective sense, is the biggest misconception and mistake made by both Old Covenant Jews and by Dispensationalist churchgoing futurists, alike.

Of course, the New Testament is very clear on this point, as noted above.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Starlight's picture


The weakness of your position is because of your not entirely reconciling the fullness of Israel meaning and concept as well as you should. Basically the body of Israel is being transformed into the body of Christ.

(Phil 3:20NRSV) But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that WE ARE EXPECTING A SAVIOR, the Lord Jesus Christ.21 He WILL TRANSFORM THE BODY OF OUR HUMILIATION (Israel the body of Death) that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, (the body of Christ) by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

Did you notice the language from Paul says we are “expecting” and “he will transform’ the old body into the new “body”. This language is constantly used by Paul to indicate the on going process and would not have been needed if the process of removal of the Law had already been fully accomplished.

(Rom 7:22 NRSV) For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! WHO WILL RESCUE ME FROM THIS BODY OF DEATH? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but WITH MY FLESH I AM A SLAVE TO THE LAW OF SIN. (Did you notice Paul’s dualistic existence?)

(Rom 8:10 NRSV) But if Christ is in you, though THE BODY IS DEAD because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead WILL GIVE LIFE TO YOUR MORTAL BODIES also through his Spirit that dwells in you.

Chris, Paul is not talking about our individual bodies here; he is talking about the contrast between the old dead Adamic body (Israel) verses the spirit which is a deposit given and “will give life” and transform that old collective body of death into the body of Christ. This is a process that is being fulfilled and is being looked forward to. That is why there was always an encouragement to look forward to that day.

(Rom 8:19 NRSV) For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; … that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now;

Now concerning a confusing translation that has caused many to misunderstand Paul’s position lets turn to 1 Cor 9. Many translations insert this phrase in parenthesis (though I myself am not under the law) into verse 20. This appears to be a major blunder or an intentional translator inclusion to rectify the translator’s misapprehension concerning the correct meaning. Young’s Literal Translation does not do this and now we have Paul’s statements fitting the context that he presents elsewhere in scripture.

YLT 1 Cor 9:18 What, then, is my reward? -- that proclaiming good news, without charge I shall make the good news of the Christ, not to abuse my authority in the good news; 19 for being free from all men, to all men I made myself servant, that the more I might gain; 20 and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; 21 TO THOSE UNDER LAW AS UNDER LAW, THAT THOSE UNDER LAW I MIGHT GAIN; TO THOSE WITHOUT LAW, AS WITHOUT LAW -- (NOT BEING WITHOUT LAW TO GOD, BUT WITHIN LAW TO CHRIST) -- that I might gain those without law; I became to the infirm as infirm, that the infirm I might gain; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I may save some. And this I do because of the good news, that a fellow-partaker of it I may become;

One thing is very clear from these verses is that Paul considered the Jews still under the Law and the Gentiles were not.

(Rom 11:13 NRSV) Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be BUT LIFE FROM THE DEAD!

(Rom 11:25 NRSV) … I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved;

(Acts 1:6 NRSV) So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, is this the time WHEN YOU WILL RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL? "He replied, "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.

If you notice Jesus did not correct the assumption of their question but simply said that they would not be privy to that full restoration date of arrival. That is why Acts is about this restoration fulfillment and is a documentation of the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. Jesus said all things must be fulfilled and Acts is that verification process.

Chris the body of Israel concept is hard for many to comprehend including originally for myself. I had to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get my mind around it. But once you do Romans 7 and 8 make so much better since when one starts reading it in the collective body instead of the individual body. My big breakthrough was when I realized that we are now members of Christ one Body just as Israel was described as a body but not of life but of death. That is why Phil 3:20 is a key verse as it literally tells us that the Old body of Humiliation is being transformed into the body of Glory.



chrisliv's picture

Well, Norm,

Your position that:

"Basically the body of (genetic) Israel is being transformed into the body of Christ (2000 years after the Old Covenant ceased)," espouses that God a is respecter of persons (favoritism), namely persons with Jewish DNA.

The numerous verses that I cited by Christ and Paul clearly refute your position.

You are positing a dual Covenant: the New Covenant, for Gentiles, and a intermediary covenant for gradual conversion of of Jews, above all others.

You, like the Dispensationalists, still fail to comprehend that God does not covet Jewish genes and Middle Eastern geography, and He never did!

All of the OT prophetic imagery about "Jerusalem a rejoicing" and Zion was talking about Christ and His New Jerusalem. It was the Jews who foolishly thought that God was talking about them and their little strip of sand. Carnal minded churchgoers and Dispensationalists are still making that same erroneous interpretation.

Of course, History shows that Jews, and especially Israeli Jews, have NOT been in a 2000 year old process of being transformed into the Body of Christ.

Even the Dispensationalists grasp that much.

Jews and Israelis of Jewish decent are on equal footing with all human beings and national entities: they are all in rebellion to God and are called to repent by following Christ as their King.

Contrary to what Dispensationalism espouses, Jews are not "special" in God's eyes. They need to be prayed for in the same manner that Hindus and Croats need to be prayed for, and if they accept the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom, they will be accepted by God. But they get no special treatment or intermediary entrance Plan, as you espouse.

Norm, I think you still believe that Jewish DNA possesses magical qualities.

The "magic" was always Faith, and never DNA.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Starlight's picture


DNA, geography and Racial have nothing to do with it.
It's a covenantal story.

Your posting of scriptures is not a coherent and effective exegesis.

You’re attempting to fit scriptures into your own world view which is based on an incomplete understanding.

You are not reading what I’m saying as you are responding to issues that are not derived from my position.

I’m dropping out of the discussion with you as it seems an intellectual pursuit does not interest you as you have apparently decided to resort to an ad hominem approach instead.



chrisliv's picture

Well, Norm,

So your worldview is comprised of the "complete understanding" and mine is "incomplete." Interesting...

And it could be that your accusation of an ad hominem approach is an ad hominem approach.

We don't agree on this matter. It's no big deal.

Strictly speaking, from the original article, and whether or not the Mosaic Law was still operant on Jews during the period between 30-70 AD is relatively unimportant to us today, because that small period is long past.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

MiddleKnowledge's picture


Welcome to Planetpreterist! I appreciate your article very much.

The timing is very interesting. I just preached a sermon on this very issue last Sunday titled "The Regeneration." I take a bit of a different approach than you do here, in large part because of the Olive Tree teaching in Romans 11. There is also the issue of the 12 apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel "when" Christ sat on his glorious throne (Matt. 19:28). I take this as a reference to the ascension. You can see something similar in Matt. 12:27.

Is it possible that it may not be possible to place an exact time on when the transition takes place? My view is that the branches were being cut out continually during the NT and other branches grafted in. This is the process of a gardener tending his garden, rather than any particular instant. Sure the job was completed in A.D. 70, but at this time, I don't see the beginning and completion of the transition at one point in time.

Though my view is not without a few difficulties.

If you are interested in how I laid out these issues check out my recorded sermon, available at:

It is the most recent one titled "The Regeneration."

Thanks for your work,

Tim Martin

Preterist's picture

Thank you for your kind assessment. To keep the article short I did not delve into the transitional 40-year period, but I do concur that's true, too. To quote NT Wright (again): "Judgment had been passed ... but not yet executed." Israelites were to "flee [Babylon]" and not wait because no one knew the time. Good verses have been mentioned in some of the replies and I still think Hebrews 8:10-13 about the Old Covenant being obsolete and soon to disappear a good one. Sure threw me when I believed "Israel was cut off at the cross." Maybe I should have said Fleshy Israel. Oh, well. Live and learn.

leslie's picture

The Mosaic Covenant was a marriage 'contract'.God was 'married' to the Mother and her two daughters. One daughter was 'divorced' and out of the 'picture', the other was still married to God up to the time of The Cross. Even though the Husband (God) was dead to that contract at The Cross. The 'widow' (In Revelation she declares, "I am no Widow'. Still needed to 'recieve' what were 'the terms' of that 'contract', be they 'Blessings or Wrath'.The terms of 'The Contract' were not 'fulfilled' at The Cross.

Brother Les

Brother Les

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43