You are hereResurrection and the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus

Resurrection and the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus

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

By Parker - Posted on 11 December 2008

To the average Christian, resurrection speaks of the reconstitution of individuals as both bodies and souls at the end of time. The writers of scripture, however, have a range of uses for the term "resurrection." The scriptures use the word to speak of Israel's national restorations (Isa 26:13-14,19-20; Ez 37), salvation, baptism, the transfer of departed souls from the Old Testament Hades (Heb. sheol) into God's heaven, and the final state at the end of time. (For a detailed look at resurrection, read full article here.)

Of these uses, the most overlooked application of the term pertains to the removal and transfer of the Old Testament dead ones from Hades into God's transcendent heaven--a major New Covenant shift which occurred in conjunction with the destruction of the Old Temple religion at AD 70. In Old Testament times, the righteous dead did not ascend into heaven but were kept in Hades due to the absence of a covenant sacrifice that cleansed them fully. Christ himself went to this Hades at his death (Acts 2:27,31), before ascending to heaven.

Given that the victory over Hades for all the dead was signified in the destruction of the earthly Temple at AD 70--the time of God's great "visitation" (Luke 19:40-44) and "days of vengeance" (Luke 21:20-22) upon Israel--the teaching of Hymenaeus that the resurrection had already taken place amounted to a form of Judaizing, and thus was rejected as a "gangrene" against the true gospel. In the mind of the apostle Paul, this error of timing was a damnable Judaizing heresy akin to saying that salvation came through the Old Testament sacrifices and Moses, not Christ. Speaking against Hymenaeus and Philetus, Paul says to Timothy:

Avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:16-18)

To grasp the seriousness of this timing error, we recall that St. Paul's teaching linked the resurrection of the OT dead out of Hades to the destruction of the Old Covenant Temple system (2 Thess 2:1-10; cf. Matt 24:15). This linkage was crucial for one reason: it placed the victory over death and hades outside of the Old Covenant era and Temple system. In saying that the dead had achived their victory while the Old system stood, Hymenaeus and Philetus were in league with the Judaizers who falsely taught that salvation came by keeping the Law covenant of Moses.

It's important to notice that Paul's teaching explicitly mentions the dead's victory over Hades and says that the Law covenant of Moses had stood in the way of their rising (1 Cor 15:54-56). Not only, but Paul routinely rejected all those who taught in one way or another that salvation came through the works of the Law Covenant of Moses:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?...as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse (Galatians 3:1-2,10)

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified....I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Galatians 2:16,21)

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4)

No one is to act as your judge in regard to [Jewish] food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ...If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? (Colossians 2:16-17,20-22)

This tendency for many early Jews to persist in attributing the full blessedness of salvation to the keeping of the Law of Moses was grave, for it denied the work of Christ's blood sacrifice and the New Covenant. According to Paul, such people were "bewitched," "under a curse," and had "fallen from grace" for saying in essence that Christ died needlessly. The teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus concerning an early resurrection under the Old Covenant system was one such Judaizing error.

Note: Some have argued that the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was not one of the timing of resurrection as scripture states, but rather of the nature of resurrection. Aside from the fact that Paul explicitly says timing was the error, if the nature of the resurrection to heaven for the OT dead in Hades had been envisioned as a reunion with former bodies lying in earthly graves, a simple visit to any local graveyard of the saints would have sufficed to prove Hymenaeus' teaching wrong. But in fact, Paul nowhere says that the nature of the event was in dispute. To the contrary, Paul in 1 Cor 15:44-49 says the OT dead would be "raised a spiritual body." When we add that statement to 1 Cor 15:54-56, where Paul speaks about the dead in Hades getting victory over the Law Covenant; and when we also see that 1 Thess 4:13-17 is linked to the desecration of the Temple at 2 Thess 2:1-10; it combines to prove that Paul is speaking of the exit of the OT dead from Hades at the full end of the Old Testamental period in AD 70.

Starlight's picture

Barry,

Thanks for the note. I Love you too.

And Happy New Year to you Brother!

Norm

Barry's picture

Norm,
I love you.

Happy New Year bro!
Barry

we are all in this together

davo's picture

Starlight: I don’t have a problem with Israel’s resurrection bringing reconciliation to the greater world as that is commonly understood.

Good BECAUSE THAT'S what I'm saying – had you not separated my quote about "all Israel" and "humanity at large" you wouldn't have drawn your most ridiculous assertion to-date, that “all Israel” became “humanity at Large”… that is just dumb. Fullness of redemption came to all historic Israel through Christ's covenant renewal, something the perennial OC was powerless to do. The outworking of this fullness was what the first-fruit saints accomplished [something you'd see IF you bothered to actually read the scriptural references I post – I normally don't quote in full to save space, though perhaps I should] and it was through this consummation of Israel's fullness that God brought about to Himself the "reconciliation to the greater world as that is commonly understood" as you say you are now agreeing with.

Starlight: But the greater world concept does not specify individual spiritual life benefits toward those who live outside Christ nor does it bring inclusiveness into your greater Israel model either.

The main reason you have no rational argument to counter the biblical evidence of Israel's inclusiveness is just that as yet, you still don't grasp it – as typically demonstrated by your errant assertion you made above. As for your "spiritual life benefits" – the privilege of priesthood I've NEVER argued was for those "outside", so your point is rather moot.

Starlight: Davo, you are wrong on the context of Romans 2:12. Read the entire context of Paul’s discussion and you will see that judgment was because of a lascivious lifestyle that both the Jew and the Gentile lived because they did “not like to retain God in their knowledge”.

Sorry Norm but you are taking a real reach on this one too… those choosing not to "retain their knowledge of God" was disobedient of Israel – THEY [Israel] were the only ones who attained the knowledge of God – just read Paul further in Rom 3:1-2; 9:3-5; 11:29; note also Act 7:38; Heb 4:2 [please read all these].

Starlight: You are reverting back to a physical understanding entirely of “death” when that is not the context that Paul is presenting. … Paul does also teach a physical destruction that would occur along with a spiritual judgment. As I have said before they are tied inextricably together.

You say they are "inextricably together" BUT then deny the reality of half the equation. You are simply whistling in the wind on this… I have ALREADY demonstrated that in the context of covenant transition, "death" carried BOTH literal AND covenantal aspects, so your claim above is yet again FALSE. Look again at John's descriptive metaphors indicating both – the literal and temporal [lake of fire] AND the covenantal [second death]. It was NOT either / or but both together in that end of the age – no more and no less. As much as it is your position, you CANNOT prove from the Scriptures that the LoF / SD had ANY continuity beyond its divinely predetermined and accomplished end of AD70.

The lake of fire WAS THE END of the OC world ALONE Norm – all practices and practitioners associated with it came to nought. It was wholly and solely relative to Israel and any choosing to walk according to her OC – "the sea" that is "the Gentile outsiders" were NOT cast into the lake of fire. And the ONLY place "annihilationism" has, is as I have previously stated, as being pertinent to their physical demise alone… NO more and NO less. The doctrine of post-mortem annihilation is even more bereft of biblical credence than eternal conscious torment.

Starlight: So you still need to address how spiritual “death” can later be rectified into post mortem existence with God. I don’t think you can Davo.

Yet another demonstration of your illogical inconsistencies Norm…

WHEN you understand that "spiritual death" was "covenantal death" and then ask yourself WHO was in "covenantal death"? [hint – Israel], THEN, IF you believe the gospel that has Jesus taking away the sin of Israel's world [Jn 1:29], THEN you might realise the "spiritual death" has ALREADY been rectified. Perhaps Norm you can provide a paradigm that shows loss of "post mortem existence with God"? Certainly the AD70 judgment shows loss of rewards – but I'll wait for you to give chapter and verse from your position on the loss of "mortem existence with God".

Now as for Lazarus… stick with your "I realize the context of the story is a parable teaching of the Jews loss…" and go back and read the point I was responding to in my post to which I pointed to my article.

Starlight: Here we have Cain lamenting his banishment from God’s presence speaking of more than he can bear.

Gen 4:13-14 ESV
(13) Cain said to the LORD, "MY PUNISHMENT IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR.
(14) Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden.

Yes, and again I simply point out that God in His grace responded affirmatively to this reprobate with the "mark" of protection – so your point??? Surely reading Hebrews and Peter should tell you that the only thing worse, in one sense, than not being in covenant, is to have been in it and then being dismissed from it… little wonder then he had gnashing of teeth and abundance of tears.

davo

Starlight's picture

Davo,

You said… “what does that mean for "humanity at large"? – it simply means that Christ's first-fruit saints "Body" became God's renewed priesthood to the world of Israel to work Christ's redemption ON BEHALF OF all Israel.”

Davo it looks to me that you are expanding the “body” concept of NT to fit your own definition. Are you now saying that “all Israel” became “humanity at Large” and that those who were the “first fruit saints” during the Last Days until entering the Sabbath rest were the entirety of the “body of Christ”?

Davo said … “Israel's redemption, that is, Israel's resurrection, was that which brought reconciliation to God's wider creation.”

I don’t have a problem with Israel’s resurrection bringing reconciliation to the greater world as that is commonly understood. But the greater world concept does not specify individual spiritual life benefits toward those who live outside Christ nor does it bring inclusiveness into your greater Israel model either. We have circled back around again to the same problem we keep pointing out to you.

Davo said … “To "perish" in this text simply speaks to the "physical demise" of certain Greeks and reprobates Jews in the Parousia, as Jesus likewise makes plain in Lk 13:3-5. It was the temporal judgment that would befall all those actively involved in bringing tribulation on God's elect new covenant people; it was retribution upon both Jews and Greeks – the context establishes this Norm – verses 5 & 16. My question was related to POST mortem, this text [context] relates to the Parousia.”

Davo, you are wrong on the context of Romans 2:12. Read the entire context of Paul’s discussion and you will see that judgment was because of a lascivious lifestyle that both the Jew and the Gentile lived because they did “not like to retain God in their knowledge”.

Rom 1:28-32 KJVA
(28) And even as THEY DID NOT LIKE TO RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, …
(32) Who KNOWING THE JUDGMENT OF GOD, that they which commit such things ARE WORTHY OF DEATH, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2:2 But we are sure that THE JUDGMENT OF GOD is according to truth against them which commit such things.

You are reverting back to a physical understanding entirely of “death” when that is not the context that Paul is presenting. Being “worthy of Death” means being cast outside of God’s presence. This ties in perfectly with Paul stating in 2:12 that the Gentiles would perish in God’s sight and again the “second death” judgment of the Jews would leave them in a permanent state of “death” with no hope. And yes this all occurred at the Parousia in AD70.

Rom 2:9 KJVA
(9) Tribulation and anguish, upon EVERY SOUL OF MAN THAT DOETH EVIL, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

2:16 ESV on THAT DAY when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Paul does also teach a physical destruction that would occur along with a spiritual judgment. As I have said before they are tied inextricably together. So you still need to address how spiritual “death” can later be rectified into post mortem existence with God. I don’t think you can Davo.

1Th 5:2-3 ESV
(2) For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
(3) While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

Davo, by the way I’m not teaching the normal Evangelical understanding and you know that full well. But unlike you I’m trying not to add to the teaching of the scripture to invoke more than it says or even implies
.
Davo, your article is an interesting one but you do realize there are a few scriptures that can throw a monkey wrench in your explanations. You have heard of the “Rich Man and Lazarus” story have you not in which post mortem there is a wide gulf between the Rich Man and the beggar resting in Abraham’s bosom. Now I realize the context of the story is a parable teaching of the Jews loss but it can’t be overlooked that Jesus frames it in the post mortem existence for the Jews in the realm of spiritual separation. Otherwise that was a thought provoking article Davo and I will need to study it more in depth for contextual meanings of the scriptures that you used but you probably need to look at it again also with a deeper critical perspective before you hang your hat on it completely.

By the way let me leave you with one more Cain verse which is repeated in a similar manner throughout the NT scriptures.

Here we have Cain lamenting his banishment from God’s presence speaking of more than he can bear.

Gen 4:13-14 ESV
(13) Cain said to the LORD, "MY PUNISHMENT IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR.
(14) Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden.

This is similar language to what Jesus said would occur to the Jews who are cast out who suffer unbearably from being removed from God’s face and presence.

Mat 8:12 ESV
(12) while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH."

Norm

davo's picture

Starlight: The problem that derives from misreading Gen about Adam is that most folks assume Adam is the first biological man and thus want to apply the discussion of the body of death to all of humanity in Paul’s writings. They have Adam’s old body transformed into Christ new Body (second Adam) thus encompassing all gentiles into the body of Christ. Davo even you realize that the body of death was OC Israel and not humanity at large.

Yeah, and what does that mean for "humanity at large"? – it simply means that Christ's first-fruit saints "Body" became God's renewed priesthood to the world of Israel to work Christ's redemption ON BEHALF OF all Israel. And we know then from Paul that Israel's redemption, that is, Israel's resurrection, was that which brought reconciliation to God's wider creation. IOW, the world beyond the covenant people have the continual blessing of God BECAUSE OF God's renewed priesthood.

Starlight: Davo said … “on what basis then do you say that there can no blessings of God also for all else post mortem”

Rom 2:12 ESV
(12) For all who have sinned without the law WILL ALSO PERISH without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

This above verse is pretty conclusive that at the judgment that those Gentiles on the outside will perish. Likewise the Jews susceptible to the second death will not enter the Promised Land and become like the Gentile dogs. You tell me Davo what does perish mean?

To "perish" in this text simply speaks to the "physical demise" of certain Greeks and reprobates Jews in the Parousia, as Jesus likewise makes plain in Lk 13:3-5. It was the temporal judgment that would befall all those actively involved in bringing tribulation on God's elect new covenant people; it was retribution upon both Jews and Greeks – the context establishes this Norm – verses 5 & 16. My question was related to POST mortem, this text [context] relates to the Parousia. That you keep missing this Norm shows your blind spot.

Starlight: Since one has perished from the face of God while here on earth could you enlighten me how they are reinstated to God’s presence post mortem?

When you consider the normal evangelical position, one I'm sure you are aware of, then without repeating myself, I have an answer to this right HERE. Having said that – one's coming into God's presence speaks of that access that those who are "called" have; it is a mistake to assume as you do that less than this equates to being out of God's caring reach.

davo

Paige's picture

Norm,

You will notice that in Rev. 21:1, there is no more sea. It is also my contention that 22:15 is not chronological, seeing that back in 20:14 and 15, everything not found in the book of life, followed then last of all by death and Hades, have been cast into the lake of fire.

So, I'm not troubled.

Paige

ATF's picture

Note also that Paul speaks of resurrection as [about to occur, mellontos]" in 2 Tim. 4:1, a few verses later. Thus, he affirms "future" time (though imminent) for the resurrection, while Hymenaeus and Philetus affirm past time, 2 Tim. 2:18, clearly distinguishing the apostolic teaching from the heresy. Compare Phil. 3:11, 12.
Ezekiel 37

plymouthrock's picture

William,

Glad to see you active here again. Your input is always helpful!

plymouthrock!

I semi-regularly call in to your Tuesday study. I will call in this Tuesday and identify myself.

Blessings

plymouthrock!

tom-g's picture

Mr, Bell,

As you are probably aware by now, I am not familiar with your theology. Do you adhere to:

The inerrancy of scripture?
The Trinity?
Preterism (full)?
Propositional interpretation according to the rules of grammar and logic?

Since the parousia, the resurrection, and the judgment all come together in 1 TH 4:13-18, how do you interpret this text? As you know this text assumes major import since it is the cornerstone of dispensational futurism. Therefore, that system stands or falls on this text.

Are you prepared to, or does your interpretation of this text, deny its application to dispensationalist doctrine?

Tom

ATF's picture

Tom,

I don't think I know you either. Not used to an "inquistion" :-) arising from a post comment. How about you answering the same questions? Just curious...do I get banned for holding my own convictions? I am what some would style a full preterist, what Dispys would style a hyper-preterist, (though I believe that term fits Hymenaeus and Philetus more accurately). Since all three events happened together there is but one way to interpret 1 Th. 4:18, (my way!)ha! --Past of course. William

tom-g's picture

William,

Some time has elapsed since my last comment, but, I know you understand that time is the function performed by a verb, not a subject noun. In a complete enunciative expression of; subject, verb, object, the first examination involves locating and defining both the subject and predicate. It is the function of the verb to provide the time of that which is being predicated of the subject.

The error of the H and P argument concerning the false preterist claim of a pre AD70 resurrection, judgment and parousia is manifest since both H and P and those they preached to, were not a part of that resurrection unless it was a spiritual resurrection.

The only other alternative, which again involves a spiritual resurrection, is that no one who had not physically died was a part of the resurrection. Thus the H and P spiritual resurrection doctrine was about the physically dead only and those who were still physically alive were not a part of the resurrection.

Thus the H and P error was twofold. The preterist (hyper?) claim and the exclusive spiritual nature of the resurrection applied to the physically dead only. This latter seems to be Parker's argument. And yours also?

Tom

tom-g's picture

Thank you William,

I always try to see if there is a common understanding with those I communicate or plan to communicate with. It is necessary to determine where we digress, if we do, before we can progress.

The portion of the text I referenced that is used by dispensationalists concerns not the timing but the definition of the subject of 4:15 and 17. Who do you define as "We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord?"

Tom

tom-g's picture

ATF,

I like your legitimate relating the teaching of the same apostle in the same book of 2 Ti 2:17 with 4:1. Excellent comparison of heresy and apostolic teaching.

As for Ezekiel 37 that scripture does not legitimately apply since it had been fulfilled by the time of the Crucifixion. There is no record of any greater gathering together into one nation of Israel between 30AD and 70AD, thus Ez.37 would have to be fulfilled in the future sometime after the parousia in 70AD and that is exactly what dispensationalist futurism says.

Tom

ATF's picture

Tom, thanks for your comments and acknowledgment. I too think it's a great point. However, I would certainly differ with you that Ezk. 37, was fulfilled by the crucifixion. That prophesy is tied to the out pouring of the Spirit, certainly not fulfilled by the time of Jesus' crucifixion, (John 7:39). There's much more that was impossible to be fulfilled prior to 70 A.D. Visit my blog by clicking the Ezekiel 37 link in my first post. I would be happy to further discuss the issue with you there.

mazuur's picture

Wow, a visit from Mr. Bell. It is an honor to have you here mixing it up with us.

Good post and point BTW.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

I am not familiar with Mr. Bell. I rely on you to to advise me about him.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

Mr. Bell is one of those big guns (along with Jack Scott, Ed Stevens, Max King, David Curtis, etc) who discovered the truth of Preterism way back, and has been working ever since to spread its truth.

You can visit his website at http://allthingsfulfilled.com/

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

"The scriptures use the word to speak of Israel's national restorations (Isa 26:13-14,19-20; Ez 37)"

Yes! And this is one of the things you are missing as you read 1 Cor. 15, which is all about the "body" (singular) of Israel being resurrected.

"To the contrary, Paul in 1 Cor 15:44-49 says the OT dead would be "raised a spiritual body."

Partially correct. The passage is in reference to the "body (singular) of Israel. Israel is "the dead" throughout 1 Cor. 15. So when Paul states in verse 35 "But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?”", he is referring to some asking how is Israel raised up? With what "body" (singular) do "they" (plural) come in? Not what kind of bodies do they come in. Also, the phrase should also be state, "what kind of body are they coming in"? It was a progress ongoing resurrection that was talking place then during the transition period (AD 30 -70). Until people recognize the progress nature of the on goings during the pre-end-of-the-age reign of Christ (30-70) much of the NT's message will be lost.

Notice what Paul says in verse 55

Paul says, "“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”"

He doesn't just call out Hades and ask it where its victory is, but "Death" itself. The state that corporate Israel was in. But it would soon be delivered and transformed from a corruptible "body" (singular) to an incorruptible body (all of which Paul connects to the passing of Israel's law, which should tell you the context has to do with Israel!). Then the "much more" of Romans 11:12 would come to the Gentiles.

I think Max stated it best in reference to this verse when he stated:

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 fullness” (v. 12). What is this “fullness,” this “much more” that would increase the “already” riches of the Gentiles? When and how does this fullness come? First, from Paul’s standpoint Israel’s fullness is tied to their being received of God. “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” (v. 15)? ["the dead" being Israel (insert mine)]. Second, Israel’s fullness or reception is equated with “life from the dead” for the Gentiles. Israel’s resurrection brings fullness of life to the Gentiles. Most interpreters see “life from the dead” as meaning life for Israel. It is true that Israel, in being raised out of death, has life, but Paul is saying here that it is life for the Gentiles in the same sense that Israel’s temporary fall was riches for the Gentiles (v. 12). Israel stumbles and the Gentiles are benefited with RICHES (i.e., made partakers of Israel’s spiritual things through the gospel). Later, Israel is received and the Gentiles are benefited with LIFE (i.e., the fullness of Christ’s life, see Rom. 5:10; 6:5,8). This was Paul’s point on the future fullness of Israel, to which the fullness or perfection of the Gentiles was tied. The Gentiles could not claim perfection in advance or independently of Israel’s fullness, which had not been reached at that time. Consequently, all ground for boasting against Israel was swept away. Paul reminds the Gentiles, “But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee” (v. 18). How could they boast when they were partaking of the root and fatness of ISRAEL’S olive tree (v. 17)?

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

I am always amazed and in awe of a well written dispensational argument. It just proves that dispensational arguments, preterist or future, are difficult to overcome in a cursory manner.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

Are you saying I presented a dispensational argument?

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

ABSITIVELY!!! (Although I must compliment you that it was well written) The only difference between futurist and preterist dispensationalism is the timing.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

sorry but the differences are not common. Dispy have no concept of the corporate body, and they apply the re-establishment literally (the physical nation living physically in a physical promise land (the Jerusalem in the middle east). They completely miss the type and anti-type concepts presented in the Scriptures as they pertain to Israel. They have Israel and the Church as two independent workings of God. The Church functioning in a parenthetical age (which is no where in the Scriptures). The list is too long actually to even start going down.

With that said, they do have some things right, only they miss the nature and timing of them. But, the same could be said of all the futurist positions.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

I just read the table of contents of the book you were recommending for Davo, if that isn't dispensationalism the dispys couldn't have done better. From the looks of it every NT doctrine is included and applied to Israel.

Tom
PS. Where does King say the church is located in the OT? The dispys say that Israel is not the church and the church is not Israel, what does King say? The dispys say that Israel has an OT messiah and no Christ, what does King say? The dispys say that Rev 1:7 is Israel, what does King say? The dispys say that Daniel 12:7 is Israel, what does King say?

Grow's picture

The english word "church" comes from the celtic word for circle. The celts worshipped in a circle, thus the term referenced a "religious meeting". King James mandated the use of "church" instead of "assembly", as it helped enforce the control of the English government, as it was endorsed by the Church of England.

Said that to say this: there is no "church", only "the" assembly of the faithful. In the NT, the assembly ment anyone who came together in the name of Jesus, as Jesus said, "where two or more are, there am I" (paraphrased, of course).

As for Israel, are we to think of Israel as those of specific genetic disposition, or those that follow the Law? If the genes are our definition, then how were foreigners able to join up, through conversion? If Israel is the people that hold faith to the Law, then it would seem "Israel" could easily reference the assembly of those that came together (in how they lived) in the name of God.

So, I offer that the "NT church" and the "OT Israel" are indeed the same "group". Therefore, the corporate ressurection being applied to Israel doesn't seem to be a problem with preterism. I'm unaware of what defines "dispensationalism", though, in case that matters.

tom-g's picture

Grow,

It definitely matters and you have arrived at a great description of it.

Tom

Grow's picture

I had a huge reply to this, and something happenned that it is not here now. Figures!

Anyway, I'm confused. Are you saying that my explanation of the "church" as a new term for Israel is the same as dispensationalism? I looked up the term, and they hold them to be seperate entities, with the "church" begun at Pentacost. You agree with this defining aspect of disp., according to a previous comment, so how can my statement be a "great description" of dispensationalism?

Parker's picture

The Church is True Faithful Israel:

http://preteristvision.org/articles/israel.html

tom-g's picture

The Church is the body of Christ. Christ is not and was not OT Israel.

OT Israel is not and was not the "True Faithful Israel".

Tom

Parker's picture

Tom, the Church and faithful Israel are one and the same thing. The Church is jewish at root, and it existed even at the time of Moses (Acts 7:38). Moreover, the church was entirely Jewish until after St. Paul began preaching to gentiles and admitting them. (Then it became broadly multinational in its membership, whereas relatively few gentile converts had been added in during OT times.)

For certain, the apostles take all of Israel's classic labels and apply them to the Christian Church (e.g., "the Nation" the "Royal Priesthood", the "Circumcision", the "Israel of God," the "Chosen" etc.etc). The Christians are called the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), the "Nation of God," "the circumcision" (Phil 3:3), the "Royal Priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), the "Peculiar People" (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9), and the chosen. All of these titles were titles of Israel found in Old Testament scripture.

tom-g's picture

Parker,

OT Israel was never the spiritually regenerated body of Christ nor is it now. Israel was never a part of the New Covenant nor is it today. God did not give his only begotten son because he loved Israel, he gave is only begotten son because he loved the world. God has no greater love for Israel than any other in the world. Individual sinful Israelites have the same opportunity to become members of the New Covenant Church and a part of the body of Christ on the same terms and with no special privileges as any other sinful person who is not an Israelite. OT Israel is no more the NT Church than are Egypt, or Babylon, or Sodom or Gomorrah.

Tom

Parker's picture

Tom: OT Israel was never the spiritually regenerated body of Christ nor is it now.

Parker: The faithful of OT Israel predated Christ and then accepted their promised Christ when he came. This jewish church then went out starting with St. Peter and St. Paul and began inviting both exiled Jews and gentiles across the Roman Empire to join them.

Tom: Israel was never a part of the New Covenant nor is it today.

Parker: The faithful jews of Israel received their New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13/1 Cor 11:25-27) and followed Jesus the messiah as his Jewish disciples. The unfaithful portion of their Jewish brothers, after 40 years of probation, were cut off from among the people of God (Acts 3:22-24). And so AD 70 wiped out all of the Christ-rejectors of that nation while sparing the remnant Nazarenes, who escaped the tribulation according to the word given them at Luke 21:20-23.

And so it goes that the Christians were called the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), the "Nation of God" (Mt 21:43-45/1 Pet 2:9), "the circumcision" (Phil 3:3), the "Royal Priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), the "Peculiar People" (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9), and the chosen. All of these titles were titles of Israel found in Old Testament scripture. Even "church" was an Israelite concept/term (Acts 7:38).

mazuur's picture

Parker,

Well, at least we agree on something.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

Yes, dispensationalism,

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

You are the dispy. You are the one who have Israel and the Church as two distinct entities. That is 100% pure Dispy theology.

Maybe you need to study up on your system.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

You are the one who adds Israel into every OT and NT scripture passage, when the truth is the opposite. All of the OT prophetic promises were to and for Christ not national Israel. Since the "seed" of Abraham to whom the promises were made was Christ and not Israel, you're whole Kingist dispensationalism is false.

All of the promises of God were in Christ yea and amen and we, the NT Church, the body of Christ are joint heirs with Him in those promises. Not the Israel of the OT or NT. The Israel of God has always and will always be in Christ. It has never been in or of the idolatrous sinful nation of the flesh and blood lineage of Abraham.

An excellent example of the error of this dispensational reading of the flesh and blood national Israel into the OT are the time texts of Daniel 12, particularly 12:7 and 12:12-14.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

It is clear to me you just don't understand God's plan of redemption. Sure you get the end result correct (how it relates to Messiah) but concerning everything in-between you are lost.

davo once presented an outline I thought painted the picture very well.

___________________________________________________
Out of the world God chose Israel.

.... Out of Israel God chose the Remnant.

........ Out of the Remnant God chose the Messiah.

........ In the Messiah God chose the Remnant.

.... In the Remnant God chose Israel.

In Israel God chose the world (Gentiles).
____________________________________________________

As Paul asked those in Rome, I guess I could ask you...

"11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!...15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

Someday you might understand what Paul is actually saying.

Until then, have a good day. I'm not going to sit and argue with you.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

It is nice to see that you are aware that after God finished using Israel to show his glory and to bring Christ (the NT was written in Greek and is always Christ, you show your dispensationalist leaning by changing the word to the Hebrew messiah) into the world He CAST THEM OFF. And from that point forward individual Israelites only means of being received by God was in the same manner as any other person whether Jew or gentile: as life from the dead as a gift of God by grace through faith in Christ.

God does not, nor has He ever corporately failed to receive the just because of the sins of the unjust, nor does he corporately receive the unjust because of the righteousness of the just.

Acceptance or being received by God is now and has always been individual and not corporate or national. The wages of sin has always been death and it has always been the individual soul that sins that shall die and all have sinned therefore all die for their own individual sin not national or corporate. Chapter 11 of Hebrews ought to be sufficient proof of that fact. You will search in vain anywhere in this whole chapter for any mention of anything national or corporate.

Maybe someday YOU might understand what God is saying to you through Paul.

Tom
PS. nothing on the time texts in Daniel?

mazuur's picture

Tom,

"God finished using Israel"..."He CAST THEM OFF"

As Yet Paul clearly states while they were in a state of unbelief

"Rom. 11:11   I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not!

AND

"15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

Notice there is no life unless Israel is accepted!!

if you claim to have life in Christ, then Israel has been accepted! God has fulfilled his promised to them (Israel). HE HAS NOT CAST THEM OFF. Again, you can't grasp any of Paul's message it is a corporate concept. You try to apply it to individuals.

"nothing on the time texts in Daniel? "

I said I'm not going to argue with you (I shouldn't have even wasted my time with the above comments). You clearly don't understand what Paul has presented in the NT and show no desire to try to grasp it, so it will be a waste of my time.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich, It has been some time since your last comment but I will respond anyway. You say:

"Notice there is no life unless Israel is accepted!! if you claim to have life in Christ, then Israel has been accepted! God has fulfilled his promised to them (Israel). HE HAS NOT CAST THEM OFF. Again, you can't grasp any of Paul's message it is a corporate concept."

At the time that Paul wrote to the Romans he claimed that Israel had not yet been received but was still cast off by God and were enemies of the gospel. Earlier Paul had claimed that the gospel was the power of God unto salvation to all who believed to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Since you claim that no one, gentile or Jew, could have life in Christ until Israel was received back by God, then at the time Paul wrote to the Romans no one had life in Christ. Or else Israel had already been received back again by God while they were in unbelief as enemies of the gospel. Or else the gospel did not apply to Israel, God accepts them back even though they are still in a state of unbelief and enemies of the gospel. What say you Rich, had God already accepted Israel back again at the time Paul wrote to the Romans, or was their acceptance still in the future, and if so, then when were they accepted back again by God so that I, as an individual, can have life in Christ?

Tom

tom-g's picture

Grow,

You said: "So, I offer that the "NT church" and the "OT Israel" are indeed the same "group"."

If OT Israel is the NT Church, then the NT Church is OT Israel. That would mean that there was no middle wall of partition that separated OT Israel from NT non Israel that had to be broken down to form a new creation. All that was necessary for the non Israel NT Church to become a part of OT Israel was to break down the wall of partition by converting to OT Judaism and obey the law and wait for the Christ to come and then all of the NT Church who have now become a part of, and defined as OT Israel, will be saved.

Dispensationalism certainly teaches that all of the promises in the OT were made to OT Israel and they have not yet been fulfilled to that same OT Israel in the NT record, therefore it is necessary for OT Israel, since the NT time when their temple and Jerusalem was destroyed, to wait in the Diaspora until they can rebuild the temple and resume the daily sacrifices, until their Messiah comes to fulfill the OT promises made to them and set up the new covenant promised to them, some time in the future.

All of this is predicated of course upon the NT Church being combined with and defined as OT Israel.

I would deny that definition and say that OT Israel and the NT Church were in existence simultaneously and continued as distinctly separate groups from 30-70 AD. They were not the same group and were never combined into the same group nor ever identified as the same group. The only connection was when individuals from OT Israel renounced their OT faith and became a part of the NT Church in which there was neither: Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female.

Tom

Parker's picture

OT Israel and the NT Church are the same thing:

Identifying True Israel: Following God's Faithful Down the Ages

http://preteristvision.org/articles/israel.html

tom-g's picture

Sorry Parker, either we are talking around each other or you err. The NT Church is not and was not OT Israel.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom Tom Tom.

As I said, they are not the same. So yourself a favor and get his book.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

I've read his article "And so all Israel shall be saved" That was more than enough for me to stomach. Besides you are far better than him (IMHO of course) So do me a favor and give me your valuable understanding of King.

In Al Jolson's most famous song "Mammy", there is a line that says: "I'd walk a million miles for one of your smiles." As for me, I wouldn't walk five feet for one of King's books. The only reason his name comes up is because of my affection for you and your affiliation with him.

Tom

davo's picture

Excellent thoughts Parker:…the teaching of Hymenaeus that the resurrection had already taken place amounted to a form of Judaizing, and thus was rejected as a "gangrene" against the true gospel. … The teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus concerning an early resurrection under the Old Covenant system was one such Judaizing error. … In saying that the dead had achived their victory while the Old system stood, Hymenaeus and Philetus were in league with the Judaizers who falsely taught that salvation came by keeping the Law covenant of Moses.Yes indeed… all too often the stated assumption is that both Hymenaeus and Philetus were Gnostics… this couldn't be further from the truth. They were Judaisers – the very error Paul confronts quite often in his epistles. And timing indeed was the issue, as the nature of the resurrection was a given for the reasons stated – had it been a material affair such would have been self evident. That no appeals in kind are present indicates that the nature of the resurrection was again, already a given. I have some similar thoughts on this HERE.

davo

Parker's picture

Hi Davo. I think Paul's *timing* objection, combined with Paul's constant teaching about damnable Judaizing, gets us to the right answer about Hymenaeus and Philetus. Glad to see I'm not alone in drawing that conclusion.

Also, I think this entire discussion of Hymenaeus etc. fits best with "resurrection" as applied to the rescue of the O.T. dead out of Hades in the first century. That is, I'm convinced that the NT writers apply resurrection to individuals--especially dead individuals.

I've never seen any merit to imposing the corporate national resurrection concept upon the New Testament writings. The Jews of that time were deeply concerned about what would become of the Patriarchs, the prophets, the martyrs, and their own fellow church members. (Were they gone forever, or would they be included with Christ somehow beyond the grave?) The theology of resurrection out of Hades answered their concerns. The O.T. righteous dead would be caught up to meet Christ in the heavenlies when the earthly Temple and religion had fully vanished.

davo's picture

Parker: …I'm convinced that the NT writers apply resurrection to individuals--especially dead individuals.

Yes they do… however not always everywhere carte blanch. I'm with Rich in agreeing with the strong "corporate" overtones of King's approach – which by logic also necessitates the "individual" etc. The ANE mindset was most definitely the family-clan-collective "corporate" type or way of thinking. I think it was the "O.T. righteous dead" that headed these up.

Maybe not 100% exactly, but I think we're in a similar ball park. :)

davo

mazuur's picture

Davo,

Yes! The OT saints were definitely included in the Restoration/resurrection of Israel that took place in AD 70, just as Gentile Christians who had passed away (as well as the Gentile believers still alive in AD 70).

Parker, I would highly recommend you get Max King work "The Cross and Parousia of Christ" for a detailed verse by verse commentary on 1 Cor. 15.

He also has a very short booklet entitled "Old Testament Israel and New Testament Salvation", if you like a very short concise presentation of the over all understanding of NT resurrection and its relationship to Israel. It only cost $6. Well worth the read.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/books18.php

Here is the contents of the booklet.

An Overview of Romans 11
The Content of Israel's Promise Salvation
---Israel's New Covenant
---Israel's Hope
---Israel's Kingdom
------The Kingdom Present
------The Kingdom Future
---Israel's Inheritance
---Israel's Greater Tabernacle
------The Heavenly Nature of the Greater Tabernacle
---Israel's New Jerusalem
---Israel's New Heaven and Earth
---Israel's Resurrection
------Israel and the Promise
------Resurrection from Sin-Death
------Are There Two Resurrections?
------The Role of the Firstfruits
------Progressive Dying and Rising With Christ
------If the Dead Rise Not

Rich

P.S. If I had your address, I would mail you a copy.

-Rich

mazuur's picture

"and the final state at the end of time."

Interesting, I can't seem to find the phrase "end of time" anywhere in the Scriptures. I can find presentations such as:

Psalm 104:5
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Psalm 78:69
And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Parker,

Your understanding might have some merit if there were no direct scriptural testimony to the contrary:

You quote: "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?...as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse (Galatians 3:1-2,10)"
What do you do with the scripture that says the people in Samaria believed the preaching of Philip about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ and were baptized but the spirit had not yet fallen upon them until the apostles came from Jerusalem and laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost? (Acts 8:12-17) They did not receive the Spirit by the hearing with faith but by the laying on of the hands of the apostles who were zealous of the law and of Moses.

You quote: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4)"
What do you do with the scripture that says Paul was falsely accused of teaching the Jews among the gentiles not to circumcise their children and not to obey Moses? Paul then entered the temple and purified himself for 7 days according to the days of purification until a sacrifice could be offered to prove that he, himself was circumcised and walked orderly according to Moses and kept the law and to prove the Jews accusation that he taught the Jews not to circumcise and not to obey Moses was false? (Acts 21:20-30)

Your explanation seems to be at odds with the scriptural record in Acts.

Tom

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43