A refutation of "Does The Nation of Israel Have A Future Separate and Distinct From The Kingdom of God?"

By William B. Chalfant

Dear Mr. Nairne:

I read with some interest your webpage and your remarks on the lack of a destiny for the nation of Israel. Here is my refutation. I hope you will take it in the right spirit. You said that you had little correspondence about your ideas.

Alan Nairne's "Does The Nation of Israel Have A Future Separate and Distinct From The Kingdom of God?" (ref. www.apocalipsis.org/Israel.htm)

Nairne confuses "seed" (singular) and "seed" (plural) as many others do:

although Abraham received covenant promises concerning his seed, the promise was not to Abraham's "seeds"... It is only in Christ we inherit these redemptive promises.

Nairne falls into the same trap of relegating the prophecies concerning the millennial kingdom, since they pertain to God's people the Jews, into a second-class status unworthy of the Lord:

In postulating a millennial kingdom, with Jewish dominance, sacrifices, temple, priesthood, etc., there is a subtle shift of emphasis away from Christ's preeminence, to say nothing of it being in plain contradiction to the messages of Galatians and Hebrews, as I hope we shall see.

Nairne believes that it is a contradiction of Galatians and Hebrews to believe the prophecies of the Old Testament, which clearly demonstrate the coming of a millennial kingdom.

And Nairne goes to great lengths to demonstrate the expungement of Israel (when this is not the case), coupling their existence as a people with their handling of the Law, and ignoring the redemptive promises of God made to them concerning their repentance:

It is important to see that the clans of Jacob received their formal constitution as a nation at Sinai. Without this "Law" with its Levitical priesthood, elaborate sacrificial and purificatory ritual, and civil and hygiene laws, there would have been no "nation". Moreover, the Lord made it clear that in the event of apostacy the nation would be judged to the point of non existence (Deut.28 and Lev.26).

Nairne uses the phrase "the point of non existence" because he knows full well that God did not speak the obliteration of the nation of Israel ever, but such reasoning complements his "replacement theology". But Nairne is forced to recognize the continued existence of a "remnant".

Nairne uses his "replacement" idea to do away with the nation of Israel when "the seed comes":

The NT makes it quite clear that the nation, land, priesthood, tabernacle, temple, offerings, were, like Eden, and so much else, picture books of the reality that was to come, and a vehicle to ensure that God's Deliverer would be able to come in the "fullness of time". What kind of duration was envisaged for the law - and, by implication the nation? "Until the seed should come to whom the promises were made" (Gal.3:19).

Nairne rejects any teaching concerning a future for physical Jews as a nation:

Some, who wish to retain a permanent status for Israel constituted as of old, would have us believe that Abraham has a future "earthly" seed and a "heavenly" seed. But such an interpretation (based partly on the "stars" and "sand" of Gen.22:17) is reading things into Scripture to fit a preconceived scheme, and in doing so denies the total teaching of the NT.

Nairne believes the old "saw" that all dispensationalists teach that the Old Covenant and the sacrifices will be re-established in the millennium:

The book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Mosaic provisions of the Levitical priesthood, the sacrifices and the law were only temporary - "he takes away the first [covenant], that he may establish the second." (10:9). Earlier in chapter (8:13) the writer had said "In that he said a new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away." How can we square with these Scriptures the teaching that Israel and its Old Covenant shadows are to be restored? The book of Hebrews is devoted to teaching otherwise.

Nairne uses Romans 9-11 concerning the Olive Tree to do away with the promises that God made to the nation of Israel:

We must conclude from these Scriptures that the olive tree of Romans chapter eleven is nothing less than the totality of the promises to Abraham. The natural branches therefore will have comprised those "of faith" in Israel, since they were first in opportunity. The people of God ("the election" (Rom.11:1-12)), Jews from OT times, and now Jews and Gentiles - form the olive tree, since the Abrahamic promises in Christ must now extend to all nations as was their original intent. Paul writing to both the Ephesian Christians (Eph.2:11-22) and those at Colossae (3:10-11) makes it clear that racial and national distinctions are forever gone.

Now while Nairne has rejected any rights or further status of national Israel (racial and national distinctions are "forever gone", he says), his interpretation of Romans 11 compels him to conclude:

Ethnic Jews (the Scripture implies no more), natural branches that they are, will be grafted back again into the olive tree and comprise, with the Gentiles blessed by their response, the Church of God (vv.13-21).

But these Jews have no national distinction or national status, because, in his view, the nation of Israel can have no religious significance (and this in spite of the numerous prophecies pertaining to the national restoration of Israel, and in spite of the Lord's tacit acknowledgment of a future national restoration of the national kingdom in Acts 1.6,7). There is no remorse or mercy in Nairne's scheme: "the demise of old fleshly Israel had to be permanent". He quotes Matthew 23.38, "your house is left unto you desolate", but conveniently ignores the next contextual passage: "Ye shall not see me henceforth, TILL ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matthew 23.39). Now, if verse 38 is addressed to the entire nation, then we must conclude that verse 39 is likewise addressed to the entire nation, giving a FUTURE time in which the entire nation will accept and recognize the Lord as their Messiah (in other words, a national restoration, just as the prophets foretold).

Nairne, like so many preterists (and unlike many premillennial post-tribs), applies Matthew 24.15-28 correctly to the Jews, but ignores the context of Matthew 24.29-31, which takes place "immediately" (euthus, eutheos, an adverb of time, which has the meaning of "at once", or "immediately"). The events of Matthew 24.15-28, if they are to be relegated to the first century, must also include the contextual events of Matthew 24.29-31, the cataclysmic events surrounding the return of the Lord Jesus Christ from on high. These events, following the opening of the sixth seal (well attested in such Old Testament passages also as Isaiah 13.10, Isaiah 34.4, and in other OT prophets), prophesy of the very last days. One cannot separate the events of the Great Tribulation from the return of the Lord at Armageddon, when the nations shall be judged.

Nairne believes that a spiritual interpretation of the prophets will yield his brand of prophecy, while a carnal interpretation yields dispensational teaching (that is, a literal interpretation). Unfortunately, for his cause, the apostles (e.g., Matthew), and even the Lord Himself, applied a literal interpretation to the Old Testament prophecies. Any study of Matthew will produce such a conclusion. Isn't it odd that preterists are willing to accept the interpretation of the prophets supplied by Matthew and even Jesus until they get to Matthew 24, and then they fly willy-nilly into the realms of biblical imagery and fanciful interpretations, which far exceed even the excesses of ultra-dispensationalism?

Since the idea of a future millennium provides the repository for a future, revived national Israel, Nairne proceeds to attempt to abolish the "millennium" itself (thus, we might expect to see the rise of amillennialism among those who reject the claims of Israel in the Scriptures). The number "one thousand" must now (with this interpretation) become "symbolical" (a la campbellitism). It does not mean "1000" anymore. Indeed, the entire teaching of the "millennium" is based upon this number, which is merely "symbolical". Is this the way to a sound hermeneutic?

And so, having done away with the "thousand years", now we must consider that "history" ends with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth. Nairne states, "The consistent testimony of the NT is that the Second Coming of Christ is the termination of history". We might well ask concerning this astounding conclusion: Why should He even come back then? Will He not sit on the throne of David and rule? Will the nations not be judged (Matthew 25)? Why intervene at all when Jerusalem is surrounded by the armies of the nations (Zechariah 14)?

What About All Of Those Prophecies In The Old Testament Which Speak Of A Glorious Future For The Nation Of Israel?

Nairne raises the proper question:

But what are we to do with all these prophecies in the OT which speak of a glorious future for the nation of Israel?

Unfortunately, he does not have an adequate answer. What is his answer? It is to selectively quote some New Testament passages, and attempt to mold an interpretation that is satisfactory to his position:

Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. -Acts 26.22,23 .

Nairne makes a fabulous conclusion from Paul's use of the phrase "none other things". From Nairne's opinion and conclusion, we are to dedeuce that the apostle Paul was telling King Agrippa that everything that Moses and the prophets said "should come" pertained only to New Testament salvation. All of the promises concerning the land, the future restoration of the nation of Israel, and the promises made to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are thus forgotten and cast aside. The message of the OT, Nairne tells us, is restricted to "redemption". And redemption cannot include any other promises that God has made (even if they were unconditional and made by an oath).

But the apostle Paul is not speaking about the other promises that God made in Acts 26.22,23. Paul is merely saying to Agrippa that what Paul is preaching is solidly backed up in what Moses and the prophets have said. The phrase "none other things" pertained to the subject matter of what Paul is preaching. Paul is not saying that there are not other promises made by God in Moses and the prophets.

Nairne also quotes from 1 Peter 1.9-12, and concludes that "the burden of the Spirit of Christ in the prophets of old was redemption and the church". But this is to conclude more than the passage in Peter reveals. Peter is not doing away with the promises made through the prophets to Israel, Peter is speaking of the New Testament salvation. Peter is not speaking of the promises made to the nation of Israel, but rather of the "promise of the Father" (Acts 1.4,5), which is to the church. While the prophets prophesied of redemption and made a few references to the NT church, they also made many prophecies concerning the nation of Israel.

Unfortunately, as is the case of many preterists (and others who seemingly despise the literal things of God), Nairne takes the same attitude, as the following shows:

In looking forward to this coming when the significance of the Old Covenant was to cease, and with it "Israel after the flesh" (I Cor.10:18), how could the Spirit of God convey the spiritual nature of the Church other than under the forms then existing? Is it not the same with ourselves concerning "heaven" described as having streets of gold, a temple a 1500 miles high cube (or maybe a pyramid) with a wall all around only 216 feet high! And those gates of pearl (some oysters!)!!!

Nairne misuses 1 Corinthians 10.18, which says nothing at all about the demise of fleshly Israel, but merely shows that Paul still recognized the existence of a fleshly Israel. And he maintains that the prophets used "the forms then existing" (e.g., tabernacle, temple, other types and shadows) to portray "the spiritual nature of the church". This is not a bad comparison if one does not thereby conclude that God, by doing so, is condemning the people of the "forms then existing" to complete extinction as a nation. That goes further than the Scriptures teach. But the tone taken by Nairne in referring to the description of heaven is unfortunate, to say the least. He mocks "gates of pearl" (some oysters!), and "streets of gold", a "temple 1500 miles high"(!), and a "wall 216 feet high" (!) (the dimensions are apparently his).

And Nairne tops this assault upon the veracity of the Scriptures (at least, the "literal" veracity) with this: "Other Old Testament Scriptures when interpreted literally often yield just as ridiculous results". They are ridiculous to him. He attacks the literal interpretation of Ezekiel's millennial temple and vegetarian lions during the millennium. He is apparently unaware of Genesis 3.30, where God told Adam and Eve before the Fall:

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every living thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat (food): and it was so".

God did not expand this vegetarian command until after the Flood, when He told Noah:

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. -Genesis 9.3

But when you take away the literal interpretation that makes good sense, then you produce "nonsense", and place whatever interpretation that fits with your philosophy. When you throw out any idea of a "dispensation" in the Bible, then you are bound the inability to perceive anything different that God might do. This was the problem of the Jews during the waning days of the what is called "the Old Covenant" (the Mosaic covenant). Nairne doubts the possible re-creation of ancient nations such as "Moab" and "Ammon" (components, as I understand it, of the nation of Jordan today), but he ignores the fact that Israel was re-created in 1948 after centuries of dispersion (a modern miracle).

We have mentioned already that Nairne ignores the literal interpretation of prophecies by the apostle Matthew and even the Lord Jesus Christ, which would establish the validity of literal interpretation. Instead, he chooses a couple of passages that he feels will vindicate his symbolical and allegorical interpretative method (actually, a method introduced in the early centuries of the church by the gnostics and the Catholics).

One of his first choices is a passage in Acts 15.14-17, wherein the apostle James interprets a prophecy from Amos 9.11. Nairne interprets this to mean that "the apostles saw the 'tabernacle of David' as a picture of the new people of God, which included Gentiles in this present age". This is a little bit more than James actually said. James noted that Peter reported how "that God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name" (Acts 15.14). James merely adds, "And to this agree the words of the prophets". James then proceeds to quote Amos 9.11. He does not say that the "tabernacle of David was a picture of the new people of God", but rather he merely noted that the prophet Amos foresaw a day in the which God would take a people out of the Gentiles "for his name". It was the concept of Gentiles coming to the Lord that James saw in the prophecy, and not a new concept of the "tabernacle of David". Nairne has symbolized the "tabernacle of David" to be something that James did not intend, giving an explanation that James did not give. This is the problem with "spiritualizing" and "symbolizing" the plain meaning of the word of God.

Nairne takes the same liberty with the passage in Acts 2.23-31, elevating the throne of David to something that it never was: a "heavenly throne". David never understood that his earthly throne was actually a "heavenly throne", and neither did Peter. The reason why preterists must do away with the Davidic throne is that it means there is a coming millennial reign on earth. This was the understanding of the prophets, including David, who was also a prophet. Nairne thinks that to make the Davidic throne a "heavenly throne" demonstrates "spiritual discernment". Actually, it demonstrates a disregard for the clear meaning of the word of God. David's throne was not a heavenly throne, and there is no passage in Scripture which shows any ascension of David's throne into heaven. Christ has been raised from the dead, and He has ascended into heaven, but He is returning to earth one day to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem during the millennial reign of the Son of David. There is nothing in the passage of Acts 2.23-31 to substantiate Nairne's claim that the "throne of David", which was (and is) an earthly throne, has become a "heavenly throne". This interpretation is, in effect, to deny the humanity of Christ through its implications.

Are Preterists "Spiritual" While Dispensationalists Are "Carnal"?

Nairne, like many preterists and those who reject the simple, literal interpretation of the word of God, ignore large portions of the Scriptures, when it suits their purposes. They assume that because they glorify heavenly things at the expense of earthly promises and earthly things which God loves that they do God a service and therefore possess more spirituality than those who take the word of God literally. They are "spiritual" and their dispensational brethren are "carnal".

Nairne uses two passages in Joshua 21.43,45, and also Joshua 23.14, as follows:

And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. There failed not aught of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.

And then in 1 Kings 4.21:

And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.

And then again in 1 Kings 8.56:

Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.

And thus Nairne believes he has demonstrated that God has fulfilled His promises concerning the land and therefore no need exists to be concerned about the future restoration of the kingdom of Israel and their future occupation of the land.

However, it is a simple matter to show how inadequate this approach is. It ignores a great deal of subsequent prophecy.

While it is true that Israel went into the land of Canaan and conquered the land in the book of Joshua.

Joshua 11.23, for example, says:

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes.

Did God Give The Land Of Canaan To The Children Of Israel Forever?

In actuality, Nairne questions the validity of the promise of the land made to Abraham. He asks, "Did Abraham think that he had the land forever? No, but he knew that what it pictured was forever". Is this what the plain word of God says? Or is this some more allegorization, which adds to the Scripture?

Genesis 17.7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

The plain word of God says that God made an unconditional promise to Abraham and to his descendants (the only condition being the seal of the covenant which was circumcision) to give the land of Canaan for "an everlasting possession". This was also the seed (plural) of Abraham "in their generations". God promised not only to be Abraham's God, but also "their (Abraham's seed in their generations) God". But Nairne has attempted to negate this promise, saying that Abraham did not actually believe that he would have the land "forever". Is God then a liar? God forbid.

God renewed this unconditional promise to Jacob, as He stood at the top of the ladder:

Genesis 28.13 And behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in they seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Carefully notice that the word "seed" here is again only to be interpreted as plural. The "seed" which shall be "as the dust of the earth".

God once again renews this promise in Genesis 35.12 to Jacob:

And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.

This is confirmed in Exodus 32.13, when Moses says to God:

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them,I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.

After this Moses cried out this reminder of the promise that God had made, the Lord "repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Exodus 32.14). God keeps His promises.

God Promises To Bring Israel Back Into Their Own Land And Establish A New Covenant With Israel

Ezekiel 11.17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land. 18 And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the destestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. 19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh.

Notice the phrase: "I will give you the land". This is connected with an ingathering of Israel out of the countries where they have been scattered. The acceptance of a New Covenant could not have occurred until after Calvary, but this prophetic passage is connected with the acceptance of the Covenant and the return to the land from a worldwide dispersion. It could not have been the return from Babylon. At this point in time, the worldwide dispersion by the Romans in the first century is significantly drawing to a close. A New Covenant acceptance by the Jews could soon follow, since this passage connects the two events.

The return of Israel to the land is prophesied in Israel. The Scripture is quite clear that this is not the return from the Babylonian exile:

Isaiah 11.10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. 11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam,and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up and ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Verse 10 of this prophecy is obviously speaking about the appearance of Jesus, and the New Testament church. Verse 11, however, speaks of a second return from a worldwide dispersion of "the remnant of his people", "the outcasts of Israel", and "the dispesed of Judah" from "the four corners of the earth". There can be little doubt that this situation shall occur "in the last days".

This is an interesting passage (chapter 11 of Isaiah), because this chapter begins with a description of Armageddon (see Revelation 19, compare to Isaiah 11.4) and the Millennium (see Revelation 20, compare to Isaiah 11.5-9, which speaks of conditions during the coming Millennium).

Jeremiah 30.10,11, which is a passage in close proximity to a passage speaking of the Great Tribulation (Jeremiah 30.5-9) states:

Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar,and thy seed ((plural)) from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid. For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

God promises to restore health to Israel and heal her of her wounds (Jeremiah 30.17). The restoration of Israel is to be "considered...in the latter days" (Jeremiah 30.24). If we were to posit the "latter days" as exclusively applying to the first century AD, we could not say that this prophecy would have been fulfilled.

Jeremiah 31.10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; the LORD of hosts is his name: If these ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed ((plural)) of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed ((plural)) of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. -Jeremiah 31.35-37

God promises that He is going to regather Israel and He is going to keep her.

Jeremiah 32.37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury,and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. 38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them,and of their children after them. 40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. 41 Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul.

It is evident that an "everlasting covenant" was NOT made with the children of Israel when they returned from the Babylonian exile. Nor did they "dwell safely". So there remains a future "return to the land" (which is now in progress).

Jeremiah 33.14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. 15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. 17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. 19 And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, sayhing, 20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; 21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. 23 Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

This long passage clearly demonstrates that God has no intention of casting away His people the nation of Israel. Before God would cast away the nation of Israel, day and night would cease on the planet earth. Moreover, the role of the family of David and the role of the Levites (insofar as it pertains to the nation of Israel) is assured forever. The "burnt offersing", "the meat offerings", and the "sacrifices" will surely have a different character in the Millennium. But the promises of God, pertaining to the house of Israel and the house of Judah here, are to be accomplished in the "Branch of Righteousness" (the Lord Jesus Christ), and certainly not in the days immediately following the return from Babylonian exile.

The book of Hosea illustrates that just as the prophet Hosea brought back his unfaithful wife so will God will back Israel in the last days.

Hosea 3.4 For the children of israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. 5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

Certainly, this is an embarrassment for those who claim the "latter days" expired in the first century AD. For in the first century AD the children of Israel did not return to the land, and they did not return to seek the Lord their God, and "David their king", nor did they "fear the Lord and his goodness" at that time.

Hosea 6.1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. 2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

God Promises To Defend The Land Of Canaan For The Sake Of The Children Of Israel

Joel 3.1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem. 2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

Certainly, God did not "gather all nations" together against Jerusalem in 70 AD. In fact, if one carefully analyzes this prophecy, God does not gather the nations to judge Jerusalem (as preterists claim for 70 AD), but rather God, in this prophecy, gathers all nations to "plead with them for (on behalf of) my people and my heritage Israel". Part of God's case is they have scattered Israel "among the nations", and, this most significantly, "parted my land". In 70 AD, the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem was not "lifted" ("brought again"), but rather the Jews went into captivity. Joel 3, then, refers to a later endtime event and not a first century event, as some claim.

Joel 3, of course, refers to the Battle of Armageddon (see Revelation 19). It is in the valley of Jehoshaphat (Megiddo) that God will judge the heathen (the Gentile nations), who have gathered against Jerusalem. This event is compared to a harvest (Joel 3.13, see Revelation 14.15-20).

Joel 3.15 states, "The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining". This is the time of the "sixth seal" (see Revelation 6.12-14; Matthew 24.29; Mark 13.24; Luke 21.25; Isaiah 13.10; Isaiah 24.23; Joel 2.31, 3.15; Acts 2.19,20. All of these passages show the clear demarcating line of the sixth seal, which announces the end of the Great Tribulation period (the Wrath of the anti-christ), and the precipitate coming of the Wrath of God Almighty.

But these endtime cataclysmic events are not the judgment of Jerusalem brought about by the agency of the Roman armies. Joel 3.16 states that, at that time:

The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel..

Then can this be the Lord wreaking judgment and destruction upon the city of Jerusalem as some preterists say? On the contrary, the Lord comes to the rescue to deliver Jerusalem from the heathen nations (not just Rome). And Joel continues: "But Judah shall dwell forever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation" (Joel 3.20).

It is useless to try to deprive the nation of Israel of the promises of restoration made by God Himself.

Nairne poses the question:

"Surely", we say, "the establishment of a Jewish state in 1948 was prophetically significant?" Well, I am glad for the Jews sake that they have their land. But is it any more significant than the preservation of the Arabs who also have their own lands?

But is this answer satisfactory? No, for several reasons: (1) There are scarcely any prophecies about the restoration of Arab nations; (2) there is no nation like Israel which lost its land, its capital, and its government, for centuries, and then miraculously was restored to become a powerful nation-especially in view of the prophecies which declared that one day this would happen, and (3) many of the endtime prophecies depend upon the re-establishment of this particular nation (Israel). This is more than co-incidental and cannot be so lightly dismissed.

Most importantly, Nairne completely misunderstands the desire and the purpose of many "dispensationalists" (that I know about anyway). He mentions this upon hearing about Rabbis in Jerusalem reading the New Testament with a new interest:

Praise the Lord! May all Israelis worldwide turn to the Lord and bring in God's promised blessing to even more Gentiles. But let us not build up a Judaism with which Paul had constant conflict, and which God destroyed in AD70. The Lord's purposes now are greater than that; they are worldwide in keeping with the original promise to Abraham.

Notice his "Gentilocentric" prejudice, "...bring in God's promised blessing to even more Gentiles". Is this in consonance with the apostle Paul's statements in Romans 11? Is it not rather "To the Jew first and also to the Greek"? And then the phrase "let us not build up a Judaism". This implies that dispensationalists, or premillennialists, want to re-build the worst type of Judaism ("the Judaizers"), and falsely concludes that "God destroyed (Judaism) in AD 70". The truth of the matter is that Judaism continued to exist. Judaizers in the Christian church became less of a problem not because of the destruction of Jerusalem, but rather because the church became so "Gentile" (and consequently went into Catholicism and other false teaching) that "Judaizers" no longer had any influence.

And then Nairne makes an astounding statement that the New Testament church has no Jewish "roots". To prove this far-fetched pronouncement, he quotes Galatians 3.28,29 (which has more to do with identification with Christ rather than any "roots"). The New Testament church was founded by the Son of God (who also happened to be a Jewish Rabbi, who said "Salvation is of the Jews", John 4.22), and 13 Jewish apostles (Paul and the Twelve). In fact, the apostle Paul said that we are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone". We cannot understand the total importantance of the Bible without a proper context. Old Testament Scriptures were written in mostly the Hebrew tongue, while the Gospels center around Jewish life and customs. What an astounding statement to declare that the NT church has no Jewish "roots"! Of course, the word of God rises above its Jewish culture, but, on the other hand, to say that there are no Jewish roots is not accurate either.

The racial aspect is also treated by Nairne. He says, "Most modern Jews are of Khazaric descent", and "Judaism today owes far more to Eastern Europe than ever it does to the Old Testament". This he concludes from his belief that the modern Jews (the Ashkenazic Jews) are descended from the Khazars.

But many DNA studies scientifically show that the lie about Jews Being Khazars has been exposed:

Like the other Jewish communities in the study, the Ashkenazic community of Northern and Central Europe, from which most American Jews are descended, shows less diversity than expected in its mitochondrial DNA, perhaps reflecting the maternal definition of Jewishness -Russian Jewish Genetics, Khazaria Info Center

Noting that the Y chromosome points to a Middle Eastern origin of Jewish communities and the mitochondrial DNA to a possibly local origin, Dr. Goldstein said that the composition of ordinary chromosomes, which carry most of the genes, was impossible to assess. 'My guess,' Dr. Goldstein said, 'is that the rest of the genome will be a mixture of both.'"

-Ibid, Dr. David Goldstein

Max Gross. "'A Certain People': Study Confirms Deep Similarities Among Jews." Forward (August 16, 2002): B11. Excerpts:

"Professor Ariella Oppenheim of Hebrew University, a geneticist of mixed Ashkenazic and Sephardic descent and one of six scientists who authored the study, called the results surprising. 'I expected a few more admixtures,' Oppenheim told the Forward. Almost all the researchers expected to see a greater link between Ashkenazic Jews and non-Jewish Eastern Europeans. They thought they would see in the bloodlines the results of Eastern European pogroms, when many Jewish women were raped, producing offspring whose biological fathers were not Jewish.... 'It had an effect,' Oppenheim said, but it didn't significantly alter the gene pool. Ashkenazic Jews are still closer, genetically, to Sephardic and Kurdish Jews than to any other population.... 'Part of [the study] was financed by [the government of] India,' Oppenheim said.... The scientists looked at Y-chromosomes, which come from the male, 'Mostly because [they] give us a bit of a simpler picture,' Oppenheim said. Oppenheim said that a more thorough study, involving mitochondrial DNA, which comes from the female, will soon get under way."

Ivan Oransky. "Tracing Mideast Roots Back to Isaac and Ishmael: Study of Y Chromosome Suggests a Common Ancestry for Jews and Arabs." The Forward (May 19, 2000). Excerpts:

"The study also found the degree of intermarriage by the Askenazi Jewish population over the past 2000 years to be remarkably small. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer and colleagues from Italy, Israel, England and America, refutes some earlier studies which suggested that modern Jews were mainly descendants of converts -- paticularly the Turkish Khazars -- with high rates of intermarriage.... The director of the human genetics program at the New York University School of Medicine and a co-author of the paper, Harry Ostrer, told The Forward that... the story provides a useful allegory for the roots of Jews and Arabs. `We're the children of a discrete number of founders who lived in the Middle East, where these Y chromosomes originated and became concentrated.', Dr. Ostrer said.... Dr. [Arno] Motulsky, who was not involved with the study, said that the results suggest that genes from non-Jewish males have not entered the Jewish population to any great extent.... The study could raise important questions about who is a Jew. For example, the results suggest that Ethiopian Jews, thought to be long separated from other Jewish groups, may be more closely related to North African non-Jews than to other Jews. Follow-up studies are already being planned. Dr. Ostrer is hoping to collect genetic information from 1000 Askenazi Jews to study migrational patterns across Europe. Dr. Hammer said he will study the DNA for mitrochondria... This will shed light onto the rate than which women intermarried into Jewish communities, since these genes are strictly passed by the mother."

Nicholas Wade. "Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora." The New York Times (May 9, 2000). Excerpts:

"The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.... The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism.... But present-day Ethiopian Jews lack some of the other lineages found in Jewish communities, and overall are more like non-Jewish Ethiopians than other Jewish populations, at least in terms of their Y chromosome lineage pattern.... Roman Jews have a pattern quite similar to that of Ashkenazis, the Jewish community of Eastern Europe. Dr. Hammer said the finding accorded with the hypothesis that Roman Jews were the ancestors of the Ashkenazis. Despite the Ashkenazi Jews' long residence in Europe, their Y signature has remained distinct from that of non-Jewish Europeans."

Joel J. Elias. "The Genetics of Modern Assyrians and their Relationship to Other People of the Middle East." Assyrian Health Network (July 20, 2000). Excerpts:

"Based on earlier studies using classical genetic methods7, Cavalli-Sforza et al. came to the conclusion 'that Jews have maintained considerable genetic similarity among themselves and with people from the Middle East, with whom they have common origins.' Evidence for the latter concept was very convincingly made and extended by an international team of scientists [Hammer et al.] in a very recent research article8, widely reported in the press, in which the genetics of different Middle Eastern populations were studied using a completely different method than the classical methods that form the great majority of papers in the Cavalli-Sforza et al book. The research involved direct DNA analysis of the Y chromosome, which is found only in males and is passed down from father to son. Seven different Jewish groups from communities in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East were compared to various non-Jewish populations from those areas. The results showed, first of all, that 'Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level.' Furthermore, the genetic characteristics of Jews were shown to be distinctly different from (non-Jewish) Europeans, suggesting that very little admixture occurred between Jews and Europeans, even after about 80 generations of Jews in Europe.... In fact, the Palestinians and Syrians were so close to the Jews in genetic characteristics that they 'mapped within the central cluster of Jewish populations.'"

7. Carmelli, D. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. The genetic origin of the Jews: A multi-variate approach. Hum. Biol., 51:41-61. 1979.

8. Hammer, M.F. et al. [12 authors]. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proceedings National Academy Sciences USA...

For Alan Nairne's reply to this article go here