Dear Alan:
I appreciate the time and the effort that you have made to answer my proposed "Refutation" of your article, "Does The Nation Of Israel Have A Future Separate And Distinct From The Kingdom of God"?
Please let me note that I would prefer as a title, "Does The Nation of Israel Have A Future Separate And Distinct From The New Testament Church?" I believe that, after her repentance, the nation of Israel will be a part of the kingdom of God.
I have made a few comments on your reply: (a) for clarification, and (b) in response to some of your comments in your reply. I particularly want to thank you for your kind attitude in disagreeing with me. I realize, of course, that we are poles apart, and opposing positions that we take necessarily include negative comments concerning the respective views concerning the different methods of allegorical interpretation and literal interpretation. I am also aware that neither the allegorical interpretive method nor the literal interpretative method can be exercised without glaring exceptions to the rule on either side. For how can the allegorists not be "literal" at times, and how can the literalists not be "allegorical" (Gal. 4) at times?
I do not think, however, that such exceptions can necessarily be seen as inconsistencies, since both methods are insufficient to totally explicate the whole body of prophetic scripture. In short, it is obvious that partial preterists use literal interpretations when they feel such are required, and dispensationalists use the allegorical method of interpretation when a literal interpretation seems impossible in making sense of the passage.
I have placed your reply below, and will attempt to insert some comments that I think will help clarify my position, or which might disagree with your statements. I am sending a courtesy copy to Mr. Ross, the webmaster:
Dear William, At last I am able to let you have my reply. It is rather long to appDear brother in Christ This only demonstrates to me that you are a serious student of the Word.
Reply to critique by William B. Chalfant of my web article Does the nation of Israel have a future separate and distinct from the Church in the Kingdom of God? (ref. apocalipsis.org).
Thank you for your critique of my web article. You have done me the honour of quoting me at length, and I appreciate that you have carefully studied my article.
Having been a dispensationalist at one time, I think that I am aware of where you are coming from. I assume that you are a dispensationalist from your remark that I [Nairne] "believe the old 'saw' that all dispensationalists teach that the Old Covenant and sacrifices will be re-established in the millennium." Does this mean that you do not believe this? Yet you seem elsewhere to wish to take Ezekiel's land and John's temple in Revelation (even to the streets of gold and gates of pearl!) very literally. To take Ezekiel's temple very literally, yet reject Ezekiel's (Mosaic) form of worship and sacrifices does not seem to stack up.
Please allow me to respond to the above remarks. Yes, I am a "modified dispensationalist", insofar as I myself understand the term, and give any allegiance to it. I do believe that God is progressive in the covenants and periods of time in which He deals with His people and the human race. Although, I believe that this "progessiveness" has to be understood in the context of His promises and His relationship with His people. I do not consider "restoration" to mean "regression". For God to restore the kingdom to Israel, for example, would not be regressive because of His wisdom.
Concerning the re-establishment of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and the animal sacrifices (insofar as they pertain to salvation in a covenantal relationship), I certainly do not believe that the Mosaic Covenant will be re-established in the Millennium. However, I do believe that prophecies show that a type of memorial or commemorative "animal sacrifice" will be permitted in the millennium for at least a certain period of time (see Ezekiel 20.33-43; Zechariah 14.16-21, etc.). It is useless to argue that God has "matured" beyond this, since we see from many Old Testament passages that God required and even "smelled the sweet savor" of offerings, although He stated that He would not accept the hypocrisy in the later history of Israel during the Mosaic Covenant, and the book of Hebrews clearly shows the superiority of the Blood sacrifice of Calvary over all animal sacrifices. Certainly, animal sacrifices have been done away with in the covenant which we are a part of today. To say that they were never a part of the economy of God, or that God never ever approved of them would be folly, since He Himself instituted animal sacrifices in Genesis, and required them for centuries. Their role in the Millennium is not clear, but it is certainly not a matter of salvation.
Please look at my remarks above a little more closely. I did not deprecate the "literal interpretation" aspects of the accusation, but rather I reject the implication that I believe in the re-establishment of the Mosaic Covenant itself, and in the necessity of animal sacrifices in any sense of a salvific function in the Millennium (that is, as being necessary in seeking God's forgiveness for sin, as we see in the Mosaic Covenant). But to say that Old Testament prophecies do not foresee a future use of any such animal sacrifices at all is to deny the clear message of the prophets concerning Israel. All scriptures pointing to the future establishment of animal sacrifices must be explained away.
"Animal sacrifices", as you seem to indicate, are not, in and of themselves, specifically or only a "Mosaic form of worship". Ezekiel's Temple is a prophesied future temple and is not necessarily associated only with the Mosaic Covenant. It is rather a Millennial Temple that has not yet been built, but is prophesied to be built. It would be a masterpiece of allegorical "smoke and mirrors", wouldn't you think, to allegorize Ezekiel's Temple, since so much detail is prophesied? Since a number of chapters (7) are expended by the prophet in describing this Temple, I would be interested in your explication of these various descriptions of the Temple. Is this all just biblical imagery?
But if I deal with your objections as you state them I shall probably be OK. You speak of the "restoration" of the nation. But if you abandon any part of Ezekiel's vision of the temple you are restoring nothing, and you have a purely secular nation;
I would agree with you concerning abandoning "any part of Ezekiel's vision of the temple", which would tamper with God's vision of a restoration, although I do not know that we would have merely a "purely secular nation". But I am not "abandoning anything", when I reject a re-establishment of the Mosaic covenant. A temple can exist under the aegis of another covenant. Why should a temple be restricted to the Mosaic Covenant? Is There not a archetypal temple in Heaven? Was the blood sacrifice of Jesus taken into Heaven to be presented to the Father? (Hebrews 9.11-24).
The Levitical offerings are indeed mentioned, but they obviously will have a different meaning in the Millennium (Ezek. 42.13), and we know there has been a change in the priesthood (Hebrews 7.11,12) during this current dispensation or covenant period. We do not know what role the lesser priesthood will have in Israel during the Millennium, but we do know that when the future Millennial Temple of Ezekiel is built, there will be a future lesser priesthood to serve in some fashion. Certainly, they will not have the exact same role of the Levitical priesthood in the Mosaic Covenant. Ezekiel 43.19, 44.15 proscribes any of the Levitical priesthood from serving other than "the seed of Zadok". This is certainly a "change" in the priesthood. It is interesting tocompare Ezekiel 47.12 with Rev. 22.2. Both of these two passages indicate the prophetic nature of the Millennial Temple.
and what has happened to your literalism?
I don't think it would be proper to assume that I thought in such iconoclastic terms anymore than those who embrace preterism. Not every scripture can be interpreted in a literal way.
For example, you might be surprised to read the following quotation from the noted dispensationalist, C.I. Scofield, in his Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth:
It may safely be said that the Judaizing of the Church has done more to hinger her progress, pervert her mission, and destroy her spirituality, than all other causes combined. Instead of pursuing her appointed path of separation from the world and following the Lord in her heavenly calling, she has used Jewish Scriptures to justify herself in lowering her purpose to the civilization of the world, the acquistion of wealth, the use of an imposing ritual, the erection of magnificent churches, the invocation of God's blessing upon the conflicts of armies, and the division of an equal brotherhood into "clergy" and "laity". -p.17.
I do not know about you, but I heartily concur with the spirit and the intent of this passage from Mr. Scofield.
Some modern "progressive dispensational" theologians no longer merit the dispensational label, because they have abandoned so many of what they feel are indefensible traditional doctrines.
You speak of the Dallas Theological Seminary theologians, do you not? But that of course could also be said of the full preterists and the partial preterists, and the various shades of preterism, couldn't it? There will always be differences like that. To say that preterism has not gone (and is not presently going) through some refinement and re-shaping of theological views would be incorrect. Is this a criticism or a strength? Craig Blessing and Darrell Bock are progressive dispensationalists, but I do not see that they have "abandoned so many...indefensible traditional doctrines".
I notice that you acknowledge that the OT foresaw (you refer to Isaiah 11:10) the NT church. Well, that is a big step forward.
Yes, it is a step forward over some of the classical dispensationalists, but it is not an acknowledgment of "replacement theology". Paul's statements in Ephesians 3.3-9 make it clear that the mystery of Christ (and the church by implication) was "not made known" in "other ages" (was Paul in using the phrase "in other ages" a dispensationalist after all?), "as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit".
I notice, also, that in connection with Ezekiel 11:19 you speak about the Jews accepting the New Covenant. Presumably, as this is after the rapture of the Church according to your scheme(?), they can form no part of the Church.
On the contrary, the NT church came in under a "new covenant" established on the Day of Pentecost, and accepted by Jews only. Gentiles had no part in it at all, until the Jews began to turn away from the covenant and God granted repentance to Gentiles (these circumstances are clearly outlined for us by Luke and Paul). The NT church is headed by a Jew, 12 Jewish apostles, and a 13th Jewish apostle to the Gentiles by the name of Paul. But they are only a "remnant" of the nation of Israel, as Paul says in Romans 11. A time is coming when "all Israel" (speaking of the Jewish nation basically as a whole) shall be saved", and the Deliverer shall turn ungodliness away from Jacob (a term which never stands for the church) (Romans 11.26-30). This won't happen until the "fulness of the gentiles" is come in (something that the NT church is working on), and so it is subsequent to the church age ("the fulness of the gentiles" being equated the gospel being preached to "the nations", a point at which the end of the church age comes).
But, my mind is struggling now. They accept the New Covenant, but the Old Covenant provisions of priesthood, sacrifice (Ezekiel) etc, which the New ends, according to Hebrews, is adopted(?). Are there two New Covenants, one for us, and one for them? However, this is not part of our discussion.
When you accept that God has two destinies: one for the NT church and another for the nation of Israel, that is not a problem. Of course, the destinies are intertwined, since in the resurrection, the Lord Himself shall sit upon the throne of David in Jerusalem, but a separate, distinct destiny for the nation of Israel is required so that the promises made to the Jewish fathers (Romans 9.4, 1 Cor. 15.8) might be fulfilled. Right now, Jesus has given the Promise (singular) of the Father (the baptism of the Holy Ghost) to the NT church, but the promises (plural) made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel (the Jews) are still to be fulfilled during the Millennium (the coming reign of Jesus Christ upon the earth) through Jesus Christ. Obviously, the promises to the fathers, although they were confirmed in Jesus Christ, are to be fulfilled in the Millennium to come, since they are not being fulfilled in the church age. If these particular promises have been specifically fulfilled in the NT church age, then someone should so demonstrate that they have been.
But you ask valid questions here. Actually, my exact words were in reference to Ezekiel 11.17-19: "God promises to bring Israel back into their own land and establish a new covenant with Israel". Obviously, God did not bring Israel back into their land in 33 AD. This is a future fulfillment.
It is clear from the prophecy of Ezekiel (quoted) that Israel is to be gathered in from a worldwide dispersion (not the Babylonian dispersion, since we know from history that the prophecy was not fulfilled in this manner when the Babylonian dispersion basically ended) and that they will enter into a new covenant with the Lord. It my belief that God has made a number of covenants with His people down through the ages. I really do not see any place in Scripture where the NT church age covenant is titled by God precisely as "the New Covenant" per se (and I do not see that there can never be any other succeeding covenants, or addendum's to a covenant, for any reason whatsoever). That is static thinking and not in harmony with what we know that God has done in the past. Think about it in this way. The Law (Mosaic covenant) was "added" to the Abrahamic covenant because of transgressions (Galatians 3.19). Why is it so shocking to think that God can not do something like this in the future? Is God restrained by our understanding and pre-conceived notions? Do you see anywhere that the covenant made with the Jews of the Upper Room is the final and concluding covenant made with man? No doubt this is what the Pharisees thought concerning the Mosaic Covenant! But prophecy said otherwise.
As I shall address features that you, yourself, raise, it should not confuse the issue for me. I am disappointed that you have not done as I requested in section II. of my paper - to set forth a detailed description from Scripture of the propos
I do not understand this objection, since I had hoped to have sent a detailed "Refutation" (my comments). Perhaps you might want to clarify this.
To my mind the best OT definition of the future kingdom is that found in Daniel. As you will know, "kingdom" is a rare word in the eschatological sense in the OT - restricted I think to Daniel.
Speaking of the word "kingdom" only, I think you are probably fairly correct. I note some references to a kingdom in Psalms 2, although the word itself is not used.
And there it is anything but a Jewish kingdom, for it is one where "all people, nations, and languages shall serve him". Moreover his dominion is an "everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."
Clearly, this is not a 1000 year kingdom. But it compares very well with the NT concept of the Kingdom of God.
I would disagree that it has lost a sense of a heavenly kingdom imposed through an earthly kingdom. Daniel is clearly talking of Jewish saints who shall possess the kingdom, and so to state that it "is anything but a Jewish kingdom" seems somewhat "gentilocentric", since "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4.22). Do you deny that God chose Jacob? Has Jacob been "unchosen"? Jacob is not the NT church.
I will seek to treat your critique seriously. Yet there are a few features which I shall not give that honour. The first is your association of my doctrine with those of "Campbellitism", "Gnosticism" and "Catholics".
Some association with the above elements exist in your scheme of prophecy, but perhaps that was somewhat unfair, and I withdraw it.
It is a fact that there is hardly a doctrine in the Bible that has not been attacked, but the resulting false doctrines share truths in common with the true doctrine. Whatever error there may be, either yours or mine, does not merit those kinds of associations. It is for this reason that I do not identify features of your eschatology with that of the JW's., for instance.
I gratefully acknowledge this deference, since I am not a "date-setter" (first century or 21st century), and do not consider myself to be a part of the 144,000 Jews of Revelation. The 144,000 Jews will be virgins also. Such a phenomenon has not yet existed.
The other feature is that however much I believe that your hermeneutics are faulty, I recognise that your esteem for Scripture is, I believe, equal to my own. Neither of us are liberals. We are solidly conservative. It is therefore unjustified for you to think that I have a lower regard for the veracity of Scripture (even the literal!) than your own. Similarly, to suggest by inference that my doctrine of the humanity of Christ is defective, is unjustified.
I do not recall that I implied this, but there are many, of course, who scoff at the coming reign of the Man Jesus as "the second man" (1 Cor. 15.47,who is God manifest in the flesh) on the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem. This requires His humanity to continue to be acknowledged, even in the Millennium. But I did not mean to impugn your view of His genuine humanity in and of itself. I think if we take away the humanity of the King who will sit upon the throne of David, then we reject the prophecies.
I think that you may have second thoughts on attributing to me these features. I can only say that if I fall into the same trap, please forgive me.
Similarly, under a bold heading you quote "Are preterists "spiritual" while dispensationalists are "carnal?" When I said that the OT prophecies were interpreted carnally it was specifically in the context of an unbelieving and rebellious Israel, and I assure you that I was not imputing their unspiritual state to present day literalists. By consequence, I do not imply the reverse for those who interpret the Scripture along "spiritual", or "allegorical" lines. I am sure sound doctrine is important.
But alas, it does not guarantee spirituality or sound morals. Neither does incorrect prophetic doctrine imply the reverse.
I definitely must agree with this. I was merely reacting to the general "tenor" of interpretation. Your conclusion is obviously correct.
It is fitting that here I should refer to your repeated charge that this type of interpretation is "spiritualising", as against a "literal" interpretation. May I point out that the opposite of "spiritual" is not "literal", but "natural".
Perhaps the term "allegorizing" might be more suitable as opposed to "spiritualizing". Paul used the term "allegory" only once in the NT (Gal. 4). As I noted, Jesus and the apostle Matthew, used a literal interpretive method.
I Cor.15:46 will come to mind. The fulfilment of prophecy in the realm of the spirit (where this is so) is the literal fulfilment. Things are not less literal because they are spiritual. The term "spiritualising" has a pejorative connotation, and prejudices balanced exposition before even looking at the subject, let alone accepting a "spiritual" fulfilment as the literal. I hope you follow this.
I understand what you are saying and agree with this.
Concerning the duration of your millennial kingdom. You quote Gen.17:7-8 and because I deny that it is "for ever" (which you appropriate to mean a future 1000 year kingdom), you ask me if God is a liar. But, strictly speaking, you have your own difficulties. How can 1000 years be regarded as "everlasting", or "for ever"?
Remember that you determined that I was a "dispensationalist". The earth abides forever. Why would we wish to stop at the 1000 year reign? There will be "new heavens and a new earth" (2 Peter 3.13), wherein dwelleth righteousness. Please see below.
It is not making God a liar if one sees from Scripture that a word is used in several senses. In Ex.21:6 "for ever" is applied to the slavery of one with his ear bored. Clearly, it cannot extend beyond death. In Ex.40:15 and Num.25:13 "everlasting" is applied to the Aaronic priesthood. Did not this finish with the once for all sacrifice of Christ? Even if you conceive this priesthood being restored in the millennium (despite any earthly priesthood being proscribed in the book of Hebrews) it will end in 1000 years. How, then, can the term "for ever" be applied to all these? Perhaps you will, correctly, say that the term must be understood as applying to the period for which an institution has relevance. Then I will say that there is, hermeneutically speaking, nothing wrong with concluding that the "for ever" of the land terminated in 70 AD, if not before.
I understand what you are saying about the word olam, since its meaning runs the gamut from "forever" to "the lifetime of the individual"; however, when you study the prophecies concerning the possession of the land, you have to go over all the prophecies pertaining to this, and you will find that an interpretation of olam, in this particular case, as being a temporary period just will not do. For example:
Ezek. 37.25 "And they ((the Jews)) shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children forever (olam): and my servant David shall be their prince forever".
If we understand "my servant David" to apply to the resurrected Christ, are we then to understand that He will someday only be their prince "during their lifetime"? Moreover, the sense of "children's children" is much stronger than just during one's lifetime (evoking the idea of many lifetimes). But I would be happy if you conceded a thousand years in the future (the duration of the Millennium). When you use the resurrected Christ in connection with "David's throne", you make the throne a heavenly throne. But when you couple the resurrected Christ with the Jews in the land, can you make the occupation of the land merely a lifetime or temporary period? The "throne" has been translated from an earthly throne to a heavenly throne through your exegesis, while the "land" must remain "earthly" and of "temporary possession". Is this consistent?
Further to this question of the significance of the 1000 years of Revelation 20. You say, "'one thousand' must now (with this [amillennial] interpretation) become 'symbolical'....it does not mean '1000' anymore." Anymore? You may well, indeed, heavily interpret Revelation literally, and your "anymore" would be consistent. But the book is packed with OT imagery, and I believe that most of it requires interpreting symbolically. Certainly, my amillennial system does require a symbolic 1000 years, but there is no change. I interpret most of the book symbolically. It is the NT absence of a Jerusalem-centred reign that requires the symbolic 1000 years. You ask if this is the way to sound hermeneutics. I say, "yes, it is."
In the sense of an internal (allegorizing) consistency you might call your system of amillennialism "sound" (as you construct it), but in a sense of binding with the reality of creation, and the rest of scriptures, it is not. All of the human characters of the Bible were flesh and blood people, who lived on terra firma. It is interesting that no man in the Old Testament is said to have lived over 1000 years (Methusaleh made it to 969 years). Almost all of the numbers of the Bible that I know about are real numbers. Twelve tribes of Israel, 70 elders, about 120 in the Upper Room, 40 years in the wilderness, the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel, etc. But the 1000 year reign must perforce be "symbolical"? The seven churches of Asia minor-are they symbolical? Or were there actually seven churches so named? I find it rather "convenient" to dismiss the Millennium as only symbolical. One of the very early followers of the apostles, Papias-present during the teaching of the apostle John- did not consider the "millennium" to be only symbolical.
The problem with casting adrift upon the sea of allegory is that it can come to mean whatsoever anyone wants it to mean.
The seven churches of Asia minor were real churches. Jezebel, Antipas, the Jews. The protagonists of Revelation are real individuals: Christ, the apostle John, the angels, etc.
Heaven is a real place. The four living creatures give us no reason to to suspect that they are not real individuals. The 24 elders are real individuals. The 144,000 Jews are real individuals, the 12 tribes have a verified history. Wars, famines, plagues, are a real part of human history. Cosmic calamities (I would suggest reading Immanuel Velikovsky, who was a scientist who found real, literal truth in the Scriptures, at least in the sense that it helped him to develope a history of cosmic calamities and how it affected our planet in the past) exist and meteorites and comets threaten our planet in a real way.
Yes, there is symbolism in the book of Revelation, but not to the degree that one discards the literal truth of the apocalyptic predictions of the prophet. Much of Revelation comes from previous books of the Bible. It was not written in a vacuum. It relies heavily upon the book of Daniel, the book of Isaiah and other prophets, as well as the prophecies of Jesus in Matthew 24, etc. There is nothing hermeneutically unsound about a basically literal interpretation of the book of Revelation, as long as the symbolical portions are properly seen in their relation to a literal view. The presentation of the events may be based upon a degree of symbolism, but the events themselves are quite real (as real as the events that took place in Egypt during the time of the Exodus). It is common for man to place in the realm of the "imaginary" or "symbolic" that which he cannot fully understand.
Moving now to the discussion of principles.
Your very first point is that you believe I confuse "seed" (singular) and "seed" (plural). My discussion, of course, was in the context of Galatians 3:16 -
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." And verse 19, "...till the seed should come to whom the promise was made."
Now, whilst you object to my use of this text, you do not say why, and this is not satisfactory. But it is clear that you do not regard Paul's stance regarding "seeds"as a rejection, only an ignoring of this "alternative" background. You apply the same criteria to my use of 1 Peter 1:9-12.
Paul's characterization of Jesus Christ as the singular "seed" of Abraham in Gal. 3.16 was useful in his argument in Galatians 3 that Jesus Christ is the Messiah through whom the promises made to the fathers have been confirmed (Romans 15.8), but elsewhere, in the writings of Paul, you will find that Paul did not deny the destiny of the Jews nor deny that the promises made to the fathers pertain to the Jews (plural) (see Romans 9.4, for example). Therefore, I don't see that we are concerned with an "argument from silence". Galatians 3.16 cannot negate the entire teaching of the apostle Paul. Therefore the charge of an "argument from silence" falls to the ground.
I would like to share why in the interest of sound exposition your use of an "argument from silence" to support your view is dangerous and therefore inadmissible. Of course, the argument from silence would have been entirely admissible if there had been examples elsewhere of Paul dealing with the subject of a Jerusalem-centred state, or if there were other NT indications of a future separate from the Church for the natural seed of Abraham. But, as I have repeatedly said, there are none. (italics mine).
In addition to my contention above that Paul mentions the continued future of the Jewish nation in his writings, Paul is not the only writer of the books of the Bible. One cannot rightly divide the word of truth by ignoring the Old Testament witness. The Old Testament was the only scripture that the apostles had for their Bible. They quoted from the Old Testament at least 269 times, if I am not mistaken. The NT church is founded upon the foundation of the prophets and the apostles (Eph. 2.20). One cannot ignore the words of the prophets and the scores of prophecies relating to the restoration of a national Israel with a return to the land and the prominence of Jerusalem. Paul nowhere denies the future restoration of the kingdom to Israel. This is my problem with most preterists I have encountered: they attempt to explain away a great number of prophecies pertaining to the nation of Israel simply by quoting from a few passages in the Gospels that pertain to the rejection by that generation of Jewish leaders of the Messiah, and by pointing out the integration of the Gentiles with the Jews in the NT church, which has little or nothing to do with the future of the nation of Israel.
I did not make use of the comparison of "seeds" and "seed" as an "argument from silence". I pointed out that while the apostle Paul used the example of "seed" in the singular, and applied it to Christ, that Genesis, however, in referring to Abraham's "seed" (in the very words of God Himself, Genesis 17.7, clearly identifies the "seed" as plural, "in their generations"). The point being that the apostle Paul could not have meant to exclude the generations of Abraham's children from the specific promises made (except for those individual Jews who reject the Lord and exclude themselves in the future). There will be, in other words, a future nation of Israel which will (collectively and individually) receive the promises made to the fathers (obviously, through the graces of the one "seed", Jesus Christ, but not just through the NT church only, since the NT church will be caught up before the Great Tribulation of the Jews begins, and a national revival occurs).
Therefore, in the absence of any such examples, it is a faulty hermeneutic to assert that there is when the Scripture is silent.
May I illustrate? I am sure you will agree that homosexual practices are totally banned in the whole of Scripture. How do homosexuals get over this? They get over it by asserting that the Leviticus texts, for example, refer to pagan temple rituals, and not to individual acts between men. The Romans 1 verses, for example, are argued as being in the context of "the reckless, shameless, profligate, promiscuous behaviour of people whom God has judicially 'given up'; what relevance has this to committed, loving homosexual partnerships?". (Stott, Issues facing Christians today. pp.340ff.). Without a whisper in the Scripture in these directions it is inadmissible for the homosexual to argue from silence.
I understand what you are saying here about homosexual theologians attempting to justify their behavior; however, I am not sure that this is a good comparison with the prophecies pertaining to the future of the nation of Israel. There is not that much scripture pertaining to the unacceptable behavior of homosexuals (admittedly enough to show that it is condemned), but the prophecies pertaining to the future restoration of Israel to its prominence, to its land, with the glory of the house of David, etc., are seen throughout the Old Testament. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the minor prophets, etc. Where does one stop? In view of the books in the OT filled with prophecies concerning the future glory of Jacob and the Jews, I guess I might be excused for wanting some more concrete evidence that the apostle Paul has negated all of these prophecies by deeding everything to the NT church through the Jewish Messiah Jesus Christ, the Son of David. In fact, I am perplexed that such a contention (that the nation of Israel will still inherit the promises made to the fathers, as you put it, "a Jerusalem-centered future for the 'seeds' ") is considered "an argument from silence". One would almos think that Jesus Christ is returning to London, England, or to Washington DC, rather than the city of Jerusalem! The voices of the prophets cry out against such a charge. The Jewish apostles would not understand it. Scripture does not demonstrate it.
It has been said that anything can be taught from the bible. That is true when arguing from silence. That it is why it is so dangerous to so do. I do not confuse "seed" and "seeds". I only follow the NT example and ignore any Jerusalem-centred future for the "seeds".
There is no NT example of ignoring "any Jerusalem-centered future for the "seed" (plural)". This, in my opinion, as I indicated above, is completely ignoring the thrust of the Old Testament, which the Lord and the apostles did not do.
The resurrected Jesus told His disciples:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me" (Luke 24.44).
One cannot leave out the prophecies in Moses, the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Jesus, because He said that "all things must be fulfilled". He will one day sit on the throne of David ruling over Jerusalem and the world. Israel will one day be safely lodged in their land, and the peace of the Millennium will come about.
Clearly, the fleshly offspring of Abraham are specifically excluded now that He has come to whom the promises were made.
He came to confirm the promises made to Israel (Romans 15.8). It would be a strange way to "confirm the promises made to the fathers" concerning the descendants of Abraham by excluding the descendants of Abraham (I do not speak of those of the first century and later who have rejected their Messiah, but rather I speak of a future revival in the nation of Israel and a restoration of the kingdom which has been promised). Zechariah 12-14, for example, gives a much different future for Israel than that. Paul teaches us that only a "remnant of Israel" received Him (and the rest were blinded), but that in the future "all Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11.26), and this mean that He will in the future turn away "ungodliness from Jacob" (q.v.). "Jacob" never refers to individual Jews but only to the person Jacob or the nation "Jacob". Paul did not say, "Hath God cast away ("the individuals") which He foreknew?" (Romans 11.1). But he uses the expression "His people (Israel)". Replacement theology is nothing more than inordinate Gentile pride. We Gentiles are warned by our apostle, Paul, "Be not highminded, but fear" (Romans 11.20). "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee" (Romans 11.21).
As I took pains to show, the earthly possessions were given, and there are no more promises left outside those given through the redemption provided by Christ
But who is claiming that the promises will come outside of the redemption provided by Christ? No one that I know about. The redemption provided by Christ (a Jew, who said that "salvation was of the Jews", John 4.22), the Son of God, has already confirmed the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15.8). And the "promises made to the fathers" pertain to the Jewish nation (Romans 9.4,5). We should not think that God made all of the promises that He made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel, and then was not able to bring the promises about. The NT church has only received the Promise of the Father (the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Acts 1.4,5), but not the promises made to the fathers concerning the land, the kingdom of Israel, Jerusalem, etc. Surely, with your statement above "the earthly possessions were given", you are not claiming that Israel has already received the promises made to the fathers? How, then, could Christ have "confirmed" them (Romans 15.8)? Are claiming that the promises made to the nation of Israel (and to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) have been given to the NT church? Where do you see in the Scriptures that the NT church has received these promises already? Did God take the NT church back into Jerusalem and set up His kingdom there? Spiritually speaking, He has poured out His Spirit and the kingdom of God is here within us (through the baptism of the Holy Spirit). We are ambassadors for Christ, pleading with the world to be reconciled to God. We are an advance element of the coming kingdom of God. We are to pray: thy kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven. But we have not inherited the promises made to fathers pertaining to the people of Israel, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. We are not Jacob.
You say that I relegate the OT prophecies concerning the millennial kingdom, since they relegate God's people, the Jews, into a second-class status, and is therefore unworthy of the Lord. But, surely, if the prophecies refer to something much more glorious than the Old Covenant, this surely is lifting the inferior prospects for God's people into something more glorious? This is very worthy of the Lord, and I find it difficult to understand how you can impute to the amillennial interpretation lack of "remorse or mercy". I find it difficult, also, to see how the re-establishment of an inferior order of things can be worthy of God or good for His people.
But your definition of "an inferior order of things" must not be correct concerning the prophecies concerning the Millennial reign. It is perhaps because you leave out the spiritual aspects of the natural things spoken about. What about the nation of Israel (when it was established according to God's commandments and when it followed after the Lord)? Do you not consider it to be "spiritual"? Was Moses spiritual? Was Elijah spiritual? Was David spiritual? On the other hand, perhaps you should consider the natural things of the NT church today (I speak of its fleshly side). Would you consider that to be spiritual? Do you consider the arguments over the Grecian widows in the book of Acts to be spiritual? Do you consider the contention between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark to be spiritual? Do you consider Peter's hypocrisy concerning eating with the Gentiles to be spiritual? You seem to consider every thing to do with the NT church to be "spiritual", while the saints of the Old Testament were all part of "an inferior order of things", which was unworthy of God. Is this not so? Or do I mis-understand you? Of course, we have something much better than they did (Hebrews 11.40), but that is not to say that they had nothing spiritual. I guess I am thinking of those who consider the NT church age alone to be "spiritual", while ignoring the glory of the presence of God in the OT times. I think of the Spirit of God upon the 70 elders in the day of Moses. I think of Saul prophesying under the anointing of the Spirit. I think of God dividing the Red sea. I think of water from the rock, manna from heaven. I think of the fire falling from heaven upon the sacrifice, when it was ordered right. I think of Isaiah's vision, of iron swimming, the dead being raised, healings, and other miraculous events in OT times. I find it rather myopic that members of the NT church think that they alone possess something spiritual, while others all possessed things "of an inferior order" (translated: "not spiritual but carnal"). Do you get my point? God can use any scenario or system He likes. We may not understand what He is doing, but if He is in it, it will be "spiritual" in some way.
You say that "I go to great lengths to demonstrate the expunction of Israel, etc etc". To this I plead guilty.
But in those following paragraphs ending with my "being forced to recognise the continued existence of a 'remnant'" you seem to think that I deny the continued existence of the nation. Far from being "forced to recognise a remnant" the remnant is a backbone of my doctrine, being mentioned three times in my section IV. . But it is a remnant of Jews who become Christians, as Paul makes clear. Paul's mention of a future repentance of Jews can only mean the continued recognition of the election of individuals from this people. Whether they are constituted into a nation is, biblically, irrelevant.
Please refer to my remarks concerning Paul's idea of a future repentance for "Jacob" (Romans 11.25-27). Certainly, a remnant of the Jews has been given grace to become a part (actually leaders) of the NT church. Paul said that the covenants pertain to the Jews or the Israelites (Romans 9.4). But the NT church members are an advance element of "priests and kings" (1 Peter 2.9) under Jewish remnant leadership, who are under the Lord. This was something that God desired of the nation of Israel (Exodus 19.6), but they could not obey Him in the Mosaic Covenant. Certainly, the resurrected NT church will lead the way in the Millennium, ruling and reigning with Jesus Christ (the 12 apostles sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, and no doubt the apostle Paul sitting upon a throne judging the Gentile nations under Christ, who Himself is seated on the throne of David in Jerusalem, as well as on the throne of God in the New Jerusalem).
A Jewish nation can only be "biblically irrelevant" if the prophecies of the Old Testament are discarded en masse. All that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, etc. have prophesied concerning a future restoration of the nation of Israel to their land, and to victory, etc. must be unceremoniously thrown out. The NT church has a role in that the NT church will return with the Lord Jesus Christ to rule and to reign during the Millennium with Him following the victory at Armageddon over the kingdom of the beast. There will also still be an unregenerate people living in the Millennium. The NT church will consist of a resurrected, glorified people in positions of leadership under Christ. Is it your contention that no unregenerate people will survive the coming of the Lord at Armageddon?
You say, "Paul's mention of a future repentance of Jews can only mean the continued recognition of the election of individuals (italics mine) from this people". This is not the thrust of Romans 11.26, as I stated, which speaks of "Jacob". "Jacob" does not mean individual Jews, but rather refers to the nation of Israel. I re-emphasize that this is why Paul uses the phrase "all Israel" in the same verse. He is speaking collectively of the "people", the "nation" (see Ezekiel 20.33-42; Revelation 12, Zechariah 12-14, and many other prophecies).
Obviously they are an ethnic group; and that is all the NT demands. Thank you, by the way for the genetic data on Jews. All such studies are of interest, particularly those demonstrating far distant human origins. But, as ethnicity has, according to my understanding of Scripture, little or no relevance, perhaps I should not have bothered to have included that feature in my paper.
To my way of thinking, it is important today because of those who attack the credentials of the Jews in modern Israel (which in itself is a fulfillment of prophecy in action). It is my understanding that DNA evidence shows that they (the present populace of Israel) are indeed mainly of Middle Eastern background. This does not include their lengthy genealogical records (representatives of all twelve tribes are accounted for and inhabit Israel today). Naturally, there has been intermarriage and a dilution of the gene pool, but, as you so correctly said, ethnicity is not all there is to being a Jew. We think of Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Moabitess, etc. But it is important in a prophetic sense because they are descendants of Abraham. While descent from Abraham is not so important in reference to the NT church, since the NT church acknowledges a spiritual descent through faith from Abraham, it is important in other areas of prophecy. This dual acknowledgment of descent from Abraham is what I believe preterists fail to recognize.
Oh, and regarding my reference to "Jewish roots". If you read me carefully, you will see that I do not deny our Jewish roots. What I do deny is their present cultural importance.
I certainly understand "cultural importance" in reference to the NT church, which is a separate entity in 1 Corinthians 10.32 (Jews, Gentiles, the church of God). However, no one who has studied Paul can honestly say that Paul did not put a difference (even after what he said about the irrelevance of race, gender, and ethnicity) in being an "Israelite" (although he knew that God was no respecter of persons), he never forgot the separate destiny of Israel (see, for example, Romans 9.1-5; Romans 11.1,2). I remember that Paul also said there was "neither male nor female" in Christ, but turned right around and taught separate roles for man and woman even in the church. Paul has to be carefully in these matters. He taught "no male or female in Christ", and then said that a wife could not speak out with questions in the assembly, and a woman could not teach or usurp authority over the man. Paul taught also neither Jew nor Gentile, but carefully continued to refer to Israelites as his brethren after the flesh, and continued to acknowledge their special destiny with God.
The separate destiny of Israel had no "coinage" in the NT church itself (the New Birth was no respecter of persons), where all were equal in God's eyes in the matter of salvation and common destiny (of the NT church). But Paul never lost sight of the identity of Israel and he never confused it with the NT church ( see Gal. 6.16, which is misinterpreted, notwithstanding). We see three groups: Israel, Gentiles, and the NT church.
Now coming to some principles. One of your texts which appears to have a suggestion of the possibility of a future Jewish kingdom is Acts 1:6-8. Whether Jesus gave it His "tacit acknowledgement" (as you state), must be determined from other Scripture.
"No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation" (II Peter 1:20). I believe it is valid to associate the disciples' question with the phrase, "the hope of Israel", used frequently in Acts. I hope that you believe in the principle of allowing obscure scriptures to be interpreted by clear scriptures.
Obviously, I do not see Acts 1.6,7 as an "obscure scripture", as you do. It is a relevant and a crucial passage a the beginning of the NT church, in concert with many passages concerning the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, and the promises made to the fathers. Jesus did not put forth the premise that you are championing, because He did not teach or believe it. He merely replied to the direct question of the apostles by stating that the times and seasons were "in the Father's power". It would have been a perfect time for Him to have enlightened His apostles that would indeed be no future kingdom restored to Israel, as they thought. They asked the question simply because that is what He had taught them.
So, concerning Paul's controversy with the Jews over his teaching concerning the hope of Israel, "for which sake I am accused" (26:7), and "now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers" (26:6), "because for the hope of Israel am I bound with this chain" (28:20), "unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain" (26:7). What, then, was this "hope of Israel"? A Jewish dominant, Jerusalem-centred, temple-focused, millennial kingdom? That was precisely what Paul's opponents were looking for. But what did Paul see as the hope of Israel?
If he believed what they did (Jerusalem-focused national dominance etc), how easy to get off their charges! But he could not say that, as he did not believe it. What he preached was worth his captivity, and even death. Says he, "of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question (23:6). "Believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead" (23:6). To Agrippa he says, "why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" (26:8). The death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and all that flowed from it was, and is, the only Gospel. His statements are definitive, and to suggest that there is another gospel for the Jews in the future is precisely that which Paul doubly anathematised in Gal.1:6-9.
Paul did not shy away from the promise of a restored kingdom with the glory of a Davidic throne. He said, "Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come" (Acts 26.7). The twelve tribes did not share your idea of "replacement theology". Nor did the apostle Paul for that matter. Would Paul lie concerning the hope of the twelve tribes? Would Paul tell Agrippa something that was not true? You are trying to tell me that the "twelve tribes of Israel" were hoping for a replacement theology, wherein their own hopes of a future kingdom of Israel (exactly what the apostles had asked Jesus in Acts 1.6,7) would be gone forever? Not likely.
In fact, Paul told Felix:
"...after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets" (Acts 24.14).
Does this sound like Paul has rejected the Millennial prophecies and the future restoration of the kingdom of Israel, along with the land, the throne of David, etc.? "All things which are written in the law and the prophets" (that would include the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40-47 even).
The babe in Christ will have noticed in the early chapters of Acts the emphasis that there is in the resurrection. Obviously, it was a powerful testimony to the validity of their message.
But the emphasis in the resurrection does not do away with the promises made to Israel, but rather facilitates it, since now there is a Son of David who can sit on the throne of David forever, and who can restore the kingdom to David, as was promised. Remember the Messiah was sent to the Jews. It was the Jews (not the Gentiles) who hoped for a Messiah.
And, although we know that it is a central truth of the Christian faith, and is incorporated into all the creeds, I really wonder if we fully understand the full significance of the death and resurrection of Christ. The bible student soon learns of Paul's view of the resurrection in Romans 1:1-6, its connection with baptism in chapter six, of its centrality in the gospel in chapter fifteen, his use of it in Philippians 3, and Peter's powerful use of it. He says
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God unto a salvation yet to be revealed in the last time. (I Pet.1:3-5).
Despite this "living hope" the future salvation and inheritance seem, for us, a long way off. We evangelicals, although prizing the doctrine of resurrection, make little of it.
I agree. But the resurrection of Christ is also a great comfort to the 12 tribes of Israel as Paul was trying to point out to king Agrippa. This cannot be denied either.
No doubt its apologetic value is not so powerful today, 2000 years after the event, but its significance in respect of our redemption is crucial, and is, thank God, preached as such. But it is equally clear that today there is a dimension that we miss.
That we miss this dimension is proved by your objection to my use of two scriptures that I must first rebut and then reinforce. For, when Peter preaches on the day of Pentecost, and directly connects the resurrection and enthronement of Christ with the oath of the Lord to David, that one should sit on his throne (Acts 2:22-36), you say "he [Nairne] chooses a couple of passages that he feels will vindicate his symbolical and allegorical interpretative method." You say that "David never understood that his earthly throne was actually a 'heavenly throne', and neither did Peter." This is wrong. The Scripture says,
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of Christ, ....This Jesus hath God raised up,... Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted...David saith...himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand....Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus...both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:30-36)
Despite your denial of the fact, the Scripture says clearly that David did know that God's oath concerning the occupation of his throne was not to his earthly seed, primarily, but to the Christ, to be given in resurrection. And Peter also, knowing this, uses it accordingly.
In the above remarks you are missing a critical point. The scripture says, "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his ((David's)) throne".
Christ (the glorified Man Jesus) will sit on David's throne (this is not speaking about a heavenly throne at all). Peter is quoting from Psalms. David is not talking about an earthly throne, but rather the throne of David (an earthly throne). The Jews were not looking for the Messiah to sit on an heavenly throne (although we know He indeed does in heaven), but the Jews were looking for Messiah to sit on the earthly throne of David. The fact that the Man to sit on the throne was resurrected and glorified has nothing to do with the fact that the throne of David is an earthly throne and occupied by king David at one time. It is God's throne in the sense that David was a servant of the throne and God gave him the kingdom and the throne.
Similarly, concerning James' use of the Amos 9:11-12 prophecy, in Acts 15:14ff., you say that my identification of the tabernacle of David as a picture of the new people of God which included Gentiles in the present age, was "a little bit more than James actually said," and that James "merely noted that the prophet Amos foresaw a day in which God would take a people out of the Gentiles 'for his name'". Let me put the Scripture in full below.
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (Acts 15:14-18)
James did not "merely note[d] that the prophet Amos foresaw a day in which God would take a people etc." The identification of David's tabernacle, with the Church was the whole thrust and reason for Amos quoting the Scripture. If he only wanted to acknowledge the Gentile ingathering, it would have been easy for James to use any of a score of Scriptures to note only that fact. But he did not.
You are, in effect, inadvertently putting words into James' mouth, and unwittingly delving into his thoughts and intents. James' purpose was to show the assembled Christian Jews that God predicted that one day He would take out of the Gentiles a people for His Name. Anymore more than that is speculation, I would think. Acts 15.14 gives the context, "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name". That is the purpose of quoting from Amos 9.11,12. To take out of the Gentiles, "a people for his name". The most that one could grant as being appropriate to this thought would be to identify "the tabernacle of David" with the resurrected human body of the Son of David, but certainly not with the NT church, which was only founded on the Day of Pentecost and was not "rebuilt"! But the central idea is the salvation of the Gentiles and not the NT church itself. James is addressing the issue of Gentiles being saved and not identifying the Tabernacle of David with the NT church.
He used Amos 9:11-12 to specifically identify the two things, and, after acknowledging God's work among the Gentiles he says,
"...to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, 'After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up; that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, etc."
This is not "merely adding". To "agree" means, according to my Oxford dictionary, "hold a similar opinion", "be in harmony" and "consent to" or "approve of". James deliberately selected this Scripture.
Why did James select it? He tells us - "and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up; that the residue of men might seek after the Lord...etc." The rebuilding of David's tabernacle in Christ through his death and resurrection was the very basis of the ingathering of the Gentiles.
Here, concerning the human body of Christ, the Son of David, we might find some agreement, but I nevertheless find it a little awkward in the use of such phrases as "fallen down", being "built again", and "set up". This type of transference is a little crude and untoward. The Tabernacle of David was well known among the Jews. It could have been that James saw the influx of Gentiles as being itself a harbinger of a re-establishment of the kingdom of David.
In the same way that not until Christ was in resurrection enthroned upon the only true antitype of David's throne, so the world wide redemptive call of the Gentiles could not be accomplished until the only true antitype of David's "house" was ready to be established.
There was no Jew present at Jerusalem who would understand "David's throne" to be an "anti-type". The throne of David has specific meanings for them. God's promises to David concerning David's throne were literal. Jesus was a literal Son of David (His genealogy is given in the Gospels), and in Luke 1.32, Jesus was promised "the throne of his father David" (not a heavenly throne), and that He would "reign over the house of Jacob forever". It is not the "throne of God the Father", but rather "the throne of David" (His earthly forefather).
The use of the imagery of David's "tabernacle" is interesting. Why not the "tabernacle in the "wilderness", or "Solomon's temple"? The answer is, I believe, that whilst these two institutions incorporated Aaronic priesthood and Mosaic sacrifices, David's tabernacle had neither. It was the place of God's dwelling, worship, music and praise, with Levites only.
The differentiation you point out may be correct. Animal sacrifices, however, were made before the ark, while it temporarily resided in "the Tabernacle or Tent of David":
1 Chron. 16.1 "So they brought the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it: and they offered burnt sacrifices and peace offerings before God".
1 Chron. 16.4 "And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel".
How fitting a type of the people of God under the New Covenant "in whom [Christ] all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph.2:21-22). James' selection was very appropriate.
But it is not good to fail to consider the context of Amos 9.11,12. It concerns a restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Look at Amos 9.14, "And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them". Amos 9.15 "And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God".
This goes back to the promise of the land, which is to be possessed "forever" by the people of Israel. And here we get another confirmation that "forever" means "forever". God says that He will lift the captivity of His people Israel, and that they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them, plant vineyards, and make gardens. God will plant them upon their land, and "they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them". The phrase "no more" is fairly conclusive.
I agree, there is no "new concept" here that you charge me with. The Scripture clearly teaches that David had no such notion with which you saddle him, that he was to have a descendant to occupy an millennial earthly throne in Jerusalem. I find it strange that you would even think otherwise. David may not have understood the particular term "millennial", but obviously he did not think that his earthly throne would one day be glorified and changed into a heavenly throne.
On the contrary, that is exactly what David believed and understood the Lord to be saying.
In God's promises He made to David, He included a promise concerning the people of Israel:
2 Sam. 7.10 "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime." Again, the land is to be a possession of Israel so that they will not have to move anymore.
2 Sam. 7.16 "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever".
Psalms 89.29 "His (David's) seed also will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven".
Psalms 89.34 "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips".
Psalms 89.35 "Once have I sowrn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David".
Psalms 89.36 "His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me."
Psalms 89.37 "It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah".
The NIV lets us know that Psalms 89.37 is not elevating the throne of David up into Heaven. It reads: "It will established forever like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky".
As I mentioned, the apostles, who had sat under the teaching of Jesus for at least three years or better, understood that a kingdom would be established for Israel (Acts 1.6,7). They would not have understood "the throne of David" to be anything other than the earthly throne of their great ancestor.
Let me quote in full from Acts 2 where Peter has just preached concerning the resurrection of Christ,
For David speaketh concerning him, ......because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; Thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up,..." (Acts 2:25-32).
Here you make a fatal error of not making proper comparisons. You want to also resurrect and glorify the earthly throne of David, when all the passage shows is that the descendant of David was resurrected and glorified-not the throne. The throne was not "resurrected and glorified". How, then, will the resurrected Jesus sit on the "throne of David"? Obviously, by returning to earth as He promised.
If David saw when writing Psalm 116 I think you mean a different Psalm here. Probably Psalms 132.11, Psalms 89.3,4, but I understand your argument here. that Peter used, that it was in the resurrected Christ who was to occupy his promised throne, (Editors comment: Alan meant Psalm 16:8ff )
I think we need to understand that David did not understand what was revealed to Peter and consequently to us today. Psalms 132.11 merely says, "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne". There is nothing in this passage alone to indicate to David at the time that there would be a resurrection, but simply that God would set "of the fruit of thy body upon thy throne".
In Psalms 89.3,4 God affirms that He has made a covenant with David:
"Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah". This says nothing of a resurrection of the dead, but rather is an assurance of a continuing earthly throne and seed of David (established to be a ruler forever).
It is in Acts 2.31 that Peter ties in the resurrection by quoting from Psalms 16.9,10 "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope". "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption". It is this passage that Peter says attests to the prophesied resurrection of Christ. It is Peter who has the revelation that these prophetic passages refer to the resurrection of Christ.
None of this, however, means that Peter was saying that Christ was currently (at that time) sitting on the throne of David. He was raised up, Peter said, "to (in order to) sit on his (David's) throne" Acts 2.30). Peter is merely demonstrating to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah), who would sit on the throne of David. He was not told by Jesus that He (Jesus) was on the throne of David at that time (or any time soon), but, in answer to the apostles' question concerning the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, Jesus merely answered (as stated) that the times and the seasons were in the Father's power.
how can you say when James uses Amos 9, about the tabernacle of David being fulfilled in the then ingathering of Gentiles, that "[I] symbolised the 'tabernacle of David' to be something that James did not intend, giving an explanation that James did not give."?
I have pointed out why I did not consider the "Tabernacle of David" to refer to the NT church as you opined.
Perhaps I can throw in one other scripture for good measure.
And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled same unto us their children, in the hath raised up Jesus ; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David (Acts 13:32-34).
So, the sure mercies of David are equated, no less, with the resurrection of Christ, which event enabled the promises of salvation to be offered to Jew and Gentile alike (vv 38-39).
There seems to be a vast gulf of difference in understanding and interpretation in this. It seems that you consider the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the gift of salvation to "Jew and Gentile alike" to sweep aside all of the prophecies made through the Holy Ghost concerning the promises made to the fathers concerning the future glory of the kingdom of Israel, the possession of the land, and everything that pertains to the nation of Israel. You do not give much in the way of scripture to substantiate this. It seems that you cannot discriminate between salvation and specific promises made to the fathers and the Jews concerning the future destiny of Jacob (the 12 twelve tribes). I also glory in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the establishment of the NT church and the grace and the glory that is granted to us Gentiles through the forbearance and mercy of God.
In the same Scripture (v. 27) we have the familiar verses which tells us that the Jews "in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled...etc " Alas, although you know the Lord and love him, it appears that dispensationalists also as little understand the true thrust of these prophetic Scriptures.
I certainly understand the thrust of salvation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the establishment of the NT church and what that means to both Jew and Gentile, but prophecies concerning salvation do not automatically thrust out, or cancel out, the prophecies made concerning the nation of Israel and the coming millennial reign of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. This is the critical issue that you either have not been able to see or to explain. Unless you can show that the numerous prophecies concerning the destiny of Israel (which is, after all, the subject that was decided upon), then you have not established your thesis.
So, despite your objection, I do not believe that anyone who accepts the authority of the NT in interpreting the OT could disagree with my words "the apostles saw the 'tabernacle of David' as a picture of the new people of God".
The very heart of James' interpretation of Amos 9.11,12 prohibits this interpretation that you have made. James was not trying to give a "picture of the new people of God", but rather he was attempting to explain to the Jews that prophetic scripture foresaw the inclusion of Gentiles among God's people (the people of Israel, the Jews). Those being saved were Jews, but God also surprisingly allowed Gentiles to be saved. It is certainly not "replacement theology" at all.
But the source of our authority is, I guess, the nub of our difference.
Dealing with those two Scriptures (Acts 2 and Acts 15) lays the foundation of my charge that we evangelicals in viewing the resurrection only in its apologetic and redemptive aspects are missing an equally important feature to the Church of God which I have described above. As I sought to show briefly in section III. of my paper headed Christ - the Termination of OT Redemptive Prophecy, and is demonstrated by the two sample Scriptures referred to above, the only true significance of the "house of David", the "throne of David", in short, is that Israel's, or even David's significance, is that they were to be the vehicle from which Christ came.
My good friend, it is this idea of the first coming of Christ being so conclusive in the sense of "fulfilling all prophecy" and everything culminating in the idea of the establishment of the NT church, which I find to be so shortsighted and neglectful of much of OT prophecy and not indicative at all of the understanding revealed to us by Jesus Christ and the apostles in the NT. I see that much was fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, but I do not see the destruction of the other promises made to the fathers (excluding the Promise of the Father, the descent of the Holy Spirit), the end of the nation of Israel's destiny, and the final endtime (worldwide cataclysmic events) preceding the glorious return of Jesus Christ. To my way of thinking, preterists, and those who embrace this interpretation, have confused the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the final apocalyptic events of Armageddon, preceding the glorious Day of The Lord, the Millennium, wherein the returned Christ will rule and reign from the throne of David in Jerusalem over the nations with a rod of iron.
This is not to say that I do not recognize the superiority of the NT church to anything else that has come before it (as you so ably demonstrate below).
May I remind you of the "Servant" prophecies in Isaiah, how that sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between the "Servant" and the nation of Israel? The resolution of this problem is found in the "suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53. May I remind you also that the only true significance of the "manna", the "water", the "light" was in their antitypical fulfilment in Christ? I am sure you do not need reminding that Peter in his first epistle tells his readers that they are an "holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices", that we are an elect race, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy (vv.9-10).
All these designations, lifted out of the OT, were Israel's. In the light of the testimony of these Scriptures from Acts and Peter, to teach the re-emergence of Israel to give substance again to what are described as "shadows" (Col.2:17, Heb.8:5, 10:1) is indefensible.
I would certainly agree with you that if Israel were, as a nation, were to just "re-emerge" to "give substance again to what are described as 'shadows'," that this would not be good. It is difficult for me to imagine, however, that if Christ returns at Armageddon, as prophesied in the prophets and through the apostles, and sets up His kingdom on earth at Jerusalem, as Daniel 2 shows, that it would simply be a "re-emergence" of the substance of the "shadows". That may be a "characterization" of it that is unworthy and ill-informed.
When we, for example, partake of holy communion (the bread and the wine), have we gone beyond the "shadow"? We are to continue to do this until the Lord returns, showing His death. When we are immersed in water (as the scriptures teach), is not the water a "shadow"? And, if per chance, we should wash one another's feet in a ritual encouraged to us by the Lord Himself, is that not a "shadow"?
That there will be another "age" to come, the Lord Himself makes quite clear. When the Lord returns to earth, we expect that He shall indeed reign over the earth (especially since the first Adam forfeited his assigned dominion and failed in the task). Surely, we do not subscribe to the "kingdom now" teaching, or "dominion theology", which holds that the NT church will conquer the world for Christ and then He will return to claim the prize. Every period of time in which man has been given commandments by God has resulted in the failure of the majority of mankind to obey God. Why should we believe that mankind, as a whole, will acept the ministry of the NT church, so that all is "conquered" and the Lord returns to an already conquered planet? That is not the teaching of apocalyptic prophecy.
I know that you would see the OT prophecies you have quoted as ground for defence, but, although I shall look at them later, I believe that this dispensational use of the OT against the NT is inadmissible.
Of course, I do not see it as a "dispensational use of the OT against the NT". I have always been taught by my dispensational elders that the NT is a fulfillment of the OT, but I never dreamed that one day I would have to defend against those who taught that the NT did away with the prophecies of the OT (I realize that those who feel this way also use the term "fulfilled", but they actually mean "did away with"). Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5.17,18).
It is possible to "destroy" the meaning of passages through the overuse of allegorization. Jesus said, "I am come to...fulfill (the law and the prophets)". He literally fulfilled all of the passages pertaining to His first coming (but not all of the passages pertaining to His first coming). He came the first time to suffer as a servant, but He is coming back the second time to rule and to reign. There are many passages in the law and in the prophets, and in the psalms, that await fulfilling when He comes again. One has to rightly divide the word of truth. Preterists, for example, attempt to place the fulfillment of much prophecy in the first century, that has not yet been fulfilled with His second Advent. The Bible has much to say about His second coming and His millennial reign upon the earth.
But to round off this section. What are we overlooking? We overlook the understanding that all things, and Israel's purpose in particular, centres down upon Christ and which gives content to Eph.1:10, which, though familiar to evangelicals, we find difficult to fill out.
That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and on earth...
The concept that the whole of Israel in its ordinances, temple system, and very existence, all pointed to, and found its total fulfilment
This phrase "total fulfillment" I find to not satisfy the numerous prohecies concerning the future destiny of Israel during the millennial reign. Of course, Christ grants total fulfillment in the area of salvation to us in the NT church age (an age which has followed the time and period of the Law), but in the age to come, in the millennial reign, there are many things that Christ will do when He returns to earth.
in Christ and the new Israel combining Jew and Gentile in one body
Of course, there is no such biblical phrase as "the new Israel". The only reference in the NT which might even seem to confuse the nation of Israel and the NT church is Galatians 6.16, a remark by our beloved Paul, "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, AND upon the Israel of God". The conjunctive at the end of the sentence separates the phrase "Israel of God" from the church. In many other places, Paul makes it clear that Israel continued to exist even after the inauguration of the NT church (see Rom. 9.3,4; Rom. 10.32; Rom. 11.1-7; 25-30). The denial of the existence of Israel as a nation, and the replacement of Israel with the NT church, is simply unscriptural.
, so clearly taught in the NT, is surely Christ exalting. As I said in my paper, though not explaining it in such detail, "In postulating a millennial kingdom, with Jewish dominance, sacrifices, temple, priesthood, etc., there is a subtle shift of emphasis away from Christ's pre-eminence....."
This is a strange conclusion, in my opinion. Is Christ more "pre-eminent" among the Gentiles (as opposed to the Jews)? Did the establishment of the NT church do away with the entire history of God's attention, love, promises, and prophetic statements, concerning "Jacob"? I actually see in this (although I do not wish to imply that you personally are "anti-semitic", since I do not perceive that in your attitude or writing) an "anti-semitic" stance. Why do we have this polarization? I do not understand it. On the one hand, we see the hyper-Jewish stand of the "messianic Jewish" Christians, while on the other hand, those who wish to simply see Israel disappear and all of the promises made to Jacob and the twelve tribes appropriated by the NT church (or discarded if they do not fit).
As the Scripture says,
"...unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Eph.3:21). And to the Colossians "...he is the head of the body, the church: ....that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." (Col.1:18).
I believe we are now in a position to understand what Jesus may have meant in response to the disciples question about restoring the kingdom to Israel. He clearly cannot be understood to mean what would be a contradiction of the NT. But we can parallel his reply with that of rebuilding the fallen down tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16) by the ingathering of the Gentiles. In that way the kingdom was restored to the true "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16). Jesus did not give "tacit encouragement" to the faulty understanding of the disciples - he approved what they would eventually understand to be true. If you ask why he avoided precision as to when this was to take place, may I suggest that "times and seasons, in the sense of precise dating, are an incorrect focus. Jesus directed them to wait for God manifesting himself to them in a way that would change their whole experience. I Thess.5:1 is to similar effect.
You refer to my use of Matthew 23:38 "your house is left unto you desolate" as spoken to the nation, and then say that I ignore the following verse "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he which cometh in the name of the Lord," which, you say, must also be spoken to the nation, thus proving a national return and restoration. Certainly, the invitation is to the whole nation. But what is the response? Surely the OT is full of God's appeal to Israel to repent and return with associated promises? Yet what was the invariable result? If any repented and returned, it was only a remnant. The same with the Gospel. So, as a principle, the idea that a national invitation secures a national response and therefore statehood, does not follow. If the bulk of the nation had responded, they would have constituted the Church of God, anyway.
The only problem with this "solution" (in attempting to avoid any future national revival or restoration of the kingdom of Israel) is one small word: UNTIL. Jesus did not say in Matthew 23.39 that Jerusalem would never ever cease to be desolation, but He said, "Ye shall not see me henceforth, TILL (UNTIL) ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord".
Zechariah 12-14, properly interpreted, demonstrates that Israel shall return to the Lord in the day that the Lord comes again. Zechariah 12 teaches that Jerusalem will become "a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem". Jerusalme shall become "a burdensome stone for all people" (not just the Roman armies of 70 AD), "though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it" (vs. 3).
And, contrary to the prophetic interpretation of the preterists, there is a revival among the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem in that day.
The LORD "shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah" (vs. 7). This did not happen in 66-70 AD.
"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem ((unlike 70 AD)); he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them" (vs. 8). "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (vs. 9). This did not happen in 70 AD! This is a future prophecy to be fulfilled!
"And ((subsequently, not dropping back to 33 AD!)) I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (vs. 10). A great national day of repentance and acceptance of the Messiah.
Zechariah 13 goes on to describe this future turning of Jacob to God (just as Paul has prophesied in Romans 11, when God turns back to Jacob and "all Israel" shall be saved).
There will be a "fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness" (vs. 1). This cannot be speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, since we have seen that it is associated with a battle for Jerusalem that is defended by the Lord Himself ((and this did not happen in 33 AD or even in 70 AD)).
With the exception of a passage in Zechariah 13.7, which is used by Christ to demonstrate His betrayal, this entire section of Zech. 12-14 demonstrates an endtime crisis against Jerusalem, which results in a national revival and the return of the Lord my God with all the saints (at Armageddon). What is significant in millennial prophecy is that it is following the return of the Lord that we see the events of Zechariah 14.9-21 described. This is what amillennialists and preterists reject because it does not fit their scheme.
While we are in Matthew's gospel, you say, "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." because of the connecting "immediately".
I agree that the whole section vv. 15-31 is contiguous in time with the later section. But do we not have a case here of "the pot calling the kettle 'black'"? For you, yourself separate vv.1-14 from the rest of the chapter. I agree with you that this chapter of Matthew is very amenable to interpretative contention (since I see that you struggle with it as everyone does it seems).
Obviously, none of us have all of the keys. But from a dispensational, pre-millennial viewpoint, let me give my understanding and then make a few remarks about what you have said:
The disciples asked Jesus three questions in Matthew 24.3: (1) When shall all these things be? (2) What shall be the sign of thy coming? (3) (What shall be the sign) of the end of the age?
The "end of the age" is, of course, the end of age which was to follow the Mosaic age, the age in which the Lord would come back to earth.
The first question was a general question concerning a time frame, and had reference to His remarks about the destruction of the Temple, but did not specifically address that. We know from Acts 1.6,7 that Jesus would not give a specific answer concerning "when shall these things be", because "the times and the seasons" are in the Father's power.
The rest of the chapter, then, in answer to their questions, addresses the coming of the Lord and the end of the age (which was to be initiated with the Day of Pentecost, and would run from the Day of Pentecost roughly to the return of the Lord).
I believe that Matthew 24.4-14 covers the period of the church age (that is from Pentecost to the Rapture or catching up of the church). During this period, the Gospel is to be preached to the whole world, to every nation. The persecution and tribulation given the NT church is an ongoing thing and not the special time of three and one-half years prophesied by Daniel and later in this chapter by Jesus. It is my own belief that the first four seals of Rev. 6 can be matched to the period in Matt. 24.4-14.
The church age ends with the completion of the mission of the church seen in Matthew 24.14. This is what Jesus means when He says "a witness unto all nations ((not just the ancient world)); and then the end shall come. This "end" is the "end of the church age". That is why He says so here in verse 14.
With the NT church lifted out of the world, having accomplished it mission (the "fulness of the Gentiles", Romans 11.25), God will turn His attention once again to Israel and Jerusalem.
After all, Jesus is speaking to Jews when He makes this speech. The church had not yet been established at the point of His speech to His Jewish disciples. Of course, He includes the NT church in vss. 4-14 (since it will be established on the Day of Pentecost, although it does not yet exist at that time).
Matt. 24.15-28 speaks of the Time of Jacob's Trouble (Jer. 30.7, Dan. 9-12, Rev. 11,13), the Great Tribulation period of three and one-half years (1260 days or 42 months). It opens up with the placement of the Abomination of Desolation in the holy place in Jerusalem. Jesus points His remarks to those who live in Jerusalem and Judea. They are the victims of the Great Tribulation. Jews are not come take time to get anything out of their houses but to immediately flee when they learn that the Abomination stands in the holy place. They are to leave houses, places of work in the fields immediately, and pray that they do not have to flee in the winter or on a sabbath day. This will be an unparalleled period of horror and devastation, not since in the entire history of the world. It is not Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus makes that clear. It cannot be the Roman assault of 66-70 AD, since even the Holocaust of WW II (6 million dead) was far worse than that. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ did not immediately return after that war.
Matt. 24.28 does not pertain to Roman "eagles". The word in the Greek mean "vultures"
Jesus makes it clear that (vs. 29) "immediately after" the tribulation of those days, cosmic calamities and signs shall be evident: the sun darkened, the moon not givin her light, and the stars (meteors or comets apparently) falling from heaven, and "the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". AND THEN "shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven". This is the coming of the Lord back to earth. At this point, "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn", and "they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". This did not happen in 70 AD. There is absolutely no historical confirmation that any of these great things happened. If the Lord did not come back in 70 AD, then the Great Tribulation did not occur between the years of 66-70 AD either.
And so the chronological grouping of Matthew 24 shoud be: vss 4-14, the church age; vss 15-28 the subsequent Great Tribulation of three and one-half years; vs.29-31, the end of the age, with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus has given the NT church nearly 19 centuries to reach the entire nations of the world with the Gospel. When the mission of the church is finished, there will be no further need for the Bride to remain on earth, and her Bridegroom will come for her. Her harvest will be "the fulness of the gentiles" (Rom. 11.25). She will not then turn to Jacob, but she will be lifted out of here. It is the Lord Himself who will turn to Jacob and deal with the nation of Israel.
Daniel 7-12, Matthew 24.15-28, Revelation 11,12 make it abundantly clear that the victims or the participants in the Great Tribulation will be Jews. Daniel 12.1 identifies them as "thy people", Daniel's people (Jews), Jesus identifies them as inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea (Jews), and Revelation 12 identifies the "Woman", who is persecuted by the dragon in the Great Tribulation, as "the Woman who brought forth the Man child (Jesus)". Since the NT church did not bring forth Jesus (but rather He founded the NT church), the "Woman" in Revelation 12 who undergoes the Great Tribulation is the Jewish nation (represented by the true Israel, or those Jews who are spiritual and love the Lord). Salvation in the Great Tribulation is not like it is in the church age. Moreover, the spirit of the Two Witnesses (two prophets) in the Great Tribulation are very much unlike apostles and disciples of the NT church. Apostles do not call fire down from heaven, do not bring plagues upon people, and routinely turn water into blood. Those are characteristics that belong to Jewish prophets and not NT apostles (Luke 9.55).
One thing for sure. When the Great Tribulation is completed (the sixth seal in Rev. 6 is opened, the fifth seal referring to the Great Tribulation, and, as I said, the first four seals of Rev. 6 referring to the church age), then the way is open for the final events leading up to the actual return of the Lord (the unmixed wrath of God, the gathering together of the nations to Armageddon, and then the glorious Advent).
Verse fifteen begins "When you therefore see.etc". "Therefore" clearly has reference to what has gone before - it is a conjunction - "a word used to connect". If the first fourteen verses apply to events up to and including the destruction of the temple (vv.1-2), then vv.15ff. are also in the same time period.
But I believe we can see that in vss 4-14, Jesus does not mention the destruction of the Temple, and we also know that the church has been preaching the Gospel to all nations during the last 19 centuries. In verse 14, Jesus says the end will come following the completion of the mission of preaching the gospel to every nation. Then comes vss 15-28, the period of the Great Tribulation.
If you compare the gospels you will see that Matthew's "abomination of desolation" is parallel with and identical to Luke's "when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh" (21:20). You cannot siphon this off to the end times.
There are some marked differences between the passage in Luke 21.20-24 and Matthew 24.15-28. Let me point them out: (1) Two entirely different Greek words describe the "persecution" of these times. In Matt. 24.21, Jesus describes the three and one-half year period as "tribulation" (thlipsis); while in Luke 21.20-24, in Luke 21.23, Jesus is reported as describing the assault of the armies on Jerusalem as a time of "great distress" (anangke), a different word entirely; (2) The Great Tribulation of Matthew 24.15-28 ends with the immediate coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, while the assault upon Jerusalem with armies in Luke 21.20-24 ends with the Jews falling by the edge of the sword and being led away "captive into all nations", and Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21.24). This shows two entirely different scenarios. Thus Luke, in Luke 21.20-24 has shown the 66-70 AD assault upon Jerusalem with the worldwide dispersion of the Jews. Luke completely skips the Great Tribulation period here between vss. 24 and 25 (a 2000 year "gap"), and goes to the immediate endtime events at the return of the Lord in Luke 21.25-27. The passage in Luke 21.25-27 matches Matthew 24.29-31, but Luke 21.20-24 does not match Mathew 24.15-28 for the reasons I have stated. For if it did, it would mean that Jesus came back in 70 AD immediately following the Great Tribulation. Moreover, history affirms that Luke 21.20-24 because it reports the dispersion of the Jews, who were taken captive following the triumph of the armies of Titus. They were indeed dispersed abroad and Jerusalem has been trodden down of the Gentiles, as Jesus said, until 1967, when Israel marched into the old city and raised up the star of David.
What then do I make of the "immediately" of verse 15, which, you say, "must include the cataclysmic events surrounding the return of the Lord Jesus Christ from on high." And here I note that you quote Isa.13:10 [Babylon] and Isa.34.4 [Edom] which also give us imagery of cataclysmic events in the heavens. I can quote some more - Amos 8:9 (Samaria) and Ezek.32:7-8 (Egypt). But in NONE of these instances did any events take place in the heavens, cataclysmic or otherwise. If it had, there would have been evidence, and there is none. This is not an argument from silence, for, if there had been these events in the heavens, history would have recorded it. Your slavery to a literal interpretation causes you to quote the verses as if to prove that these events in the heavens have to take place literally at the second coming of Christ!
I certainly am not ashamed to believe that, nor do I consider my adherence to the truth of the word of God to be "slavery". The "argument from silence is yours", since for you to advocate that Isaiah 13.9,10 to have been fulfilled, you must show historically that "the day of the LORD" (which Peter still speaks of in 2 Peter 3.10-12 as not having been fulfilled in the first century) was fulfilled in Isaiah's day, and that "the sinners were destroyed out of (the land)", and "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof" (did not) give their light, and "the sun (was) darkened", and "the moon (did not) cause her light to shine", and, in verse 11, that God (punished) "the world for their evil".
And, in Isaiah 34.4, "And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll, and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree". This was the "indignation of the LORD" "upon all nations" (not just Edom) (Isaiah 34.2). This prophecy has not been fulfilled.
The apostle John saw this in his vision Rev. 6.12-15:
"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;"
"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."
"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places". -Rev. 6.12-14.
Compare this with the prophecy of Isaiah 34.4. You will see that John is referring to that same prophecy in 96 AD! Hundreds of years after you interpret it to apply to Edom only. Years ago I learned a principle of prophecy that works well. Prophecies are sometimes like the headlights on a car. They have a low beam and a high beam. They may have a near application, but also have a long range application. It is obvious, however, that the apostle John used Isaiah 34.4 and saw it as applying to the future endtime judgments coming on the earth.
And, of course, since apparently you similarly interpret the book of Revelation, does not this, along with all the literally interpreted language which is figurative, create the nonsense with which you charge me? For, from Gen.1:14-16 we are told that the heavenly bodies are spoken of as "signs" which "govern" the world, and throughout Scripture, we are to understand this imagery as depicting the fall of nations. Matt.24:25-26 is not an exception. It is therefore totally appropriate to use it for the demise of Israel in 70 AD. This is not "spiritualising". It is recognising language that is figurative.
In principle, as above, I might partly agree with this, although, as I have pointed out, Matthew 24 does not accurately describe the events of 66-70 AD, while Luke 21.20-24 does.
How about the "coming on clouds" of Matt.24:27? It also is prophetic imagery. We read repeatedly in the OT of the "coming of the Lord". It signified the coming of the Lord either for the salvation of his people, or the judgement of his foes. Reference to Ps.104:3, Isa.19:1, Nah.1:3, will show that in no case did the Lord appear personally on a cloud for either of these purposes.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the scripture denies it. In Acts 1.9 says, "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he ws taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight". Acts 1.10 "And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel". Acts 1.11 "Which also said, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven".
The manner in which He returns will be in real clouds of heaven, according to the angels and the apostles in the above passage (Acts 1.9-11). Not figurative clouds (the so-called "biblical imagery") but real clouds. His feet left the mount of Olives (terra firma) and when He comes back at Armageddon, His feet shall touch down upon the mount of Olives (terra firma) (Zechariah 14.4, and Acts 1.9-11).
That Jesus, in saying to his enemies in Matt.26:64 that they personally would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds indicated as clearly as any words can that he was referring to events within that generation - "this generation" (24:32).
The interpretation of this passage in Matthew 26.64 should follow the explanation of the angels in Acts 1.9-11. His coming in the clouds will be as they saw Him go up in the clouds (real clouds). The word "hereafter" used in Matt. 26.64 has no particular reference to the first century. It could be any century after that time in which it was spoken. Since we believe in survival of consciousness after death, we must believe that it is possible for the high priest to be able to see the Lord when He comes back. We also know that every tribe on earth shall mourn and that every eye shall see Him when He comes. That did not happen in the first century, or God would have let us know that it did. Moreover, if the Lord came in the first century and caught up the NT church (which is to happen at or near His return), then why are we even here claiming to be in a NT church that was caught up to heaven 1900 years ago? Did He found another NT church after He caught up the first NT church after only about 40 years of activity? I think the answers are self-evident. I cannot see how anyone can hold opinions which inculcate such conclusions. Perhaps I am missing something here.
Matthew 24 concerns events mainly up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem. We could also equate it with the picture given in Daniel 7:13-14, of Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:9, Mark 16:19). In either event, these pictures are nothing to do with events thousands of years in the future.
The events of Matthew 24 considered the answers to three questions (see above): (1) When shall these things be? (2) What is the sign of thy coming? (3) What is the sign of the end of the age?
Are you willing to contend that all three of these questions were successfully answered by events in the first century?
Matthew 24 actually says nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus only predicted the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24.2. Actually, if my history is correct, a part of the wall of the second Temple still stands (the Wailing Wall), and thus the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24.2 has not yet been completely fulfilled.
Despite dispensational teaching that "generation" means "race" (i.e. Jesus is referring to the Jews of the end-times), it does not. It is used in the sense of "race" in secular literature, but in every gospel use of the term it meant that present generation, and its biblical setting is our yardstick of interpretation. Why should Matthew 24:30 be an exception to this rule? Read correctly, the Great Tribulation to which you refer, is past, and relates to the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Surely, you have not inducted the traitor and Roman sychophant, Josephus and his writings, into your canon of scripture? It is well known that his writings have been interpolated by Catholic writers.
It is doubtful that Josephus' report of 1,250,000 Jews died in the Roman assault upon Jerusalem (his figures are known to be highly inflated). Even this inflated figure pales in comparison to the nearly 6,000,000 Jews who died in the Holocaust of WW II (as stated), and in the persecution of Stalin in Russia. Jesus and Gabriel the angel (in Daniel 12) stated that the Great Tribulation would be so horrible that nothing in the history of the nations of the world could compare to it, and if He would not cut it short, "no flesh should be saved" (Matt. 24.22).
I find the understanding of the chapter as a whole, set in the first century, is cohesive and honours the time constraints set by our Lord. Understood so, the preterist interpretation does not produce, as you say, "fly[ing] off into the realms of biblical imagery and fanciful interpretations..." This is simply a case of recognising a literary genre in the Scriptures.
To fail to do so is the way into fanciful interpretation; doubly so when the Book of Revelation is so interpreted.
On a theme similar to that of the last paragraph - the second coming, one may ask, "what about verse 30 of Matthew 24"? For generations we have been habituated into thinking of this as referring to the second coming of Christ. Influenced by such thinking the translators of modern versions (e.g. NASB and NIV) put it, "and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. This is a poor translation; the KJV is better " ...then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven." Notice two things. Firstly, the realm of the sign is not the "sky", it is "heaven".
The problem with this interpretation of Matthew 24.30 is that it does violence to many other companion passages pertaining to the coming of the Son of man, which would not lend themselves to this unorthodox interpretation. Moreover, how do all "the tribes of the earth mourn" when they see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"?
Secondly, it is not the sign that is in heaven, but the Son of Man who is in heaven.
This seems a bit "convoluted" to me. Where is the sign then? If it does not signify the actual coming of the Son of man, then why does Jesus say, "AND (consequential connective) then shall all tribes of the earth mourn, AND they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven ((same word as "heaven" previously used in the verse)) with power and great glory".
The meaning is simply that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the dispersion of Israel, was to be the sign that, as prophesied, Christ is now enthroned in heaven, ruling universally, and taking vengeance upon his inveterately rebellious enemies, that he had removed from them the Kingdom, and given it to those who would produce the expected fruits.
What kingdom did the poor enslaved Jews have under the heel of Roman domination to lose at that point? The kingdom of God came in the Spirit at the Day of Pentecost in 33 AD. Do you mean the Jews kept the kingdom for about 37 more years?
To remove one last thing, I trust, which would be a stumbling block to you, I refer to the gathering of the elect in verse 31. This has nothing to do with the Rapture. The Greek term translated "angels" often means "messengers" (cf. James 2:25).
Often the word means "preachers of the gospel" (see Matt.10:10; Luke 7:24, 9:52; Rev.1-3). So, in the context of Matthew 24 there is every reason to believe that reference is being made to world-wide evangelism. The word "gather" is significant. It means literally "to synagogue". The sense is that with the destruction of the Temple and the old Covenant system, the Lord sends out his messengers to gather his elect into his new synagogue.
One of the many problems with this allegorical interpretation is that it implies a change in the method and mode of world wide evangelism. They were gathered by angels in verse 31 "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (vs. 29)?
I understand the dual meaning of aggelos, and do not disagree (also, Revelation 2,3), but there is a problem in using a human angel here: the "gathering" is from one end of heaven to the other". In verse 30, you wanted "heaven" to mean "heaven" and not "sky" (the first heaven), and I assumed you wanted to interpret "clouds of heaven" in verse 30 allegorically (but not the first "heaven" in verse 30). But in verse 31, you want the "angels" to be human beings, who gather the elect from one end of "heaven" to the other. Will this be in an allegorical sense, or will this be: the "sky" or "heaven"? I cannot see this type of allegorical interpretation as being "cohesive" at all. That is why a common rule is much better: a literal interpretation always makes good sense, unless it makes "nonsense".
I find this unified understanding satisfyingly cohesive, and Christ exalting. I do not so find the arbitrary dividing up Matthew 24.
The questions posed in Matthew 24.3 require a long chronological period: (1) the church age 33 AD-present time, (2) the Great Tribulation, a brief period of three and one-half years following the church age, and (3) the coming of the Lord, a very brief time following the end of the Great Tribulation. I do not see any lack of cohesiveness in such a sequential interpretation. It is obvious that the church age continues today, since the church still continues on earth. It follows quite simply, then, that the Great Tribulation and the coming of the Lord remain to be accomplished.
And to teach an end time drama based on the literal interpretation of certain OT prophetic chapters, whilst either not understanding, or rejecting well accredited principles of interpreting prophetic imagery is, I believe, a by-path meadow to say the least.
I believe the phrase "well accredited principle of interpreting prophetic imagery" is open to question and discussion.
The time has come for me to demonstrate what, I believe, is the biblical way to understand the prophetic scriptures you quote at length under the heading "God promises to bring Israel back into their own land and establish a New Covenant with Israel."
Ezekiel 11:17-19. You quote these verses and say, "...this prophetic passage is connected with the acceptance of the Covenant, and the return to the land from a world-wide dispersion. It could not have been the return from Babylon. At this point in time, the world-wide 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."
You infer that the majority of the nation should be in the land, and accept the New Covenant. But have you not read on from verse 21?
We might to discuss the merits of using the word "majority" in any required sense. My main concern is to show that there is a national destiny for Israel. I would wonder at what point one would make a head count and consider the people a "majority" or a "remnant"? The word "remnant" means "a small, surviving group".
Ezekiel 11.20 says, "and they shall be my people, and I will be their God".
The verses say,
But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their heads, saith the Lord God.
So the return is not total. Does it not suggest that here we have the familiar OT (and NT) theme of the "remnant" returning? It is your scheme, not this Scripture that requires them as a majority in the land, to accept the New Covenant 2000 years and more later.
I am only speaking of a national revival, and the return of Israel as a people (a cohesive nation) into the land. The words "remnant" and "majority" are relative terms, which depend upon adjustable numbers. The main point is that the nation of Israel has a national destiny (even if only a remnant make it back into the land, which has already occurred to a large degree, although the Philistines are disputing their possession, as is Ishmael).
The immediately preceding context (v.16ff) relates to their Babylonian captivity, and their partial return under Ezra, Nehemiah, Joshua, and Zerubbabel. Followed by, in due course, their (likewise partial) acceptance of the New Covenant at Pentecost, and the punishment, 40 years or so later, of the rebellious nation. Your prior denial of any reference to a return from Babylon, and suggesting that the occupation of Israel by the Jews in Roman times does not fulfil the requirements of the prophecy, appears to be an attempt to paint a background to aid acceptance of the requirement of your end-time scheme.
I cannot deny that there is a possibility that Ezekiel could be referring to a Babylonian return since he was himself in Babylon; however, I do not think for for the following reasons:
But what happened to the principle of interpretational cohesiveness? Here, if I accept that Ezekiel is prophesying exclusively of a return from the Babylonian captivity, I have a 500 or 600 year gap between that time and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost in 33 AD. They returned to the land from the Babylonian dispersion in Ezek. 11.17, and in verse 19, they receive the New covenant in 33 AD. And their conversion requires them to "take away all the destestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence (that is, from the land)" (Ezek. 11.18). This did not happen in 33 AD, since the Jewish nation, as a whole, had rejected the new covenant. The remnant of the Jews who accepted Pentecost were not able to cleanse the land as required. Doesn't fit.
Isaiah 11:10-12. You rightly say that verse 10, "in that day there shall be a root of Jesse" refers to Jesus and the NT church. Verse 1 of this chapter is to the same effect. And, interestingly, verses 6-9, which you elsewhere claim to be millennial changes of animal nature, are sandwiched between verses 1 and 10, that is, surely, during this gospel age. Do you not think that there is the slightest probability that verses 6-9 are figurative? You then refer to the very next verse 11 concerning the "second" return from dispersion, that "there can be little doubt that this situation shall occur 'in the last days' i.e. just prior to the second coming of Christ.
I am happy enough with the "first" return from dispersion being the return from Babylon. Incidentally, you said earlier in your paper that since the whole nation was spoken to in a certain scripture, then it must be assumed that the response would be from the whole nation. But, will you allow in this case, that since the first return was partial, the second can be also? But rather than accept a total national restoration of Israel which involves a hybrid Old/New Covenant, in a millennium based on one symbolic verse of scripture, I would prefer to accept a NT situation which, I believe, meets the requirements of these verses. The fulfilment of this prophecy began to be fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, when, "Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven" who had come up to Jerusalem responded in large numbers to the preaching of the Gospel. Peter's first epistle was addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion..." (I Peter 1:1 RV), He sees them as returning home to the "Shepherd and Bishop of [their] souls" (2:25), to a heavenly inheritance that is described as a "salvation". John confirms the spiritual interpretation of these prophecies when he speaks of the death of Christ as "gathering together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (John 11:52). Moreover, Isaiah 11:12 is quoted by Paul in Romans 15:12. Why did he quote it?
Actually, my Bible, which is a Hebrew-Greek Study Bible (Zodhiates), says that Paul, in Romans 15.12 is quoting from Isaiah 11.1 and 11.10, which, you agreed referred to the church age. Isaiah 11.11,12 actually do, I believe, refer to a subsequent (that is, subsequent to the founding of the church) ingathering of Israel (such as we are seeing in our day, beginning in the 1940's in modern Israel).
I do not think you can expect the solid cohesiveness out of these prophetical passages. They may purposely be "juggled". For example, Isaiah 11.4 obviously refers to the return of the Lord at Armageddon "he shall smite the earth the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked" (this obviously refers to the return at Armageddon, as we see in Revelation 19, 2 Thess. 2, etc.). That being the case, Isaiah 11.5-9 are perfectly placed for millennial prophecies, indicating the taming of the animal kingdom as it was in Eden, and the millennial peace on earth. Isaiah 11.9 is a perfect summation of the millennium: "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea".
Thus, in Isaiah 11, we see prophecies concerning the church period, the coming of the Lord at Armageddon, the Millennium (in that order) (Isaiah 11.1-9); the church period, which after all is seeing the return of Israel to its homeland (Isaiah 11.10-12 concern the church period, which sees the return the "second time", which is the Roman dispersion began in Luke 21.20-24).
To demonstrate the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy,
Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.
Yes, He has "confirmed the promises made to the fathers", but now they must be delivered, and this is being worked out through the church age, and will be consummated with the return of the Lord at Armageddon.
For those who can accept the authority of the NT this totally satisfies the terms of the prophecy. I do not believe that any argument to the contrary from silence is admissible - for the reasons I have given earlier.
This is the crux of the issue. Has the NT done away with the promises made to the fathers concerning the nation of Israel, or has the NT fulfilled the promises already with the advent of the NT church? I believe that the NT church is an advance element or body of believers who will be kings and priests after the order of Melchizedek in the millennium and who will be with the Lord forever in heaven also. When Jesus returns at Armageddon, He will bring the saints with Him, and He will rule and reign on earth for a 1000 years (until the Final Judgment at the Great White Throne), and there will be a new earth and new heavens throughout eternity future.
Hosea 3:4-5. These verses give a glowing picture of Israel's return in the "latter days" - the days of Messiah, (his birth, death, burial, resurrection and destruction of Jerusalem, present enthronement down to his second coming). But, context, context, context. You will know that Hosea's chapter 2 is unremitting judgement upon Israel. How does the chapter close?
I really appreciate your not fearing to go into the prophets and actually discuss in detail the prophecies. I have a number of preterist friends who will not do this, but merely cry, "biblical imagery", "biblical imagery".
Hosea 3.4,5, I see as a prophecy in the process of being fulfilled. Don't