Reply to critique by William B. Chalfant

By Alan Nairne

Dear brother in Christ

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/israel.htm) By Alan Nairne

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. 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; and what has happened to your literalism? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 proposed millennium and Israel's place in it.

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. 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 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". 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.

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 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.

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". 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.

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"? 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.

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."

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.

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. 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. 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".

Clearly, the fleshly offspring of Abraham are specifically excluded now that He has come to whom the promises were made. 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.

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.

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. 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.

Oh, and regarding my reference to "no 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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"

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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).

If David saw when writing Psalm 116 that Peter used, that it was in the resurrected Christ who was to occupy his promised throne, 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."?

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).

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.

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". 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. 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 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.

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 in Christ and the new Israel combining Jew and Gentile in one body, 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....."

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.

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. 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. 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.

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! 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.

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. 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). 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.

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. 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". Secondly, it is not the sign that is in heaven, but the Son of Man who is in heaven. 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.

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.

I find this unified understanding satisfyingly cohesive, and Christ exalting. I do not so find the arbitrary dividing up Matthew 24. 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.

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? 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. 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.

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? 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.

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.

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?

...and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

This verse is quoted in Romans 9:25-26 as the very fulfilment of these Hosea verses! Fulfilled in the grafting back of a remnant of Israel into the olive stock, with Gentiles also included! On what grounds do you excise from this fulfilment the restoration you quote in the next chapter? It will be upon the principle of discontinuity.

It is in dealing with the OT prophecies that the chief feature of the dispensational method of interpretation is seen, that is, discontinuity with the NT. Covenantal theology's chief feature is to see continuity between the two. You can, therefore, quote scriptures relating to Israel's regathering in isolation from their context, and consign it to a millennial fulfilment, of which, to repeat myself, the NT not only knows nothing, but which I believe totally contradicts.

In seeking to show the true continuity between the Old and New Testaments I have had to explain in considerable detail the context and connection with the NT. Hence the lengthiness of this reply. I am sure that if you wished to follow up the covenantal method, you are able to do so, and, therefore, to conserve time and energy, I will seek to address the remainder of your scriptures in greater brevity.

Jeremiah 30 - 34. The many verses which you quote from these chapters are the piece de resistance of your critique, but, as I noted in the last but one paragraph, you isolate them from the context. As with Hosea, the context is one of unremitting judgement (see 22:1-5, 21,24-30, 36:30-31, 21:1-7). The nation will not repent. And this is characteristic of its history even until today, and was the burden of Stephen's defence. The question must be asked, "How can God fulfil his promises to a continually rebelling, unbelieving people"? The answer can only be "through a New Covenant", which, in writing God's laws within the heart of the individual, is precisely what Jeremiah prophesied. Also it must be remembered that repeatedly the prophets speak of only a remnant being restored, which is what happened following Pentecost.

I am sorry that you dismiss the testimony of scripture that I gave to the effect that all God's promises to the Fathers concerning the land were fulfilled in the days of Joshua through to Solomon. But that is what the Scriptures say. Not only so, but the rest of the promise that "all the nations shall be blessed", (unconditional as you point out), was fulfilled at the time of the inauguration of the New Covenant at Calvary. Ezekiel gives us the promise of a New Covenant in chapter 36 verses 22ff., and embedded within this is clear indication that the covenants to Abraham, Moses and David would all be fulfilled in that covenant about which the Lord said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood...",

I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements, and do them [Moses]; and ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers [Abraham]; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God [David].

I can only say that I feel the testimony of these scriptures, in their contexts, is conclusive, and, in the words of another, "here I stand, I can do no other." It seems to me that your twin principles of discontinuity and a gross literalism, gives you license to concoct almost anything. You have felt that the "spiritualisers" have produced error as bad as the ultra-dispensationalists. You illustrate this from a the preterist's moving from the mostly "literal" fulfilment of prophecy in Matthew's gospel to biblical imagery in Matthew 24, suggesting that because one section is to be seen as "literal" then the rest must be also. But I trust that you have now seen in connection with that scripture that it not only need not follow, but the literalism is unbiblical and gross in the latter sections of the chapter. And, may I remind you, the (logical?) excesses of ultra-dispensationalism have come out of the dispensational camp, not from that of the preterists. I acknowledge that there is such a thing as hyper-preterism, but, by and large, the limitations of the NT have restricted the production of freaks of exegesis from among the anti-millennialists. Yes, I acknowledge that the a/post-mill method of interpretation does impose restrictions, but they are only those, I trust, imposed by the NT.

You seem to have moved away a little from the traditional dispensational interpretation, at least in seeing that the Church was seen in the OT, and I trust that you will pursue this line of study. I appreciate that my position must raise massive implications concerning, say, the interpretation of the book of Revelation, and maybe Thessalonians. I will not attempt an explanation of the former(!), but I trust that you will understand that I do not accept exegesis unless it is what I believe is soundly based. And, although I believe the millennial scheme is not in the least biblical, I am not so naive as to think that the a/post-millennial systems are without their difficulties. Not, of course, from the millennial challenge. But simply because of the vast chasm of difference that exists between our 21st century thought patterns, and those of Hebrew and middle eastern peoples dating from centuries before and up to the time of the NT. To say nothing of any special styles adopted by the Divine inspiration of the scriptures.

But, and I say this to myself also, wherever your studies lead, if we always make it our aim to "love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength", and always to seek "unfeigned love of the brethren" (1 Peter 1:22), we shall do well. I think we understand each other's positions reasonably well. But, if I can clarify anything that perplexes you, I shall be happy to do my best, and I shall take it for granted that you will do the same for me. Thank you, again, for taking the time to read my paper and comment upon it, and I have enjoyed examining our mutual positions.

In our Lord Jesus Christ, yours, Alan Nairne

For William Chalfant's reply to this article go here