Reply to critique 2 by William B. Chalfant of my web article on Israel having a future separate and distinct from the Church in the Kingdom of God

By Alan Nairne

Subject. My reply to your comments of 17-11-2002 . 6th December 2002

Thank you again for your further interesting paper. Yes, I agree with, and thank you for your suggested change of title for my original paper to read "Does the Nation of Israel have a Future Separate and Distinct from the New Testament Church". There was no theological intent in my use of the phrase Kingdom of God; it was just an incorrect choice.

Yes, I agree with your very even-handed definition as to the use of "literal" and "allegorical" language. As you say, there is no such thing as being absolute in the use of either method of interpreting the scriptures. But I must say that I am doubtful whether the dispensationalist's use of the old dictum "literal, unless absurd" is sound. For there is language in Scripture that requires an allegorical interpretation, when it makes some sense when it is interpreted naturally. One such case is the whole concept of "Armageddon" and its battle and aftermath, with which you challenge me. Clearly, it is an important feature of your prophetic scheme.

But I do not believe that it can be interpreted naturally. There is no such place as "Armageddon". Literally, this is spelled "Har-Magedon", meaning Mount Megiddo. This cannot be taken literally for Meggido is a city on a plain, not a mountain. The plain of Meggido was certainly a battlefield, and is remembered best by the Jews down to the time of Ezra as the place where the unwise but much loved Josiah met his untimely death (see II Chron.35:25). In keeping with this, Zechariah uses the place to reinforce a future great mourning (12:10-11). If these factors had been borne in mind it is doubtful if Armageddon and all its dispensational connotations would have been adopted. At least us allegorisers will have a second bite, whereas the literalist is likely to adopt the natural sense if it is not absurd.

Another case is the dispensationalist's use of the picture of the Mount of Olives dividing in two at the second coming when the Lord's feet touch it as given in Zechariah 14:4. The previous verse tells us that the Lord shall "go forth and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle". And the picture of the Lord's feet signifies his presence, which is common biblical imagery for when the Lord aids his people and discomfits his foes, see Josh.10:14, 42; 23:3; and Psalm 18:9; Isa.60:13; Nah.1:3; and Hab.3:5. I do not have a difficulty in applying it to 70 AD. The besieging force was that of the Roman Empire. Nations, not one nation. Troops from the provinces of Syria, Asia Minor, Palestine, Gaul, Egypt, Britain and elsewhere were involved. Tradition has it that no Christians were lost in the siege. Moreover, history records that, mercifully, the days were cut short. You compare those days with the holocaust of WWII, but it is not in sheer numbers that the comparison lies. Josephus tells us that a madness took over certain factions in Jerusalem, so much so that none were safe, and cannibalism was rife - much as threatened in the Deuteronomy scriptures. The sum of all this is that had the interweaving of literal and figurative language been observed, the ideas so fundamental to the dispensationalist's view of the coming of Christ to Jerusalem would never have come to fruition. You have written much on Zechariah, but, for the sake of simplicity I will leave it there, having made what I feel is a significant query in relation to your interpretation of the book, so much of which you project into the distant future.

The first of your important discussions relates to the significance of Ezekiel's temple. In fact, it seems to have acquired the nature of a cause celebre! I appreciate your honesty in admitting your inability to explain the nature of the Millenial sacrifices, and in keeping with traditional dispensational doctrine you reject any salvific role for these. Yet in the interests of sound exegesis I find it difficult to accept your rejection as valid. One of the hallmarks of the Millenium, you say, is that it is to be a time of "great peace on the earth...as it was in Eden". . I know that you do not claim this period as one of sinlessness, but in view of the repeated references to the sin offering, atonement, and purification which you have quoted, there is too much emphasis in the expiatory and cleansing nature of these sacrifices to suggest that they are for memorials. Ezek.43:27 does say that after sacrifice "I will accept you". Moreover, Zechariah (14:16-19), sees cases of many, many nations refusing to go up to worship. This is rebellion, and presages that final world wide rebellion you believe to take place at the end of the 1000 years. The juxtaposition of this sin and rebellion, with the sacrifices, not only does not suggest the memorial nature of the sacrifices, and peace, but, with David, or Christ reigning in Jerusalem closely surrounded by all sin, suggests to me a demeaning from Christ's present exaltation. I certainly does not fulfil one of the marks of the millennium that you instance; that of peace. Yet it is said in verse 9 "the LORD will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one." And verses 20-21 speak of every common utensil in Jerusalem being holiness to the Lord. This scenario focussed upon earth seems so contradictory, but fits the relationships existing between the world, the Lord, and the "heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb.12:22), the "Jerusalem above" (Gal.4:26) of today.

I respect your desire to give as much detailed fulfilment as possible to these seven chapters in Ezekiel, and you challenge me to allegorize them. But this is a "red herring". What is the significance of Ezekiel's temple in your doctrine? You admit that you cannot biblically fit a meaning to animal sacrifice, the priesthood of Zadok, or identify a covenant covering these arrangements. Even less can you, or a future generation, use the wealth of constructional detail, because it does not give a complete plan of the temple, e.g. the relationships of the chambers, stairways, etc to each other or to the whole, are unclear. So even interpreted naturally, it is only the broad idea of a millennial temple and its services that remains for you. The wealth of detail is characteristic of the wealth of detail given in scripture of previous temples, and, although the early Plymouth Brethren pioneered a detailed typology of the tabernacle in the wilderness, way beyond that of the book of Hebrews, like the parables, it is in the main details that the significance is to be found.

I don't know about my needing your humorous picture of "smoke and mirrors" to allegorize Ezekiel's temple, but you certainly do not need this when you can suggest that God could institute a further covenant with Israel to cover their millennial position. I can only say "phew"! Of course he could. But at the risk of being dubbed a "Pharisee", and being "static" in thought, I think that I'd prefer not to walk your theological planks. I find it disconcerting that Heb.1:1 seems to have so little weight, "God has spoken to us in these last days by his Son..." This suggests that it is the climactic revelation of God to mankind - the last days. A millennium would suggest that there are further last days. But if you do not accept these boundaries, there is no reason why you should have difficulty in accepting Ezekiel's picture of a temple, with sacrifices etc., still to be set up in Jerusalem.. Ezekiel, if he is read scrupulously, will forbid taking his temple literally.

I believe that you can only assign a literal, or natural I would say, interpretation of Ezekiel's temple by flouting the clear hermeneutic principles provided by the book of Ezekiel, which should have pointed to an allegorical interpretation. These are some of the principles -

1. Chapter 40 verse 2 tells us that it was "in the visions of God he brought me into the land of Israel." The phrase "visions of God" is used to introduce the visions of chapters 1-3 and 8-11 which clearly portray things in their symbolic nature. Similarly, the actions of chapters 4 and 12 take place in the realm of symbolism. Their fulfilments expressed the character of the symbolism, but not the actuality of the form of either visions or actions. These examples should have suggested caution in determining the nature of the vision in chapters 40ff.
2. God has never given laws and ordinances to his people by vision. Moses was no exception to this. Of him the Lord said that his prophetic office was to be different because he would speak to him other than by vision. Ezekiel was not a new Moses. His vision related to an order higher than that of an earthly arrangement. This principle also is determinative that it is an allegorical picture of the spiritual fulfilment.
3. If the dimensions of the temple and city are taken literally, topographical impossibilities arise. The dimensions of the temple exceed that of Mount Moriah, and those for the city take up for the Levites half of the land promised to Abraham. Since you were not impressed, apparently, by the dimensions I gave for the heavenly Jerusalem in my dicussion of your original refutation, I will leave you to work out this for yourself! This has long been recognised. In fact, to make to vision fit with actualities, some authors altered rods to cubits, but to no effect. The result was then too small. Again, the prophet is encouraging us to seek a higher solution than the natural.
4. I know that Dispensationalists speak of changes taking place to the land, but it does not help in the above case. The temple being in the centre, there is no room left in the south of the country for the five tribes allocated parallel strips in that region. Moreover, the strips for the rest of the tribes have no correspondence to the natural features of the land. Ezekiel's boundaries of the land are those originally given to Moses, and the new dimensions just cannot be made to fit.
5. The forms of history were often used in the OT to describe future events. Often the prophets threatened a return to Egypt. Ezekiel threatens a return to the wilderness, but it is to be a wilderness of the peoples, not that of Egypt (20:35). The outward form is similar because the experience is similar, though the circumstances are very different. The monarch reigning over Tyre is pictured as back in Eden, with access to the very presence of God, from whence he he cast into the grave, which pictures from the past accentuate his future fall. This principle also guides us as to how we should regard his future temple.
6. As to the wealth of detail, is this not characteristic of Ezekiel? Isaiah deals with Tyre in one brief chapter (23). Of Tyre Ezekiel takes three long chapters (26-28) to paint his picture. Concerning the iniquities of Israel and Judah he writes four long chapters (4, 13, 16 and 24). If he writes so fully concerning these matters is it any surprise that he takes seven chapters to speak of a glorious future under the picture of a temple, so familiar to NT readers?
7. There is also the picture of the waters issuing from the threshold of the temple door. Who ever heard of a river issuing from the top of a mountain, not fed by any external sources, but, within a mile being an unfordable river!!? Are you claiming a perpetual miracle for this in the millennium?

Surely, the NT pictures of waters signify the divine life available for those who believe on Christ, who is the archetypal temple, and is a fulfilment compatible to the senses, both rational and spiritual? And is not the fact that the Church is universal, transcending Israel's national limits, a glorious fulfilment of the idea of a temple and city too big to be contained within Israel's borders? And is not the idea of the co-existence of sin and purity in Ezekiel's temple eminently suitable as a picture of the atoning work of the Cross, with the sanctifying work of the Spirit among his people today? And is not the river and city of Revelation 22 a further picture of these glories?

Do I need to further elaborate? It is not a question of agreeing that whilst these spiritual pictures are valid, there is still a natural fulfilment. The incongruities of the picture forbid it, and it can only be the pressures of the millennialist's need to clothe the idea of the millennial period with flesh that can have caused expositors to ignore such simple, yet fundamental principles, and to launch into a "fulfilment" which, not only does the NT ignore, but which seems to incorporate certain concepts which have elements of fantasy. You say that "the problem with casting adrift upon the sea of allegory is that it can come to mean whatsoever anyone wants it to mean." There have been aberrations in the allegorising camp which are easy to recognise and repudiate. But it appears to me that dispensationalists are very slow to abjure their absurdities. The trouble is that whether you adopt a "no separate and distinct future for Israel apart from the NT church", or the reverse, either principle results in absurdities to the other. I would still rather take the risk of allowing the NT to form my boundaries!

You say that whilst Christ confirmed the promises to the Fathers, they are to be fulfilled in the Millennium to come, and that, if these particular promises have been specifically fulfilled in the NT church age, then someone should so demonstrate that they have been. Well, that is what I have been trying to demonstrate both in my original paper, and in my reply to your refutation. The difficulty is that I regard the NT as definitive for the OT, but you regard it as supplementary to the OT. I charged you with arguing from silence, and I withdraw it. Actually, I now realise that you argue, not from silence, but from an authority that you give to the OT that I cannot follow. Also, you quote Romans 9:4 to illustrate "that Paul did not deny the destiny of the Jews nor deny that the promises made to the fathers pertain to the Jews (plural)." This verse records the offer of gospel salvation to the Jewish nation. It does not guarantee them a future separate and distinct from the New Testament Church. You say, in connection with related matters, i.e. a New Covenant into which we enter, and a New Covenant into which the Jewish nation will enter in the millennium, that "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." But that is where we have our problems with each others' exegesis! We have different presuppositions. But the two destiny concept is in contradiction to that of the one olive tree of Romans eleven.

You note that "Jacob is not the NT church." Presumably because that name is not used in the same way in the NT as "Israel"? But, despite the use of the word "Israel" in the NT, neither do you accept that the true Israel is the NT church. I believe that the NT teaches that the believing followers of Messiah are the true Israel. You query my phrase "new Israel". True, it is not biblical. But it expresses exactly who spiritual Israel is, contrasted with "Israel after the flesh". How else can I differentiate the distinctions in Rom.2:28-29? I fear that the distinction between "Jacob" and "Israel" is very much akin to the distinctions that were once made by dispensationalists between "the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing" of Titus 2:13, and the "Kingdom of God" and the "Kingdom of heaven" in the Gospels, and much else which I believe has now been abandoned. Of the same ilk is your distinction between Luke's account of the Olivet discourse and that of Matthew as having different terminations. But I will address that issue later in this document.

Your reference to the word "forever" when applied to your millennial prophecies as extending to the "new heavens and a new earth" is interesting. Yes, that the heavenly throne, and an earthly millennial throne must both be eternal is certainly consistent. If I were a millennialist I would be grateful for this suggestion.

Concerning the symbolical, or otherwise, nature of the 1000 years in Revelation. You instance certain numbers in Old and New Testaments as being literal, and query why, then, should the 1000 years not be literal. Certainly, there are literal numbers in Revelation. But it is the context that is most useful in interpreting an author's meaning. And I must aver that most of the numbers in Revelation are symbolical. This does not necessarily determine that the 1000 years is, but strongly predisposes it to be. As you say, Papias did not consider the millennium to be symbolical. Neither did many of his Jewish Christian contemporaries.

Further concerning the book of Revelation. I can probably agree in principle with much of what you say about the natural/spiritual aspects of this book. But there are at least five time frames as to when these events are to be fulfilled, and these frames say that it is "shortly to come to pass" or similar. I cannot accept that this refers to the events once they begin to unfold some 2000 years plus into the future. I believe that most of the book, even as does the Olivet discourse, relates to the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem beginning with the Wars of the Jews in 66 AD. I am a partial Preterist!

My expression, "there are no more promises left outside those given through the redemption provided by Christ" should be interpreted in the total context of my writings, and was not meant to imply that any remaining promises which you see as being fulfilled in the millennium were outside the redemption in Christ. My understanding of both the Old and New Testament scriptures is that the fulfilment of the promises is in the redemption provided for mankind in Christ, fully realised in the NT Church.

My original paper adduced a number of OT references to the effect that "there failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel, all came to pass". I therefore do not see that I imply any inability or failure on God's part concerning what was promised to the Fathers in respect to the land. You ask, "where do you see in the scriptures that the NT church has received these promises already? I understand this from the way that the descriptions given to Israel are applied to the NT church, e.g.I Peter 2:5. Rom.9:25-26 where the present church comprising Jews and Gentiles is in mind. To the same end we have the parable in Matthew 21. "Vineyard" and "kingdom" in the parable in Matthew 21 are coterminous. Christ threatened to destroy the then present keepers, and let out the vineyard to others, who would bring forth the fruits in their season. He interpreted this to mean that the kingdom was to be taken away from them, and given to a nation which would prove fruitful. The very foundation for this work was to be Christ, the chief corner stone, and it was this scripture that seems to be in Paul's mind when he writes,

"And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" Eph.2:17-22.

But, of course, as the OT for you is definitive in such matters, I understand that for you this still does not displace the nation of Israel.

You ask, "Did God take the NT church back into Jerusalem and set up His kingdom there?" Here we have further demonstration of the polarity that exists between us. The Matthew 21 parable referred to above indicates that an identifiable kingdom was in place following the raising up of the cornerstone. Despite this, you say, "Spiritually speaking, he has poured out His Spirit and the kingdom of God is here within us (through the Baptism in the Holy Spirit)......we are an advanced element of the coming kingdom of God." "Advanced element"? Is that all? Is all the "kingdom" teaching of the gospels for a future millennium? Moreover, Paul seems to have very different ideas. One has only to refer to Acts 8:12, 14:22, 19:8, 22:23, Rom.14:17, I Cor.4:20, 6:9-10, and many more. Your "advanced element" of the kingdom is a low view of the glories of the present Kingdom of God. Dispensational theology has been characterised as that of a "siege mentality", with some justification - a beleaguered church hanging on until (whether pre- or post tribulation) the Lord raptures it away, to make way for the full earthly millennial manifestation. I must confess I do not see the present apostasy of much of the denominational churches in the West as being definitive of the church in this age. God is producing a vibrant, often persecuted, but expanding and powerful church throughout the third world, and even in the West, renewal, charismatic or otherwise, is a healthy pointer to what is possible. Let us not forget that the Christians in NT times were accused of having turned the world upside down. I do not believe that that was an aberration. I believe that it is definitive, and indicative of God's purpose for his Church, which is not identical to the Kingdom of God, but contemporary with it and its main agent.

I know that you do not deny that Christ is reigning. I Cor.15:25 says, "For He must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet." This verse, and those before and after, seem to indicate that all the action is in this present age. There is neither time nor need for any further activity upon earth. You feel that unless the prophecies of old have a natural fulfilment, this is making the Jewish nation "biblically irrelevant"; that they are being "unceremoniously thrown out". But as I have said before, the promises related to spiritual realities which the OT saints looked forward to. As Hebrews 11 tells us,

These all died in faith not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country of their own. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from when they came out, they might have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better country, that is an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. (Heb 11:13-16)

All Jews Old and New Covenant (NT) who believe in their Messiah will come to this superlatively glorious company, the New Jerusalem, Zion, as the NT says. This is a present reality, not just the future. These very OT saints are those whom you adduce as spiritual. Yes, I heartily agree with your listing of the spiritual verities of the OT and its peoples. But to want to bring their offspring back to a land with a temple, priesthood, and sacrifices is to reintroduce the "weak and beggarly elements" from which they, and their believing NT descendants looked beyond. It is this which makes a future nation of Israel "biblically irrelevant". But it has not meant unceremoniously dumping, or discarding the prophecies en masse. It means that they have been transmuted into a higher realm for all to enter into. This is nothing to do with Gentile pride, any more than with anti-semitism. It is allowing the NT to be definitive. It is not that preterists, (or better, anti-millenialists) fail to recognise a dual descent from Abraham. We just assert that the NT teaches that fleshly descent has no validity unless accompanied by belief in Christ. What else can the words of John the Baptist in Luke 3:7-9, and the words of Jesus in Luke 13:27-30, John 8:39-41 mean? This is in keeping with the oft quoted verses in Romans 2:28-29. You acknowledge that in Gal.3:28 Paul speaks of "neither Jew, nor Greek....bond nor free...male nor female...in Christ Jesus etc." which refers to incorporation into Christ. As you correctly say, this incorporation does not dissolve our human responsibilities to each other. But this cannot be used to prove that Israel, the Gentiles and the NT church will, in the future have separate covenantal relationships.

It is difficult when discussing these matters to avoid "tit-for-tat" situations. But, if, as you say concerning Acts 1:6,7 that "It would have been a perfect time for Him to have enlightened His apostles that [there] would indeed be no future Kingdom restored to Israel", why, may I ask, was it not also the perfect time for Him to explain specifically its earthly nature and timing if it was to be so? It was for this reason I said I felt the meaning of the verse was obscure. I can only assume that you feel hard pressed for NT support if you feel otherwise. I hope that you do not have too many texts like this upon which to build your doctrine. It makes my work very hard!

Concerning the whole section of Paul's defence in Acts 23 and 26, you ask if I am "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?" I can only say "yes", assuming that Paul's concept of the twelve tribes was identical to that of James', "of the Dispersion" (1:1) and Peter's (I Pet.1:1-2) "elect...sojourners of the Dispersion...elect according to the foreknowledge of God etc". Of course Paul would not lie to Agrippa. That was why he specifically couched his whole discourse in terms of salvation...resurrection of the dead. I know you believe otherwise. But it does not come out of this discourse. As I asked you before, if he believed as you say he did, in a millennial style restoration, why did he not so say in front of Agrippa?

I see that you still insist that the "throne of David" in Acts 2:22-36 is not a heavenly throne, but an earthly one. It is clear enough to me that David's throne (and dynasty) is seen in this scripture as a type of the spiritual reality which was the throne to which Christ had been raised following his resurrection. If it is not so it seems pointless for Peter to have used these verses to cover that contemporary situation. I fear that it goes back, again, to the authority that we give to the OT or NT scriptures. It raises, also, the continuity that I see between the Old Testaments saints and those of the New. No wonder you so forcefully reject what I believe to be the simple reading of this scripture. The same applies to your discussion relating to James' use of Amos 9:11-12. Thank you for referring me to the context, verses 14 -15 of Amos 9. I say with all my heart that I wish I could find a place in scripture for a millennium, it would make life so much easier for me!

Interestingly you say that "there was no Jew present at Jerusalem who would understand "David's throne" to be an "antitype" I am sure that you are correct. But why is this true? Simply because it was not until the appearances of the Lord to the apostles after his resurrection that he was able to give them a true understanding of their scriptures, which, Paul tells us, they did not understand (Acts 13:27).. This enlightening is no doubt associated with the occasion when he "breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22), and continued as recorded in Luke 24:45 that he "opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures", climaxing in the effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. As a result of this enlightening, Peter and the apostles were able to use the scriptures in ways which no unenlightened Jew could ever have conceived. Clearly, it is this very application of the scriptures to Israel that you resist, yet, interestingly, charismatics adopt the concept quite unconsciously into their hymns and choruses. Is this the result of their spiritual awakening? They certainly have a more positive view of the church than Calvinists or dispensationalists! Please do not interpret this as a claim for spiritual elitism. It is true that charismatics have certain spiritual faculties heightened in sensitivity, but I do not gauge "spirituality" by that. Spirituality relates to the whole character and walk with the Lord. Alas, charismatics, as well as Calvinists can be ungodly.

We seem to be counter reiterating the concept whather either David did, or did not conceive of his throne pointing toward a heavenly antitype, and you quote scriptures from II Samuel and the Psalms. To the end that David did not conceive of a heavenly occupant to a heavenly throne you say that it is "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..." I can only quote, again, the scripture. It says,

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.....This Jesus hath God raised up..therefore being by the right hand of God exalted..... (Acts 2:30-34)

You have said that Christ sits upon His Father's throne, in distinction from the throne of David. I am afraid that most of our arguments are double edged. You feel I make fatal comparisons. I fear you make fatal distinctions - I have drawn your dispensational disposition to this earlier! God's promise of an offspring to David who would sit upon his throne in perpetuity were two integral, indivisible constituents to the promise. If they were divisible then Peter could have contented himself with e.g a quotation from Psalm 16:8ff. (This incidentally was my correct reference in my last paper. Not Psalm 116. Sorry about that). The fact that he chose promises to David to include the throne would not indicate that he was careless in his choice of scripture, but through the Holy Spirit very specific. I say that it is unwarranted and arbitrary to so separate the two constituents, person and throne. David, says the scripture "foresaw" the resurrection and exaltation of Christ as the fulfilment of God's promise to him. Why should he separate the resurrection from occupation of his throne? He did not. Moreover, in Revelation 3:7 Christ is described as "he that has the key of David". This feature, along with the throne, is part of the authority of David's kingdom. He Christ has "the key of David", and on the same ground he occupies David's throne. It may have taken Divine revelation for the apostles, slow as they were to understand the antitypical nature of these events, but the scriptures indicate that Moses, Abraham and David at least, saw ahead to the days of the Christ.

I really do understand your godly desire to see realised on earth all the beautiful detail from the prophets of the forthcoming kingdom of God, but I see the kingdom of God today far surpassing in glory anything that could possibly appear again upon earth. No, these prophecies are neither "thrust out" nor "cancel[led] out" by the inclusion of salvation. They are prophecies of the present kingdom of God. You say, "surely we do not subscribe to the "kingdom now" teaching, or "dominion theology." Like yourself, I am chary of accepting labels. But I am happy to accept the former. As to the latter, I am wary, but would prefer it to believing as you say you do, "Why should we believe that mankind, as a whole, will accept 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." No, that is correct if you ignore the time frames of Matthew and Revelation dealing with the awful events of 66-70 AD and project them to the end of the age. This gives a miserable prospect for the church. Keep them where, according to their time frames, I believe they belong, and you have the possibility that the Great Commission of Matt.28:18-20 may be fulfilled through the church, together with those so familiar words, "that the earth may be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isa.11:9).

You write much on Matthew. Again, as in the case of Zechariah, for brevity's sake I will have to content myself with few remarks. As I said earlier, to claim that the periods of history described by Matthew in chapter 24 relates to the future Great Tribulation, whereas that in Luke 21 relates to the events of 66-70 AD is without foundation, for the following reasons.

1. When compared in parallel, the synoptic accounts are clearly identified as dealing with the same situation. How could it be otherwise? Chapter 24 of Matthew which you claim relates to the future is set within the context of chapter 23. Chapter 23 is devoted to the condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus tells them that they would "fill...up the measure of your fathers......that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed...from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias...verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Behold your house is left unto you desolate. (vv.32-38). He was speaking to them, and concerning themselves.
2. Jesus then leaves the temple, and the disciples, no doubt shocked at Jesus' threat of their sacred house being left desolate, ask him the questions of chapter 24:1, to which he replies that the temple would be overthrown to the last stone, that it would be made desolate (24:15), and he reiterates his earlier statement that "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled (24:34). It is ludicrous to suggest that while gazing at the temple buildings he was referring to an edifice to be thrown down that would not be built for practically two millennia at least.
3. Are you suggesting that there were two separate Olivet discourses? If not, did he at the same time give two discourses with these subtle distinctions? How confusing! The distinctions are no more than you would expect from two independent testimonies, to say nothing of the most important fact that Matthew wrote for Jewish readers, whereas Luke wrote for Gentiles.
4. As for the supposed distinction between Luke's anangke (applicable to 70 AD) and Matthew's thlipsis (applicable to a future Tribulation according to your proposals), the former Greek word is used in the LXX of Zeph.1:15 which Scofield sees as "an adumbration of the true Day of the Lord" yet future! The truth of the matter is that the meanings of the two words are almost synonymous.

If that is not a case of "smoke and mirrors" on your part, I do not know what is! There seems to be no limit to the contortions that you impose upon Scripture, once, as you say, you accept the presupposition of separate destinies for the Church and Israel. Frankly, if that concept was true, such efforts would not be necessary.

Concerning my pointing out that the heavenly cataclysmic events of Matt.24:29-30 are images in line with four OT references which similarly picture judgement, but that no signs in the heavens ever occurred when these nations were judged. I find it curious that you refer me to Acts 1:9, "a cloud received him out of their sight". This was no cataclysmic heavenly sign. It simply says that "a cloud received him out of their sight." When he comes again, the reverse of this is that he will emerge from a cloud. This he did not do in 70 AD, but he did judge Israel. That was his coming in the same mode as in OT times. So, in answer to your question, yes, I can say that Matthew 24 etc., does fulfil the three questions, 1) When shall these things be? Answer, in the years up to 66-70 AD. 2) What is the sign of thy coming? Answer. The destruction of the temple and the city. 3) What is the sign of the end of the age? Answer. Strictly speaking the end of the law and the prophets, we are told, was when John had run his ministry (Luke 16:16). The establishment of the Kingdom of God went on apace throughout the ministry of our Lord, culminating in the death, burial resurrection, ascension, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. But as long as the temple services continued, rebellious Israel could deny this. But, the sign that it was true was in the fulfilment of the prophecies of the destruction of the temple and the city, and the dispersal of the nation. After this, there could be no argument as to whether the Mosaic age had ended.

Incidentally, may I just point out that I do not think that you can say that because the Wailing Wall is still standing, the prophecy of Jesus concerning "not one stone left standing" is still to be fulfilled. The Wailing Wall was not part of the temple, but was part of the second wall on the west which enclosed the city, which was not the subject of prophecy. Actually, to be very "literal", it was not within sight of the Mount of Olives, which was to the east of the city!

What a forlorn hope it was for me to think that I could deal briefly with the wealth of detail you adduce! So, I will leave much of what you write intact, lest I appear to be nit-picking. As it is, if all this goes on to the web in its present form, with your proposals which induced this reply, it will be for only those with exceedingly strong stomachs!

But, thank you for entering into correspondence with me. You are a worthy opponent, and I have enjoyed the challenge. I would like our correspondence to continue, unless you feel that it is pointless, but confined to discussing one point at a time, and not for posting on to the web, unless we felt it to be worth so doing.

Again, may I wish you and yours a very blessed Christmas and 2003. Please feel very welcome to write.

Yours sincerely in Christ Jesus, Alan Nairne.