Olivet Discourse historicist or preterist?

RandyPNW said:

The point I've made is that Premills do not *need* hard quotes. We know what John wrote in Rev 20. We know what the OT Scriptures indicated was the "Jewish Hope," or the Hope of the Messianic Kingdom. All we need to know is that the early Church Fathers were largely and almost exclusively Premills. The fact there is not a lot of detail about what the Millennial Kingdom consists of is besides the point. Speculation about the details of a future Kingdom may be an exercise in futility, just like Paul warned Christians not to obsess with genealogies.

If you need quotes from Church Fathers, indicating they are Premill, they can be shared.



I don't know why you think a few heretics formed Premill, when it existed in the book of Revelation and in the OT Prophets? They opposed orthodox Christianity--I'm not sure why Porphyry is even mentioned?



Dispensationalism certainly elevates Israel, but not all contemporary Premills do. I don't, for example.



You're proving my point. Premill does not predicate its position on an exalted Israel. However, the Hope of Israel, the Messianic Kingdom, was always portrayed, in the OT, as the future and final hope of Israel. The addition of non-Jewish states does not contradict this, but merely adds to it the hope of many nations.



Premills of all ages have rejected the reintroduction of OT worship, so you must be saying this only to some elements of Dispensationalism?



My understanding of this character is that he was not even a Christian. Why would you then reference him?



Of course, Premill started in Asia Minor. That's where the Apostle John was known to have shared his book of Revelation, with its Millennial vision. CLICK

Here's one account of Premill Church Fathers: CLICK

Click to expand...

Marcion

Through his distorted view of the Hebrew Scriptures, Marcion also advanced the idea of the full recovery of the Jewish tradition in the future. He saw the nation retaking its favored Old Testament position above all nations again in the future. He absurdly believed that Israel, according to Old Testament prophecies, has its own unique Messiah, who is distinct to the Jesus of the New Testament.

Listen to Tertullian, a well-known Chiliast, of Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia), (160 – 220 AD) in Against Marcion Book III, Chapter XXI:


Here you have the seeds of modern-day Premillennialism. To Marcion, the whole idea of the “restoration” of the “Jewish … people” to their land involved the full return of the old covenant scheme, something rejected by early Chiliasts but anticipated on the millennial earth by most Premils today. Marcion also believed that there were two peoples of God, a doctrine unknown to ancient Chiliasm, but prevalent with Dispensationalism today. He made a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, although this arch heretic imagined two different God’s and two different Messiahs overseeing each company.

Tertullian explains in Chapter VI:


It seems from the early censures of Marcion by both early Chiliasts and early Amillennialists that the restoration of the Jewish state was at the center and forefront of his eschatological hope. This was not found in any of the orthodox early writers. The Church was God’s only spiritual elect and the true people of God.

Tertullian continues in Chapter XXIV (Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints),


Tertullian takes Marcion to task over his view that the Jewish Messiah (who was said to be different from Jesus Christ) would give “the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country.” Here he was advocating the legitimacy of, and the Jewish return to, the old covenant ceremonial system. It is important to say at this juncture, not one of the orthodox early Chiliasts promoted this theology. This was a belief that was outside of the pale of orthodoxy – both Amillennial and Chiliast. It was a Jewish heresy advocated by the neo-Gnostics like Cerinthus and Marcion.

In Marcion’s theology, we see how there was a strong prevailing view among the early heretics that God would bring Israel back to their previous theocratic place of favor. This was strongly rejected by ancients Amils and Premils.

Tertullian (an early Chiliast) refutes Marcion’s error, stating:


Orthodox early Chiliast, Tertullian represents the prevailing thought among his peers on national Israel here, demonstrating that the people of God can only be found in the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no second group. There is no alternative place of favor. There is no other plan of salvation.

Marcion's invented Christ would meet all the faulty hyper-literal expectations that the apostate Christ-rejecting Jews desired - including restoring them back to their former land and elevating them to their former glory as God's chosen people and an elite race lording over all the Gentile nations. Whilst orthodox Premils reject the "2 Messiahs heresy" they run with Marcion's future millennial expectancy of a temporary carnal earthly kingdom focused mainly upon the Jews, Jerusalem and the old covenant practice. This is classic Premil!

Hill argued: “Marcion conceded to the Jews the reality of a full chiliastic hope, complete with a messianic deliverer, restoration to the land of promise, and refreshment in the infernal realms for the faithful dead! (The lack of any mention of resurrection is, however, to be noted.) He agreed with the Jews, and against catholic Christians, that the Christ promised in the Old Testament had not yet come. Marcion taught that the Creator’s Christ, when at last he came, would indeed restore the fortunes of the Jewish nation just as the Jews were convinced he would. Marcion of course wanted nothing to do with this Creator, his Christ, or the benefits they would lavish upon the Jews; to him they all savored of the same earthly and fleshly stench which his heavenly Savior had come to dispel. But part of his polemical program against orthodox Christianity was to insist that the Jews were right and the Christians were wrong about the interpretation of the prophets. The Jewish, nationalistic Messiah predicted in the Old Testament bore no likeness to the Christ of the higher God who came to earth during the reign of Tiberius to effect the salvation of mankind.”

The heretical dualists were Premil literalists who opposed the more-figurative Amillennialist position. Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 15.3, explained how Marcion "prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture."

As a Premil, Marcion was a literalist and took the thousand years as a literal period of time after the second coming that involved the continuation of this physical age and all its pleasures and afflictions.

Origen actually summed up the ethos of those that held to a future millennium saturated in mortals (including the wicked) and who promoted the return of the old covenant arrangement as “understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense” (De Principiis, Book 2, Chapter XI).

This is the classic MO of modern-day Premils. They hurl the same charges at Amillennialists as these ancient heretics through at ancient orthodox Church generally. It comes up continually in discussions with Premils.

The historian Gennadius (died c. 496) identified all the main Millenialists among the ECFs, explaining what they expected on the millennial earth, there among them is both Cerinthus and Marcion:


Gennadius records his own opposition to millenialism and a transitory kingdom in between the here-and-now and the NHNE. He exposes the error Cerinthus and Marcion taught of sexual pleasures continuing on a future millennial earth. This this a classic Premil belief. This runs against the teaching of Jesus. In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come.

William Rounseville Alger comments: “According to the heretics Cerinthus and Maricon, the millennium was to consist in an abundance of all sorts of sensual riches and delights. Many of the orthodox Fathers held the same view, but less grossly; while others made its splendors and its pleasures mental and moral” (The Destiny of the Soul).

This couldn’t be any clearer! This unscriptural belief was invented by the heretics Cerinthus and Marcion and is continued today by modern Premils. No early Chiliast advocated this error. The fact is: there will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.

Even Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) rebukes Marcion in Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 38, speaking on Luke 20:34-36:


Porphyry/Porphyrius

Porphyrius is another heretic who promoted the Premillennial doctrine. He was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and held views that were in conflict with the more-moderate classic early Chiliasm. He was another Judaizer who tried to foist old covenant practices upon New Testament Christianity. He also promoted the full return of the old covenant ceremonial law and festivals.

Jerome strongly refuted him, and exposed his error:


Jerome was not painting all Chiliasts with the same brush. Quite the opposite. He was specifically exposing this early heretical Premillennialist who advocated the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement in a future thousand years, including the pointless slaughter of countless innocent animals during that period. This was not an opinion that orthodox Chiliasts held, taught or accepted anywhere throughout the early Church.

All of these Premil heretics were notably professing Gentile "Christians" who were besotted with Old Testament Israel and its ancient practices. Consequently, they tried to create a theological system that would accommodate their distorted view of Christianity and Judaism. They achieved this by creating parallel train-tracks that could accommodate the coexistence and co-acceptance of two diverse religious systems in a dual covenant theology. This is exactly what Dispensationalism has done today. It is fixated with natural Israel, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the return of animal sacrifices in some supposed future millennium and the restarting of the abolished old covenant priesthood. They have invented two peoples of God to suit its theology.

The heretics believed that their hopes would be finally realized after the second coming, in an earthly messianic kingdom, one in which Israel would be brought back to its ancient favored position reigning over the Gentile nations from old Jerusalem. This new arrangement would see Gentiles submitting to the long-abolished primitive old covenant customs, rules and ceremonies. Ancient Jerusalem would become the center-point once again of global worship to Israel’s God. This age would last a thousand years and would see the full return of all Old Testament religious structure, including priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping.

Porphyrius wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel. Jerome strongly refuted his teaching point by point. Speaking about Daniel 2.40 (“He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth”), he responded:


According to Jerome: Porphyrius expected the restoration of natural Israel to its old covenant place of favor over all other nations in the last of the last days. Israel would then subjugate the Gentile nations and rule over them. He anticipates a superior position for ethnic Israel above all nations, with them exercising "the strongest power" over them.

Porphyry cuts across the widespread belief amongst the ECFs (Chiliast and early Amils) that the New Testament persistently teaches that under the new covenant, and in Christ Jesus, all nationalities equally partake of the spiritual blessings God promised to that nation through faith. Basically: Jews and Gentiles are equal before God. The whole notion of ethnicity deserving some type of special favor with God in our day is repeatedly and strongly blown out of the water in the early Christian writers.

RandyPNW said:

The point I've made is that Premills do not *need* hard quotes. We know what John wrote in Rev 20. We know what the OT Scriptures indicated was the "Jewish Hope," or the Hope of the Messianic Kingdom. All we need to know is that the early Church Fathers were largely and almost exclusively Premills. The fact there is not a lot of detail about what the Millennial Kingdom consists of is besides the point. Speculation about the details of a future Kingdom may be an exercise in futility, just like Paul warned Christians not to obsess with genealogies.

If you need quotes from Church Fathers, indicating they are Premill, they can be shared.



I don't know why you think a few heretics formed Premill, when it existed in the book of Revelation and in the OT Prophets? They opposed orthodox Christianity--I'm not sure why Porphyry is even mentioned?



Dispensationalism certainly elevates Israel, but not all contemporary Premills do. I don't, for example.



You're proving my point. Premill does not predicate its position on an exalted Israel. However, the Hope of Israel, the Messianic Kingdom, was always portrayed, in the OT, as the future and final hope of Israel. The addition of non-Jewish states does not contradict this, but merely adds to it the hope of many nations.



Premills of all ages have rejected the reintroduction of OT worship, so you must be saying this only to some elements of Dispensationalism?



My understanding of this character is that he was not even a Christian. Why would you then reference him?



Of course, Premill started in Asia Minor. That's where the Apostle John was known to have shared his book of Revelation, with its Millennial vision. CLICK

Here's one account of Premill Church Fathers: CLICK

Click to expand...

Apollinarius of Laodicea

Apollinarius took up the ancient Premillennial baton from these early heretics. Notably, he too was a prominent heretic who was strongly opposed and renounced by the universal Church of his day. Very little of what he wrote has been passed down to us. Most of it was destroyed as heretical. Most of what we have comes from his theological opponents who were strong in their renunciations.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa said of Apollinarius of Laodicea, that his theology taught that “the Jewish animal-sacrifices shall be restored.”

Basil the Great describes what Apollinarius believed


Here is an outline of classic Premillennial teaching. Again, noticeably, this was held by an early heretic who was strongly resisted by the orthodox Christian Church. This was foreign teaching to them in the light of what Christ ushered in through the new covenant. Apollinarius taught that Israel would be restored to her previous old covenant place for preference over all other nations.

But, most troubling to the early writers, was the early Premillennial promotion of the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. This was despite the well-established beliefs of the Patristic writers that the New Testament Scripture makes clear that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 12, 14 and 1 Peter 3:18) and that there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:18, 26 and 1 John 3:5).

Apollinarianism was condemned by a council at Alexandria in 362 A.D. at Roman councils in 377 A.D. and 378 A.D. In the second Ecumenical Council and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD the Church leaders renounced Apollinarius as a heretic. He is actually repudiated by name in Canon 1 and Canon 7. Along with his other fellow heretics he was to be “anathematized.”

Gregory the Theologian also criticized Apollinarius in his letter to Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius (Epistle CI. (101), highlighting his Premillennial beliefs.


Jerome targets the theology of the early Premillennial heretics, mentioning Apollinaris in particular in his renunciation:


For Jerome, the Premillennial scheme was “a tale.” Others would similarly call it “a fable.” The idea of a future age in-between “this age” and “the age to come” was quite fanciful to many of the early Amil writers. When the detail of the heretical Premillennialist heretics were threw into the mix, with their expectation of more ongoing sin, more decay, more sickness, more death, more sin offerings, etc, etc, it was hardly surprising that many found this far-fetched. When you add all the religious actors that populate the millennium and give their feigned allegiance to Christ and then turn on Him when Satan appears 1000 years after the second coming, then you are looking at a doctrine that seems beyond the pale of reality and truth. When they then argued that a future earth will see the mortal wicked interact with the glorified saints for a thousand years then you are looking at a clear non-corroborative doctrine.

In an article Jerome’s Judaizers, Hillel I. Newman argues: “So far as we know, none of these authors maintained hopefully that in the millennial kingdom all would offer sacrifices and keep the sabbath and that all men would be circumcised.”

Premil Lyford Paterson Edwards even concedes: “we see the unfortunate fate of Chiliasm in getting mixed up with heresies with which it, as such, had nothing to do. The extraordinary detestation which overtook Apollinaris as arch-heretic par excellence seems to have finally discouraged Chiliasm in the Eastern Church. It was reckoned as a heresy thereafter and though it appears sporadically down to our own day it is of no more interest for our purpose” (The Transformation of Early Christianity from an Eschatological to a Socialized Movement).

The later Jacobite bishop of Dara, in Mesopotamia (d. 845), John of Dara exposes Apollonarius for his millennialist teaching:


John of Dara likens Apollonarius’ Premillennialism to Phariseeism. He rubbishes the idea of Judaic temple ceremonial in Jerusalem for a thousand years in front of the Messiah.

These ancient heretical Premillennialists fell into the same trap as the Pharisees with their faulty hyper-literal mind-set, who because of such, ended up crucifying Christ. The problem was, they were stuck in the Old Testament, fixated with the earthly, physical, temporal and the natural. These ancient writers focused in on Israel and a temporal future earthly kingdom full of warfare, carnal pleasures and ethnic separation. They promise a continuation of pain, sin, death, suffering, tears, hatred, war, funerals. This whole carnal expectation seems to blue the reason why the second coming is so splendid. It is the final return of Christ in all power and glory to abolish all unrighteousness and to set up a perfect, just and eternal kingdom where wickedness and corruption are forbidden.

Conclusion

What I have discovered is that whilst the above is all widely-accepted standard Premil beliefs today, none of the early Chiliasts taught this. In fact, it seems like the early Chiliasts distanced themselves especially from the heretic authors of this doctrine. Notably, nowhere is it taught in New Testament Scriptures. Nowhere can it be found in Revelation 20. It was an early heretical invention that ran contrary to New Testament Christianity and early Church theology.

What would be the purpose of reinstituting animal sacrifices in the future? After all, the old sacrificial system simply served as an imperfect type that foreshadowed Christ and pointed to His ultimate sacrifice for sin at the cross. Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin. He was the eternal fufilment of every type and shadow in the Old Testament. Anyway, since God destroyed the Temple Israel can no longer administer these unsatisfactory ordinances. They were effectively and finally nailed to the cross in the death of Christ.

The whole Judaic blood sacrifice system was rendered redundant through Calvary. It has no further purpose. What is its purpose? Why would we need further sin offerings (and that is exactly what they are)? The old covenant "ceremonial use" was for a purpose to atone for sin and cover it until the cross. It is this "ceremonial use" that you speak of? How could the slaughter of animals be pleasing onto God today or in the future? They can't. Christ's once perfectly satisfied all the elevated demands of God for a final offering for sin. What exactly does it do to sin in a supposed future millennium? I am truly at a loss to see what you think its useful purpose is.

RandyPNW said:

Here's the problem brother. You admit that the early Chiliasts did not share in the belief about restoring OT worship, and yet you mix in heretical ideas to make their Premill belief to appear necessarily mixed up in that.

Secondly, Amills among the later Church Fathers developed an interest in distancing the Church from Premill, since Israel's continued failure to repent made the beliefs in their restoration look like a failure. And so, they tended to treat Premill with an intentional mix with the heretics so as to make their Premill beliefs look heretical.

As I just told you, not all Premills are Dispensationalists. Certainly some Dispensationalists teach that Israel has a different economy than the Church and will introduce OT forms of worship, albeit under NT standards. Some go so far as to teach that OT worship will simply be reintroduced.

We shouldn't confuse Premill, whether ancient or modern, with heresies that Premills don't actually believe. Most don't believe OT worship is going to be reinstated, whether a temple is built or not. Believing in God's literal promise to Abraham regarding Israel and the nations is not "ultra-literalism." It is just taking God at His literal word!

Mixing Early Premill or Later Premill with Cerinthus, Marcion, Apollinaris, or Porphyry is ludicrous, in my view. I have no need to answer to heretics, which were rejected by all the Church Fathers.

Click to expand...

No confusion! Most Premils (Dispy or not) believe that the temple will be rebuilt in a future millennium with the full restoration of the ceremonial sacrifices. We have talked about this before. You know that. You are just trying to distance yourself from the obvious, but facts are stubborn things.

Unlike you and your links, I presented hard evidence that prove who the original fathers of modern Premil are. I gave hard evidence. It would be nice if you did the same, but you don't.The surprising part of the early Chiliast teaching is that they had more in common with Amillennialism on what would result from Christ’s coming than what modern Premils expect, believe and teach. These ancient Chiliasts portrayed a climactic return of Christ which would see the rescue and reward of all the righteous and the immediate destruction of all the wicked. They believed that the earth following the appearing of Christ would be perfect and pristine.

RandyPNW said:

No, I have in fact studied this question and have read some of the Church Fathers on the matter. Nothing you're bringing is at all new to me. I don't know why you think I admitted something that isn't even true?

So obviously, you mis-read a statement I made. What I've said is that I'm not an *expert* on the Church Fathers, not having read everything they've written thoroughly. I've read "readings," which are far less than reading entire documents. I've scoured for relevant statements in connection with eschatology--I have in fact done this. I could produce it again, but it's simply not necessary.

You think that just quoting the Church Fathers gives your arguments validity. They don't. These arguments have been happening regularly. Again, mixing up the Chiliasts with heretics is a way the later Amills dealt with Premill belief--an illegitimate type of slander. The Chiliasts didn't believe in what the heretics believed, even if there are similarities.

Click to expand...

Exactly! The heretics taught what Premils advocate today and what the early Chiliasts argued against. That is notable! If you have indeed studied these ECFs (as you claim), furnish us with your evidence instead of always quoting these questionable links that provide (and have) zero evidence like yourself on this matter.

Quote to your heart's content. But it proves nothing at all. Premills do not ordinarily believe in a restoration of OT worship. Believing in the restoration of Israel was viewed as a failure by Amills, which is what precipitated their allegorical interpretation of the same. But lo and behold, Israel is restored today. How embarrassing for them!

Click to expand...

Let us see what some of your fellow "Historic" Premils over the years were teaching on Bibleforums:

The Beginner

"Im a historic premilennialist and I believe there will be a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem complete with symbolic animal sacrifices and ceremonial activities."

"why all the hatred of animal sacrifices in today's christianity? Are they really an afront to the gospel and a blasphemous acts that tramples on the blood of christ? There are many passages in the scriptures that do not have a historical fulfillment (without making them unnecessarily allegorical) that speak of future animal sacrifices."

"There are a ton of scriptures that speak of animal sacrifices in context to unfufilled passages (unless they are unnecessarily allegorized). IMO, the primary reason they get allegorized is because they talk about animal sacrifices."

"symbolic future animal sacrifices will only serve to, provide "sanctifciation, reconciliation, and atonement" by looking back to the only means of salvation, the cross of christ."

ForHisglory

"being a premil who does think there will be future sacrifices, and that is that so far not a single amil (nor premil) person has given a valid reason why animal sacrifices should stop.

"there will be a time when there will no longer be animal sacrifices. That time though is not until AFTER the Millennium and the GWToJ. This is because death itself is cast into the LoF and Jesus hands back the kingdom to the Father. The role and value for sacrifices will be entirely removed."

"If you took Zech 14 as being literal THEN you would have to accept some form of future animal sacrifice."

CadyandZoe

The animal sacrifices, then, stand as both a tutor and a ritual expression of righteous sentiment. The animal sacrifices stood ritual expressions of atonement, which anticipate the actual atonement, which is the cross of Christ. God would not be offended at something he commanded according to his purpose as long as it continued to serve his purpose. I see no scriptural evidence to support the claim that God no longer has a need for their original pedagogical purpose, or that he will no longer recognize such an offering as a ritual expression of righteous sentiment, if indeed, the heart of the penitent is both honest and contrite.

Tony P

I just don't see any evidence that the OT was superseded or voided. I do think they will enjoy an elevated status during the Millennium … As to the animal sacrifices, what’s wrong with Jerusalem being the BarBQ capital of the world?

On a serious note, imo, righteous Jews of history will be raised for the Millennium. As it is written, if they obey the commandments, they will inherit the land. This is also when the unrighteous Jews are cast out as Jesus said many times. Animal sacrifices have been a part of Jewish cultural identity for 3500 years. Though not so much lately. When all the righteous Jews of antiquity are raised, the sacrifices will resume. Taking that away is like removing part of their culture. There are other reasons, but this one is enough.

Bing

"so what does it matter if there are memorial sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom? I sacrifice my time and money and possessions daily for Christ, without believing that my works save me."

"These are celebrated in the millennium: The Feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-21), the passover (Eze. 45:21), the Feast of trumpets (Eze. 45:25). (see also Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Mal. 3:3-4).

Joyfulparousia

"Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years)."

"Maybe its reinstated not out of necessity but out of remembrance. Imagine being a human in the 3rd generation of humans born into the millennium, it would be a totally different time."

BroRog

"the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices."

"Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok … The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10 … The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6."

"I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one."

"But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again."

threebigrocks

"it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come.

sovereigngrace said:

Let us see what some of your fellow "Historic" Premils over the years were teaching on Bibleforums:

The Beginner

"Im a historic premilennialist and I believe there will be a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem complete with symbolic animal sacrifices and ceremonial activities."

"why all the hatred of animal sacrifices in today's christianity? Are they really an afront to the gospel and a blasphemous acts that tramples on the blood of christ? There are many passages in the scriptures that do not have a historical fulfillment (without making them unnecessarily allegorical) that speak of future animal sacrifices."

"There are a ton of scriptures that speak of animal sacrifices in context to unfufilled passages (unless they are unnecessarily allegorized). IMO, the primary reason they get allegorized is because they talk about animal sacrifices."

"symbolic future animal sacrifices will only serve to, provide "sanctifciation, reconciliation, and atonement" by looking back to the only means of salvation, the cross of christ."

ForHisglory

"being a premil who does think there will be future sacrifices, and that is that so far not a single amil (nor premil) person has given a valid reason why animal sacrifices should stop.

"there will be a time when there will no longer be animal sacrifices. That time though is not until AFTER the Millennium and the GWToJ. This is because death itself is cast into the LoF and Jesus hands back the kingdom to the Father. The role and value for sacrifices will be entirely removed."

"If you took Zech 14 as being literal THEN you would have to accept some form of future animal sacrifice."

CadyandZoe

The animal sacrifices, then, stand as both a tutor and a ritual expression of righteous sentiment. The animal sacrifices stood ritual expressions of atonement, which anticipate the actual atonement, which is the cross of Christ. God would not be offended at something he commanded according to his purpose as long as it continued to serve his purpose. I see no scriptural evidence to support the claim that God no longer has a need for their original pedagogical purpose, or that he will no longer recognize such an offering as a ritual expression of righteous sentiment, if indeed, the heart of the penitent is both honest and contrite.

Tony P

I just don't see any evidence that the OT was superseded or voided. I do think they will enjoy an elevated status during the Millennium … As to the animal sacrifices, what’s wrong with Jerusalem being the BarBQ capital of the world?

On a serious note, imo, righteous Jews of history will be raised for the Millennium. As it is written, if they obey the commandments, they will inherit the land. This is also when the unrighteous Jews are cast out as Jesus said many times. Animal sacrifices have been a part of Jewish cultural identity for 3500 years. Though not so much lately. When all the righteous Jews of antiquity are raised, the sacrifices will resume. Taking that away is like removing part of their culture. There are other reasons, but this one is enough.

Bing

"so what does it matter if there are memorial sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom? I sacrifice my time and money and possessions daily for Christ, without believing that my works save me."

"These are celebrated in the millennium: The Feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-21), the passover (Eze. 45:21), the Feast of trumpets (Eze. 45:25). (see also Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Mal. 3:3-4).

Joyfulparousia

"Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years)."

"Maybe its reinstated not out of necessity but out of remembrance. Imagine being a human in the 3rd generation of humans born into the millennium, it would be a totally different time."

BroRog

"the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices."

"Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok … The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10 … The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6."

"I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one."

"But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again."

threebigrocks

"it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come.

Click to expand...

Most of those posters I'm aware of myself. While there were a number of things I agreed with some of them about from time to time, me being Premil as well, none of what you quoted above by them is anything I ever agreed with them about. At least not that I recall. Why throw out the baby with the bath water just because there are some Premils coming to conclusions like that, but that not all Premils are?

DavidPT said:

Most of those posters I'm aware of myself. While there were a number of things I agreed with some of them about from time to time, me being Premil as well, none of what you quoted above by them is anything I ever agreed with them about. At least not that I recall. Why throw out the baby with the bath water just because there are some Premils coming to conclusions like that, but that not all Premils are?

Click to expand...

That was only the supposed "Historic" Premils. That wasn't even the Dispys. In my experience in all of these board and church-life, 95% of Premils believe in the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the restoration of blood sacrifices.

They promote the full restoration of the old covenant sacrifices:

· The “meat offering” – Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20.
· The “sin offering” – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20.
· The “trespass offering” – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20.
· The “burnt offerings” – Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15.
· The “peace offerings” – Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12.
· The “drink offerings” – Ezekiel 45:17.

You and Randyk are in a small Premil minority.

100% of Amils believe that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin.

RandyPNW said:

No, that is what you're saying. What I said is that most Dispensationalists and Futurists who believe in a future Kingdom for Israel replete with temple and OT forms of worship think that it is a "remembrace," as you show. It is not a restoration of OT justification.

I already said this, and you're just proving it. So why do I need to quote a bunch of Church Fathers? What am I needing to prove? I said this already, and *you* have provided the proof yourself!

Yes, I'm familiar with Beginner, ForHisglory, Cady, and some others. Cady is nearly a friend, and Beginner is someone I highly respect, despite the fact I disagree with his view of the temple. I dislike ForHisglory, since "she" won't even give her gender, and she disagrees with literally *everything* I say. And she adds to her positions the idea that if you disagree, you're an "idiot."

If you'd like to discuss how the Church Fathers viewed the Olivet Discourse, I do have a study on that, with quotes from them, etc. Perhaps copying and pasting is your thing? And I do like you providing sources--it just seems out of place, repeating things I've already addressed.

Click to expand...

They believe the cross was not the final sacrifice for sin. This is erroneous and unscriptural. The cross does not seem satisfactory, efficacious and final enough for the majority Premillennialists. They wrongly and strongly promote the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21). They also advocate the restarting of the “meat offering” (Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “trespass offering” (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “burnt offerings” (Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “peace offerings” (Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12, Zechariah 14:16-21) and the “drink offerings” (Ezekiel 45:17, Zechariah 14:16-21).

This is despite the fact that the New Testament Scripture makes clear that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 12, 14 and 1 Peter 3:18) and that there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:18, 26 and 1 John 3:5). The reality is, one can search the New Testament pages, and can search Revelation 20 from start to finish, and there is not the slightest instruction or allowance for such a religious sham in the presence of Jesus in the age to come. This will never happen, neither for atonement or memorial. This is a Premil invention! Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered.”

Premillennialist talk often about memorial sacrifices in the millennium. Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as memorial sacrifices on the millennial earth?

Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

RandyPNW said:

You have a problem using this argument, that nations descending, physically, from Abraham, fulfilled God's promise of Abraham's fatherhood of "many nations." The NT Scriptures interpret this not as Abraham's biological descendants, but rather, as *all nations not descended physically from Abraham!*

Click to expand...

The NT scriptures like Romans 9:6-8 and Galatians 3:16-29 talk about individuals who have personal faith in Christ as being Abraham's seed, not nations.

What this means is that other nations are added to the nation Israel to comprise an international Body that makes up Abraham's family. Through Christ they are all linked together as belonging to Christ, the seed of Abraham.

None of this means that the word "nation" is being redefined as a mystical kind of nation. Rather, Peter referred to the literal Jewish nation, now represented by a small Christian remnant, to which Christians from other nations were joined. It was a picture of the OT reality, as when Gentiles joined Israel by converting to the religion and by joining the nation, as well. As Paul indicated, branches of the tree were broken off so that other branches could be grafted in.

This metaphor indicates not just that Gentile believers are joined into a mystical "Israel," but rather, that we Gentiles join in with the faith of Jewish believers in order to produce one Body for Christ. In reality, many "trees" are being created in the NT era, which are many nations promised to Abraham. We, as Gentiles, are thus joined to Jewish *faith,* but not to the Jewish *nation.* Many nations are being created, and not just one nation to which many ethnicities are being added.

Click to expand...

This is all about salvation through faith in Christ. That is a personal, individual thing, not a national thing. That is the bottom line. Whether you realize it or not, you are making salvation out to be a national thing and that is just not taught in scripture anywhere. There is only one nation that you can call a Christian nation, but it is not an earthly nation. It is the holy spiritual nation of believers that Peter refers to in 1 Peter 2:9.

As I've told you before, individual salvation does not preclude there being Christian nations, in which the majority adopt a Christian Constitution. *Nations* were promised Abraham, and not just small portions of nations! Believe it. The Scriptures said it!

Click to expand...

The scriptures do not teach anything about Christian nations anywhere. They speak frequently about individual Christians and about the body of Christians as a whole, which is the church. But nothing about earthly Christian nations. That concept does not exist in scripture.

DavidPT said:

Most of those posters I'm aware of myself. While there were a number of things I agreed with some of them about from time to time, me being Premil as well, none of what you quoted above by them is anything I ever agreed with them about. At least not that I recall. Why throw out the baby with the bath water just because there are some Premils coming to conclusions like that, but that not all Premils are?

Click to expand...

The point isn't that all Premils believe those things (such as future animal sacrifices), but many of them do. Many more than RandyPNW is willing to acknowledge, apparently.

RandyPNW said:

I'm getting the distinct impression you love arguing over things that nobody is saying? I mean, you have quotations ready, and talking points set up, all to argue something that isn't even being debated.

I've told you repeatedly that most Christians of any eschatological type believe in the NT sacrifice of Christ as all-sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. Not even those who have "works" in their formula deny that only Christ's blood alone atoned for sin!



Yes, I'm aware of their arguments--I've heard them since the late 70s, when I first thought about it. I've been a little taken aback by the Scriptures, as well--the Feast of Booths in Zech 14, the temple in Isa 2, 56, and 66--there may be other places.

But I don't believe a physical temple will be rebuilt--not one certainly that the Lord will accept. When in history the temple was rebuilt, there were many Scriptures supporting it. There are no real Scriptures supporting another rebuilt temple--on the contrary, Scriptures oppose restoration of the failed covenant of Law.



Nowhere. Since we agree, I don't know why we should argue over it? I don't believe most Premills believe a restored temple replaces what Christ did anyway. You haven't produced any evidence Premills, in any real number, believe that?

Click to expand...

Are you RandyK from BF? If yes, you do know who SG was when he posted at BF, right? In case you weren't aware, he posted as WPM over there. If you are RandyK, I'm certain you would remember WPM for sure.

RandyPNW said:

These statements of truth do not preclude the claim that Abraham was promised *nations* of faith, and not just *individuals.* Nobody here is denying that an individual needs *faith* to be Saved. But you are denying what the Scriptures say, that Abraham was promised *nations* of faith! You should believe *all* of God's word, and the *details* of God's word, rather than just one part of God's word!



How can you, with a straight face, say that the Scriptures do not mention *national salvation?* The whole story of Israel in the OT is about *national salvation!* I mean, I do understand it, because Amillennial belief has ruled the Church for many centuries, and people lost faith, in part, in God's willingness to save nations.

But can you imagine your country fighting in WW1 or WW2 without any hope that God would defeat the Nazis? As if God doesn't care if your nation is saved or not? This isn't all about spiritual salvation, but also about national salvation. And in God's economy, spiritual salvation should connect with national salvation.

Obviously, non-Christian nations won't know anything about spiritual salvation, and they will have to rest their hope in national preservation on unconscious moral stature to solicit God's favor, because they don't know Him. However, Christian nations have to check their spiritual condition to see if they have grounds to ask God for help with national survival and victory over their enemies.

This is how it was in the OT, and how it still is in the NT era. God wants to save both individuals and nations, though the two concepts are slightly different. Saving a nation can come through spiritual faithfulness, when God sees the faithful living of a Christian people and is willing to spare their government, their society, and their people.

It isn't just a matter of saving every individual in the nation, but rather, a matter of saving the entire superstructure that blessed the people as a society, with all of its benefits. I hope you understand what I'm saying, because I think you're mixing up the concepts of individual salvation and national salvation?



I would disagree. It is inferred in many places in biblical prophecy, and especially in the book of Revelation. It is also a critical element in God's promise to Abraham, to make him "father of many nations." However, I know what you mean, that the words are not very explicit in the NT about Christian nations doing this or that. And that's because Christian nations had not yet developed when the NT was written!

But much is spoken of with respect to Israel. And Israel was designed, by God, to be a model for Christian nations. Or do you think Christian nations is not a real concept, like others here who seem to deny history?

Click to expand...

I disagree with your Replacement Theology. In your theology “the Christian nations” (whoever they are) have replaced natural Israel as theocracies. This is erroneous and incongruous. I reject your Replacement Theology. In your theology “the Christian nations” (whoever they are) have replaced natural Israel as theocracies.

The physical promises of Israel relating to Israel have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. He has abolished the old natural arrangement.

We have been made one with true Israel - the Israel of Israel (Rom 9:6). We are now the circumcision. We are the spiritual Jews. We are the citizens of Israel. We have been grafted into the Olive Tree. We are the children of Israel.

I think that God by his grace sends powerful revivals to nations from time to time. The 'Great Awakening' comes to mind. I think that Israel will get it's turn one day. Is that what you mean by 'Christian nations' Randy?