20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[Marilyn C]

That passage proves Amillennialism, and exposes the Pretrib theory. Amils agree with Scripture that the second coming will see "the restoration of all things." Premils believe it will see "the restoration of some things." The new world/age you promote is more of the same: more sin, more death, more corruption, more injustice, more darkness, more unrighteousness, more war and terror, more rapes, more tears, more funerals, more thefts, more heartache, more betrayals, more bondage. The Amil new earth is vastly superior to that of Premil, and, most importantly that it is the view of Scripture and that it alone can be corroborated by numerous Scripture.

Mmmmm I don`t think so.
Do you know what the `all things are?`
Also which rulership did the OT Prophets speak about that first needed restoration?

 

[Original Happy Camper]

`Then comes the end,` (1 Cor. 15: 24) refers to a setting out over a period of time.

I agree there will be no rebellious in the new heavens and new earth - eternity.

However we know that the numeral 7 in Biblical numerology means completion, then we still have a ways to go till this ole earth is 7000 years old. People are still going to want there own way and thus that needs to be addressed as God`s word says.

I posted this in another thread, (Cosmic Week) not trying to derail this thread, It is only posted hear to shed light on the issue of the 1000 years

6000 years + 1000 years = 7000 years

2 Peter 3 King James Version (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90 King James Version (KJV)

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Thus to LORD 1000 years = one day

Revelation 20 King James Version (KJV)

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

So satan is bound for one day, GODS day of rest no more sin the seventh day of the cosmic week

Genesis 2 King James Version (KJV)

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam did not die on the day he ate of the tree, SO when GOD said he would die " in the day" would be in reference to first 1000 years of the earth.

Genesis 5 King James Version (KJV)
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

 

[Dave L]

Daniel said the kingdom of God would come in the time of the Roman Empire. But the kingdom is spiritual. It came as planned but most missed it thinking it would be physical.

Jesus said only the born again can see it. So these saw it then and see it today. The rest still look for a physical kingdom based on the Pharisee's 1000 year model. And have rewritten scripture with false prophecies trying to make it work. If you are born again, you have no need to rely on the Pharisee model, but can see the kingdom instead if you know what to look for.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Mmmmm I don`t think so.
Do you know what the `all things are?`
Also which rulership did the OT Prophets speak about that first needed restoration?

Christ is currently reigning on David’s throne. All dominion and power is under His feet.

All things mean all things. Christ is coming to glorify His people and glorify this earth.

 

[Annner]

Since abandoning Premil I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premil doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine.

(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.

(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.

(4) Premil's interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scripture.

(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation. The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man. As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”

(6) Premil spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point.

(7) Premil lacks corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs on Revelation 20. Whether you look at the binding of Satan, the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming, the restoration of animal sacrifices in an alleged future millennium, a thousand years of peace, perfection and prosperity, two different judgment days, two different resurrection days, the rebellion of the wicked at the end of the millennium, these enjoy no other support in Scripture. I struggle with this, because the only way to authenticate and understand any doctrine is interpret it with other Scripture.

(8) Because these thousand years cannot be found anywhere else in Scripture, apart from the highly symbolic Revelation 20, Premil is forced to insert a thousand years in text after text where it doesn't exist. Objective Bible students should struggle with building their eschatology on the 3rd last chapter of the Bible, in a highly figurative setting, especially when we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age ever. The scriptural silence elsewhere speaks loud to most of us!

(9) Premil is constantly exalting the power and influence of Satan and diluting the sovereign power and influence of Christ. That is nowhere more evident than in their constant rubbishing of Christ’s current kingship over His enemies at the right hand of majesty on high. Whether they mean to or not, Premils are always highlighting what Satan is doing in our day instead of what Christ is doing. Premil portrays a BIG devil and a small god; Scripture presents a small devil and a BIG God. In Premil, Satan seems sovereign in this age and God is curtailed. Premils are always lauding the ability of Satan since the cross. In Scripture, Christ is sovereign and Satan is curtailed. Scripture is always lauding the ability of Christ since the cross. As a consequence, Premil portrays an impotent beat-down New Testament Church, whereas Scripture sees a victorious potent New Testament Church invading the nations with the good news of Christ and subjugating the powers of darkness as they do so. In Scripture Christ reigns over all creation as God and His new creation as Saviour.

(10) Another major error that Premil makes is that it constantly presents the Old Testament as if the new covenant has never arrived. It is as if Jesus Christ has not come and fulfilled the old imperfect typical arrangement and introduced the new perfect eternal arrangement. It is as if the Old Testament promises have not been interpreted by the New Testament writers. What Premils insist is literal, physical, visible and earthly, the New Testament writers interpret as figurative, spiritual, invisible and heavenly. What Premils locate in their supposed future millennium, the New Testament writers locate in our current intra-Advent period.

(11) Because Premil lacks any corroboration in Scripture for a future 1,000 years’ age after the second coming, it invents 2 “last days” periods to allow Premil to fit. Mark 1 now, and Mark 2 after the second coming. Premils also invent 2 new heavens and new earths. Mark 1 they relate to their alleged future millennium and is sin-cursed and corrupt. Mark 2 is perfect and incorrupt and they equate it to 1,000 years+ after this.

(12) Premillennialists cannot even agree on the timing of the arrival of the new heavens and the new earth. They are split on whether Revelation 21 comes chronologically after Revelation 20 and therefore after the millennium kingdom and Satan’s little season in time or whether it is synonymous to that much-debated chapter and that the new heavens and new earth appears at the start of the millennium. This exposes another major weakness in the Premillennial camp: if they cannot even agree on something so simple and elementary as this in their main proof text, how can we trust their chronological approach to Revelation 19 and Revelation 20?

(13) Premil invents a 3rd group of humans that Scripture knows nothing of, that are too wicked to be raptured at the second coming and too righteous to be destroyed. It is these mortals, they argue, who populate their alleged future millennial earth. The reality is there are only two peoples in this world – the righteous and the unrighteous; those "in Adam" (the 1st birth) and those "in Christ" (2nd birth).

(14) Premil has an unhealthy obsessive focus on natural Israel, wrongly believing her to be God’s chosen people today under the new covenant. As a result, they have a mistaken fixation with natural Jerusalem in the Middle East, as if it is the epicentre of God’s workings with mankind on this earth and the place of His unconditional favour. This is wrong! They ignore much Scripture that shows that the fig tree has been cut down, the kingdom of God has been removed from Israel. Ancient Jerusalem and the temple therein was merely an Old Testament imperfect shadow of the heavenly reality that was revealed at the first advent. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that we have become one with spiritual believing Israel in the OT. It makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one new man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time!

(15) General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the living and the dead,” “every man,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men every where,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. This shows that the Premil’s boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.

(16) Premil takes common linguistic terms that are easily understood by the unindoctrinated observer in any language to mean the opposite to what they actually say. For example, Premil does not believe that "first" means first and "last" means last. The English words “first” and “last” are taken from the Greek words protos and eschatos and are widely accepted by all unbiased theologians to denote exactly what they say. The word protos means first, as in the foremost in time, place, order or importance. The word eschatos on the other hand means end, last, farthest and final. It is explicitly clear from their usage, meaning and context in the New Testament that these words are the exact antithesis of each other.

(17) Premil does not believe that “the end” refers to the end. The New Testament word from which we get our phrase “the end” is the Greek word telos which refers to the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. the conclusion of an act or state. It is the termination point of a thing. When Scripture simply talks about “the beginning” without any other additional words or contextual reason to identify it with a specific event, then most sane theologians agree it is talking about “the beginning” of creation. Whilst all sound theologians agree on this many are inconsistent when it comes to “the end.” The reason I believe is because it cuts across a lot of their end-time theology they have been taught. But I believe we should treat both sayings similarly. Unless Scripture specifically identifies “the end” with a particular event or matter like “the end of barley harvest” (Ruth 2:23) “the end of the sabbath” (Matt 28:1), “the end of the year” (2 Chron 24:23), “the end of the rod” (1 Sam 14:27), or “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim 1:5), etc, etc, then we should understand it as the end of the world (which is the end of the age).

Sovereign Grace,

Oh I agree. They take a small portion from a prophetic book, and change the teachings of whats plainly written in the New Testament. When people pull from OT prophecy and Revelation, and it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said and what Paul wrote? I know then something is very wrong.

I am concerned about the teaching that seems to infiltrate the church on Jesus several second comings, with the world continuing on.
Very concerning.

 

[Annner]

Christ is currently reigning on David’s throne. All dominion and power is under His feet.

All things mean all things. Christ is coming to glorify His people and glorify this earth.

I know, dispensationalists say he isnt on the throne yet. Awfully wrong. And they say he isnt king yet? Thats beyond crazy teaching.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Sovereign Grace,

Oh I agree. They take a small portion from a prophetic book, and change the teachings of whats plainly written in the New Testament. When people pull from OT prophecy and Revelation, and it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said and what Paul wrote? I know then something is very wrong.

I am concerned about the teaching that seems to infiltrate the church on Jesus several second comings, with the world continuing on.
Very concerning.

They interpret the rest of scripture by their opinion of one sole highly symbolic chapter instead of the other way around. It is insane hermeneutics.

 

[Dave L]

I believe Premillennialism and Dispensationalism are the great apostasies Paul speaks of, at least part of it. They end up with Christendom committing the unforgivable sin of Hebrews 6, by rejecting Christ and his shed blood, returning to Judaism and animal sacrifice in a third temple.

 

[Bobber]

I believe Premillennialism and Dispensationalism are the great apostasies Paul speaks of, at least part of it. They end up with Christendom committing the unforgivable sin of Hebrews 6, by rejecting Christ and his shed blood, returning to Judaism and animal sacrifice in a third temple.

You really believe Christians are returning to a belief in animal sacrifices? Just because they believe some Jews will doesn't mean they have signed on to it. So what's the basis of your claim?

 

[Dave L]

You really believe Christians are returning to a belief in animal sacrifices? Just because they believe some Jews will doesn't mean they have signed on to it. So what's the basis of your claim?

The third temple teaching of Dispensationalism calls for returning to animal sacrifices.

 

[Bobber]

Daniel said the kingdom of God would come in the time of the Roman Empire. But the kingdom is spiritual. It came as planned but most missed it thinking it would be physical.

I'm hesitate to believe this because of context. And yes I believe the Kingdom of God coming into men's spirits by being born again happened at the cross and resurrection BUT.....the vision God gave Nebuchadnezzar dealt with physical kingdoms with him as the head of gold and then as things went on the other kingdoms which would follow. All others physical.....but the last kingdom would not be the Kingdom of Christ?

Then why wasn't there a new physical kingdom spoken of after the 10 toed Kingdom for he was telling him things that would take place till the end of time. I think you're saying there'd always be other physical kingdoms without Christ being the head but there's no mention of such in the text. Not revealing there would be I think would be taking Nebuchadnezzar down a pathway of thinking that wasn't true. In his way of thinking physical Kingdoms would only exist until Christ kingdom is established.

 

[Dave L]

I'm hesitate to believe this because of context. And yes I believe the Kingdom of God coming into men's spirits by being born again happened at the cross and resurrection BUT.....the vision God gave Nebuchadnezzar dealt with physical kingdoms with him as the head of gold and then as things went on the other kingdoms which would follow. All others physical.....but the last kingdom would not be the Kingdom of Christ?

Then why wasn't there a new physical kingdom spoken of after the 10 toed Kingdom for he was telling him things that would take place till the end of time. I think you're saying there'd always be other physical kingdoms without Christ being the head but there's no mention of such in the text. Not revealing there would be I think would be taking Nebuchadnezzar down a pathway of thinking that wasn't true. In his way of thinking physical Kingdoms would only exist until Christ kingdom is established.

Jesus says only the born again can see the kingdom. Anyone can see a physical kingdom.

 

[Bobber]

The third temple teaching of Dispensationalism calls for returning to animal sacrifices.

But why do you say that? And what do you mean it "calls for". That Christians are wanting Jews to do animal sacrificing? That would be like saying because God merely revealed that children would be slaughtered at Bethlehem when Christ was born Jeremiah 31:15 that must mean followers of God would be like encouraging Herod to do such a thing. You know that wouldn't be true. So why do you say some Christians would want to see animal sacrifices. I mean if you can show me proof that Christians are encouraging this to happen I'll agree with you. Such would most certainly be wrong. So where's your proof this is happening?

 

[sovereigngrace]

But why do you say that? And what do you mean it "calls for". That Christians are wanting Jews to do animal sacrificing? That would be like saying because God merely revealed that children would be slaughtered at Bethlehem when Christ was born Jeremiah 31:15 that must mean followers of God would be like encouraging Herod to do such a thing. You know that wouldn't be true. So why do you say some Christians would want to see animal sacrifices. I mean if you can show me proof that Christians are encouraging this to happen I'll agree with you. Such would most certainly be wrong. So where's your proof this is happening?

First of all, let us establish an absolute truth: the New Testament forbids it. So, for anyone then to promote it is blatantly contradicting the Word of God. It is an offense to the cross. It undermines who Jesus is and why He came. They are promoting apostate Antichrist Judaism.

 

[Bobber]

Jesus says only the born again can see the kingdom. Anyone can see a physical kingdom.

But there is a proper context of discussion two types of kingdoms. When he was talking to Nicodemus he was talking about the the spiritual one. But the disciples directly asked Jesus before his ascension, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6 They had in mind a physical kingdom.

Jesus did not deny there would be one. He said in reply, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." In other words he basically said I'm not going to tell you when that will be. Or let me put it this way. If you were right he would have said, "What do you mean fellas! There is no physical kingdom to come but only spiritual and that's been established right now!"

That would have settled the issue right there and would have shut down what you're considering to be error in the church. If there was no physical kingdom to come forth there would be no reason not to say this then. But....if there was indeed a physical kingdom yet to come what good would it be not to answer their question....probably because they would spend too much time talking about things not directly relating to their existence and mandate RIGHT NOW. Just know it will come and trust the Father to bring it forth when he sees fit but go about advancing the spiritual kingdom right now. That's what I want you to have right now as your priority.

 

[Dave L]

But there is a proper context of discussion two types of kingdoms. When he was talking to Nicodemus he was talking about the the spiritual one. But the disciples directly asked Jesus before his ascension, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6 They had in mind a physical kingdom.

Jesus did not deny there would be one. He said in reply, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." In other words he basically said I'm not going to tell you when that will be. Or let me put it this way. If you were right he would have said, "What do you mean fellas! There is no physical kingdom to come but only spiritual and that's been established right now!"

That would have settled the issue right there and would have shut down what you're considering to be error in the church. If there was no physical kingdom to come forth there would be no reason not to say this then. But....if there was indeed a physical kingdom yet to come what good would it be not to answer their question....probably because they would spend too much time talking about things not directly relating to their existence and mandate RIGHT NOW. Just know it will come and trust the Father to bring it forth when he sees fit but go about advancing the spiritual kingdom right now. That's what I want you to have right now as your priority.

There is ONE Spiritual Kingdom. Only the born again can see it. It is here now but completed in the New Heavens and Earth after the resurrection/rapture on the last day.

 

[Dave L]

But why do you say that? And what do you mean it "calls for". That Christians are wanting Jews to do animal sacrificing? That would be like saying because God merely revealed that children would be slaughtered at Bethlehem when Christ was born Jeremiah 31:15 that must mean followers of God would be like encouraging Herod to do such a thing. You know that wouldn't be true. So why do you say some Christians would want to see animal sacrifices. I mean if you can show me proof that Christians are encouraging this to happen I'll agree with you. Such would most certainly be wrong. So where's your proof this is happening?

All will revert to Judaism and animal sacrifices according to Ezekiel.

 

[sovereigngrace]

But there is a proper context of discussion two types of kingdoms. When he was talking to Nicodemus he was talking about the the spiritual one. But the disciples directly asked Jesus before his ascension, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6 They had in mind a physical kingdom.

Jesus did not deny there would be one. He said in reply, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." In other words he basically said I'm not going to tell you when that will be. Or let me put it this way. If you were right he would have said, "What do you mean fellas! There is no physical kingdom to come but only spiritual and that's been established right now!"

That would have settled the issue right there and would have shut down what you're considering to be error in the church. If there was no physical kingdom to come forth there would be no reason not to say this then. But....if there was indeed a physical kingdom yet to come what good would it be not to answer their question....probably because they would spend too much time talking about things not directly relating to their existence and mandate RIGHT NOW. Just know it will come and trust the Father to bring it forth when he sees fit but go about advancing the spiritual kingdom right now. That's what I want you to have right now as your priority.

The disciples often had a mistaken hyper-literal, physical, earthly and temporal mindset. That is why they did not grasp the full reality of the cross and things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Jesus redirected their eyes to the power of the spiritual kingdom of God in His response.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I believe Premillennialism and Dispensationalism are the great apostasies Paul speaks of, at least part of it. They end up with Christendom committing the unforgivable sin of Hebrews 6, by rejecting Christ and his shed blood, returning to Judaism and animal sacrifice in a third temple.

I think many will back away from their flirtation with third temple theories when the Holy Spirit confronts them with the implications.

 

[jgr]

I think many will back away from their flirtation with third temple theories when the Holy Spirit confronts them with the implications.

They have this witness. However, since it is historical prophetic fullfillment, which is anathema to a futurist, most will probably just dismiss it.

Sozomen (ca. A.D.375-447)
"Ecclesiastical History"
Book V, Chapter XXII

Though the emperor [Julian the Apostate] hated and opressed the Christians, he manifested benevolence and humanity towards the Jews. He wrote to the Jewish patriarchs and leaders, as well as to the people, requesting them to pray for him, and for the prosperity of the empire. In taking this step he was not actuated, I am convinced, by any respect for their religion; for he was aware that it is, so to speak, the mother of the Christian religion, and he knew that both religions rest upon the authority of the patriarchs and the prophets; but he thought to grieve the Christians by favoring the Jews, who are their most inveterate enemies. But perhaps he also calculated upon persuading the Jews to embrace paganism and sacrifices; for they were only acquainted with the mere letter of Scripture, and could not, like the Christians and a few of the wisest among the Hebrews, discern the hidden meaning.

Events proved that this was his real motive; for he sent for some of the chiefs of the race and exhorted them to return to the observance of the laws of Moses and the customs of their fathers. On their replying that because the temple in Jerusalem was overturned, it was neither lawful nor ancestral to do this in another place than the metropolis out of which they had been cast, he gave them public money, commanded them to rebuild the temple, and to practice the cult similar to that of their ancestors, by sacrificing after the ancient way. The Jews entered upon the undertaking, without reflecting that, according to the prediction of the holy prophets, it could not be accomplished. They sought for the most skillful artisans, collected materials, cleared the ground, and entered so earnestly upon the task, that even the women carried heaps of earth, and brought their necklaces and other female ornaments towards defraying the expense. The emperor, the other pagans, and all the Jews, regarded every other undertaking as secondary in importance to this. Although the pagans were not well-disposed towards the Jews, yet they assisted them in this enterprise, because they reckoned upon its ultimate success, and hoped by this means to falsify the prophecies of Christ. Besides this motive, the Jews themselves were impelled by the consideration that the time had arrived for rebuilding their temple. When they had removed the ruins of the former building, they dug up the ground and cleared away its foundation; it is said that on the following day when they were about to lay the first foundation, a great earthquake occurred, and by the violent agitation of the earth, stones were thrown up from the depths, by which those of the Jews who were engaged in the work were wounded, as likewise those who were merely looking on. The houses and public porticos, near the site of the temple, in which they had diverted themselves, were suddenly thrown down; many were caught thereby, some perished immediately, others were found half dead and mutilated of hands or legs, others were injured in other parts of the body. When God caused the earthquake to cease, the workmen who survived again returned to their task, partly because such was the edict of the emperor, and partly because they were themselves interested in the undertaking. Men often, in endeavoring to gratify their own passions, seek what is injurious to them, reject what would be truly advantageous, and are deluded-by the idea that nothing is really useful except what is agreeable to them. When once led astray by this error, they are no longer able to act in a manner conducive to their own interests, or to take warning by the calamities which are visited upon them.

The Jews, I believe, were just in this state; for, instead of regarding this unexpected earthquake as a manifest indication that God was opposed to the re-erection of their temple, they proceeded to recommence the work. But all parties relate, that they had scarcely returned to the undertaking, when fire burst suddenly from the foundations of the temple, and consumed several of the workmen.

This fact is fearlessly stated, and believed by all; the only discrepancy in the narrative is that some maintain that flame burst from the interior of the temple, as the workmen were striving to force an entrance, while others say that the fire proceeded directly from the earth. In whichever way the phenomenon might have occurred, it is equally wonderful. A more tangible and still more extraordinary prodigy ensued; suddenly the sign of the cross appeared spontaneously on the garments of the persons engaged in the undertaking. These crosses were disposed like stars, and appeared the work of art. Many were hence led to confess that Christ is God, and that the rebuilding of the temple was not pleasing to Him; others presented themselves in the church, were initiated, and besought Christ, with hymns and supplications, to pardon their transgression. If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commence it.