Millennialism is no longer part of Christianity

[Biblewriter]

Even after the Redeemer has come and died on the cross, people still want to read prophecy of Scripture with the vail of a fleshy seed over their eyes, even as them in the Jews religion want to read all Scripture with the vail of Moses over their hearts.

The broken off unbelievers are under wrath until the end.

Except any of them repent and are grafted in again.

The uncircumcised nation that calls itself 'Israel' in name only is no more abhorred nor honored by God, than any other uncircumcised nation and people on earth: any may be redeemed by faith in Jesus.

Romans 11 was not about the physical seed being still 'special' to God, but about God's mercy allowing any of them to be welcomed back to the fold by faith, just like any other unbeliever on earth.

Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

At the cross, there was a complete wiping of the dish, and with His resurrection there is a restoration of all things in Him: a people, kingdom, family, inheritance, hope, promises...

We are biblical Israel.

Yes. We are now physical Israel of God on earth. The physical body of Christ, the risen king of Israel.

Christians in natural bodies, not born of the flesh as was Ishmael, but after the Spirit as was Isaac.

This is not only NOT stated in scripture. It is contrary to EXPLICITLY STATED New Testament scripture.

For Romans 11:28-29 says of the unrepentant Jews, "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

And Romans 9:3-4 says that the promises still "pertain" to Paul's "countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites."

EXPLICITLY STATED scripture ALWAYS takes precedence over ANY and ALL mere INTERPRETATIONS of scripture.

 

[U.S. Grant]

This is INTERPRETATION on your part. No scripture says ANY of what you have said here.

The "if" statements in the passage you quoted from Ezekiel 42, referred to SHOWING the people what God was going to do, not to WHETHER OR NOT the things would happen. You cannot find a single "if" in Ezekiel 36 1-10, which EXPLICITLY promises that the return would involve "all the house of Israel, All of it," nor a single "if" in Ezekiel 47:13-20, which precisely defines the future borders of the land of Israel, nor in Ezekiel 48, which specifies how that PLOT OF REAL ESTATE will be divided among "the twelve tribes of Israel," nor in Jeremiah 31:35-37, which EXPLICITLY says that the NATION of Israel will NEVER cease to exist, and that God will NEVER cast them aside.

The worship system described in Ezekiel is NOT a return to the law of Moses. Both the sacrifices and the associated ordinances are DISTINCTLY different from those in the law of Moses. It is a new system of worship, different from both the old system established under Moses, and the current system, established under Jesus and the Apostles.

The God who had the RIGHT to set up the worship system under Moses, and who had the RIGHT to change it under Jesus and the Apostles, has the RIGHT to change it again in the future.

Thanks for the answer. I like it.

The God who had the RIGHT to set up the worship system under Moses, and who had the RIGHT to change it under Jesus and the Apostles, has the RIGHT to change it again in the future.

In theory I agree. It is obviously necessary for the prophecy to be fulfilled in future.

What are the differences between those future laws and that of Moses you refer to? Such as, only those of Zadok are allowed to be priests, but the rest of the Levites only keepers of the charge of the house?

A couple of questions and objection:

1. So, there will be another covenant during the reign, to a seed of mortal and sinful flesh, with sacrifices of blood for sins?

3. That would be the covenant of Ezek 37?

3. The covenant of Ezek 36 is the current New Testament of the Lamb?

4. The children of Israel in Ezek 44, during the future covenant of Ezek 37, must also be circumcised of heart, which is only possible by that of the Spirit of Christ through the blood of the Lamb?

Which would therefore reject any covenant by blood of bulls and goats for sins.

I do not agree with a blood 'sacrifices of remembrance' rationale. No Scripture speaks of, nor hints at in Ezekiel. They are plainly blood sacrifices for sins.

And so, how can them which have been circumcised of heart, also need blood sacrifices for sins?

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

5. Since there is no outward circumcision with God at this time during the New Covenant, outward circumcision would also need be brought back into honor with God, along with blood sacrifices for sins.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thanks for the answer. I like it.

The God who had the RIGHT to set up the worship system under Moses, and who had the RIGHT to change it under Jesus and the Apostles, has the RIGHT to change it again in the future.

In theory I agree. It is obviously necessary for the prophecy to be fulfilled in future.

What are the differences between those future laws and that of Moses you refer to? Such as, only those of Zadok are allowed to be priests, but the rest of the Levites only keepers of the charge of the house?

A couple of questions and objection:

1. So, there will be another covenant during the reign, to a seed of mortal and sinful flesh, with sacrifices of blood for sins?

3. That would be the covenant of Ezek 37?

3. The covenant of Ezek 36 is the current New Testament of the Lamb?

4. The children of Israel in Ezek 44, during the future covenant of Ezek 37, must also be circumcised of heart, which is only possible by that of the Spirit of Christ through the blood of the Lamb?

Which would therefore reject any covenant by blood of bulls and goats for sins.

I do not agree with a blood 'sacrifices of remembrance' rationale. No Scripture speaks of, nor hints at in Ezekiel. They are plainly blood sacrifices for sins.

And so, how can them which have been circumcised of heart, also need blood sacrifices for sins?

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

5. Since there is no outward circumcision with God at this time during the New Covenant, outward circumcision would also need be brought back into honor with God, along with blood sacrifices for sins.

I do not deal with conjecture about scripture, only with what it actually says.

Two differences between the old and the future worship are that in the future, the king will be a priest, while in the old, kings were forbidden to act as priests, and in the future there will be no "ark."

Also, the sacrifices are different, both as to what is sacrificed, when it is sacrificed, and when it is sacrificed. And the ordinances are different as well. I traced through all this in detail in pages 164-167 of my book, "Keys to Bible Prophecy."

 

[U.S. Grant]

This is not only NOT stated in scripture. It is contrary to EXPLICITLY STATED New Testament scripture.

For Romans 11:28-29 says of the unrepentant Jews, "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

And Romans 9:3-4 says that the promises still "pertain" to Paul's "countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites."

EXPLICITLY STATED scripture ALWAYS takes precedence over ANY and ALL mere INTERPRETATIONS of scripture.

"Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

I agree. But Romans 11 is not about the 'Jews' still being a special people to God after the flesh.

At this time, there is no profit of the flesh, as there was in the first covenant by birth and circumcision.

They are still beloved for their father's sake, and so they can be grafted back into the green olive tree of the house of Israel and of Judah.

Rom 11 is a rebuke to those grafted in from among the Gentiles, who believe the 'Jews' are forever cut off without hope with God.

And Romans 9:3-4 says that the promises still "pertain" to Paul's "countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites."

Correct. Scripture now makes difference between Israel of God (Gal 6) and Israel after the flesh. Them born after the flesh only are in name only.

There is no 'spiritual Israel' on earth today. The body of Christ is the Israel of God in natural bodies on earth: Physical people and children of Israel and of God. The rest are in name only. Spiritual Israel will not be, until the first resurrection, when all believers therein will have spiritual bodies forever. (1 Cor 15)

At this time, no man has any promise of God after the flesh: all such were judged unprofitable to God at the cross: The prophecy of the Psalms was fulfilled at (Rom 3:10-12), so that all born of flesh today are uncircumcised before God, except they repent and be circumcised of heart by the Spirit of Christ.

None on earth were counted for the seed of promise at the cross, nor were there any on earth during the burial of Jesus. They all forsook Him as He prophesied and were all concluded in unbelief with the Gentiles of the world. No flesh today has any promise with God. We are all born uncircumcised before God, because there is no more outward circumcision with God at this time. (Rom 2:28-29)

As you say, the Scripture is explicitly stating so.

The green olive tree of the house of Israel and of Judah are now the Israel and people of God:

For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. (Is 62)

And their new name called by the mouth of the Lord in Scripture is Christian. (1 Peter 4:16)

 

[U.S. Grant]

I do not deal with conjecture about scripture, only with what it actually says.

Two differences between the old and the future worship are that in the future, the king will be a priest, while in the old, kings were forbidden to act as priests, and in the future there will be no "ark."

Also, the sacrifices are different, both as to what is sacrificed, when it is sacrificed, and when it is sacrificed. And the ordinances are different as well. I traced through all this in detail in pages 164-167 of my book, "Keys to Bible Prophecy."

So, you have no answer nor conjecture. I had hoped you had an answer.

And so, I'll keep my own reasoning of Scripture and conclusion.

Also, the sacrifices are different

They are blood sacrifices for sins.

And yet, they in that future covenant must be circumcised of heart, which is now only by faith in the blood of the Lamb through the Spirit of Christ.

Therefore, blood sacrifices for sins, as well as the washing of the blood of the Lamb, must be at the same time for the same people.

Reconcile that, or we conclude that the promise of the future covenant in Ezekiel was not kept by the physical seed, and were all completely cut off at the cross.

That covenant of hope in Ezekiel will not occur as written, unless there can be blood sacrifices for sins and inward circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of Christ.

God can make a promise and offer hope conditioned on others promised, and He can reject fulfilling that promise based upon their failure to keep it.

At this point, I would say studying that covenant for fulfillment and details of differences is purely intellectual in nature.

 

[U.S. Grant]

I keep seeing people posting their ideas on the future "millennium", but millennialism was abolished by the first Council of Constantinople, and the Nicene Creed was changed to read, regarding Christ's kingdom, "whose kingdom shall have no end".

Millennialism is contrary to the Nicene Creed.

The first resurrection and 'Millennial' reign of Christ is a future prophecy in Revelation 20.

Revelation is a book of future prophecy, not just confirmation of prophecy of old.

We know the first resurrection has not passed, nor has begun.

David was still in the grave at the preaching of Peter, and Paul still wrote to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

With the first resurrection, they will no longer be absent from the body.

As in all prophecy, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy. (Rev 19:10)

Now, Revelation is certainly a book of Spiritual warfare through ministerial means, because the weapons of our warfare is not carnal, and the beast makes war with the saints and the Lamb. (Rev 13, 17)

Satan's ministry is his warfare of false doctrine contrary to Scripture.

Therefore, since one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, then spiritually, when we are with the Lord in that day, His reign begins with us.

I would ministerally liken the Lord's return with a 2nd kind of deliverance. First from sins of the world, and then from false ministry contrary to the good of the saints.

But, the first resurrection is yet to be fulfilled.

And the Lord will certainly come from heaven one earth, as they saw Him ascend into heaven. (Acts 1:11)

 

[Clare73]

That's debatable, Dave. And while the denomination I most frequently associate with also tends to affirm Amillennialism, I don't think we have enough hermeneutical insight as a Whole Church to know for certain how God intends to work out His Will in history and into the future ...

I'm thinkin' if the apostles, including Paul, didn't know it, we don't either. . .we have no basis for saying that we do, particularly interpretation of prophecy in a way that is not in agreement with NT teaching.

Also, be careful with your language. One could almost interpret it to mean that you think someone like myself is somehow "outside" the faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm thinkin' if the apostles, including Paul, didn't know it, we don't either. . .we have no basis for saying that we do, particularly interpretation of prophecy in a way that is not in agreement with NT teaching.

Yep, that's what I think, too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm thinkin' if the apostles, including Paul, didn't know it, we don't either. . .we have no basis for saying that we do, particularly interpretation of prophecy in a way that is not in agreement with NT teaching.

... but adding to the previous post, the problem here is that all of those who aver for a different view in interpreting biblical prophecy think they're "in agreement with NT teaching." So, they like to get hiked up about their own views over other views.

For my part, I just take the more existential road and say, "through my faith, I trust that whatever the Lord has intended Sovereignly for it to be, is what it will be"....and then I just go on to continue reading the 30+ scholarly books and articles on various competing views of Prophecy/Apocalyticism/Eschatology that I have. It's WILD!!!

 

[Clare73]

... but adding to the previous post, the problem here is that all of those who aver for a different view in interpreting biblical prophecy think they're "in agreement with NT teaching."

That can be demonsrated and examined. . .

So, they like to get hiked up about their own views over other views.
For my part, I just take the more existential road and say, "through my faith, I trust that whatever the Lord has intended Sovereignly for it to be, is what it will be"....and then I just go on to continue reading the 30+ scholarly books and articles on various competing views of Prophecy/Apocalyticism/Eschatology that I have. It's WILD!!!

Good for you. . .speculation ain't much my thang. . .for the same reason.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That can be demonsrated and examined. . .

Yes, I agree. It can be demonstrated and examined. But then we get into the sticky mess of various Hermeneutical approaches and distinct methods of exegesis that exist which are applied to texts everywhere, including the Bible, with each one clamoring for the top spot as they each attempt to claim "Eureka, I've found the perfect angle on the Bible!"

And then, much to my sadness and disappointment in the hopes that they had, I realize "Oh drats! They actually didn't...!"

Good for you. . .speculation ain't much my thang. . .for the same reason.

I don't like speculation either, but sometimes a man has to do what a man has to do, Clare.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Linear thinking is only following one interpretive method at a time

 

[Biblewriter]

Why don't you try just believing what the Bible says, instead of trying to "interpret" it?