22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

There won't be a future animal sacrificial system "Blessed By God" as you falsely suggest, it's Zionist fairy tales in make believe never never land

What will the Levites do?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Is the "kingdom of God" that Paul referenced in 1 Cor 15:50 a different kingdom than the one you call the Millennial kingdom? If so, where does scripture teach that two different kingdoms will be inherited by different people when Christ returns?

Legitimate question. All I can say is that the distinction I see is between *living in* that time frame and *inheriting* the Kingdom within that time frame.

The difference is on the verbs, living in and inheriting. They mean different things. We don't have much about "living in" the Millennial Period. Often, unless a change is made, it must be assumed there is continuity. For example, unless it is said that all of mankind is exterminated we would assume that mankind continues, even if severely reduced in numbers.

But "inheriting" has a very specific context in 1 Cor 15. It exceeds just *living in* the Millennial Era, and refers specifically to those who are resurrected and glorified.

1 Cor 15.50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

So yes, I'm making some assumptions here, namely that mortals continue to live in the Millennial Era, and that the Kingdom that comes at that time is being "inherited" solely by immortals, whereas the mortal population of earth merely lives in that time period and benefits from its influence. It's something you have to look into for yourself and decide for yourself. But your question is at the heart of the issue for me. Thanks.

 

[covenantee]

The ceremonial law was simply a signpost to Christ. No more. The cross removed this imperfect system. The shadow and the temporal could only remain until the real and eternal arrived. Why would God restore animal sacrifices when He sent His Son to make one final all-sufficient sacrifice for sin? After Christ comes there is no need for the typical sacrifices on the new earth? The fulfilment, the reality, the substance, will be in the midst of God's people. The shadow has been long discarded.

Hebrews 10:5-6 tells us, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.”

There is no room in the plan of God for the return of the imperfect Old Testament sacrifices. Once Christ (the final sacrifice) came and fulfilled His destiny by dying for man’s sin the former was done away. The old has been eternally abolished. God took upon human form. The Son of God being perfect could testify: “a body hast thou prepared me.” That body was perfect and His sacrifice was the sacrifice of sacrifices – the one that ended all the old covenant sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:8-10 confirms: “Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The old covenant was temporal and imperfect and could never satisfy God’s eternal plan for man. It has now been replaced by the new covenant with its focus upon the one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. The New Testament disallows the re-introduction of the abolished sacrifices and offerings. Christ is that final offering for sin.

When Jesus died on the cross He instituted the new covenant which allowed the believer to access God directly. No longer would the bulk of God’s people be excluded from the presence of the Lord by a veil. No longer did they need an earthly priest to represent them before God. They were now free to approach Him personally by simple faith. Christ removed the partition between God and His people when He laid down His life for our sins. He became man’s final high priest.

Hebrews 8:3-8: “For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law … But now hath He [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry (than the priests that made imperfect sacrifices), by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”

The removal of the faulty old covenant is here connected to the replacement of the old covenant priesthood. The two are inextricably tied together. The one true eternal high priest has perfected the last sacrifice for sin, and now sits in heaven interceding for His elect. Thus He fulfils the two-fold duty of the priest (making atonement for sin, and interceding on the people’s behalf).

Amen brother. Premil's desperate and incessant attempts to replace the New Covenant with the old (an actual manifestation of replacement "theology") would be utterly laughable were they not utterly lamentable.

Thanks for your continued staunch and unwavering defense of "the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints." (Jude 1:3 NASB)

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not true! You don't get it do you? You are so married to ethnic Israel and the old covenant ceremonial system that you cannot enter into the new covenant reality and accept Christ and His eternal covenant as enough for you.

Did I EVER mention the Old Covenant? Did I EVER advocate for the Old Covenant? I don't think I did. From my perspective, you are locked into dualistic thinking, which doesn't allow for a third choice. Your view assumes that there are only two choices (either this or that) when there are other choices available.

Your so-called future millennial period is a debacle. You wrongly portray a millennium of unparalleled peace and submission to Jesus where the lion and the lamb finally rest together in unity and love and where the glorified saints enjoy final bliss and then bam the slaughter trucks pull up to take these same sheep to Jerusalem for slaughter.

You have me mistaken for someone else. I never said anything like that. Try to stick to the issue at hand, okay?

The Levitical priesthood had to be replaced because it was inadequate and temporal.

Paul doesn't argue that the Levitical priesthood was replaced. He argues that the day of atonement, which was officiated by a man with a limited lifespan was not able to perfect the worshipper. As he says, "they were not suffered to continue by reason of death." Death, not sin, is the reason why the worshipper is not perfected.

He was the substance and fulfilment of the Old Testament high priestly order who served as the temporal shadow of the coming Messiah. He met every requirement demanded of God to reconcile the sinner unto God.

If that were so, then Paul would not have argued that Christ serves under a different order.

The removal of the faulty old covenant is here connected to the replacement of the old covenant priesthood. The two are inextricably tied together. The one true eternal high priest has perfected the last sacrifice for sin, and now sits in heaven interceding for His elect. Thus He fulfils the two-fold duty of the priest (making atonement for sin, and interceding on the people’s behalf).

Paul also argues that if Jesus were on earth, he could not serve as a priest. So his priestly service is in heaven. If the earthly priesthood were abrogated, as you suggest, then it wouldn't matter where Jesus served as a priest. But since Paul argues that Jesus couldn't be a priest on earth, his argument is predicated on the fact that the law of Moses remains in effect.

If Paul's argument is predicated on the continuance of the Mosaic Law, Hebrews 8:4, this defeats your view that it has been abrogated.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You do not seem to grasp the difference between the moral code and the ceremonial sacrificial system. That is where you are getting confused. The moral code stands to expose sin and point sinners to Christ. The ceremonial sacrificial system has been abolished. It has passed its sell-by date.

I think you will find that Adultery and the sentence for the crime of Adultery are aspects of the moral code.

 

[covenantee]

I agree. God's word hasn't changed, but man's interpretation of God's word needs to be revised if it is erroneous. The emergence of the nation of Israel is certainly a watershed moment that deserves our consideration. We can't just ignore the obvious. Right?

Since you claim to be open to new information, here is new information regarding the identity of Israel. Would you agree that it can't be ignored?

Who is Israel?

Genetically, after more than three millennia of natural genetic dispersion and diffusion, it is the entirety of humanity,

Corroborated empirically by the Jewish community itself.

Abraham lineage
DNA Tests Could Fulfill God’s Promise to Abraham by Revealing Millions of Jews. But How Jewish is Jewish Enough?
Israel in all of Us? Research finds 'Jewish genes' in unusual places
Jewish-Roots Arabs in Israel
Tracing the lost tribes to Jewish communities in Africa
Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel? - CNN
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/...-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/...her-claims-proof-of-tribe-of-Ephraim-in-India
https://www.jta.org/2013/05/23/life...bush-bani-israel-tribe-claims-jewish-heritage

Demonstrated mathematically.

Example of ancestral genetic ubiquity:

Charlemagne’s DNA and Our Universal Royalty

BY CARL ZIMMER

Nobody in my past was hugely famous, at least that I know of. I vaguely recall that an ancestor of mine who shipped over on the Mayflower distinguished himself by falling out of the ship and having to get fished out of the water. He might be notable, I guess, but hardly famous. It is much more fun to think that I am a bloodline descendant of Charlemagne. And in 1999, Joseph Chang gave me permission to think that way.

Chang was not a genealogist who had decided to make me his personal project. Instead, he is a statistician at Yale who likes to think of genealogy as a mathematical problem. When you draw your genealogy, you make two lines from yourself back to each of your parents. Then you have to draw two lines for each of them, back to your four grandparents. And then eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents, and so on. But not so on for very long. If you go back to the time of Charlemagne, forty generations or so, you should get to a generation of a trillion ancestors. That’s about two thousand times more people than existed on Earth when Charlemagne was alive.

The only way out of this paradox is to assume that our ancestors are not independent of one another. That is, if you trace their ancestry back, you loop back to a common ancestor. We’re not talking about first-cousin stuff here–more like twentieth-cousin. This means that instead of drawing a tree that fans out exponentially, we need to draw a web-like tapestry.

In a paper he published in 1999 [pdf], Chang analyzed this tapestry mathematically. If you look at the ancestry of a living population of people, he concluded, you’ll eventually find a common ancestor of all of them. That’s not to say that a single mythical woman somehow produced every European by magically laying a clutch of eggs. All this means is that as you move back through time, sooner or later some of the lines in the genealogy will cross, meeting at a single person.

As you go back further in time, more of those lines cross as you encounter more common ancestors of the living population. And then something really interesting happens. There comes a point at which, Chang wrote, “all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals.”

In 2002, the journalist Steven Olson wrote an article in the Atlantic about Chang’s work. To put some empirical meat on the abstract bones of Chang’s research, Olson considered a group of real people–living Europeans.

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

Suddenly, my pedigree looked classier: I am a descendant of Charlemagne. Of course, so is every other European. By the way, I’m also a descendant of Nefertiti. And so are you, and everyone else on Earth today. Chang figured that out by expanding his model from living Europeans to living humans, and getting an estimate of 3400 years instead of a thousand for the all-ancestor generation.

Things have changed a lot in the fourteen years since Chang published his first paper on ancestry. Scientists have amassed huge databases of genetic information about people all over the world. These may not be the same thing as a complete genealogy of the human race, but geneticists can still use them to tackle some of the same questions that intrigued Chang.

Recently, two geneticists, Peter Ralph of the University of Southern California and Graham Coop of the University of California at Davis, decided to look at the ancestry of Europe. They took advantage of a compilation of information about 2257 people from across the continent. Scientists had examined half a million sites in each person’s DNA, creating a distinctive list of genetic markers for each of them.

You can use this kind of genetic information to make some genealogical inferences, but you have to know what you’re dealing with. Your DNA is not a carbon copy of your parents’. Each time they made eggs or sperm, they shuffled the two copies of each of their chromosomes and put one in the cell. Just as a new deck gets more scrambled the more times you shuffle it, chromosomes get more shuffled from one generation to the next.

This means that if you compare two people’s DNA, you will find some chunks that are identical in sequence. The more closely related people are, the bigger the chunks you’ll find. This diagram shows how two first cousins share a piece of DNA that’s identical by descent (IBD for short).

Ralph and Coop identified 1.9 million of these long shared segments of DNA shared by at least two people in their study. They then used the length of each segment to estimate how long ago it arose from a common ancestor of the living Europeans.

Their results, published today in PLOS Biology, both confirm Chang’s mathematical approach and enrich it. Even within the past thousand years, Ralph and Coop found, people on opposite sides of the continent share a lot of segments in common–so many, in fact, that it’s statistically impossible for them to have gotten them all from a single ancestor. Instead, someone in Turkey and someone in England have to share a lot of ancestors. In fact, as Chang suspected, the only way to explain the DNA is to conclude that everyone who lived a thousand years ago who has any descendants today is an ancestor of every European. Charlemagne for everyone!

If you compare two people in Turkey, you’ll find bigger shared segments of DNA, which isn’t surprising. Since they live in the same country, chances are they have more recent ancestors, and more of them. But there is a rich, intriguing pattern to the number of shared segments among Europeans. People across Eastern Europe, for example, have a larger set of shared segments than people from within single countries in Western Europe. That difference may be the signature of a big expansion of the Slavs.

Ralph and Coop’s study may provide a new tool for reconstructing the history of humans on every continent, not just Europe. It will also probably keep people puzzling over the complexities of genealogy.


How does God distinguish genetic Jews from genetic Jews?

It matters not one whit.

Because God has only two covenant criteria.

Two spiritual genes.

Faith and obedience.

Abraham's Spiritual DNA.

And nothing else.

 

[WPM]

Did I EVER mention the Old Covenant? Did I EVER advocate for the Old Covenant? I don't think I did. From my perspective, you are locked into dualistic thinking, which doesn't allow for a third choice. Your view assumes that there are only two choices (either this or that) when there are other choices available.

You have me mistaken for someone else. I never said anything like that. Try to stick to the issue at hand, okay?

Paul doesn't argue that the Levitical priesthood was replaced. He argues that the day of atonement, which was officiated by a man with a limited lifespan was not able to perfect the worshipper. As he says, "they were not suffered to continue by reason of death." Death, not sin, is the reason why the worshipper is not perfected.


If that were so, then Paul would not have argued that Christ serves under a different order.



Paul also argues that if Jesus were on earth, he could not serve as a priest. So his priestly service is in heaven. If the earthly priesthood were abrogated, as you suggest, then it wouldn't matter where Jesus served as a priest. But since Paul argues that Jesus couldn't be a priest on earth, his argument is predicated on the fact that the law of Moses remains in effect.

If Paul's argument is predicated on the continuance of the Mosaic Law, Hebrews 8:4, this defeats your view that it has been abrogated.

You are married to the old covenant. You defend it for your life. You have to. You can put your hope in the rebuilding of a brick temple in Jerusalem the restoration of a Jewish priesthood to compete with Jesus, the pointless butchering of countless innocent animal sacrifices, but we Christians put our trust in Christ alone and His final sacrifice for sin. He is our focus. He is our only hope. I hate to burst your bubble: but the old covenant is gone forever. Get a plane ticket to Jerusalem and you will see see that Jesus was right. It is eternally redundant.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The core issue is because you reject so much Old and New Testament climactic Scripture, and because you misinterpret so much Old and New Testament Scripture, it forces you to misapply so much fulfilled Scripture to the future that clearly and contextually relates to an abolished religious system. But you repudiate the interpreting of Scripture with Scripture. This is why you promote so much error.

You are correct. I reject your paradigm, which includes your assumptions and concepts that constitute your way of viewing the prophetic, eschatological record. You don't argue from the scriptures themselves, you argue from your paradigm instead, which is to be examined by me, not assumed by me. An fundamental aspect of your paradigm is a mistaken, foundational, presupposition based on a false dilemma; your paradigm assumes that there are only two possible choices when there are actually three.

I will take this as an admission that there is nowhere in the passage that supports your erroneous claims.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[WPM]

Did I EVER mention the Old Covenant? Did I EVER advocate for the Old Covenant? I don't think I did. From my perspective, you are locked into dualistic thinking, which doesn't allow for a third choice. Your view assumes that there are only two choices (either this or that) when there are other choices available.

You have me mistaken for someone else. I never said anything like that. Try to stick to the issue at hand, okay?

Paul doesn't argue that the Levitical priesthood was replaced. He argues that the day of atonement, which was officiated by a man with a limited lifespan was not able to perfect the worshipper. As he says, "they were not suffered to continue by reason of death." Death, not sin, is the reason why the worshipper is not perfected.


If that were so, then Paul would not have argued that Christ serves under a different order.



Paul also argues that if Jesus were on earth, he could not serve as a priest. So his priestly service is in heaven. If the earthly priesthood were abrogated, as you suggest, then it wouldn't matter where Jesus served as a priest. But since Paul argues that Jesus couldn't be a priest on earth, his argument is predicated on the fact that the law of Moses remains in effect.

If Paul's argument is predicated on the continuance of the Mosaic Law, Hebrews 8:4, this defeats your view that it has been abrogated.

If the Levitical priesthood exists today, where is it? What are they doing? The fact is: the Jews cannot prove their lineage since AD70. The records are all gone up in a puff of smoke. They have nothing. That is because Jesus is the Promised land today. He is offered to them alone as their lineage, if they would simply accept Him.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Since you claim to be open to new information, here is new information regarding the identity of Israel. Would you agree that it can't be ignored?

Who is Israel?

Israel is a place in the middle east.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If the Levitical priesthood exists today, where is it? What are they doing? The fact is: the Jews cannot prove their lineage since AD70. The records are all gone up in a puff of smoke. They have nothing. That is because Jesus is the Promised land today. He is offered to them alone as their lineage, if they would simply accept Him.

I didn't say it existed today.

 

[CadyandZoe]

More opinions and more avoidance. I have showed you strong Scripture that proves the sin offerings were done away through the cross-work. It is the NT that damns your doctrine. Sorry that the cross is not enough for you.

Projection: you are ignoring what I say.

 

[WPM]

I didn't say it existed today.

Answer the questions instead of always avoiding the issues. You have nothing to present here to support your Judaic speculations. It is obvious. You are totally winging it.

 

[covenantee]

Israel is a place in the middle east.

And Israelis do not exist.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Legitimate question. All I can say is that the distinction I see is between *living in* that time frame and *inheriting* the Kingdom within that time frame.

The difference is on the verbs, living in and inheriting. They mean different things. We don't have much about "living in" the Millennial Period. Often, unless a change is made, it must be assumed there is continuity. For example, unless it is said that all of mankind is exterminated we would assume that mankind continues, even if severely reduced in numbers.

But "inheriting" has a very specific context in 1 Cor 15. It exceeds just *living in* the Millennial Era, and refers specifically to those who are resurrected and glorified.

1 Cor 15.50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

So yes, I'm making some assumptions here, namely that mortals continue to live in the Millennial Era, and that the Kingdom that comes at that time is being "inherited" solely by immortals, whereas the mortal population of earth merely lives in that time period and benefits from its influence. It's something you have to look into for yourself and decide for yourself. But your question is at the heart of the issue for me. Thanks.

Randy,
I think you are on the right track.
Take note of the parallelism found in 1 Corinthians 15:50

flesh and blood --> perishable
kingdom of God --> imperishable.

That is to say, the meaning of the parallelism relies on both statements working together to communicate a single thought. While it is true that the kingdom of God is eternal, it can and does exist in a temporal time and space at the moment. But only those who have been transformed from perishable to imperishable can inherit the eternal aspect of the kingdom.

See what I mean?

 

[Keraz]

Is the "kingdom of God" that Paul referenced in 1 Cor 15:50 a different kingdom than the one you call the Millennial kingdom? If so, where does scripture teach that two different kingdoms will be inherited by different people when Christ returns?

In 1 Cor 15-50-56, Paul is prophesying about the time of Eternity, that comes AFTER the Millennium. Proved by how it is only then that Death is no more. Revelation 21:1-7

 

[CadyandZoe]

You are married to the old covenant. You defend it for your life. You have to. You can put your hope in the rebuilding of a brick temple in Jerusalem the restoration of a Jewish priesthood to compete with Jesus, the pointless butchering of countless innocent animal sacrifices, but we Christians put our trust in Christ alone and His final sacrifice for sin. He is our focus. He is our only hope. I hate to burst your bubble: but the old covenant is gone forever. Get a plane ticket to Jerusalem and you will see see that Jesus was right. It is eternally redundant.

You are in error. You can not find anywhere in what I have written, and I have written a lot of posts, where I defend the Old Covenant. No where have I ever expressed a hope in a brick temple. No where have I ever dismissed the essential doctrine of trust in Christ. You are reading me through the lenses of your paradigm, not listening at all to what I have said, apparently.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Answer the questions instead of always avoiding the issues. You have nothing to present here to support your Judaic speculations. It is obvious. You are totally winging it.

Projection: I told you I never said that the Levitical Priesthood existed today. And I stand by what I said. You seem to take this tack away from the issue whenever you are at a loss for a rational statement.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And Israelis do not exist.

Tell that to the government of Israel.

The Law of Return that was passed by the Israeli parliament in 1950 gives all diaspora Jews, as well as their children and grandchildren, the right to relocate to Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship on the basis of connecting to their Jewish identity.​

 

[Keraz]

If the Levitical priesthood exists today, where is it?

Right, it doesn't exist today.
But the day will come when the Lord will clear and cleanse all of the holy Land, the Temple will be rebuilt and there will again be a Levitical Priesthood. Isaiah 66:20-21 The Lord will select them from among His faithful Christian peoples.

Randy,
I think you are on the right track.
Take note of the parallelism found in 1 Corinthians 15:50

The Eternal state follows after the Millennium.
There cannot be mortals as well as immortals in the Millennium.