22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

Hebrews 8:6-13, including verse 10, all relates to the new covenant. So, you're saying the new covenant hasn't been fulfilled (established, placed into effect) yet?

Hebrews 8:10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Do you not understand that when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in people God puts His laws in their minds and hearts? This verse is about the new covenant and that was established long ago by the blood of Christ. How can you say this is not yet fulfilled?

I don't agree with your premise that Hebrews 8:6-13 is about the New Covenant. To understand my point, let's go back to the beginning of the chapter where Paul actually tells you what the main point is:

"Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens . . .​

Paul alerts the reader as to the central issue: the priesthood. Paul contrasts and compares the Levitical priesthood with that of Jesus Christ who is a priest under the order of Melchizedek. He points out that if Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest "since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law." But now, he says, Jesus has "obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises."

Bearing in mind that Paul's central point and his focus is on the priesthood, we examine verses 7 and 8.

Hebrews 8:7-8

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,​

My translation has the word "covenant" in italics, indicating that the word "covenant" is not in the original Greek text. The translators added the word "covenant" in order to help the reader. Taking the idea of covenant from verse 6, the translator repeated the idea of covenant in verse 7. In the opinion of the translator, Paul has now shifted his focus onto the covenant. But is the translator correct?

I don't think so. Going back to verse 6 we note that Paul is talking about the ministry of Jesus Christ, which includes both a better mediator, a better covenant and better promises. According to the translation above, it appears that Paul is comparing two covenants, when in reality, he is comparing two ministries. A better translation would include everything that Paul wanted to say.

Hebrews 8:7-8

7 For if that first ministry had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,​

The "first" and "second" refers to two ministries: the ministry of Moses, which is officiated by earthbound high priests, and the ministry of Jesus Christ, which is officiated by him in heaven.

Next, take a look at verse 8, where Paul finds fault with "them," which is an odd thing to say if he is talking about the Old Covenant in particular. If Paul was finding fault with the Old Covenant, he would have used a singular pronoun, referring to "it", the Old Covenant. But since Paul is contrasting and comparing the ministry of the Levitical Priests with that of Jesus Christ, he places the fault on the earthbound ministry, i.e. "finding fault with them."

For this reason, I could not argue that the subject matter of Hebrews 8 is the New Covenant as such. The subject matter of Hebrews 8 is a comparison between the ministry of Moses and the Ministry of Jesus, which not only includes the New Covenant, it also includes the better promises. Paul quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 because it not only mentions the New Covenant, it also mentions better promises. Both are included.

To answer your original question, Yes, the New Covenant has been established and remains in effect. It not only applies to the Hebrews, it also applies to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, Jew or Gentile.

But no, the other covenant is not yet in effect and no, the Holy Spirit does not write the law onto our hearts. If it did, we would be living Jewishly, eating kosher and celebrating the Jewish festivals for instance.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm waiting for your clip, post it?

Since you are interested in Daniel chapter 9, you might consider this video.

Daniel's Seventy Weeks -- a Pilgrim's Journey

And here is another, shorter video talking about God's plan to sanctify his name.

Hollowed Be Thy Name

I have a few more, but I wasn't sure which videos you wanted to see.

 

[Truth7t7]

I don't agree with your premise that Hebrews 8:6-13 is about the New Covenant. To understand my point, let's go back to the beginning of the chapter where Paul actually tells you what the main point is:

"Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens . . .​

Paul alerts the reader as to the central issue: the priesthood. Paul contrasts and compares the Levitical priesthood with that of Jesus Christ who is a priest under the order of Melchizedek. He points out that if Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest "since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law." But now, he says, Jesus has "obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises."

Bearing in mind that Paul's central point and his focus is on the priesthood, we examine verses 7 and 8.

Hebrews 8:7-8

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,​

My translation has the word "covenant" in italics, indicating that the word "covenant" is not in the original Greek text. The translators added the word "covenant" in order to help the reader. Taking the idea of covenant from verse 6, the translator repeated the idea of covenant in verse 7. In the opinion of the translator, Paul has now shifted his focus onto the covenant. But is the translator correct?

I don't think so. Going back to verse 6 we note that Paul is talking about the ministry of Jesus Christ, which includes both a better mediator, a better covenant and better promises. According to the translation above, it appears that Paul is comparing two covenants, when in reality, he is comparing two ministries. A better translation would include everything that Paul wanted to say.

Hebrews 8:7-8

7 For if that first ministry had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,​

The "first" and "second" refers to two ministries: the ministry of Moses, which is officiated by earthbound high priests, and the ministry of Jesus Christ, which is officiated by him in heaven.

Next, take a look at verse 8, where Paul finds fault with "them," which is an odd thing to say if he is talking about the Old Covenant in particular. If Paul was finding fault with the Old Covenant, he would have used a singular pronoun, referring to "it", the Old Covenant. But since Paul is contrasting and comparing the ministry of the Levitical Priests with that of Jesus Christ, he places the fault on the earthbound ministry, i.e. "finding fault with them."

For this reason, I could not argue that the subject matter of Hebrews 8 is the New Covenant as such. The subject matter of Hebrews 8 is a comparison between the ministry of Moses and the Ministry of Jesus, which not only includes the New Covenant, it also includes the better promises. Paul quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 because it not only mentions the New Covenant, it also mentions better promises. Both are included.

To answer your original question, Yes, the New Covenant has been established and remains in effect. It not only applies to the Hebrews, it also applies to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, Jew or Gentile.

But no, the other covenant is not yet in effect and no, the Holy Spirit does not write the law onto our hearts. If it did, we would be living Jewishly, eating kosher and celebrating the Jewish festivals for instance.

Your claims regarding Hebrews 8 is out in left field, yes its talking about the new covenant in the blood if Jesus Christ, yes the law is written on the minds and hearts through the indwelling Holy Spirit

Your claim it represents two ministries is Pinocchio's nose is growing again

 

[Truth7t7]

Since you are interested in Daniel chapter 9, you might consider this video.

Daniel's Seventy Weeks -- a Pilgrim's Journey

And here is another, shorter video talking about God's plan to sanctify his name.

Hollowed Be Thy Name

I have a few more, but I wasn't sure which videos you wanted to see.

Thanks

 

[WPM]

No, I'm speculating that Christian theologians were blind to Premillennialism because they were forced to account for the fact that Israel no longer existed after 70AD. Granted, Paul wrote that God was not done with Israel prior to that. As of the time of writing, Israel still existed. But after 70AD Israel no longer existed. If I was living in the third or fourth century AD, I would have become a proponent of Amillennialism, telling people that since God allowed Israel to be destroyed and his people taken captive, one must reinterpret various passages of the OT to account for this. After 1948, Christians were forced to re-examine the Amillennial position.

I cannot accept that. I think that is a faulty excuse to justify the dearth of support for modern Premil in the earliest Church writings. Why do you say that when that is just one small aspect of the overall eschatological subject? In your theology, Israel maybe the focus and the return of the old covenant arrangement your passion. But that is neither the focus of Scripture or the center-point of eschatology. Christ is. The new covenant is. The defeat of every enemy of righteousness is. The gathering of all nations to Him is. His climactic return is. The introduction of final and eternal justice, order and rest is. It is nowhere near the most important. The overwhelming amount of their ancient theological tenets were opposed to every facet of modern Premil thinking, not just Zionism and Israelolotry.

 

[RLT63]

I cannot accept that. I think that is a faulty excuse to justify the dearth of support for modern Premil in the earliest Church writings. Why do you say that when that is just one small aspect of the overall eschatological subject? In your theology, Israel maybe the focus and the return of the old covenant arrangement is your passion. But that is neither the focus of Scripture or the center-point of eschatology. Christ is. The new covenant is. The defeat of every enemy of righteousness is. The gathering of all nations to Him is. His climactic return is. The introduction of final and eternal justice, order and rest is. It is nowhere near the most important. The overwhelming amount of their ancient theological tenets were opposed to every facet of modern Premil thinking, not just Zionism and Israelolotry.

Yeah and with all their knowledge and understanding of scripture they didn't recognize the Messiah and they murdered him.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your claims regarding Hebrews 8 is out in left field, yes its talking about the new covenant in the blood if Jesus Christ, yes the law is written on the minds and hearts through the indwelling Holy Spirit

Your claim it represents two ministries is Pinocchio's nose is growing again

Since I spent a bit more time writing that post, I would challenge you to be more specific concerning your critique.
Essentially, I attempted to demonstrate, from the text, that the subject matter of Hebrews 8 is not specifically the New Covenant, though it is mentioned there. The passage seeks to make a case for the ministry of Jesus Christ, comparing the ministry of Moses with the ministry of Jesus.

I would like you to consider being a bit more critical of my presentation. Demonstrate why you believe that Hebrews 8 is not a comparison between two ministries, giving examples.

Secondly, I think we both agree that the Holy Spirit is the one doing the writing; but I do not agree with Christian culture, which reduces the law to moral imperatives, suggesting that the Holy Spirit has written moral imperatives on our hearts. That may be true, but that is not what Jeremiah meant. Jeremiah is talking about the entire law of Moses.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I cannot accept that. I think that is a faulty excuse to justify the dearth of support for modern Premil in the earliest Church writings. Why do you say that when that is just one small aspect of the overall eschatological subject? In your theology, Israel maybe the focus and the return of the old covenant arrangement is your passion. But that is neither the focus of Scripture or the center-point of eschatology. Christ is. The new covenant is. The defeat of every enemy of righteousness is. The gathering of all nations to Him is. His climactic return is. The introduction of final and eternal justice, order and rest is. It is nowhere near the most important. The overwhelming amount of their ancient theological tenets were opposed to every facet of modern Premil thinking, not just Zionism and Israelolotry.

I'm not surprised that you continually misrepresent and misconstrue my position.

 

[Truth7t7]

Since I spent a bit more time writing that post, I would challenge you to be more specific concerning your critique.
Essentially, I attempted to demonstrate, from the text, that the subject matter of Hebrews 8 is not specifically the New Covenant, though it is mentioned there. The passage seeks to make a case for the ministry of Jesus Christ, comparing the ministry of Moses with the ministry of Jesus.

I would like you to consider being a bit more critical of my presentation. Demonstrate why you believe that Hebrews 8 is not a comparison between two ministries, giving examples.

Secondly, I think we both agree that the Holy Spirit is the one doing the writing; but I do not agree with Christian culture, which reduces the law to moral imperatives, suggesting that the Holy Spirit has written moral imperatives on our hearts. That may be true, but that is not what Jeremiah meant. Jeremiah is talking about the entire law of Moses.

Hebrews Chapter 9 is a "Continuation" in the reading of Chapter 8, please adhere to the "context"

You give citation of Chapter 8 as if it stands alone "Wrong", chapter 9 clearly explains the new covenant is the blood and sacrifice upon Calvary, simple, clear, easy to understand

 

[WPM]

I'm not surprised that you continually misrepresent and misconstrue my position.

Ok. So what exactly am I misrepresenting?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Ok. So what exactly am I misrepresenting?

You know.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hebrews Chapter 9 is a "Continuation" in the reading of Chapter 8, please adhere to the "context"

You give citation of Chapter 8 as if it stands alone "Wrong", chapter 9 clearly explains the new covenant is the blood and sacrifice upon Calvary, simple, clear, easy to understand

Okay, what statements found in chapter 9 contradict my proposed interpretation of chapter 8?

 

[The Light]

Well, this wasn't very helpful. Again, the things that Jesus was talking about escaping were the things that would literally come upon the entire earth. And He was particularly talking about the things that would happen on "that day" which referred to the day of His second coming and the day that "heaven and earth will pass away". The same day Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:10-12. The only time we'd need to be taken off of the earth to escape is that day because it will involve the entire earth being burned up, as Peter taught.

Jesus did not mention any of the things that will happen on "that day" The things that he mentioned that we could escape are things that happen during the "beginning of sorrow" and the tribulation. There will be some that see these things, but they are not the Church.

You're taking things completely out of context here. In Luke 21:6 and Matthew 24:2 Jesus was talking about the temple buildings standing at that time that the disciples had been talking about and marveling at. So, the context of their question "when shall these things be?" is in terms of when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed.

There is still one stone upon another as the prophecy is unfulfilled. Additionally, what was the sign when the buildings of the Temple were destroyed?
Luke 21
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

What you and other futurists, as well as preterists, don't recognize is that Jesus was asked two different questions there. One had to do with when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and the other has to do with His future second coming at the end of the age. He talked about both events in the Olivet Discourse.

I'm well aware of the so called two questions. So what sign was there when the buildings of the Temple were destroyed?

 

[covenantee]

I gave you an answer.

As Owner/Testator of His Will and Testament, God has every right to change it as He pleases.

There's the answer, made easy for you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

As Owner/Testator of His Will and Testament, God has every right to change it as He pleases.

There's the answer, made easy for you.

Paul speaks about salvation in terms of an inheritance. I don't remember any other kind of "will" mentioned in the Bible.

And although we call it "The New Testament", the Biblical term is "New Covenant", which is NOT a change of covenants per se. In the epistle of Hebrews, Paul, speaking specifically about the law concerning the priesthood, Paul talks about a change of law, which David anticipated.

But here again, it isn't as if God annulled the law concerning the priesthood. Rather, he added a new law, in order to account for the Melchizedekian order. Moses never mentioned that order or the fact that perfect atonement would be achieved by an offering made in heaven.

But I am talking about an entirely different covenant between the house of Judah and the house of Israel and the Lord, set to be inaugurated in our future.

 

[The Light]

Fact? Anyone calling what is clearly an OPINION a fact can't be taken seriously. If you are too prideful to even acknowledge when you are stating an opinion then no one has any reason to take you seriously. Scripture teaches that Jesus will appear a second time (Heb 9:28) but never teaches that He will also appear a third time.

He will appear a second time to those who look for him

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The Church should be looking for Jesus to appear. Those that are looking for Him He will appear a second time unto salvation. After the Church is raptured in the secret pretribulation rapture is there anything that prevents Him from coming again to those that are looking for Him? Here is His coming again AFTER the Church has been raptured.

Revelation 14
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

As for two raptures, the Word tells us many places that are just read through as if they were not there. One coming will be at the last trump another at the trump of God or voice of God. One coming will be like the days of Noah where Noah is in the ark 7 days before the flood and one coming will be like the days of Lot where the very day Lot left Sodom, destruction came.

Scripture teaches that He will descend from heaven in the same manner that He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11), but never teaches that He will then again ascend to heaven and later descend from heaven again. Honestly, that belief is utterly ludicrous and can't remotely be supported by scripture.

That coming of Jesus that I posted above, Revelation 14, show Jesus remains in the clouds. He did not set His foot on the earth at this coming. He came for the second rapture removing the righteous for the marriage supper in heaven and then the wrath of God will begin. Jesus will return at the end of wrath and put His feet on the Mount of Olives.

The 70th week of Daniel ended long ago, so there can't be a future rapture before the 70th week of Daniel.

Jesus was cut off after the 69th week as the Word says.

 

[covenantee]

Paul speaks about salvation in terms of an inheritance. I don't remember any other kind of "will" mentioned in the Bible.

And although we call it "The New Testament", the Biblical term is "New Covenant", which is NOT a change of covenants per se. In the epistle of Hebrews, Paul, speaking specifically about the law concerning the priesthood, Paul talks about a change of law, which David anticipated.

But here again, it isn't as if God annulled the law concerning the priesthood. Rather, he added a new law, in order to account for the Melchizedekian order. Moses never mentioned that order or the fact that perfect atonement would be achieved by an offering made in heaven.

But I am talking about an entirely different covenant between the house of Judah and the house of Israel and the Lord, set to be inaugurated in our future.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The foregoing makes it plain that it is a Will and Testament, which came into full force and effect upon the death of Christ the Testator.

And as with any will and testament, the testator reserves the complete right to change it in any way that he sees fit.

Which He did as declared in Hebrews 8:6:

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Notice the now.

God indeed keeps His promises, by improving upon them with better promises.

Only an ingrate would complain otherwise.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The foregoing makes it plain that it is a Will and Testament, which came into full force and effect upon the death of Christ the Testator.

And as with any will and testament, the testator reserves the complete right to change it in any way that he sees fit.

Which He did as declared in Hebrews 8:6:

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Notice the now.

God indeed keeps His promises, by improving upon them with better promises.

Only an ingrate would complain otherwise.

Okay. We need to be careful not to read our meanings into the text though. The New Covenant is NOT a Will or a Testament the way we understand it today.

 

[covenantee]

Okay. We need to be careful not to read our meanings into the text though. The New Covenant is NOT a Will or a Testament the way we understand it today.

The terms are used interchangeably, the KJV uses New Testament, and it possesses all of the characteristics of a will and testament today.

 

[WPM]

What saddens me, a bit, is how much Amillennialism has clouded the vast amount of texts, which deal with this very subject. I hope you understand that no one, not even Jesus, can prove something to someone who doesn't want to be shown the truth. Just sayin'

This is blatant pride. You have skipped around multiple NT Scriptures that forbid future animal blood sacrifices, explaining it away by your faulty opinion of OT Scripture. You have nothing in the NT pages. What you have in the OT you are sheepish to use because it will be quickly blown out of the water by us who believe that Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin. All you have is personal opinion and private interpretation. That is dangerous. With such, you can literally make the Bible say whatever you wish.

Did you even read what Spiritual Jew wrote?

None of what you're saying is coming from scripture as far as the idea of future animal sacrifices being offered is concerned. You're making things up to support your doctrine. Do you really think anyone should take this seriously when your view of future animal sacrifices and the purpose for them is clearly coming from your own imagination rather than from scripture?

You failed to reply to him with hard Scripture. All you have is your old covenant obsession.