22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

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

I don't agree that the terms used in the Bible are the ones we use today.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In my view, the promise of the "New Covenant" in Jer 31.31 is less clear about the change in law as it is clear that the Old Covenant would fail and require a rework and modification. These points are central:

1) The Old Covenant was failing. The blessings would no longer take place. The very basis for blessing would be gone. The only thing that could restore blessing was repentance and a reinstitution of the Old Covenant, or a reworking of it.
2) The New Covenant would be essentially different from the Old Covenant. It isn't clear what the difference would be, likely because it was anticipated that the Old Covenant would be restored. A description of a future New Covenant would conflict with the requirements of the Old Covenant, which would be reinstituted.

When we read about the Law written on the heart what is being suggested is that Israel had failed under the Old Covenant by practicing the externals of the Law without truly following that Law in spirit. As Jesus said, they were "white-washed tombs." Ezekiel said the same thing in describing "white washed walls." Eze 13.

What I think many Christians fail to see is that the Jer 31 prophecy of the New Covenant does not predict when it is initially established, which was at Christ's resurrection. The prophecy in Jeremiah is actually indicating when it will take place *for the nation Israel,* which will be at the 2nd Coming of Christ. Of course, if Israel is to thus be saved *as a nation* at the 2nd Coming, then it must 1st have been established at Christ's 1st Coming.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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?



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

You don't seem to be learning from this experience. Are you?

 

[CadyandZoe]

In my view, the promise of the "New Covenant" in Jer 31.31 is less clear about the change in law as it is clear that the Old Covenant would fail and require a rework and modification. These points are central:

1) The Old Covenant was failing. The blessings would no longer take place. The very basis for blessing would be gone. The only thing that could restore blessing was repentance and a reinstitution of the Old Covenant, or a reworking of it.
2) The New Covenant would be essentially different from the Old Covenant. It isn't clear what the difference would be, likely because it was anticipated that the Old Covenant would be restored. A description of a future New Covenant would conflict with the requirements of the Old Covenant, which would be reinstituted.

When we read about the Law written on the heart what is being suggested is that Israel had failed under the Old Covenant by practicing the externals of the Law without truly following that Law in spirit. As Jesus said, they were "white-washed tombs." Ezekiel said the same thing in describing "white washed walls." Eze 13.

What I think many Christians fail to see is that the Jer 31 prophecy of the New Covenant does not predict when it is initially established, which was at Christ's resurrection. The prophecy in Jeremiah is actually indicating when it will *take place for the nation Israel,* which will be at the 2nd Coming of Christ. Of course, if Israel is to thus be saved *as a nation* at the 2nd Coming, then it must 1st have been established at Christ's 1st Coming.

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, where I highlighted the passage in two different colors.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.


“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Notice the transition between "days are coming" and "after those days."

Days are coming --> Jesus dies on a cross --> New Covenant
After those days --> (some time in the future) --> This is the covenant I will make . . .

See two covenants here?

 

[WPM]

You don't seem to be learning from this experience. Are you?

You don't seem to be learning from this experience. Are you?

 

[WPM]

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, where I highlighted the passage in two different colors.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.


“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Notice the transition between "days are coming" and "after those days."

Days are coming --> Jesus dies on a cross --> New Covenant
After those days --> (some time in the future) --> This is the covenant I will make . . .

See two covenants here?

No!

Hebrews 8:6-13 declares: “now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant [diathēkē or covenant], which was (present tense) established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Hello! Read what it is saying! “After” what “days”? After the “days” of “that first covenant” that he just mentioned. This is not rocket science. Can you not take Scripture in its context and let it speak for itself? Are you so besotted with the old covenant and so captivated with promoting futile animal sacrifices in the future that you cannot see and embrace the beauty, fulfillment and finality of the new covenant?

 

[covenantee]

I don't agree that the terms used in the Bible are the ones we use today.

That's fine. But they are.

 

[Truth7t7]

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

Hebrews Chapter 9 is self-explanatory, as stated it's about the "New Testament" in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, out with the old, in with the new

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, where I highlighted the passage in two different colors.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.


“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Notice the transition between "days are coming" and "after those days."

Days are coming --> Jesus dies on a cross --> New Covenant
After those days --> (some time in the future) --> This is the covenant I will make . . .

See two covenants here?

It's an interesting question--one that I'm not qualified to answer. I always have to ask my brother, who is more knowledgeable of the biblical languages.

But the order alone is of interest--1st the coming covenant, and then, I think, the *same covenant* applies after the days in which the covenant is initiated. I see it as the same covenant, but still, the order is interesting--1st the establishment of the covenant, and later, the same covenant comes to apply to the nation Israel.

We may perhaps agree that the initial covenant applied to the nation Israel. I think Jesus applied it as a legal provision, but it was not received by the nation--only by a small remnant of the nation. So "after those days," ie after the days of the offer of the covenant to Israel, it comes to apply to the nation Israel at the 2nd Coming.

I don't know if this is correct, but I wouldn't say this is a different covenant. I think, however, we'd both agree that whether another covenant or the same covenant it comes to apply to national Israel *at the 2nd Coming?* Let me know?

And yes, I was reading the exchange of posts you were having. I don't agree with you that the paraphernalia of the OT Law will be reinstituted, but I fully am on board your notion that Israel will be reconstituted as a nation.

I didn't want to leave you alone defending that reality. I call it the "Jewish Hope."

 

[Taken]

22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine
OP ^

Doctrines of men are fun to establish and everyone has their personal idea of intent and meaning.

 

[Keraz]

Israel will be reconstituted as a nation.

I didn't want to leave you alone defending that reality. I call it the "Jewish Hope."

They have been; the Jewish State of Israel, in a very small part of the holy Land. In apostasy and rejection of Jesus.
Next to come, is their Judgment/punishment; Zephaniah 1:1-18, Ezekiel 21:1-7, Joel 1:15 and only a remnant will survive. Isaiah 6:11-13, Romans 9:27

That's fine. But they are.

The words and the concepts in the KJV are far from what we use today. When did you last use thitherward? Jeremiah 39:5

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hebrews Chapter 9 is self-explanatory, as stated it's about the "New Testament" in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, out with the old, in with the new

As students of the Bible we come to realize that Biblical texts are not self-explanatory. And in my experience as a practiced Bible student, I have come to realize that my first impression of a text is not reliable. Understanding any text, let alone the Bible takes thoughtful consideration of the overall idea, which the author develops using words, phrases, sentences and even paragraphs. Our task, as students of the Bible is to apprehend what overall idea the text is presenting.

In this regard, I presented evidence from the text of Hebrews 8 itself that the overall idea that Paul has conveyed to his readers is a comparison between the ministry of Moses and the ministry of Jesus. In the opening verses of Hebrews 8:1-2 Paul summarizes the main idea of chapter 7 this way, "we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man." The overall main subject is the ministry of Jesus Christ. In the text that follows, Paul compares and contrasts the ministry of Moses, (Hebrews 8:5) and the ministry of Jesus. (Hebrews 8:6)

As we read through to the end of Hebrews 8 and half way through to the middle of Chapter 9, Paul continues to compare the ministry of Moses and the ministry of Jesus. Paul doesn't begin to talk about the New Covenant until verse 15 of chapter 9 where he writes, "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (emphasis mine) The phrase "for this reason" refers back to verse 11 where Paul asserts that Jesus is our high priest who entered into the more perfect tabernacle and offered his own blood. For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant.

My point is this. In Hebrews 8, where Paul is comparing the ministry of Moses with the ministry of Jesus, the terms "first" and "second" refer to the ministries, not to the covenants.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That's fine. But they are.

Okay, let's talk about this. What is a "testament"? Essentially a testament is a legal witness as to the will and intent of a deceased person with regard to the distribution of his possessions.

Can a will and testament be changed? Yes and no. A man (or woman) who documents his will with regard to his possessions can change his mind any time while he is still alive; once deceased, his last will and testament remains in force and can not be changed.

The same is true of a covenant. The term "covenant" comes from the Hebrew word for "cutting" and the Bible often speaks of "cutting a covenant." The process involves the sacrifice of an animal or animals, dividing the animals into two parts. The two parties then walk between the cuttings signifying the approval and acceptance of the terms and obligations specified by the agreement. For a Biblical example refer to Genesis 15.

In either case, once the man dies, the terms specified in his will can not be changed, and once a covenant has been cut, the terms the covenant can not be changed.

Paul makes this argument in his epistle to the Galatians.

Galatians 3:15-17

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.​

In his argument, Paul asserts the well-known fact that once a covenant has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. In this context, Paul argues that the inheritance of eternal life was promised to Abraham through a covenant that God made with Abraham 430 years prior to the covenant that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. In other words, the Mt. Sinai covenant did not set aside or add conditions to the covenant God made with Abraham. The second does not cancel or nullify the first. For this reason, he argues, the inheritance of eternal life is based on a promise God made to Abraham and his descendants, which is Christ. And by implication, anyone in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, has access to the inheritance of eternal life.

This is not only important for Gentiles, it is also important for Jews since Israel broke the covenant at Mt. Sinai. Breaking the covenant was the cause of nullification, not God's wish or desire to change it or modify it. As Paul said, God would never set a covenant aside or add conditions to it. But he is no longer obligated to perform the conditions of the Mt. Sinai covenant because Israel broke it. And for this reason the Lord said through Jeremiah, "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah."

 

[CadyandZoe]

No!

Hebrews 8:6-13 declares: “now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant [diathēkē or covenant], which was (present tense) established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Hello! Read what it is saying! “After” what “days”? After the “days” of “that first covenant” that he just mentioned. This is not rocket science. Can you not take Scripture in its context and let it speak for itself? Are you so besotted with the old covenant and so captivated with promoting futile animal sacrifices in the future that you cannot see and embrace the beauty, fulfillment and finality of the new covenant?

I argue my case in the following posts: #5501 and #5532

Paul is quoting Jeremiah and so Jeremiah is the context. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, he speaks of three covenants: 1) the one Israel broke, 2) a new covenant, and 3) a covenant made after the days of the New Covenant.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You don't seem to be learning from this experience. Are you?

I am, as I already explained to @Spiritual Israelite. In our conversation concerning 2 Peter 3, he convinced me to change my mind about Peter's reference to fire etc. I used to believe that Peter was making reference to Joel chapter 2, where the fires involve the land of Israel. After our discussion, I now think Peter is talking about the end of history, which takes place with a "big whoosh" :)

Anyway, the process of conversing with those who see the scriptures differently is beneficial to me because I seriously consider the opposite point of view and I re-examine my own point of view fresh, just in case I missed something.

I entered into your discussion on that basis, since you seemed to have invited others to enter into the process. Thanks for that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It's an interesting question--one that I'm not qualified to answer. I always have to ask my brother, who is more knowledgeable of the biblical languages.

But the order alone is of interest--1st the coming covenant, and then, I think, the *same covenant* applies after the days in which the covenant is initiated. I see it as the same covenant, but still, the order is interesting--1st the establishment of the covenant, and later, the same covenant comes to apply to the nation Israel.

We may perhaps agree that the initial covenant applied to the nation Israel. I think Jesus applied it as a legal provision, but it was not received by the nation--only by a small remnant of the nation. So "after those days," ie after the days of the offer of the covenant to Israel, it comes to apply to the nation Israel at the 2nd Coming.

I don't know if this is correct, but I wouldn't say this is a different covenant. I think, however, we'd both agree that whether another covenant or the same covenant it comes to apply to national Israel *at the 2nd Coming?* Let me know?

And yes, I was reading the exchange of posts you were having. I don't agree with you that the paraphernalia of the OT Law will be reinstituted, but I fully am on board your notion that Israel will be reconstituted as a nation.

I didn't want to leave you alone defending that reality. I call it the "Jewish Hope."

With regard to the Jewish Hope (or in Luke's day, "The Hope of Israel") I am reminded of Luke 1:67-80, where Zacharias prophesied concerning the coming "soter" (savior) of Israel. In the context of the Jewish experience, not only did Zacharias anticipate a coming savior of souls, he also anticipated a coming deliverer of Israel. To summarize the hope of Israel, I borrow from the words of Zacharias. The Hope of Israel is that God might "grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days."

In my view, this requires two covenants, Jeremiah 31:31 and Jeremiah 31:33. At that time, both of these covenants will be in effect. Not only did Israel need a savior to die for their sins and become their perfect high-priest; they also need for God to sanctify them through the outpouring of his spirit on all of Israel. Jesus has already died for their sins, which Jesus called "the new covenant in my blood", and which is a benefit to all of his people, whether Jew or Gentile. The New Covenant is already in effect. But God has not yet poured out his spirit on "all flesh" as the prophets predicted. Jeremiah 31:33 is yet to take place in our future. I agree with you, this will be coincident with the Second Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

With regard to the Jewish Hope (or in Luke's day, "The Hope of Israel") I am reminded of Luke 1:67-80, where Zacharias prophesied concerning the coming "soter" (savior) of Israel. In the context of the Jewish experience, not only did Zacharias anticipate a coming savior of souls, he also anticipated a coming deliverer of Israel. To summarize the hope of Israel, I borrow from the words of Zacharias. The Hope of Israel is that God might "grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days."

In my view, this requires two covenants, Jeremiah 31:31 and Jeremiah 31:33. At that time, both of these covenants will be in effect. Not only did Israel need a savior to die for their sins and become their perfect high-priest; they also need for God to sanctify them through the outpouring of his spirit on all of Israel. Jesus has already died for their sins, which Jesus called "the new covenant in my blood", and which is a benefit to all of his people, whether Jew or Gentile. The New Covenant is already in effect. But God has not yet poured out his spirit on "all flesh" as the prophets predicted. Jeremiah 31:33 is yet to take place in our future. I agree with you, this will be coincident with the Second Coming.

Whether we state these are "2 covenants" or not, the effect appears to be the same, that 1 takes place at Christ' death and resurrection while the other takes place at Christ's 2nd Coming. I don't think anybody who knows the Jewish prophecies of Israel's final restoration can get around that.

So clearly, Jer 31.31 is speaking of Israel's restoration at the 2nd Coming. Those who wish to apply it only to the initiation of the "New Covenant" at Jesus' 1st Coming will have lots of problems making sense of it. That prophecy speaks of the "Hope of Israel," as you call it, which hasn't been fulfilled yet. I'm fully on board with you on that.

I think we both agree that Christ's atonement at his death and resurrection is the eternal constant now, and that a "different covenant" with Israel at the 2nd Coming will not change that? That's why I believe the New Covenant at Christ's 1st Coming and the New Covenant at Christ's 2nd Coming are the same Covenant.

But I do believe that God not only made legal provision for all at the Cross. He also enters into a specific national covenant with Israel at the 2nd Coming. In a sense that may be referred to as separate from the New Covenant initiated at the 1st Coming because it is directed primarily at one nation, Israel.

At any rate, the important element for me is that the basis for Salvation does not change at the 2nd Coming. A reintroduction of some of the provisions of the Law, in the form of traditional observances, would not replace Christ as the sole basis of human salvation, whether for Israel or for all nations. Observance of religious traditions, formerly belonging to the Law, would not offset or contradict Christian salvation through the atonement of Christ.

There are some prophecies in the OT Scriptures that suggest Israel, at her national salvation, will return to some observances of the Law. Many Dispensationalists accept this, and I wouldn't at all say that if this is a "separate covenant" it certainly does not conflict with the idea of exclusive salvation through the atonement of Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

They have been; the Jewish State of Israel, in a very small part of the holy Land. In apostasy and rejection of Jesus.
Next to come, is their Judgment/punishment; Zephaniah 1:1-18, Ezekiel 21:1-7, Joel 1:15 and only a remnant will survive. Isaiah 6:11-13, Romans 9:27

Though all these things be true they do not prevent the reconstruction of the nation on the model of the Christian remnant. That is, a Christian nation can be built by beginning with the initial first fruits of the harvest, Jewish believers.

 

[covenantee]

The words and the concepts in the KJV are far from what we use today.

Check your contemporary Merriam-Webster lexicon.

Will, testament, and covenant appear therein.

 

[covenantee]

Okay, let's talk about this. What is a "testament"? Essentially a testament is a legal witness as to the will and intent of a deceased person with regard to the distribution of his possessions.

Can a will and testament be changed? Yes and no. A man (or woman) who documents his will with regard to his possessions can change his mind any time while he is still alive; once deceased, his last will and testament remains in force and can not be changed.

True, and much more than that. While alive, a testator can change any portion of his will in any way that he desires, including adding, changing, and deleting heirs.

Any documentation must form part of the will, otherwise it is null and void.

The New (Will and) Testament in Christ's Blood explicitly specifies the Heir and heirs. The Heir is Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2), and the heirs are those who are in Christ (Romans 8:17;Galatians 3:29;Galatians 4:7;Titus 3:7)

You have accurately observed previously that God keeps His promises.

And He has.