Millennial Kingdom

I agree with freeatlast that there will be animal sacrifices in the Millennial temple in the Millennial period. I'm personally not convinced that a sin offering then or at any other time in history will fully atone for sin. I realize that there are theologians of high caliber and with whom I generally agree with who teach that the sacfifices during the Millennial period will have some forgiveness qualities. A really good article (in two parts) on this subject can be found in the Jan-March and April-June 2010 Bib Sac. To quote from this article "Israel was a redeemed and covenanted nation before the sacrificial system was instituted" -pg 40 BS 167 Jerry M. Hullinger in The Function of the Millennial Sacrifices in Ezekiel's Temple pt.1

 

My view is that if you have a desire to know what the 1000 year Millennial period is for and about you will have to look beyond anything you will find on the internet.

 

What do you think is the purpose for the MK sacrifices? Won't Jesus be there ruling from the temple?

 

I'm not involved in the debate, but it has triggered a question:
Will there be lost people in the millenium?
If so, how did they get there? Were they born during the MK?

Does this view cross eschatological lines, or is it identified with, say, dispensationalism?

 

Although I'm not fully convinced that there will be actual animal blood sacrifices during the Millenium, if I did, I would say for the same reason as believers today participating in the Lord's Table.

Also, to actually see the death of the animal by the shedding of blood would be a dramatic lesson of the reality of sin and death.

HankD

 

Amy I this is speculation, but I think it is very possible. While I believe that the Lord will be in the temple I do not think that many will ever see Him. I do not think He will be walking around talking to folks and revealing Himself to them. Those who follow Him during the 1000 years will have to walk by faith and not by sight. So the sacrifices would be a reminder of the seriousness of sin.

 

I guess that means that you don't have a view. Have I done something to offend you? This is a discussion forum. I'm trying to discuss. Webdog had a very good OP and I'm trying to understand things just as he is.

 

Ok. I'd never thought of that. I had in my head that Jesus would be visible to everyone.

 

It is of course your right and privledge to say the above, that I'm a cop out. I accept your analysis. Small detail, but if you look at what I've asked and the lack of answers, of course those are not a cop out. Why? Because this thread is not an attempt to actually learn anything, rather it is an attempt to validate an already decided upon view. Sorry if that offends but that is what it is. What information on either side of this debate is anything new, something we haven't tossed back and forth many times in the past? Of course the answer to that question is nothing. My contribution is to simply state that many of those hostile to dispensationalism do not really understand it, some in spite of the fact that they went to DTS or were raised in a dispy church setting.

Now, why would I make such a strong statement as that? Because again, looking at some of the responses that are at odds with the possibility of sacrifices during the MK, those individuals are certain that it is impossible for these sacrifices to happen. To put it another way, the the covenant A-MIL and Preterist crowd are convinced that they are correct and that dispensational millennialism is incorrect, yet at the same time they don't know what dispensational millennialism really teaches. Many of those A-MILL and Preterists don't even believe in a literal 1000 year millennium so what is the purpose of even debaiting the millennium details of it with them?

Again, not trying to personally sully anyone. You and I each have the same right to believe what ever we so desire. But seriously, what do you think are the chances that you or anyone else here will read what someone posts here on this forum and then do a 180 degree change in what you/they believe without doing a lot of further independent study? I would predict that the answer to that question is down around the zero precent range.

 

I assume you think the reason for my questions are because I'm Amil and trying to debunk dispensationalism. That is untrue. I am not Amil or Preterist. I am in the dispy camp. My church and pastor are dispy. I am simply trying to understand some difficult things, not argue against them. That is why I asked for your view. That is why web started the OP. But if you don't want to participate, that is fine.

 

I am in no way offended by anyone. This is after all an impersonal internet forum and I don't feel the need to convince anyone that I have some superior theology. I do have a view on all of this. While I agree with you that this is a discussion forum, I have tried to communicate at my first post on this thread that I feel that many opposed to dispensationalism don't understand it and or get their information from others who don't understand it or in some cases simply misrepresent it for whatever reason. Having been away for a while and then returning I cannot help but feel that we don't discuss opposing views, we state our views as fact. I'm guilty of doing this.

I don't have it all figured out I will admit to that. The real question is this: what does the Bible teach? Does it teach what the covenant folks believe or does it teach what the dispensationalist believe or some other third option not under consideration? The question I ask myself is does the Church fufill all of the higly detailed predictions found in the OT? To answer yes in agreement with the Covenant crowd means that I would have to disreguard a lot of Scripture. And does the Church replace or superceed Israel because of the disbelief if the Jews? In order to agree with Covenant teaching, I would have to somehow believe that the Church of today is considerably more obedient to the precepts of Jehovah than the OT Jews were. My guess is that we are about the same, we probably are a little worse and we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, an advantage the OT Jews did not have.

Those are the questions that never really get answered here.

 

I don't believe it will happen and I am dispensational. Such a teaching is not common among dispies.

 

That may be true among some but not commonly.

 

Interesting. Where do you think most of the Preterists and Amill come from? Dispensational Mill. Many of us are quite familiar with it - just no longer believe it.

 

Exactly! One of the many reasons I became a preterist. Dispies teach that Ezek. 40-48 describe life in the MK. If you believe that is life in the MK, then you must believe that sin offerings along with the other Levitical offerings will be offered in that time.

 

What is your interpretation of Ezek. 40-48?


This is an honest question. I'm not up to something as Thomas has implied.

 

Perhaps we need to reread this whole matter of the Millennial Kingdom.

 

I know your question is an honest one. Im not sure of the interpretation, but if you read through the passage it clearly is describing life under the Law. Therefore I would lean toward a historical fulfillment. What I totally reject is that it describes life in the future. A futurist interpretation makes a mockery of the atoning work of Christ IMHO.

A portion of an article you may or may not find helpful:

http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...e-israel-of-god/180-replacement-theology.html


The doctrine of the re-establishment of physical circumcision is one element of the millennial paradigm that is seldom addressed. However, in Ezekiel 44:9f, which supposedly describes the literal millennial temple, anyone not circumcised in heart or flesh is forbidden to worship at the temple. Thus, circumcision, the sign of division between Jew and Gentile in the New Testament corpus, is re-established in the millennium. Whereas Paul preached the "hope of Israel," he nonetheless uncompromisingly fought the Judaizers over whether Gentiles had to be circumcised. Yet, per the millennial view, the millennium is a world in which Jehovah becomes the Divine Judaizer! What He forbad to occur in Christ, He will demand in the millennium! Jerome's concern, expressed long ago, describes the millennial paradigm. Jerome believed that the idea of a restored sacrificial system in Jerusalem would Judaize Christianity, instead of Christianity Christianizing the adherents of Judaism.
If then the mandates of the Old Covenant are restored, this means that the first century Judaizers were just way ahead of their time! In the millennium, their doctrine will be truth, Gentiles do have to be circumcised. Paul's doctrine that, "If you become circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing," "If any man is circumcised, he is a debtor to keep the whole law," "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails," (Galatians 5:1-6), will be abrogated, and falsified, while the Judaizer's mantra, "The Gentiles must be circumcised!" will be proclaimed. Those laws that Paul called "the weak and beggarly elements of the world," will be restored, and man — this time both Jew and Gentile — will be held in bondage to them once again. Is this the glory of the millennial doctrine?

 

This could not be historical. It must be something else because in Ezekiel's temple the Levites are prohibited from being priests. The priesthood is given to the sons of Zadok. This has never happened in the history of Israel.


As for the circumcision, I admit that is confusing.