A big difference between ancient Chiliasm and modern-day Premillennialism

Status
Not open for further replies.

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
No one here will disagree that dispensationalists grossly misread the ECFs

Most Premils generally misrepresent the ECFs. For the 1st 240 years after the cross there was no classic Dispensational or "Historic" Premil beliefs in the early Church. The new earth they envisioned was more akin to the Amil new earth - it was perfect and pristine. It was sin-free, sinners-free, Satan-free, corruption-free and death-free.

Victorinus was the first of the orthodox writers to teach that the wicked populate a future millennial kingdom. He is also the first to detail Satan’s release after a literal thousand years in the future, and his baleful influence on the wicked who supposedly during Satan’s little season. Victorinus wrote mainly around AD 270. It is both notable and amazing, in light of the loud noise, and constant boastings coming from the Premillennial camp re its ancient heritage, that for 240 years after the cross there is no existing Premillennial teaching pertaining to the populating of the millennium with the wicked and the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming. Consequently, there was nothing taught by any traditional Chiliast before this that the second coming would be followed by Satan’s deceit of billions of millennial inhabitants, who come against the righteous as the sand of the sea in allegiance to Satan and overrun the millennium. For the first 240 years of the early church these key elements of Premil were either unknown or rejected by all the orthodox early church writers. This is not insignificant!

Victorinus concisely submits: "And the scarlet devil is imprisoned and all his fugitive angels in the Tartarus of Gehenna at the coming of the Lord; no one is ignorant of this. And after the thousand years he is released, because of the nations which will have served Antichrist (Revelation commentary: 20.1)."

This is the sum total of information we have on this supposed future uprising. Victorinus is markedly succinct on this matter. He doesn’t elaborate any more on his position. This is the totality of his surviving views. While Victorinus did previously make a passing comment about Satan being released, “because of the nations which will have served Antichrist,” he doesn’t expand and delineate their activity, numbers, location and influence.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Most Premils generally misrepresent the ECFs. For the 1st 240 years after the cross there was no classic Dispensational or "Historic" Premil beliefs in the early Church. The new earth they envisioned was more akin to the Amil new earth - it was perfect and pristine. It was sin-free, sinners-free, Satan-free, corruption-free and death-free.

Victorinus was the first of the orthodox writers to teach that the wicked populate a future millennial kingdom. He is also the first to detail Satan’s release after a literal thousand years in the future, and his baleful influence on the wicked who supposedly during Satan’s little season. Victorinus wrote mainly around AD 270. It is both notable and amazing, in light of the loud noise, and constant boastings coming from the Premillennial camp re its ancient heritage, that for 240 years after the cross there is no existing Premillennial teaching pertaining to the populating of the millennium with the wicked and the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming. Consequently, there was nothing taught by any traditional Chiliast before this that the second coming would be followed by Satan’s deceit of billions of millennial inhabitants, who come against the righteous as the sand of the sea in allegiance to Satan and overrun the millennium. For the first 240 years of the early church these key elements of Premil were either unknown or rejected by all the orthodox early church writers. This is not insignificant!

Victorinus concisely submits: "And the scarlet devil is imprisoned and all his fugitive angels in the Tartarus of Gehenna at the coming of the Lord; no one is ignorant of this. And after the thousand years he is released, because of the nations which will have served Antichrist (Revelation commentary: 20.1)."

This is the sum total of information we have on this supposed future uprising. Victorinus is markedly succinct on this matter. He doesn’t elaborate any more on his position. This is the totality of his surviving views. While Victorinus did previously make a passing comment about Satan being released, “because of the nations which will have served Antichrist,” he doesn’t expand and delineate their activity, numbers, location and influence.

Do you have quotes from modern HPs that have them arguing for a return to the temple system?
 

Eyedoc84

Puritan Board Freshman
When historic premils appeal to ECF, they are appealing to a belief in a future, bodily, thousand year reign of Christ on earth since that is usually the debate in question. They aren’t appealing to them in all the particulars.

In refuting the HP in the particulars of ECF beliefs, you are appealing to similarities between ECF and the amil position. But surely you realize that you don’t stand with the ECF either! And even within amil/postmil camps, there is debate over the nature of the millennium in many of the particulars, so pointing out varieties within premil as a refutation tactic falls flat.

I agree with Jacob (and Calvin): The ECF have some helpful things to say on a variety of topics, but they are hardly a reliable source of anything consistent!

As an aside, I was “historic premil” for years and didn’t believe hardly any of the things you claim HPs believe.
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
When historic premils appeal to ECF, they are appealing to a belief in a future, bodily, thousand year reign of Christ on earth since that is usually the debate in question. They aren’t appealing to them in all the particulars.

In refuting the HP in the particulars of ECF beliefs, you are appealing to similarities between ECF and the amil position. But surely you realize that you don’t stand with the ECF either! And even within amil/postmil camps, there is debate over the nature of the millennium in many of the particulars, so pointing out varieties within premil as a refutation tactic falls flat.

I agree with Jacob (and Calvin): The ECF have some helpful things to say on a variety of topics, but they are hardly a reliable source of anything consistent!

As an aside, I was “historic premil” for years and didn’t believe hardly any of the things you claim HPs believe.

The Word is the ultimate source of truth. What the ECFs taught and what we teach must align with that. Anything that contradicts that is error. It is Premils that tend to appeal to the ECFs. But they often do so ignorantly. They do not realize: Chiliasm was the minority view from the cross right through the ECF period. I also agree with Jacob (and Calvin): The ECF have some helpful things to say on a variety of topics, but they are hardly a reliable source of anything consistent!

Did you believe there would be mortals on the millennial earth?
Did you believe there would be sin on the millennial earth?
Did you believe there would be sinners on the millennial earth?
Did you believe there would be death on the millennial earth?
Did you believe there would be corruption on the millennial earth?
Did you believe there would be marriage on the millennial earth?
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
Do you have quotes from modern HPs that have them arguing for a return to the temple system?

My post, interest, and research have been focused on the ECFs. I have discussed this subject on forums like this for years, and my conclusions are the same as Davis: there are two types of "Historist" Premils: those who believe in the return of the old covenant apparatus and those who spiritualize this away. Maybe not on this forum, but on other forums, the promotion of a rebuilt millennial temple, a restoration of animal sacrifices and the restarting of the Zadok priesthood, has been preeminent position among "Historist" Premils. Here are the types of statements that I hear:

The Beginner

"Im a historic premilennialist and I believe there will be a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem complete with symbolic animal sacrifices and ceremonial activities."

"why all the hatred of animal sacrifices in today's christianity? Are they really a afront to the gospel and a blasphemous acts that tramples on the blood of Christ? There are many passages in the scriptures that do not have a historical fulfillment (without making them unnecessarily allegorical) that speak of future animal sacrifices."

"There are a ton of scriptures that speak of animal sacrifices in context to unfufilled passages (unless they are unnecessarily allegorized). in my opinion, the primary reason they get allegorized is because they talk about animal sacrifices."

"symbolic future animal sacrifices will only serve to, provide "sanctifciation, reconciliation, and atonement" by looking back to the only means of salvation, the cross of Christ."


ForHisglory

"being a premil who does think there will be future sacrifices, and that is that so far not a single amil (nor premil) person has given a valid reason why animal sacrifices should stop.

"there will be a time when there will no longer be animal sacrifices. That time though is not until AFTER the Millennium and the GWToJ. This is because death itself is cast into the LoF and Jesus hands back the kingdom to the Father. The role and value for sacrifices will be entirely removed."

"If you took Zech 14 as being literal THEN you would have to accept some form of future animal sacrifice."


CadyandZoe

The animal sacrifices, then, stand as both a tutor and a ritual expression of righteous sentiment. The animal sacrifices stood ritual expressions of atonement, which anticipate the actual atonement, which is the cross of Christ. God would not be offended at something he commanded according to his purpose as long as it continued to serve his purpose. I see no scriptural evidence to support the claim that God no longer has a need for their original pedagogical purpose, or that he will no longer recognize such an offering as a ritual expression of righteous sentiment, if indeed, the heart of the penitent is both honest and contrite.

Bing

"so what does it matter if there are memorial sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom? I sacrifice my time and money and possessions daily for Christ, without believing that my works save me."

"These are celebrated in the millennium: The Feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-21), the passover (Eze. 45:21), the Feast of trumpets (Eze. 45:25). (see also Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Mal. 3:3-4).


Joyfulparousia


"Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years)."

"Maybe its reinstated not out of necessity but out of remembrance. Imagine being a human in the 3rd generation of humans born into the millennium, it would be a totally different time."


BroRog

"the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices."

"Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok … The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10 … The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6."

"I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one."

"But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again."


threebigrocks

"it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign."
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
My post, interest, and research have been focused on the ECFs. I have discussed this subject on forums like this for years, and my conclusions are the same as Davis: there are two types of "Historist" Premils: those who believe in the return of the old covenant apparatus and those who spiritualize this away. Maybe not on this forum, but on other forums, the promotion of a rebuilt millennial temple, a restoration of animal sacrifices and the restarting of the Zadok priesthood, has been preeminent position among "Historist" Premils. Here are the types of statements that I hear:

The Beginner

"Im a historic premilennialist and I believe there will be a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem complete with symbolic animal sacrifices and ceremonial activities."

"why all the hatred of animal sacrifices in today's christianity? Are they really a afront to the gospel and a blasphemous acts that tramples on the blood of Christ? There are many passages in the scriptures that do not have a historical fulfillment (without making them unnecessarily allegorical) that speak of future animal sacrifices."

"There are a ton of scriptures that speak of animal sacrifices in context to unfufilled passages (unless they are unnecessarily allegorized). in my opinion, the primary reason they get allegorized is because they talk about animal sacrifices."

"symbolic future animal sacrifices will only serve to, provide "sanctifciation, reconciliation, and atonement" by looking back to the only means of salvation, the cross of Christ."


ForHisglory

"being a premil who does think there will be future sacrifices, and that is that so far not a single amil (nor premil) person has given a valid reason why animal sacrifices should stop.

"there will be a time when there will no longer be animal sacrifices. That time though is not until AFTER the Millennium and the GWToJ. This is because death itself is cast into the LoF and Jesus hands back the kingdom to the Father. The role and value for sacrifices will be entirely removed."

"If you took Zech 14 as being literal THEN you would have to accept some form of future animal sacrifice."


CadyandZoe

The animal sacrifices, then, stand as both a tutor and a ritual expression of righteous sentiment. The animal sacrifices stood ritual expressions of atonement, which anticipate the actual atonement, which is the cross of Christ. God would not be offended at something he commanded according to his purpose as long as it continued to serve his purpose. I see no scriptural evidence to support the claim that God no longer has a need for their original pedagogical purpose, or that he will no longer recognize such an offering as a ritual expression of righteous sentiment, if indeed, the heart of the penitent is both honest and contrite.

Bing

"so what does it matter if there are memorial sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom? I sacrifice my time and money and possessions daily for Christ, without believing that my works save me."

"These are celebrated in the millennium: The Feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-21), the passover (Eze. 45:21), the Feast of trumpets (Eze. 45:25). (see also Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Mal. 3:3-4).


Joyfulparousia

"Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years)."

"Maybe its reinstated not out of necessity but out of remembrance. Imagine being a human in the 3rd generation of humans born into the millennium, it would be a totally different time."


BroRog

"the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices."

"Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok … The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10 … The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6."

"I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one."

"But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again."


threebigrocks

"it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign."

I don't recognize any of these scholars? In fact, I am not sure what I am looking at.
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't recognize any of these scholars? In fact, I am not sure what I am looking at.

Please read what I wrote.

The modern Premils are not the focus of this thread. The early Chiliast are. I showed you Davis' conclusions, who has researched it in great detail. Please address the topic of the thread the ECFs, instead of trying to derail this thread.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Please read what I wrote.

The modern Premils are not the focus of this thread. The early Chiliast are. I showed you Davis' conclusions, who has researched it in great detail. Please address the topic of the thread the ECFs, instead of trying to derail this thread.

No, you asserted that HPs hold to the sacrificial system. I want to see published scholars who hold that. I'm not derailing the thread. You mentioned that, not me.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Davis lists them. Do your own research! Your avoidance of the subject of this thread is what is telling!

I think Jacob's request is fair. I am interested, too, in fact. I find it odd, also, that the requests for supporting primary source material has been met with, "Do your own research." In general, the burden of providing evidence for positive claims rests with the one who made the claim, not with those being presented with the claim. Several people at this point have asked for primary sources or expressed confusion. I think it is only fair that you provide something. Simply making an assertion and then saying, "Do your own research," is not the most charitable or helpful thing.

(Also, I will say, I have disagreed with @BayouHuguenot a few times in the past, sometimes strongly. But one thing I have never encountered from him is an unstudied avoidance of issues.)
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
I think Jacob's request is fair. I am interested, too, in fact. I find it odd, also, that the requests for supporting primary source material has been met with, "Do your own research." In general, the burden of providing evidence for positive claims rests with the one who made the claim, not with those being presented with the claim. Several people at this point have asked for primary sources or expressed confusion. I think it is only fair that you provide something. Simply making an assertion and then saying, "Do your own research," is not the most charitable or helpful thing.

(Also, I will say, I have disagreed with @BayouHuguenot a few times in the past, sometimes strongly. But one thing I have never encountered from him is an unstudied avoidance of issues.)

With all due respect, I simply said "these are beliefs that are widely held within both Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism," which is true. Most objective historians would accept that. I never said it was held by all Premils. I recognize the 2 camps. I never said it was the preeminent view in Reformed circles. Jacob added his own demand - "scholars," which I never stated, even though I am aware it has been strongly held in Reformed circles over the years by leading figures. I referenced Davis as he has researched it in-depth. But that was dismissed. Frankly, I have neither the interest or time to read through those works again and present the quotes. If Jacob has the time and interest he can do so. My major reading and interest over this past 15 years has been Amillennial writings.

The topic of this subject is the Chiliast fathers’ beliefs. That is being lost in Jacob's attempt to derail this discussion. I am not going to play that game. That is what I have been studying outside of my main biblical studies. I was brought up Historic Premil, sat under its teaching. I am aware of its position on this issue of Ezekiel's temple. I once held it.

I shared what I have personally encountered on other Discussion Forums (not here). I posted some of the typical Historic Premil comments I have heard. The majority of Historic Premillennialists I have debated over the years with promote the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the full restoration of all the old covenant feasts and festivals, the universal observance of Jewish customs, the return of blood sin offerings in a future temple (whether real or memorial) and the restarting of the old covenant priesthood in the future. I find this particularly troubling.
 
Last edited:

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
I was mainly just confused about a statement made in a previous post:

Historic and Posttrib Premils believe in a rebuilt millennial temple, the restoration of the ancient sacrifices (which they call "memorial sacrifices"), and the restarting of the old covenant priesthood of Zadok (Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 14).

I think others have shared their confusion about this statement as well. It seems fairly cut and dry, absolute. In response, one person brought up Spurgeon, who as far as I know was historic premillennial. I mentioned John Gill, who was also historic premillennial. Others have asked for any major historic premillennialists who held to a rebuilt temple, etc. I have even looked through the Systematic Theology of Robert Duncan Culver, who as far as I know is mildly Dispensational (of the progressive stripe), and I can't find anything about a rebuilt temple or reinstated animal sacrifices even in his work.

Like I said, brother, we are just confused. A little help would be nice.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Well, he is avoiding the Op completely. Where has he addressed it?

I'm not sure where you think I disagree with you. There is nothing to avoid. You did make a claim about HPs holding to a revived priesthood. When I asked for specific quotes, you responded with exclamations and "do your own research," not realizing that the burden of proof is on you.
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
I was mainly just confused about a statement made in a previous post:



I think others have shared their confusion about this statement as well. It seems fairly cut and dry, absolute. In response, one person brought up Spurgeon, who as far as I know was historic premillennial. I mentioned John Gill, who was also historic premillennial. Others have asked for any major historic premillennialists who held to a rebuilt temple, etc. I have even looked through the Systematic Theology of Robert Duncan Culver, who as far as I know is mildly Dispensational (of the progressive stripe), and I can't find anything about a rebuilt temple or reinstated animal sacrifices even in his work.

Like I said, brother, we are just confused. A little help would be nice.

If it seems like I was saying all HPs believe this, I apologize. I though I clarified that by talking about the 2 HP camps. I was simply making a generalization. I don't think any of us disagree with Davis, who did an in-depth study on the matter. But I do not have the time or interest to go through all my old Premil books and present quotes. Since I abandoned Premil in 2000, I rarely read up on it. I held it for too long, and even preached it. I was glad to get away from it. Apart from Scripture, I tend to read Amil and Postmil books, and have a healthy interest (and have been researching for 10 years) the development of early church eschatology over the 1st 400 years after the cross.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I don't actually consider myself a hard and fast premil. All sides cheat a bit to make their system work. I believe (with amil Kim Riddlebarger) that there will be a personal Antichrist who will have Pharoanic and Babylonian influences. I actually believe we could meet him quite soon. If there is a millennial kingdom, I don't expect to survive to see it, so I don't worry about it.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
The first individual I thought of was the eminent Baptist John Gill. I would think he would have an allergic reaction to the idea of a rebuilt temple together with reinstituted sacrifices. Has anyone read him on this? @JM?

Nothing off the top of my head but here are a few quotes worth reading.

Gill on the Temple of Ezekiel 40:

It remains that this must be understood mystically and figuratively of the Gospel church, which is often spoken of as a city and temple, Hebrews 12:22 and which began to have its accomplishment in the first times of the Gospel, immediately after the death and resurrection of Christ; when his disciples had a commission to preach the Gospel to all nations; and who accordingly did, even before the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the material temple, so that Gospel churches were planted in all parts of the world; and especially this was the case, when the Roman empire, called the whole world, became Christian: though the further and greater accomplishment of this vision will be in the latter day; when the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; when Jews and Gentiles will be converted, and Gospel churches be set up everywhere; so that the Gospel church state, or kingdom of Christ, signified by the great mountain in Daniel 2:35, and by this large city here, will fill the whole earth: and the rather this may be thought to be the design of this vision to represent it, as it follows the prophecies of the Jews' settlement in their own land; and of the destruction of Gog, or the Turk, attempting to dispossess them; of which in chapters 37-39.

Gill on Ezekiel 43:

all these sacrifices point at the one sacrifice of Christ; which was pure and perfect, and once offered up for the sins of many, and needs no reiteration; only the doctrine of it is to be frequently inculcated in the ministry of the word and ordinances.

From the Intro to Isaiah 66:

The causes of the rejection of the Jews were their unworthy notions of God, as if he was confined to the temple of Jerusalem, and to be pleased with external sacrifices, now both at an end under the Gospel dispensation; a better sacrifice being offered, and a more spiritual worship set up everywhere; which notions are considered, Isaiah 66:1, and because they were set upon their ways and works, and rejected the Gospel of Christ

from The Scripture: The Only Guide in Matters of Faith:

He is the way of access to the Father, nor can any come to God but by him; he is the mediator between God and man, and through him there is access with confidence by the faith of him. He is the way of acceptance with God: we have nothing to render us acceptable unto God; we are black in ourselves with original and actual sin, and are only comely in Christ; our acceptance is in the beloved. God is well pleased with him, and with all that are considered in him; their persons and their sacrifices are acceptable to God through him. He is the way of conveyance of all grace, and the blessings of it to us. All was given originally to him, and to us in him; and from him, and through him we receive it, even out of his fullness, grace for grace; all spiritual blessings are with him, and come to us from him; all grace passes through his hands; the first we have, and all the after-supplies of it; yea, the gift of God, eternal life, is through Jesus Christ our Lord And he is the way to heaven and eternal happiness; he has entered into it with his own blood already, and has opened a way by it for his people, into the holiest of all; he is gone beforehand as their forerunner, and has taken possession of heaven for them; he is now preparing a place for them there, and will come again and take them to himself, and introduce them into his kingdom and glory. (preached Nov. 2, 1750)
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
from Truth Defended Being an Answer to an Anonymous Pamphlet:

To the sin-offerings and peace-offerings under the law, since these were made to the God of Israel for the people of Israel, whom God loved above all people that were upon the face of the earth, and were typical of that atoning sacrifice, in which indeed were discovered the severest resentment of justice against sin, and yet the clearest evidence of strong love and affections to persons then enemies, and destitute of love to God: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10) In this both type and antitype agree, that the reconciliation is not of God to men, but for men to God; though this author says, "it is past all dispute, that the party to be reconciled is God;" when it is the very thing in dispute between us. It is no where said of the sacrifices of the law, that God was reconciled by them to the people of Israel; and it is no where said of the sacrifice of Christ, the antitype of them, that God is by it reconciled to his elect; though I am content that God should be said to be reconciled to his elect by the death of Christ, provided no more is meant by it than satisfying of his justice, not a conciliating or procuring his love and favour. The author’s reasoning on the denial of this, that the reconciliation must be made to the house of Israel, or for the God of Israel, or with the sinner or the sin, is so stupid and senseless, that it deserves no consideration.

from Christ a Priest After the Order of Melchizedek:

Another act recorded of him as a priest, is his receiving tithes from Abraham. Christ is our great high priest, by whom we should offer up all our sacrifices to God; and in whom alone they are acceptable to him; and also to him should we prefer our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving for those many blessings wherewith we are blessed by him; he should have not only a tenth of what we have, but even all we have; we should give him our hearts, and present our bodies a living, holy and acceptable sacrifice to him.

and,

But you will say, Has not Christ performed his priestly office? Does he continue to act as a priest? Has he not finished his work as such? I answer; it is true Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; and he will never be sacrificed more: he was once offered to bear the sins of many, and he will he offered no more: he has offered one sacrifice for sin, and he will offer no more: for he is set down for ever, having done his work: but then the virtue and efficacy of his sacrifice will abide for ever; by it he has put away sin for ever; by it he has brought in everlasting righteousness; a righteousness which will last for ever; by it he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified: as the virtue and efficacy of his sacrifice reached the saints from the foundation of the world: and therefore is said to be the Lamb slain from thence: so it will reach the saints in all ages of the world, to the curl of time, and throughout the endless ages of eternity. Nay further, though he has done sacrificing, yet he has not done interceding for us: now we have an advocate with the Father; now he is pleading the virtue of his sacrifice for us, and this is one branch of his priestly office.

from Attendance in Places of Religious Worship Where the Divine Name is Recorded, Encouraged:


Moreover the altar, and the sacrifices offered on it, were typical of Christ, and memorials of him, and the means of recording the name of the Lord, and causing it to be remembered; the altar was a type of Christ, as before observed; both the altar of burnt offering, and the altar of incense; the one served to put believers in mind of the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for sin; and the dolorous sufferings he underwent on that account, under a sense of the wrath of God, and to deliver, his people from it, by bearing it in their room and stead, when he became a whole burnt-offering for them; and the other was of use, to observe unto them the intercession of Christ, founded on his propitiatory sacrifice; through whose much incense, or all prevailing mediation, the prayers of the saints become acceptable unto God, and the blessings of grace are brought down upon them, and applied to them. The various sacrifices offered at the Jewish altar, were typical of the sacrifice of Christ; and were designed to put the sacrificers in mind of it, and to lead their faith to it, without which theirs were unacceptable to God. The lambs of the daily sacrifice, in the morning and evening, were remembrancers of Christ the Lamb of God, who taketh, continually takes away the sins of men, committed by them. So the slaying of the passover-lamb, the burning of the red heifer, with all other sacrifices, whether offered every day, every month, or every year; they all pointed at Christ, and his sacrifice, whereby he has put away sin, and perfected for ever them that are sanctified: and now, by appointing and continuing these, Jehovah caused his name to he remembered; whose perfections were displayed and glorified in the sacrifice of his Son; to which the faith of his people were by these directed.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top