I'll take care of these PL. None of them are hard. Please note, especially, the last pargraph of this reply. As for your little questionaire . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 1. Where is the third Jewish Temple?
See especially Ez. 40:2-46:24. Much of this material is devoted to the temple's structure, priesthood, ritual, ministry, etc. James M. Gray, in the
Christian Worker's Commentary, notes five understandings of this passage. Some think, a) this describes the temple at Jerusalem prior to the Babylonian captivity, and are designed to preserve a memorial of it, b) these chapters describe the temple in Jerusalem after the return from the seventy years in Babyon, c) this describes the ideal temple which the Jews shoud have built after the seventy years' return, and which they never realized, d) this temple in Ezekiel symbolizes the spiritual blessings of the church in the present age, e) this is a prediction of the temple that shall be built in the millennial age. (pp. 265-66)
Included in the commentary are solid objections to the first four views. However, the point is that we have a biblical basis for belief in a third Jewish temple. Additionally, we have the the direct statement in Dan. 9:27, "In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." (NIV) Pre-tribbers understand "he" as the Antichrist, corresponding to the little horn (Dan. 7:8), typologically seen in Antioch Epiphanes. If he is to "put an end to sacrifices", then there must be a Temple in which the sacrifices can take place. There are, of course, those who believe taht "he" refers to Christ, but that makes "until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" to make little sense. The antecedant for each of the three occurances of "he" in this passage is "the prince who is to come." (9:26)
For more, see Pentecost,
Things to Come, pp. 512-31, Waterhouse,
Not By Bread Alone, pp. 527-29, Walvoord,
The Millennial Kingdom, 309-15.
- 2. Where does the 2,000 year gap come from in Daniel's 70 week prophecy? This still has to be answered, and Daniel made no mention of it. 2,000 years is a pretty significant gap to be ignored in a 490 year prophecy.
There has been a plethora of literature devoted to this question. A common answer lies in prophetic perspective, in which two events largely separated by chronological time are next to each other in Scripture. A primary example is Zech. 9:9-17. There, we have the prophecy of Jesus coming into Jerusalem riding a colt (9:9), but then in verses 10-14 we have a description of God's restoration of Israel, followed by "Then the LORD will appear over them" (9:14, NIV). Needless to say, we are still waiting for much of this prophecy to be fulfilled.
Hagee devotes a good section of the second chapter of his book
From Daniel to Doomsday answering this question. In addition to the previously mentioned verse, he also cites Is. 9:6-7a, the gap in the schedule of Israel's divinely instituted feasts, and Hos. 6:3. He also points out that without the Church-age, there could be no "time of the Gentiles." (pp. 40-44)
For more, see Pentecost, 172, 256-249, Ironside,
The Great Parenthesis, 131, Walvoord, 227-30.
- 3. Why did Jesus tell his apostle's to flee Judea during the “great tribulation” if it was going to be a worldwide calamity taking place 2,000 years into the future?
With reference to Matthew 24:15-21, it is not difficult to see that Christ is answering the disciples' question in verse 3, "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" I would sincerely hope that you are not putting the entire weight of your theology on the word "you." As Glasscock rightly states, "The "you" directly referred to the disciples (vv. 1, 3) but owing to the eschatalogical context should be understood figuratively as the people of Israel." (Glasscock,
Matthew, 468). Additionally, if you insist this is fully fulfilled, you have to answer the question as to why it would be so bad for the flight to have to happen on Sabbath. Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, and Christians are not required to keep it in the OT sense. The reality is that Jesus is talking about the Jews alive during the Tribulation, at the 3 1/2 year mark when the Antichrist puts a stop to temple sacrifices, and they are forced to flee.
For more, see Walvoord, 261-62, Pentecost, 275-313, Glasscock, 468-472.
- 4. Why will the days of the “great tribulation” be shortened for the elect's sake, since, according to you, the elect will be raptured away before it even takes place?
The elect in this passage refers to the Israelites, as it also does in 24:31. To quote from Glasscock again:
Glasscock wrote:The elect (tous eklektous) would first refer to the nation, which had been thus designated for centures (Isa. 45:4), and then to all who believe in Jesus (Eph. 1:4). In this context, it is most likely used regarding the nation. Daniel identifies this time as "decreed for you people and your holy city," indicating that ISrael, not the church of mankind in general, will be the center of the Tribulation suffering. Thus, if God had not limited the number of days "for the sake of" (dia with the accusative) the elect, then all flesh would perish from the horrors being poured out on the world."
For more, see Hodges,
Jesus God's Prophet: The Teaching About the Coming Surprise. (Booklet consisting of an exegesis of the Olivet Discourse, available for $4.95
here)
- 5. Jesus said that the resurrection takes place “on the last day”? Pre-tribbers say that it will take place before a 7-year tribulation period? Who are we to believe?
The phrase "last day" is an eschatological term that includes the entire spectrum of events from the rapture to the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom. Other such terms are "The Lord's Day", "The Day", "That Day", etc.
For more, see Pentecost, 229-31, Kittel, "
hemera" in
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. II, pp. 943-953.
- 6. Jesus said that the “great tribulation” would take place within the apostle's generation. Pre-tribbers say that is has yet to occur. Who are we to believe?
He did not say the great tribulation would take place within the apostles generation. I have already explained this text thoroughly
here. The "generation" refers to a type of people - the unbelieving. For a complete defense, see “'This Generation' in Matthew 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective” by Neil D. Nelson in the September '96 edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, p. 369-385.
As an aside, should I bring up the old argument of you ignoring previous responses/arguments from me? How many times have we noted that this does seem to be your pattern . . .
- 7. According to Pre-tribbers, the resurrection of the righteous dead takes place before the rapture, while the resurrection of the wicked takes place after the “millennium”. When do the “tribulation saints” and/or “millennium saints” get resurrected? Are there now 3 resurrections?
There are two resurrections: the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked. The former is rather like a parade, beginning with Christ 2,000 years ago and ending at the GWT Judgment. The latter is a single event, beginning and ending at the GWT Judgment. I don't understand why, but the majority of pre-tribbers hold to the idea that the only people at the GWT will be unbelievers . . . the text does not say that. There may well be believers there . . . those who died during the Millennial Reign as believers.
For a complete discussion/overview of the program of the resurrections, see Ryrie,
Basic Theology, 602-09, Walvoord, 278-84, Pentecost, 395-407, Waterhouse, 462-65.
- 8. What kind of literal chain can be used to bind the angel Satan?
This is taken from Revelation 20:1-4, “1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.”(NIV)
Do you really think the “literal method” would require this to be a chain made of iron, bronze, or steel? Do you also think this would require us to believe that there is an actual key fashioned from some particular metal, and that there is a door fashioned from a good hard wood . . . perhaps a good fireproof exterior door? John is using human terminology to explain what is going on. The point is that Satan is bound and shackled, rendering him powerless, and then he is cast into an area known as the Abyss, neither heaven nor hell, and this cell is closed off during the millennial reign. I would highly suggest you read C. S. Lewis' short essay, “Transposition,” found in
The Weight of Glory.
Anyway, Paul Lee Tan offers the following brief exegesis of Rev. 20:1-3:
Tan wrote:Once the literality of Revelation 20 is accepted, difficulties begin to be resolved. Consider the chain over which the non-literal interpreters habitually wring their hands, saying, “I suppose that no one would insist that Satan is to be bound with a literal chain of iron or some other metal, for Satan is a spirit, and material chains could not hold him captive for a moment.” The text does not say that the chain that will bind Satan is to be a chain of iron or steel or some other metal. The chain of Revelation 20 is a spirit-chain of such character and consistency as would fetter and hold spirit-beings (cf. Jude 6). Spirit-beings, such as Satan himself, are real beings, and only real chains can bind real beings. It is logical to see a spirit-being (angel) bind another spirit-being (Satan). That which cannot bind anyone are the figures, tropes, and shadows let out by interpreters who themselves are hopelessly entangled in them.
Taken from
The Interpretation of Prophecy, pp.134-35. And, before you comment on straw man put forward regarding those a/post-mill's who “wring their hands” . . . the quote is taken from Floyd E. Hamilton's book
The Basis of Millennial Faith, 129-30.
For more, see Walvoord, pp. 291-95. A good explanation of the passage in general is offered, as well as a solid explanation and critique of Warfield's position. A cross reference is provided there that I have not yet read to William Masselink,
Why a Thousand Years?, p. 202.
- 9. To what purposes are the animal sacrifices offered after Christ's millennial reign? According to Revelation 20, the “Gog and Magog” invasion happen after the millennium. However, according to Ezekiel, there will be animal sacrifices after the “Gog and Magog” invasion. What are they for?
This argument is one of the oldest arguments against a consistently literal hermeneutic, and should be placed in the same category as the “problem of evil,” as used by atheists against Christians. Both arguments two features in common: 1. they have been repeatedly refuted by dozens of authors, and yet the argument continues to be employed as if it were a death-blow to its opposition., 2. each argument, when examined in their totality, lend credibility not to their proponents, but actually to their opponents. As the problem of evil is a great proof for God's existence, the existence of Temple sacrifices in the millennium is a great proof for the literal method of interpreting prophecy.
For those who are not familiar, passages such as Ezekiel 42:18-46:24; Zech. 14:16; Isa. 56.6-8; 66:21; Jer. 33:15-18; and Eze. 20:40-41 all teach the restoration of a temple priesthood, and the re-establishment of bloody sacrifices. The primary question is “What is the purpose of these sacrifices?” Pentecost offers this conclusion on p. 527:
Pentecost wrote:It is concluded, then, that these sacrifices are not expiatory, for no sacrifice ever accomplished the complete removal of sin, but are memorials of the perfect sacrifice of the One typified by all sacrifice, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
He also quotes from Gaebelein and later Adolph Saphir as follows:
Gaebelein wrote:While the sacrifices Israel brought once had a prospective meaning, the sacrifices brought in the millennial temple have a retrospective meaning. When during this age God's people worship in the appointed way at His table, with the bread and wine as the memorial of His love, it is retrospect. We look back to the Cross. We show forth His death. It is “till He comes.” Then this memorial feast ends forever. Never again will the Lord's Supper be kept after the Saints of God have left the earth to be with the Lord in glory. The resumed sacrifices will be the memorial of the Cross and the whole wonderful story of the redemption for Israel and the nations of the earth, during the kingdom reign of Christ. And what a memorial it will be! What a meaning those sacrifices will have! They will bring to a living remembrance everything of the past. The retrospect will produce the greatest scene of worship, of praise and adoration this earth as ever seen. All the Cross meant and the Cross has accomplished will be recalled and a mighty “Hallelujah Chorus” will fill the earth and the heavens. The sacrifices will constantly remind the people of the earth of Him who died for Israel, who paid the redemption price for all creation and whose glory now covers the earth as the waters covers the deep.
Concerning the comparison between the Lord's Supper and the millennial sacrifices . . .
Saphir wrote:. . . may we not suppose that what was typical before the first coming of Christ, pointing to the great salvation which was to come, may in the kingdom be commemorative of the redemption accomplished?
In the Lord's Supper we commemorate Christ's death; we altogether repudiate the Popish doctrine of a repetition of the offering of Christ; we do not believe in any such renewal of the sacrifice, but we gratefully obey the command of Christ to commemorate His death in such a way that both an external memorial is presented to the world, and an outward and visible sign and seal given the believing partaker. May not a similar plan succeed the Lord's Supper, which we know shall cease at Christ's coming? It is also possible that both the glorified saints in heaven and the nations on the earth will contemplate during the millennium the full and minute harmony between type and reality. Even the Church has yet only a superficial knowledge of the treasures of wisdom in the Levitical institutions and its symbols.
Both quotes taken from Pentecost, pp-525-26.
So, in general, pre-millennialists are in agreement that the sacrifices in the millennial kingdom commemorative, non-expiatory sacrifices, that will be used to remind a world being reigned by a physical Jesus Christ of what He did, why He is in the position that He is, and why He deserves worship and praise.
As far as the Gog and Magog invasions go, the short answer is that you are speaking of two different events. Immediately after the Rapture, and prior to the rise of the Antichrist, there is the first “Gog and Magog” invasion. (We cannot be dogmatic that this first invasion will be before the rapture, however, given the doctrine of immanence, the burden of proof rests strongly on those who believe it is pre-rapture.) This particular invasion is prophesied about in Ezekiel 38. The modern geographical sites of “Meshech, and Tubal” (38:2) is the area today occupied by Turkey, Iran, and the southern provinces of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Some would identify “Rosh” with Russia, based on 1) the linguistic similarities between Rosh and Russia, Meshech and Moscow, and Tubal and Tobolsk, and 2) the unstable nature of this highly militarized country clearly depicted in Ez. 38. I don't see, personally, that we should be so specific about Russia, and the linguistic argument is just silly. Regardless, there will be a collaboration between Gog and Persia, Ethiopia, Libya, Gomer, and Togarmah (Ez. 38:5-6). Geographically, we can identify Persia with Iran, Ethiopia and Libya to the Arabian Peninsula, and Gomer and Togarmah with Turkey. This pan-Islamic collation will attack Israel and be destroyed.
The second “Gog and Magog” invasion is described in Rev. 20:7-9. Concerning these people, J. Vernon McGee believed that “the rebellion of the godless forces from the north will have made such an impression on mankind that after one thousand years, the last rebellion of man bears the same level —Gog and Magog.” Regardless, this cannot be the same as Ezekiel's war, because here “Gog and Magog” are from the “four corners of the earth.” That is, there is no geographical limitation. All those in rebellion to Jesus at the end of the Millennium will wage war against him at the bidding of the released Satan. Therefore, there is no contradiction as suggested.
For more, see Pentecost's overview of the Gog-Magog wars, pp.342-346. For an in depth discussion of why the temple proves to be a strong case in favor of a literal hermeneutic, see Pentecost, chapter 30: Worship in the Millennium. Walvoord and Waterhouse both have discussions on this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, PL, with that out of the way . . . it is immediately obvious that the answers above are interpretive, and they are interpreted through a premillennial framework. More specifically, they are interpreted using the literal method of exegesis. You certainly don't have to believe it. I don't expect you will agree with any of this. However, you
CANNOT say that no literalist has ever tried to answer these “objections.” Besides my own answers, I've provided references to Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Tan, Hagee, Glasscock, Waterhouse, etc. I could have listed dozens more. There is no lack of literature on this subject. I have absolutely no problem you believing, or even defending, preterism. What I do have a problem with is your intentional misrepresentation of premillennial dispensationalism. Further, I relied heavily on Pentecost's book precisely because you told me that you have already read it. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that you are aware of all of these answers! It is therefore extremely dishonest to pose these questions as if there are no solutions.
For the moderators, I would respectfully request that you monitor this type of behavior. The purpose of the board is to encourage and edify Christians so that they may learn more about their faith. PL's intentional misrepresentation of a very, very commonly held position goes directly against that grain. Honest debate is acceptable and desirable. This is not honest.
God bless
