Hi Charles [A brother] has got in touch with me to say that my first email did not make it through to you. The original message is below: ... I was given your email address by a mutual contact .... [A brother] has told me that you have a question about the millennial sacrifices spoken of in various Old Testament passages. Rather than email you a little out of the blue with my perspective on those texts, may I ask what your view is, and what specific questions or struggles you may have with those texts? Every blessing [Dear pre-mill brother] ................................................................................................................................. Dear [Dear pre-mill brother] Thanks for your question. To simplify things I will forward my response to Tony, an extract of Fruchtenbaum's writing. I welcome your candid reply. Yours sincerely in Christ, Charles Fruchtenbaum in 'The Footsteps of the Messiah', tells us he takes the narrative of Ezekiel's Temple 'literally'. It is history in prospect. He tells us the animal sacrifices are literal and real and commanded by God. This is dangerous heresy. He claims: 1.They will be a memorial of Christ. Hebrews says they are a memorial of sin, ' But in those ‭sacrifices there is ‭ a remembrance again ‭made ‭ of sins every year.‭ ‭For ‭it is ‭ not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.‭' Heb.10.3-4 2. They will be the means of restoring fellowship for saints. That is blasphemy. It robs from Calvary. Nothing can restore us to God but the death of His Son. 'Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.‭ ‭By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once ‭for all ‭.‭' Heb.10.9-10 3. They provide ritual cleansing for uncleanness. He cites with approval one who says,' ceremonial cleansing is an ongoing need' requiring new sacrifices. It is unclear what he means by this. Is there any uncleanness without sin? If so, where is it in the Bible? If not, to suggest ongoing atonement is necessary is a direct insult to God, it is to claim the Lord was lying when He declared, 'it is finished'. '‭And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:‭ But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God' Heb.10-11-12 PWMI needs to repent of its robbery of the unique glory of Christ and purge this false teaching from its midst. I'm afraid it is still leavened with the errors of dispensationalism, some of which are deeply heretical, like the diabolical notion that Jews can be saved without faith in the Messiah. ................................................................................................................................. Hi Charles Thank you for your response. I would like to make it clear that no-one involved in PWMI advocates that Jews can be saved without the messiah, and .... if I found out that someone held to that view then I would lobby to have them removed. I have read many books by dispensational authors, and listened to many sermons by dispensational preachers, and have never heard anyone make this claim, other than opponents of dispensationalism, so with all due respect, to say that this is what dispensationalism teaches is inaccurate, and a straw man. Before we move on any further, can I please ask two further, clarifying questions? 1) What was the purpose of sacrifices in the Old Testament? 2) What is your interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48, if not literal? Every blessing [Dear pre-mill brother] ................................................................................................................................. Dear [Dear pre-mill brother], Thank you for your emphatic clarification of orthodox Christian doctrine.I appreciate your candour. To answer your questions: Is John Hagee a dispensationalist or not? As you may know dual covenant theology is common amongst dispensationalists. He is commonly reported to take exactly this position. His team have declined to answer emailed enquiries, which I take as a bad sign. So it is far from mischaracterisation, since CUFI is widely supported in the UK. It curries favour with rabbinic supporters, but is cruel, selfish & diabolical. To foreshadow and describe the offering of Christ. It is a foresight both of the Church in the time of Christ and in eternity, but it does have special reference to Israel's role within the church, just as Rev. 12 & 20-22 does. Let me ask you a question. If animal sacrifices are offered in the literal Jerusalem temple (which I am certain will shortly be built), will you too be offering them? Yours in Christ, Charles ................................................................................................................................. Hi Charles You're welcome. I do not know enough of John Hagee's teaching to say yes or no as to whether he is a dispensationalist. I wouldn't consider him one myself, based upon what I know of him. His website statement of faith makes no mention of the term, nor of his eschatological views. I expect that he has similar views to some of dispensationalisms key tenets, but 'premillennial' and 'dispensational' are not strictly synonymous terms. Even if he was considered 'dispensational,' he would be fringe, and most if not all of the key dispensational scholars of today and yesterday would take drastically different positions to him in several important areas. So to use Hagee as a stick to beat dispensationalism with is either due to being misinformed, or due to bias. The same applies to CUFI. Just in July of this year, there was a UK based conference, organised by PWMI and supported by several organisations who are actually dispensational, and CUFI were not invited. Sadly, in my experience the majority of critiques against dispensationalism that I have either read, or have been levelled at me personally, are from those who have failed to adequately understand our position and fairly represent it. Dual covenant theology is certainly not common among dispensationalists. As far as I am aware, none of the key dispensational leaders of the last 100+ years taught this (Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost, Showers etc certainly didn't). Today, men like Fruchtenbaum, Andy Woods, Mike Stallard, Robert Dean and Tommy Ice are among the most influential dispensational pastors and teachers, and none of them hold to this heretical view either. What do you mean by 'Israel's role within the church?' Just to clarify, you say Ezekiel 40-48 is foresight/prophecy of the church that now exists? No, if the temple was rebuilt in my lifetime, I would not be taking an animal for sacrifice. Every blessing [Dear pre-mill brother] ................................................................................................................................. Dear [Dear pre-mill brother], Thank you, brother. Here's a list of quotes of some of the teachers you've cited each of whom have a very distinct notion of a duality of the relationship between God and Israel vs His relationship with the Church. J. N. Darby: “The Church is in relationship with the Father, and the Jews with Jehovah…. The Jewish nation is never to enter the Church…. The Church is … a kind of heavenly economy, during the rejection of the earthly people'' (The Hopes of the Church of God, pp. 11, 106, 156). L. S. Chafer: “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages, God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved" (Dispensationalism, p. 448). Charles Ryrie: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct…. The Church is a distinct body in this age having promises and a destiny different from Israel's" (The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. l 2). John Walwoord: “Of prime importance to the premillennial interpretation of Scripture is the distinction provided in the New Testament between God's purpose for the Church and His purpose for the nation Israel” (The Millennial Kingdom, p. vii). I believe this is Spurgeon was so scathing about early dispensationalism, even though he was admittedly muddled about premilleniallism. The quotes fly in the face of the apostolic doctrine of the removal of the middle wall of partition. Heresy arises when Jews can claim salvation outside of faith only in Messiah. I appreciate you and I wholly agree on this. I also appreciate the danger & evil of Luther and Augustine's airbrushing the significance of the Jews out of history and am familiar with how the Nazis exploited accursed 'replacement' theology. John Hagee is no peripheral figure. He heads the main umbrella movement for supporting Israel, a cause to which I am very sympathetic, but not at the cost of underpaying their urgent need of repentance and faith. I don't mean to tar you with something you don't believe, that would be unfair, but do you not accept many Christians who love and support Israel, and see it as the fulfilment of Bible prophecy, as I do (see my website if you doubt me), do not evangelise Jews as they should? It is not their first priority to call Jews to the Saviour & righteousness, but to see how they help fulfil a prophetic timetable? But I want to focus on the question in hand, rather than range too broadly. If Ezekiel's temple is a literal blueprint for the near millennium, why should you not offer animal sacrifices? Whether as a believing Jew or Gentile is it not commanded by God, just as much as it was under Levitical arrangements? As to the exact sense of the Temple prophecy I wrestle with it constantly. I don't know exactly what the commands to study its detail or its exquisitely crafted statues mean in practice. So I am eager to embrace them. However I do see it wholly fulfilled in Christ Himself. He is the Prince. He is the Temple, the Altar, the Sacrifice, the missing but necessary Ark. The sin offering He offers is in fact Himself, even though the AV translation obscures the dual sense of on behalf in Hebrew slightly. He sits in the midst of His people. His body is the extended fabric and structure John measures with a reed in Revelation. Yet it also extends into the future, the near future after the imminent war with Gog and Israel and the eternal future depicted in Rev.21-22. I'd happy to spell this out, but all my understanding of this is still tentative & cautious. I do think like Revelation and other prophecies, the flesh will come onto the bones as the time nears and the Holy Spirit fills the Ancient & beloved people of God, the kinfolk of Jacob, in power. But only in response to preaching the same prophetic rebukes, warnings and invitations Ezekiel and his companions preached, not by neglecting them. Frankly, my concern is when the literal Temple is rebuilt, the rabbinic Jews will be obliged to reenact Levitical sacrifice (almost against their better judgement) forcing a vacuum only the Antichrist can fill. This will lead many misguided Christians to acknowledge these events as prophesied by Ezekiel, when they are its very antithesis. As a famous Messianic Jew pointed out, it will in fact be a golden calf. God bless, Charles ................................................................................................................................. Hi Charles I agree that we ought to try to stay on topic, however, I think some clarification is needed on the issue of Dual covenantalism. Technically speaking, dual covenantalism teaches that there is a seperate way of salvation for jews than there is for gentiles. As far as I understand it, this is John Hagee's view. None of the quotations that you have shared state the above, as none of those authors held to that view. Dispensationalism teaches that there is a distinction between what Israel is and what the church is, but we do not teach two or more methods, modes or ways of salvation. To accuse dispensationalists of dual covenant theology on the basis that we distinguish between the church and Israel is an equivocation fallacy. For the record, I agree with all the quotes that you shared from the likes of Chafer, Ryrie and Walvoord etc. I am also aware of Spurgeon's comments, and as great a man as he was, he simply was not always right. Regarding Ezekiel's temple: I won't personally need to bring animal sacrifices in the millennium. The Church by this point will be complete, it will be a raptured/resurrected, redeemed and rewarded company. The church's destiny is to reign with Christ, in the millennium. If all of Ezekiel 40-48 somehow means 'Christ' in a spiritual sense, and if 'the prince' means Christ as you have stated, in what sense does Christ offer a sacrifice for His own sin? Eg Ezekiel 45:22? If the temple is spiritually referring to the church, and we are the priests, in what sense do we offer continual sacrifices in the church age? Eg Ezekiel 46:20 I also wonder why you would take the war of Gog and Magog literally, but not the following chapters of Ezekiel? A literal temple will be rebuilt, and the Jews will reenact the levitical sacrificial system. I don't doubt that many christians will be misguided when these events happen, and that the antichrist will sit in that temple declaring himself to be god (2 Thes 2:4-5). This temple is not the same as Ezekiel's temple, for Ezekiel's temple will be the temple that the Lord Himself builds (Zech 6:12-15). Out of interest, how do you handle the other Old Testament passages that also speak of sacrifices in the millennium? Every blessing, [Dear pre-mill brother] ................................................................................................................................. Dear [Dear pre-mill brother], Thanks your reply is helpful & challenging. However I too will be direct. I won't labour it, but for Darby to say 'The Church is in relationship with the Father, and the Jews with Jehovah' and 'The Jewish nation is never to enter the Church' does imply more than just a distinction, it strongly implies real separation. Is the Church Christ's body or not? Is Israel His Bride or not? Or are they both, distinct but united in One Union. Song.7.1 (6.13 in English versification) two armies in one dance. It looks suspiciously like a neo-Marcionite reconstruction of the middle wall of partition to me. Paul wouldn't tolerate that for one moment, nor should we (Gal.2.5). To be fair to John Hagee, who's concern is more to avoid alienating unbelieving Jews than corrupt theology, he says he would preach Christ to Jews in his church, and eschews the definition of dual covenant theology you've given. However he also says he wouldn't 'target Jews for conversion' or 'proselytise' them. These look like in practice he isn't concerned to obey the Great Commission properly. I am confident you don't share this, but I think he's fairly mainstream, if deeply misguided on this. Of course Spurgeon isn't a Pope, he would hate the very idea, but he was a fair judge of corrupt doctrine as the outcome of the Baptist Union downgrade proved. He was pretty acerbic about dispensationalism, as you know. My friend, you've dodged the question on sacrifices, if you came to Christ during the supposed millennium would you in good conscience offer up goats & bulls for sin? Yes or no? Don't you see that would disgrace the completeness of the cross? It is Christ Who says His body is the Temple, the Apostles who teach the church is His body and His holy Temple. There are seven spiritual sacrifices described in scripture, none require the Levitical animal sacrifices or a literal reading of Ezekiel. It is Hebrews and John who describe Him as our Altar, as our Ark and as our Great High Priest, and that is the only key to fully grasping the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Haggai as well of course as Ezekiel. So there is ample scriptural warrant for understanding visionary prophecies as symbolic and historical prophecies as largely literal, even in the same author. There are strong textual pointers to this too, the massive dimensions, the huge geological & biological change, the deep similarity to post Judgement descriptions of the New Heaven & Earth in Rev.21-2 after ch.46. As to the Prince offering for Himself, I accept this is not straightforward, but the Hebrew term on behalf of can also carry the sense through or by means of. This needs longer treatment than I gave time for here. The seductive power of the Antichrist will I suspect draw many rabbinic Jews and professing Christians (as well as all other faiths) to believe the millennium has arrived, when of course such events would fall very far short of your expectations and of mine. The view that animal sacrifices may be literally & lawfully offered at any time profoundly demeans Calvary, detracts from Christ's glory and paves the way for these powerful delusions. It will also fuel the desire for something darker to follow (Matt.12.44). It has been interesting to explore one another's convictions, we shall shortly witness these things ourselves, and I trust correct our deficiencies. I am not sure how helpful further correspondence will be now, though I am not at all averse to it, at your request, particularly for specific points, God bless, brother, Charles ................................................................................................................................. Hi Charles I am willing to remain in correspondence, but currently am swamped with several spinning plates in the air. I am also somewhat dismayed by some of the statements in your last email To compare Darby's teachines to Marcionism is at best ignorant, at worst ad hominem, and perhaps a combination of both. Scripture (and dispensationalism) teaches that there is a clear distinction between the body of Christ, called the church, and the nation of Israel, and that there are distinct eschatological purposes for both. Marcionism taught that the God of the OT was different from that of the NT, not one dispensational scholar or pastor that I am aware of would ever teach this! Again, you seem adamant to label Hagee as a dispensationalist and then use him as your whipping boy. As I have explained, Hagee has some beliefs in common with classical dispensationalism, but there are key differences too. Similarity does not equate to sameness. There are similarities between dispensationalism and reformed theology, but these systems are defined by their differences. One simple example is that Hagee advocates New Testament, church age tithing, whereas dispensational scholars (eg Fruchtenbaum et el) understand that tithing was for Israel under the mosaic economy, and that the church age saint is to practise grace giving. As I have said or at least implied before, to use Hagee as an example of what dispensationalism teaches is simply a strawman argument, and does not fairly or adequately represent mainstream dispensationalism. Regarding your view of the temple, if Christ/the church are the temple now, and we are in the millennium now, why do you expect a future tribulation? You wrote: 'The view that animal sacrifices may be literally & lawfully offered at any time profoundly demeans Calvary, detracts from Christ's glory and paves the way for these powerful delusions.' Can you explain (briefly if possibly) how exactly it demeans Calvary and detracts from Christ's glory? That might well be your view, but simply stating your view does not make it true. I must admit, I struggle to understand how you can reconcile a belief with a current, spiritual millennium/temple, but still expect that 'we shall shortly witness these things.' How can you defend the inconsistency of believing some parts of biblical prophecy to be future and literal, whilst relegating the bits you don't like to be allegorical? My apologies for the strongness of some of my words and terms, I mean no personal offence of slight. I do hope that this email finds you well, and has given you some pause for thought God bless [Dear pre-mill brother] ................................................................................................................................. Dear [Dear pre-mill brother] , Thanks for your reply. First to focus on the heart of our correspondence. To repeat animal sacrifices, that the NT explicitly states are useless for expiating sin & foreshadow Calvary, is to greatly detract from the glory and uniqueness of the cross. When Christ said, 'It is finished', is His work in offering for sin still be supplemented? Is more needed? ' He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.‭' Heb.10.9 Do you really wish by your reading of Ezekiel to restore the first again? T hese 'same sacrifices, which can never take away sins', do you believe Ezekiel's vision really teaches in fact they can? In ' those ‭sacrifices there is ‭ a remembrance again ‭made ‭ of sins every year.‭' Is the prophet teaching that actually they can after all atone? ' ‭So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many' but you seem to believe it is lawful and proper for Jews in the millennium to hope for propitiation & expiation from other sources. You have again declined to address my question, my friend, if you were a believing Jew in the Millennium, would you offer bulls & goats for your sins? This is a serious error, don't you see that? It's as serious as transubstantion,which similarly traduces the cross. You ask, 'How can you defend the inconsistency of believing some parts of biblical prophecy to be future and literal, whilst relegating the bits you don't like to be allegorical?' The simple answer like diamond cuts diamond, scripture must be allowed to interpret scripture, 2 Tim. 2.15. If a visionary passage literally interpreted contradicts a plain & explicit NT doctrine, it is a flashing red warning that the hermeneutic is erroneous. I believe Gog and Magog is imminent because I believe Ezekiel's prophecy is real. I don't believe it will then happen a second time, after a symbolic period of a 1000 years, understood literally. I believe the Temple will be reconstructed shortly, not just because of contemporary developments in Israel, but because Paul warns us v plainly it will in the passages I've cited for you. The Temple of Ezekiel 40 has nothing to do with a literally reconstructed Temple, for the Antichrist to sit in, you know that. Marcion is dead, but his ghost lives on in churches. His chief glory is to rob Christians of the OT promises 1 Cor.10.12, Rom.15.4. Liberal anti zionists excel in this, whom you and I oppose, as we do liberals who hate the justice and retribution of the OT and will not see it in the NT who also espouse him. But Darby & disciples' two economies of salvation, one for the Jews, another separate arrangement for Gentiles, also bear more than a faint trace of the dead heretic's fingerprints too. The great tribulation is Satan's little season, his being let loose from the chain. This is why it follows the period of Christ's expanding kingdom, during which for a while the visible Church will be extinguished. Many prophecies contain repeated cycles of description, Joseph's had two, for emphasis & confirmation, for focusing on different aspects of the unfolding events, Gen.41.32, Revelation has seven. God bless you brother, even if for now we find it hard to see eye to eye. I am inclined to publish our correspondence for others to consider, if you prefer I am quite happy to anonymise your responses, Yours in the Beloved Son, Charles