Marcus,
There are so many assumptions in your posts that it is hard to even know where to begin.
You say you're not playing rhetorical games, but the "crime" you charge the school of dispensationalism with - 're-instituting animal sacrifice' - is neither not the case at all, nor is it some wild "belief" they have, but the consequence of a literal, futuristic fulfillment of prophecy, given by no less an authority of all things to be than Christ Jesus Himself.
I am charging dispensationalism with the crime of rhetorical games? How am i charging dispensationalism with rhetorical games? I am not sure what you are trying to say here as it doesnt seem to make sense. If you are accusing me of misrepresenting Dispensationalism, please tell me how this is the case. Do you not believe that animal sacrifices must be reinstituted in order for prophecy to be fulfilled? It seems clear that you do because you say this is the "futuristic fulfillment of prophecy, given by no less an authority of all things to be than Christ Jesus Himself."
So, I am not charging Dispensationalism with rhetorical games. I simply said Dispensationalism demands the reinstitution of animal sacrifice and you seem to admit this fact and claim that Jesus prophesied as much.
The problem is that you cannot see your own laden assumptions in what Jesus said. Jesus was speaking to his disciples! He was talking to them about the time in which they should "flee" and "pray" that this period would not be in the winter. If this is referring to the Second Coming, then what use is fleeing? Why would it matter if its in winter? Jesus is talking to his disciples here about the destruction of the Temple that they were currently standing in front of and not some future Temple that has been rebuilt. You have inserted this meaning into the text and you dont even see it. You have stripped the words of Jesus out of the context of talking with his disciples about the abomination of that current Temple and have turned it into some future Temple referring to our day with absolutely nothing to do with the conversation Jesus is having with a group of men standing in Jerusalem in the first century. This is what I mean. Dispensationalists are so prone to springboard everything in Scripture into some future imagined chart and timeline that they pay absolutely no attention to the context and the audience in which the words were actually spoken.
Moreover, the "abomination which causes desolation" is something that many people debate about and you make it sound like its oh so crystal clear and I am just rejecting the plain teaching of Jesus. Not so simple. Personally, I believe the "abomination which causes desolation" is the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus coupled by the continuance of animal sacrifice while ignoring his perfect sacrifice. So, the abomination is the rejection of Jesus which causes the desolation of the Temple. Consider the following texts:
““But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.” (Luke 21:20, ESV) (note: Jesus is talking with his disciples here)
““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate.” (Matthew 23:37–38, ESV)
“But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”” (Luke 23:28–31, ESV)
Now "Holy Place" is defined in Exodus 26:30-35 as being in the Temple, but in front of the Curtain, which blocks off the Most Holy Place. This definition is repeated twice in 1Kings chapter 6 as well.
Yes, sacrifices offered in the Temple after the perfect sacrifice were an abomination to the Lord. This brought about its desolation in 70AD and all the stones were toppled over, just as Jesus described.
“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water... “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
In the context of these verses, the author of Hebrews is specifically talking about sacrifice and the danger of ignoring the sacrifice of Christ and continuing to sacrifice animals which can never take away sins. Those who rejected the sacrifice of Christ and continued to offer animal sacrifices were outraging the Spirit of grace and were bringing judgment on themselves. Jesus also makes this clear in Matthew 22, just prior to his discussion with the disciples about the abomination that causes desolation when he says:
“And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.” ’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.” (Matthew 22:1–10, ESV)
Now, I am sure you will not agree with me, but that is not the point. The point is that this isnt as simple as saying, "Look, Jesus said it and I believe him literally and you do not." No, I believe Jesus literally and I believe it happened just as he said to his disciples. He predicted the destruction of the Temple and told them to flee the area when sacrifices would continue after he had been rejected and killed. Hebrews tells us these sacrifices were displeasing to God and those who rejected the new covenant in favor of the blood of bulls and goats would be subject to judgment and Jesus himself said that the King would "burn their city" because they refused to celebrate the accomplishment of the Son. In my opinion, that is what is going on here and there is nothing in the text that suggests that Jesus was talking about a different Temple other than the one he was standing before, or that he was making any reference to a future tribulation thousands of years away or an Antichrist. This is all inserted by Dispensationalists and would have made no sense to the disciples listening to Jesus, the early church, or frankly, any person in the church for the following 1,800 years.
Those are Biblically-true, prophetic facts. It is not some wild belief as you dismiss it in trying to typify dispensaitonal teaching.
By the way, I would be classified as a Progressive Dispensationalist, with some reservations as to how that is defined by various webpages afforded by a quick Google search...
Well, they are your version of prophesy. Unfortunately, they dont have a shred of evidence to support them historically. They are all based on future claims of what one believes is going to happen in the future, all the while ignoring that Jesus was talking about the Temple he was standing in front of while talking with his disciples!
I understand you have your own special nuances as a dispensationalist. Most do. The concepts are rarely ever similar because they are mostly based on speculation and imagination about future events. My research in this area, I assure you, does not come from Google. It comes from many years of classes, study and scholarship. I address Dispensationalism generally as it was proposed by Darby. I think that is the only way to have a meaningful conversation on the topic as I cannot be expected to know all the varying differences of every individual on their views on tribulation, rapture, timelines, and so forth.
How in the world can you say "supposedly"?
Because Jesus never mentions an "Antichrist" when he speaks of "the abomination which causes desolation." And, since he was talking to his disciples about when "you" witness these things, then obviously (if there is to be an Antichrist) they have long since been dead prior to his arrival. Personally, as shown above, I do not think it has anything to do with an antichrist because I believe it refers to the rejection of Jesus by his own people and the sacrifices that continued in the Temple that displayed a rejection of him as their Lord and sacrifice. I can go into great detail as to how I believe Daniel's prophecy also substantiates this position if you like...
I doubt if you spiritualize what Paul said in 2Th 2:4, that you're even going to allow me to look at it in a literal manner.
It is difficult to study these passages with the propensity to jump from text to text to make connections. Suppose there is an Antichrist, my point is that Jesus is talking to his disciples about the Temple they were standing in front of and warning them about when THEY saw this abomination which causes desolation to flee. Yet you want to insert a text where Paul is talking to the Thessalonians about this "man of sin" who exalts himself in the Temple. You assume that both are talking about a future Temple. What if Jesus is talking with his disciples about the present Temple they were discussing in that moment and Paul is talking about a future temple, or even a spiritual temple? You see, these are different contexts with different authors and different audiences making different points. You cant just cram them all together and assume a priori that they are all dealing with a future Temple in the final few years of history.
So, my point is simply this. Even if it can be shown in the NT that there will be an Antichrist and there will be a future Temple, that does not mean that this is what Jesus is talking about in Matt. 25. Moreover, it does not mean that there will be a future dispensation in which God focuses on the people of Israel for the millennium reign. These are all completely separate from what Jesus is talking about in Matt. 25 and there is no way the disciples would have understood such concepts coming from that discussion. Personally, I dont think 2 Thess 2 is referring to an Antichrist at all, but I know I am in the minority in this regard. In any event, I think we need to deal with one text at a time rather than filling in all the blanks of your eschatology by ripping verses from Gospels, Daniel's visions, Revelation, Epistles and so forth without regard to their context.
Question: In the Millennium, how can you come to blind faith in that which is unseen and so enjoy Grace - when Jesus is a present reality and can be proved?
Dispensationalism, in regards to the Millennium, does not remove faith as much as Jesus does (as a condition for salvation) - when He is a present reality and the people can see Him, as is foretold when He will be on the earth.
I understand and that is why I reject this notion. I dont believe the Jews will get a second chance to accept Jesus apart from faith in a millennial age. I dont think that is even close to what Revelation is trying to communicate. Not only does it place an unhealthy interest in national Israel as the object of Jesus' focus in history, but it gives the notion that there will be second chances for people who did not respond to Jesus by faith who can perhaps embrace him as their King during the millennium. The entire book of Matthew shows this is not the case. If Israel does not accept the Messiah as a suffering servant who surrenders his life then they will experience him only as a Judge and not as an exalted King. If the Kingdom of God is not accepted in the way Jesus inaugurated it in his first coming, they will not experience the glories of it in his Second coming.
“But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” (Matthew 25:26–30, ESV)