Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Marcion”?

By J. Warner Wallace 12/3/2017

     There are a number of ancient, non-canonical texts used by sect leaders or heretical groups in the early history of Christianity. One of these is called The Gospel of Marcion. Is this non-biblical text reliable? Was it written by an eyewitness who accurately captured the actions and statements of Jesus? There are four attributes of reliable eyewitness testimony, and the first requirement is simply that the account be old enough to actually be written by someone who was present to see what he or she reports. The Gospel of Marcion was written too late in history to have been written by anyone who could have actually seen the ministry of Jesus, and like other late non-canonical texts, this errant document was rejected by the Church. In spite of this, The Gospel of Marcion may have contained small nuggets of truth related to Jesus.  Although it is a legendary fabrication altered by an author who wanted to craft a version of the Jesus story that suited the purposes of his religious community, it likely reflected many truths about Jesus:

     The Gospel of Marcion (130-150AD)

     The Gospel of Marcion (also known as The Gospel of the Lord) was used by Marcion, the infamous heretic and one-time Bishop of Sinope between the years of 150-160AD. The text is lost to us, but the Early Church Fathers and apologists (such as Tertullian) criticized The Gospel of Marcion extensively in their own writings; we can now reconstruct much of The Gospel of Marcion from the critical writings of the Church Fathers. Marcion’s Gospel (as acknowledged by the vast majority of historical scholars) appears to be a modification of The Gospel of Luke, altered to support Marcion’s theological ideas. It is typically dated in the mid-2nd century.

     Why Isn’t It Considered Reliable?

     Marcion first traveled to Rome in 142AD and quickly imposed a heretical view of God and Jesus on the New Testament documents; he created a theological system that swiftly gained popularity. In fact, Marcion had a large following that rivaled his orthodox contemporaries, threatening to split the fledgling Christian community. Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp (the disciple of John the Apostle) called Marcion “the first born of Satan” and many other early orthodox leaders labeled Marcion a heretic (including Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Rhodo, Bardesanes, Dionysus of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna and Ephraim of Syria). Tertullian wrote an entire volume condemning Marcion as a heretic (Against Marcion), and Marcion was eventually excommunicated from fellowship with orthodox believers. The Gospel of Marcion is strikingly similar to the Gospel of Luke, but Marcion reported that his Gospel was the uncorrupted work of Paul, who received all of the information from Jesus Himself. Marcion considered Luke’s Gospel to have been corrupted by Jewish believers who saw Jesus as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament, a notion that Marcion rejected. There was (and is) no evidence that Paul ever penned a Gospel, and Marcion was not an eyewitness to the life of Christ. His Gospel and theology were rejected by those who were in direct contact with the living eyewitnesses (Polycarp is one such example). For these reasons, The Gospel of Marcion is not to be considered a reliable document.

Click here to go to source

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

The Four Chaplains - How Religion Changes Everything

By Lenny Esposito 2/11/2013

     A Calvinist, a Methodist, a Catholic Priest and a Jewish Rabbi walk onto a ship… No, this is not the start of another lame joke, but a celebration of four men whose heroic actions are not remembered as much anymore. Sixty years ago last week, at the height of conflict in World War II, these four U.S. Army chaplains engaged in an act of heroism that is scarcely seen. As their ship sank, they took off their life vests and gave them away to soldiers on board, knowing that sinking in the frigid North Atlantic was a certain death sentence. Lt. George L. Fox, Lt. Alexander D. Goode, Lt. John P. Washington, and Lt. Clark V. Poling laid down their lives willingly as an act of service to their God and to their fellow men.

     During WWII, many passenger cruise ships were converted into troop transports for the war effort. The USAT Dorchester [1]wwas a smaller vessel, designed to carry about 314 passengers and crew up and down the East coast. After conversion, it would hold over three times more, with over 900 soldiers and ship's crew boarding on January 23, 1943 to cross the Atlantic to support the fighting in Europe. German submarines, or U-boats, had attacked troop transports before, so the captain sailed outside the shipping lanes and had "ordered the men to sleep in their clothing and keep life jackets on. Many soldiers sleeping deep in the ship's hold disregarded the order because of the engine's heat. Others ignored it because the life jackets were uncomfortable."[2]

     Early on February 3, a German submarine torpedoed the ship which was 150 miles off of Greenland. Panic ensued on board, but the chaplains sought to sooth the fears of the men. "One witness, Private William B. Bednar, found himself floating in oil-smeared water surrounded by dead bodies and debris. 'I could hear men crying, pleading, praying,' Bednar recalls. 'I could also hear the chaplains preaching courage. Their voices were the only thing that kept me going.'" [3]

     Once on deck, the chaplains began passing out life jackets to the men, but found out that there were too few for all the passengers aboard. Then, as survivors Grady Clark and John Ladd reported, all four of the chaplains took off their own jackets and gave them to others. "It was the finest thing I have seen or hope to see this side of heaven," said Ladd. The Chaplains locked arms, sang and prayed for the men as the Dorchester sank with them on board.[4]

Click here to go to source

     Lenny Esposito is president and founder of Come Reason Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization, and author of the popular www.comereason.org Web site. He has taught apologetics and Christian worldview for over 17 years and has authored hundreds articles dealing with intellectually strenuous topics such as the existence of God, theology, philosophy, social issues and Biblical difficulties.
     Lenny is an in-demand speaker, teaching at conferences, churches, and schools across the nation. He is a contributor to the popular Apologetics Study Bible for Students and his articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times and the Southern California Christian Times. He has debated many topics on faith and reason and the rationality of the Christian worldview; his most recent debate being against well-known atheists and author Dr. Richard Carrier on the question "Does God Exist?"
     Lenny is a pioneer in online ministry efforts when he began using the Web to reach others near its beginnings in 1995. He produces one of the top 16 apologetics podcasts according to Apologetics 315 and his site has been viewed millions of times by visitors from nearly every country in the world.
Lenny is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Evangelical Theological Society.

Seeing Is Not Always Believing

By R.C. Sproul 12/1/2017

     One comment that Christian pastors sometimes hear from people they are counseling is that it would be easier for them to have a strong faith if they could see God doing the same kinds of miracles today as are recorded in the Bible. The unspoken assumption is that seeing is believing—that the people who lived in Jesus’ day found themselves more readily trusting Him because they could see His great works.

     Such comments show the need for a closer reading of Scripture, for there are many cases where seeing great miracles didn’t move observers to faith. For example, John 11 records Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead — a convincing sign if there ever was one. Yet the authorities took the miracle as a reason to oppose Jesus, not to believe in Him (vv. 45-53). Scripture also records occasions when even God’s people experienced disbelief after seeing many miracles. Consider Joshua 7, which records what happened at Ai not long after the Israelites conquered Jericho. After the conquest of Jericho, when a shout brought the walls “tumbling down” (Joshua 6), you can imagine what the feelings were among the people of Israel. God had delivered them in a dramatic, supernatural way, removing from their path the most formidable obstacle to the conquest of Canaan. He had delivered on His promise that He would give them every place where Joshua set his foot. So, you would think there would be nothing but elation and confidence among the troops and especially in the heart of Joshua. But what transpires is a major comeuppance for Joshua and the Israelites. After a scouting party reports that Ai should be easy to conquer, Joshua sends a force to take the city, but it is quickly routed, and thirty-six people are killed (7:2-5). How does Joshua respond?

     Joshua tore his clothes and fell on his face before the ark of the Lord until the evening… . And Joshua said, “Alas, O Lord God, why have you brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan! O Lord, what can I say, when Israel has turned their backs before their enemies! For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it and will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will you do for your great name?” (vv. 6-9)

     Here we see Joshua, the one who in the past has always been courageous, the man of faith who gave the good report to the nation that Israel could take Canaan. Now he’s rending his garments and complaining to the Lord, saying, “Why didn’t You just leave well enough alone? We could have lived happily ever after on the other side of the Jordan, but now we’re humiliated and the news of this defeat will go all through the Promised Land.” Joshua, in a moment of disbelief, is saying to God, “What have you done for me lately?” His faith is so fragile that after one minor setback, he loses his confidence and is in mourning. Joshua thought he understood the full measure of God’s commitment to him and to his army, and he is beside himself when this defeat takes place at the hands of an enemy that Israel should have been able to run over without the help of God. Now even with God’s promise, they suffer this humiliating defeat. All of a sudden, Joshua’s wondering, “Was God’s promise of success an illusion? Was I hearing things? God promised that we’d never be defeated, and now we’re defeated.” What Joshua endures here, as we see in his fasting, mourning, and seeking God’s face, is a crisis of faith.

     Why were the Israelites defeated? Joshua 7:1 tells us: “The people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan … of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel.” Yes, God promised Israel victory, but He also commanded the people to exercise scrupulous obedience to the terms of this conflict. God instituted the ban against the Canaanites, meaning that in this conquest of holy war the soldiers could not take any personal loot or booty. And one man in the army disobeyed. Achan succumbed to the temptation to line his own pockets with the spoils from the victory at Jericho. And because of one man’s sin, God held the whole nation of Israel accountable. Because of this trespass, God’s anger is expressed against Israel, and His providential judgment causes this defeat.

Click here to go to source

Robert Charles Sproul, 2/13/1939 – 12/14/2017 was an American theologian, author, and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education and discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was also copastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., chancellor of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Dr. Sproul has contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, has spoken at conferences, churches, and schools around the world, and has written more than one hundred books. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible.

Do you have a reason for reason?

By Travis Dickinson

     Unfortunately Christians sometimes distance themselves from reason. At the same time, it is very common for atheists to consider reason to be the exclusive domain of atheism. This is especially true in a somewhat recent phenomenon known as the New Atheist movement, led by the likes of Richard Dawkins, (the late) Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. There is literally nothing that is actually “new” about their atheistic beliefs. The only thing that is somewhat novel is their tone and activism.[1] To the New Atheist, faith is, by definition, a suspension of critical thinking and that’s what religious folk trade in—the atheist, however, has no place for faith. They only rely upon reason, or so they allege.

     This emphasis on reason has, for them, become a defining theme. In 2012, the “Reason Rally” was held in Washington D.C. The event featured everyone from Richard Dawkins to Bill Maher to Michael Shermer. It was a who’s who of popular level atheism united around the common theme of reason. This theme shows up routinely with atheist groups. Richard Dawkins has the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. At one point, if you contributed a significant amount of money to his foundation, you actually got to join the “Reason Circle.” There is the United Coalition of Reason and many other atheist groups that lay claim to this theme of reason. There is the National Day of Reason that just so happens (wink, wink) to be observed on the same day as the National Day of Prayer and even a move to have “In Reason We Trust” replace “In God We Trust.” Not long ago, there was a law suit against the city of Warren, MI due to the fact that the city had denied a petition to put up what was to be called the “Reason Station” by an atheist group. The Reason Station was to be a contrast to a long standing tradition of having a “Prayer Station” in the atrium of City Hall operated by religious folks. The suit was successful and the city was forced to allow the atheists to put up the Reason Station alongside the Prayer Station. My point with bringing this is up is that all of these suggest that this group values reason.

     The incredible irony here is that many of these groups and their sites trade primarily in invectives and vitriolic slams rather than any kind of reasoned defense. The dialogue surrounding the installment of the Reason Station, for example, was anything but thoughtful. You can go to their sites and see for yourself. If one dares to make a positive claim about God or Christianity (or any religion for that matter), one will find oneself mocked and ridiculed in real time, often with no critical reasoning in sight. Even with formal debates involving the so-called experts, it can be difficult to disentangle mocking complaints about religion from actual arguments on the atheist side.

     I’m not saying this to match the ridicule. Rather I mention this to point out a radical inconsistency in the current scene. This brand of atheism extols reason but tends to not engage thoughtfully and reasonably. Many have noted this inconsistency, even fellow atheists. Some professional philosophers, who are avowed atheists, have distanced themselves from the New Atheist movement. In fact, atheist philosopher Michael Ruse has said that Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion has made him ashamed to be an atheist. This is due to the fact that the philosophical arguments are just so weak and there is no effort to deeply engage the views of the many very serious thinkers on the theistic side.

     What’s more is that the atheist will often act as if he or she never depends upon faith, only reason. But this is ridiculous. The object of the atheist’s faith may not be God or Scripture, but he or she will often have an undying faith in the ability of science to discover truths about (and beyond) the world. Theists will often point to features of the world that are inexplicable on an atheistic worldview, and the response is often faith of the fundamentalist sort that science will one day explain these facts. Moreover, the atheist will have faith in his or her senses, memory, the report of (select) books, and the powers of reason itself. The point is that the atheist exercises a very active trust in these things and, thus, is equally a person of faith.

Click here to go to source

     Welcome to The Benefit of the Doubt where I talk about the art of dialogue, the value of doubts, and the virtue of Christian faith.

     I LOVE to dialogue about big ideas, especially with those with whom I disagree. But the tone of most discussions are, let’s call it, unproductive. I’m really interested in helping people with the art of dialoguing well.

     No one likes to doubt deeply cherished beliefs. However, I want to suggest that there is great value in our doubts. When handled properly, they lead to truth and knowledge, and even deeper faith.

     I’m convinced that Christianity is true, good and beautiful. I’m convinced that Jesus is peerless. Though faith is often disparaged, caricatured and deeply misunderstood, I’m convinced that Christian faith is the primary way to flourish as a human being.

     I am the author of Everyday Apologetics and co-author of Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (B&H, forthcoming). He blogs at www.travisdickinson.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.

Unlatched Theism: An Examination of John Frame’s Response to All That Is in God

By Dr. Keith A. Mathison 11/2017

     There is no doctrine in Christian theology more fundamental or more important than the doctrine of the triune God. The very word theology is a combination of the Greek word theos, which is translated “God,” and the word logos, which can be translated “word” or “discourse.” Theology is a discourse about God, a word about God, and that means it involves the knowledge of God. Theology is the doctrine of God, and our concern in theology is the true knowledge of God.

     The doctrine of God is fundamental because every other subject studied in systematic theology is connected to the doctrine of God and understandable only in relation to it. Scripture is the Word of God. Man is created in the image of God. Sin is a transgression of the law of God. Redemption is the salvific work of God. The church is the people of God. Eschatology is the final goal of God. And so on. If our doctrine of God is off, everything else will be off. This is why the current debates among evangelical and Reformed theologians regarding the doctrine of God are profoundly important. These are not debates over nonessentials. These are not debates over secondary or tertiary doctrines. These debates involve the nature of God Almighty, the One who created the universe and everything in it, who reveals Himself to us, who redeemed us, and who calls us to worship Him in spirit and in truth. A false doctrine of God results in idolatry. The stakes in these debates, therefore, could not be any higher.

     Enter James Dolezal. Dr. Dolezal is a professor of theology at Cairn University. He received his Ph.D. from Westminster Theological Seminary, writing his dissertation on the doctrine of divine simplicity. The dissertation has since been published under the title God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness (Pickwick, 2011). It is an outstanding work, but also a very technical and academic work because of its origin as a dissertation. In July 2017, Dolezal’s first popular-level book, All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism, was published by Reformation Heritage Books. I had the privilege of reading the manuscript prior to publication, and I also wrote a brief summary review of the book after it was published. The first time I read the manuscript, it became abundantly clear within only a few pages that the book was going to create some waves. Why? Because in this book Dolezal argues that a number of contemporary evangelical and Reformed theologians, whether wittingly or unwittingly, have rejected and/or wrongly redefined elements of classical Christian theism. In other words, they have rejected and/or wrongly redefined elements of the Christian doctrine of God. That is a serious charge, and if accurate, a devastating one that cannot be ignored or brushed aside. Not only does Dolezal argue that many evangelical and Reformed theologians have abandoned classical Christian theism, he also names names. Because some of these names are the names of very popular and influential figures in the contemporary evangelical world, it was inevitable that this book would ruffle some feathers.

     Enter John Frame. Dr. Frame is now retired after teaching theology at several seminaries over the course of an almost fifty-year career. Frame has written extensively on the doctrine of God in a number of works, including his Systematic Theology (P&R, 2013) and The Doctrine of God (P&R, 2002), one of four volumes in his Theology of Lordship series. Frame is also the author of No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (P&R, 2001). Dr. Frame is loved by his students and respected by his former colleagues and critics. In fact, many of his former students, colleagues, and even critics contributed to Speaking the Truth in Love, the 1,200-page Festschrift published in his honor in 2009. Frame is one of the most popular and influential Reformed theologians writing today, and yet he is one of the men named by Dolezal as holding to significant errors regarding classical Christian theism. That is no small matter. If Dolezal is wrong, he has misrepresented the work of an important theologian. If Dolezal is right, then Frame’s widespread influence and popularity over the course of many decades may have had a profoundly negative theological influence on the church’s doctrine of God. Frame has, not surprisingly, written a lengthy response to Dolezal’s book in an online article titled “Scholasticism for Evangelicals: Thoughts on All That Is In God by James Dolezal.” Having read both Dolezal and Frame, I am convinced that there are some serious problems in Frame’s response that must be addressed. However, before examining Frame’s response more closely, we need to understand the issues that concern Dolezal as well as the charges that he has made.

     All That Is In God | In one sense, there is nothing remarkable about Dolezal’s book. Much of it is merely a restatement of the doctrine of God believed, confessed, and taught by orthodox Christians from the earliest centuries of the church onward—the doctrine of God they believed to be revealed by God Himself in Scripture. It is a restatement of the biblical doctrine of God found in the great creeds of the church. Furthermore, and equally relevant for our purposes, it is the biblical doctrine of God defended by the Reformed theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it is the doctrine found in the Reformed confessions of those centuries. The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, clearly and concisely states the classical Christian doctrine of God in the following words:

Click here to go to source

Per Amazon, Keith A. Mathison (MA, Reformed Theological Seminary; PhD, Whitefield Theological Seminary) is dean of the Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine at Ligonier Ministries. He is editor of When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism and associate editor of The Reformation Study Bible. He lives in Lake Mary, Florida, with his wife and children.

• 1     Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
• 2     The Shape of Sola Scriptura
• 3     Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
• 4     From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
• 5     Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
• 6     A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture
• 7     Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt against Reason
• 8     When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 12.

     GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS, THAT HE MAY BE THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP.

     Sections.

     1. Scripture, in teaching that there is but one God, does not make a dispute about words, but attributes all honour and religious worship to him alone. This proved, 1st, By the etymology of the term. 2d, By the testimony of God himself, when he declares that he is a jealous God, and will not allow himself to be confounded with any fictitious Deity.

     2. The Papists in opposing this pure doctrine, gain nothing by their distinction of dulia and latria.

     3. Passages of Scripture subversive of the Papistical distinction, and proving that religious worship is due to God alone. Perversions of Divine worship.

     1. We said at the commencement of our work (chap. 2), that the knowledge of God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries worship along with it; and we touched by the way (chap. 5 s. 6, 9, 10) on what will be more copiously treated in other places (Book 2, chap. 8)--viz. how God is duly worshipped. Now I only briefly repeat, that whenever Scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to Divinity be applied to any other; thus making it obvious in what respect pure religion differs from superstition. The Greek word euse'beia means "right worship;" for the Greeks, though groping in darkness, were always aware that a certain rule was to be observed, in order that God might not be worshipped absurdly. Cicero truly and shrewdly derives the name religion from relego, and yet the reason which he assigns is forced and farfetched--viz. that honest worshipers read and read again, and ponder what is true. [91] I rather think the name is used in opposition to vagrant license--the greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step, confines itself within due bounds. In the same way superstition seems to take its name from its not being contented with the measure which reason prescribes, but accumulating a superfluous mass of vanities. But to say nothing more of words, it has been universally admitted in all ages, that religion is vitiated and perverted whenever false opinions are introduced into it, and hence it is inferred, that whatever is allowed to be done from inconsiderate zeal, cannot be defended by any pretext with which the superstitious may choose to cloak it. But although this confession is in every man's mouth, a shameful stupidity is forthwith manifested, inasmuch as men neither cleave to the one God, nor use any selection in their worship, as we have already observed.

     But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded with any false god; and thereafter defines what due worship is, in order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance to him as their only Lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for worshipping him in accordance with his will. The Law, with its manifold uses and objects, I will consider in its own place; at present I only advert to this one, that it is designed as a bridle to curb men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious worship. But it is necessary to attend to the observation with which I set out--viz. that unless everything peculiar to divinity is confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour, and his worship is violated.

     It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the subtleties which superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods, it avoids the appearance of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing him to the same rank with others. It gives him the highest place, but at the same time surrounds him with a tribe of minor deities, among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In this way, though in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the Godhead is dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them, according to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the government of heaven and earth. In the same way, too, for some ages past, departed saints have been exalted to partnership with God, to be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in his stead. And yet we do not even think that the majesty of God is obscured by this abomination, whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and extinguished--all that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power. At the same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after divers gods.

     2. The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they leave him latria. But since the question relates not to the word, but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to God, and service to the others. For latrei`a in Greek has the same meaning as worship in Latin; whereas doulei`a properly means service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each. Doulei`a unquestionably means service, and latrei`a worship. But no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?

     3. Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of Gods he says that they "did service unto them which by nature are no gods," (Gal. 4:8). Because he does not say latria, was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan's insulting proposal with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," (Mt. 4:10), there was no question of latria. For all that Satan asked was prosku`nesis (obeisance). In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9), we ought not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not prosku`nein (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that was, if I may so speak, civil honour. The case is different with religious honour, which, the moment it is conjoined with worship, carries profanation of the divine honour along with it. The same thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:25). He had not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him instead of God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just because men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the creature that which belongs only to God. Therefore, if we would have one God, let us remember that we can never appropriate the minutest portion of his glory without retaining what is his due. Accordingly, when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the Church, he distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also that he would have only one name--the reason being, that he might have nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God requires will be seen in its own place (Book 2, c. 7 and 8). He has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their own. But as it is inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of topics, I do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone, are of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached divine honours to the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards ambition followed--ambition which, decking man in the spoils of God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And though the principle of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, still the practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods, or departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own peculiar right!

__________________________________________________________________

     [91] Cic. De Nat. Deor. lib. 2 c. 28. See also Lactant. Inst. Div. lib. 4 c. 28.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain      Institutes of the Christian Religion

Apologetics from the Psalms

By Donnie Griffin 6/22/2016

     One can easily obtain apologetics from the Psalms.

     Most of the time when we think of the Books of Psalms in the Scriptures, we think songs or prayers. Well, that’s what they are.

     But, it’s not very often that we consider the Psalms as a source for apologetics though. But, because the Psalms are written from man’s perspective in an attempt to understand life through worship of a Holy God, they necessarily describe that relationship and often do so in a way that provides evidence.

     Furthermore, because the Psalms often approach worship in a way that describe God as creator, arguments for his existence emanate from the verses.

     This summer my pastor is preaching through some of the Psalms and it has been interesting so far to hear these apologetic titbits fall off the pages and from his exposition. Hopefully, he won’t mind me sharing some of what unfolded from Psalm 19 a couple of weeks ago, although his sermon wasn’t necessarily apologetic in nature. (This was not his sermon and it is not my intention to reproduce that in any way.)

Click here to go to source

     Donnie Griffin | I was born in the mountains of Southwest Virginia, born again at a very young age, married a beautiful and likeminded woman, moved to Tennessee, and raised two children in the Southern traditions of loving God and neighbor, exercising manners, and being stewards of the land and its bounty.

     After becoming involved in youth ministry in our local church, the need of teaching people “what they believe and why they believe it” became painfully apparent, especially in my immediate context (rural Southern churches). We began an apologetics/theology ministry there but have since moved on. After serving in church leadership and being called to faithfulness and duty to protect our congregation from a rogue pastor under church discipline, my experiences in this biblical process shape much of what I believe about how churches in the South become weak and nominal Christianity is prevalent.

     I love the Church and Southern culture so you can expect to read about apologetics and theology as well as church and culture here, written southern style, by the grace of God.

Why Sacrifices in the Millennium? | Interpretive Views of Ezekiel 40–48

By Charles C. Ryrie     1961

     Obviously the title of this article assumes that there will be actual sacrifices in the millennium in connection with a material temple as described by  Ezekiel. Such an assumption is a minority viewpoint among biblical interpreters. Broadly speaking, interpreters understand  Ezekiel 40–48 either non-literally and fulfilled ideally by the church, or literally and fulfilled in the future millennial kingdom. Within these two broad categories exist some variations.

The Non-Literal View of Ezekiel 40–48

     C. G. Howie attributes  Ezekiel 40–48 to “the editor who also lived before the Zerubbabel - Joshua restoration of the temple.” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Yet these chapters describe the future glory of God’s people and God’s land. When that will happen is left unspecified. F. Gardiner regards the prophecy as an ideal one on every ground without looking for any literal and material fulfillment.”  Ezekiel, he says, wishes “to set forth the glory, the purity, and the beneficent influence of the Church of the future.” A Bible Commentary for English Readers, Vol. 6 (Classic Reprint)

     Anyone who consistently uses a normal, plain, historical-grammatical or literal hermeneutic will reject those interpretations out of hand. Also, anyone who has a sensible view of reason would, it seems, have to admit that not to take literally and plainly the many specific details in the chapters (careful measurements, places, etc.) contravenes all reason.

A Combination View of  Ezekiel 40–48

     A.R. Fausset, an ardent premillennialist, took a mediating stand between a completely non-literal and a consistently literal understanding of the matter concerning the temple when he wrote on  Ezekiel 40–48: “There are things in it so improbable physically as to preclude a purely literal interpretation. The general truth seems to hold good that, as Israel served the nations for their rejection of Messiah, so shall they serve him in the person of Messiah when he shall acknowledge Messiah.… The ideal temple exhibits … the essential character of the worship of Messiah as it shall be when He shall exercise sway in Jerusalem among His own people, the Jews, and thence to the ends of the earth.” A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments Though the writer believes in an earthly millennium, he does not see its temple as “purely literal.”

     Concerning sacrifices specifically, even though he does not comment on every mention of sacrifices in those chapters nor opine what their purpose will be, Fausset evidently believed that they will be offered literally.

The Literal View of Ezekiel 40–48

     Whether supporters of a literal understanding of  Ezekiel 40–48 agree or even discuss the purpose of sacrifices, they agree that the chapters are to be interpreted plainly or normally. That means that a temple will be built in the millennium according to the specifications in those chapters and that actual sacrifices will be offered. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old Testament:)

Views as to the Purpose of Sacrifices | The Memorial View

     As to the purpose of millennial sacrifices for those who understand that they will actually be offered, most consider them to memorialize the work of Christ on the cross. This view is widely held by premillennialists including A. C. Gaebelein, Charles Feinberg, J. Dwight Pentecost, Eric Sauer, Ralph Alexander, and Lamar Cooper. Since, it is argued, the sacrifices are not efficacious to remove sin in the millennium, to have them offered in no way contradicts the truth that Christ’s offering was once for all ( Heb. 7:27; 10:10 ). Also, just as the Lord’s Supper today memorializes the death of Christ without diminishing the complete sufficiency of His death, so animal sacrifices in the millennium can be offered without slighting the finished work of Christ.

     A contemporary statement of this memorial view is this: “These sacrifices do not take away sin in the millennial age any more than animal sacrifices did in Old Testament times. Their purpose seems to be that of being a vivid reminder of the Lord’s death. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the church today, it is probable that the animal sacrifices will uniquely memorialize Christ’s horrible death on the cross. This will be a powerful teaching tool to people born in an age where righteousness and holiness prevail — in an age that is so free from the external effects of sin that its exceeding sinfulness is not clearly understood.” Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach

     However compelling and non-conflicting (with the concept of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ) the memorial view may be, it is insufficient to explain the details recorded concerning the sacrifices and the fact that it is said that they relate to “atonement” ( 43:20, 26; 45:15, 17, 20 ).

     Opponents of the idea that any sacrifices will be offered in the millennium focus on how embarrassing such is for literalists, for it would mean the reestablishment of the Mosaic sacrifices and Aaronic priesthood which, according to the Book of  Hebrews, have ended. Prophecy and the Church

The Views Related to the Meanings of כָּפַר (kâp̄ar), Parent Noun = כָּפֶר (kôper)

     View # 1: The word is connected to an Arabic root meaning “to cover or conceal.” The resultant Hebrew word means that sin was covered over and the deity was pacified by virtue of an atonement made. However, “the connection of the Arabic word is weak and the Hebrew root is not used to mean “cover.”

     View # 2: The word means “ransom” or “propitiation.” Support for this view includes the fact that the word is used to refer to the anger of individuals and of God ( Gen. 32:20; Prov. 16:14: Num. 16:41–50; 25:11–13 ), which anger is averted by payment of a ransom which satisfies (propitiates) the offended party. Also, כפר is usually translated by ἵλεῶ in the Septuagint. Old Testament scholar Laird Harris supports this meaning.

     It means “to atone by offering a substitute.” Laird Harris comments:

     The great majority of the usages concern the priestly ritual of sprinkling of the sacrificial blood thus “making an atonement” for the worshiper. There are forty-nine instances of this usage in  Leviticus alone and no other meaning is there witnessed.… The life of the sacrificial animal specifically symbolized by its blood was required in exchange for the life of the worshiper.… [Sacrifice of animals] was the symbolic expression of innocent life given for guilty life. This symbolism is further clarified by the action of the worshiper in placing his hands on the head of the sacrifice and confessing his sins over the animal (cf.  Lev. 16:21; 1:4; 4:4, etc.) which was then killed or sent out as a scapegoat.

     New Testament scholar Leon Morris, after a lengthy examination of כפר, concludes that to make atonement means “to avert punishment, especially the divine anger, by the payment of a kopher, a ransom, which may be of money or which may be of life.… The essence of the transaction is the provision of an acceptable substitute.” Walter Kaiser concurs that the word means “to deliver or ransom someone by a substitute.”

     View # 3: The word means “to erase, wipe away, or purge.” Jerry M. Hullinger states that כפר comes from an Akkadian cognate which means “to wipe off” or “to purify.” He argues that since purging is not an action exercised on God, and a person is never the direct object of the kopher rite (but see  Ezek. 16:63 ), and in three of the five occurrences of כפר in  Ezekiel 43:20, 26; 45:15, 17, 20 the object of atonement is inanimate (though in the other two [ 45:15, 17 ] it is people), then the meaning of כפר in the future temple concerns wiping away contamination of that temple brought about by unclean worshipers. He draws analogies from the pollution of the tabernacle ( Num. 19:13, 20 ), menstruation ( Lev. 12:2, 5, 7 ), contact with a corpse ( Lev. 10:3–4 ), and leprosy ( Lev. 13–14 ).

     Additional considerations make Hullinger’s conclusion less than airtight. The references to cleansing the altar of burnt offering ( 43:20, 26 ) relate to the one-time initial consecration of that altar, not to continual cleansing. Atonement for the sanctuary was prescribed only once each year ( 45:18–20 ). Atonement for the people was done by the prince as their representative at the appointed feasts ( 45:17 ). So instead of understanding כפר as only wiping away the contamination of the temple, it seems better to combine meanings and include both ideas of propitiation and purging. The meaning “covering” does not seem to be well supported.

Purposes of the Levitical Sacrificial System

     An excursion into the purposes of the Levitical system of sacrifices will provide considerable help in determining the purposes of sacrifices in the millennial kingdom.

     One cannot escape the fact that Levitical sacrifices did provide an atonement that apparently did not depend on the faith or spiritual condition of the offerer ( Lev. 1:4; 4:20 and many other references). Thomas Crawford comments:

     It seems very evident that the Mosaic sacrifices have a certain real efficacy ascribed to them in the Old Testament.… Nor is there a word said to indicate that this efficacy depended either on the inward dispositions of the worshipers, or on any prefigurative reference, whether understood or not, which their offerings may have had to the great sacrifice of the cross. So far as we can learn from the terms of the Mosaic statutes, the sacrifices seem to have been of unfailing benefit in all cases in which they were punctually and exactly offered. Their efficacy, such as it was, belonged to them ex opere operato.

     At the same time the New Testament is unequivocal in declaring, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” ( Heb. 10:4, cf. v.  11 ). Suggestions as to reconciling these statements (i.e., that the Old Testament sacrifices made atonement and that they do not take away sins) include: (1) differentiating between outward cleansing as in the Old Testament and inward cleansing of the conscience in the New Testament; (2) understanding the Old Testament sacrifices to be prefigurative of the cross and thus to be effective only if offered in faith; (3) a partial efficacy in the Old Testament versus a full efficacy in the New; (4) an efficacy in restoring the privileges of the offending person in relation to the commonwealth of Israel versus an efficacy to forgive the eternal consequences of sin.16

To Provide Theocratic Forgiveness

     This view, I believe, is the correct one. In other words, in a theocracy every sin had a Godward facet as well as a governmental one. Provision had to be made to right the wrong committed against the government under which Israel lived. But a governmental offense would also be a sin against the head of the theocracy, the living and true God. Thus sin was both a governmental and a spiritual offense because of the nature of a theocracy. So the atonement made by the Levitical sacrifices would restore the sinner to his privileges and position in the theocracy, including his theocratic relation to God. This would be true whether or not the Israelite was a believer whose sins were also eternally forgiven. All, believers and unbelievers, needed what I call “theocratic forgiveness” when they sinned. Such forgiveness would bring forgiveness of those theocratic offenses by the government. To bring the prescribed offering in the prescribed way guaranteed theocratic forgiveness and restoration regardless of the spiritual condition of the offerer. The sacrifices when properly brought automatically made the person right with the law as the code of conduct under which he lived and with the Lawgiver in His position as Head of the theocracy, but not in His role as Savior. To enter into that relationship did require faith.

     Oehler makes an intriguing observation about the rituals in the days of the captivity when the theocracy was in eclipse. He says, “It must moreover, be remembered how important the observance of these ritual observances was, especially during the captivity, as a means of fencing the people and protecting them against heathenism.”

To Prefigure or Foreshadow a Deliverance

     In addition to theocratic atonement, the Levitical sacrifices also had a second purpose. They spoke the language of symbolism which gave them a prefigurative purpose. But how much prefiguring did they contain? Was there a Christological content or picture in the Old Testament sacrifices? Some say hardly any or even none. Others say that if the sacrifices were offered in faith, they had for the offerer an eternal effect because he saw something beyond the ritual of the offering itself. Though the offerings themselves could not automatically bring spiritual salvation, if offered in faith, they might, because of what they prefigured. But still the question remains, largely unanswerable: “What did the offerer understand about any prefiguring in the sacrifices?”

     What we can understand, because we have the New Testament revelation, is another matter. Here are some things to consider: (1) The Law was a shadow of things to come ( Heb. 10:1 ). But how much could be seen in that shadow? (2) Performing the works of the Law could not save eternally ( Rom. 3:20 ). (3) In the regular repetition of offerings the one bringing an offering might have longed for (is that another way of saying he might have believed?) some complete dealing with sin. But whatever hope a worshiper may have had, he had no sense of completed cleansing, simply because the repetition of the offerings forbade such a conclusion ( Heb. 10:1–2 ). (4) To acknowledge that an Israelite might have had some glimmer of a better provision than the animal sacrifices and have faith in that better provision is one thing. But to say that that glimmer revealed Jesus Christ the Savior is a big leap. To accomplish that leap requires one to see more details about the Messiah than the Old Testament reveals. (5) But did not Moses see Christ and therefore have a clear prefiguring of Him ( Heb. 11:26–27 )? Yes, only if Christ means Jesus Christ. But no, if, as is likely, the reference is to Moses himself as God’s anointed (i.e., a christ). In any case, even if Moses understood about the coming Christ, can we conclude that the average Israelite did also? (6) David believed God would forgive his sin and knew that that forgiveness could not come from bringing sacrifices ( Ps. 51 ). (7) Paul calls the Old Testament days “times of ignorance” when compared to the New Testament revelation ( Acts 17:30 ). (8)  1 Peter 1:10 also places limits on how much Old Testament prophets knew. They were unclear as to whom and to what period and circumstances the Spirit of Christ was pointing. Though they may have understood something about a coming Messiah and Deliverer, they did not know who that person would be — and their confusion and uncertainty were demonstrated during our Lord’s earthly ministry as recorded in  John 1:19 and  Matthew 11:3. The question is not possible to answer conclusively.

To Show Obedience

     A third purpose for the Levitical sacrifices was to provide a concrete way for the redeemed Israelite to show his obedience to, and love for, his God. One whose heart was rightly related to God certainly would not ignore or fail to obey the requirements of the sacrificial system. He would bring the required sacrifices willingly, gladly, and out of love for God, thereby demonstrating the change God had made in his life through faith. Bringing sacrifices willingly by the redeemed person in the Old Testament was an evidence of fruitbearing, just as willing obedience on the part of the New Testament believer gives evidence of his or her love for the Lord.

     For example, the peace offerings could, presumably, be brought ritualistically, or, as was intended, “as a thanksgiving in connection with a vow made to God (cf.  Ps. 116:14 ) or as a freewill offering … [which] consisted of an act of homage and obedience to the Lord.” Furthermore the book of  Deuteronomy “teaches that all these laws, which can be so easily taken in a legalistic sense … are to be understood as the application and practice in particular concrete situations of the primary command of love.… The law is a practical guide for the man who wishes to set God up as the supreme director of his whole being.” Later, amid the almost total rebellion of the nation in the days of  Malachi, there were still some who feared the Lord ( 3:16–17 ) and who, presumably, did not cheat and cut corners in their sacrificing, as many did (cf.  1:14 ).

     To sum up: The Levitical sacrifices had three purposes: (1) to provide theocratic forgiveness; (2) to prefigure a future something/someone; and (3) to prove and show one’s love for and obedience to the true God.

Worship and Festivals in the Millennium

     To say that the millennial kingdom will be different from all other eras of human history is an understatement. Some of these differences include the following: Kingdom worship will be highlighted by the personal presence of Christ in Jerusalem ( Zech. 8:3, 22 ). Even though some will live persisting in unbelief, the knowledge of the Lord will be available to all ( Isa. 11:9 ). Many, but not all, of Israel’s festivals will be observed. Those mentioned are Sabbath, New Moon ( Ezek. 45:17 ), Booths ( 45:25 ), Passover and Unleavened Bread ( 45:21 ), and the daily morning sacrifice ( 46:13 ). In addition, the sanctuary is to be cleansed on the first and seventh days of the first month ( 45:18, 20 ). This shifts the principal atoning sacrifices from the seventh month to the first, as if to show people that atonement is the foundation of all worship and life.

     Those festivals not mentioned are the evening sacrifice, Pentecost, Trumpets, and Day of Atonement. Why will these be omitted? Some suggest that they will be no longer needed since Israel’s promises will be fulfilled. Since people in the millennium will have the New Testament available, they will certainly realize that the Day of Atonement is no longer necessary, and, perhaps, they will recognize the prefiguring of the church age bracketed by Pentecost (its beginning) and Trumpets (its rapture) was completed before the millennium began (prefigured by the Feast of Booths). Others suggest that mentioning the first two feasts in Israel’s holiday calendar (Passover and Unleavened Bread) and the last one (Booths) is to be understood as also including the intervening ones.

The Purposes of Animal Sacrifices in the Millennium

     Clearly animal sacrifices will be offered in the millennium. Even if one totally spiritualizes away the sacrifices and offerings mentioned in  Ezekiel 40–48, still other passages refer to them ( Isa. 56:7; Jer. 33:18; Zech. 14:16–21; Mal. 3:3 ). So the use of sacrifices in the millennium will have to be accepted (whether or not we fully understand the reasons for them), or a number of passages will have to be deliteralized.

     Essentially the same three purposes for animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law will be found in the millennial kingdom. Those three were: (1) theocratic forgiveness, (2) to point to the better sacrifice of Messiah, and (3) a way for the believer to show fruit.

To Provide for Theocratic Forgiveness

     The Scriptures teach that certain offerings will be offered in the millennial kingdom by Levites. At our Lord’s second coming He will purify “the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness” ( Mal. 3:3 ). Earlier  Jeremiah recorded the Lord’s promise that “the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to prepare sacrifices continually” ( Jer. 33:18 ).  Isaiah predicted that millennial blessings and offerings will be extended to include participation by Gentiles ( Isa. 56:7 ).

     In  Ezekiel 40–46 burnt offerings in the millennium are mentioned nineteen times, grain offerings fifteen times, peace offerings six times, and the sin offering fourteen times. Failure to keep the Feast of Booths with its nearly two hundred animal sacrifices during the eight days of its observance will bring drought or a plague on those who do not observe it ( Zech. 14:16–19 ). These many offerings will be appropriate under the future theocratic government in the millennium as they were under the previous Mosaic theocracy. King Jesus will be reigning visibly as Head of the theocracy so that not only will violations of His government be atoned for by offerings, but the righteous functioning of that government will involve sacrifices. As Oehler said about the Mosaic sacrificial system, it may also be said of the millennial system, that sacrifices will serve as a kind of fence around the people who live in that theocracy.

To Point to the Savior

     A second purpose of the Mosaic sacrifices was to give some indication, however faint or clear, of the need for a coming Deliverer to take care of the recurring sin problem. Usually premillennialists say that sacrifices in the millennium will serve as a memorial looking back on the once - for - all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. This is certainly reasonable. But why will not the purpose be more similar to what it was under the Law, i.e., to point to the Messiah, not as coming in the future, but as then reigning on His throne? In other words, the sacrifices will remind unbelievers of their need to deal with the eternal consequences of sin and point them to the One who paid for those sins and who is there present offering that salvation to them. In contrast to the theocracy over Israel in the Old Testament, the millennial theocracy will be worldwide and will include Gentiles as well as Jews ( Isa. 56:7 ). We know, too, there will be unbelievers living during the millennium even to the close of the 1,000 years ( Rev. 20:8–9 ). Apparently they will have to give outward allegiance to the King or suffer consequences, but inwardly their hearts will be in rebellion against Him. In other words, they will be closet rebels! To those people the sacrifices should be a constant reminder that there is a way to have a right and eternal relationship to Christ. Sacrifices will be a reminder to those who have accepted the Lord and a continual sermon to those who have not.

To Show Fruit, i.e. Manifest Obedience

     Third, the sacrifices will be a way for the believer to show fruit. Just as under the Mosaic system those whose hearts were right with God brought their sacrifices as evidence of that relationship, so also in the millennial theocracy believers will do the same. All those who love the Lord and are His servants will show that love by their service and obedience to God’s covenant ( Isa. 56:6 ). In turn the Lord declares that “their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar” (v.  7 ). Also, the Levites, purified by the Lord, will “present to the Lord offerings in righteousness” ( Mal. 3:3 ).

     C. F. Keil observes that the shift “of the chief atoning sacrifices from the seventh month, at the end of the religious year [ Lev. 23:27 ], to the first month [ Ezek. 45:18–20 ] indicates that, for the Israel of the new covenant, this eternally - availing atoning sacrifice would form the foundation for all its acts of worship and keeping of feasts, as well as for the whole course of its life [which] indicates that the people offering these sacrifices will bring forth more of the fruit of sanctification in good works upon the ground of the reconciliation which it has received.”

     Just as in Israel of old and in the church today, presumably there will be those who will go through the motions of obedience by bringing sacrifices, but whose hearts are either unrighteous or cold toward the Lord. But as then and now, there will be many who will obey out of love for their Savior - King and by that obedience will bear fruit to His glory.

     Thus millennial sacrifices concern (1) payment, (2) proclamation, and (3) proof. They will render payment for sins committed against the government to effect theocratic forgiveness. They will proclaim the once - for - all death of Christ on the cross — a proclamation that will be frequent and clear, for the people will have available the presence of the Savior and the entire Bible to read. And they will offer proof of changed lives by those who will bring them out of love and a pure heart. These are all worthy purposes and in no way backward steps in the progressive revelation of the glory of God.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 135

135:8 He it was who struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
both of man and of beast;
9 who in your midst, O Egypt,
sent signs and wonders
against Pharaoh and all his servants;
10 who struck down many nations
and killed mighty kings,
11 Sihon, king of the Amorites,
and Og, king of Bashan,
and all the kingdoms of Canaan,
12 and gave their land as a heritage,
a heritage to his people Israel.

13 Your name, O LORD, endures forever,
your renown, O LORD, throughout all ages.
14 For the LORD will vindicate his people
and have compassion on his servants.

15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
16 They have mouths, but do not speak;
they have eyes, but do not see;
17 they have ears, but do not hear,
nor is there any breath in their mouths.
18 Those who make them become like them,
so do all who trust in them.

19 O house of Israel, bless the LORD!
O house of Aaron, bless the LORD!
20 O house of Levi, bless the LORD!
You who fear the LORD, bless the LORD!
21 Blessed be the LORD from Zion,
he who dwells in Jerusalem!
Praise the LORD!

Fox's Book Of Martyrs

By John Foxe 1563

Queen Mary's Treatment of Her Sister, the Princess Elizabeth

The Continual Burnt Offering (Hebrews 11:24)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

December 3

Farewell to the world’s fleeting joys
Our home is not below;
There was no home for Jesus here,
And ‘tis to Him we go.
To Him in yonder home of love,
Where He has gone before:
The home He changed for Calvary’s cross,
Where all our sins He bore.
He bore our sins, that we might be
His partners on the throne!
The throne He’ll shortly share with those
For whom He did atone.
--- W. Trotter