Thursday, August 11, 2022

UCG Still Mooning Around


Many tried to cover up Rick Shabi's recent emphasis on new moon observance. COGNews has this little tidbit up about how important new moons are to them:

A member of the UCG has forwarded a table of full moons for the Festival of Tabernacles up to 2040. “This will reveal the truth about the actual alignment of the Full Moon with the 15th of Tishrei. See the inconsistencies in this alignment, exposing the long-held MYTH …. “The first day of the Feast (15th of Tishrei) falls on the Full Moon.” 
This table is produced from data provided by Time and Date, which show that there will be a full moon on 15th of Tishrei in only 7 of the next 19 years.

The Church of God is forever entrenched in old covenant laws, rules, and observances, which were mere shadows of things to come. They continue to look backward and never forward to what has already come.

Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ”. Colossians 2:16–17

According to Herbert Armstrong, lay members are not qualified to determine new moons or dates on which "festivals"" occur. Only the apostle is that highly educated. Since there are no apostles in the church today, this creates a quandary for them all.

We calculate the beginning of months, even as did Jesus and the first apostles -- not as a holy day or convocation -- yet the spring and fall festivals are reckoned from the first days of their months, and it IS important that we calculate properly. NEVERTHELESS , even so, since these are CHURCH festivals, they must be calculated by the CHURCH , through Christ’s chosen apostle, as Christ leads. We follow Jesus Christ’s own example. He did not change or alter the calculating of these months, but observed them as Judah had calculated them ever since Moses. The Journal: News of the Churches of God. Issue 200, November 2017


Phinnpoy said...

The sad thing about the old feasts is they look backward in history, not forward. All of them refer to past events in Jewish history, and a covenant of death. That covenant condemned the Israelites, because they could never live up to it. God found fault with them, and gave them a new one. The Jews rejected that covenant, and were rejected as God's people. And sadly, the ACOG's reject the lifegiving covenant for the death covenant. They need to stop listening to Moses, and listen to Christ.

Tonto said...

When the moon is in the seventh house...

And Jupiter aligns with Mars...



Anonymous said...

The problem with Phinnpoy's standard mainstream Christian exposition is that it can quickly turn into anti-Semitism against "rejected" Jews... when in fact it was the trickster-god who gave the Jews a guaranteed-to-fail covenant that only God Himself could keep in the person of Jesus Christ.

"Stop listening to Moses" is Phinnpoy's suggestion. But when the Jews tried that, God smote them (see Korah, etc.).

Anonymous said...

It is not anti-Semitic for a Christian to say stop listening to Moses. The Jewish scholars will tell you that the Jewish laws were given specifically to the nation of Israel as a sign to separate them from the world around them and to give them their own identity. Their laws do not apply to Christians or anyone else and they will tell you that. Christians pretending to be Jewish is offensive.

DW said...

This is precisely what I cannot understand about Armstrongism. It is neither Christianity, nor Judaism, as practiced for thousands of years. What was written in the article is spot on and not in the slightest anti semitic-Christians know Israel is the Apple of God's eye.

I constantly ask the question here, why the Acogs deny the grace of Jesus in favor of the law of Moses. The usual response is "you must obey the commandments and church literature". I won't bother with church shiterature, but why the law of Moses if you are a Christian? Oh, that damnable heresy of BI rears its ugly head again.

Please Acogs, pick a lane! The Jews are a race, not a religion, so even if you still buy in to BI, you cannot assume someone else's DNA.

Come to Jesus, not Moses.

Anonymous said...

Christians pretending to be Jewish is offensive.

DW and Anon 12:40 seem to have forgotten Herbie's foundational premise, that Americans and Britons ARE Israelites. If you accept the premise that God gave the OT laws to Israel and not to the Gentiles, then it follows that the Israelites would do well to observe those laws instead of Gentile customs,

If America and Britain aren't Israel, HWA's idea collapses like a house of cards. But if you remember how Herbie's ministry got started, it was based on the premise that Israelites should embrace their Israelite identity.

Anonymous said...

The Time and Date website shows dates from midnight to midnight whereas the Tishrei dates are sunset to sunset timing occurring before the midnight to midnight timing. With this timing in mind, and if sunset is before 7:25 PM, then ALL of the Tishrei dates in the next 19 years are within 24 hours of the time of the full moon! The naked eye can see a full moon for up to three days.

Someone venting "myth" with capital letters must hate the Jewish Calendar.

As to those "old feasts", explain Zechariah 14:19....not to me but to Jesus Christ when you're given the opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Christ instructed His followers to call no man your master. So the ACOGs get around this by changing the wording to "Christ's CHOSEN APOSTLE." Yes, the CHOSEN ONE. Everyone must subcontract their thinking and decision making to
T-H-E C-H-O-S-E-N A-P-O-S-T-L-E.
Btw, aren't the first fruits chosen as well?

Feastgoer said...

If UCG really cared about the lunar calendar as much as you claim, it would have New Moon events in its congregations other than Tishri 1/Feast of Trumpets.

To my knowledge, none of them do. They walk right by the millennial description of Isaiah 66:23, emphasizing Sabbath only.

Anonymous said...

Men copied the month from the Moon phases, but added days here and there to please whomever they wanted, like the 31 days are for the Pope Gregory.

Col 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Col 2:17Wh ich are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Things to come: Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Eze 46:1
Thus saith the Lord GOD; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened.

Mat 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Gal 4:9
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10
Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Gal 4:11
I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Gen 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Jer 33:20
Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;

Jer 33:25
Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

Few understand this. I worship no idols from the Babylon system of images from above like Saturn or Sun day. A vexation.

Anonymous said...

Saturn is Roman, not Babylonian.

Anonymous said...

@ DW : Jesus's View on the Law. Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:

(17) Think not that I came to destroy the Law [of Moses] or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV)

Compare that Luke 16:17 similarly records Jesus saying at a different time than the Sermon on the Mount:

"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (Luke 16:16-17 NIV.)

Thus, Jesus can never be accused of seducing any Christian from following the Law. Jesus cannot be a false prophet under Deuteronomy 13:5 (false prophet is anyone who has miracles and wonders but seduces you from following the Law). Jesus said the Law remained valid until the Heavens and Earth pass away. This passing of heaven and earth occurs at the end of the Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ's Second Coming, according to the Book of Revelation. So Jesus was actually big on the law of moses.

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

"Things to come: Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD."

I take exception to this. The point is not that the new moon is a shadow of future new moons. Circumcison of the flesh did not foreshadow a new and improved circumcision of the flesh but it foreshadowed the tender, compassionate heart of Jesus. Although Paul does not go into the predictive content of the symbols he lists in Col 2:16. It is clear that he is saying that these symbols should not be criteria for judgment of the Christian. Beause they are insubstantial. The substance, the reality is Jesus. He is the constituative force that animates the Church - the Body of Christ. He is not himself a symbol but is the culmination of symbols.

So if you want to observe a new moon, you can. Who cares. It is not on the critical path to salvation. Don't let anybody judge you about it. Either because you did observe or didn't observe it. Now its value is only liturgical. Doing the calendar arithmetic may teach you some interesting things about cosmology but not about soteriology.

Note: Isaiah 66:21 refers to a re-establishment of the Levitical Priesthood. Since in the Era of Christ there is the Melchizedekan Priesthood, verse 21 connects Isaiah 66 to events in the past Judaic Period. There is a reference to "new heaven and new earth" but it is used as a symbol of the certainty and power of the will of God. It does not assert that these events happen in the new heaven and new earth. I do know that Christ stated that he came to fulfill the prophets - all prophecy, including Isaiah 66, culminates in Jesus. Solo Christo!

********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Anonymous 6:38 cited, "I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]."

What you have done is create an argument that the sacrifices and circumcision for salvation are still in effect. I have a feeling that you have contradicted what your own denomination teaches.

********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

Antisemitism in full flow. Its been emerging on the scene for awhile now. Certain COG groups have more anti semities than others. Anti Moses sermons are usually one of the signs and a hatred of Passover and Unleavened Bread another.

Anonymous said...

Saturn is called Shabbathai in Hebrew. Babylonians astronomers knew of Saturn. Names change, but it's all the same idolatry of many gods like Saturn/Cronus/phainon.

1Co 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Circumcision is always about the heart/mind. (See Jer 9:25-26, Jer 4:4, Col 2:11). What's done to Babby Boys is evil and added to scripture.

Keeping of HIS SET APART DAY, (AWAY FROM BABYLON SYSTEM) IS A BLESSING, NOT A CURSE. THE TRUE 4TH COMMAND. We either follow Men or our Heavenly Father who appoints HIS DAY AND NIGHT.

Anonymous said...

COGWA teaches in their booklet on the World to Come that the Millenium will be a return to the OT law, complete with animal sacrifices and the Temple, which would also include circumcision, the Levitical priesthood, and tribal separation, among other things. Though I don’t think most members have read it.

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Anonymous 7:01

The foundation for the view that the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices will be reinstituted in the Millennium is the future Temple described by Ezekiel in chapters 40 through 48. Ezekiel's Temple was a point of controversy among the Jews. Ezekiel's Temple was discrepant with the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple. This almost kept the book of Ezekiel out of the Old Testament canon (Jewish Study Bible, Second Edition, p. 1105).

Ezekiel's Temple was an earthly Temple. And interestingly, there is no mention of its appearance in the Book of Revelation. And Revelation extends in its account through the Millennium and to the final New Heaven and New Earth. Revelation speaks first of the heavenly Temple and then of the Temple in the New Heaven and New Earth. This latter Temple is not a building but rather God and Christ. From Rev 21

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

Ezekiel's Temple is conspicuous by its absence. Yet it would be the liturgical venue for the reinstitution of the Law of Moses with the inclusion of the Levitical Priesthood and sacrifices. How could something this important be totally ommitted in the inspired vision of John of Patmos. John also does not mention sacrifices or a Levitical Priesthood.

My conjecture is that Ezekiel's prophecy was restorationist. It was a note of encouragment to a downtrodden people. And it spoke to them in their language with cultural concepts that they could relate to. Ezekiel could not expect to use the provacative New Covenant to encourage these people. Ezekiel's Temple was a symbol - it symbolized restoration to the people of Israel at that time. So did similar language us by other prophets. Hence, we would expect to find no mention of this Temple or sacrifices in the Eschaton as described by Revelation. And this is what we find. This also fits nicely with the statement of Jesus that the Old Testament prophecies culminate in him. Armstrongists have taken symbolism and interpreted it as substantial. This is a common theme in Armstrongism. They have done the same with the doctrine of God - for the most part not recognizing anthropomorphism.

********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:01 says, "COGWA teaches in their booklet on the World to Come that the Millenium will be a return to the OT law, complete with animal sacrifices and the Temple, which would also include circumcision, the Levitical priesthood, and tribal separation, among other things."

This teaching is by no means limited to the COG culture. If you are a premillennialist, and you believe in the literal 2nd coming of Jesus Christ to earth to rule for 1,000 years, then you likely also believe in the reinstituion of sacrifices per Ezekiel 44-46 and other prophetic scriptures. The question is not will they be reinstituted, but rather for whom and for what purpose. Do I believe, since I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and His blood for the remission of my sins, that I will be partaking in physical sacrifices in the Millennium? No.

If someone is not a premillennialist, then I would think their beliefs are likely different.

Phinnpoy said...

FYI Anon 6:20, I have Jewish ancestry, and so does my wife. Jew hatred has nothing to do with my comments. The Old Covenant was fulfilled at the cross. That initiated the New Covenant. The majority of the Jews rejected Jesus and his covenant. Jesus himself said the kingdom of God was to be taken from the Jews and given to another people. That happened when the majority of converts to Christianity started to come from the Gentiles, rather than the Jews, since the Jewish leadership started spreading Anti-Christian propaganda against the Church from its very begining.

What do you mean by certain COG groups? I've been on this page for a number of years, and I've never noticed any Anti-Semiticism in the COG's. If anything, it Philo-Semiticism that has been the dominant attitude about Jews in the COG's. So, I can't see how "Anti-Moses sermons" could even be preached in any COG. So, please elaborate on this.

Anonymous said...

Oh? What god in the Babylonian pantheon corresponds to Saturn?

Phinnpoy said...

Anon 1:37 PM the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and the New Covenant went into effect. Anything in the Old Testament must be seen in the light of the New Testament. The New plainly says the old law is no longer in effect in II Cor. 3:6-18, Eph. 2:14-16, +++Col.2:16, Gal. 4:9-10, and Hebrews, especially 8:13. So what Zechariah says must be understood in a different sense than the literal demanded by its meaning in the Old Testament. Read Revelation 19-22 for the New Testament understanding of what Zechariah is saying.

Anonymous said...

How little you know phinny

Phinnpoy said...

A lot of this foolish talk about the so-called restoration of the Old Covenant economy could be settled if ex and present COG's would read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. Some of the earliest ones were disciples of the Apostles.

In their writings, you'll won't find anything about restoring the the Old Covenant. Some of them were pre-millenialists, but most of them believed the 1000 years were a symbolic period between Christ's resurrection and his second coming. This became the official teaching of the Church. But neither either side believed the Old Covenant was to be restored. That view was condemned as Judaizing by both parties. And whenever it popped up in the next 2000 years, it was condemned by various Church councils. It wasn't until the 19th century that this heresy became widespread thanks to the efforts of the Plymouth Brethren sect, and its leading member John Nelson Darby, and the Scofield Bible.

NO2HWA said...


The other thing that doesn't make sense if you are a New Covenant Christian is why would Old Covenant laws be kept in the new Kingdom of God? In the kingdom the people have a new identity in Christ, the light that cast the shadows. Shadows do not illuminate but are the by-product some something far grander that is illuminating or illuminated. The law doesn't illuminate but holds everyone guilty, so guilty that they have to constantly be doing some kind of penance in order to gain God's favor, i.e. sacrifices and law keeping. If that ultimate sacrifice is a living presence in the kingdom why would people continue to offer sacrifices in a temple. In that new kingdom the slate is clean so what would they need to be offering sacrifices for?

Mark Wolfe said...

In the New Testament Book of Revelation we find the most references and allusions to the annual feasts. The typology of the ancient feasts of Israel are embedded in the forward looking book of Revelation.

In an article on "Sanctuary Typology," Richard Dawson wrote: "The overall structure of the book of Revelation may be seen to follow the sweep of salvation history as set forth in the OT festival typology. The general outline of Revelation appears to progress sequentially through the OT festivals.

The third major section is the seven trumpets (Rev 8-9,11), one sees a reminder of the seven monthly new moon festivals which form a transition between the spring and fall feasts and climax in the Feast of Trumpets (Num 10:2, 10; 29:1).

The view of the seventh trumpet of Revelation is the antitypical fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets which inaugurated the judgment process that culminated on the Day of Atonement."

Phinnpoy said...

So, me and the rest of us in on what we don't know.

Anonymous said...

NO2HWA writes:

“In that new kingdom the slate is clean so what would they need to be offering sacrifices for?”

One positive reason: rejoicing and giving thanks to God.

Eze 46:21 He then brought me to the outer court and led me around to its four corners, and I saw in each corner another court.
Eze 46:24 He said to me, "These are the kitchens where those who minister at the temple will cook the sacrifices of the people." (NIV).

Lev 7:12 If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried.

“Christians tend to think of the Israelite sacrifices primarily or even exclusively in terms of atonement for sin, but 7:12-16 teaches us that sacrifices could be performed on an array of joyful occasions. Moreover, the harvest Festival of Booths, taking place at a time when thanksgiving to the Lord would be appropriate (like the American Thanksgiving holiday)... The sacrificial system was solemn, but it was not morbid. It was dynamic and could be joyful...” (Roy Gane, Leviticus/Numbers, NIVAC, p.89).

Anonymous said...

NEO writes:

“Ezekiel's Temple is conspicuous by its absence.”

When reading ancient-near eastern literature, this is not my ‘take'. Just because something is not mentioned does not mean that it is not relevant or required, or absent.

For instance, Leviticus 1-7 deals with the five major sacrifices including the burnt and peace offerings. From reading Leviticus, one would not know that grain and drink offerings are required to accompany these sacrifices, the requirement is found in Numbers.

("... unlike in modern legal literature, not all procedures of a ritual in the Hebrew Bible are prescribed in a well-systemized legal code; although most of its contents are clustered in a normative ritual text, some of them are omitted. Instead, prescriptions of some activities are deferred to related texts in other places" (Gyung Yul Kim, The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus, p.120)).

Another instance, BI claims that the Davidic covenant is unconditional and therefore someone will always be sitting on that throne as there are no “if” clauses mentioned in 2 Sam 7. “Covenant” is also not mentioned in 2 Sam 7. As fallible human beings are involved there are “if” clauses in everlasting covenants (cp. Ge 17:13-14).

David (1 Kgs 2:3-4) and Solomon (1 Ki 9:3-9), the two people through whom the covenant was established knew this. Compare also the parts of Ps 89 that BI doesn’t usually address.

Eze 40:2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south [which turns out to be a temple compound].
Eze 43:5b; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Rev 21:11a Having the glory of God:

I suggest that the Millennial Temple was not relevant to John’s theological purpose. Compare the theology of the author of Chronicles:

“... Chronicles ignores much of the history of the northern Kingdom of Israel, mentioning northern kings only insofar as they interact with the kings of Judah. Not only is the prophetic endorsement of Jeroboam I missing, even his infamous sin of establishing the golden calves at Bethel and Dan - a constant theme in Kings - goes virtually unnoticed. Likewise, the stories of northern prophets such as Elijah and Elisha, which provide some of the most dramatic moments of the Books of Kings, are absent from Chronicles” (,_Books_of).

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

NO2HWA wrote, "...why would Old Covenant laws be kept in the new Kingdom of God?"

What underpins the Armstrongist view is a concept that Herman Hoeh seems to have originated. He believed that the Law of Moses was God's eternal, spiritual law. In his article "Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today?" Hoeh does not make a clear distinction between commandments, statutes, laws and judgements. At some times in his writing the ten commandments stand in isolation as God's eternal spiritual laws and at other times Hoeh throws in the statutes also. My guess is that he saw the ten commandments as the great law and all the rest of the legislation was derived from and compatible with the ten commandments. This is a long way around but what I am getting at is the Hoeh pretty much saw the entire Law of Moses as God's eternal spiritual law. It was all cut from the same cloth. And it existed before the Old Covenant because it wa eternal.

And if you see the Law of Moses as God's eternal spiritual law - it can never be abandoned. The New Testament can be center stage for a while but events must always circle back to the Law of Moses. Whereas Christians see the Law of Moses as an instantiation of God's eternal spiritual law for Bronze Age Semites. It is not that very law but a particular, tailored instantiation of it. And the instantiation can go away but the actual eternal spiritual Law can't go away. The New Covenant law is a new instantiation of the eternal spiritual law. And I know of no exegesis that would support the idea of going back to the Law of Moses. We would also have to go back to the Bronze Age. I know that going back to the Bronze Age would be cool for some OT weenies fascinated with patriarchy but I think that idea is absurd in light of Nyssa's view called epektasis.

Note: It is clear that the Ten commandments are an instantiation for human beings. It is a prescription for human beings. Don't covet your neighbors ox. Both people and oxen were created and at one time did not exist. How could this then be an eternal law? I can't imagine God would formulate his eternal spiritual law and it was all about Bronze Age human beings who had not even been created yet. And excluded angels and whatever other classes of beings that exist. Hoeh just need to get a grip.

********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

The scriptures that come to my mind such as God would rather have obedience rather than sacrifice (Hosea 6:6 & Mark 12:33). or that he had no pleasure in animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10:6), why would the Lord, come back in person to for a thousand years accept it.

Also the Levitical system was put in place over 400 years after the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham according to scripture tithed to the Melchizedek priest (Christ). So Abraham, Isaac & Jacob weren’t on the levitical sacrificial system.

Also when considering that Christ said he would drink of the fruit of the vine when He would return in His Father’s Kingdom (Matthew 26:29) and keep the new symbols of the New Covenant Passover with his disciples. So they wouldn’t institute a lamb on the doorpost version of the Passover, but the Christ our Passover NT version (1 Cor. 5:7).

Some will say this is with the resurrected saints.
So Since physical Israel will THEN enter a covenant with the Lord (Jeremiah 31:31-33) (not NOW like the COG’s believe), even though they give lip service to “God’s not trying to save the world now.” They will participate in the New Covenant symbols just like the pioneers of the NT covenant found in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.

The COG’s who believe in the animal sacrifices for the the human population are getting ahead of themselves. The prophets do talk about sacrifices and offerings, but they were referencing those terms using OT language and understanding. It’s the only reference point they could have used.

Anonymous said...

How low and two faced are YOU???? How the COG has been influltrated by such dry Godless athiest's. How dare you live such a TWO FACED LIFE openly on the internet. Hypocrites. You who fear no one not even God, you who only fear losing power.
I pray to God for him to deliver his people from YOU and your dry associates and ALWAYS shall.

Anonymous said...

"How low and two faced are YOU???? How the COG has been influltrated by such dry Godless athiest's. "

Oh my, someone got his panties in a knot tonight. Herbie would not be pleased!

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Anonymous 6:26 wrote, "When reading ancient-near eastern literature, this is not my ‘take'. Just because something is not mentioned does not mean that it is not relevant or required, or absent...I suggest that the Millennial Temple was not relevant to John’s theological purpose."

Ezekiel spent chapters talking about the future earthly Temple. He made measurements. It was detailed enough that Jews recognized that it did not correspond to the prescription for the Tabernacle in the wilderness and began to doubt the validity of the Book of Ezekiel.

Revelation creates a scenario in which the Temple has a significant role. Only it is the heavenly Temple. And later, when an earthly Temple has a role, the Temple is God. The imagery of the Temple throughout the New Testament varies but it is clear it does not refer to a physical building. All of this without a mention of the Ezekiel's earthly Temple.

To say that it just was not on the short list for inclusion is sophistic. The absence of Ezekiel's Temple in the description of the Eschaton is the elephant, nay, the mammoth in the room. It is not one of those marginal topics where you can say, "Well, there just wasn't space to include it. Something had to be left out." Or, "It was off topic" when it is clear that it would fit the topic nicely if it had existed.

The fact is, the OT uses symbolic language. Ezekiel's vision of a Temple was symbol. Other language that in the OT that perpetuates the Law of Moses into the Christian era is likely also symbol - a symbol of restoration. Restoration will happen. The Law of Moses will not. Jesus stated explicitly that he fulfilled all that prophetic language. To maintain otherwise is to say that Jesus and what he did is only an interlude, a dispensation that will pass away. And scripture says something about this (ESV):

"He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption."

What purpose then the reinstitution of the Law of Moses including the sacrifices? Because Loma had a vision?

Note: The observance of the Sabbath and the Holydays in the future is entirely possible. Observing them now is possible. Sometimes I find myself engaged in contemplation on the Seventh Day. It is just that they cannot be made a requirement for salvation. That kind of soteriology gone awry is the great mistake of Armstrongism.

********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer

RSK said...

That was unusual.

Anonymous said...

I’ll bite. Which Church Fathers or collection(s) would you recommend?

Anonymous said...

To Neodrome and Phinnpoy, first to Neodrome, what kind of new (neos) way (dromos) are you making here, when you ask why Ezekiel's temple isn't mentioned in Revelation?

Sure it is, but not by the name that you expect. The temple is a part of the city and it comes out of heaven to this earth at the Lord's return. (Rev 3:12) You might say that this is a ref to the post-millenial temple but the fact remains that at the Lord's return He must enter through the eastern gate. (Ezek 43:4) Thus a temple must exist during the millenium and it is the one explained in detail by Ezekiel (which I understand is identical to Solomon's temple in every respect except one).

This may be confusing to some but if the new Jerusalem will be coming down from heaven to this earth (Rev 21:10), why shouldn't the millenial temple (prophesied by Ezek and John in Rev 3:12) come down from above as well?

Phinnpoy, Zech 14:9 isn't just wispy, smoke-and-mirrors, ethereal talk, a metaphor that erases the literal meaning but is a description of conditions under the millenial rule of the Lord. It upholds the legitimacy of the festivals as a commanded assembly under the law of Moses, which the anomialists hate to hear. Moreover, the Heb word for punishment in this verse is "chattah" which means "sin", that is, it is a sin to not keep the feasts.

Phinnpoy, don't get the old covenant and the law mixed up. Heb 8:13 does say that the old agreement has been done away but 7:12 says that the law has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the NT ministry, meaning much of it remains.

As long as you stay in your sins, you won't be able to believe this. That's why you can't interpret the prophecies correctly and Satan confuses you over law and grace, by making the two incompatible.

Someone else above asked why sacrifices and offerings would be necessary during the millenium? Stupid people. Not only is it prophesied in many places, this is how souls showed gratitude to the Lord from the beginning of time. The altar on earth is a type of the prototype in heaven (Heb 9:24) where altar worship originated as a way of reverencing the Holy Creator. This is why your parents taught you to show gratitude as a fundamental principle of life. This is why people tip and make donations to religious and secular causes. Giving has been both obligatory and obliged from the beginning. Go to and figure out what I am saying here.

Anonymous said...

Christ slammed the Jews not to make My Father’s house a house of merchandise when He cleansed the Temple (physical), the Temple wasn’t torn into two yet (Luke 23;45).

LaterChrist said, “in My Father’s House there are many positions. “ This is spiritual NT Language.

Paul explains on several occasions to the Gentile Christians that, You are the temple of God” if one has God’s Holy Spirit.

He later told the Ephesians 2:21-22  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,  in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

This is the main temple that a NT Christian should be focused on during their lifetime. Even Paul told the Hebrews that we don’t have a continuing city.

Armstrongist can’t rightly divide the word of truth from when something is spiritual and physical and apply it properly such as BI.

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Anonymous 12:44 wrote, "Sure it is, but not by the name that you expect. The temple is a part of the city and it comes out of heaven to this earth at the Lord's return."

I don't buy that. There is no explicit, unequivocal language that refers to Ezekial's Temple in Revelation. Rev 3:12 likely refers to the heavenly Temple. The Temple is never implicit. It is always explicit. It is the central infrastructure.

Saying that the Temple is there but not mentioned is an apophatic argument that does not go very far. Kind of like Armstrongists saying that the Jerusalem Council did not have to bring up the rest of the Law of Moses because everyone was keeping it. Dream on. Show me how you exegete something that is not there. All you have to hang your hat on is presumption.

******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Anonymous said...

NEO writes:

“To say that it just was not on the short list for inclusion is sophistic”.

That's your conclusion not mine. (I am not 12:44).

NO2HWA writes:

"In that new kingdom the slate is clean so what would they need to be offering sacrifices for?"

While Christ's sacrifice pays the penalty of eternal death, for want of a better term, His sacrifice does not nullify the dynamic nature of certain sins and severe ritual impurity.

Num 35:33 ... blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 
Num 35:34  You shall not defile the land in which you live ... for I the LORD dwell in the midst of the people of Israel." 

Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
Lev 20:3b he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary...

"If sin polluted the land, it defiled particularly the house where God dwelt" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.96).

"... those who suffer from major impurity defile the sanctuary and its contents, even if they have not had direct contact with them. This is suggested by the simple fact that those suffering from a major impurity must bring a purification offering (Lev 12:6; 14:19; 15:15)" (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC, p.52).

Impurity, generated by certain sins and severe ritual impurity, automatically defiles the Temple sancta - impurity attaches to different sancta according to grade:

"Sins and impurities are graded into several categories. Sin can contaminate each sanctum in line with its grade and gravity and the offerer's socio-religious state, while ritual impurity defiles only the outer altar. An inadvertent sin of an ordinary Israelite contaminates the outer altar. The same sin of the high priest (probably of every priest too) defiles the shrine and its incense altar. It is assumed that all wanton sins defile the adytum [the Most Holy Place], and probably even the entire sanctuary, including the land" (Gyung Yul Kim, "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus," p.264).

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:33b I will... be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant
Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eze 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the temple by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever

With Jesus Christ having a dwelling presence in Ezekielian Temple as He did in the Mosaic Tabernacle and Solomonic Temple, sin and ritual impurity will be a danger to the continuance of the New Covenant; hence the need for animal sacrifices to cleanse the ‘generated' impurity from the Temple.

"... why the urgency to purge the sanctuary? The answer lies in this postulate: the God of Israel will not abide in a polluted sanctuary. The merciful God will tolerate a modicum of pollution. But there is a point of no return. If the pollution continues to accumulate, the end is inexorable: "Then the cherubs raised their wings" (Eze 11:22). The divine chariot flies heavenward, and the sanctuary is left to its doom. The book of Lamentations echoes this priestly theology: "The Lord had abandoned his altar, rejected his Sanctuary. He has handed over to the foe the walls of its citadels" (Lam 2:7)" (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.258).

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Anonymous 2:18

Essentially, what you are saying is that the sacrifice of Christ is not adequate for the forgiveness of all classes of sin and animal sacrifices and Temple ceremonies must make up the shortfall in what Jesus could not achieve. That is absurd. Just think where the defense of Armstrongism as led you. Into rank heresy.

******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Phinnpoy said...

Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers first. They were the closet to the time of the Apostles. You should be able to find them in a library, on the net, or purchase them in bok, cd, or Kindle form.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:07, that temple in Ezekiel has a stream running out from under it (47:1) and it is called the "place of the souls of my feet" (43:7). The temple in Revelation has the same thing and the faithful church members are the pillars of it (Rev 3:12), meaning that as spirit beings they will be incorporated into it. This is a divine construction that comes from heaven, just as the Lord said it would in Rev 3:12. That temple sanctuary also will provide trees for medicine according to Rev 22:2 and Ezek 47:12. You want explicit? These are explicit facts. The details are found in both testaments, a little here and a little there. Same with the highly detailed prophecy of Ezek 38-39, which is picked up on in Revelation and expanded.

As for the Jerusalem council meeting, they didn't have to bring up the rest of the law BECAUSE they had addressed the 5 main points (Acts 15:24-29). There are hundreds of commandments in the law. Do we throw them all out on the basis of 5? If we throw out fornication, do we support adultery since you want to throw out the law? Where does the law of Moses end and the law of God begin?

NeoDromos νέο δρόμος said...

Anonymous 12:11 wrote, "Anon 2:07, that temple in Ezekiel has a stream running out from under it (47:1) and it is called the "place of the souls of my feet" (43:7). The temple in Revelation has the same thing..."

What "same thing?" I do not see the connection you are trying to make. Why is there a misspelling of the word "soles" as "souls?" There is a category difference. Ezekiel is talking about a building at the detail level that might actually be built - like an architect. John of Patmos is using the Temple as an allegory for God's organization - like a poet. They are both ethereal or allegorical or symbolic but you cannot equate them on that basis. Their usage is different. I think you have a long way to go in clarification before you will convince anyone of your argument. This is nothing about this that is explicit. It's just confusing.

You also wrote, "As for the Jerusalem council meeting, they didn't have to bring up the rest of the law BECAUSE they had addressed the 5 main points (Acts 15:24-29). There are hundreds of commandments in the law."

It is interesting but not suprising that you completely ommitted the Law of Christ from your analysis. It is as if there is the Law of Moses and then the 5 main points and nothing else. As an Armstrongist this will surprise you but Jesus actually did exist and he did bring to us new commandments and an endorsement of some existing commandments. You seem to believe that the only condemnation of adultery is to be found in the Law of Moses. While it has always been clear that Armstrongist downplay the meaning and importance of Jesus, I have never seen it taken this far.

********** Click on my icon for Disclaimer

Phinnpoy said...

Anon 08/13 12:44 PM, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant in 33 AD. The New Covenant took its place the minute he died on the cross. He fulfilled it in two ways. He lived the perfect life the law demanded, so he could be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. He fulfilled prophecies about himself, such as being the anti-type of the passover lamb. In doing so, he made the Old Covenant obsolete. Heb. 8:13 and OI Cor. 3:6-18. We're now under Christ's law, not Moses's. See the entire epistle to the Hebrews. If the old law was fulfilled and made obsolete, there's no way anyone can keep it. You don't have a temple, nor do you have a priesthood that can offer the sacrifices demanded by the law.

The Old Covenant and the law are the same thing. Read Ex. 20-24 and II Cor. 3:6-18. Nothing was transferred from the old law. That's why it's called a New Covenant. To transfer from the old to the new would be like taking parts from a Model T Ford and trying to put them on a Ford Focus. It can't be done, for the parts from the old won't fit on new model.

Finally, the 1000 yrs mentioned in Rev. 20 isn't a literal time period. Most of Revelation is written in highly symbolic language, so to interpret it in a literal sense is tricky and dangerous. So how do we understand this time period? The first three verses gives us a clue. It says that Satan is seized by an angel, chained up, thrown into the abyss, which is locked up and sealed. II Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 says the evil angels are in chains right now. Since Satan is an evil angel too, he to is chained up as well. So the 1000 years started about two thousand years ago. Study mote and hopefully your mind will be delivered from the remnants of Armstrong millenialism.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:35

Exactly, I know right. Somehow Christ shed blood means nothing after the end of this age. They know too much for their own good.

I'm so glad the Apostle John wrote Revelation 12:11 They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.

The blood of the Lamb takes away the sins of the world not the blood of bulls and goats. But heck, let's just throw that away like Christ never suffered on the cross. Let's resort back to the old covenant all the while Christ is reigning on the earth.

Anonymous said...

And to add to my last post from 5:45, check this out
Hebrews 9:13-15 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

See the problem with Armstongism is that they believe BI (physical Israel) is to be saved now in this age. But all of the prophets point to the House of Israel being converted (first) and eventually being saved during the ages to come when the masses of people partake of the new covenant, which they are not doing now.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

So they will partake of the New Covenant, the same covenant that the pioneers partook in from 31 AD to 2000+ AD. So they will have a chance at God's Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-28) which can only occur through the blood of Jesus Christ and not the blood of bulls and goats.

Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

It is an everlasting covenant through Christ blood.

Armstrongism does a good job fooling people to put OT meanings above the NT spiritual meanings. You just ignore the NT meanings to fit your OT narrative.

Anonymous said...

NEO writes:

“Essentially, what you are saying is that the sacrifice of Christ is not adequate for the forgiveness of all classes of sin and animal sacrifices and Temple ceremonies must make up the shortfall in what Jesus could not achieve. That is absurd. Just think where the defense of Armstrongism as led you. Into rank heresy.”

(Part 1)

I am not essentially saying that; that is your conclusion, which I disagree with, as you would. I am not defending Armstrongism. I doubt very much that any in Armstrongism teaches the efficacy of animal blood in the Messianic kingdom. Please provide just one example from Armstongism that teaches this. (I don’t think I would be considered a part of Armstrongism as I believe in a Friday Crucifixion; Sunday Resurrection; the reward of the saints is in heaven with Christ during the “millennium,” (cp. Rev 7:15-17 for their priestly role); and that I have not attended a COG in many years.

In regard to animal sacrifices in the Millennial kingdom, the UCG basically follows Ralph Alexander’s position outlined in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary that the “sacrifices in Ezekiel are memorials of Christ work”.

But there is one problem with this as pointed out by Iain Duguid: "The majority of dispensationalists have argued that the sacrifices are memorials to the sacrifice of Christ, with no atoning character. However, the idea that these are memorial sacrifices is no where apparent in Ezekiel, and it is specifically claimed by Ezekiel that these offerings will make atonement (45:15, 17, 20)" (Ezekiel NIVAC, p.521).

Walther Zimmerli notes this when referring to the verse below.

Eze 45:17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths - at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel

Eze 43:20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it.

Eze 45:20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple. (NIV).

"In vv 15 and 17 [of chapter 45] the expiatory significance of the sacrifice is emphatically expressed. In 43:20 and 45:19f it can be seen that the expiatory power is especially attributed to the blood" (Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p.479).

To cut what could be along story short:

Heb 9:13 ... the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 ... the blood of Christ ... purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God

When I refer to the efficacy of animal blood, it is to do with “Subjective Efficacy” as per Heb 9:13 as opposed to “Objective Efficacy” as per Heb 9:14. Subjective Efficacy is what occurs in a theocracy. This is how John Whitcomb and Joe Jordan explains it::

"Though commanded by God, animal sacrifices in Israel could never remove spiritual guilt from the offerer. The Book of Hebrews is very clear about that (10:4,11). But it is equally erroneous to say that the sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to prepare the nation for Messiah and His infinite atonement. Such a view is contradicted by precise statements in Exodus and Leviticus. From God's perspective, this was surely a major purpose in the sacrificial system; but it could not have been their exclusive purpose from the perspective of Old Covenant Israelites...

Anonymous said...

Part 2

Lev 5:13b And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him:

"Now what does all of this indicate with regard to animal sacrifices in the Millennial Temple for Israel under the New Covenant? It indicates that future sacrifices will have nothing to do with eternal salvation which only comes through the true faith in God. It also indicates that future animal sacrifices will be "efficacious" and "expiatory" only in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal) forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel. Such sacrifices, then, will not be primarily memorial ... any more than sacrifices in the age of the Old Covenant were primarily prospective or prophetic in the understanding of the offerer" (Animal Sacrifices in Israel - Past & Future, Biblical_Articles/Animal_Sacrifices_In_Israel_Past_And_Future.php.).

“Dr. Joe Jordan, director of Word of Life Fellowship, writes: "We also observe that the millennial sacrifices will be more than a memorial. In a theocracy (where the government law is God's law - such as Israel had under the Mosaic law), the breaking of the theocratic law brings temporal judgement (Zechariah 14:16-19) - no rain, famine, illness, or disease. In order to escape the temporal judgement, an animal sacrifice is offered to atone for the breaking of the theocratic law. This will be the case during the millennium where the whole world will be under a theocracy" (Joe Jordan, "The Marvelous Millennium,"Animal Sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom,

Whitcomb refers to ‘Subjective Efficacy' as "temporal, finite, external, and legal" and ‘Objective Efficacy' as "eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological"

"Subjective Efficacy" and ‘Objective Efficacy' are Hobart Freeman's designations not John Whitcomb's. (See Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards Rediscovering The Old Testament, pp.133-35, on this subject).

Eze 45:18a " 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In the first month on the first day
Eze 45:20a You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month
Eze 45:20b so you are to make atonement for the temple. (NIV).

Lev 23:27a "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement.
Lev 16:33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.

In the New Covenant the annual cleansing of Jesus Christ's dwelling place will take place in the first month of the year as opposed to the seventh month under the Old Covenant. As noted in previous post Christ's earthly dwelling will have to be cleansed from impurity generated by sin and ritual impurity to maintain Christ's ‘dwelling presence' in the Holy of Holies, while in heaven (cp. 1 Kings 8:27 with 8:30.)

"The House of YHWH is not only the source of holiness, it is also the local point for impurity. Since impurity [though not all] is dynamic and contagious ... [it] ... is attracted to this holy place... societal and cosmic well-being needs more than the presence of YHWH. There is also need for a means of cleansing the society and cosmos from the effects of impurity" (Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation - The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48, pp.40-41).

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the reply! I’ll check it out.

Anonymous said...

NeoDromos, what "same thing", you ask? You can't compare Ezek 47:1&7 to Rev 3:21 (re where the soles of His feet will rest) & 22:1-3 (re the living water)? If the new Jerusalem with the holy temple is coming down from heaven, then in that temple revealed to Ezekiel is where the Lord is going to be.

You say John's temple is an allegory and Ezekiel's is just a quaint architectual design? What do you base this on? If it's not based on Scripture, it won't hold water because the Lord said those things "must come to pass". (Rev 22:6) You judge yourself when you say "I do not see the connection". Why do you throw doubts on something you can't see? It's the one who thinks he can see but who can't who has sin in his way. (John 9:41)

BTW, I did not omit the term the "law of Christ" but referred to it as the "law of God" in the sense that it is eternal and holy, the highest moral standard, replete with commandments that are holy, just and good. (Rom 7:12) But you omitted the law of Christ contained in the law of Moses, other than to say that Christ endorsed some commandments in the law (as we see in the sermon on the mount where Christ expounded on the law of Moses in Mt 5-7). Even the Jerusalem conference endorsed 4 commandments from the law of Moses (15:29), which Phinnpoy, our Jewish brother, would be surprised to learn.

Phinnpoy, a covenant and a law are not the same thing. One is a contract and the other is a moral standard, even though Deut 4:13 equates the covenant with the decalogue, yet it is ridiculous to say, "well, we only find 9 of them listed in the NT so we have to ditch the sabbath requirement".

Nothing was transferred from the old law, you say? The Lord said he came not to destroy but to fulfill. (Mt 5:17) You're deceiving yourself if you think you can pull a fast one on Christ by saying that you sought to please Him by devaluing the letter in order to uphold the figurative meaning. Taking from the metaphor that you cited to support this view, Christ did indeed take parts from a model T and put it into a Ford Focus when He said, "every scribe (or NT believer) who is discipled for the kingdom.... brings forth from his treasure new things (from Christ) and old things (from the OT law). It can be done, contrary to what you say, but it requires a skilled technician.

The millenium isn't a literal period? Do you say that before the Lord who said He sent His angel to show things that must come to pass (Rev 22:6), and will plague those who add denials to His prophecies? (Rev 22:18-19) The millenium has passed already? Then why is Christ divided today (in the church) and not ruling in the world (with all its violence)? And why isn't the river of life flowing from Jerusalem by now?

You can only understand Rev 20:1-3 and everything else is a mirage? If the devil is indeed chained up, as you say, why are so many deceived, demon-influenced and divided in the church today?

Phinnpoy said...

The law of Moses and the Old Covenant are the same thing. Read Ex. 20-24 again. The ten commandments are the start of the Old Covenant.

The weekly sabbath didn't exist until the time of Moses. There's no proof that any of the Pre-Mosaic patriarchs ever kept a sabbath day rest. And the rest mentioned in Gen. 2 was God's rest. Adam and Eve aren't mentioned as taking a seventh day rest. But we can enter into God's rest, not by resting on a day in the week, but by faith. Read Heb. 3:7-4:11 to see the real sabbath rest of the New Covenant.

Jesus didn't bring the Old into the New. Look at what he said about divorce. He forbade it. He said, what God has put together, let no man rend asunder. The only thing that would make a marriage a nullity would be preexisting sexual misbehavior before a marriage such as incest, sodomy, an ongoing relationship with another person, pre-existing, undisclosed mental illness or any other sexual perversion. Also, if a previous marriage was against the will of one or both parties, that would also make that marriage a nullity.

I've already stated why the millenium is a symbolic period. Satan, with the rest of the demons, are chained already, as Jude 6 and II Pet. 3:4 explain. Jesus said he saw Satan falling from heaven in his day. He was defeated when Christ was raised from the dead. His judgement will be at the second coming.