The earliest Christian writer to refer to literal sacrifices in the future millennium seems to be John Darby, and if anyone can find an earlier teach of this, please give it:
– Darby, Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (published 1845) – here he writes: “The temple of Ezekiel is not a figurative picture of the Church, but a real edifice that shall be erected in the millennial kingdom, where the true sacrifices of the Law will be performed under the reign of the King‑Messiah.”
There are claims made that Irenaeus taught literal sacrifices in a future millennial kingdom, but it does not appear to be anything like the dispensationalist teaching:
From Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” (Book V, Chapter 25).
The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: “I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,” calling Antichrist “the other,” because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one “who feared not God, neither regarded man,” to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is, the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: “And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously.” And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: “And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.” And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: “And in the midst of the week,” he says, “the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.” Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.
https://logoslibrary.org/irenaeus/heresies/525.html
The Oxford English Dictionary defines heresy thus:
“Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox.”
The OED defines catholic in the universal sense as:
Of or belonging to the ancient Christian Church before the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Churches in the 11th cent., or any Church standing in historical continuity with it claiming shared doctrine, system, and practice; of the true apostolic Church.
Since the idea of Ezekiel 43 teaching literal sacrifices in a future millennium is not found until 1800 years after the NT was written, how can it be considered any orthodox teaching of the church. So, by OED definitions, how can you avoid considering dispensationalism a “heresy”?
– Darby, Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (published 1845) – here he writes: “The temple of Ezekiel is not a figurative picture of the Church, but a real edifice that shall be erected in the millennial kingdom, where the true sacrifices of the Law will be performed under the reign of the King‑Messiah.”
There are claims made that Irenaeus taught literal sacrifices in a future millennial kingdom, but it does not appear to be anything like the dispensationalist teaching:
From Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” (Book V, Chapter 25).
The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: “I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,” calling Antichrist “the other,” because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one “who feared not God, neither regarded man,” to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is, the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: “And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously.” And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: “And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.” And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: “And in the midst of the week,” he says, “the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.” Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.
https://logoslibrary.org/irenaeus/heresies/525.html
The Oxford English Dictionary defines heresy thus:
“Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox.”
The OED defines catholic in the universal sense as:
Of or belonging to the ancient Christian Church before the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Churches in the 11th cent., or any Church standing in historical continuity with it claiming shared doctrine, system, and practice; of the true apostolic Church.
Since the idea of Ezekiel 43 teaching literal sacrifices in a future millennium is not found until 1800 years after the NT was written, how can it be considered any orthodox teaching of the church. So, by OED definitions, how can you avoid considering dispensationalism a “heresy”?
