Why Christians Should Embrace Partial Preterism

[mkgal1]

For me, when trying to understand a whole different point of view, it helps to begin in a "big picture" sort of way. I'd read these articles a few months ago and thought it helpful to see how Revelation correlates with Exodus 19 (Moses on Mt Sinai):

Quoting Adam Maarschalk:

Series: “Little Gems from Our Study of the Book of Revelation”

What point(s) did John, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wish to get across to his initial readers when he distributed the book of Revelation to seven churches in first century Asia Minor? What themes are weaved through the book? In considering these questions, keep in mind that the full title of the book is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Proposal: One of the Holy Spirit’s aims in Revelation is to guide the early church in navigating the transition period from one covenant (the old) to the next (the new), especially as that period was drawing to a close. This period lasted roughly 40 years (30 AD – 70 AD), parallel to the 40 years that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness.

Basis (one of several): The same imagery that was present at the giving of the law, the old covenant, is echoed several times in the book of Revelation (4:5, 8:5, 11:19, and 16:18). This post will highlight these passages and their significance.

Parallel Scripture Passage: “In that He says, ‘a new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13, 1st century AD).

Moses and the Israelites at Mount Sinai
Just before examining these passages in Revelation, let’s look at Exodus 19, the passage I believe they echo:

In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the Wilderness of Sinai. For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain. And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

…Then it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there were thunderings and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled. And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly (Exodus 19:1-18).

So we see that God reminded them of how He bore the people of Israel “on eagles’ wings”* out of Egypt and to Himself. God was establishing a covenant with them at this time, and He called them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”** This gathering was marked by thundering and lightning, the sound of a loud trumpet, thick smoke, and the whole mountain quaking greatly.

*Compare to Revelation 12:13-14, where the persecuted woman “was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.”

**Compare this with John’s opening greeting to the seven churches, where he says that Jesus “has made us kings and priests to His God and Father” (Revelation 1:6).

Four Passages That Echo Mount Sinai in Revelation

The same cosmic phenomena present at Mount Sinai are seen again in the book of Revelation.

When the dust settles from the barrage of judgments in Revelation, what does heaven shout? “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God” (Rev. 21:3). This did not suddenly become true because some buildings fell in 70 AD. Remember that Paul told the Corinthian church this was already their reality and that they were “the temple of the living God“ (II Cor. 6:16). The downfall of Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple in 70 AD, however, did remove the far less glorious old covenant system which competed against, and greatly opposed, this reality. It was a stunning and vivid demonstration that God had chosen the glorious new covenant over the inferior old covenant (see Hebrews 8). This was the time for rewarding God’s “servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear [His] name, small and great” (Rev. 11:18). ~ Search Results for “second exodus” – Pursuing Truth​

....And this:

Quoting N.T. Wright: First, the story of Israel, particularly the Exodus, was far more present in Paul’s mind than is usually supposed, informing his reflection on what had happened with the death and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah and the gift of the promised Spirit. Second, there is no great gulf between justification and baptism in Paul’s thought. Both have to do with the reconstitution of the people of God and their new public definition as a single worldwide family marked out by faith alone. Third, the fact that God’s people will inherit the newly liberated creation ought to energize a proper concern for the created order. Fourth, if Romans 5-8 as a whole argues that the true Exodus has come about in the Messiah and by the Spirit, this explains all the more poignantly why Paul must turn at once to the problem of Israel in Romans 9-11. ~ The New Inheritance According to Paul​

 

[Andrewn]

Speaking for myself, if I were an Amil, I would likely initially be assuming Revelation 12:12 is the most likely place for the beginning of satan's little season after the thousand years. So I can see the logic in assuming that. But since I typically like to think things through before making something my final conclusion, what I would then be asking myself, where does the thousand years fit in that case? Before Revelation 12:12 is fulfilled satan still has access to heaven in some sense or another. Therefore his binding wouldn't fit there. This is yet another reason I'm not Amil, because there is zero place for the thousand years to fit if Revelation 12:12 were to be meaning his little season after the thousand years.

You made a faulty assumption and then you rejected it. Rev 12:12 doesn't take place after the 1000 years. It took place before the 1000 years along with the following passages:

Rev 12:10 I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, the one who accuses them before our God day and night.

Col 2:15 After disarming the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them by triumphing over them in Christ.

Rev 20:2 He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, bound him for a thousand years,

Dan 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was rendered in favor of the saints of the Most High. Then the time came, and the saints took possession of the kingdom.

Clearly Rev 12 describes Christ's birth and the beginning of the Church. All 4 verses describe the same event at the beginning of the Millennium. As you said, "Before Revelation 12:12 is fulfilled satan still has access to heaven in some sense or another."

Christ triumphed over the devil in the cross. But he will be released for a little season at end of the Millennium.

 

[mkgal1]

I just found this posted in an old thread here, on CF:


Transmillennialism is defined as: The belief that the millennial reign of Christ brought about the change, or transformation of the ages, from the Old to the New Covenant in A.D. 70. Also known as covenant eschatology, or a preterist view of Scripture.

Preterism is theology just like futurism. Although often referred to as a "view" (though in the sense that it is a way to see scripture,) it is not a "world view" in that it does not seek to address how a fulfilled and realized Kingdom lifts up and comforts individuals, brings acceptance and healing and in so doing builds society up.

Transmillennialism balances the knowledge in our heads (Theology) with our love for God and others in our hearts (Worship) so that it flows from our hands in ministry (Service) to others. In short, it is the Head, Heart and Hands for the believer.

 

[Andrewn]

After he is cast unto the earth though, satan is not being depicted as one who is bound in a pit. He is depicted as one free to roam about, thus on the loose, and not all tied up instead. The text indicates he has great wrath. Why would he have great wrath while bound in the pit? How could he go about persecuting the woman which brought forth the manchild, one of the first things he sets out to do once he sees he has been cast unto the earth, if he is supposed to be bound in the pit at the time?

Rev 12 mentions many symbols. In Rev 12:12-14 there is the heavens, the earth, the sea, and the wilderness. In a chapter full of symbolism, it would be a mistake to understand these 4 terms literally.

 

[DavidPT]

You made a faulty assumption and then you rejected it. Rev 12:12 doesn't take place after the 1000 years. It took place before the 1000 years along with the following passages:

Rev 12:10 I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, the one who accuses them before our God day and night.

Col 2:15 After disarming the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them by triumphing over them in Christ.

Rev 20:2 He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, bound him for a thousand years,

Dan 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was rendered in favor of the saints of the Most High. Then the time came, and the saints took possession of the kingdom.

Clearly Rev 12 describes Christ's birth and the beginning of the Church. All 4 verses describe the same event at the beginning of the Millennium.

One of those 4 verses is Dan 7:22, though. I fully agree that that verse would be at the beginning of the millennium. But how could that possibly be meaning at the beginning of the millennium, if the beginning of the millennium is meaning 2000 years ago, per your position?

Daniel 7:21 involves the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13. The 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 is indeed meaning before the beginning of the millennium, that proven via Daniel 7:21-22 and Revelation 20:4, to name a few. But your position appears to place the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 as having occurred prior to the millennium which you see as starting 2000 years ago, thus not even placing the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 in the proper era of time, that being in the end of this age where it belongs.

But if the thousand years are post the 2nd coming, and that the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 is prior to the thousand years, now Revelation 13:5 is where it belongs, that being in the end of the age followed by the 2nd coming.

Your position appears to be, when taking it to the logical conclusion, this----First Revelation 13:5 since this is meaning Daniel 7:21 and that you conclude Daniel 7:22 is the beginning of the millennium, and that obviously Daniel 7:21 chronologically precedes Daniel 7:22, therefore making the same true about Revelation 13:5---followed by the beginning of the millennium 2000 years ago.

 

[Andrewn]

Transmillennialism is defined as: The belief that the millennial reign of Christ brought about the change, or transformation of the ages, from the Old to the New Covenant in A.D. 70. Also known as covenant eschatology, or a preterist view of Scripture.

This is full preterism. It's _not_ considered an orthodox Christian doctrine.

Max King (theologian) - Wikipedia

 

[Andrewn]

One of those 4 verses is Dan 7:22, though. I fully agree that that verse would be at the beginning of the millennium. But how could that possibly be meaning at the beginning of the millennium, if the beginning of the millennium is meaning 2000 years ago, per your position? Daniel 7:21 involves the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13. The 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 is indeed meaning before the beginning of the millennium, that proven via Daniel 7:22 and Revelation 20:4, to name a few.

We agree that the 3 1/2 ys, 42 ms, 1260 ds take place before the Millennium. I say the Millennium started after the resurrection of Christ and will end at His 2nd coming. This could take 5000 ys, but personally, I think the Millennium is about to end:

Gog & Magog

But your position appears to place the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 as having occurred prior to the millennium which you see as starting 2000 years ago, thus not even placing the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 in the proper era of time, that being in the end of this age where it belongs.

I don't see the contradiction. Why can't Rev 13 have occurred with the fall of the devil and the victory of Christ in the 1st century? I should've included this in my previous post.

 

[mkgal1]

This is full preterism. It's _not_ considered an orthodox Christian doctrine.

Max King (theologian) - Wikipedia

If a person still believes in Christ's future return and a future physical resurrection - I don't see what could be heterodox about what I quoted. Don't ALL Christians believe that Jesus "defeated death" - changing our world spiritually at that time?

 

[DavidPT]

We agree that the 3 1/2 ys, 42 ms, 1260 ds take place before the Millennium. I say the Millennium started after the resurrection of Christ and will end at His 2nd coming. This could take 5000 ys, but personally, I think the Millennium is about to end:

Gog & Magog


I don't see the contradiction. Why can't Rev 13 have occurred with the fall of the devil and the victory of Christ in the 1st century? I should've included this in my previous post.

But if we place Revelation 13:5 way back there, and the fact even many Amils agree the 2nd coming is what follows Revelation 13:5, how can the 2nd coming logically follow Revelation 13:5 in that case? Even if your position is not contradictory in some manner or another, it would be contradictory for the many Amils who conclude Revelation 13:5 is followed by the 2nd coming. But even that position is all messed up because they would have Revelation 13:5 occurring after the thousand years rather than before the thousand years where it belongs.

Premil is the only position I can think of that makes any sense of the chronology involved.

 

[Andrewn]

If a person still believes in Christ's future return and a future physical resurrection - I don't see what could be heterodox about what I quoted. Don't ALL Christians believe that Jesus "defeated death" - changing our world spiritually at that time?

I wasn't inferring that you are "full preterist" but that Max King's Transmillennialism is full preterism.

"King pioneered a field of theology that he termed "covenant eschatology." Within fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical contexts, he contended that Biblical eschatology was not related to the end of the space-time universe, but to the transition of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. King offered a unique interpretation concerning the millennium as found in Revelation 20 as pertaining to the forty-year period from 30-70 AD."

And, in case one doesn't see the full preterism in that description, here it is:

"King's "full preterist" position has been widely criticized by churchmen, including R. C. Sproul, for denying hope of bodily resurrection of the dead, or indeed any hope for those living after AD 70."

 

[Andrewn]

Even if your position is not contradictory in some manner or another, it would be contradictory for the many Amils who conclude Revelation 13:5 is followed by the 2nd coming.

Rev 13:5 is followed by Rev 13:6, which says nothing about the 2nd coming!

Premil is the only position I can think of that makes any sense of the chronology involved.

I hope you can see that Amil is plausible. On my side, I can see that Historic Premil is also plausible, although less so.

You are a good debater. Your real challenge is not to argue with Amils but rather with Dispensationalists. They may be as wrong as full preterists. They're quite loud across the air waves and are rapidly becoming a majority.

 

[DavidPT]

Gog & Magog

I have noticed that thread in the past and have read through some of it, though I am yet to participate in it.

Interestingly enough, since I like to at least try and be intellectually honest about things, though sometimes I might appear to be anything but, it seems to me that perhaps Ezekiel 38-39 possibly proves Amil, thus debunks Premil. So why Amils would not be using Ezekiel 38-39 to prove Amil, thus disproving Premil in the process, is beyond me.

 

[DavidPT]

Rev 13:5 is followed by Rev 13:6, which says nothing about the 2nd coming!

Not exactly what I was meaning though. That verse indicates the beast is allowed to continue 42 months. What happens when these 42 months eventually expire? The 2nd coming according to many Amils and according to all Premils. So I was meaning it like that, meaning after the 42 months are fulfilled.

 

[Andrewn]

Not exactly what I was meaning though. That verse indicates the beast is allowed to continue 42 months. What happens when these 42 months eventually expire? The 2nd coming according to many Amils and according to all Premils. So I was meaning it like that, meaning after the 42 months are fulfilled.

An Amil of the partial preterits view would say that after Nero's death, Christians had temporary relief until Domitian's reign. The fact is, there has been way too many beasts over the past 2000 years in different parts of the world and Gog is on the way.

 

[DavidPT]

I hope you can see that Amil is plausible.

I'm 100% convinced that the 2nd coming follows the fulfillment of the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13. I'm also convinced the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 is fulfilled prior to the beginning of the thousand years. So unless an Amil can convince me that the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 is after the thousand years, by actually proving it with Scripture, rather than prior to it, I have no reason to think Amil is plausible until then.

In my mind, the only way Amil can be plausible is if the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 occurs after the thousand years. Because if it does, and the fact the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 obviously occurs in this age prior to the 2nd coming rather than in the next age after the 2nd coming, there would be zero way for Premil to work in that case. Premil would be fully debunked, end of story.

Yet, in the same way, if the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 occurs before the thousand years, because if it does, the fact the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 precedes the 2nd coming, there would be zero way for Amil to work in that case. Amil would be fully debunked, end of story.

 

[DavidPT]

An Amil of the partial preterits view would say that after Nero's death, Christians had temporary relief until Domitian's reign. The fact is, there has been way too many beasts over the past 2000 years in different parts of the world and Gog is on the way.

Assuming the partial preterits view you submitted above, what in the book of Revelation, meaning outside of Revelation 20, would be referring to satan's little season after the thousand years, since it couldn't be anything in Revelation 13 according to the proposed partial preterits view you submitted above?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm 100% convinced that the 2nd coming follows the fulfillment of the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13. I'm also convinced the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 is fulfilled prior to the beginning of the thousand years. So unless an Amil can convince me that the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 is after the thousand years, by actually proving it with Scripture, rather than prior to it, I have no reason to think Amil is plausible until then.

In my mind, the only way Amil can be plausible is if the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 occurs after the thousand years. Because if it does, and the fact the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 obviously occurs in this age prior to the 2nd coming rather than in the next age after the 2nd coming, there would be zero way for Premil to work in that case. Premil would be fully debunked, end of story.

Yet, in the same way, if the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 occurs before the thousand years, because if it does, the fact the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 precedes the 2nd coming, there would be zero way for Amil to work in that case. Amil would be fully debunked, end of story.

The 42 month reign of the beast has to correspond with the fate of the devil. The two are inextricably tied together.

Whether the “forty and two months” are literal or symbolic can be debated. However, that doesn’t exclude a time-period of evil empowerment / persecution of the beast before the Lord's return. This fits perfectly with the Amil understanding of Satan’s little season (Revelation 20).

We must not forget the fact that the life-span of the beast is not restricted to the “forty and two months” (Revelation 13:4-5), just like it isn't restricted to the “one hour,” mentioned in Revelation 17:11-12, as the beast existed before John’s time, at the time of John, and after John's day. This text above again proves this and shows that the beast “is of the seven” preceding earthly empires. The beast that transcends all these rebellious kingdoms must be the more general anti-Christ spirit of this world. This is Satan’s overall iniquitous agency from which all the rest emanate. It is the source, the other wicked systems and kings are merely tributaries. Moreover, the beast wields influence throughout time and therefore this intra-Advent period over all those “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 17:8).

 

[DavidPT]

The 42 month reign of the beast has to correspond with the fate of the devil. The two are inextricably tied together.

Whether the “forty and two months” are literal or symbolic can be debated. However, that doesn’t exclude a time-period of evil empowerment / persecution of the beast before the Lord's return. This fits perfectly with the Amil understanding of Satan’s little season (Revelation 20).

We must not forget the fact that the life-span of the beast is not restricted to the “forty and two months” (Revelation 13:4-5), just like it isn't restricted to the “one hour,” mentioned in Revelation 17:11-12, as the beast existed before John’s time, at the time of John, and after John's day. This text above again proves this and shows that the beast “is of the seven” preceding earthly empires. The beast that transcends all these rebellious kingdoms must be the more general anti-Christ spirit of this world. This is Satan’s overall iniquitous agency from which all the rest emanate. It is the source, the other wicked systems and kings are merely tributaries. Moreover, the beast wields influence throughout time and therefore this intra-Advent period over all those “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 17:8).

It seems to me that there is only one 42 month period that the beast in Revelation 13 reigns during. It doesn't matter if literal months are meant or if something symbolic is meant. None of that changes a thing one way or the other. At least 2 things that can't be true about this 42 months. 1)---it can't occur while satan is bound in the pit, thus none of it can parallel the thousand years. 2) It can't occur both before and after the thousand years.

There are only two places it can fit then. Either before the thousand years, or after the thousand years. That is the only 2 times satan is not in the pit.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

What I have underlined there is no way in a million years that their martyrdom did not occur during the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13. So where does what I have underlined in Revelation 20:4 tell us that the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13 fits then? Before the thousand years? Or after the thousand years?

Here is an afterthought on my part to add to what I submitted above.

Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

When do you think these were initially martyred? Do you think they were martyred during the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13?

Any reason none of these-----and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name(Revelation 15:2)------would not be any of these martyrs here----and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(Revelation 20:4)?


If we look back in Revelation 14 we do see this. I would think verse 9 is being based on what is recorded in Revelation 13. Where verse 12 below is meaning the martyrs who don't worship the beast, neither his image, etc.

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[jgr]

Hey jg, I never said that. I said a 'revival.' A widespread one hopefully. But everyone that wears a kippah? I never said that.

Chris, does a kippah identify a Jew?

If it does, then God will revive all kippah wearers, according to your claim that God will revive the Jews.

But if it does not, then what does God look for to identify those whom He revives?

Scripture tells me that He looks for faithfulness and obedience to His Son. (Ephesians 2:8; Hebrews 5:9)

Physical DNA and all other identifiers are irrelevant. (Galatians 3:28)

Two genes of spiritual DNA, faith and obedience, are what He seeks.

Exclusively.


PS Thanks for The Atonement Clock. It is an unsurpassed exposition.

 

[Andrewn]

Assuming the partial preterits view you submitted above, what in the book of Revelation, meaning outside of Revelation 20, would be referring to satan's little season after the thousand years,

You agree that the war of Gog & Magog takes place at end of the Millennium. If we prove that the beast is present at the war of Gog & Magog, then he is present at end of the Millennium. The following article does exactly that:

Gog of Magog - Here a little, there a little - Prophecy

So, Gog is the future beast.