Why Christians should reject Partial Preterism

[mkgal1]

I have simply tried to ascertain the true position of Partial Preterism, but that has been difficult. Your constant avoidance has been frustrating. I don't know anyone on discussion forums like this who would not be happy and willing to share their beliefs on the second coming, if they truly believe them. Why are you so uncomfortable with that?

Refer to post #298

 

[sovereigngrace]

Refer to post #298

You have taken your liberty to repeatedly attack my interpretation of multiple second coming passages, yet you have refused to even bring Scripture to the table that proves a literal visible physical future coming of Christ. Until you furnish us with Scripture that supports a second coming of Christ I can only interpret your avoidance and uncomfortableness as an admission that you are a closet Full Preterist.

So: please list the Scriptures you believe literally refer to the second coming of Christ?

 

[sovereigngrace]

If you are referring to the following, where in any of that does it even remotely address my point about Zechariah 14:3?

Zechariah 14:2-3 says, “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.”

Amils are actually split on whether this should be interpreted literally or spiritually. The literal interpretation normally relates this passage to AD 70 after the Gentiles destroyed Christ (in the form of the Roman soldiers); the Gospel then conquered them. Jerusalem is considered literal earthly Jerusalem. Significantly, the instrument of its destruction – Rome – subsequently became the epicenter of the Gospel witness for many years after the cross. I must qualify: I am not talking about current Roman Catholicism, which is pagan, but rather ancient Christianity that was centered in Rome for years. God brought His wrath upon the city of Jerusalem because of Israel’s disobedience.

The destruction of the city and the raping of the city occurred in AD 70. At that time the Roman Empire enjoyed jurisdiction over the whole known world (Luke 2:1). Jerusalem was destroyed because of their rejection of Christ. The Gentiles came against the city, but the Gospel in turn went out among the Gentiles with great success.

On the other hand, some Amils spiritualize Jerusalem here to pertain to Christ and the kingdom of God and relate the Gentile rejection of the same under the old covenant and the turn around that occurred with the great commission in the New Testament to Zechariah 14:2-3. Basically: the darkened Gentile nations were invaded with the Gospel light of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:6-8 testifies, “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.”

We are the “lively stones” and Christ is the “chief corner stone.” Nothing could be clearer. We are built up into the spiritual temple of God. This is a symbolic illustration to depict the place on earth where God's presence dwells. It is not a brick building, it is the people of God. Sion is the heavenly Sion, not the physical Old Testament type which has been superseded. We are built up today as a spiritual edifice “in Sion” upon the “chief corner stone.” This is not some distant hope, but a current ongoing reality. We are “a spiritual house” built up “as lively stones” upon the Christ is the “chief corner stone” Christ. We have entered the heavenly Sion by faith spiritually.

Jesus explained in Matthew 21:42-44 referred specifically to Psalm 118:22 when talking to the religious Jews of His day: “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

In the New Testament, Christ rules over spiritual Zion. All who embrace Him reside there and enjoy the spiritual blessings that accompanies intimacy with Him. Everything in the New Testament is pointing towards Jesus Christ. It is not about physical earthly land. It is not about the Middle East. It is not about a brick temple. It is about spiritual territory. It is about a heavenly kingdom. Earthly Zion means nothing today; heavenly Zion is everything. It is not about an earthly king, but rather a heavenly king. It is not about race; it is rather about grace.

Another slightly different perspective can be found in Acts 4:26. Could this be another allusion to Zechariah 14? Acts 4:26 records: “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.”

While the nations joined together under the vehicle of the Roman Empire to oppose Christ and ultimately crucify Him, the Gospel extended out to the same nations represented here.

Jesus said in Matthew 10:34-36, in war like language, albeit He was speaking spiritually, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. "

Premils argue that those who attack Jerusalem at the end are those mortals who inhabit the new earth. In this understanding the wicked company are amazingly rewarded for their evil assault on the “holy city” by being ushered into the millennial kingdom. They are blessed by being invited to worship in the temple each year in the presence of the king of kings. In my view, this is a dubious interpretation that doesn’t line up with the pattern of Scripture. It just doesn’t make sense that of all the unsaved people on this earth that are supposedly privileged to escape the wrath of God that this wicked horde would be chosen.

This is what supposedly happens in the Premil millennium (the day of the Lord) of Edenic bliss and regenerated earth. Revelation 19 and 20 knows nothing of a successful attack upon Jerusalem at the end or in the millennium. Regardless of whether one takes a literal or a spiritual approach to this, the armies in Revelation merely prepare for battle at the end, they do not engage in battle. How can Jerusalem be taken in the millennium when Jesus is reigning in glorious unparalleled splendor? How can women in the millennium be "ravished" (or raped) when no one in Jerusalem is even mortal anymore?

 

[DavidPT]

I also replied.

Let me start over again. Maybe this time it will be more clear to you as to what I'm trying to get at here.

Zechariah 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

If in verse 2, all nations mean the Romans in 70 AD, 'those nations' mentioned in verse 3 in this section---and fight against 'those nations'---have to also mean the Romans in 70 AD. That makes verse 3 then saying this---Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against the Romans in 70 AD, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Yet no such thing ever remotely happened in 70 AD. If Jerusalem is being surrounded, and that Jerusalem is meaning in 70 AD, that means according to verse 3, the LORD then goes forth on behalf of the Jews being surrounded in Jerusalem at the time, in order to fight against the Romans surrounding them, lol. That is void of reality. No such thing ever happened at the time. Therefore verse 3 undeniably proves verse 2 is not even remotely meaning Jerusalem in 70 AD. But if one disagrees still, then show how it logically squares, in light of verse 3.

 

[David Kent]

It isn't me who says there will be offerings and sacrifices in the new Temple. Many prophesies tell us there will be. Psalms 51:18-19, Isaiah 56:6-7, Zechariah 14:20-21
How can you reconcile these plainly stated scriptures?

None of those refer to a future temple. For example there are no canaanites now.

 

[mkgal1]

So: please list the Scriptures you believe literally refer to the second coming of Christ?

Making the text LARGER isn't going to change my mind. I'm not obligated to adhere to your demands.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Making the text LARGER isn't going to change my mind. I'm not obligated to adhere to your demands.

Why would any Bible believing Christian want to duck around furnishing us with scriptural support for a future second coming, while on the other hand posting multiple Scriptures that do actually pertain to the second coming of the Christ and relating them to the coming of Titus in AD70?

It certainly suggests you have something to hide!

 

[DavidPT]

For example there are no canaanites now.

Isn't that what Zechariah 14:21 already indicates? So if that verse is meaning future still, and like you already indicated, there are no canaanites now, what exactly would be the issue? That aside, I agree there won't be this future temple some Premils assume there will be, but that is beside the point. Because as to Zechariah 14:21, one thing seems quite clear. The timing of it is meaning a time post the death and resurrection of Christ. So where does it fit after His death and resurrection? It has to fit somewhere.

 

[DavidPT]

Zechariah 14:2-3 says, “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.”

Amils are actually split on whether this should be interpreted literally or spiritually. The literal interpretation normally relates this passage to AD 70 after the Gentiles destroyed Christ (in the form of the Roman soldiers); the Gospel then conquered them. Jerusalem is considered literal earthly Jerusalem. Significantly, the instrument of its destruction – Rome – subsequently became the epicenter of the Gospel witness for many years after the cross. I must qualify: I am not talking about current Roman Catholicism, which is pagan, but rather ancient Christianity that was centered in Rome for years. God brought His wrath upon the city of Jerusalem because of Israel’s disobedience.

The destruction of the city and the raping of the city occurred in AD 70. At that time the Roman Empire enjoyed jurisdiction over the whole known world (Luke 2:1). Jerusalem was destroyed because of their rejection of Christ. The Gentiles came against the city, but the Gospel in turn went out among the Gentiles with great success.

On the other hand, some Amils spiritualize Jerusalem here to pertain to Christ and the kingdom of God and relate the Gentile rejection of the same under the old covenant and the turn around that occurred with the great commission in the New Testament to Zechariah 14:2-3. Basically: the darkened Gentile nations were invaded with the Gospel light of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:6-8 testifies, “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.”

We are the “lively stones” and Christ is the “chief corner stone.” Nothing could be clearer. We are built up into the spiritual temple of God. This is a symbolic illustration to depict the place on earth where God's presence dwells. It is not a brick building, it is the people of God. Sion is the heavenly Sion, not the physical Old Testament type which has been superseded. We are built up today as a spiritual edifice “in Sion” upon the “chief corner stone.” This is not some distant hope, but a current ongoing reality. We are “a spiritual house” built up “as lively stones” upon the Christ is the “chief corner stone” Christ. We have entered the heavenly Sion by faith spiritually.

Jesus explained in Matthew 21:42-44 referred specifically to Psalm 118:22 when talking to the religious Jews of His day: “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

In the New Testament, Christ rules over spiritual Zion. All who embrace Him reside there and enjoy the spiritual blessings that accompanies intimacy with Him. Everything in the New Testament is pointing towards Jesus Christ. It is not about physical earthly land. It is not about the Middle East. It is not about a brick temple. It is about spiritual territory. It is about a heavenly kingdom. Earthly Zion means nothing today; heavenly Zion is everything. It is not about an earthly king, but rather a heavenly king. It is not about race; it is rather about grace.

Another slightly different perspective can be found in Acts 4:26. Could this be another allusion to Zechariah 14? Acts 4:26 records: “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.”

While the nations joined together under the vehicle of the Roman Empire to oppose Christ and ultimately crucify Him, the Gospel extended out to the same nations represented here.

Jesus said in Matthew 10:34-36, in war like language, albeit He was speaking spiritually, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. "

Premils argue that those who attack Jerusalem at the end are those mortals who inhabit the new earth. In this understanding the wicked company are amazingly rewarded for their evil assault on the “holy city” by being ushered into the millennial kingdom. They are blessed by being invited to worship in the temple each year in the presence of the king of kings. In my view, this is a dubious interpretation that doesn’t line up with the pattern of Scripture. It just doesn’t make sense that of all the unsaved people on this earth that are supposedly privileged to escape the wrath of God that this wicked horde would be chosen.

This is what supposedly happens in the Premil millennium (the day of the Lord) of Edenic bliss and regenerated earth. Revelation 19 and 20 knows nothing of a successful attack upon Jerusalem at the end or in the millennium. Regardless of whether one takes a literal or a spiritual approach to this, the armies in Revelation merely prepare for battle at the end, they do not engage in battle. How can Jerusalem be taken in the millennium when Jesus is reigning in glorious unparalleled splendor? How can women in the millennium be "ravished" (or raped) when no one in Jerusalem is even mortal anymore?

When I initially submitted post number 305, unfortunately I was unaware of your post here at the time. And now that I'm aware of it I will try and address some of it in a bit.

 

[sovereigngrace]

When I initially submitted post number 305, unfortunately I was unaware of your post here at the time. And now that I'm aware of it I will try and address some of it in a bit.

Sounds good!

 

[DavidPT]

On the other hand, some Amils spiritualize Jerusalem here to pertain to Christ and the kingdom of God and relate the Gentile rejection of the same under the old covenant and the turn around that occurred with the great commission in the New Testament to Zechariah 14:2-3. Basically: the darkened Gentile nations were invaded with the Gospel light of Jesus Christ.

Since some Amils spiritualize that to begin with, wouldn't it make better sense for them to then try and connect it to maybe Revelation 20? Like such perhaps.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Isn't that pretty much what is happening in Zechariah 14:2, the nations are surrounding Jerusalem? Isn't that what is also happening in Revelation 20:9, the nations are surrounding Jerusalem? If I were an Amil, I can see myself trying to connect Revelation 20:9 with that of Zechariah 14:2. It makes better sense than trying to connect it to the events of 70 AD, or to try and spiritualize the way you demonstrated some Amils do.

As to Revelation 20:9, that verse is obviously compressed, which means one has to find the missing details not present in that verse. That is what I tend to think the OT serves a purpose for at times, to fill in the missing details not present in the texts in the NT.

 

[keras]

None of those refer to a future temple. For example there are no canaanites now.

But there are; they are called Palestinians now.

Re the placement of Zechariah 14:1-2.
This as yet; unfulfilled prophecy will happen 3 1/2 years before Jesus Returns, when the leader of the OWG breaks the 7 year peace treaty with the people living in all of the holy Land.
The holy people of God, who are now every faithful Christian, who will be living in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land, Isaiah 62:1-12, do get taken over by the leader of the One World Govt; the Anti-Christ, as described in Zechariah 14:1-2

This will happen at the midpoint of the last 7 years before Jesus Returns and it is because they failed to trust solely on the Lord for their protection.

Daniel 9:27 and Isaiah 28:14-15 tell of a treaty, a peace treaty for a seven year period, made between ‘many’ of the citizens of Beulah and the leader of the OWG, that God calls; a treaty with death.
We see in Daniel 11:32, how the Christians are divided into 2 groups, those who agreed to this seven year peace treaty with the AC, and those who refused to violate their covenant with God. This conquest and division of the Lord’s people, at the mid point of the seven years, is seen in Zechariah 14:1-2 and Revelation 13:5-7

Then in Revelation 12:6-17, those two groups of Christians are described; the faithful ones are taken to a place of safety during the 3 1/2 years, [or 42 months or 1260 days] and the other group remain, as per Revelation 12:17.
Then Jesus Returns, Zechariah 14:3, Revelation 19:11-21, destroys the Anti-Christ's army and chains him up. Jesus sends out His angels to gather His people from their place of safety and all who have refused the mark of the beast, Matthew 24:31, to where He is; that is in Jerusalem, from where He will rule the world for 1000 years.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Since some Amils spiritualize that to begin with, wouldn't it make better sense for them to then try and connect it to maybe Revelation 20? Like such perhaps.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Isn't that pretty much what is happening in Zechariah 14:2, the nations are surrounding Jerusalem? Isn't that what is also happening in Revelation 20:9, the nations are surrounding Jerusalem? If I were an Amil, I can see myself trying to connect Revelation 20:9 with that of Zechariah 14:2. It makes better sense than trying to connect it to the events of 70 AD, or to try and spiritualize the way you demonstrated some Amils do.

As to Revelation 20:9, that verse is obviously compressed, which means one has to find the missing details not present in that verse. That is what I tend to think the OT serves a purpose for at times, to fill in the missing details not present in the texts in the NT.

You make some good points.

 

[sovereigngrace]

But there are; they are called Palestinians now.

Re the placement of Zechariah 14:1-2.
This as yet; unfulfilled prophecy will happen 3 1/2 years before Jesus Returns, when the leader of the OWG breaks the 7 year peace treaty with the people living in all of the holy Land.
The holy people of God, who are now every faithful Christian, who will be living in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land, Isaiah 62:1-12, do get taken over by the leader of the One World Govt; the Anti-Christ, as described in Zechariah 14:1-2

This will happen at the midpoint of the last 7 years before Jesus Returns and it is because they failed to trust solely on the Lord for their protection.

Daniel 9:27 and Isaiah 28:14-15 tell of a treaty, a peace treaty for a seven year period, made between ‘many’ of the citizens of Beulah and the leader of the OWG, that God calls; a treaty with death.
We see in Daniel 11:32, how the Christians are divided into 2 groups, those who agreed to this seven year peace treaty with the AC, and those who refused to violate their covenant with God. This conquest and division of the Lord’s people, at the mid point of the seven years, is seen in Zechariah 14:1-2 and Revelation 13:5-7

Then in Revelation 12:6-17, those two groups of Christians are described; the faithful ones are taken to a place of safety during the 3 1/2 years, [or 42 months or 1260 days] and the other group remain, as per Revelation 12:17.
Then Jesus Returns, Zechariah 14:3, Revelation 19:11-21, destroys the Anti-Christ's army and chains him up. Jesus sends out His angels to gather His people from their place of safety and all who have refused the mark of the beast, Matthew 24:31, to where He is; that is in Jerusalem, from where He will rule the world for 1000 years.

You keep avoiding the presented contradictions in your scenario, as if they do not matter. That does nothing to enhance your position.

 

[keras]

You keep avoiding the presented contradictions in your scenario, as if they do not matter. That does nothing to enhance your position.

What I post, supported by scripture, contradicts you beliefs, that's all.

The mistake many make is in not seeing the 3 1/2 year gap between Zechariah 14:2 and 3.
This gap is shown to us in: Revelation 11:2, Revelation 12:14, Revelation 13:5

 

[DavidPT]

The mistake many make is in not seeing the 3 1/2 year gap between Zechariah 14:2 and 3.
This gap is shown to us in: Revelation 11:2, Revelation 12:14, Revelation 13:5

I for one am on the same page with you in regards to Zechariah 14:2, and how that period of time is referring to the 42 months in Revelation 13. And clearly, like you also pointed out, there would have to be a gap between verse 2 and 3 in Zechariah 14, with this gap being this 42 months in Revelation 13. Do you think verse 3 involves the bodily 2nd coming of Christ then?

 

[sovereigngrace]

What I post, supported by scripture, contradicts you beliefs, that's all.

The mistake many make is in not seeing the 3 1/2 year gap between Zechariah 14:2 and 3.
This gap is shown to us in: Revelation 11:2, Revelation 12:14, Revelation 13:5

You are forcing your theology upon the sacred text. There's no mention of 3 1/2 or 7 year period in Zechariah 14.

 

[DavidPT]

You are forcing your theology upon the sacred text. There's no mention of 3 1/2 or 7 year period in Zechariah 14.

Don't you understand the concept of Scripture interpreting Scripture? Using your logic, since there is no mention of a thousand years in the OT, meaning in regards to the one mentioned in Revelation 20, this means the thousand years aren't hidden in any text in the OT whatsoever. If that is true and that you think we are currently in this thousand year period, and that you think some texts in the OT involve this same period of time we are currently living in, which you take to be the thousand years, how can it be though if there is not a single mention of a thousand years in the texts that you are applying to the here and now?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Don't you understand the concept of Scripture interpreting Scripture? Using your logic, since there is no mention of a thousand years in the OT, meaning in regards to the one mentioned in Revelation 20, this means the thousand years aren't hidden in any text in the OT whatsoever. If that is true and that you think we are currently in this thousand year period, and that you think some texts in the OT involve this same period of time we are currently living in, which you take to be the thousand years, how can it be though if there is not a single mention of a thousand years in the texts that you are applying to the here and now?

That is because it is a figurative period relating to the here-and-now which cannot be literally specified, because only the Father knows the day of Christ's return. Interpreting Scripture with Scripture totally negates Premillennialism. The doctrine totally lacks corroboration.

 

[keras]

I for one am on the same page with you in regards to Zechariah 14:2, and how that period of time is referring to the 42 months in Revelation 13. And clearly, like you also pointed out, there would have to be a gap between verse 2 and 3 in Zechariah 14, with this gap being this 42 months in Revelation 13. Do you think verse 3 involves the bodily 2nd coming of Christ then?

Yes.

You are forcing your theology upon the sacred text. There's no mention of 3 1/2 or 7 year period in Zechariah 14.

A rude accusation.

The; Time, times and half a time - 3 1/2 years - 42 months and 1260 days of the period of Satans rule of the world is mentioned about 10 times in the Bible.
Your denial of it is incomprehensible. But understandable as coming from one who denies the future Millennium, when Jesus will literally and physically reign as King of the world.