The Partial Preterist's Stance

[Colswann1]

On Sunday our minister preached a sermon which seemed to give the impression that this world was going to avoid the end time events.

On challenging him he admitted he had taken up a partial preterist position with his theology - he is an enthusiastic follower of Timothy Keller and John Piper who seem to hold a modernistic theology.
What are your your views on this?

[Paula22466]

What a great question! But I have no time! I'll be back (said in my terminator voice). I hope others chime in.

[Opinion8ed]

I must admit that I had to go look up Partial Preterist. I'm not a student of eschatology but it is not a view that was ever discussed at Bible School and of which I have only heard briefly in other discussions. I'm going to post a short definition from Wikipedia in case anyone else is as ignorant as I.

Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70 or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.Some partial preterists identify "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17-18) with the pagan Roman Empire, though some, such as N.T. Wright, identify it with the city of Jerusalem. Most interpretations identify Nero as the Beast, while his mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell. However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero committed suicide in AD 68, and identify the Beast with another emperor. The Catholic Encyclopedia has noted that Revelation was "written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, probably in AD 95 or 96".Additional Protestant scholars are in agreement.The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.

One thing the Partial view has going for it, over the full Preterists, is that at least they say that the 2nd coming has not occurred yet. And I think they are correct in holding that the church goes through the tribulation rather than a much newer view of a pretribulation "rapture", a view not held until the 1800's. But that's another topic. I found the idea of the mark of the beast being the gold coin, rather than a physical stamp, kind of intriguing, although not without questions.

However, the timing of this view seems all off. Although it is good that they don't claim that the 2nd coming has occurred, how do they match that with all the other end time events being fulfilled in 70 AD? Matthew 24 tells us, "29But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." How do they get around "immediately after"?

Another major problem for the doctrine would clearly be what date Revelation was written as mentioned in the description above. Traditionally it is held that Revelations was written in 96 AD. I found a site that explains how Preterists get around that, as they must of course. Basically they change the interpretation of a few words in some writings to change the date to fit their position. http://www.biblestudying.net/rev-date.html

There are other holes in this view, including Matthew 24:14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." Had the gospel been preached to even the whole Roman empire by 70 AD, let alone the whole known world? The Roman Empire extended up into England by 70 AD. Acts tells us that due to persecution the church was scattered but it actually mentions some specific areas - 8:1 throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria. Later in Ch.11 Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, and later in 13 "out of their district". How far? I don't know but it seems unlikely that it was to the whole known world. Just my opinion, without really any study on it. Can we even say now that the gospel has been preached to the whole world. Well, we are certainly close to "every nation" considering our ability to spread the gospel through technology.

Anyway, this is only the beginning of things you'd have to get around to hold to this view. I would have to do more study to say anything else about it. A very interesting topic and I look forward to seeing what others have to say. I kind of hope there are some who do hold this view looking at our forum so we can have a good discussion with someone really knowledgeable of the doctrine.

[JCinmyheart]

I am keenly interested in Eschatology and have read many opposing views from disagreeing camps that have bantered back and forth for many years. It is unfortunate that this has brought divisions in the body of Christ, for we know that Christ is not divided and neither should His church be. I was raised to believe one thing (pre-trib. rapture). Yet the more I study, the more questions seem to arise in my truth seeking heart. I find inconsistencies in my own previous views and the jury is still out. I am currently praying for clarity on these things and do not feel I am qualified to comment at this time. However, I do appreciate reading other comments as I seek the Lord's leading in my continuing studies. Thank you for bringing up the topic. One thing is certain, Jesus is coming back in power and glory! And our hearts should be displaying the love He teaches us and granting grace to others that He has granted us. Praise God!

[Paula22466]

Could Nero have been the Beast mentioned in Revelation?

Tacitus, a Roman historian wrote in the 2nd century:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities...
First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was poured on them as they died; so that, clothed in the skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man.”

Stuff from a few websites:(I have not yet researched all of this)

Nero Caesar fits the gematria code number "666." Using this code, his name would be rendered as "NRWN QSR." (NRWN QSR). The number values are:

N = 50
R = 200
W = 6
N = 50
Q = 100
S = 60
R = 200

which, when added together, equals 666. The fact that Nero fits the description of the "beast" is well documented. According to Suetonius, he murdered his parents, wife, brother, aunt, and many others close to him and of high station in Rome. He was a torturer, a homosexual rapist, and a sodomite. He even married two young boys and paraded them around as his wives. One of the boys, whose name was Sporus, was castrated by Nero. He was truly bestial in his character, depravity, and actions. He devised a kind of game: covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound at stakes. He also initiated the war against the Jews which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD..

Nero’s persecution, which was initiated in A.D.64, was the first ever Roman assault on Christianity. Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 56-117) spoke of Nero's "cruel nature" that "put to death so many innocent men." He records the scene in Rome when the persecution of Christians broke out: "And their death was aggravated with mockeries, insomuch that, wrapped in the hides of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or fastened to crosses to be set on fire, that when the darkness fell they might be burned to illuminate the night." Christians were crucified, beheaded, burnt alive, and used as torches to light the palace gardens. Historically, Nero is the one that persecuted Christians beyond all comparison. St. John’s banishment to Patmos (where he wrote the book of Revelation) was itself a result of the great persecution of Nero. The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. The apostle Peter, who was crucified upside down, was another victim of Nero

Apollinius of Tyana, a contemporary of Nero, wrote

Nero was called a "beast": "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. . . . And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet."

There's more, but I'm out of time. I am leaning toward the partial preterist view, in believing most of the events in the book of Revelation happened in the period of 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. Nothing I'm going to be dogmatic about, but it's interesting to consider.

[Colswann1]

Could Nero have been the Beast mentioned in Revelation?

Antiochus Epiphanes in the Book of Daniel fits the bill better. He violated the Temple by sacrificing pigs on the altar.

Jesus mentioned that a bigger violation of the Temple would come, when he referred back to this happening in Daniel, and that the man of sin, who would be revealed in the last days, would likewise violate a latter day Temple, and scripture also reveals that he will sit in it and reign as though he was God.

[Opinion8ed]

Wow. Thanks Paula. I certainly can't imagine a worse tribulation than that done by Nero.

However, is the dating of the writing of Revelation a problem with this view? Revelation has been held to have been written around 96 AD. Isn't it a problem to have it written after the tribulation when it seems to be very much in the future tense, describing the rise of the beast and the things he does, giving a warning to the believers of what will happen and not to take the mark or worship the beast? Revelation 13 gives us pretty specific events regarding the rise of the beast and the events following. If Revelation was written post 70 AD and the tribulation was in 70 AD, how would these descriptions and warnings apply to anything.

Another issue, of course is the rebuilding of the temple prior to the appearance of the anti-christ. Jesus tells us, “when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (who so readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains” (Matthew 24:15-16). Jesus’ prophecy echoed that of Daniel, who indicated that the abomination of desolation will be fulfilled in a Temple of God standing in Jerusalem." (http://www.grantjeffrey.com/pdf/temple_introduction.pdf)

The temple was destroyed in 70 AD but the abomination that desolates will stand in the holy place - the temple, so the temple will once again have to be rebuilt before the end begins.

I also still have questions about Matthew 24 when it says that "immediately following" the tribulation the Son of Man would appear.

I understand that immediately in God's sense of time could certainly be different than ours. None-the-less it seems strange somehow that God is going to allow the great tribulation to come and then leave the Christians here to receive more persecution and tribulation throughout the centuries, when He told us that unless the days of the great tribulation were cut short no life would have been saved, but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. How? By the coming of the Son of Man.

21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Still, I can easily see how many of the end time events could be seen to fit into 70 AD as you mentioned, but I'm not sure everything matches up. The Bible says the great tribulation will end with the return of Christ while this view says that it ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of Nero. So then we are currently in a post-tribulation world waiting for the return of Christ while the world continues to degenerate in sinfulness. I don't know, could be.

OK, I'm not ready to take up the partial preterist view just yet but I'm not ready to completely dismiss it either.

[Colswann1]

I can see the pre-tribulationists, who like the idea of being raptured out of the great tribulation period and escaping that time of trouble, finding this partial preterist view a more sophisticated way of avoiding it.

[Opinion8ed]

Ditto on that.

Better to let the Christians of long ago take the tribulation. It amazes me how Christians will search for any idea to get out of going through the tribulation.

So for partial preterests we, Christians of today, just get to live in a post tribulation world with occasional persecution for some, but basically no worries about the Anti-christ or massive persecution, just waiting for the blessed hope. And, for the pre-tribulationist there are no concerns about end time prophecies either.

So with the partial preterists we get out of it by the tribulation having happened before us, with the pre-tribs we get out of it by the tribulation coming after we're gone.

Since I can't see either of those positions as Biblical, on the partial preterist view I have finally become

[Paula22466]

Antiochus Epiphanes certainly fits the anti-christ wrote about in Daniel – but he may or may not be who Daniel is referring to. Some say he was a type, or a foreshadowing of Nero, but then again, maybe they are both types. Also, Antiochus did not persecute the church, only the Jews. Nero was the first to persecute the Christian church. The Beast must be someone who persecutes Christians.

Clement of Alexandria (2nd Century)

"We have still to add to our chronology the following, -- I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him, Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away."

"These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned. And on this account Daniel says, "Blessed is he that cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." For up to these days was war, and after them it ceased. And this number is demonstrated from a subsequent chapter, which is as follows: "And from the time of the change of continuation, and of the giving of the abomination of desolation, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

(The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 334)


I’m not sure what he means by “the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city,” since as far as I can determine, Nero never entered Jerusalem. Although it was him who sent the final orders to end the Jewish/Roman war as well as the Jewish civil wars taking place at that time in and around Jerusalem – I believe it was 68AD when Nero sent his orders and committed suicide not long after. Finally the war ended with the destruction of the temple in 70AD.


St. Jerome

"As for the Antichrist, there is no question but what he is going to fight against the holy covenant, and that when he first makes war against the king of Egypt, he shall straightway be frightened off by the assistance of the Romans. But these events were typically prefigured under Antiochus Epiphanes, so that this abominable king who persecuted God's people foreshadows the Antichrist, who is to persecute the people of Christ. And so there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity."

(St. Jerome - Commentary on Daniel; notes on Daniel 11:27-30, -- BAKER BOOK HOUSE Grand Rapids 6, Michigan 1958)

Op8 – the date of when John wrote Revelation is a problem if it was written after 70AD, since the apocalyptical events would’ve already taken place. If the book was written before 70AD, it solves the problem since John would have been prophesying about the events which took place in 70AD. There is some speculation about the date and more than a few advocates for early dating. As a matter of fact, from what I’ve read it seems the later date is a relatively new interpretation.

James Glasgow: The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded (1872) -Early Dating Advocate, Sets writing at AD 51.

"Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks presents an irrefragable proof that the whole of the New Testament, the Apocalypse included, must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish kingdom." "When did the seventy weeks end ? No date later than that of the fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) can with any truth or plausibility be supposed, for these weeks were "determined on the holy city." But many say they ended earlier, — at the death of Christ. Against this, however, in the above, and some other particulars, there lie weighty objections, as Scaliger, Hales, and others have shown. Let us look at the objects which were to be accomplished before these weeks ran out. " // "Many of the visions and words of the prophets are still receiving fulfilment ; and not until the end of the gospel age is all prophecy fulfilled. Some were fulfilled at the death of Christ, some in the fall of the city and dispersion of the people, and some in the progressive influx of the Gentiles ; while many regarding Gentiles and outcast Jews are yet to pass into fulfillment."

My biggest problem with the traditional views are the words of Christ Himself. He certainly seemed to be saying these things would come to pass in that present generation, not thousands of years later.

Matthew 24
v. 15, the “Abomination of Desolation” [that time when the Antichrist will set himself up in the temple of God and declare himself to be God, 2 Thess. 2]
v. 21, He mentions the time of the “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.” NAS
v. 29, He mentions the sun and moon being darkened
v. 30, He mentions “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky” NAS
v.34 “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” NKJV

Colin wrote

can see the pre-tribulationists, who like the idea of being raptured out of the great tribulation period and escaping that time of trouble, finding this partial preterist view a more sophisticated way of avoiding it.

Colin, godly theologians do not take an idea that they “like” i.e. being raptured out of the tribulation, and then try to make the Bible conform to their liking. We know if God has decreed believers to go through the tribulation, offering various interpretations will not change that. It seems kind of ludicrous to think otherwise. Honest exegesis always starts with the text and works out from there.

Op8 – it’s about time you started living up to your name!

[Opinion8ed]

Op8 – it’s about time you started living up to your name!

hahahaha! Abosolutely true. I haven't been discussing things much lately so I've been pretty wishy washy on the topics I've entered into - Women elders and now this. I'll try to stay more true to my name from now on.

Colin, godly theologians do not take an idea that they “like” i.e. being raptured out of the tribulation, and then try to make the Bible conform to their liking. We know if God has decreed believers to go through the tribulation, offering various interpretations will not change that. It seems kind of ludicrous to think otherwise. Honest exegesis always starts with the text and works out from there.

Well, I'd agree that "godly" theologians shouldn't do that, but to say that they didn't in this case we'd have to look at the actual origins of the "pre-tribulation rapture" position. It did not originate with godly theologians searching out what scripture says about the tribulation and return of Christ.

The idea of a pretrib rapture, also called the "secret rapture", originated with a young Scottish girl, I have heard as young as 10 years old, who fell into a trance:

However, in 1830 during one of Irving's sessions before his dismissal, a young Scottish girl, named Margaret MacDonald, fell into a "trance". After several hours of "vision" and "prophesying" she revealed that "christ's" return would occur in two phases, not just one. "Christ" would first come visibly to only the righteous, then He would come a second time to execute wrath on the unrighteous in the nations.

This "secret rapture" was promoted by Irving claiming he, too, had heard a "voice" from heaven commanding him to teach it. (Some modern researchers submit that Irving's speculations of the "rapture were influenced by the Spanish Jesuit priest, Lacunza whose book Irving had translated in 1827 under the title, The coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty)

The Irving spoken of is Edward Irving, a church of Scotland minister.

Just how the "rapture" theory occurred to Irving is an intriguing facet of modern churchianity's history. Irving held some eccentric positions on the use of "spiritual" gifts, including speaking in tongues and prophesying. He contended that these gifts were for the present day "church", and had quite a few followers of his radical notions. However, when chaotic disturbances arose in Irving's services during the manifestations of these "gifts", the Church of Scotland took action, dismissing Irving from his position as minister in 1832.

The ultimate result of Irving's dismissal was the formation of the Catholic Apostolic Church, which still exists until this day. Irving's movement grew and became the basis of modern day pentecostalism. The natural evolution of this movement has resulted in the recent emergence of the "Toronto Laughing Spirit" phenomenon which has seduced and mislead more than a few well-intentioned people.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Malkaynu/rapture.html

The pre-trib rapture position was put forward from this girl in a trance and then taught by this defrocked minister. We then have people believing/liking the theory and searching for scripture to support it. It did not originate with godly theologians searching the scriptures. It is somewhat like scientists who begin any investigation into the origins of life from the perspective that there is no God because they don't want there to be a God. They then discover things that will only support that position.

As Paula said, "Honest exegesis always starts with the text and works out from there." That's not what happened here. And I don't really see how it happened with the partial preterist view. Many people and groups have tried to figure out who the anti-christ is, was, or will be and I'm thinking that that is the basis of this preterist view. They "figured out" that Nero was the anti-christ, concluding that the tribulation has already happened so we've got that over with. It is true that we cannot imagine a tribulation greater than that and people who say that Christians won't go through "the great tribulation" because a God of love wouldn't allow that had better look back at Nero's persecution of Christians and other persecutions through the ages.

Paula, of course you are correct when you say,

We know if God has decreed believers to go through the tribulation, offering various interpretations will not change that.

The rapture or no rapture is a peripheral issue in Christianity. It is not critical to our salvation, which certainly does not say that it is not important. It is very important and I believe Christians in all time periods should be prepared to face the great tribulation without yielding. If we don't have to, GREAT! Don't get me wrong, if there is a rapture I'm going, but I'm also prepared to have to go through the tribulation. Has the tribulation already happened? Can't see that anywhere.

And on that I can say that I am definitely

[Paula22466]

The pre-trib rapture position was put forward from this girl in a trance and then taught by this defrocked minister. We then have people believing/liking the theory and searching for scripture to support it. It did not originate with godly theologians searching the scriptures. It is somewhat like scientists who begin any investigation into the origins of life from the perspective that there is no God because they don't want there to be a God. They then discover things that will only support that position.

I'm not sure this is correct, about the girl. I thought the pretrib rapture theory originated with a 19th century theologian-John Darby. In any case, the website you provided is AWFUL! GET WITH IT OP8!
There are a some good biblical arguments that can be made for a pretrib rapture. John MacArthur gives a very convincing case.

As Paula said, "Honest exegesis always starts with the text and works out from there." That's not what happened here.

Sure, there are always some examples of bad theology with skewed motives. But I don't think that gives us the right to point our finger at the theologian with such accusations unless we are prepared to present a convincing case against his (or HER) view. It's almost impossible to know what truly motivates people, but in the case of Christian theologians I will give them the benefit of the doubt unless what they are presenting is heretical.

Has the tribulation already happened? Can't see that anywhere.

I can.

The Siege of Jerusalem, AD 70
by Josephus

Jerusalem fell, after a siege, to a Roman army under Titus.
Josephus was a Jew who had gone over to the Romans.

Throughout the city people were dying of hunger in large numbers, and enduring unspeakable sufferings. In every house the merest hint of food sparked violence, and close relatives fell to blows, snatching from one another the pitiful supports of life. No respect was paid even to the dying; the ruffians [anti-Roman zealots] searched them, in case they were concealing food somewhere in their clothes, or just pretending to be near death. Gaping with hunger, like mad dogs, lawless gangs went staggering and reeling through the streets, battering upon the doors like drunkards, and so bewildered that they broke into the same house two or three times in an hour. Need drove the starving to gnaw at anything. Refuse which even animals would reject was collected and turned into food. In the end they were eating belts and shoes, and the leather stripped off their shields. Tufts of withered grass were devoured, and sold in little bundles for four drachmas.

But why dwell on the commonplace rubbish which the starving were driven to feed upon, giver that what I have to recount is an act unparalleled in the history of either the Greeks or the barbarians, and as horrible to relate as it is incredible to hear? For my part I should gladly have omitted this tragedy, lest I should be suspected of monstrous fabrication. But there were many witnesses of it among my contemporaries; and besides, I should do poor service to my country if I were to suppress the agonies she went through.

Among the residents of the region beyond Jordan was a woman called Mary, daughter of Eleazar, of the village of Bethezuba (the name means "House of Hyssop"). She was well off, and of good family, and had fled to Jerusalem with her relatives, where she became involved with the siege. Most of the property she had packed up and brought with her from Peraea had been plundered by the tyrants [Simon and John, leaders of the Jewish war-effort], and the rest of her treasure, together with such foods as she had been able to procure, was being carried by their henchmen in their daily raids. In her bitter resentment the poor woman cursed and abused these extortioners, and this incensed them against her. However, no one put her to death either from exasperation or pity. She grew weary of trying to find food for her kinsfolk. In any case, it was by now impossible to get any, wherever you tried. Famine gnawed at her vitals, and the fire of rage was ever fiercer than famine. So, driven by fury and want, she committed a crime against nature. Seizing her child, an infant at the breast, she cried, "My poor baby, why should I keep you alive in this world of war and famine? Even if we live till the Romans come, they will make slaves of us; and anyway, hunger will get us before slavery does; and the rebels are crueler than both. Come, be food for me, and an avenging fury to the rebels, and a tale of cold horror to the world to complete the monstrous agony of the Jews." With these words she killed her son, roasted the body, swallowed half of it, and stored the rest in a safe place. But the rebels were on her at once, smelling roasted meat, and threatening to kill her instantly if she did not produce it. She assured them she had saved them a share, and revealed the remains of her child. Seized with horror and stupefaction, they stood paralyzed at the sight. But she said, "This is my own child, and my own handiwork. Eat, for I have eaten already. Do not show yourselves weaker than a woman, or more pitiful than a mother. But if you have pious scruples, and shrink away from human sacrifice, then what I have eaten can count as your share, and I will eat what is left as well." At that they slunk away, trembling, not daring to eat, although they were reluctant to yield even this food to the mother. The whole city soon rang with the abomination. When people heard of it, they shuddered, as though they had done it themselves.

[Colswann1]

How does the scripture below fit the partial preterist's stance?

2nd Book of Thessalonians verses one to twelve. English Standard Version.

The Man of Lawlessness
2 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,[a] 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[b] is revealed, the son of destruction,[c] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[Opinion8ed]

Sorry you didn't like the site I gave, Paula. You can choose from many other sites which you may consider better quality and you will still find much of the same information. John Darby, the "father of Dispensationalism", is sometimes credited with starting the pretribulation rapture view, as is Margaret MacDonald, the girl with the vision. I read that Darby actually visited MacDonald before he started really preaching pretrib. A pretribulation rapture helped Darby fill in some holes in his Dispensational Doctrine so he preached it enthusiastically.

When I said that I couldn't see that the tribulation has already occurred anywhere, I was talking about in scripture, not in history books. Although the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was terrible, it was predicted in Luke 21 and precedes the great tribulation.

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

When the Christians saw the armies of Titus coming to Jerusalem they left as Jesus told them to. Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were taken back to Rome and put into slavery and would stay with no homeland until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled which was in 1948 when Israel became a state and in 1967 with the 6 day war.

Then, after the times of the gentiles are fulfilled, Jesus tells us in Matthew 24 what the prophet Daniel said, and then Paul reiterates in 2 Thess 2, 21. Matthew 24:21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will". This happens after we see the abomination of desolation/the lawless one sitting in the temple which means the temple has to be rebuilt first. There has been some movement in that direction since the 6 day war but there is still a great deal of conflict about the Temple Mount so we aren't there yet.

Most of the information above I got from a talk by the late Walter Martin, Bible Answer Man, author of The Kingdom of The Cults. It is a great talk and I would encourage anyone interested in eschatology to listen to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR_SCsEFOdg I don't think anyone can find fault with the quality of this message.

Although interesting, and important, when the tribulation is, pre, post, or mid, is not something that should divide us. It is not essential to our salvation.

In regard to the partial preterist view, I still maintain that I do not find anything in scripture, in what Jesus told us in Matthew and Luke, what Daniel prophecied or what Paul said, that indicates that we are already in a post tribulation period. 70 AD is what Daniel talks about in Daniel 9, and what Jesus tells us about in Luke 21, when the Jews are once again removed from their homeland and scattered and Jerusalem is utterly destroyed. It is now after the time of the gentiles was fulfilled in 1948 and Israel regained their homeland and we now wait for the abomination that desolates to sit in the holy place.

But I can acknowledge that great theologians have come up with a differing point of view and respect them for their honest and valid research on that. Most of them don't claim that the tribulation has occured, they claim that prior to the tribulation the Christians will be taken away or, other great theologians, with whom I happen to agree, have determined that the Lord will return after the tribulation when the Christians will be caught up to meet Him in the air. I can say, two valid views. The preterist view says something entirely different - the tribulation has already happened. The Christians weren't taken away before it happened and the Lord hasn't returned so the Christians haven't been taken away after it happened. We are still waiting. That's not what scripture says.

[Paula22466]

How does the scripture below fit the partial preterist's stance?

2nd Book of Thessalonians verses one to twelve. English Standard Version.

The Man of Lawlessness
2 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,[a] 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[b] is revealed, the son of destruction,[c] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Since this book was written around 50 AD, we know Jerusalem had not yet fallen. Apparently there were people trying to tell the church in Thessalonica that the "Day of the Lord" had already come (as I'm sure you know).

Paul could be speaking of the event about to take place in 70 AD, Jerusalem's destruction at the hands of Rome (the rebellion v. 3). This "man of lawlessness" could either be one person or the line of many evil Roman emperors, notice how v.4 sounds a lot like Daniel 11:36-38, although that doesn't help much since it would be pure speculation (as most of this is anyway) to try and figure out who the "King of the North" is.

The Bible Background Commentary points out “when Titus destroyed the temple, his soldiers desecrated the temple by paying divine honors to the insignia of Emperor Vespasian on the site of the temple” Obviously the Roman emperors could be who is referred to in v.4.

As far as the restrainer, there are several theories, the one I like most is the restrainer being Ananus, the High Priest at the time of Paul's writing, or the Levitical priesthood in general. it's noted by Josephus that the death of Ananus seemed to be the point when all hell broke loose.

I shouldnot mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city,and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her
affairs"

Josephus, p. 313

Apparently Ananus was against the rising of the Jewish revolt and had been "keeping the peace," between the Jews and Roman officials.

V. 8 "whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth" - this portion, and how to determine how it might fit in with the partial preterist's view is bewildering to me. I have read a few commentaries, and there are one or two good ones, but none that satisfy me as of yet.