Pre Mil vs Post Mil with Jim Osman and Drew Von Nieda

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your Apologetics question, and tonight we have a little something special. Gonna be having a little bit, not really a debate, but discussion on premillennial view and a postmillennial view, specifically dealing with the resurrection of Christ.

This is something that I'll get into, explain how this came about, but before we do, I should mention Apologetics Live is a ministry of Striving for Eternity, so go to strivingforeternity .org to check out all that we have going on over there.

We will be not joined by Dr. Silvestro and Pastor Justin this week. Next week, in case I forget to say it later, next week, we'll we have Sarah Cleveland on, and I know Dr. Silvestro will be there then for that.

Last Week’s Abolitionism Discussion and the Alan Miracle Conflict

So, with that, I do have to address something, unfortunately, from last week. Folks, just if you were here last week, we did a longer show on the topic of abolitionism. Unfortunately, I had to get into, because people were, you know, my audience knows my view with a group called AHA, or what it had been, and so it seems that there has been some changes.

Unfortunately, not all of the members of that group changed. Some still seem to have the cultic behavior that they've had before, and so we ended up seeing a whole lot of people that were getting blocked this week by me, and so let me be real clear, so we have this public.

There is a guy from AHA called Alan Miracle. Alan Miracle sent us a message that he wants to debate me. Actually, he kind of made it sound like I agreed to debate like eight years ago or something. If you listen to last week's podcast, you heard me refer to someone who basically, when seeing him face-to-face, agreed with me on issues that I had, and then, like three weeks later, writes blog articles slandering me.

That was Alan Miracle. So, when Alan Miracle asks me, will I debate him? The answer is no. No, he's disingenuous. He's dishonest, and he can't be trusted. I don't debate people like that. So, it's really simple.

It's not that I'm scared of him. It's that he has a history of saying falsehoods, of slandering, and not being, well, fair or correct with people. Therefore, for those who want to continue to post in Apologetics Live, in Striving for Eternity, on my wall, telling me to debate Alan Miracle, you have been immediately blocked.

That is my reaction. Why do I do that? Well, very simple. Because you guys are acting like a bunch of cult-like members. Because Alan can't get a debate, so he's sitting there and sending all you guys, since he's blocked, to go do what he can't do.

He knows the reason. He's known the reason for years. He doesn't want to deal with it. That's up to him. Now, if he would like to, you know, repent from his slanders and things, well, then we can start talking about that.

But until there's repentance, I see no reason to trust him and have a debate with him. And so, that's just some things to deal with from last week. So, now, this week, we want to have a discussion. Some episodes ago, we had Jim Osmond come on.

Jim is pastor of Kootenai Community Church, and he came on to this program and dealt with the issue of premillennialism, dealing with the bodily resurrection of Christ. This came out of a Resurrection Day sermon that he had done, that I had heard.

His sermons are on Christian Podcast Community. And so, as I listened to those, I heard that. I was like, wow. And by the way, I said this the last time he was on. This is just, if you guys, okay, not everyone can have it like a great preacher.

But if after you listen to your pastor's sermon, if you need to listen to like an outstanding preacher, go listen to Kootenai Community Church's worship service. Because this whole discussion came out of just an offhanded comment he made.

You know, it's kind of, this is the thing, folks, you know, you think about Matthew Henry's commentaries, and we look at this, and I mean, Spurgeon would use Matthew Henry's commentaries for his sermons.

So many people use Matthew Henry's commentaries and not realizing Matthew Henry's commentaries are not his preaching. They're not his sermons. That is him. Those are just his offhand comments after reading scripture.

He would have a practice of reading the scripture and providing comment. That's just his off, you know, his off-the-cuff kind of remarks. You get, one of my favorite books is Stephen Charnock's, you know, The Nature and Attributes of God, and that book is just so deep.

And you sit there and then realize when you read the introduction that this was just his kind of journaling before bed. Guys like that kind of freak me out, that just their offhanded comments are brilliant.

Well, that's Jim Osman, okay? He's probably gonna come on and go, no it isn't. It is. But the reality is that he had this offhanded comment, and I was like, wow, that's great. Let's dig into that more.

And so Drew, who was with Matter of Theology, I'll now say that he was, he's no longer, we'll have to find out, did Chris just kick him off because of the postmill? I don't know. We'll find out, but no, it wasn't anything like that, but Drew Von Neda has had done, on the last episode he was on, on Matter of Theology, did a response to Jim and they had talked, they had been planned that the two of them will come on and have a discussion.

Why This Is a Discussion and Not a Formal Debate

This isn't a debate, it's not a formal debate. They're each gonna get time to give, to give their premise and give some opening arguments, and I'm gonna then probably bow out and just, I'll be, I'll be here, but they'll let them have just a discussion back and forth.

Here's a couple things I want you to notice with this. I can already anticipate this in tonight's show. One, you're gonna see two guys that know their position well. Two, you're gonna see two guys that can acknowledge where the other person has good arguments.

And three, you're gonna see two people that, though strong in their views, can discuss their views with someone that disagrees with them with love and charity. I want you to note that up front so that, like, well, okay, everyone on Facebook, learn from this, okay?

Now, as I bring them in to, you know, just real quick, I just, I'm gonna bring them in just so you realize one of them has a right position and one has the wrong. Now, it's very easy to figure out right and wrong.

One is in the light and one is in the dark. Okay, there you go. I mean, I can't help it that Drew just decided he would, he would make that easy by staying dark.

I've got the light shining on me. That's coming from Jim. It's Jim shining through my computer.

So, so real quick, I'll let you each give, if you guys want to give a further introduction of, you know, Jim, if, I'll let you go first with a quick introduction if you guys want to give any introductions and then, then I'll, Jim, I'll let you start with your opening, kind of, just summarization.

Okay, first of all, I appreciate the high praise and it was undue. Second, I am...

I told you he'd say that. So, just so you guys, you know, a humble guy would do exactly what he just did, right?

Just saying. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, so a second, I have appreciated very much Drew's response to not just my sermon, but also the follow-up episode that we did with Apologetics Live because Drew was very gracious.

Not only did he listen to my entire sermon and the context, but he was very gracious in how he dealt with it and the fact that he encouraged people to go listen to the sermon. He said it was great. And then I think that his critique of my position was very focused in dealing with just that.

And of course, I think he agreed with probably everything else I said in the sermon on the Resurrection Sunday. So here is basically my position, kind of, laid out in a similar format.

Hold on, let me let Drew introduce himself. And Drew, by the way, someone's asking me this. Jeremy wants me to let you know that, wow, this Drew guy sounds like a heretic. Andrew,.

Can you tell him that? So Jeremy, there you go. He got that because he agreed with most of my sermon. So that makes him a heretic, I guess. Jeremy, I know where you live and I've been in your house. Remember that.

You know, to start off, I do want to say that, yes, I listened to Jim's sermon and I was blown away. I absolutely loved it. It's so refreshing to hear a pastor on Resurrection Sunday actually preach on the Resurrection.

So that was very refreshing. But as we begin, I do want to state up front that from the outset, I am not in any way an authority on post-millennialism. There are many who are far smarter than myself.

In fact, eschatology is not a study of mine at all. And I've set it up that way on purpose. I don't want to be known as one of these guys that's all about post-millennialism. I want to be a guy that's about the gospel because there are far too many brothers that hold differing views.

And I think we should be able to lock arms with one another and strive for the gospel. Now, I am thankful for this opportunity to come on and discuss this topic with someone that I do highly respect. So now it's not my intention.

So don't anyone listen, think that it's my intention to convert you. It's not. I don't want to convert anyone to the post-millennial position while I hold this eschatology. I'm not dogmatic about it whatsoever.

It's of little care to me, whether you're a post-millennial, a pre-mill, as long as you're proclaiming the correct and true gospel of Christ and you're teaching others to pursue holiness to the glory and honor of God, I'll link arms with you and call you my brother.

My best friend is a pre-mill. That's Chris Huff. My son is named after a pre-mill preacher, Steve Lawson. So your eschatological view is really of little importance to me. But now I do want to say from the outset that there is a post-millennial view that is absolute heresy, and that is the full preterist view.

And I think all of us would agree to that. And the full preterist view states that the second coming of Christ was in AD 70. This is 100 heresy. And I also want to state that to the listeners, if you listen to my response to Jim from that initial Apologetics Live episode, I referenced books by David Chilton.

Now, while I found these books to be helpful in my study, Paradise Restored and the Days of Vengeance, if you are a post-mill and you haven't picked up these books, I do want to caution you that when you read them to use caution, because David wrote these in the late 80s, but before he died in 1996, he had become a full preterist and he took different positions other than those that he originally wrote about.

And I believe Gary North actually tried to tell him that the full preterist view was a heresy that he had fallen into. Now, when we get into the discussion this evening, again, I'm not seeking to demonstrate that the post-mill view is the absolute one correct eschatological position, but typically when the post-mill view is talked about, it is as though that this position could not possibly be derived from the Bible.

It's one of my goals tonight that you, the viewer, will actually see that the post-mill view can in fact be derived from the pages of Scripture. Now, as it pertains to our discussion tonight, what I will also attempt to show is that the resurrection of Christ is not exclusive only to the pre-millennial eschatological position in general, but also to the fulfillment of the promises of David.

We're going to see that in some of my points of rebuttal to Jim's points. But when we get into talking about the promises of David, we by necessity have to talk about the nature of the kingdom, right?

Is this a literal physical kingdom that Christ will

Are you going to get to introducing yourself or are you just going right into your

I'm going right into it, man, because your people should know me by now.

I know. You said you wanted to make a couple of comments before Jim started and I was like,.

Okay, let's I just want to get this out of the way.

This was supposed to be you introducing yourself.

Hey guys, I'm Drew. I've been here before. You know me.

Okay. One quick question someone does have for you, Drew, is has Drew always been post-mill eschatology or has he had a different position before?

No, I've not always been post-millennial. In fact, when I was younger, I actually believed that the left behind movies were how it was going to be. And so that's what I thought. And then I just shelved that.

And only more recently did I even start diving in and learning a little bit about post-millennialism. I said, well, that seems to be more consistent with the flow of scripture and the victory of Christ in the gospel.

So that's

No wonder he went post-mill. Instead of getting his pre-mill from the Bible, he got it from left behind. Okay. So real quick, we've got a comment here. Someone you both know, Mr. Justin Peters himself says, Drew and Jim are both good guys.

I really appreciate their demeanor and mutual respect. And so with that, I'm going to let Jim, I'm going to I'll let Drew. At this rate, Drew, his opening may take the entire two hours, Jim. We don't know.

I only had one more paragraph, but Go ahead, Jim. All right. So my sermon that started all this was in Acts chapter 13. It was Paul's sermon in Pisidian Antioch on his first missionary journey. There, Paul makes the case and he and he preaches a sermon that uses the same text that Peter does in Acts chapter 2, and he follows basically the same theological and logical outline that Peter does in Acts chapter 2 with his first sermon.

I think that Luke's point in that is to demonstrate that Peter was following exactly sorry, that Paul's following exactly Peter's arguments, and that the two apostles were preaching the same gospel.

There's a unanimity there between the two and a continuity from apostle to apostle. So in Acts chapter 13, when Paul is preaching in Pisidian Antioch, one of the points that he makes is that he talks about the crucifixion of Christ, how it was a fulfillment of prophecy, and then he, later in that passage, and I don't have it here in front of me, I have to grab the text of scripture with me, but later in that passage, Paul makes the case that in order to, because God had promised to David the sure blessings of David, that the Messiah had to rise from the dead.

So Paul argues that physical resurrection was necessary. The Messiah had to be raised physically from the dead in order for God to give to him, the Messiah, and to David, thus to fulfill the promises to David, the sure blessings that God had promised to David, all the way back in 2 Samuel chapter 7, referring of course to the Davidic promise and to the Davidic kingdom.

Now, in Peter's initial sermon in Acts chapter 2, his statement is even more explicit because in Acts chapter 2, Peter says, how does he phrase it? He says that knowing that God had promised to David that he would seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked forward to the resurrection of Christ, and there he quotes not just 2 Samuel chapter 7, but Psalm 16, and he spoke of the did his corpse suffer decay.

So Peter there makes the very explicit connection. Paul makes the same connection, but it's less explicit because Paul uses Isaiah chapter 55 to make his case. But Peter makes the explicit connection saying that David knew that God had promised to seat one of his descendants on his throne, and therefore looking forward to the resurrection of Christ, he said that God would not abandon him to decay.

So Peter's point is that the fulfillment of the promises to David required the bodily resurrection of the Messiah. Therefore, the Messiah had to rise from the dead because only a risen Messiah over whom death has no dominion could live and rule and reign in a kingdom that went all the way into eternity.

Only a risen Messiah could reign physically in this world, and that physical reign in a physical kingdom go on for eternity. So that's Peter's point, I believe, in Acts chapter 2. That's Paul's point, and I believe in Acts chapter 13.

They're making the same argument. So my offhanded statement was that if Peter and Paul are arguing that physical resurrection is necessary for the fulfillment of the Davidic promises, the Davidic covenant, the promises of the Davidic covenant, then neither Paul nor Peter could be a postmillennialist, since in postmillennial and in amillennial eschatology, physical resurrection is not required to fulfill those Davidic promises.

Meaning that in postmillennial and amillennial eschatology, and I understand here we're just talking about pre versus postmillennial, but I'll include amillennialism into this broad sweeping argument that I'm making.

In postmillennial theology, the kingdom is spiritual. The kingdom has always been spiritual. The kingdom is only spiritual. The rule and reign is spiritual, and the throne upon which Christ sits is a spiritual throne in the heavenlies.

There is no physical manifestation of that. There's no physical kingdom. There's no physical rule. There's no physical government. There's no physical reign on this physical planet in a physical city in a physical kingdom over the entire physical globe.

Postmillennialism doesn't require that. Premillennialism does, and therefore, for those promises to be fulfilled physically, literally, as given in the Old Testament, the Messiah had to rise from the dead.

It had to be a physical bodily resurrection order to fulfill those promises physically and bodily. Postmillennialism does not require that. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that resurrection is incompatible with postmillennial eschatology or certainly soteriology, but I am saying that bodily resurrection is not required strictly by postmillennial eschatology.

It's compatible with it, but it's not required, so it's something that's added on top. It's an extra bonus. It's a good thing. It is required for postmillennial soteriology for our salvation. It is required in postmillennial theology to fulfill Old Testament prophecies of resurrection like Psalm 16, Isaiah 53, etc., but it is not required by the fulfillment of the Davidic promises in postmillennial eschatology.

That is my comment. Now, when Drew responded to that, he very graciously said, of course, that he was just taking issue with that point in my theology, and he had no problems with the rest of the Easter Sermon because we would both, of course, agree the physical resurrection of Christ happened, and Drew would agree that it was necessary for his soteriology as well as to fulfill Scripture, but my argument is very narrow.

I'm suggesting that it is required to fulfill the Davidic promises, and that is only true if the fulfillment of the Davidic promises was a physical kingdom and a physical rule. So that's my position in a nutshell.

Is there any questions of clarification there that I need to answer for either Drew or Andrew?

I'm trying to look at the questions we got online to see if any of them need to be asked. I know there was something for Drew earlier that I skipped here from Josiah.

Clarifying the Bodily Resurrection and the Davidic Promises

While you're looking there, Andrew, let me make another clarification. Where was I going to go with that? Hold on just a second. Oh, when I originally came on the Apologetics Live broadcast, I made the statement toward the end, if I'm wrong in this argument, I want to know about it.

I don't want to use a bad argument, so I'm willing to defend my position. I'm willing to make sure that we aggressively discuss the topic, but I really relish the idea of sitting down and having this conversation with post-millennials because I've asked a couple of post-millennials and I haven't gotten any kind of a satisfying answer.

So when Chris Huff told me that Drew was going to be posting a response to my statement and my Easter sermon, I'll bet I don't even think it was up for an hour before I had downloaded and started listening to it, because I really was, and I'm glad for how Drew handled it, and I'm glad for this opportunity to come on here and to make any clarifications or to refine my own understanding.

If necessary. Yeah, so Josiah Nichols had said something earlier, and just a shout out, Josiah has a book, My Oxcords, My Neighbor, and one of our regular listeners, Full Belly Bear, I met with him today, and he actually used that title of the book, or actually the passage that that comes from, and used it properly, but Josiah said this, Drew, I thought post-millennialism died after Biden's election.

Kind of like, you know, like they did after World War I and II.

Josiah, your time frame, your scope of time that you're viewing is too narrow. You gotta here we go. See, it's a non-falsifiable eschatological position, because if you say that things are going bad, and you look at the

This is one of those You're just not looking at it big enough, and so we just keep zooming out, ultimately, over the arc of 50 ,000 years,.

Something's going to get better. It was one of the things in one of the podcasts that, my rap report podcast, one of the podcasts, I actually, I drew a bone and said, you know, like, it's the good, the bad churches are dying out, the good churches are, and I said, you know, the post-millennials love it.

I was just waiting. It's like, I could tell when Drew got to that point, because I'm like, all of a sudden, I saw something on Facebook, like,.

Andrew said post-millennialism. When those moments come, you have to capitalize on them.

All right, so let's see. There is a question up front. I don't know if this is, if you want answers, but I'll put this up, so when you go through, you can answer. Question, is the primary post-mill argument to allegorize the promise of Scripture dealing with prophetic passages of the bodily resurrection?

So, I'll just put that out there for you as you go through it, and then, before you start, I'll give a, let your buddy there give a shout out, Mr. Huff himself, the Huff himself, says, good afternoon, evening, gentlemen, grateful for you both, and appreciate your hearts and approach on the topic.

Love you guys. I hope that doesn't mean that the next matter of theology is going to correct both of you or something, you know, but.

Hey, Chris is a pre-millennialist, so I guarantee you he's siding with Jim right now. He's siding in the light. Whatever side MacArthur's on, that's where you can find Chris. I like him. I haven't even met him, and I like him.

You'll like him more when you meet him, but, Drew, go ahead.

Drew’s Opening Response and Postmillennial Clarifications

Yeah, so, when I first heard of, you know, the sermon again, I said it was great, and it is. You should still go listen to it, but then there's this one comment, and then when Jim appeared on Apologetics Live, there was also another statement as well that was kind of made, which was, or it was a question that was asked, which was, what in your eschatology requires a physical resurrection?

So, when I heard that, and then, especially along coupled with, you know, to fulfill the promises of David, I said, well, I can answer the first part. What in your eschatology requires the physical resurrection of Christ?

I knew those points, or at least some of those points. I already had them kind of rattling around in my head, but then to fulfill the promises of David, I said, well, you know, let me look at these passages, at what he's using, and absolutely, I would agree that Paul and Peter are pulling from the same text.

Their sermons are parallel to one another, but I think the application as to how we should view their sermons and what they're saying, that's where Jim and I arrive at different points, and that really gets into, you know, kind of the nature of the kingdom, and what does it mean that the promise is fulfilled?

So, that's why I kind of, you know, did the response the way I did, and I had a lot of points to cover when I did that, but I would agree. Paul, Peter, their sermons parallel, addressing the same issues, making the same arguments, but I think really the point of disagreement is how we view and how we apply what they're saying in those texts.

Okay, so you have anything more you want to, for your, I mean, his introduction of himself, he's going long, and then his introduction to his position is super short.

Well, would you like me to continue to elaborate on what I was saying in my original introduction? If you could. So, can I just ask a question, Chris, or sorry, Drew? Yes. So, can you answer that question?

What in your eschatology requires physical resurrection? Yes, sir, yes, and actually I've got three points to answer that question. So, do you want me to do one at a time, or do you want me to throw all three of them out there?

Let's do one at a time, and then I'll raise my hand or something if we need to chat about it. Sure, sure. So, first, I'm very glad that you did make the statement that post-millennials and amillennials, that we affirm the bodily resurrection as required for our salvation.

I appreciate that. It's almost like the non-cessationist telling the cessationist, well, you don't believe in the Holy Spirit. I'm sure we deal with that, so I appreciate you saying that, but my first point is really just that.

Since the bodily resurrection is necessary for soteriology by default, it is necessary for my eschatology. So, in order for me to even be saved, I have to believe in the correct Christ, and the correct Christ rose bodily from the grave.

So, if I believe in a Jesus that rose spiritually, then my eschatological view doesn't really matter because I'm not saved to begin with. So, by necessity, for my eschatology, for it to be required for my eschatology, it's first and foremost required for my salvation.

So, to clarify on that point, then, if God had willed that the physical resurrection of Christ was not necessary, that His death on the cross would be sufficient, and that physical resurrection would not be necessary for your salvation, that your trust in a non-bodily raised Messiah was all that was necessary to save you, if God had deemed that that was the case, and you could still be saved in the will of God by a non-physical resurrection, then what in your eschatology would require physical resurrection?

Would your eschatology change apart from salvation? So, taking soteriology out of it, just looking at the way that you say that the promises to David were fulfilled, and with the nature of the kingdom, just looking at that, is there anything that would change if Jesus Christ had not risen from the dead bodily?

I mean, really, no, because my eschatological position, I don't think, would change just because of the following two points of what's required for eschatology and the bodily resurrection, but if the bodily resurrection is not required in my position, so say you just pose the question, if God removed that as a requirement, then we would have to remove that as a requirement for premillennialism as well, right?

Well, but if that were not required and Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then my premillennial eschatology could not be fulfilled the way that I say it. It would radically change premillennialism.

In fact, it would prove premillennialism false, which is the whole point of my contention, that if he did not rise physically from the dead, your postmillennial eschatology could still be fulfilled exactly as it is today.

It would not be necessary, but if he doesn't rise from the dead, my premillennialism is false, and so that's actually the narrow part of my claim, is that it is required, and that's what I think Peter and Paul were saying, was not that he was—Paul was not making the argument that the physical resurrection of Christ is required for our soteriology, therefore it's required for our eschatology.

Paul's argument was, because David knew that God was going to fulfill his promises in a certain way to him, he looked forward to the fulfillment, the bodily resurrection. Bodily resurrection was necessary to how David understood physical—the kingdom promises to be fulfilled.

Does that make sense? It does. So I had a question, a counter question, but then I forgot it. So I'll just, I'll note that down. Valid question by—valid counter. Okay. Because as I—that would be—so that first argument that you make in response to that, that's how I would counter that.

I would say that you're right, it is necessary for soteriology, but it seems to me that you're taking the necessity of physical resurrection for your soteriology, which we both affirm, and then saying, okay, but I'm going to take my eschatology and attach it to this, and make since this, therefore that, and just attach it to my soteriology, and I'm saying take soteriology out of it.

If Christ had not risen from the dead, would it change your eschatology for me? If Christ said bodily, bodily, it would radically change my eschatology, because my eschatology, as I see it, could never be fulfilled in that way.

I need—my premillennialism needs a bodily resurrection to be fulfilled, but my—and I'm arguing that Peter and Paul were arguing that the fulfillment of David's promise needed bodily resurrection, and I don't think a post-millennialist can say that.

Right. So, in your—that Paul and Peter are arguing that the bodily resurrection is required for—to fulfill the promises of David. Now, would—because my view is that Christ, when He ascends, He—and we can take this to Daniel 7, He enters into heaven where He is then given the kingdom, and then He sits on a throne.

So, now, I mean, and really, you get into discussing the nature of the kingdom, so—but then the kingdom is eternal, and it is forever, so in the premillennial view, when we're talking about this kingdom that's being set up here on earth, physical kingdom here on earth, you know, one of the questions I would have is, do we believe that this earth will one day be destroyed?

Because then, if there's a kingdom established here on earth, and it's only for a thousand years, that's not a kingdom here that will actually last forever, then it has to be eternal, which means it has to be one from a heavenly rule.

Okay, so, as a premillennialist, my answer to that would be that, yes, the rule and the reign of the Messiah is an eternal rule and reign, but the manifestation of that is different. It's different today than it will be in the physical kingdom.

He is still ruling and reigning. At some point, He will take David's throne, and the beginning of that rule and reign in Jerusalem will start at a certain point that is yet future to us. The physical manifestation of that, which will then be the fulfillment of the promises to David, that kingdom will go into the new heavens and the new earth, but it doesn't need to—it doesn't—it will not end.

That Davidic kingdom and the Davidic throne and the Davidic rule will not end just because this world is wrapped up and there's a judgment that's part of that. That will continue over His saints and over His people into a new heavens and a new earth.

That becomes an eternal Davidic kingdom, if you will. So, it becomes an eternal reign. It starts—obviously, He's reigning and ruling spiritually now. We would not say—we would not disagree on that, nor would we disagree that He's ruling in heaven.

I think we would disagree that He's ruling in heaven on David's throne right now, because I would not say that He is. I would say that there's going to be a revivification of that Davidic throne and kingdom that will have an earthly manifestation, but then will go into all of eternity, so that for me as a pre-millennialist, we will worship for all of eternity in an eternal kingdom, but an eternal Davidic kingdom that will be a rule and a reign in a new Jerusalem, in a new heavens and a new earth, because this world cannot handle the total fulfillment of the Davidic promises.

It's something that can start in this world, but it's not something that this world could ever accommodate, because it must be an eternal kingdom and an eternal rule and reign, if that makes sense. Okay, so your view, the pre-millennial view, isn't that Christ comes and He establishes a kingdom for a thousand years, but then after that thousand years, it ends, it continues on into the new heavens and the new earth.

Right, because it's the same King basically taking His kingdom and His throne out of the Jerusalem and Israel of the present world, and basically destroying by fire this creation, this world, taking that kingdom and that throne and those people over whom He has ruled, who belong to Him, and creating a brand new planet for Him to plant that kingdom and that rule in with a new Jerusalem, and that will go on.

The manifestation of that in the new heavens and new earth will be everlasting. Okay, okay. Let me write that down. Sure. I'm taking, just so for people watching, I'm taking notes so I can learn too. And I'm taking some too as well, so.

Andrew, do you have any points of clarification? I do think Drew had, there was another point that he brought up in refutation to that, and it had to do with the nature of the kingdom, because Drew, you and I are not in disagreement at all as to what Christ is currently doing.

Right. What we are thinking, for the sake of those who are listening, I think where we do disagree is, is what Christ currently doing the fulfillment of what God promised to David? The fullness of the fulfillment that God promised.

Okay, okay, because that was going to be my next question is, if Peter and Paul, because in my response, I kind of laid out kind of their breakdown of their sermons. And then, but my question, my next question was going to be is, if they viewed it at the resurrection as the fulfillment, then what is left to be fulfilled?

So that was my next question. So it's not the fullness of the fulfillment, it's just fulfilled in that part, but it's not in totality. Yeah. So I'm not, I'm not making the claim that Peter and Paul viewed the resurrection of Christ as the total fulfillment of the promises of David.

My point is that Peter and Paul viewed bodily resurrection as necessary for the ultimate fulfillment of what God promised to David. Okay. Meaning that they don't look at the resurrection and say, therefore, there's nothing left to be fulfilled to David, because he rose, and therefore he has fulfilled all those promises.