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.

We're going to 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. Svestro and Pastor Justin this week.

Next week, in case I forget to say it later, next week we have Sarah Cleveland on, and I know

Dr. Svestro will be there then for that. 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.

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 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 a great preacher, but after you listen to your pastor's sermon, if you need to listen to 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. This is the thing, folks.

You think about Matthew Henry's commentaries, and we look at this, and 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 -the -cuff kind of remarks.

You get— One of my favorite books is Stephen Charnock's 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 Osmond, okay? He's probably going to 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 can now say that.

He was. He's no longer— We'll have to find out. Did Chris just kick him off because of the post -mill?

I don't know. We'll find out. No, it wasn't anything like that. Drew Von Neda had done, on the last episode he was on on Matter of Theology, did a response to Jim.

And they had talked. It had been planned that the two of them will come on and have a discussion. This isn't a debate.

It's not a formal debate. They're each going to get time to give their premise and give some opening arguments. And I'm going to then probably bow out and just—

I'll be here, but they'll let them have just a discussion back and forth. Here's a couple of things I want you to notice with this.

I can already anticipate this in tonight's show. One, you're going to see two guys that know their position well.

Two, you're going to see two guys that can acknowledge where the other person has good arguments.

And three, you're going to 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— Well, okay, everyone on Facebook, learn from this, okay?

Now, as I bring them in, just real quick, I'm going to 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, so there you go. I mean, I can't help it that Drew just decided he would make that easy by staying in the dark.

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

Exactly. I just got it. Got it. So, real quick,

I'll let you each give— if you guys want to give a further introduction of— Jim, I'll let you go first with a quick introduction if you guys want to give any introductions.

And then, Jim, I'll let you start with your opening kind of just summarization.

Okay. First of all, I appreciate the high praise. It was undue. Let me hear you say that, folks.

I told you he'd say that. So, just so 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. 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 sermons, so that makes him a heretic,

I guess. Jeremy, I know where you live, and I've been in your house. Remember that.

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 known 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.

Now, it's not my intention, so don't anyone 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 -mill, an all -mill, 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 Hough.

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 premillennial 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. Okay.

One quick question someone does have for you, Drew, is has Drew always been postmillennial in his eschatology or has he had a different position before?

No, I've not always been postmillennial. In fact, when I was younger, I actually believe that, you know, the left behind movies were how it was going to be.

And so that's what I thought. I kind of, and then I just kind of shelved that. And only, you know, more recently did

I even, you know, start diving in and learning a little bit about postmillennialism. And that just kind of,

I said, well, that seems to be more consistent with, with kind of the flow of scripture and the victory of Christ in the gospel.

So, so that's - No wonder he went postmill. 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, I'm going to let Jim, I'm going to let you kind of start with your opening.

And when you're done, I'll let Drew. I mean, at this rate, Drew might, his opening may take the entire two hours,

Jim. We don't know. Look, 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, he preaches a sermon that uses the same text that Peter does in Acts chapter two.

And he follows basically the same theological and logical outline that Peter does in Acts chapter two with his first sermon.

I think that Luke's point in that is to demonstrate that Peter was following exactly, sorry, that Paul was following exactly

Peter's arguments and that the two apostles were preaching the same gospel. There's a, 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, he, one of the points that he makes is that the, 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 seven. Referring of course, to the Davidic promise and to the Davidic kingdom. Now to, in Peter's initial sermon in Acts chapter two, his statement is even more explicit because in Acts chapter two,

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 seven, but Psalm 16. And he spoke of the

Messiah that he was neither abandoned to Hades nor 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 two, 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 in 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 by, strictly, by postmillennial eschatology.

It's compatible with it, but it's not required. So it's kind of like it's something that's sort of 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, et cetera, 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 that 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.

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 very, I'm kind of, 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 -millennialists because I've asked a couple of post -millennialists and I haven't gotten any kind of a satisfying answer.

So when Chris Hough 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 it did after World War I and II. Josiah, your time frame, your scope of time that you're viewing is too narrow.

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 calendar 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, my rap report podcast, one of the podcasts, I actually,

I threw Drew a bone and said, you know, like, hey, it's 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 -millennials.

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 to answer this, 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 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 premillennialist. 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. All right. 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. 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 when

Jim appeared on Apologetics Live, there was also another statement as well that that was 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, well,

I can answer the first part. What what in your eschatology requires the physical resurrection of Christ?

I knew those points, or at least some of those points already had them kind of rattling around in my head.

But then to fulfill the promises of David, I said, well, well, you know, let me look at the at these passages at what he's using.

And and absolutely, I would agree that that Paul and Peter are pulling from from the same text.

Their their their sermons are parallel to one another. But but I think the application as to how how we should view their sermons and what they're saying, that's where Jim and I arrive at at different points.

And that really gets into, you know, kind of the nature of the kingdom and and what what does it mean that the promise is fulfilled?

So that's why that's why I kind of, you know, did that, did the response the way I did. And I had a lot of points to cover when

I did that. But but but I would agree, Paul, Peter, their sermons parallel addressing the same issues, making the same arguments.

But I think I think really the point of disagreement is how we view and how we apply what they're what they're saying in those in those texts.

OK, so you have anything more you want to for your introduction of himself.

He's going long. And then his introduction to his position is super short, like. 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? 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 so I'm first,

I'm very glad that that you did make the statement that, you know, postmillennials and all millennials that we affirm the bodily resurrection as required for our salvation.

I appreciate that. That's it's almost like the non cessation is telling the cessation is, you know, well, you don't believe in the

Holy Spirit. You know, we sure we deal with that. But 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 required, first and foremost required for my salvation.

So if so, to clarify on that point, then if God had willed that the physical resurrection of Christ was not necessary, that his death in 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 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 points,

I don't think, or 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 Jesus did not, 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 my 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 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, 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, 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?

If Christ had 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 postmillennialist can say that. Right. So, so, so, so in your, that, 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, when he ascends, he, and we can take this to Daniel 7, he enters, he enters into heaven where he is then given the kingdom and then he sits on a throne.

So, so, so now, I mean, and really you get into discussing the nature of the kingdom. So, but, but then the kingdom is eternal and it is forever.

So in the premillennial view, when we, 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, because then if there's a kingdom established here on earth, then, 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 a 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, 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 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, 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 all the

Davidic promises. This, that has to be, that has to, 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, 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 would go on. And 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, 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, the nature of the kingdom, because,

Drew, Drew, you and I are not in disagreement at all as to what

Christ is currently doing. Right. What we are, 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. Okay. The fullness, the fullness of the fulfillment that God promised.

Okay, okay. Because that was going to be my next, my next question is if they, if Peter and Paul, because, you know, in, in my, my response,

I kind of laid out kind of their breakdown of their, 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, that was my next question. So, so it's not the fullness of the fulfillment. It's just, 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.

What they think that they, what I think the argument that Peter and Paul are making is that those promises to David required bodily resurrection.

Therefore, Christ had to rise from the dead and they, they did not come to say, therefore, the kingdom is manifested today and it's actually, um, it's actually fulfilled and happening today.

They were saying the, the, the kingdom, let me try it again. The kingdom promises require bodily resurrection.

He has been raised, therefore repent and believe. And I don't believe that they went, I don't believe that they were saying this has fulfilled the promise to David.

Therefore, we're in the kingdom now. I think that they were saying this, what is necessary to fulfill the promise that David has happened.

That's still a long way off. Therefore, repent and believe now. Okay. I gotcha.

I see what you're saying. Yeah. So, I mean, one of the things that was asked earlier, uh, as I don't know if you want to address it now,

Drew, is some of the, just the, when, when you look at some of the passages, I'm trying to find the question again, but, uh, as far as, uh, taking things here, it is allegorical.

So the question that Chris had asked is, and this isn't the Huff, this is Chris, the calculus man, um, is, is, is the primary postmill argument to allegorize the promise of scripture dealing with prophetic passages with bodily resurrection?

Um, I mean, I don't think that's the primary, the primary position is to allegorize it, but I think we'll, you know, as we, as we continue on and we start pulling out scripture, you know,

I think, I think we'll kind of see that. Um, so, I think there's a, there's, there's something hidden in that question, uh,

Drew, that I don't, that could possibly be mischaracterizing your position. You don't allegorize passages that deal with bodily resurrection.

Right. Because you believe the bodily resurrection literally happens. in Psalm 16, in Psalm 16, you believe that that refers to Christ.

Isaiah 53 when it says that he will, his grave was with the rich man and yet he divided the booty with the strong and, you know, he, he rose again, he lives again and justifies the many.

You, those Old Testament passages and New Testament passages, you do not allegorize any of those passages in terms of the bodily resurrection of Christ because you affirm bodily resurrection.

Right. What I think, what I think you allegorize, and maybe this is just to clarify the question, what I think you allegorize is the way in which a bodily risen

Christ fulfills the kingdom promises to David. So, whereas I would say there's a literal physical kingdom, you would say, or a literal 1 ,000 year reign, you would say that the 1 ,000 year is not literal, it's symbolic of a long period of time.

Right. So, it's not the passages that deal with bodily resurrection that you allegorize or turn into symbols.

Right. So, we would say the way in which Christ reigns is not physical here on earth.

It is from a heavenly rule. Yeah. But I don't believe that's allegorizing it.

I believe that's actually taking Scripture and saying, especially Daniel 7 and saying this is what

Scripture says of how the heavenly rule will take place when Christ ascends into heaven. So, that's not allegorizing it.

That's saying he is actually ruling and reigning now. Yeah. I just didn't want the question to be presented or to be understood in such a way as that you allegorize passages that deal with bodily resurrection.

Right. No. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good question. Okay. So, let me see.

I'm trying to get... So, here's a question that comes up from Melissa.

What is it when you think ruling and reigning... What is it when you think the ruling and reigning is a future event?

I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. I think what she means by the question is what eschatological position holds that...

What would you call yourself if you believe that the ruling and reigning is a future event? Yeah. Okay. And so,

I think that Drew would say that the ruling and reigning of Christ in a certain manifestation or way is yet a future event and so would we.

So, I would say that there is a ruling and reigning of Christ, a physical kingdom that is yet future.

That would be pre -millennialism, but Drew, would you say the same thing that there is a ruling and reigning that is yet future?

Well, I would say there is a... As the gospel goes forth and as the kingdom grows here on earth, the kingdom will get bigger and the ruling and reigning of Christ will still be from heaven but not here on earth.

But the kingdom will continue to expand as the gospel goes forth. So, there is a ruling and reigning that takes place now but it will be in totality later as the gospel continues to expand throughout the world.

And to clarify your position, you don't believe that we're in the new heavens and the new earth now and so therefore this is the only kind of ruling and reigning that there will be, correct?

Yes, well, so let me address that just because there are different post -millennialists that view that differently and I'm going to answer honestly and say that's not something that I've delved into as it pertains to the new heavens and the new earth.

Okay, so your position is that this is not the new heavens and the new earth? I mean,

I haven't studied, I know guys like David Chilton, again, at the beginning I said read

Chilton with caution. Chilton would say that this is, we are in the new heavens and new earth as it pertains to quality because he references,

I believe, a passage in Isaiah where it says, you know, even in the new heavens and new earth there will be death, but I don't know that I'm fully, that I'm satisfied with that.

I do believe there will be a future new heavens and new earth in terms, we'll say, of quality but not as what we're experiencing right now.

Okay. But that, but again, that's not, the new heavens and new earth is a portion that I have not gone into Gotcha.

Okay. So that's still, that's something that is related but not necessarily germane directly to what we're talking about here.

Okay. All right. Did you have another response that you wanted to give or a question,

Andrew? Sorry. Yeah, there's another question that came in and not really so much on the specifics of the bodily resurrection with the two views, but I think,

I think what we're seeing is some folks that have questions really about post -mill. And so, you know,

Drew, it might be good just to give you a little bit to expound on post -mill for folks. Well, let me tell folks that again,

I'm not an authority. So I'll answer your questions as best I can. Yeah. So just, just to be fair,

I don't want, and what I don't want to do is I don't want to make up an answer for you. But we want to do the post -mill guys so that everyone thinks you're just about that right now.

KT's asking, you know, some of the people may think that Satan is bound, don't they? But he isn't.

So. Yeah, so the post -mill view of that would say it would reference back to Christ where Christ says, you know, you can't plunder the strong man's house unless you first bind the strong man.

So, and then, but the idea of binding, binding Satan would be so that he cannot deceive the nations any longer so that now that Christ has come,

Christ has conquered death, hell, and the grave, the gospel can go forth to all nations and that people of all nations can actually receive the gospel that they won't be deceived by Satan.

So that's kind of, in short, that's kind of like the post -mill view that Christ, when he came, he bound the strong man so that he wouldn't be able to deceive the nations.

So how, I guess in order to chase that rabbit, we have to get a little bit off of where we're at right now, but how is, how are the nations not deceived right now?

I mean, because I look around me and I see a lot of deception. Yeah, well, what we see as, you know, good, reformed

Calvinists, you know, we do deal with the depravity of man. So, so man is born, all his faculties are tainted by sin.

So, and it's only when, when God, you know, changes their heart, draws them to himself, that, that the per, that the person is actually changed.

So, but that doesn't, but we're still called to take the gospel to the, to the ends of the earth. And so when we do that, we have an assurance that no matter the nation that we're going, that we're going to, whenever we go and we proclaim the gospel, the gospel, we can have faith and assurance that God is pulling people from these nations.

and the binding of Satan was necessary to accomplish that? I mean,

Jesus said it was in, in binding, binding, in his, in his binding, when he talks about binding the strong man, you can't plunder his house unless you've bound the strong man.

So, it seems as though it was important to Jesus. So, is it, what is it possible for people to be saved and to have a true faith in Yahweh and for, to be pious and justified by faith prior to the strong man being bound?

I mean, I think what we see, let me think about that because I want to come back.

Okay. So, let me, let me offer you a pre -millennial Just because what we, you know, what we see in, even when

Christ came, you know, before he even said all those things and, and went to the cross and did all that, we still see people who, who do have faith in Christ, right?

We see, we see Gentiles and Centurion, people having faith.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. So therefore, God can save people by changing their hearts and regenerating them without necessarily needing to bind the strong man because in my understanding of the binding of the strong man is that Jesus was using an analogy there to describe his ability to come into this world and to release captives from Satan by casting out demons.

And that was the whole purpose of, or that's the whole point of the analogy in Matthew chapter 12 there where the

Pharisees saw him casting out demons and they said, well he does this by the power of Satan. And Jesus was merely saying, I can't do this by the,

I'm not doing this by the power of Satan. Satan wouldn't plunder himself. So therefore, I must be stronger than Satan and the only one stronger than Satan is the

Messiah. And they knew this and they were, they had to acknowledge that and therefore that's what they were rejecting which is why

Jesus said that. You reject that truth, that's the unforgivable sin. You blaspheme the Holy Spirit there. And he was just using the binding of the strong man not to speak of what's talked about in Revelation 20 but simply to say,

I'm doing this, I'm plundering Satan's kingdom right now. This act of delivering people from him, the miracle of exorcism is proof that I'm stronger than him.

And therefore, I can come into him, I can do with him whatever I want. I don't think that he was talking, if that had happened in, if that had been stated in, say,

Matthew chapter 28 where Jesus is saying, go into all the world and preach the gospel and he had laid out the binding of the strong man teaching there in Matthew 28 instead of Matthew 12, then

I would think that the postmillennial argument might have a little bit more weight to it but he doesn't. It's not in that context of evangelism.

He's using it as an illustration of his own work of exorcising demons from people. Got you.

Wrote that one down. Okay. So, so, so, so just, just to clarify what you're saying,

Matthew, Matthew 12, the binding of the strong man is, is different, is not what, what's being referenced in Revelation 20.

It's, it's they're two completely separate things. The binding of Satan and the binding of strong man, they're, they're, they're not linked together.

Right. Because if you, I mean, even if you take a mildly preterist or pre, postmillennial view of the book of Revelation that it was written prior to 70

AD, the author there is still talking about something that's yet future to him at the writing of Revelation.

Therefore, it can't be something that Jesus did 30 years prior. You know what I mean? Okay. If he's talking about something that happens in the future, this binding, he can't be referring to something that happened 30 years prior to that and then be, but yet saying that this binding will happen yet in the future.

So if the binding in Revelation is future to the writing and the revelation that John received there, then it can't be what happened in the, in John's past.

Otherwise he would have had to have said this binding happened when Jesus did these things, but he doesn't.

He, it still seems future to John as he writes Revelation 20. I noted that one too because that's a good point.

You know, with the fact that even, even in the, the preterist view and I would,

I would believe that Revelation is written either in 68 AD or, or maybe a year before that he, he is still talking about something future.

So let me, let me shock you with something you won't hear most pre -millennialists say. I believe Revelation was written prior to 70

AD as well. I heard that. My view of eschatology does not require a late date for the book of Revelation.

You, you, when did, when did you say it was that you thought, I know you mentioned it on the, on the previous podcast.

I, I just don't think that a late date for the book of Revelation is necessary to hold to pre -millennial theology.

If a pre, if a post -millennialist said, I think Revelation was written in 37

AD, I would say I, I, that doesn't change my pre -millennialism at all. Because it,

I don't, you can, I can concede an early date for the book of Revelation even prior to 70

AD and still believe that the events described there are yet future because it's,

I'm not, I'm not trying to, I'm not, I'm not leveraging an old date in order to, to make proof for pre -millennialism.

Right. No, and, and yeah, but I think the point that you just made about Revelation 20 and the, and the author of Revelation still looking forward even in a, even in a preterist view.

I, I do think that's a valid and good point that I've, that I've actually never thought about. Oh, okay.

Thank you. So, and that's what I promised you guys that you're going to see with these two men is you're going to see them not fighting and arguing but trying to learn from one another and, you know, seeing when each other has good points.

So before we go to someone who's backstage, just staying on topic,

Josiah, Pastor Josiah says this, Drew, Drew, the strong man being bound was in the context of Jesus casting out demons and his response to the

Pharisees saying that, saying Jesus casts out demons by the prince of demons, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

I don't know if you have any comment you want to make on that. Well, no, that's because that's exactly what, what Jim was, was talking about.

He went at that entire context. So I don't know, I don't know if, if he missed it, missed Jim saying that while, you know,

I don't know if he missed it. Yeah. And, and we'll, we'll end up, before we go to a commercial break,

I don't know if either of you want to deal with this one. Kevin says, thanks, thanks for great dialogue. Always interesting. Perhaps one of you could comment on pan -millennialism position.

So that's the belief that no matter what happens, it's all going to pan out, right? Yeah. I think the better view, you know, would be pro -millennial that if there's a millennium, we should be all for it.

That way, we're, we're, we're, we're, it just sounds a whole lot better, but we got, we got, we got someone backstage, you know, someone who is, you know, known for his eschatology debates it all the time is to come in, give drew a hard time, challenge him with some questions.

You know, every time I come on here, I am the post -millennial whipping boy to apologetics live.

That's your, your viewers know this, you know, I was going, so I was going to,

I thought Justin Pierce was going to be here because I was going to wear my Georgia hat to make him feel bad as a Tennessee fan, because to be a

Tennessee fan, you have to be pre -millennial because there's just no hope for you right there. And I don't know anything about that, but I should say that, you know,

I will say, Hey, be praying for just pastor, Justin Pearson, his family, his, his had, had fell and got, has a gash in the back of his neck.

And that's why he's not here. So, although he is, he is commenting here, hold it.

Here we go. He posts a comment. I love the conversation and Drew is still a hairy tick.

You know, I'm, I'm, I'm offended that he keeps calling me hairy. You do have a beard, you know,

Drew, but before we have the next person come in, you, you may, you may need to grab yourself a pillow and take a nap and get yourself well, well rested for this because, you know, it may be more challenging for you, but, but if you did want to do that,

I would suggest just in my opinion, that you go and get a, my pillow. Uh, if you would, if you would do that and use the promo code

SFE, not only would you save yourself some money, but again, an American made product that would help you sleep better.

And from the looks of you, Drew, you need some beauty sleep. I'm just saying, you know, I, so, so Jim and I were emailing the other day and I told him,

I said, you wouldn't need to have a, my pillow. If you were a post -millennialist, you'd be able to sleep better at night.

But, you know, Drew, if, if Andrew really did believe in the quality of this product, you would think that he would provide a complimentary, my pillow for each of his guests who come on here and make good broadcast for him.

You know, if it wasn't for Andrew's guests, these shows wouldn't take off. The question is you assume that I don't.

Ah, so you don't, I've never seen a, my pillow show up at my house. I know. Maybe, you know, who gets my pillow slippers,

Chris Honholds, Chris Honholds got them on, on matter of theology. Correct. It was actually no, sorry, correction.

It was a reason Chris was on from matter of theology, but yeah, yeah, he got, he got the, my, the, my, my slippers,

I guess not my pillow slippers, but my slippers, but he's waiting for winter to try them on.

Cause they're, they're all fuzzy and warm, but I, I love the, the mattress topper that I got.

I got that recently and absolutely love that. You know, if I told my wife, I said, I said, if Andrew gives me a mattress topper,

I'll become pre -millennial. Can we test that, Jim? If you give me a pillow, if you give me a pillow on a pair of slippers,

Andrew, I'll stay pre -millennial. Let's see how committed

Drew is to his theology. No, here, here'd be a funny thing,

Jim. You know, I, what I really should do is send him a twin size mattress topper.

So it's one that he and his wife can use. Just for my wife? Yeah, exactly.

Well, you know, you know what? She, she is, she is pregnant, so she might appreciate that. Yeah. This is the longest, my pillow promotion has ever been on Apologetics Live.

I'm sure that, that Anthony and Justin will try to outdo it somehow, but, but folks, the show is sponsored by MyPillow.

If you want to get yourself on MyPillow, get a good night's sleep, support the show at the same time, you can go to MyPillow .com,

use promo code SFE, or call the special number we have with them, 1 -800 -873 -0176.

That's 800 -873 -0176. And use promo code

SFE, or just go to MyPillow .com. And again, use that promo code.

So now, are you ready, are you ready to be dazzled by the, the, the most known eschatology expert in the world,

Justin Peters? Oh wait. Oh, I thought we were talking NAR. NAR and, and, and Post Malone, kind of like the same,

I guess. Man. Not, not quite.

I wasn't going to go there, but. I, I could shock you. I could shock your listeners about what they actually teach in their schools.

Yeah. There's a lot of bad theology they teach, but pre -millennium, one of them that's, you know, broken clock is right twice a day.

But Justin said he did have a question for you. Oh, well, hold on. I, I hope

I'm ready for it because Justin, Justin's questions are hard. Actually, actually, it's not going to be that hard because in the, in the time that I was kind of backstage, y 'all pretty much dealt with it because I was,

I was going to go to revelation 20, which, which I think is, is

I've heard a millennialist admit that revelation 20. Yeah, that's, that's a problem.

It seems to be a problem with post mill too, because of, of Satan being bound.

That has to be a present reality. And I just, you know, and I've even heard, you know,

I think a guy who does a lot of work in eschatology is Gary DeMar. And I think recently I heard Gary DeMar even say revelation 20 still, you know, confuses him at some points.

So, yeah, yeah, yeah. Can I just say revelation 20 doesn't confuse me at all.

It is as clear as a button in the bell water, man. It's just, it couldn't be clearer. I had nothing, nothing about it confuses me.

All you have to do is just read it. I, yeah. Go ahead.

No, go ahead, Justin. Oh, just revelation 20 fits hand in glove with pre -millennialism, but it's a, it's, it's a stickler for, it's a problem for the post mill and AMEL positions.

I think it's, you've got to do some real, real gymnastics, I think to accommodate for revelation 20.

Yeah. Well, and there's, you know, when I look at, cause, cause in my initial response, you know,

I looked at Daniel two, I looked at Daniel seven. So kind of those prophecies, um, as to the establishment of the divine kingdom, the rule of the, of the kingdom.

And then I just, you know, and from there I went, you know, very heavily into Matthew talking about, you know, things that Jesus said about the kingdom and the nature of the kingdom.

And so based upon those things was where I kind of, uh, how I kind of fall in my, my post -millennial view.

But then, you know, one thing I, one thing that I've already said that I don't want to do is

I don't want to come to a text and try to make it say something, force it to say something that it, that it most likely doesn't say.

So, so when I come to a text like, like this, where I see a lot of, I'll say famous post -millennialists, um, who preach, you know, year long sermons, trying to prove post -millennialism, you know,

I don't want to impose that on the text. I want the text to tell me that, um, naturally.

Um, and so there, there are places where, you know, things that I've covered that, that I go, yeah,

I get that naturally from the text, but then there's places where I read it and I go, I really have to do some work in here to go, is this what the text is telling me?

Sure. Yeah. So, uh, Jim, Melissa is saying,

I would love to see Jim Osmond and Matt Slick discuss eschatology. Pre -millennialism.

What is, is Matt Slick not pre -mill? Uh, he, okay.

How can we describe this? Matt Slick would be Amil that believes in a future

Israel. Okay. Let me, all mills are actually post mills because post mills believe in the, the, the, their view of, of the millennium is, you know, figurative, like an

Amillennial would be. So whenever the Amill believes that Christ returns, it's post mill.

It's after that millennium. And I think the Amill would say that the post mill position is really

Amillennialism. They would. Yeah, they would say that. Let me ask this.

you know, we've, uh, unless, unless Jim and Drew, you guys have more with the bodily resurrection you want to deal with, or, uh,

I had a, I had a couple of questions that I would like to feel to Drew, if it's sort of a cross examination, if I can, just for clarification,

I think it would be helpful. What's that? Justin, I'll go backstage for a bit and let you, you continue with that then.

Okay. And then I'm going to have Andrew. Yeah, I'll, I will try, try my best.

Okay. So my pillow, Andrew, we got the advertisement out of the way.

All right. So, um, okay. So a couple of questions just in sort of a cross examination way, so that I can be clear on your position and be clear how you would answer this.

When, when God gave the promise to David in second Samuel chapter seven, do you think that David understood those promises would be fulfilled in the way that you are saying those promises are fulfilled?

No, I don't. I don't. I think David would have understood them, um, as a physical throne, but I also, but I also would believe that as say, when we get into the new

Testament and the Pharisees are waiting for an earthly kingdom, the apostles are waiting for an earthly kingdom.

But then Jesus says, you know, my kingdom is not of this, of this world. It's not of this realm.

Um, he, he even says, uh, that, you know, my, the kingdom is not one that you can look at and say, there it is, or let's go over there.

So I think, you know, David would have viewed it as a, as a physical kingdom, just like the Pharisees and the apostles did.

But what, but I think Jesus kind of made clear as we see him doing through throughout the gospels, you know, kind of correcting people's views.

Uh, I think he made clear that his kingdom was actually not of this world. It's actually not a place where you can say, there it is, or, or let's go over there.

So, but, but I think David would have viewed it as a physical kingdom. Yes. So David would have understood that the

God would, it was going to fulfill the promise by, by physically seating one of his descendants on his physical throne and establishing him as King over a

Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem. Correct? Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Do you think then, or would a post -millennialist then say that David's descendants, that the, the subsequent

Kings of Israel and the prophets who came afterwards and which would have in David's from David's day on would have included, um,

I'm trying to think. I think all the major prophets and minor prophets all would have come after David. Do you think that all of them would have understood it to be a physical

King? Would they have had the same understanding that David had? Well, I think if we look at all, everyone that came after David, like all, um, all the, the, the rulers, and I think, yes, they would, they would have, but where I kind of get hung up is, you know,

Daniel seven, where, where he is ascended and there receives the kingdom and the rule and the, and dominion and glory.

So that's, that, that would be kind of my pushback as to how do we, how do we reconcile that part?

Because I do think because when we get into the new Testament, we see people expecting the physical kingdom.

Um, but, but how would we reconcile that with Daniel would be kind of my, with Daniel seven would be kind of my pushback with that.

Okay. So would you say that the disciples prior to the resurrection of Christ would have agreed with David's interpretation of the kingdom promises?

Yes. Would you say that the disciples, would you say that the disciples immediately after the resurrection of Christ would have agreed with David's interpretation of the kingdom promises?

Uh, no, I think I actually think that the resurrection, because what we see in, you know, especially

Peter's sermon and Paul's sermon and Peter's sermon, Acts two, Paul's sermon, Acts 13, is that they're speaking of the resurrection as the fulfillment of that promise.

That because they, because they're tying in, um, the, the ascension to him sitting on the throne.

Um, their view, they're viewing it as the eternal kingdom. Um, not, not that there was a physical one anymore because he, he kept correcting them, you know, all, you know, throughout his ministry.

So when the disciples asked Jesus right before the ascension, is it now that you're going to establish and restore the kingdom?

And he didn't correct them and said, the timing of this is not for you to know.

Do you think that they, at that moment were assuming a post millennial theology, or do you think that they were still at that point believing that there was going to be a physical establishment of the kingdom?

And the reason I'm asking that is because this is tied into the observations that we were making earlier about Acts 2 and Acts 13.

When those, let's say Peter at the ascension is assuming that there's going to be a physical kingdom because he asked

Jesus, it would make sense to Peter if he were, if he, if he, if Peter had at the moment of the ascension, the same understanding of those promises as David had when they were given, then his statement there, the disciples statement in Acts 2 or Acts 1 would make sense because Peter then would be expecting that, okay, if there's going to be an eternal kingdom and it's going to be fulfilled physically, then we need a

Messiah who's risen from the dead bodily. We have standing before us a Messiah who's risen from the dead bodily.

So therefore, is it now that you're going to establish that kingdom? See, given if we, if we understand

Peter as believing the promises would be fulfilled in the same way that David did, that his statement in Acts 1 makes a lot of sense because he would have seen all that was necessary for those promises to be fulfilled, standing right in front of him.

And it would just make sense that now would be the time. So when he asked Jesus is now the time, Jesus said, the time is not for you to know that's in the father's hands.

You are to go into all the world and preach the gospel as if Jesus is, he didn't correct that misunderstanding of the kingdom.

Then you turn the page to Acts 2. And when Peter says, knowing that God was going to see one of his descendants on his throne,

David looked forward to the resurrection. The resurrection has happened. Therefore, repent and believe. It's almost as if Peter still in Acts 2 had the same understanding of those promises that David would have had, that physical resurrection was necessary because there was going to be a physical kingdom.

And so in Acts 2, he makes that connection that this physical manifestation of the kingdom required physical resurrection and the

Messiah has been physically raised. Therefore, repent and believe, but he doesn't begin to talk about the kingdom. So I'm just trying to trace there an understanding of those

Davidic promises from David all the way through to Peter in Acts 2. And then of course I would say the parallel in Acts 13 and to say that I think

Peter, the Old Testament or sorry, David, the Old Testament prophets, Peter and Paul all would have had the same understanding of those promises.

So when I read that consistent theme of kingdom coming and kingdom understanding between David and then

Peter, and then Paul, it seems as if they all agree. Right. So, but when we get into Peter's sermon here in Acts 2, and he talks about the resurrection,

David looked forward to the resurrection. We get to the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the father, but then once we get to 34, for it was not

David who ascended into heaven. And I think that's where we get a big contrast between who Christ is and who

David is, an earthly king and then an eternal king. And then we get

Psalm 1101 right here. The Lord said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. So I think, you know, what we see is we see

Peter talking about the resurrection as the fulfillment.

And then when he ascends to the right hand of the father, that is kind of the fulfillment because he's sitting at the right hand of power.

He's sitting at the right hand of the father and he's ruling and reigning from there, which

I know you would agree that he is now ruling and reigning, but I would say that is the fulfillment where you have, because he makes the distinction for it was not

David who ascended. So he's contrasting David and Christ. So David didn't rise from the dead.

So David can't return to his throne. Christ rose from the dead in order not to just be seated, not to be seated on a physical throne, but to be seated on an eternal throne where there is everlasting dominion and everlasting rule.

To clarify there, that distinction you just made in pre -millennial theology, we would not say that David's kingdom is going to be a temporary throne or a non -everlasting rule or reign.

Okay. So we would agree with that, that the rule and reign must be everlasting. It must be eternal.

Right. And that goes back to what kind of we discussed at the beginning where the earthly reign, but then continues into the, into the new heavens and new earth for eternity.

Right. It would be to me, I would liken it, and this is a poor analogy and every analogy links, limps, but it would be as if the kingdom of this world, a kingdom of this world moves its capital from one nation to another nation.

You know, if a kingdom, if you had a king and a kingdom who ruled and reigned over a territory, and then that territory expanded and they took the king, the kingdom and the entire seat of power and moved it from one location to another.

That's how I see the Davidic kingdom being transferred into the eternal state is basically it's coming from this world.

This world's being wrapped up, but that seat of power is still the same seat of power. It's still the same king, same kingdom, same people, same subjects.

And now we're just transferring it into the eternal state. And it, of course will go on forever and ever. And it, it has to have a physical rate, physically bodily raised

Messiah in order for that kingdom to, for him to rule in that way. Right. So, so let me just clarify how, how

I'm kind of seeing this in, in contrast to kind of the pre -millennial view.

So if, if, if Peter here is looking at this as the

Christ being raised from the dead, as the, the fulfillment of the promises of David, which will the, the full, the, the total fulfillment will be in the future on a literal kingdom and a literal throne.

How I'm viewing that is why doesn't Peter say that, but why does he go into actually the, the exaltation of Christ when he gets there?

And then he, he, he kind of, you know, stops it right there at, at the Lord said unto Psalm 110, one, the

Lord said unto my Lord, sit on my right hand until I make your footstools an enemy. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both

Lord and Christ. So, I mean, then he, he just kind of reiterates it right there. That, that Christ has exalted to this position as the fulfillment of the, of the promises of David.

So that's just, that's just how I'm viewing it. So if you could just kind of speak into that.

Yeah. Give me just a second. I'm just reading through Psalm 2 here real quick. Okay. Let me go back to Acts 2.

Okay. So in Acts 2, and you're, you're focusing in on verse 33, therefore, he's talking about, you're talking about the exaltation.

Right. And Peter's mentioned to that. So I think the key to that, understanding why Peter mentioned that is at the end of verse 33, when he says, he has poured forth this, this, which you both see in here.

So Peter's coming full circle. He started his sermon at the beginning when they said, these men are drunk.

And Peter's saying, no, this is what was spoken of in Joel. Then Peter has to digress a little bit. He goes back to say this, that what you're seeing is spoken of in Joel, but that doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense that some of these prophecies from Joel would be fulfilled. Unless the person that we're talking about was the

King that is mentioned in the kingdom, this promised in Joel. So he goes into talking about how the

King had been manifested in their presence by, by signs and wonders and various deeds that he had done. And yet you rejected him.

You crucified him. You put him to death. You're guilty. And then God raised him from the dead in order to fulfill the promises to David.

This was necessary. Bodily resurrection was necessary, but then he talks about the Ascension only to show, or not only to show, but I mean,

I think the point of him talking about the red, the Ascension there is to demonstrate why it is that they were seeing this phenomenon because he is exalted to the father's right hand.

He is therefore in that position to pour out the Holy spirit. And this is the cause of that phenomenon.

So his reference to Christ being ascended to the right hand of the father was not the point of that.

I don't think was to say, therefore the kingdom is started and this is the kingdom. And this is the fulfillment of David. But the point of that was to say that from this position, he now has authority.

And now the time has come for him to pour forth the spirit. And this is what explains all that you see. So in other words, it's back to back into Peter's argument.

He's saying, you want an explanation for what you're seeing the tongues and this supernatural manifestation of languages.

It's because the spirit of God has been poured forth in accordance with Joel chapter two. Well, that can't happen unless there is a

King who is ruling and reigning. And he is, he has been exalted. And this of course has happened all in fulfillment, the old

Testament prophecy. But before that was the bodily resurrection, which is necessary for the fulfillment of the future kingdom promises that are still coming yet future.

So that I think is what he, that's what I think he's getting at in verse 33. He's not saying that the kingdom has started, nor is he saying that we're in the kingdom now.

I think he's saying this is, you need to understand that where Christ is seated, which gives him the authority to do what he has done.

So that the, and that explains the manifestation of these, these sign gifts.

Okay. Does that make sense? And so I, and I would tie it into, from my perspective,

I tie it into another old Testament passage. I forget what the Psalm is, but it talks about him.

He who descended into the lower parts of the earth is also ascended. And therefore he gives gifts to men. Paul references it in Ephesians four.

Psalm 68. That, that I think is the number that's popping into my head where it talks about the exaltation of the

Messiah being that, that using their, and old test, the old Testament analogy of a king who goes and, and he does his, he conquers and, and, and brings in all the spoil and then distributes them to his subjects.

And so it was customary for the king to come into the city as the victorious king with the big train of subjects behind him and, and to give out the gifts of all of the spoils from the war.

And in Psalm 68, he talks about the Messiah being exalted ascending and therefore giving gifts to men.

And so I think that the ascension is in, in Psalm two and in Psalm 68, if that's, if that's the right one

I'm thinking of, that ascension is necessary for the giving of the gifts. And since the giving of the gifts was poured out in Pentecost, that's why

I think Peter mentions the ascension there is to explain the phenomenon, not to explain the nature of the kingdom.

Okay. Does that make sense? It does. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But I think it's a good observation because you're, you're,

I think we're both keying in on the fact that Psalm 16 here is being mentioned. And of course we both agree with the, most of the ascension details that are mentioned here in this passage.

But when he looked ahead and saw the rest, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he, that is Christ was neither abandoned to Hades nor did his flesh suffer decay.

That's verse 31. And then of course he's saying this Jesus God raised up. And so he's his course of saying that Jesus is the only one who fulfills that Psalm 16 promise.

But first 30 is what got us into all of this. And so, because he was a prophet that is David and he knew that God had sworn to him an oath to seat one of his sense on his throne.

He looked forward to the resurrection of Christ. And so that is where I think Peter is saying that physical resurrection is required to fulfill these promises.

Gotcha. Okay. And Justin just texted me at Psalm 68, 18.

That is a, that I was referring there. So that's all for that.

I'm glad you, I'm glad you brought that, that question up or that point out because I think it was good to kind of mentally work through that.

Thank you. Yeah, no problem. I just, I want people to see how

I'm seeing it in the text. That helps. Especially when, when someone who has a, a much grander grasp of scripture can, can walk through it.

It also helps that he has truth on his side. I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that I have a grander grasp of scripture.

Well, Andrew said you had a photographic memory, so maybe you just have a pictorial. I have,

I have a photographic memory, but I ran out of phone when I was four. So I, I, I, I am working through this myself with this particular argument that I'm making, because, and Justin will tell you that this is true.

Years ago when I was preaching through the book of Acts, I went through Acts two and I thought, man, it seems like Peter's making this argument.

How would a post -millennialist deal with that? And then I got to Acts 13 and I saw the same thing. And I thought, this is a head scratcher to me.

And I kind of mentioned it when I was going through the book of Acts and I've just been kicking around in my head for years, kind of reading a lot of post -mill, pre -mill guys trying to see, is anybody else making this argument?

And I think about two years ago, maybe, or a little less, I called up Justin and I said,

Hey, I've got an argument that I'm going to make, and I want to make this argument. Have you ever heard this? And you tell me if this sounds crazy, because I don't see anybody else making this argument.

And I bounced it off of Justin. He said, yeah, I've noticed the same thing. I don't know why people don't make the same argument. And so I'm, I it's with great fear and trepidation that I even come on here and begin to work through this because I, you know, hashing this out with a post -millennial person.

It helps me kind of clarify my own thinking, and I'm still completely open to the possibility that I could be making a bad argument.

And I don't want to do that. Yeah. But, but knowing all the whole time that you have the truth on your side on the ultimate position,

I don't know how you endure this. It's rough. Andrew being friends with Andrew is an acquired taste.

Wow. Yeah. One of these days I'm going to have to come on here and defend my contention that Matthias is a genuine apostle.

And of course I'm going to then become the Matthias. We kick

Drew out and, and, you know, we just go to round two on that. Jim, Jim, every once in a while forgets the distinction between historical narrative and didactic, but you know, that's, that's okay.

All right. So Justin, you have, you have any, you have more questions for Drew or Jim? Well, it seems, it seems to me that, that probably the strongest argument against Post Mill is, is not something that's even been discussed yet is that Bo and Luke Duke were replaced by Coy and Vance in season five of the

Dukes of Hazzard. And there, I mean, after that happened, how could anybody ever believe there was any hope for this world or society in general?

I mean, that was, you're kind of hitting a, hitting a soft spot right now. And you said, who has ears to hear, let him hear.

You know, I have, I have the complete first season of Dukes of Hazzard on DVD that are just about worn out right now because they're that good.

Well, this show just went downhill. Man, when I was a kid and you didn't go to school

Monday morning, unless you knew what the Duke boys did Friday night, Duke boys are at it again. Yeah.

But, but Justin, for the record, you also enjoy hunting and eating your own squirrel. So yeah, there's nothing wrong with that.

And then hence the point is, I'm just going to say, you know, the strongest, the strongest case for the post millennial view, a country boy can survive.

Okay. Hank Jr. Okay. I've got an alligator skull behind me.

Over his skull is an alligator skull is what he's trying to say. You know,

I'm sorry, Justin, go ahead. No, I was just, I mean, once they replaced Bo and Luke with coin bands, we just,

I mean, person could see that there's just no hope for the world. I feel you on that one.

Now there is, there, there is an argument I do want to bring. And this is one that, that Jim and I talked about.

Oh, perfect, man. I'm glad you, I'm glad you remember this. We'll go backstage and let you guys continue.

Okay. So, so this is an, an argument really. And, and so, so what

I want to do first is kind of go through kind of the events of the, the pre -millennial view. So, so if I get a part wrong, just, you know, jump in and correctly correct me, but in the pre -millennial view that there is a resurrection of the saints, or we'll call it a rapture followed by seven years of tribulation.

Then the return of Christ to establish his kingdom for a thousand years here on earth. And then the final resurrection where the saints and the wicked are separated and judged at the end.

Is, did I, did I miss any, I think you got the broad strokes, right? I would just clarify that the timing of the rapture is not something essential to pre -millennialism.

You can be a pre -millennialist and believe that rapture happens at the end of the tribulation. But yes, I would say that the,

I would say that the resurrection of the church saints of the church age happens at the rapture, that that's when we get our glorified bodies and there's a resurrection there.

And then I would further clarify to say that there is another resurrection of the righteous at the beginning of the millennium in Revelation 20.

And so by the time you go into the millennium, the thousand year reign that you mentioned, all of the righteous that have lived up to that point have been resurrected in physical bodies.

And so that is all what I would call the first resurrection. Then, and I'm helping set this up to make it easy for you.

Then there's a thousand year, then there's a thousand year gap and then a resurrection of the, of the wicked, of all the wicked who have lived up to the end of the millennium and that there will be no wicked that live after the millennium and after that judgment.

And then the question mark would be what happens to the righteous who died during the millennium.

Are they resurrected at the end at that judgment or during the millennium itself, or are they just translated into a glorified body and premillennialists differ on that.

And that's just something I don't even care to discuss or it's an interesting thing, but it's not perturbing to what we're talking about.

yeah, I think you've got the broad strokes laid out and to help you out, there's a thousand years there between the first resurrection, the second year, the second resurrection.

Okay, cool, cool. Thank you for that. Um, so, so now kind of the counter argument that I want to put forth is that there is no place to insert a thousand year reign on earth after Christ returns.

And this argument comes from, uh, Dr. Greg Bonson in what Greg Bonson called the unity of the eschatological complex.

So what, what this really means is that the eschatological events that we are anticipating, uh, in the

Bible are actually unified. So the argument is that they happen at the same time. So the resurrection of the wicked and the resurrection of the saints happens at the same time there.

So there's a general resurrection. There's a general judgment where they're, they're judged at the same time.

And then, um, but that happens when Christ returns. So that there's no, the argument is that there's no place to insert a thousand year reign.

Okay. So to, to, if you have them handy, can you quickly read a couple of the passages that you did make mention of in your response?

Cause you talked about John five, um, to just read a couple of those. So people understand exactly what point you're making, because I want them to see what you're, how, what passage you're drawing that out of.

Right. So, so, so John five verses 28 and 29, uh, do not marvel at this for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear the voice or we'll hear his voice and we'll come forth.

Those who did good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment, um, acts 24, 15, a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Uh, so in there we see there's no mention of a, a thousand year gap. When we get into the general judgment, uh, there's

Matthew 25 verse versus 32 and 46, all the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate, uh, from one another.

Uh, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, um, they will go away into eternal punishment, um, but the righteous into eternal life.

Second Thessalonians, uh, chapter one verses seven through 10, uh, we see, um, that there is that God renders vengeance upon those who are afflicted, um, when he comes to be glorified.

Um, I also referenced John six, uh, versus, uh, 39 through 40 and verse 44, where when

Christ, uh, comes, he raises, uh, uh, raises his own up on the last day.

And then there's, uh, first Corinthians. And I know a lot of people, especially post -millennialists, uh, hop on this one.

First Corinthians 15 versus 22 through 28, where, uh, it talks about the kind of the order of resurrection, first Christ, then those who are his at the end, when he comes that specifically verse 24.

So that when Jesus comes, he's not bringing a millennium. It is the end. Okay.

So to clarify your position, what the argument that Bonson's making, because I want to make sure that I'm responding to the argument you're making and not a straw man argument.

Bonson's argument is that there is, um, that, that the, that the prophecies dealing with the future resurrections leave no room for any gap in them because of the way that the prophecies are stated, that they seem to be conflated together, that there's going to be one resurrection.

Right. Uh, correct of the righteous and the wicked. And these have to happen at the same time, or at least so close together that there's no need to mention any kind of a time gap.

That's correct. That that's the argument. Yes, sir. Okay. So, um, to give, uh, the, uh, the, the viewers and the listeners here, a little bit of background.

And in your response to this, you said at the end of it, that you saved that argument for the last, cause you thought it was the best argument that you had.

And then I called and said, I can't talk to you on the phone. You remember? And I said,

Chris, this is what you thought was the strongest argument. I didn't think it was strong at all. And I actually still do. You said that's your weakest argument.

Yeah. I still do think this is the weakest argument. Um, and I'll find a deal with it. Cause I think that, I think that dealing with the argument is a good thing.

So I'll kind of want to give everybody my response to that. Um, and then I, and then

I'm curious because now what I don't know is what your response to my response is going to be. So here, here's my response.

I would have two, I would have two things to point out in response to that. Um, number one, would

Bonson and thus a post -millennialist say that the old Testament prophecies regarding the coming of Christ also demand this coherence and this conflation together?

Because we recognize looking at old Testament prophecies, that when Isaiah, for instance, in Isaiah 61, talks about the spirit of the

Lord coming upon the Messiah and then the Messiah doing all of these things, that Isaiah conflates things that would happen at the first coming of Christ and things that would happen in the second coming of Christ.

And he puts them all together, Isaiah does. And I think that if, if I read through Bonson's hermeneutic of that, uh, eschatological, the unity of that eschatological complex,

I would have to say, I would have to find a way to say all of that has to happen at the same time because there's no mention in Isaiah between, of any time gap between the one who comes and does the things that he does in the first coming and the things that he does the second coming.

So, but we recognize that there's at least 2000 years that separate those, that there's a 2000 year gap in the middle of a sentence in the book of Isaiah that you wouldn't, that the

Old Testament Jews would not have understood, but that we from our vantage point do understand. And that, that coming of the

Messiah, um, and we see this in other Old Testament passages as well, that the one who, um, the one who comes and takes upon himself human flesh by being born of a virgin, that the government eventually is placed upon his shoulders.

And so I, I would say you see there a reference to two, two events that happen that are both described as if they happen in the same one lifetime of this

Messiah. And yet I, I don't think that they do. The government does not rest upon his shoulders. Um, so we see in the

Old Testament prophecies about the coming of Christ and him doing certain things.

And they're all, the things about the first coming and the second coming are all stated in a line and of a succession.

And there's no room for a gap. You probably fast forward to the New Testament. I think we see the same thing in the

New Testament. I think we see the future events described with the, what they call mountaintops of prophecy, where these events are conflated or spoken as, as if they happen at the same time.

But in the mind of the person who's speaking it, a gap of time is not incompatible with the fulfillment of those prophecies.

It's completely compatible because happening at the same time is not demanded.

It's not necessary to interpret that passage. So when I see in John five, for instance, mentioning the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked,

I simply see Jesus referring to a list of things that are going to happen that are yet future. And the chronology of those things, or even the order of those things, and how much time takes place is not necessarily in view.

It doesn't need to be. So Jesus can speak of, I can speak of future events that are coming, like the rapture and the millennium and the new heavens and the new earth.

I can list those three things as being all yet future things that Christ is going to do. It is coming. And yet, when

I describe them, I'm describing something that takes place over at least a thousand and seven years. But, and, but the way

I've described it doesn't require that there be no, that they all happen together. It just, it's the way that I'm describing it is simply grouping things that take place over a period of time together and putting them off yet future.

And I think that Old Testament prophets did the same thing. I think that Jesus did the same thing. So that would be my first response.

And I'll let you reply that if you want, or I can give you my second one. Yeah, I would love to hear the second one.

Okay. So the second one is that Christ's resurrection, he is the first fruits of the first resurrection.

So there are only two resurrections. The first resurrection and the second resurrection. The second, the first resurrection is the resurrection to life and glory.

The second resurrection is the resurrection to eternal damnation and, and reprobation and suffering. So Christ's resurrection, we, we can't, we have to put

Christ's resurrection in one of those two. And I would say that he is the first fruits of the first resurrection. And yet there's been at least 2000 years between Christ's resurrection and our resurrection.

And therefore, even when you talk about the first resurrection, we describe it, but we talk about it in terms of two parts of that event, an order to that event.

And there is a 2000 year gap, even in the first resurrection. So when, when we talk about conflating the first and the second resurrection,

I would say that even when you talk about the first resurrection, you have to conflate and acknowledge that there's at least a 2000 year gap, unless you're going to say that everybody today is already in their glorified bodies.

And we, and that resurrection has already taken place, which is the preterism heresy that you mentioned earlier, that we both acknowledge is a complete heresy.

So even when you talk about first resurrection, you're acknowledging a 2000 year gap, even though there's nothing in scripture that says that there's going to be an insertion of time there.

It just says there's going to be an order, first Christ, and then those that are his that is coming. And yet that's all the same resurrection that take place 2000 years separated.

Gotcha. So therefore, if the first, if there's one resurrection that has a separation of at least 2000 years in it, it doesn't seem unbelievable to me that there would be two separate resurrections, the first and the second that have at least a 1000 year gap in it.

Gotcha. Gotcha. So those would be my two points of refuting that. Yeah.

And so also for the listeners, when Jim called me, the first thing he said was, thank you for responding.

You know, it was received well. And then he said, I thought you made some great points.

And so at that point I was up here. And then he said, but, but you're kind of crescendo.

Your Bonson argument, I felt was your weakest point. And then I went, and then he said, and then this is what he threw out.

He said, so I would come back with, what about, I think you, I think you called it the unity of the messianic complex in the,

I think that's what you call it. I borrowed the language. Yeah. I changed the language a bit. And so I said, Oh, that's a good one.

He's surprised that, you know, after he said, you know, the first comment that you heard, anything else he said,

I thought you'd just be in cloud. Right. Yeah. Initially I was. And then he said that. And I was like, that brought me back to reality.

I said, well, maybe there's more work to do here. No, in your response, in all fairness, in your response, it really required me to intellectually think through the arguments that you're making and really try and try and hear what you were saying from your, from your theological perspective, so that I can understand exactly what it is that you're saying.

So that we could have an intelligent, coherent conversation together. And I think that the arguments that you made were good arguments.

And then when you said, this is my best argument, when I heard you say that on your response, I thought, Oh my goodness, he's got, he saved the best for last.

What am I going to do? If I'm going to, if I'm going to kind of wrestle through the rest of these, what am I, this is going to be the mic drop moment where I'm like,

Oh my goodness, he's right. and so then when you made that one, it kind of, I was the other way. I was kind of down like this.

And then when you made that argument, so that was your best one. I kind of popped up a little bit. So, so my response would be, is goes back to actually what one of my, one of my points initially was in my response.

And it deals with, you know, kind of the, the resurrection you know, what's required in, in post -mill eschatology you know, and it's, if we believe in, you know, the resurrection of the saints, well then a bodily resurrection of Christ is required.

But when we get to, you know, John five, you know, for example, we only see, we, we see a spiritual resurrection mentioned in, in, in verse 25.

And, and you know, that I would, I would view that as a, as say salvation. But, but then we get into the resurrection mentioned in, in verses 28 and 29, but I'm viewing that as how

I'm seeing that is one resurrection, not two separate resurrections, but, but one resurrection of two kinds of people that take place at the same time.

And then, you know, taking that as well over to first Thessalonians four, where you can get the same idea over there, where it's one resurrection of two kinds of people.

So I don't see two resurrections at two different times, but one resurrection of two types of people at the same time.

So at the very beginning, I asked you the question, what in your eschatology requires bodily resurrection?

And you just answered that actually, your eschatology requires bodily resurrection because without the bodily resurrection of Christ, there's no bodily resurrection of believers.

I didn't get your eschatology. Andrew interrupted us. Yeah. In your eschatology, there is a resurrection of believers at the end of time.

Right, right. So if Christ did not rise physically from the dead, then we will not rise physically from the dead.

And if we do not rise physically from the dead, then your post -millennial eschatology there would have to change. But to clarify for the listener, that, that change in your post -millennial eschatology, that, that part of your post -millennial eschatology that is dependent upon the bodily resurrection of Christ is not the fulfillment of the

Davidic promises. It is the fulfillment of the promises to us that there will be a resurrection of our bodies at the end of time.

Right, right, right. So back to my original syllogism that I started with, I'm saying that Paul made the case that the fulfillment of the promises to David required physical resurrection.

So, so your eschatology does have physical resurrection of Christ required, but not for the promises fulfilled to David, only for the promises fulfilled to believers to raise us in a new body.

Yeah. Yeah. Which is really not what we're even discussing. Right. I mean, we, we covered that part.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, you, you didn't answer that beginning and I just, it just occurred to me when

I heard you say that, that that's connected to the, to the, to the question earlier. It sounds like you didn't have an answer to, but you did.

Well, well, we, well, it was, well, because how you posed it, when you initially asked it was if we take away the bodily resurrection as it pertains to salvation, to the soteriology.

But, but then I didn't get to the other, other point of required for, for eschatology.

And that was one of the points I was required for eschatology. Yeah. But only, but only a narrow part of eschatology, only the bodily resurrection of the saints, not for kingdom eschatology or for the fulfillment of the

Davidic promise. Right. Yeah. Yeah. And so, so for the listeners, I actually, in the, in my notes and in the notes that I sent to Jim, I had his, his first premise split into two parts, one dealing with the, the requirement of bodily resurrection for eschatology.

And then the second part was the fulfillment to fulfill the promises of David. And so as I was going through, through the part one, the requirement for eschatology, we kind of bypassed the other, the other two points.

So, so, but, but in, and I think what we're talking about now, just kind of the argument, you know,

I think you, you're right. This argument, as it pertains to the unity of the eschatological complex, doesn't, it doesn't fall under, you know, the, the initial topic of requirement for the promises of David.

It's just, it's just an argument. It's attached. It's attached. Right, right, right.

Now, you know, one of the things that, that, you know, I like to ask of mills or post mills, you, you said you were looking at, you know,

Daniel two, Daniel seven, we're going to go to Daniel nine. You know, I'm going to go there. Right. Cause it's, you know, it is,

I think I, I really, I, I think that as I look, I don't see how you could look at Daniel nine, 24 to 27.

This is the 70 weeks prophecy. And not be pre -millennial unless the only way

I could see it is if you say, well, this is all figurative. These, these dates, right.

Cause it was seven, seven year periods. And at the end of the seven, seven, you know, the 77 year periods, he, he lists out six things that are going to happen, right.

It's going to, to, to be a finisher transgression, to make an end to sin, make atonement for iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to seal up visions and prophecy and to anoint the holy place.

So those six things happen. And in verse 25, he lays out, you know, that from the decree of the building of Jerusalem until Messiah, there will be seven weeks, seven, seven year periods and 62 weeks or six, 62, seven year periods.

So that's 69 times, seven years. Right now, the, the decree to restore and build

Jerusalem sounds literal till the Messiah sounds literal.

He's laying out a timeframe and happens to be a timeframe that we can now date historically 49 years of the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Then, you know, the next 62, seven year periods until Christ is comes on the scene.

Now that's all seems literal, not only in the language here, but we can date it to history.

And so it, what we end up seeing is it says in 26, then after 62 weeks, the

Messiah will be cut off. So there's, there is a chronological point there of, okay, you have the 62 weeks.

Then this happens. Verse 27, and the Messiah is going to be cut off.

And the Prince of the people, the Prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Right. Then verse 20, 27, and he's going to make a covenant for the one week.

So the, the end, if it was, then I would see this having a problem, right? If it's he's cut off and then this happens right away, but it's not.

And so this to me is okay. This would be a gap here.

The same gap you guys were talking about earlier. There'd be this gap here that we then have a seven, seven year period.

That's still future to us that we don't see. Like if you're just reading this, you don't see that gap, but I think that that gap is there.

And I don't see any other way. I just, for me, I don't see any other way to read this with keeping with the hermeneutic of, of reading this in its context.

Okay. If the first part, if 24, 25, 26 are all literal, then why would 27 not be, there's nothing in the language.

I mean, this, this clearly, we all agree, disagree with full preterism, but this is one of the arguments

I have against full preterism because they would try to argue that this happens right in a row, but their timeframe doesn't work either because even that last week has to be more than seven days.

Seven, seven years, right? Because they go to 70 AD. So what, what then in, in, you knew

I was going to go here. well, well, I was, what

I was going to say is this is Daniel nine is, is a discussion I think should be a much, it should be an episode in itself.

But I was also going to say that, you know, on one of your, on one of your 47 podcasts called theology throw down, you had a discussion about, about this very thing and it was a great discussion.

And so I would say linked to that, but you know, one of the things, cause I asked that question to other post -millennial is as well.

And, and the response I've gotten is, well, you just read it straight through because when it gets down to abominations will come make desolate until a complete destruction.

I mean, they tie that again to 80, 70, where we know, you know, abominant, you know that with ties in with all of it, discourse and the prediction of the destruction of the temple in 80, 70.

But one of the things that I've kind of been racking my brain around. And if we go back to 24 in verse 24, one is the context, right?

So what, where does this vision, this prophecy come from, comes from, right?

It comes out of a prayer that Daniel is praying to the Lord for how long will, will, will we stay in captivity to Babylon?

And how long were they in captivity to Babylon? Correct. Right. So it's, it's, it's the 70,

I think the 70 years, the 77, 77 year periods is a direct reference to the 70 years that they had not honored.

God's, you know, they have every seven years they're supposed to let the land rest and they didn't. And for 70 years, seven, 77 year periods, they didn't do that.

And so here, here's the, you know, a direct reference to that. Yeah. So, so what

I would ask is in, in those 70 years, given the, the context of, of what's being discussed here, was there a gap between that 69th year and then the 70th year?

Were they together? Because that kind of relates to the 70 weeks here of 70 weeks of years. So that would be the first thing

I say, well, was there a gap between that 69th week in the 70th year, but even continuing,

Hold up. Let me at least answer that. I would say, I would say, no, there, there wasn't a gap there, but the question is, does there need to be, are they a direct correlation?

Because, because, and this, this again, we'll get us into a different topic, right? But the issue being that this is dealing with the 70 years for Israel.

And so he wasn't dealing with it. He's not dealing with Israel at this time, in the same way as he will in that last seven year period.

Yeah. But, but, but, I mean, you can still say that in this last seven year period is still dealing with Israel, which is what, which is what the

Preterist view says, right? You know, it's, if you read it, if you, if you take the 70 weeks of years straight through, it's still, you know, you're still dealing with Israel and you, you have the destruction of the temple in, in AD 70.

Yeah. But the, the, the, if you don't put a gap here, right.

I think that you have, you know, and I, and I don't think there's a direct correlation that there, because the other doesn't have a gap.

There has to be a gap here. Well, I would say, I would say it does because that's the context of what, where this is coming from.

Yeah. Yeah. but he's just giving 70, 77 year periods. So, I mean, this kind of gets into numerology or whatever, but you know, is there a correlation between 70, the, the, the, just the specific number, 70 weeks, right.

Seven, 70 year periods. Yeah. I'm not, yeah, I'm not getting into the numerology of it, but I really don't want to eat.

Yeah. I mean, my, my whole thing is how do you, how do you deal with it? If, if it's 24, 25, 26 are all literal years.

here, here's what I want to get to in verse 24, because it says 70 weeks have been decreed for these things that follow.

Right. In verse 24. So, and one of them is to seal up visions and prophecies.

And this is kind of what I've been racking my brain around is, does this relate to the fact that we have a closed cannon, or does this term prophecy, right?

If the cannon's not closed, does that mean we still have prophecy or if the cannon, or if the 70 weeks is fulfilled, does this mean prophecy has ended as, as cessation is we believe, we believe it has ended, you know, then does it, does that mean the 70 weeks is then fulfilled?

Well, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to bring Justin in because I'm going to ask a question of Justin, because I'm going to say something that may get me in trouble.

We'll see. Here's the question. And, and I am specifically thinking of this, but Justin, is there anything that says that the cannon is closed?

In other words, could God continue writing during this seven year period? New scripture.

Is there anything you're talking about during the, during the, you know, the, what we would refer to the tribulation or even during the kingdom.

I mean, I, I don't know of anything. I mean, we say the cannon's closed, but could, but could he continue writing scripture in a new dispensation as, as we would hold?

So in other words, is there anything that says that, that God cannot continue writing scripture to a new, because we do have this with each dispensation.

There's new revelation given. I'm sure Sarah young would love that. Yeah. Well, problem is that she's, she's getting stuff from demons and.

Well, you know, I'm not sure. I guess the question is not, could he cause he, he certainly possesses the capability.

Yeah. The question is, would he, or does he need to, and he, does he need to?

And I would say the answer to all of those questions is no. Based on, based on Luke 16, based on first Peter two, based on Hebrews one, based on a whole bunch of stuff, a whole bunch of texts.

Yes. And, and I guess one, one argument I could make for, for what

Drew's saying is that if the, if the visions and prophecy, he could continue in during that revelation, you know, during that tribulation period, we do know there's going to be two prophets, right?

Two, two witnesses. Are they going to have, you know, is, is it going to be sun that they get, you know, that they will have visions and prophecy?

Don't know. I don't know. But the, the question is, is this, is the ceiling, you know, is, is the ceiling of vision and prophecy, the closing of the

Canon in, in the church age, or could it, could it refer to something that's still future?

That one, we, I don't know that we can actually answer that until the future happens. I'm not going to chime in on it.

Cause I'm not, I haven't studied the text of the language as thoroughly as I should. Yeah.

I mean, making, make an end to sin. Now, what we have to do with that is, and here's the thing that I see with it for making the end of sin, the atonement, those, if those occur at the cross, then it's seven years early, right?

Because the Messiah is not cut off. He's cut off after the 62 weeks and there's still a week left.

And so if make an end of sin and make atonement for iniquity and all of these things, if that is referring to, uh,

Christ at the cross, we, we have a different dilemma. One, there is still visions and prophecy after the cross.

Cause the Canon hadn't been closed at that time. We still have a seven year period. So again,

I think that we have a chronological problem with it.

I don't think so. I mean, I disagree just a second. Okay. Verse 24 says 70 weeks have been agreed for this.

During that 70 weeks, all of these things are going to take place. Then he breaks it down and says the 62 weeks, the seven weeks will be this.

The 62 will be this. The one week is this 70 weeks is when all of these, the transgression, making an end to sin, all of that takes place within the 70.

So that doesn't present any chronological problems for us. So I was going to ask where he's, yeah, where he's at that time, that timeframe from.

So then during the 70 weeks, you have an end of transgression now.

Yeah. And atonement being made. Yeah. And atonement, well, the atonement we could see at the cross, um, the end of sin.

Now with that, it's the first two are the trickier ones. The finishing of transgression, end of, end of sin.

Cause sin didn't end at that point. Right. And sin continues to happen. Yeah.

But is that an end of, of earthly sin or is that an end of sin? That says I'm no longer under the curse of sin.

Correct. Yeah. And that's, that's all of that fits within the 70 weeks. That's an argument,

Jim. Yep. But, but still you still would have the issue.

If, if to seal up vision and prophecy, if that's referring to the, to the, to scripture as drew made the case, you're still, you're still too early, right?

Well, does the sealing up vision and prophecy have to do with the fulfillment of giving vision and prophecy, or does it have to do with the fulfillment of those things?

In other words, if these things are the visions and prophecies that the prophets have laid out, and this 70 weeks is going to complete or finish up all that has been revealed out that up to this point, then all he would be saying is during these 70 weeks, you're then you're going to see the fulfillment of all these, the sealing up of the bringing to pass the maturing, the completion of all of these things that have been prophesied by the prophets up to this point.

And, and I would say that if the 70 weeks is a pre -millennial pre -tribulational schematic, as you've just kind of laid it out there, then

I would say, of course, then that would fit because this, the making an end of sin, by the time you get to the end of the tribulation, sin no longer rules and reigns in this world like it did.

So it is brought to an end by the coming of Christ in the millennium. And yes, sin will still be here, but you're not going to have, you're not going to have sin reigning in this creation during the millennium like it does today.

True. Right. So you, you, the, I mean, Andrew was referring with, with scripture, but then look at 27 in the middle of the week.

So three and a half years, he will put an end to the sacrifice and grain and grain offering.

That's three and a half years before the, you know, well, depending how people do the dating of this,

So people will, when they look at it, most people end up putting the dating where this, where the, the end of the 62 weeks is, is either there are three dates that people use.

Either one is before his birth to people will take it. They've worked out the numbers and they try to say it comes right to the day that he starts his, his ministry.

And, and so what they do there is say that the three and a half year, the three and a half years is his ministry.

And then he's cut off at the cross. And then they'll say that, that that last bit is the last three and a half years.

Or the other date that people will do is say that the end of the 62 weeks takes us right to him coming in on Palm Sunday.

And so that, that would be the, the, the week he goes to the cross. Now the issue becomes is there's still a week and a half or a half a week that would be either in, in the latter two that are at least a half a week.

That's after the cross in those two. And so I just don't see how that is, you know, how that is fitting with, as it, because he says, and the wing of a wing of abominations will come to one who makes desolation, even until a complete destruction.

And one that is decreed and is poured out on the one who makes desolate.

So when I look at that part now, I know the, the full preterist will say, well, that happened in 70

AD. Well, they're totally off on the math, right? They're off by 40, some years.

And so I don't, I just don't see a way of taking this. Unless you take the whole thing figurative.

And, and then, you know, Drew, I think we have a bigger problem, right? Like, as you mentioned, because then this other 70, seven year periods were literal.

Why wouldn't these be what, you know, like, I don't see any justification for making this figurative, but if you don't make it figurative, you take this literal.

I think the only way we could see it is with a gap, in my opinion. I mean,

I would have to do more study on, on just on the timeline. I mean, I did,

I wrote, I wrote a paper on the 70 weeks in my undergrad, which was years ago, not too long ago, paired through Jim and Justin and I, you know, a lot's happened since I wrote that paper.

I have, I've had a one -year -old. So you're saying, you're saying, you're saying the paper was

BC before COVID and then children. Very much. Yes.

Well, I I'll link to the field theology throw down where we did discuss that as well. You know, it's something we can ponder that.

I mean, you got, you got lots of notes where we were waiting for you to just say you're converted to the truth, but you know, you know, so I'm still not converted but I'm, but Jim did give me a lot of counters counterpoints to, to ponder over and study and, and work through you know, you know, and I said, one of them, which was, you know, admitted one of them, which was revelation 20 that I just never even thought about until he said that.

And I was like, Oh yeah. It was your worst argument.

Yes. Let me ask one last question to a passenger. San Nichols is here in the, in, in the backstage, but he kept coming in and out in and out.

So I think he's having trouble, but he did put in a question for, for you. He says, do post mills view the prophecies of revelation as parable?

I mean, I would ask which specific prophecies you're asking about. And that's, that's what

I was. Because there's a, there's a lot. And, you know, even in when you get into revelation, you know, revelation is a book of a lot of imagery and signs.

So, so I would have to ask what specific, you know, prophecies you're discussing.

It doesn't read like a parable. I'm surprised that any post millennials would claim it would be parable. They might claim that it's apocalyptic, symbolic, a narrative or a genre, but not parable because parable has a, parable is an entirely different thing.

It's a structure. It's a story. And revelation. I mean, I don't know that I've ever read or heard any post millennials claim that revelation is just a parable.

Yeah, no, I do. There are some who would say it's very figurative and that's true with type literature.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, okay. Well, I mean, I think this was good. We long, long awaited.

We, it's been quite some time since we, we tried setting this up. Um, but, uh, glad that both of you came on and, you know, you know, we'll, we'll see, you know, uh, drew or just,

I'm just waiting for you to respond to a text message. You got. Did you text me?

Oh yeah. I texted you just so I'm, I'm trying to see that, you know, I just need to know if that address is good because you know,

Jim's my pillow is already on its way. You know, another debate we ought to have totally unrelated to eschatology,

I suppose we should put out, uh, we should throw out some feelers, some invitations for a, and as I started to say this, it's some

Christian, at least somewhat rational flat earthers.

You know, it's, it's funny. You should have a debate on the flat earthers. Well, it's funny you mentioned that because today

I was thinking of reaching out to, uh, Jason Lyle to have him come on and talk flat earth.

And so maybe what we could do is, you know, maybe we'll, we'll do that and I'll try to find some

Facebook, flat earth, Facebook groups, and I'll throw it out there and invite them on. But the, the problem is you said, you know, reasonable, rational, that's no, but there, there is, there's this guy and, um, there's this guy that's been emailing me and, and he's, he's very cordial, very nice, writes really well.

He's actually, believe it or not, he's actually donated to my ministry. Uh, he says, the one thing that I disagree with you with is your belief that the earth is round.

And, um, Well, no, no, no, no. He would agree with round, right? He would just not agree.

It's a, yeah, he, he thinks it's a disc. Like we live on a giant manhole cover, basically.

Yeah. Which, which easily be proven wrong. I'm sure.

Respect. He's, he's very, he writes well. He's, he seems very articulate. Uh, he's, he's intelligent.

Why don't we do this? Why don't, why don't you get me in touch with him and I'll get in touch with, with Jason.

We'll have them on. Um, Has Jason not already invented something for himself to, to, to launch something up into space himself and take pictures?

You know, I I'll just say that the, the, the best argument, the best discussion I saw on flat earth, the first time

I was dealing with a flat earther, uh, on the boardwalk at, you know, in, in Jersey and, in seaside

Heights. And, um, the famous place where Justin, you had the incident with the doggy, uh, the guy that put the dog on your lap.

But so we're, we're there once. And here's this guy that's arguing for a flat earth.

And as the first time I heard it. So when I hear something new, I ask a lot of questions and I'm just sitting there and I'm talking to this guy for,

I don't know, maybe 30, 40 minutes. And we're sitting there and I'm, I'm with this older guy who had never met before the, the event.

And he was witnessing with me and, and he's sitting there very quiet the whole time. And, and I'm really, because it was the first time

I had heard this, um, you know, I'm trying to like kind of struggle through giving answers. And so after a while, this guy turns to me and says, well, son, you know,

I, I disagree with your position that the earth is flat. And the guy goes, really?

Why? He goes, because I've been in space. It was just like,

Mike drop, you know, he's like, I'm an astronaut. I've been there.

It was just like, okay. Like, why didn't you say that 30 minutes before, but, but a good test you could do.

If you really want to see if the earth is flat is, you know, go to watch a, go, go to a coastline and watch the sun rise or set over, over the water.

And all you have to do, if you're watching it, like say you're watching it rise.

Okay. Stand up. And just as the sun breaks over that, that Crescent fall down to the ground and you'll watch it happen again.

That only happens in a sphere. If it was going around like this on a flat disc, it's not your, your, your standing position wouldn't change that.

So it's a very simple test that, that anyone can do, you know, for testing that.

But, but yeah, let's, let's set that up. That'd be fun. We, you know, so, but I do thank you guys for coming in.

And next week, Dr. Silvestro we'll have, we'll be here with Sarah.

I think the topic is, let's see, Sarah Cleveland's going to be here. And topic is the abolition of abortion.

So we're going to go back to that. That's the reason we wanted to do last week's episode so that we would address my views of that.

I've the, the claims I've made with AHA in the past so that we could clarify that. And that's why we had pastor Darren in, you know, it's not usual that you hear

Andrew say, okay, I've changed my position on that. I was wrong or not that I was wrong, but I, you know, well, it's, and it's, it, the, the thing is, it's,

I don't know how much it's a change of position. It's that new information has come in. It seems that they've changed position on some of the things that I was critical of.

and therefore I, I, the right thing to do is if, if they're not practicing what was practiced in the past, then the only right thing to do is say, okay, now there's been changes.

So I need to, I need to correct, you know, what I had said in the past. Right. It's not true today.

Right. Can I throw something in real quick? If anybody is interested, we're like, we're going to say no to Justin.

I mean like that, I mean, you know, say no to me all the time, get, get in trouble there.

You know, I look like the bad guy, you know, saying no to the, the cripple guy, you know, in 20 minutes,

I think if I've got my time, right. So starting tonight and each

Thursday night for the next eight weeks, there's a NRB TV is going to air this series that Jim Osmond and I did on spiritual warfare.

And I guess Jim just dropped out, but Jim Osmond and I did an eight part series on spiritual warfare.

And it starts tonight. It's 1030 Eastern, nine 30

Central, eight 30 Mountain, and therefore seven 30 Pacific.

So NRB TV. Okay. Just get, you know,

I've been watching the new, when episodes come out of Jim's, uh, spiritual warfare on AG TV.

And, you know, it's so funny because I came out of the, uh, the vineyard movement. And so everything that you're talking about,

I'm going. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep.

Yep. Because Jim was he was just.

You know, so it's you know, this is explaining a lot. This is good. Andrew.

If you remember when we were in Indianapolis at, uh, and it was you, me, I think Anthony, and Chris Han holds were the only ones left in, in, this is in the

Airbnb. Yeah. Chris, Chris Huff was there. Oh, he was just in a different room. Yeah.

Um, he was present, but not present as well. But, uh,

I think he was getting sick all night. Yeah. Something wrong. But, uh, you know, we were, we were kind of talking about the, trying to set up the conversation with Jim.

And, you know, I said, you know, if I lived in Jim's, in Jim's community, I would seek out membership and be discipled by Jim.

Thank you, brother. I appreciate that. Yep. I, if Jim just lived somewhere warmer.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't do cold, man. I don't do cold. Does it look like it's cold here? You know, it gets,

I'm pretty sure it gets cold, but it doesn't get nowhere near as cold in Georgia as it does.

It's the heat of the summer. And I think he's wearing a long sleeve shirt, probably, you know, Doesn't get nearly as hot here as it does in Georgia either or human.

Christophe says same. So he'd be up there too. You know, obviously you just need to move your church somewhere warmer.

You know, I mean, what is it? You're, you're, is it just that you're, you're upset with the, the, you know, more liberal gun laws in places?

Cause now there's all the warmth I need. Now there's 20 some States with this, with the, you know,

Idaho gun laws now. Yeah. Is it like 23 States now that have constitutional carry?

Yeah. Something like that. Yeah. Georgia is not one of them. I just had to redo my carry license.

So Georgia is not one of them. Oh, you should come to PA at least. Marcy says, excellent conversation.

Thanks guys for coming on. Thanks for the discussion. Folks. I wasn't a prophet, but I just know these men well enough as predicted a good conversation agreed where each other made good points learned from each other.

So I hope that you guys all learn from this as well. This is the way we should maybe be behaving when it comes to online activity.

And so next week, abolition of abortion with Sarah Cleveland. I know

Anthony will be on for that. I'm sure since he set that one up and until next week, remember to go and strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.