Why Theology? :: A Night of Eschatology

What is up guys? My name is KJ and this is Why Theology. Today we've got a very special episode.

I got a couple of special guests on here, Creston Thomas, Pastor Jeremiah and Mr. Zach, Pastor Zach.

Today we're going to be, I guess we will have our own night of eschatology. But before we do that, let me read these verses.

Before I do that, can you guys all introduce yourselves? Yes, I guess

I'll go first. I'm Jeremiah Nortier and I have the honor of serving at 12 -5

Church in Jonesboro. That's the name 12, the number five church here in Jonesboro.

So please check us out on our website. And so tonight, I'm really looking forward to just discussing the gospel and our blessed hope in the manner that Jesus will be returning.

So KJ, thanks for having me back on. No problem, man. Yeah, I'm Zach Davis. I pastor

First Baptist Church in Marktree, Arkansas, up here in Northeast Arkansas. Glad to be with you guys.

Thanks for having me. I'll be representing the post meal position and hopefully shedding some glorious hope on this conversation tonight.

Hey, thanks KJ for inviting me and Jeremiah for inviting me on the podcast.

I'm Creston Thomas. I serve at Christ Redeemer Church in Pine Bluff. And man, I've been wanting to have a good conversation, discussion about this topic for a while.

I think the church, the universal, the invisible church needs this conversation more. So I'm just honored to be able to be invited to be with you guys here tonight.

And hopefully we have us a really good discussion. I'm ready to get to these questions and answers, but let me read the text for us.

You guys don't know, we're in Revelation chapter 20. A lot of this, before I do that, we're talking about something that's known as eschatology.

If you guys aren't familiar with my episodes, my very first episode kind of dealt with kind of the general broad definition of what eschatology is and breaking that down.

But in short, we're dealing with the study of last things. Now it's kind of broad. Eschatology is more than just Revelation 20.

It's talking about things such as resurrection, you know, heaven, the final state. There's a lot of things to kind of deal with eschatology.

But for the sake of tonight, we're going to be dealing with the study of lasting. And so one of those things is the millennium.

And so we're reading in Revelation 20. Revelation 20 says this, Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hands.

And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is a devil and Satan, and bound to him for a thousand years, and threw him into the abyss and shut it and set it over him so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed.

After these things, he must be released for a short time. Then I saw thrones and they that sat on them and judgment was given to them.

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image.

They had not received a mark on their forehead or on their hand, and they came to life in the reign of Christ for a thousand years.

The rest of the day did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who is a part of the first resurrection.

Over these, the second death has no power, but they'll be priests of God and of Christ and reign with him for a thousand years.

I guess I kind of stopped there. If somebody else wants to kind of like read verses 7 through 15, it's going to be dealing with like, you know, the other part of it.

But let's start right there for right now, kind of dialogue with this. If you guys don't know, I have all three positions kind of held here.

Mr. Jeremiah, he'd be representing free meal. Mr. Crescent, he'd be representing our meal.

Mr. Zach, he'd be hosting meal. Sorry. So what is the millennium?

Can somebody kind of, I guess, give us a broad or I guess a short definition of what the millennium is, kind of what we're dealing with here? Sure. I'll chime in.

Historically, the millennial reign is referred to as the thousand years of Christ's return.

When he returns in some fashion, when we're referring to the millennial reign, the question we're talking about, is this more of a figurative millennial reign or is it more literal?

I think that's kind of, we'll see it in one of two lines. Is this more talking about a past inaugural beginning point, or is this something that's going to be future tense?

So we're really talking about, is it past future or figurative or more literal?

What do y 'all think about that understanding? Yeah, I think that's fair. I see it very well as that.

I would also categorize it as a period where the Great Commission goes forth and is accomplished. Obviously that's going to come with my understanding of the nature of the reign, with it being something that's already inaugurated and carrying out throughout the church history here, as opposed to your position with it being future.

Right, right, right. Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you brothers, man. I'll say it the same way, man, that this reign is, let's say, a thousand years millennial.

This reign, we know, is a reign that has been disputed so many different angles and everything.

Is it literal or is it symbolic? But we know it is referring to this thousand years, and I think we can go in a little bit more detail tonight, where our position is at, how we see the text and things of that nature.

But I agree with you brothers. Now, with excellent definitions like you guys have given,

I guess we'll start with the premiel view. You guys have all defined the millennium, but what is premiel?

How does one who interprets the premiel view Revelation chapter 20? So I've tried to really understand this from multiple angles, and KJ, you and I have talked about how there's even differences within the premillennial camp.

So I can only speak for what's been really convincing for me, and one of the things that's really persuasive is in Revelation 1 verse 19, is it seems like John is receiving this vision about what is to come.

So it's almost like we receive a bullet point outline of how the book of Revelation is going to unfold like a story.

And the reason why that's persuasive to me is that would entail a chronological flow, things after one event, there's going to be another event, and that triggers another event, and so on.

And so that verse says, Jesus in this vision to John is saying, right, therefore the things which you have seen, so I note past tense, those things that are present tense, and those things that will take place after this.

And so what's really persuasive to me as being a premillennial view is that I see, once you see kind of Revelation 4, is at that point

I see a lot of this being future tense, given the chronology of the book of Revelation.

So that's probably something we will talk about, is how we interpret Revelation more cyclical.

Is it talking about cycles of the same event and things in the early church, or is it more unfolding in a chronological story -like fashion?

So with that being said, I would say my position, and this is another thing, I'm a learner at heart.

I cannot wait to hear from Preston and from Zach, and I want to better understand all these orthodox positions of eschatology.

I'm learning, and I guarantee you I will change my mind over time in these things because we unite together on the essentials.

Jesus is coming back. We're going to rule and reign with him, and we will have new bodies fit for eternity.

So at this point in time, I lean towards this premillennial. I think we are existing and living in a time pre -before the millennial kingdom where Jesus comes and sets up initially his kingdom here on earth.

I'd like to add real quick, I'll be representing the historic premillennial with Mr. Jermiah.

But just to add to the premillennial view, now there is, kind of how Jermiah said, there's some differences within this position.

You have what's known as dispensational premillennial, you have historic premillennial, and I lean more towards the side of historic premillennial.

Crayson knows this, but I lean a little bit closer to omni -mill than dispensational premillennial and post -mill.

I am kind of pessimistic in how I view things as they unfold before Christ returns.

But what me and Crayson kind of similar is that we both kind of view the nature of the book of Revelation as symbolic.

Now, kind of how Jermiah just said, we have, I guess, an outline of things that's already happened, things that were going to happen in his day and things that are going to happen in the future.

Now, there's a word that we use in theology known as a recapitulation. You guys know with the gospels, telling the same story, but giving you guys different vantage points.

Well, I believe John, throughout these future events, he's telling us the same story, but from different vantage points, but they're all symbolically doing so.

But I guess symbolism is describing literal events that will take place in the future. He's telling the same story over and over and over, but from different vantage points.

And so, I guess another thing too, that you guys, the millennium is a thousand years we're talking about here.

And so when we say premillennial, we're saying that Christ is going to return or pre or before the millennium and set up his millennium kingdom here on earth.

And that's kind of when Jermiah would say that we, all the believers will reign here on earth with Christ.

Now, the historic premill position would say that Christ would kind of be vindicating his people. And so you guys know all throughout generations, past, even currently, all those

Christians who have been martyred, all those Christians who have shed tears, in a sense, in this thousand year period of literal reign here on earth,

Christ will be kind of balancing out all those negative things that happened to all these people over the time period.

So that's kind of historic position. Now, Mr. Zach, you are the postmill position. What is kind of the postmill and how do you interpret the book of Revelation?

And I love what Jeremiah said about being a learner, because man, I'm right there with him. I'm excited to hear what all you brothers are going to say and just explaining that view.

As far as the postmill understanding goes, the Puritans and those of old understood it to be a future, literal thousand years, what we know is a golden age where the gospel and the carrying out of the great commission has kind of had such a great effect that it affects not only things spiritual, but it affects also things physical.

In our day, in my understanding of the millennium is that it is a symbolic representation of what we know here as this church age, but the gospel is gradually conquering, gradually going forth, and will have such a great effect that God's kingdom is being increased.

And you have to ask the question, well, how can you take it the thousand years symbolically? And I think the scripture gives us warrant to do so.

It says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years. Better is one day in your court than thousand elsewhere. The Lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills.

So it's my understanding that Jesus Christ at his ascension goes to the father on a cloud, and that's how we see him go in Acts 1.

And this reference is straight back to Daniel chapter 7, 13, and 14, where it says, I Daniel, when I saw the son of man coming to the ancient of days on a cloud to him was given dominion, kingdom, and power.

And then he says that all nations, languages, and people should serve him. And that's the exact same language that we see in Matthew 28 when

Jesus Christ gave the commission. So it's my understanding that when the spirit came at Pentecost, that this new age has come in to be.

And then there's a 40 year overlap between 30 and the year 70, which is 30 is when

Jesus dies. And I believe that's the year of Pentecost. And then Jerusalem, the temple that was still standing for 40 years is destroyed.

So we've got like a relay of this old Jerusalem and now the new Jerusalem. And the new

Jerusalem being the church is left vindicated as God's people and God's messengers. And now we'll go forth to preach this gospel and to conquer.

And a lot of people will give the inclination to say, Zach, well, I don't see that things are getting better. Well, Jesus said that the kingdom would be like leaven.

And you don't put bread in the oven and it rise instantly. You put bread in the oven and the yeast gradually goes.

It gradually rises. And I believe that's what will happen over time. If you looked at the stock market and one day spans, then you may not see much of a change.

But if you zoom out to five years, I think that you have a case to make this millennium that it's gradually going forth over time.

And one last thing in Daniel chapter two, we're given the kingdoms. And we know that Nebuchadnezzar had the dream and it was

Babylon. Then Medo -Persia and Alexander the Great in Greece. And the fourth kingdom was

Rome. And it said that there was a stone that came in and struck that statue on the foot being wrong.

And that kingdom started out as a stone, but it grew to be a great mountain. And I believe that that's the kingdom of God.

And gradually over time, the preaching of the gospel will conquer the world. All right.

And Mr. Chris and Thomas, how does someone who holds a position on me will be the book of Revelation chapter 20?

Man, just hearing from these brothers, can I be both? Can I be a post meal, pre meal?

Man, man, that was just like the brother said, but I'm learning and learning as I go, man.

And so, man, I agree a lot what you got just mentioned there. And so, but KJ said something a second ago, said something about, you see the book as symbolic.

And a lot of times people view the position as they see this thousand years, symbolic and not a literal.

But I would say that the thousand years, yes, we use symbolic language. Well, we are talking about something that actually is literal.

We believe the Bible is a literal book, that these things will happen. And so, but we also see that within even the word revelation that we use, get the word out to pop the literature, revealing of these hidden things.

So it's these hidden things that's going to be revealed, that point is something actual literal.

But the word a meal, I think it comes from Latin, where I mean, no millennial, which

I don't too much care for the name a meal, like no millennial, because I think it is a millennium. It is a thousand years.

The scripture tells us several times, you used to see it right there in Revelation 20, that it is a thousand years. And so, for this thousand years that is referred to,

I would say it's a multitude of years, a lot of years. Just like we see throughout the book, it's like I said, it's a popular literature book that has a lot of symbolism throughout the book.

I think Peter Gentry mentions what, seven seals, seven trumpets, talks about seven spirits.

You even see seven major sections in this book. And so, it's a lot of symbols in there in the book.

And so, we have each, I mean, all these different symbols, there's so many things we're going to be learning about this book for eternity, for the rest of our lives.

But the book, as I can say, I would see it as a more of a meal.

But let me back up some. I think it's four or five different ways to interpret interpretation.

I think, KJ, you might have missed a little bit of it. A preterist view,

I think a futuristic view, a historicist view, and a,

I think, idolistic. Did I say it right? Yeah, idealist. Okay. And it's more of an electric,

I think, type of view. And so, I normally have tilted to this more of idolistic view in the sense of this book is representing nothing but a lot of symbolic interpretation, representation.

And what does it point to is something that is happening, not actually pointing to something that was happening right then, but right there at a particular moment.

For example, a preterist would say, like during the time of John, that a lot of these things already took place in the first century.

And so, idolistic view kind of sees it more of like a lot of these things that happened in the first century and third century.

All of these things have been symbolic to spiritual warfare that's been taking place throughout history. The futurist view is that, hey, none of this stuff has happened.

A lot of it's going to happen at the end when all these things start unveiling themselves to us.

And a historic view, I'm not sure a historic view when actually where they started in history to calculate all these things that took place.

But to be honest with you, Matt, I see a lot of things I can take from all of them. I see a blender here. I think you throw a lot of these things in here.

I think even in the preterist view, I think we can take a lot about things that did take place in the first century.

But I wouldn't limit the entire book to the first century, that everything took place.

But I think the first century actually, I see this type of twofold things happening that's going to point to something happening in the end that did something that happened in the first century.

And so, but also I see history, the benefit of history. And I also see the individual, I mean, the benefit of also the idolistic scent of the symbols.

So I kind of see more of a blended type of view with all these different interpretations that we kind of can pick from and things of that.

But let me get back to all middle real quick. You know, I get a little long winded. Real quick, I'll admit,

I would say this is that this thousand year reign that Christ is actually, and the brother just mentioned right there, we hear

Christ at his crucifixion. And after he died, he raised from the grave and he sits at the right hand of his father.

So we see Christ is reigning right now. And all of his enemies put up under his feet. He's reigning right now.

And by him reigning right now, his church is reigning with him right now. And as we reigning with him here, you know, spiritually as we reigning with him, we still suffer, you know, even though we reign with Christ suffering is still around us.

So I don't see things are, you know, in a sense of physically it's getting better. I think physically things are getting worse, but spiritually things are,

Christ is getting better because Christ now kingdom is growing. Unbelievers are coming to Christ.

So Christ is putting his enemies under his feet. After every soul come to Christ, it's just another market of Christ's victorious work that's happening right now.

So I would say Christ is this millennial reign is happening right now. And Christ is reigning right now while his enemies are under his feet.

Wonderful explanation, man. You guys are all hinting at it. Again, me and Jeremiah kind of on the same team.

So I'm just going to assume this is kind of what you guys will always say. Christ just said that he interprets the book of Revelation more in an idolistic sense.

Mr. Zach, how would you interpret like the entire book of Revelation? So I would take what

I'm interested to see if we all agree with this, that full preterism is dangerous. I call it heresy too.

Okay. So I definitely take passages such as the first Thessalonians four, what's traditionally known as the rapture passage and first Corinthians 15 and its future.

But the majority of Revelation, especially the first 19, 20 chapters I'm taking to be relevant to the first century.

So when we get to Revelation chapter 21 and 22, I see that it's symbolically describing the church.

And the reason I would do this is, well, I mean, you take the very first verse in the book of Revelation, it says things that must shortly take place.

Verse three says the time is near at hand. All through this we see things that are going to happen.

In Revelation chapter one and verse seven, you see verses that talk about they're going to see Jesus coming, even them who pierced him.

And this echoes right back into Matthew 24 with what Jesus said, that all of these things are going to take place in that generation.

So when I think there's different ways to talk about the coming, I think he came in judgment on Jerusalem.

So the Jews use Rome to kill Jesus. And then Jesus uses Rome to judge the

Jews. So I see the book of Revelation in a, in the preterist sense for what's known as the first 19, 20 chapters.

And then I would take the historicist view on chapters 21 and 22 that the church began and now it's being carried out through history.

All right. So, and then Mr. Jeremiah, I'm sure like me, you're probably in agreement. Would you view, so I'm sure all of us, let's all say this.

So chapters one through three, we know that those are like actual literal things that actually took place as far as those seven letters that John wrote to.

Those are actual literal things that happened in the past. But what we did for it, I guess, is how we started to view chapters four,

I guess, slash five to the end of the book. That's kind of what, I guess, the disagreement started. But Crescent, you said that you're more idolistic.

And Mrs. Zack, you're saying that you partial prejudice. And then Jeremiah, would you be futuristic? I would say right there, idolistic elected, in there, between them in there.

Jeremiah, you're futuristic. I'm futuristic, but this is where I want to say, even though I have a bent towards a more literal and chronological view of the book of Revelation, I'm definitely sensitive to symbolism because these are seven historic churches in Asia Minor.

But I see these as being seven different categories of churches. They represent what type of churches exist even today.

And so to me, I think that carries a symbolic look of what the church of Philadelphia, the church that loves the bride and the promises for them.

And then you see other churches that fall away, what apostate churches look like. So even though that I would probably hold to a stronger literal view,

I definitely want to be sensitive to the symbolism because like Crescent said, this is apocalyptic literature.

So I don't want to be blinded to a wooden interpretation of this book. I just think the overall arching thing

I see is more of a chronological flow rather than a cyclical flow. Okay.

So we're definitely in agreement on everything you just said. Now, I guess it's going to lead us to like this part right here, because you guys have hinted at it, but how do we view the kingdom itself?

So like, I guess we'll start, I guess since Primo started first, me and you will tackle this,

Mr. Jeremiah, but how does like people who hold to the, you know, premium position view the kingdom of God and the millennium and why?

So there's so many passages in the New Testament, and I think alluded to in the Old Testament, talk about the kingdom of God.

That is a wide domain of what that word can be used. And so what

I want to say is I agree heavily with the all -men post -mill view that something radical happened at Jesus' first coming and at his death and resurrection.

So when I read in the Gospels, I believe it's in Matthew chapter 12, where Jesus says, when he's talking about the blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit and the house divided cannot stand, he makes a staggering statement. But if it is by the spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

So I think Jesus embodies the kingdom of God. This is why he is referred to as the groom.

Now is not the time of weeping because I'm here in your midst. So in a very real sense, Jesus represents the kingdom of God on earth.

And so I believe in some sense that the kingdom was inaugurated also at his resurrection.

But here's where I believe we begin to diverge. We all believe in it already, but not yet since the kingdom.

And so we're probably going to apply this a little bit differently. But when I see that Jesus ascends to heaven and sits at the right hand of the father,

I believe he is ruling and reigning here on earth spiritually by means of the

Holy Spirit and dwelling believers. And it's the church and it's gospel going forth. And Jesus is sovereign.

He is the sovereign God. So he's always in one sense been ruling and reigning, Old Testament, New Testament. But I would see the kingdom already being a spiritual kingdom.

And then what is pre and what I would still be waiting for in a future sense is

Jesus returning in a bodily sense to set up his kingdom here on earth.

And so I don't want to negate the fact that when he was here on earth, that was an aspect of the kingdom.

He inaugurated in some fashion that spiritual kingdom. I just believe the millennial view encompasses more a convergence of the spiritual kingdom with that bodily return of Christ as well.

I got tears in my eyes, man. I got nothing to say. He said everything

I would say. Kind of where Christ came, he set up the spiritual kingdom and kind of what Jeremiah said.

And then we get to Revelation 20, this thousand year reign here on earth. Like I said, there is some division in the pre -meal camp, some interpret to be like a long period of time.

And then I myself interpret to be a literal number. This literal number represents, and Jeremiah, you got something too? Yeah. So I was also wanting to read a key verse from where I'm coming from.

So when Paul speaks in his Pauline writings, you got to think he is a

Christian in a sense, speaking to Christians in this spiritual age.

There's always been one people of God, but he says something interesting in Romans chapter 14,

I believe it's in verse 17, for the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, which

I would say is what we're experiencing now in our life here on earth. And he says, but is of righteousness and peace and joy in the

Holy spirit. So this kind of gives me a clue to it. It's the Holy spirit that is indwelling believers.

And so we're experiencing this kingdom already, but what is yet to come is that physical rain of glory that Jesus will set up.

So I just wanted to say, that's a crucial verse for where I'm coming from. I think his story, pre -meal guys, his name is

George Adam Ladd. He has a whole book about the kingdom of God. He talks about too, everything that Jeremiah said, this spiritual kingdom is here right now.

If you guys know in the Lord's prayer, I hope everybody's praying the Lord's prayer, but if you guys know the Lord's prayer, pray that kingdom come, that will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

And so in certain aspects, like in order to have a kingdom, you have to have a king, right? And so this king who is ruling spiritually, once he puts all enemies under his feet, he will then come and embody that kingdom here on earth.

That's essentially what me and Jeremiah kind of saying, but Mr. Zach, you're up next, man. Cause you're the postal position.

So in second Samuel, and I believe it's seven, it talks about in second

Samuel seven, I believe it, it talks about that this, this future kingdom. And it says that David is going to be dead while Christ sits on the

Davidic throne. Well, if this happens in a future millennium, then David is going to be alive.

But right now, David is dead. And right now Jesus Christ is what I believe on David's throne.

And if you take passages such as Habakkuk 2 14, where it talks about that, the, the world will be, the earth will be as full as the knowledge of the

Lord, as the waters cover the sea. Or if you take passages that say the similar thing in Isaiah 11, then

I think it leads us to believe something that also includes something physical and not just spiritual.

In John chapter 18 and verse 36, Jesus says, my kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight.

And I think playing on what Jeremiah was talking about, I take that to be, this is not going to be conquered that something is physically conquered, but that doesn't mean it's not going to have a physical aspect.

So I believe that the kingdom is something that's now, and that will be achieved and will have an end and a consummation and a conquering.

But it's going to be through the preaching of the gospel. If there was a verse that Jesus, Peter, the apostle

Paul, and it's the most quoted verse in the new Testament, it's God's favorite Bible verse. And King David all mentioned it.

It's Psalm 1 10 1. And it says that the Lord said to my Lord, or the father said to my son, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

I believe that Jesus Christ is going to sit there until all of his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.

And that could be, you know, abortion or whatever those enemies are. That's not to say that every single person will be saved.

But also playing along with that in Psalm 2, it says that at his ascension, that he will receive the nations as his inheritance if he asks for it.

And I don't believe that Jesus Christ forgot to ask for the nations as an inheritance. I believe there is, and I believe he rules them now.

That's a wonderful explanation, man. Okay. And Mrs. Zack, I had a quick question,

I guess, for somebody that's kind of lost, I guess, about the post -mill position. How does this kingdom, because we always say that Christ right now is reigning on earth.

So there's some sort of spiritual aspect about this kingdom. But how does the kingdom kind of unfold for the post -mill position?

So alongside of the spiritual influence, if you talk to 10 post -millennials, you may wind up with 10 interpretations of theonomy.

But when God, in the book of Genesis, God gave Adam dominion over the earth.

And I believe that if Jesus Christ truly reversed the curse, then there's going to be an aspect of God's law that's still going to pertain.

If we look today at societies that last, you look at a godless society and whatever it's built on, it don't last.

So it's my understanding that as we go forth and preach the gospel, that God's law is going to infiltrate every area of life.

And to what extent that's going to take over, you know, I don't know that anybody would say 100 % for sure.

But there are passages that I believe Amiel would put in the eternal state and that Premill would put in the literal thousand year future millennium, like in Isaiah 65, that I would place in this life, in this world that's going to happen.

And it's going to be, you know, that there's going to be not complete peace, but if we're the new

Jerusalem, Jerusalem is the city of peace. Jesus Christ is the prince of peace. Well, the city of peace will bring the true peace to the earth.

And I think that's the only way that the earth would be able to survive is because of God's law. I mean, you think about what happened when

Noah, there's only eight people that get on the boat. And because there was no law, there was wickedness everywhere. So the only way that God could sustain the world is if he gave man law and it was his law, the true righteous law that we know to live by.

So as far as the dominion and the theonomy at the end, and what's known as this golden age, which

I don't think just drops out of heaven. I think it's gradual and continual. Man, you could come across so many different things, but I just think we're gradually moving towards, if we take a step back and look at history, then we're gradually moving towards through the preaching of the gospel.

This is not something political from the top down. This is built from the ground up. Jesus Christ, the cornerstone, laid the 12 apostles as the foundation, and it's being built from the ground up.

And the kingdom slowly takes over the world through the preaching of the gospel, but affects all physical areas.

Okay. That's a good explanation, man. Thank you, man, for the explanation. Last but not least,

Creston Thomas, how would you interpret the kingdom of God? I know you kind of mentioned earlier that we are currently now living in the millennium, but how would you kind of interpret it?

Yeah, and I always agree again with Jeremiah, the already but not yet kingdom that Christ, even when he was with his disciples.

I think it was Matthew 6, 33, but it's also about, you know, but seek ye the first, the kingdom of God.

I think what Mark 1, 15, you know, Thomas Field, the kingdom of God is at hand.

I mean, I keep going to so many kingdoms. He's talking about this kingdom. So I believe that the kingdom of God was there, you know, and I think even

Jesus, Matthew, again, Matthew chapter four, four, right after he,

Jesus is tempted on the mountain with Satan and he comes down and he comes in and bring good news and bring good times to the kingdom of God.

I think it's right there too, in Matthew four. So Jesus, when he comes and he is at his incarnation, he brings in this new kingdom, even at his coming, this already but not yet kingdom.

But we would say that, I mean, I would see is that even though he comes and brings this already but not yet kingdom, we know his eternal kingdom will come as the consummation of all things.

But we do see as well that a piece or pieces of some more of this kingdom at the passion, you know, when he, you know, was put to death and when he was raised up, you know, was raised up and I think

Zach said this, you know, all authority, I think Zach said that I might've, I don't want to get my boy wrong.

So, but all authority is given to Christ and we see this authority and Christ allow this, his authority to have dominion, this dominion he gives us to see the disciples have dominion, authority.

And it seemed like the same thing we saw in Genesis chapter one, chapter two, you know, with Adam and Eve, they was to have dominion to rule the earth.

But now, you know, they couldn't do it. But now when Jesus came, he reigned.

And again, I think Zach said this, it was beautiful how he said this, you know, they couldn't reign, but now

Jesus comes, now Jesus comes in and take this kingdom. And now Jesus reigns and by him reigning, those who are reconciled and united with him, they get to reign with him.

And they are reigning with him even right now, while Christ is sitting at the right hand of the throne of the father, that they are reigning right now with Christ while they're on earth spiritually.

I think Jeremiah mentioned that spiritually, they're reigning with Christ. And as they reign with him, they are a part of this kingdom, the spiritual kingdom.

But the kingdom that we're truly waiting on is this physical kingdom that's going to match the spiritual kingdom.

When Christ comes back and get our new bodies and get everything new, made new, that's when

I would say that the true kingdom is actually going to really, really, I guess, kind of come into fruition.

But I will say that it is a realized kingdom that Christ is reigning right now, but we are waiting on our bodies for us to reign with our physical body as well to see this total reign, this total kingdom inaugurated, you know, it's fully come in and all of this and all of his power.

Now, just for clarity, because like everything you just said, it kind of sounds like the premium position, but I know like we kind of differ on this, but like for clarity,

I guess, those, I guess, the realized part, the already, but not yet. When do you see, like,

I guess the not yet part being fulfilled? Like, is it in the millennium kingdom or is it like in the new heavens and new earth?

How would you view that? Because me and Jeremiah, we would say like the not yet part is when he returns, but how would you kind of view that part?

Yeah, I think most, a lot of, like I'll see it as a realized, you guys heard that terminology? Yeah. The realized kingdom.

I think it is realized. Christ is reigning right now. We are, he is reigning right now. But I would say that it's,

I mean, I would say is that until everything is consummated at the end, when we get our physical bodies, when we actually is the total kingdom and the new heavens and new earth, the total one comes in.

I think that's the actual completion of this, of this kingdom. When he comes back,

I think right now it's still that it still is in there for, even though he reigned, I think it still is in that kingdom that he's reigning in, but it still is not that full out, fully, you know,

I want to say realized, but realized. So, so I would say it's, we're waiting on that full kingdom to actually come in when we get our bodies, when they get the new heavens and new earth.

I think I just said that, but I don't know if I'm just repeating the same thing I said, but what was the question again? Are you good, man?

So you answered it. So like, for example, me and Jeremiah, we would agree everything you said, but like, we probably would differ is that we kind of believe as soon as Christ returns, he sets up some, you know, a kingdom here on earth.

And it's that physical kingdom that we see here in revelation 20 to a thousand years. And so the not yet aspect of that kingdom would be like in the millennium, but somebody probably holds to the army will say, no, not a millennia because we're in the millennium, but this is in the new heavens and new earth, essentially, right?

Essentially what you're saying, Kirsten. Yeah, we are in, I would say we are, and that's probably what we would differ at right there, kind of.

I would say, yes, we are in this rain, crisis raining at this moment.

And while he's raining right now at this moment, it's still not a new, it's still not a new earth yet, new heaven yet.

But he's raining now is that one day he's going to come when he, you know, when

Satan, when he is destroyed forevermore and all those things happen and everything and all sin is put away.

That's when I would say, then it would be completed at that moment. And that's when I would say everything is finished.

And so it'll be a, then a realized kingdom. Take it

Jeremiah. Sorry. So I think something that's important to this part in the conversation is when

I look at Revelation 19, this is one of those famous passages where you have the armies of heaven arrayed and fine linen, white, pure following Jesus on these white horses.

I definitely believe there's some imagery going on. And then verse 15 says, and out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations and he will rule them with a rod of iron.

And it talks about him ruling over them with his fury. And we see that ultimate judgment is happening.

So for me, since I see the book of Revelation unfolding chronologically, I see

Jesus returning here in Revelation 19, exercising his rod of iron and his judgment against the ungodly.

And that's where we see then in chapter 20, this millennial kingdom setting up. So I'm curious to hear from Cresson and Zach to see if they see

Revelation 19 as Jesus's first coming, or if they see this as Jesus's second coming that precedes chapter 20.

And if that's kind of a cyclical motion of how they understand the order of some of these events. We definitely have to get into that.

We'll get into the question and answer as far as remember Jeremiah's question. Now to kind of piggyback off of what

Jeremiah just said, how we view this next question is probably going to dictate kind of how we all landed on these positions in a sense.

And that is how we view the bonding of Satan. There seems to be some sort of bonding going on here in the first three verses.

Again, Revelation 20 says, then I saw an angel coming down from heaven. Now, a lot of people kind of,

I guess, it's a controversy issue on who this angel is. Is it Michael? Is it Gabriel? A lot of people, for the most part, would say, no, this is

Jesus. But again, then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the bits and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years.

Now, how do you guys each interpret this binding? How does a premium do it? How does Amir do it?

How does the postman do it? So it's no particular order you guys want to go, but you guys, whoever speaks first and go ahead and go. I'll go first with the pre comes first,

I guess. So very simply for me, since this is unfolding chronologically, the way that I viewed the binding of Satan, I would say the terminology that Revelation 20 uses in verse one says, holding the key in his hand, this angel basically puts

Satan in the bottomless pit with a great chain and he is seized and he's bound, but they put a seal over him.

Verse three, threw him into the pit. And we'll get into probably the Greek word there, which is abyss and shut it up and sealed it over him so that he might not deceive the nations any longer.

Now, when we look, when we compare that terminology with Mark three and the binding of the strong man, it seems here like not only is the strong man

Satan and he is bound up, but he's thrown into a basement for a really, really long time here in Revelation 20.

So it seems like that is a different time period than Satan being powerless to Jesus at his first coming and then also having no power over the gospel going forth.

But it seems like the language from Revelation 20 is that he is sealed up in the abyss.

And so I believe that this is talking about a time period where the depravity of man is the only thing left to reject

Jesus as he's bodily reigning with the saints. So I would just see this type of binding as not only being bound, but put away in the base, the abyss totally sealed up.

And I think the timing of where this is at is in the book of Revelation. This all kind of hinges on if this is a chronological flow or if it's more cyclical.

Now, just to add on to what you said, again, I probably, so number one,

I talked about this in my first episode, you guys remember this, I talked about like a case for a stoic pre -meal and then that kind of episodes, one of the common misconceptions that a lot of people think when they think about pre -meal is that we wouldn't say the devil is currently bound.

Now, I think we should define it how Jeremiah just said it in two different ways. There seems to be some kind of something happened at the death of Jesus on the cross.

You guys remember in Genesis 3 15, God promised Adam and Eve that through the seed of Eve, there would be some kind of seed that would crush the head of the serpent.

Well, if you guys don't think about snakes, you can cut a head off a snake and it'll still live for a period of time. Well, in some aspect, that's essentially what

Jesus did to the devil. He defeated the devil at the cross. He cut his head off, but right now the devil is still scrumming around, but he's an angel, so he's definitely very powerful.

Now, the text you use in Mark 3 and Matthew 12 about the bind of the strong man,

I believe right now, currently the devil is bound in this sense that his power is limited. He cannot keep the nations from coming into the church or coming to the invisible church, which is known as spiritual

Israel. Now, in the Old Testament, we know that the people of God were the Jews for the most part, but there were some

Gentiles that were able to be a part of Israel, so we see that Israel is not just defined simply by race, but God was still saving

Gentiles even in that day, but for the most part, many of the nations were blinded by the devil.

God was allowing it to happen, but at the cross during Jesus' death, that's when he cut the head off the serpent, and now these

Gentiles nations are coming into the church at a large magnitude. Now here, kind of what

Jeremiah just said, I see this binding rather than being a limiting of his power, this seems like a complete removal of Satan from the entire earth, kind of how

Jeremiah said. So I was going to say real quick again, that part that I read that he'll be sealed in the abyss so that he might not deceive the nations any longer,

I think something that all the positions have to ask is, is Satan deceiving the nations today?

And when I start looking at what Paul and the rest of the apostles say in the New Testament, Ephesians chapter 2, that says he works through the sons of disobedience, and I would say you look at a bunch of these godless nations, they are still laying in the power of the wicked one, that 1

John 5 says. So this to me is kind of getting at a big issue of what type of limitation does

Satan have, and it seems like during the millennial reign, like you said KJ, he is going to be not only bound, but sealed up and out of the picture, and that's where we get into hermeneutics and exegesis, and really try to understand the flow of the book of Revelation.

So I think that's a good distinction though. What is Satan doing as he's being bound? 2

Corinthians 4 says that the god of this age is actively blinding the eyes of unbelievers.

1 Peter 5 says that he is roaming around like a roaring lion, and I like what you said.

If we look in the Old Testament, Satan has a lot of power, but even Rahab heard about Yahweh and his redemptive power, and she put her faith in him, and he was saved.

So there's always been this proto -gospel that has existed in the Old Testament, and that carried the power to save, and Satan could not do anything about that.

It's because that Christ has always been God, and always been in control, and God is working out his sovereign plan of redemption.

Definitely, definitely, man. Who wants to go next, Mr. Zach or Kristen? Yeah, I'll go.

So there's definitely, Satan is definitely at work still, but here's the question.

Can Satan's power overcome God's power? And we're all going to answer no to that. So the question is, does

God rule and reign the people that he wants to reign? And I think we all agree with that. Acts 13, 47 says,

I have set you as a light to the Gentiles that you should be for salvation, the ends of the earth. Okay, right after that, in the very next verse,

I think it's a pretty famous verse that we all know where it says, all who are appointed to eternal life do what? They believe.

John 6, 37, all that the Father give me will come to me. So whenever we look at the binding of Satan, we know that it's not literal, because Satan is a spirit being.

So Satan's not a spirit being, and it says that his purpose is that he can't deceive the nations any longer.

Now, if you look at the beast in the book of Revelation, I think it's fair to say that Satan is the one who is backing the beast.

And if you look at all of the four kingdoms in the book of Daniel, it's fair to say that Satan is the one backing all of these kingdoms, and he's the one that is using them.

But now, since Jesus has defeated, and the question is, did he defeat

Satan on the cross, or did he not? And I think we obviously would agree that he did, and we'll break down further into that. But if he defeated

Satan on the cross, then Satan cannot deceive the nations any longer. Now, unless we want to say that Satan has more power and can overcome the elect, which we don't believe he can, because Matthew says that it's not even possible that he deceives the elect in Matthew 24,

I think we're all in agreement there. But the question is, as far as the nations go, is

God saving the nations, yes or no? I believe that we have. I think you could point to Romans chapter 1 and say that he was doing it already in that day, that the gospel had spread all out, and people were saved throughout the known world.

So I don't think there's any doubt that Satan's binding does not mean that he is completely incapable.

I mean, I would be all biblical and unbiblical to say that he's not deceiving the nation, that he can't roar around and prowl for a roaring lion.

But who is he seeking? Whom he may devour, okay? So he's not, he can't devour the elect.

That's why our salvation is so great in God. Wonderful explanation, man.

I'm pretty sure my pastor here, Creston Thomas, is going to be in agreement with you. But Creston, do you want to add anything to that, or how would you go?

Hey, Zach was spitting bars, man. That was good, Zach. But let me add one thing to it.

I think Jeremiah mentioned something about Rahab in the Old Testament.

Even Rahab, for her salvation, God in his sovereignty,

God used the theocratic Israel, that system, and many had to come through that system.

Even Rahab had to, by her, had to keep those same laws and everything, even under this theocratic system.

And so we saw this invisible church in the Old Testament. So the church wasn't visible in the

Old Testament. It was always invisible. Like David, it was all part of this invisible church. They would say it's

Christ, sola scriptura. Christ is the, you know, Christ alone, you know. And so it's always been

Christ, Abraham. He looked forward to something greater. All these things that look forward to Christ. And so even in the

Old Testament, even Rahab, we would say, well, well, Satan wasn't bound in the Old Testament.

So by him not being bound in the Old Testament, how did Rahab or someone else come into faith?

By him not being bound. They came in through the mosaic system.

And for them, that by faith, even though they was in that system, they had to keep the laws they were asked to consider as proselytization and things of that nature of Israel.

But we see something new in the New Testament. When Christ, you know, throughout his ministry as a suffering servant, he comes in and Christ on the cross, he was put to death as a suffering servant.

But when he was raised up, now he commissioned this church out. Now this church that used to be, say, this invisible church, now he brings about a visible church to the world.

And what happened here? You know, what happened with all these things taking place, the same time we see that Christ has given all the authority.

And Satan at this time right here, he's not having dominion over his dominion now in the sense of now it's limited now, bit time.

Now Christ has all dominion, but Satan has some, you know, I think Jeremiah mentioned a couple of verses how

Satan still, you know, try to tempt us and do things here and there. But one thing

Satan is not able to do, Satan is not able to stop the elect from coming to Christ now to be a part of this visible church.

And so now this visible church now is public and it's going forward in power that Christ has given them the power to go forward in.

So we see this bonding, I would say the bonding as being that Satan now is limited on what he can do.

He cannot deceive those who God is calling to himself. And I love how I use the word of this.

And I love also a lot of time before we get to this, we see the word ancient serpent. He uses serpent, devil, and Satan.

He uses three words and everything to show you the magnitude of this judgment that is happening.

This what is happening right here that now God is about to pour his wrath out.

You know, this is about to go down now, it's bedtime now. And so God, hey, he bound him up for this thousand years, but eventually it's whenever he comes, you know, get free,

God is going to judge him forevermore. And so I can stop there.

Let me stop there. But so that's kind of where I see the thousand years. Satan is bound and it's sealed.

And I don't believe in the sealed and the literal that his seal, you know, you put zip ties and everything over it.

And now, you know, Satan can't do this and that. I believe the seal, like I said, I think it's sealed in a way of he's not able to do, like I said, deceive.

And it tells us he's not able to deceive the nations any longer. That's what it tells us. That's what he's still to do. He's not able to deceive us in referring to deceiving the elect from coming to Christ.

And so, yeah. All right. I'm definitely got some questions for you.

But as we get into our next question, how do you guys view the first and second resurrection?

I know me and Creston had a debate my last season of White Theology and me and him going back at it about the first and second resurrection.

But I guess we'll start with you, Mr. Zach. How would you kind of view the first and second resurrection scene here?

And this is extremely difficult. And I think this is possibly the best point for the pre -male understanding with the using of the word

Anastasis. Don't get too carried away now. Come on, Zach. I was rooting for you, man.

And it meaning physical resurrection. But in the words of Lee Corso, not so fast, my friend. I think the first resurrection is talking about Jesus' resurrection.

And I think that it is the first fruits. And we are blessed to partake in the first fruits. And we know we've partaken in this first fruits of his physical resurrection,

Anastasis, because we've been given the spirit, which is the down payment of that. And then the second resurrection will be the physical resurrection that everyone will go through, which

I believe happens. Everyone saved and lost is resurrected at the same time.

So there's not a resurrection of the believers in 1 Thessalonians 4 and then a later resurrection at the end of Revelation.

Okay. Now, Kristen, would you kind of differ on that? Or how would you kind of interpret it? Yeah, the same way, man.

For us, resurrection in a sense of how we have resurrected from life, from death to life in Christ.

We've been born again, said in John 3, when Christ called us from a death, we've been dead in our sins.

We're dead in our trespass. It brings us alive. We raise the life, raise this newness of life in Christ. Then eventually we're going to be raised again with Christ in eternity.

And so, you know, with the death, you know, we know the first death, we were dead.

Like I say, we're dead. And the second death, I think Zach kind of hits it.

I agree with Zach. What would you say about the second death, Zach? Or did you say anything?

Second resurrection. Being the general resurrection of everyone at the end.

Yeah. So I would be with Zach. Like I said, it's a very unique passage.

It's very unique, but I can do, I do see, you know, this resurrection, you know, throughout the

Gospels, we see this resurrection and seeing that Christ is going to come back and call us to himself and we're going to join him.

And so I do see a second resurrection. So I would lean more with Zach on this one. All right.

Mr. Jeremiah, you got to come say the date. I'm just playing. But how would you view this first and second resurrection, man?

Well, I want to agree with Zach and Kristen that this is a interesting passage.

And personally, I don't think this carries any special weight to any one view, because my understanding of the first resurrection,

I almost see this as saying, okay, well, this at least is pointing to the fact that there is a second resurrection.

You have these two resurrections. And I like what Kristen said, all throughout the Gospels, you have some of the resurrection and the life, and then you got some of the resurrection of the just.

And I see primarily two resurrections, one under life, one under death.

Even Daniel 12 talks about these two types of resurrections, where we differ, as I believe these resurrections can happen in stages.

I was looking at, you know, 1 Corinthians 15, and it doesn't seem like it necessitates there being a...

So when we look at the sheep and goat judgment, I think the primary takeaway is there's two types of resurrection.

So nothing in my mind says that there's not a hindering of that happening in various stages.

So when I look at the first resurrection, I typically look at that as believers. Now, you know, whether we look into what a rapture looks like and the timing of Jesus's return, to me, those things, it's going to be different for those who've already died in the past versus to, you know, some people being alive at Jesus's coming.

That might look a little bit different. But in my mind, all that falls into the category of the first resurrection, the resurrection under life.

And then I think at the end of it all, which could happen in nuanced, various ways, there will be an ultimate resurrection unto death, unto judgment.

And so I tend to take the simplistic view that this is talking about first and second resurrection, one under life and one under death.

So KJ, would you differ with me at all in kind of looking at that? Yeah. So like, again, before I say anything,

I'm kind of with Chris and Mrs. Zack. I kind of view like the entire book of Revelation as a symbolic book.

But we know things in literature that we're able to interpret what symbolism was not. And so you guys know what similes and metaphors are.

We use those to kind of identify, okay, this is symbolism. This is not. But John, what he does is to not count on a 10.

He tells you what these signs and symbols mean. Well, in here, I see no reason for us to use,

I guess, or to interpret these passages right here as symbolism, because it all makes sense right here.

If I'm making sense. But John tells us right here who, in fact, these people are, who are in the first resurrection.

These are all the people of God who are participating in resurrection. So let's say, for example,

Adam, Eve, David, Solomon, all the people in the Old Testament. If we die tomorrow, we'll all be rising our new bodies, and we reign over Christ.

And the verse says the martyrs, the people who did not take the mark of the beast. So these are all the Christians of all times participating in the first resurrection.

So that's us today, and also all Christians of all times, the entire Church of God, Spirit of Israel, reigning over Christ for a thousand years.

Now, the second resurrection, I would say that that's the general resurrection for the dead. All those who never trusted in Jesus, who never repented and turned to him for salvation.

This is the people. It tells us here in the text, too, that these people, they went to hell. They experienced a second death.

That's why John says, blessed is everyone who participates in the first resurrection. And Paul talked about this, too, in Philippians.

He says that he was trying to strive to obtain a special resurrection.

Well, if we let the Bible interpret itself, kind of what Jeremiah said, all the passages talk about a first and second resurrection or a resurrection of the just and the unjust.

We're not giving indicators on when they're going to happen. We just know it's going to happen. Well, if we kind of,

I guess, let the Bible interpret itself, here, right here, it tells us there's a thousand years in between the first and the second resurrection.

And so I believe the first one is the just and the second is unjust. Yeah, so the reason that I would disagree with that is because of Matthew and chapter 25.

And I believe it's somewhere in the 30s there, about halfway down. It says that when Jesus comes back, that there's immediate judgment.

OK, so if Christ comes back pre -trib rapture and raises up the believers and all their bodies and they go back to heaven with him,

I don't know what your view of the rapture is, but then you've got a gap of a thousand years between Christ coming back, a resurrection of the dead and the judgment.

And I don't think Matthew 25 gives you warrant to place that time there. I think it's cut and dry with first Corinthians 15 that he comes back, he raises people out of the grave, and then there's a judgment to the death and the life.

That's my view and I understand the difference and I respect that and I appreciate the conversation and I enjoyed that part.

Hey, Zach, real quick, I got a question. I'm trying to make sure. So the first resurrection for you,

Zach, is? Christ's resurrection. Then we partake in that through belief.

OK, and KJ, would you agree with that? That part, the first? So I would look at it as like this is all belief.

This is a literal, anastasis is the Greek word. This is a literal physical resurrection that takes place when Christ returns.

All Christians of all times are participating in his resurrection in this sense. They were all reigning with Christ for 1000 years.

All those Christians at this at this first resurrection. Yeah. OK, and this is

I want to make sure. So I know you mentioned David and all the people that profess Christ in the

Old Testament. Now, will they be a part of this resurrection? So for the historic premill position,

I believe in the posture rapture. So like the church is not going to be taken out of suffering. They're going to experience this seven year tribulation or how do you want this suffering and got to return the end of that in a visible return.

That's what comforts people. Now, let's say, for example, this is not going to happen. But if Christ were to return tomorrow, everyone who has been dead of all time that's trusted in Christ, they will rise with their glorified bodies.

And we who are alive today, we will get our new bodies in the rapture. But we will all be participating in that thousand thousand year reign of Christ here on Earth.

But all those Christians have been martyred for the fate or have been who have died, trusting in Christ. This is the first resurrection, a literal resurrection.

So what was yours on the second resurrection?

I want to make sure the general resurrection of all the dead.

So my understanding is that. So, KJ, are you saying that like if I died, that my body would be resurrected around the throne with Christ now?

Is that what you're saying? I'm trying to make sense of this. So, again, none of us know when

Christ is going to return. But like and I don't know, like if God works on time, for example. So like if we die right now, I don't know.

Like, you know, saying like, you know, judgment, like I might say what I can say from this text is all those

Christians of all times who have died, trusted in the Lord will rise with Christ with their new bodies.

But for us today, if Christ were to turn tomorrow, we get new bodies in the rapture, if I'm making sense.

Yeah, no, no, I'm with you there. I just my understanding is that that happens at the same time. And that's what I would be calling the second resurrection, because the dead in Christ will rise and then we are alive and remain.

We'll meet him in the air. And then obviously, we turn right around and come back and usher him into the kingdom, don't go back to heaven. But that's just.

Go ahead, Jeremiah. So I like that Zach was talking about first resurrection would pre point to Christ first and foremost.

I think I would strongly agree with that. But that would entail the ultimate resurrection that we receive in first Corinthians 15.

So I would say that that's not happened. We've experienced a new physical rebirth, right?

A resurrection in life, a new creation. But like all of us agree that we've not received resurrected bodies yet.

So that's why I think absolutely that begins with Christ. Something else that Zach said, and this took me a long time to wrap my head around within a premillennial view, is when we talk about a type of rapture, to me,

I'm totally not dogmatic on the timing of when that happens. But I would say

Christ getting his bride is to be distinguished from his second coming. So it's not like a secret first or a secret second coming that no one knows about.

And he kind of just kind of tiptoes back off the screen. I would say the snatching of his bride is to be distinguished from the second coming of judgment and ultimately setting up this millennial kingdom.

So I think that's a nuanced difference that a lot of people will say, well, the rapture is really a secret second coming.

I'd say really that's a taking away of the bride, not the second coming judgment. And I would agree with you on that.

It's a taking away of the bride. But I think there's a clear passage as to when the rapture is going to happen.

And it's Psalm in one, where all of his enemies are at his feet. And then he comes back and he presents the kingdom, see what

I've done to the father. And first Corinthians says that. I was tongue in cheek about that passage.

I was going to say that passage in 2 Thessalonians, kind of the church in that, I guess, Thessalonians or whatever, they were kind of like wondering, you know, if all, you know,

Christ said that we would experience his rapture or the second coming with Christ. Paul kind of equates the second coming of Christ and the rapture as one and the same event too.

So that's why I kind of like lean more towards kind of Zach in that position. So if I could real quick too,

I would like to read, like I said, I believe John kind of tells us and it kind of explains the book itself.

So in verse four, Revelation 20, he said, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus.

And because of the word of God and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received a mark on their forehead and on her hand.

And they came to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and will reign with Christ for a thousand years.

And so again, John tells it to these people, all the Christians who have died for the faith specifically says that,

I don't know how you guys view this, but like for me being a pre -mill guy, I hold to like a seven year tribulation.

And so that's going to be Christians. Again, I don't believe in a preacher rapture. So the church is going to be going through suffering and they're going to be going through suffering and they'll be getting killed for the faith.

Well, part of people getting resurrected are those who died for the faith, but not just doing this specific time period of suffering, all times, all ages, all creatures who died for the faith, who died trusting in Christ.

John tells that they will rise with Christ and reign for a thousand years. And he says, this is the first resurrection. And the rest of the dead, those are all those who did, who died, never trusting in Jesus.

Anybody got it? Yeah. Okay. And like I said, I don't want to take too much more time from you guys.

We can talk about this some other time, but so would anybody disagree with this?

Let me throw this out there. I think you guys said a million times already. So I'm gonna throw it out there. The first resurrection is of the soul from death to life.

The second resurrection is of the body, the new bodies. Like I disagree with that.

Yeah. Okay. Nobody. Okay. Everybody. So I'll say the first resurrection of we're born again, born again in Christ.

The second resurrection is that when we get our, at the end, you know, when we get our new bodies in Christ, that's what

I would kind of lean to that. Now you guys disagree with that. Yeah. Like I said, like John tells us,

I mean, I'm, I'm on the fence there with that. Cause I'm trying to play the honest of both sides, taking it, taking that first resurrection to Jesus and taking it through that.

But essentially, yeah, I'm going to have to say through some way or another, that the new birth is part of that. So, yeah. Cause I would lean in more because like, for example, like first death, second death, this is where I'm kind of, we're thinking through it.

I would say to say two things here, either the first death, right. It representing, um, those are unbelievers.

Then unbelievers, the second death for unbelievers, God judges them forevermore in hell. That's the second one for unbelievers.

Or on the other side of this is that, um, the death represent for the ungodly.

They die. It's the death, the first death with unbelievers. When they die here on earth, then they get punished again in hell.

And so that's what I'm kind of working through. I'm not really, I mean, I'm trying to work through it, but, uh, I think you just said a minute ago,

KJ, you said, John said that clearly, I say, John say it clearly or resurrection. You guys carry on, man.

We can talk about this some other time. Now we've arrived at the question and answer time. So now the perfect opportunity for us to kind of ask each other questions.

And I went, I kind of want to ask, um, you guys questions, um, Kristen and Zach. So we all know the

Greek word. Hey, how you get to ask the first question, man? Why can't you ask the first question? Go ahead, man.

You want to, you can go ahead. No, no, go ahead. We asked the person that on this episode. So the

Greek word for resurrection here is Anastasis. Nowhere in the, everywhere in the Bible that a Greek word is used.

It's always referring to a physical resurrection. So if we're going to interpret the first resurrection here, let's say symbolically to describing, you know, our first resurrection that is coming from death to life.

And that means the second part, the second resurrection has to mean the same exact thing. We can't be like this resurrection means it's a symbolic version and the other one is not.

But how'd you guys kind of explain that? Let me ask you this. So if you say that, if we say that the first death was a spiritual death,

I think everybody agrees with that. Okay. Then the second, then the, then the first resurrection can be a spiritual resurrection, but I see the issue with Anastasis.

But at the same time in Revelation 20, when he says the first resurrection, that's the correct me if I'm wrong.

That's the first time we see first resurrection as far as that goes. So I don't know if that was what

Creston was trying to go back to. Hey, that the first death is spiritual. So the first birth is spiritual. And then the second, the second, yeah, the death is physical.

So then the resurrection will be physical. Yes. Yeah. That's what I was trying to get at. Yes. Okay. But I guess my question is still kind of, cause it leads,

I guess. So if the first resurrection is symbolically, I guess, to be interpreted, then it means the second resurrection should be interpreted the same way.

So the first resurrection is interpreted symbolically as describing our being dead and come to life. That means the second resurrection must be interpreted the same exact thing.

The rest of the day come to life. That's what John says here in the, in the verses. How would you guys kind of deal with that part? If I'm making sense?

But not necessarily, KJ. Not necessarily. I mean, just dealing with the type of literature we're dealing with, it can, it can, it can show.

Cause I mean, the book of revelation in and of itself, it's a, it's climactic. You know, it brings everything in from the whole

Bible from the entire, all the rest of the books of the Bible, and it just throws everything in here. And so could it be a summation of both resurrections?

I mean, we, we have seen the book play on both throughout the entire book. We have seen, it talks about, you know, physical kingdoms and the spiritual kingdom.

So could it, I mean, isn't it the nature of the book? Unless somebody asks us a question, then

I kind of come back and we'll talk about it more. I think you've got, if you understand, like maybe in the context of the early church about why this keeps getting brought up is because they've got some, some spiritualization of some things going on.

I mean, you've got Gnosticism and things of that coming into the church saying that, well, anything with a physical body is bad.

And Paul is making sure that he verifies, Hey, no, there's going to be a resurrection of the physical body. So, and he makes that point in Colossians when he talks about that Jesus was raised from the dead and he has a physical body.

So I think that there's more of an emphasis on that than the first and second resurrection is.

But like I said, the Anastasis point, I think is your best argument. Oh, okay.

Let, let me, let me chime in because I actually, this is maybe where me and you, KJ and me, and you maybe see this a little bit different, even though we're on the same team.

I think this, the simplest approach to the first and resurrection, I might, would be close to Creston because I, when

Jesus says, I am the resurrection in life, I definitely see that encompassing a spiritual reality.

And I do think about us being dead and our sins and trespasses being raised to newness of law, to walk in newness of life with him,

Romans chapter six. But when I see in Revelation 20, what's more preeminent for me is the chronological flow of the book.

So I would see this in telling necessarily that this, this is where I agree with you, KJ, that this would be a physical culmination of what everything has been building up to.

And I do think that's what Daniel 12, all the mentions of it in the four gospels, talking about the ultimate point of the physical reality of what's been alluded to and already taken place spiritually.

So it's funny, that's an aspect where I kind of, can I like, I like what Zach said too, that obviously that first resurrection,

Jesus would be first and we would be partakers in the first fruits of that. But to me, all that's going somewhere to that physical reality.

Will somebody else have a question too, they want to ask each other in this time period as well? I have two questions, but I don't want to hog the time necessarily, but I do,

I'm very curious to see how Creston and Zach would answer this.

So y 'all are familiar with Jesus healing a man with a demon in Luke chapter eight, and this is also paralleled with Matthew chapter eight.

So they said something interesting to Jesus when he cast them out. He says that the demons say, what do you have to do with me,

Jesus, son of the most high God, I beg you do not torment me. And Matthew adds before the appointed time.

So I think, and this is where it cut me off if you disagree, but I think we would all agree that this is the before the time of judgment that is future.

And so they not only have a right Christology that Jesus is the only one of God, but they have a good understanding of eschatology of future judgment.

And so in verse 31, the demons begged him to not command them to depart into the abyss.

And so contextually, it seems like Jesus honored their request and let them go into the pigs and they did not go into the abyss.

I think we're still at agreement here. And when I look at the Greek word for abyss, it's the same word translated in the

English in revelation 20 as the pit. So this is where I'm really curious because the pre -meal says the demons were not sent into the pit, but revelation 20 basically says that we're already in the pit bound here and now, or Satan's already in the pit bound here now.

And I'm saying that seems to be a future judgment. So how would y 'all make sense of the word abyss being the same as the word pit in revelation 20?

I mean, I've heard, so you can take this to Christ's ascension and it's conquering then.

And I've heard it recently. I think it was Doug Wilson that said that this happens at AD 70. So I mean, that's a great question.

And that's something that I'm, that I'm studying out as to when this, so there, in my view, we've got this 40 year carryover between Pentecost and AD 70.

And I'm, and I'm trying to work out as to what binding happens at, you know, if it's at the ascension or if it's, there's some future consummation at, at AD 70.

I mean, I think it's a great question. Man, that leads me to the point to say that I don't know.

Would you say the abyss is not talking about the earth where we're currently living? I don't want to speak to something that I haven't studied.

Gotcha. Gotcha. What about you, Creston? What do you think? Yeah, I want to jump in, man, but, but I want to make sure, to be honest,

I didn't, I didn't really, can you, can you throw your question at me one more time? Maybe you can.

Oh yeah. I'll condense it down. If we got time, just shoot it at me again. So when we go to Luke 8 and parallel with Matthew 8, the demons say,

Jesus, please don't torment us before the appointed time. Don't send us to the abyss. And I feel like he honors that request.

He lets them go into a herd of pigs. So I would say the demons understand that this earth where Satan is currently ruling and reigning, this whole world lies in his power, roaming around like a line, is not the abyss.

The problem now is in Revelation 20, if we say that the millennial kingdom is now here on earth, well, we have

Satan being bound in the pit, which is the abyss. And I'm saying that interpretation of Revelation 20 seems to conflict with the passage in Luke chapter 8.

So I just want to, that's, I see a problem with that. So, so, so based upon Luke 8, it seemed like that abyss, what

Jesus is going to throw him is going to be this physical place or a place on earth. Is that kind of what you kind of?

So I'm saying given Luke 8, it doesn't seem like the abyss is a physical place here on earth.

It'd be a place of torment that they don't want to go to, which would not be here on earth.

So now, now with, because I really don't, and I say it might be because of my, my ignorance.

I'm looking at Revelation 20 as Satan being bound, him being bound, you know, where's he at spiritually?

I mean, I mean, we can't, we don't see him, right? Something like spiritually, like he is bound and it's some type of spiritual way.

Satan is bound in a way. Could that same Luke 8 be in the sense of, hey,

I'm going to bound them spiritually. I don't know if I'm just confusing there or maybe I can do some more study in it, but.

Let me ask you a follow up. Is Satan bound, sealed up in the pit right now?

Yes. So why would the demons in Luke 8 say, please do not torment us before the time to come.

Please do not send us to the abyss. At this particular time in Jesus' ministry, for them, they're not in a sense of all knowing.

So they don't know exactly the time when Christ is going to actually be, you know, ascended to the cross. They don't know when

Christ is actually going to be crucified. They're going to have all dominion and things of that. And so for them, even though they see that,

I think that's a remarkable picture, even for Satan. He's still knowing, I think James 2 talks about this, that he knows that he is a

God, even in James 2. And so they know who Jesus is. They know his power, know his strength.

But when he came the first time, he came as a suffering servant. And so right then though, he didn't, in a sense of an eclectic way, show all of his authority by casting him.

I think all that kind of happens at his actually, his crucifixion. And so for them, they're saying, well,

Jesus, don't throw me in there. But for Jesus, it's not the time appointed for the father anyway.

And so for Jesus, throws him off the cliff. I mean, it goes into the thing, jumped off the cliff. I just think this is a picture of the father's working in this, the son is working in this, and the demons not knowing exactly when it was going to happen.

And so I don't know if this is, I don't know if I'm all over the place with this, but I'm thinking that it is going to be a point of time when

Christ, it was a point of time when Christ was asking, was victorious on the cross.

That's when Satan became bound. And what anticipated that was

Luke 8. Luke 8 let us know that day is coming, that you will be bound one day, but y 'all get a break today.

Y 'all go ahead and jump off the cliff, but you got it coming pretty soon. So I don't know if there's a corny answer, man, but that's kind of what

I'm serving in and I might need to do some more work in it. Hey, I appreciate that response. And I'll just close with saying this, that just to make sure

I rightly understand your position, when they say don't torment us before the time, you're saying that time of torment is

Jesus' death, burial, resurrection. And so the torment is kind of saying them being bound in that spiritual sense after the gospel is going forth.

I might have a lot of loopholes in there, but I think that was a good answer. Yeah, based on what we're talking about now, that's kind of probably what

I would lean at. And feel free to push on me and I would love to rethink what

I just said. Jeremiah, I'm having a hard time with the understanding, like, because I'm seeing that these demons and Satan, that these are spiritual beings and I'm having a hard time with them being bound in a physical abyss.

So that's my, and like I said, maybe it's ignorance with lack of study in that subject, but that's my issue with it.

Sure, and I appreciate that too. And I'm still learning and growing in this. While I was looking at the

Greek word for abyss, it brought up another close Greek word for Tartarus, which brings up in 2

Peter 2. And it seems to be like a subterranean within shield of a place designated for demons.

That's why 2 Peter 2 and Jude talk about a special place for demons. And like I said,

I don't want to be dogmatic. And my understanding, this torment would be a future eschaton of judgment.

And they feared that. In the context, they have a right Christology. And it seems to me they understood all the

Old Testament judgment passages that's awaiting them. So I think the pit, the abyss is a spiritual reality that actually exists, but it's nowhere here on earth.

So that's just my position. Yeah, cool. I don't think

I disagree with that. I mean, on earth, I can't see I disagree with that.

Let's see what Jeremiah is getting at is if this abyss, if you guys will,

I don't know if you guys have all read the book of Revelation, but in Revelation chapter 9, one of the judgments, I think it's like one of the trumpet judgments.

There's an angel comes down who he has the keys of the abyss and he opens it. And it talks about demons coming out of the abyss.

So that means prior to the opening of the abyss, things that are in the abyss are unable to like be upon the earth.

That means they want to open to abyss. And the language that's used in Revelation 20, Satan is thrown in that same abyss that those prior demons were unable to kind of access the earth.

That's kind of what Jeremiah is getting at. But I'll go like what Zach was saying is, I mean, we're dealing with a literal key in a literal federal prison or something.

You know, he's saying, you know, I think we kind of can, but I think dealing with spiritual things,

I think you still, it don't have to, you know, you can use spiritual things and not, you know, be on a physical earth, if that makes sense.

So yes, I'm having a hard time as well seeing that, you know, by them being bound, they can't be on the earth.

I think by being spiritual, I mean, I think you still got freedom for him still to be, for him to kind of open up the abyss and he can kind of roam back on earth and be around the earth.

I don't know, man. I'm still working through it. Now, I had a question for, maybe if everybody wants to kind of answer it, you guys can.

So the nature kind of revelation, like I said, I believe like, you know, my perspective is like, I view it more of as a recalculation, like telling the same story, but each chapter where it's kind of building off one another, but it's telling the same story with different vantage points.

But in chapter 19 and 20, I'm sure me and Jeremiah both say this, kind of, you know, sequential, but even if we don't,

I don't know if you guys see, we kind of believe this. Paul says in second Thessalonians that there is an actual real life man known as the

Antichrist, the man of lawlessness. When Christ returns, he would destroy the Antichrist physically as an actual physical person that's named the

Antichrist. So if we're following the nature of this book, Revelation in chapter 19,

Jesus Christ does in fact kill the Antichrist, the beast who John tells us in Revelation 17, who that is.

So if this is right now, currently millennium, that means the Antichrist has also been defeated, but the man of lawlessness by no means has he come yet in a degree that which

Paul states in second Thessalonians. So how would you kind of deal with that? I think you're using a word and taking it that's never used in the book of Revelation and you're placing it in the book of Revelation.

So, I mean, anytime we think about, I mean, Antichrist in first John two, it's a spirit of Antichrist. So it's a false teacher that rises up in the earth.

I mean, in the church, the beast in Revelation is a political entity. So, I mean,

I think in Revelation, man, correct me if I'm wrong here, I believe it's 13, where it talks about the

Antichrist and it says, let him who has understanding pretty much pay attention that the number is 666 and using the way that they use their stuff.

I mean, you spell out Neron, Kaiser, and then you're going to come up with 666. But I mean, that makes sense for me to be talking about him to be looking in that.

I would say that the Thessalonians passage is talking about someone else, a previous ruler at the time.

But yeah, I don't think there's any connection to taking Antichrist and placing him as the beast.

I don't think that that word is used anywhere in You don't mind if I read that passage to you in Thessalonians.

Paul talks about again, he says, let no one in any way deceive you, for we will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction who opposes and exalts himself above every so -called

God or object in worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, explaining himself as being

God. Do you not remember why I was still with you? I was telling you these things and you know that will restrain them now. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.

Only he who will not restrains it will do so until he's taken out. Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the

Lord will slay with his breath. Now, the reason why I correlated that to Revelation 19, because that's exactly what happens in Revelation 19, this same physical person that Paul is talking about, who is the

Antichrist, is the same person that Jesus kills when he returns.

That's kind of what I was kind of dealing with. Well, your problem with that is that it says that he is already restraining.

So, if he's already restraining in Paul's day, then he's talking about somebody that's in Paul's day. He's not talking about somebody at least 2 ,000 years in the future.

So, I think you make some good points, Zach, especially when you brought up 1 John 2, that there's a spirit of Antichrist already among us, that spirit of the age that Ephesians 2 talks about.

Now, obviously, I lean heavily towards where KJ is coming from, but I believe there can be a spirit of Antichrist being manifest in so many different ways that are always anti -gospel.

Now, what's interesting is when you do look at the book of Revelation itself and how it,

I mean, my view is really the context allows us to define the terms that it's using.

What's real interesting in Revelation 16 is we see an unholy trinity in verse 13, and I saw it coming out of the mouth of the dragon and the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits.

Now, I get that this is a highly apocalyptic book, and there's a lot of prophetic language, symbolism, all that, but it is striking to me when we do get into the millennial kingdom at the end when the beast or the dragons released again that we see the language that's used, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur and where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

So, Zach, I agree in the sense that in Paul's day there was a spirit of Antichrist. There was the spirit of antinomianism, of gnosticism, and all these things.

It's almost like Satan is trying to find a false prophet, one to totally, because when you look in church history like Antiochus Epiphany, that dude was a type of Antichrist, and Nero and all these men, but did they necessarily meet all the qualifications of what might be something in future?

These things are hard to understand, so I think you're both looking at really good principles because I think there can be a spirit of Antichrist, and that culminates in something physical, so we kind of get this merge of the spiritual and the physical merging together, and that's kind of where I come from in a futuristic.

I think Jesus is ruling Iran now, you know, by means of the Holy Spirit in the church, and then he will return bodily to set up that kingdom, so there's a lot of points of overlap there,

I think. Yeah, go ahead, Zach. I'm sorry. Go ahead, but go ahead.

Go ahead. You're fine. No, no, no, go ahead. So, I'm just going to say my thoughts on the unholy trinity would be

Satan, and then the beast is Rome, and then it says that the harlot sits on the beast, and I take this false prophet to be this harlot who is this old

Jerusalem who didn't accomplish the task. So, Isaiah 121 says, Behold, my faithful city has become a harlot.

So, I think we're coming at it from just such a different mindset about the way we're thinking and getting there, and obviously, we can track with one another.

You probably track with my view better than I track with yours on that, but that's all I was going to say. Yeah, quick question.

I haven't, I know some guys talked about this before. Like, at the, when

Christ returned, right, his second coming, would death still be possible for death?

I mean, would people still die? That's kind of your question.

Yeah, but people be able to still die. Go ahead. I'm sorry. So, yeah, me,

I want me and KJ both to kind of answer this, and I'll try to be brief. So, you got to think there's deeper rooted issues in my view, because I see

Revelation unfolding chronologically. So, when I look at Revelation 20, I do see death.

I really see this as a mirror of Isaiah chapter 65, where there is old age once again, and there is death.

Now, when I look at 1 Corinthians 15, how death is no more. It's funny. I really do view that as a spiritual death is no more for those who are in Christ, but when he comes back to rule and reign, this is phase one of Jesus setting up his eternal kingdom, and I really do see in Revelation chapter 19, this is a question for y 'all if we ever, if we have time to, is

I do see Revelation 19 being Jesus's second coming, which precedes

Revelation 20, where then he then sets up his kingdom. So, back to what you said,

I see death happening in the millennial kingdom. I just don't see it in the eternal state in chapters 21 and 22.

I'm gonna go alongside of that. I don't know how you guys would view this, like if you guys would,

I don't know, based on this on Revelation 19, it tells us that when he comes, Jesus Christ, he kills only the antichrist in his kingdom.

It doesn't say that he destroys like all unbelievers. So, that's just one perspective that, you know, some people in historic pre -mobilization would kind of hold to.

That's what it says right here in Revelation 19, that he only destroys the beast in his kingdom and all those who are at war with him.

Now, you gotta look in Zechariah 14. We see there's Jesus Christ. It tells us that he's here on earth, but it also tells us when it's time for him on earth, there's people who are like kind of still lost in a sense.

You guys can look in Zechariah 14. So, that's another, I don't have time to kind of talk about everything. Also, with Jeremiah hinting at it in Isaiah 65, how

I think it says, I'm paraphrasing, to be alive at age 100 is considered to be young, but it tells us that, you know, death is still possible, but like that can't possibly not happen in the new heavens and new earth.

How can somebody die in that? Because we all know no one can die in that estate. So, it can't be there. So, it must be possibly in the millennium people are still able to die.

Now, I'll just give you guys possibilities. Your problem with that is the beginning of the passage states, behold,

I create a new heaven and a new earth. So, that doesn't, I don't think. Zach knows my rebuttal to that.

Yeah. So, another thing too, like in Zechariah, I believe it's 12.

Like, I don't know how you guys view this, you know, as far as, you know, Jews, you know, being, you know, restored, all those things.

But Zechariah 12, I think it's 12 or 13, talks about when they see him again, they will mourn for them, basically who they killed.

So, I'm not sure, like I said, this is a position. Some say that like when

Christ returns, all those, he returns to Jerusalem and those Jews, as Romans 11, 25 states, they'll be saved.

Now, I'm not talking about every single Jew will be saved, but we do know that all of your, what is it? You guys learned the passage states.

All the Jews will be saved in that sense. Like, you know, all those Jews are part of the elect. I don't know, like if they're caught up in a rapture when he returns or like they actually see him and they get saved.

I don't know. Like I said, I don't know if they enter into the kingdom without the glove. I don't know. But the last one

I would say is like, we know that like babies, for example, they're not, Paul tells us in Romans that we're all judged for our actions that we commit in the flesh.

And so a baby, for example, even though they're born in original sin, for example, they can be judged just for that sin and go to hell.

But it's true in God's character that he possibly wouldn't kill a child. I'm not talking about age, but I'm talking about babies.

He wouldn't kill babies because we see he hates the death of babies. And so it's just one character.

It's a possibility that when he returns, he may destroy all unbelievers, but is it a chance that the kids who are left here, because there's babies right now, right?

Christ will tell you today he will have to kill babies, but we know from his grace and his kindness that he doesn't do it today.

So could these babies enter the millennium, but not have glorified bodies? That's just kind of some different perspectives.

But yeah, anybody that doesn't have a glorified body and say they're saved in the millennium, where do they go?

Because they can't be around the throne. He's on the earth. So I think that's one of the hardest questions for the premillennial position to answer is, okay, if there is death in the millennial kingdom, what happens?

And I would just say, we're not told. And for someone that says, well, that seems pretty ridiculous.

I would say there's been more ridiculous things happen in the Bible. So it's just pure speculation.

I mean, I think that's no problem for God, if someone dies in the millennial reign and then they receive their immortal bodies.

But yeah, I think the infant babies dying, I think we trust the just judge of all the earth to do right on those types of questions.

So KJ, I was going to say, I'm curious to hear Kristen, Zach, and you about, is

Revelation 19 talking about the second coming or first coming? The second.

I can jump in there. Like I say, I'm just, you know, average, you know,

Joe. So I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get this wrong. But I guess for me,

I see it as, you know, KJ used the word recapitulation. I can't even say it.

I didn't have English down yet. So I can't even say that word. But I see it more of a, some ways, some people call like, a more of a chiastic structure there.

And also I see it, even before then, I see more of a, the whole book set up like this parallelism, you know, this parallelism.

And I think it's a reversal here at the end of 20 to 22, I think it was 17 to 19.

Throughout these different parallelism was happening. You always see like the first couple of them,

I think the second, the third type of series that is parallelism. I'm thinking like from chapter four to chapter seven, you deal with this, you know, this suffering of the

Christian, then Jesus comes back, judge the world and, and he takes them to, you know, for them, they're going to be in his kingdom forever.

But here at the end of the book, we see it backwards. I see 20 as Jesus, you know, in a sense going to give, defeat this, this

Satan, he's going to defeat him, then the new kingdom, we're going to go into the new kingdom. So what happened at the end of 19?

19, I would say that this is Jesus' second coming. I would say that Jesus' second coming, that Jesus is actually judging the nations.

And so he's, he's on a roll. I mean, he is this new, he's coming in and Muhammad Ali, right after he, you know, had to step down from Boston, had to come back, time to get his time to come back and clean house.

And I think what Jesus is doing now, he get rid of the dragon, he get rid of the beast. Now he's going to get ready to get rid of the actual

Satan. And so, and what happened is, so that's kind of what I'm seeing here. He's going through and getting rid of all of them.

But at the end of this, we see Jesus come back here at the end of 19. I don't see it as Jesus comes back, and this is not the final,

I see it as another picture of the final stage there in 19. Yeah.

So I see 19 as the first coming and his destruction upon Jerusalem. Let me drop the bomb here on you boys.

I see it as its first coming. And then chapter 20, we see the establishment of the millennium.

Now you've got a serious issue with, if you take the book of Galatians, you've got the Jews trying to take these

Gentiles and bring them back. So as long as that temple standing, you've got a serious issue with the new

Jerusalem marching forth. So what I think you see is the destruction of Jerusalem in 80, 70, in chapter 19, verse 20 talks about the binding of Satan in the millennium discussing this phase.

And now we see that this is going to be, so you've got Satan bound and now you've got old Jerusalem, the harlot out of the way.

So the new pure bride can come on the scene who is described in chapters 21 and 22.

And I would, the reason I would partly also go with that. Well, I think 21, it has to be talking about not the eternal state is because you have an invitation to drink from whoever wants to, whoever's thirsty, let him come drink.

And then it says he who overcomes, and then it lists all the sins. There's no need to be overcoming sins. If this is the eternal state and you see the exact same parallel in Isaiah 65, and I think they're beautifully married together.

Wonderful, man. I wanted to ask you guys a quick question. What is the devil doing right now? I'll go first.

I think he is not bound and he is deceiving the nations. And I think he is, he's tempted.

He's continually accusing the saints. I think he'll continue to do that into the future. I think he is the great tempter.

He is, he is at war with Christians. And so a lot of these principles we agree with, obviously we disagree on some of the timing, but you know, he's the great enemy of God and the saints and the church.

So we do not fight against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers of darkness.

So we, he is the enemy. Not people that disagree with this, unbelievers, they are the battleground, but they are not who we are warring against.

So I think it's, it's those of us that put on the body armor of God that are equipped with God's truth and his gospel.

I'm going to sound very post -millennial here, but we need to go forth and trust in the power of the gospel to change lives.

Before you guys answer real quick, we got about three minutes left, but I don't see like in a, I don't think the devil has ever been able to like stop the gospel from going forward.

Yes. He had like the rain in the old Testament as far as the nations, because God was allowing that. But at any point in time,

I don't think the devil has ever been able to stop anyone from coming to gospel because God is, the devil is

God's devil as Luther would state. But how would you guys kind of talk about, it's like, we're defining bound another way.

The text does say that. So he will not bind the nation or deceive the nations, but he's thrown into the bit. That's why he's unable to do that.

But how would you guys kind of talk about in two minutes? I'm waiting for that point where we get to ask our questions too,

KJ. I was going to y 'all, I was waiting for y 'all to ask. Man, I just,

I just think that he's bound in respect that he can't deceive the nations. I mean, I think John describes it clearly as to what the purpose of his binding is.

We know that he's still seeking whom he may devour, but he can't devour the elect because Christ's atonement will not be undone on the cross.

Yeah, yeah. I take it from, I know a good theologian friend of mine, Khalil Jones. He always says that it's symbolic until it actually tell you what the actual scripture, whenever John tell you when to take something literal.

So I take what Zach said, I pretty much take from what KJ always say is that it's symbolic until you really tell us what the literal meaning of it.

And it tells the literal meaning is that he's bound. So he wants to see the nations. And so, um, um, go ahead,

Zach, at least go ahead. One more thing I think that he's causing the church to believe in this pre -trib rapture.

So we sit around and stuff and wait for the rapture instead of fulfilling the great commission. So, um, so Zach made a good point that I agree with that Satan is bound in the sense that he can't deceive the elect, but I think

Zach, you'd agree that he couldn't even do that in the old Testament before the Jesus resurrection.

I think there's a clear, I think there's a clear distinction between the ability to bring the

Gentiles in. Um, you see this with Peter as he's hesitant, as he's witnessing to folks, and then he draws back and Paul calls him out on it.

Um, you can see that God has to give him a dream in Acts 10 when he's in Joppa. So, but you would,

I just want everybody to hear though, but you, but Satan could not deceive even the, the elect in the old

Testament though. No, but I think it's clear in the old Testament that God's purpose was that he was only going to reveal himself because in chapter 23 of Matthew says, look,

I gave you the prophets, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you stoned the prophets, the peace days and the ceremonies too.

And then he says that the Gentile nations are going to flow up to the mountain. I believe that may be after 11.

So there's a clear distinction in my view that the Gentiles are going to be coming into this thing. I understand what you're saying.

No, that there could be any of the elect could not have been deceived, but I think

Satan did deceive as a whole, the nations and that's evidence Daniel's four kingdoms. Yeah.

So that's a good point of agreement, even across the different views that we all agree that even say,

I believe you had a couple of questions too. So now's the time, man, for those quick, the flow is yours, man.

All right. I appreciate it. Hey, the one question I have, and this is just stating from where I'm at, as far as this goes is putting the book of revelation in Daniel's last week.

I mean, that's my major issue. You guys are going to say that, Hey, we're talking about something that's

Daniel's 70th week. And I'm taking this as something that doesn't have anything to do with the book of revelation.

So that final seven years, because Daniel seven 24, Daniel nine 24 says that 70 weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city.

So what do you guys say to that about bringing Gentiles into what Daniel's city is

Jerusalem and what Daniel's people are the Jews. Well, let me give you guys, um,

Jeremiah, KJ a little bit time to work through this, but let me say one thing, Zach, um,

I always have felt this so difficult. It's like, I got to force so much in there. And so, uh, so that always, so that's when

I come in and, uh, you know, a lot of things say first century, a lot of things, how things were related to the first century.

So I have struggled with what you're saying, trying to put all those things together. So I don't have anything to say about what

Daniel, cause I kind of really like, man, I feel like it's so forced when I try to put it in into this contest right here, a revelation, uh, what's happening here and, um, say revelation 20 and other passages.

So I'm going to, uh, Jeremiah KJ run off with this. Well, I was going to say the first thing is that the

Gentiles are God's people, God's people as well. Even though God dealt with the Jews in the old Testament, we are a spiritual rule of Galatians three, verse 16,

Paul tells us that if you believe in the God of Abraham, you are here as according to the promise. And so is it possible that, that, you know, the, the

Jews are also making up Israel as well, the spiritual aspect, but Daniel nine, verse 27, he says, and he will make a farm covenant with many for one week.

But in the middle of the week, he will put a stop to sacrifice in the grain offering. And in a wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate.

Now, the reason why many, uh, I don't know how Jeremiah views this, but the reason why we kind of hold this to a,

I guess, a feature event, Jesus, and all of the discourse, he points back to this event saying, when you see this sign, this is the time of the second coming of man that I'm going to come again.

I'm paraphrasing here. And then we also know if you pair parallel all the things in Daniel, you know, the 1260 days, 20, 90 days is exactly what

John is doing in revelation. Talking about this same person that G was talking about the antichrist.

So that's what would you say Jeremiah? So interesting verse in revelation that talks about there being a time period of 1 ,260 days.

And, you know, I agree with Zach and Creston that when you read Daniel only, there's a lot of questions.

And so my viewpoint of where I'm currently at today, leaning premillennial, it definitely is a holistic look of the entire scripture because I think there's a lot of dual prophecy going on in the old

Testament. Me and Zach talked about that earlier. There's a lot of point of agreement and a dual prophecy aspect.

So the way that revelation seems to be talking about the 1 ,280 days in revelation 12, it's mentioned a few times.

It seems like this fits within a seven -year scope and halfway in between that middle point.

If there was a tribulation time of seven years that Israel had not experienced, what seems like this 1 ,260 days is talking about a mid -breaking point right in between.

And for me, when I look at revelation with Daniel, it's not hard for me to see that that last seven years has not occurred.

Now, what am I conceding to? Well, you have to say, well, the 70th week, which is a representation of 70 years,

I would say that that last seven years has not happened yet. But like I said, these are things that I'm willing to continue to look at and study.

So maybe in turn, how would y 'all see the 1 ,260 days in revelation?

I have one quick thing to add to before they answer that. Like verse 24, it starts off with 70 weeks have been decreed for your people, your holy city to finish transgression, to make an end of sin and to make atonement for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness.

And then he says to set up vision and prophecy in the north, the most holy place. So is it possible some of those things haven't happened yet?

Christ hasn't brought in everlasting righteousness and he hasn't stood up all the prophecies as far as like revelation, we view it as a futuristic sense, but those things haven't happened yet too.

So is it possible that that last week is revelation in the sense of 70 year period?

So just for, I don't know how familiar your audience is with post -millennialism, but so what I would say is that that three and a half years is talking about the six month, which is ab in the year 66.

And that three and a half years goes through 80, 70, which that lines up perfectly. Exactly. So that's where I would place that piece from revelation.

But you said in 20, in Daniel nine 24, that God's people were also, uh, the

Gentiles, but he's not talking about God's people. He's talking about your people, Daniel. So he's talking, and if you were going to use that hermeneutic, then you would also have to say, which

I believe to be true that the Gentile, the church age is also the new Jerusalem. So if you're going to use that and take that to be the city and the people straight across, but when you use nine 27, all throughout

Daniel nine from 24 on, you see this AB pattern about, you know, seven weeks till the restoring of the wall.

Um, then another 62 weeks until you get to the Messiah. Then the, he that confirms the covenant is

Jesus Christ. Well, when does he do that? When he's anointed only a priest can anoint anyone. John the Baptist daddy was a priest.

John the Baptist is a priest. John baptizes Jesus in the year 27. Jesus dies three and a half years later.

Um, that's halfway through the week. What does it say? He did it in the middle of the week brings an end to sacrifice and offering.

We know God didn't accept any more sacrifices after that because the bail was rent. Then the gospel goes to the

Jews for another three and a half years. Peter has the dream in Joppa, which is the same place that Jonah fled to Tarsus.

So same gospel goes to the Gentiles then. Even Zach, um,

I mean, even a picture of Gabriel bringing him this news and Gabriel coming back and telling them, you know, guess what we build it to?

Um, I guess what Mary or, or, uh, Joseph, you know, gay, uh, Gabriel comes back again and you see, um, that how this text kind of, kind of, um, you see a lot of those fulfilling things in the life of Christ when it's coming and everything during those time, you know, counts to 70 weeks.

It comes, comes right up right there at, like I said, the life of Christ. Uh, but also with Jeremiah, what

Jeremiah was saying too is it is a lot of, you know, um, kind of two fold prophecies that make sense, you know, sometimes it means this, sometimes it means this.

Um, but it, it does for me, like I say that in my ignorance, when you try to fit Daniel in Daniel nine and to, you know, to the eschaton, um,

I, I, I, I see if it's very well, the puzzle pieces fit very well and how

Zach just described it. And actually in the life of Christ, um, I mean, in the life, in the first century and, and, and, and, and the birth of Christ, all of that kind of fits very well, but it seemed like it's just a little bit more happening.

I'm not counting it out at the end, but it seemed like it was very hard for me to kind of put that in there. Um, and at the end for myself.

Yeah, I understand. One other thing I want to press is in Matthew. I think Matthew 24 and all of that discourse is man, if not

Daniel seven, 13 and 14, Matthew 24 is probably, I think would be my strongest position for post -millennialism.

So when you said that, that he was talking about the abomination of desolation, that would be, um, made by this future antichrist.

Well, Jesus in Luke's parallel passage, Matthew's writing to Jews and Luke's writing to Gentiles in the parallel passage in Luke 21 and chapter chapter 21, verse 20,

Luke says it this way. When you see the army surround the city. So in that parallel passage,

I think there's a clear carryover to what Jesus was saying. The abomination of desolation was, and he says all these, all of these things must happen in this generation.

Um, and he says it like two or three times throughout that. So I'm just curious as to what you guys would do with those things having to happen in that generation.

And Jesus saying that the, the desolation coming to make desolate would be Rome surrounding the city or the army surrounding the city.

Let me say that. I believe, um, I think Luke, he was the one that wrote Acts. So he like, he knew he lived in a time of like 70, 80,

I believe, if I'm not mistaken. And so he kind of like, once Jesus kind of foretold that all of the discourse, he was relating that to kind of like the

Gentile, this actually did take place. This is what Jesus was talking about. Um, I don't know how like everyone views out of like,

I will be partial prejudice in that text, not as far as my eschatology, but in that text, certain part of those things is described in 70

AD, but when it gets to the abomination of desolation and Matthew is strictly because Jesus knew the

Jews would know what he's talking about, talking about Daniel, because they had the law, but there was a guy,

I can't remember his name right off my head that he partially fulfilled that in 70 AD. But I think the true fulfillment is the one who will come in the end and do the same exact thing.

That's kind of my point perspective is that. Okay. Very well. So, um,

I, you know, I really appreciate the, all of, all of that discourse and Matthew 24 and Mark.

And I was going to tell you earlier, Zach, that one of the most attractive things that I like about the opposing position from, from Daniel nine and Matthew 24, for me, it's almost out of pragmatism.

So to me, that's not the guiding principle in hermeneutics, but I've thought about the benefit.

If Daniel nine really is prophesying, you know, Jesus's death. Well, that's, that's a wonderful apologetic tool to show people that years and years, like Isaiah 53, 700 years plus before Jesus earthly ministry.

Well, that's just another strong text to be like, Hey, the Bible made strong prophecies that Jesus, no one else could fulfill.

And then in all of that discourse, if Jesus is talking about himself specifically at 70

AD, well, that's a strong apologetic tool in terms of prophecy. So I'm conflicted internally because those are such strong principles, but I wonder, and we may not have time to get into the nuances here, but I wonder if there are certain details in Daniel nine and in all of that discourse that hasn't happened yet.

And if that is the case, if we get into some of that, then I'm thinking, well, at least we, like Preston said earlier, we do, we could understand things in terms of dual prophecy.

So I just want to say that these are very great passages to go to that all views at some point have a lot of explaining to do for sure.

Yeah. Yeah. So one, one view you guys mentioned on, about the church being snatched away and fulfill me if I'm wrong here.

And KJ, this might be where you're talking about. You take a partial preterist view. I don't know, but in all of it, this course, when it says that it'll be like, it wasn't the days of Noah, two will be in the field.

One will be taken. Two women will be at the mill grind and one will be taken. The other one left. Do y 'all take that to be talking about the rapture or do you take that to be a preterist position?

I would have to go to the text to kind of, I can't remember the right time. My head gets into that, but I do know you've made your mind.

Well, as I say, I'm, you know, me and KJ will probably differ in terms of the rapture because my position more lanes on a chronological view of revelation, but that passage you went to Zach, I don't personally go to, to push for a pre -tribulational rapture.

I think that's more in terms of judgment, honestly. So I don't think a rapture really rests on,

I actually do not think that versus talking about a rapture. Very well. To your delight.

Yeah, thank you. Because I was going to pin you on if it's in the days of Noah, it's not like the left behind movie, you know. Exactly. And, and you know,

I, I don't want anybody to take an eschatology view based on a movie. Now, if the movie did do a good job of something that can be derived from the text, great, but we should go to the scripture.

And I loved how KJ said in a previous episode that scripture trumps history. History is not hermeneutic.

So we don't go to necessarily the patristic writers, the early church writers or commentaries, all those things are fallible, especially the left behind series.

So don't have an eschatology, an eschatology based on a movie. So I agree with you

Zach. Yeah. K, K, K, KJ just spent a stimulus chat, man, about the whole series, man. Oh my goodness.

Now I have one last question. So like, I just want to make sure, I guess clarity. So like we're all in agreement. I think

Jeremiah was trying to press this question a little bit earlier. He said that the devil has never been able to deceive the elect of God.

Now us three, we're probably like, we're in agreement on it at this point. The devil is bound because power is limited.

He is not able to deceive the nations like he did in the old Testament. We get to the new Testament. We already know this, but we get to the new

Testament. Is Christ, not Christ, is the devil still able to deceive people who are saved, not from being saved, but just deception in general, if I'm making sense?

As part as the elect falling away? Not, you know, so like he can never do that, but like is he still able to like deceive them in any way?

Not as far as salvation, but in any way? Man, I don't know. I think that's a great question.

And I think even obviously me coming to, you know, what I feel is a, you know, more learned understanding of biblical theology, you know,

I don't know if that's my lack of study or if that's a hindrance of Satan or things that, you know, that are in my life.

I don't want to say that Satan can't do anything to the church in any way. If that was possible, then John couldn't have written about a spirit of Antichrist that's rising up.

I mean, we know that wasn't from God, but at the same time, if it's, you know, if it's filled with true believers, then, you know, even though Satan can have an effect on our lives, that our sanctification will continue and that the church will remain strong.

So I don't want to say that Satan can't do anything to believers, but obviously we agree on, you know,

Reformed theology in that aspect. What would you say, Creston? I think

Creston was snoozing over there. Yeah, yeah, exactly. But I think you kind of mentioned on this earlier with, you know, with Satan being bound and not able to deceive.

I would say we got other pastors. I think it was James, I think we mentioned it before, KJ, about we're led off by our own desires.

And so we're led off by our own desires. So it is a fact that our flesh daily, you know, a lot of times we give the devil so much credit.

The devil made me do this, the devil did this. We're led off by our own passions, our own desires.

But one of the things actually that Satan was able, can do, you know, before he was bound, like I say, was this blindness and, you know, hopefully, you know, this, this sinfulness for the church to be, you know, for church to be invisible and not be visible.

I think the Lord allowed him to be a part of that process for the church. But now the church is visible and he is bound.

And so by him being bound, he cannot deceive in a sense of the lack, in a sense of when it deals with the matters of, you know, regeneration.

When somebody is regenerating Christ, Satan cannot do anything to mess up or stop, you know, those that are again, those that are elect of God.

Can he still go around and, you know, you know, put his leg out for us to trip every now and then? And I mean, he has something, he does a couple of things there, but relating to salvific things, he's not able to actually do anything to deceive the elect of God in that aspect.

Now, just to press it a little bit. So like, is nations, is it only exclusive to like the elect or like, can the nations also be unbelievers as well?

Because he says he's not able to deceive the nations in Revelation 20. It's my last question. It's kind of referring to like the ungodly in a sense.

Well, well, well, again, I think this picture said is the nation is that the nations were the warrants that were grafted in for them.

They, for them, you know, there was outside of these promises and, but God, by Christ, he brought men to this promise as they've been united in Christ, they come into these promises in Christ.

And by the again, this promises in Christ is that so, so he uses terminology for the

Gentile, the nations that now something has happened. Now something has happened. Now the nations, which were all deceased,

I mean, we're all were deceased. They was all in pagan worship and things of that. But now they have access to the throne of God because of the work of Christ.

So here's the old Jerusalem, new Jerusalem contrast to me in old Jerusalem, you've got this, this hill

Mount Zion, and you've got God's presence and glory dwelling in that temple. Now in the new

Testament, God's temple is not just going to rest on this holy hill in Zion. It's going to rest in every place throughout the world.

So you're going to have the light and the presence of God shining and going forth through these earthly bodily temples, which we are, but not just set up in local

Jerusalem, set up in every tribe, tongue and nation. So you're going to have new Jerusalem and in and conquering, you know, and that's what

Isaiah 9 says, talking about the increase of his government, there'll be no end. So you're talking about bringing in Gentiles instead of setting up shop in Jerusalem.

So I got you. That's definitely all my questions. I definitely enjoy all you guys for just coming apart and being a part of something like this.

It kind of shows that like for Christians and all people say, you know, Christians, just like the world, but like in the world, you don't see like people having division,

I guess, in our thinking, but still be in agreement. I guess being able to even discuss these topics as it kind of shows that we are united on the essential things.

It's not a primary thing. You know, if, if I agree that Creston is wrong, but Creston agrees that I'm wrong, it doesn't determine my salvation.

What does determine salvation is like our faith in Jesus Christ. And so all of us are agreeing on that. And so I just want to thank you guys so much, do you have any last words when we get out of here?

Well, I just want to also thank you brothers. I love y 'all and y 'all sharpened me.

And one of these days, Zach is going to write a book. I'm going to be the first to buy it and he's going to convince me, but I love y 'all.

Thanks again. I look forward to maybe having this discussion with some other things that we may disagree with, but let's, let's, you know, see that as a positive thing where we can continue to sharpen one another and not see it as a bad thing on these, on these tertiary important, but tertiary issues.

Man, this is very rare, you know, normally having a discussion like this, you know, guys after each other throat, man, and trying to just the humility here.

Hey, I really just don't know. Hey, this is the strongest point you have and things of that. I think it was a really good discussion, man.

I would love to be able to see how this can work out and other discussions, other topics, other disconversations, and, and how we can kind of walk through this together, man.

But, hey, KJ, thanks, man. This podcast has been awesome, man. I think this podcast, What You Doing, White Theology, it's been a blessing to hear in the city of Pine Bluff.

And I think, you know, I've given messages to people all over, so they enjoy your podcast. So, hey, thanks for putting this on.

And like I said, I learned so much from you guys. I left confused now. Now I don't know if I'm dispensational,

I don't know if I'm IML, post -meal. I don't know what I am now. So, I'm just joking.

I'm IML, man. Just keep going, Creston. You're on the right path.

You're almost there, buddy. Guys, man,

I appreciate it. It's a, it's a brotherly conversation and, man, I appreciate you guys' humility and proud to call you brothers.

And, man, I enjoy the podcast. I've listened to Jeremiah on here a couple of times and, man, KJ, thanks for what you do.

I pray God blesses each of your churches. Man, I pray that he continues to go forth and use you guys mightily.

Thank you for what you do. Amen. Now, we all leave here, man. Let's go pretend the gospel is what can bring about the kingdom, y 'all.

Amen. Y 'all have a good one, man. Thank y 'all so much. Take care, brother. Stay in touch, brother.