Epic Battle: Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism (Debate)

Hey guys, it's Keith Foskey. On last Saturday, July 27th, 2024,

I was invited onto the Standing for Truth YouTube channel to debate Lucas Curcio on the subject of the millennium.

And I want to thank Donnie Budensky for having me on the program and for being a great host and moderator of that debate.

Well, I'm going to be sharing that debate now on my channel, and I'd like to ask you all how you think it goes.

I'd love to hear your comments as you listen, and I encourage you to listen intently to both sides.

I know many Christians are divided over the subject of the millennium. Lucas takes a premillennial position, and as many of you know,

I take the amillennial position. So we're debating the subject of whether or not

Revelation 19 and 20 are to be understood chronologically. Lucas says yes,

I say no. But what say you? Please listen to the debate and leave a comment below.

Before I start the debate, I just want to remind you of a few things. This podcast is a ministry of Sovereign Grace Family Church.

So if you're in the Jacksville area, come visit us at Sovereign Grace Family Church. You can find us at sgfcjacks .org.

We're also a partner with tinybibles .com. If you want to get the smallest Bible that you can possibly get on the market in print today, go to tinybibles .com

and use my name, Keith, as a promo code, and you will get a percentage off. Don't forget also, if you want to reach out to me, you can send me a message simply by going to keithfoskey .com.

There's a contact form right on the front page. The email comes directly to me. I look forward to hearing from you if you have a question or an idea for an upcoming show.

All right. Again, thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. And here comes the debate. May God bless you. All right.

Welcome everybody to Standing for Truth. My name is Donnie Budinsky and I am your host and moderator for tonight's much -anticipated debate on the millennium.

And I am thrilled to have Keith Foskey and Lucas Curcio here to debate this topic.

This afternoon's resolution is this, is Revelation 19 to 20 chronological?

Lucas takes the affirmative and Keith Foskey takes the negative. And again, this is the great millennium debate and I am pumped for this.

Gentlemen, what I'd like to do before we get into our opening statements is firstly, thank you both for giving us your time for this epic exchange for sure.

And break the ice, get acquainted a little bit, get to know you guys. And so Keith, let's start with you as this is your first time here on the

Standing for Truth debate platform. And if I'm not mistaken, many call you the king of all millennialism.

So firstly, is that true? Are the rumors true? And secondly, my brother, tell us a little bit about yourself and what you do at your ministry.

Yes, I am Keith Foskey. I am the king of the all millennialists. That is a joke that was started by Eschatology Matters and it's just taken off and kind of gotten a life of its own.

I do a lot of humor online. I do stand up comedy and Christian comedy and things like that.

So it's just part of the humor not to be taken too seriously. But I am an all millennialist and so that's the position

I'm going to be standing for today. I also pastor Sovereign Grace Family Church in Jacksonville, Florida, where I have served for the last 18 years.

Awesome. Well, I appreciate that introduction. I also appreciate the humor. So laughter is the best medicine.

And one of the first ways I found you was through your your funny shorts.

And then I found your podcast and people can find that here. So, Keith, we've got your

YouTube channel and a podcast where people can check you out and find more from you if they like what they're hearing.

And so, again, Keith, thank you for the intro. Lucas, great to have you back. Not your first time here on the

Standing for Truth Debate platform. So I guess you're going to have to be the king of premillennialism, the king of premill, clashing with the king of all mill, clash of the titans tonight is what it is.

So, Lucas, how are you doing, brother? And tell us a little bit about yourself and your channel. Great, great.

Well, I classify myself as a prince of premill, but unlike Keith, I'm self -ordained.

So I did not get voted in. So don't accept that title. But yeah, so my name is

Lucas Curcio. I live in northern New Jersey. It's fantastic to be here and I'm honored to be here. I am a

Christian and theologically I call myself a Methodist. And in relation to this debate,

I am a premillennialist. I am married to me and my wife. We have a beautiful daughter. So God has blessed us with that.

I have my Master's of Arts in biblical exposition from Liberty University. And I am the founder of Method Ministries.

I say that term, it sounds fun. Method Ministries is a online ministry where we talk about topics that are related to like theology, current issues that are going on both politically as well as just a name and a title to get the truth of the scriptures out there.

So that's a little bit about me. And again, I'm grateful to be here. Very good. It's a privilege to have you both.

It really is an honor to be hosting this debate between you two true professionals.

Again, this is the Great Millennium Debate. It is a Saturday afternoon showdown. So I'm excited for this.

For those who want to see more from Lucas Curcio here, you can find a link to his

YouTube channel in the live chat and also in the description box. And so, gentlemen, appreciate the introductions from the both of you.

Thank you so much. And OK, for the audience sake, let's go through today's format.

And so, again, the debate resolution is, is Revelation 19 to 20 chronological?

Lucas taking the affirmative. So he'll be kicking us off with a 20 minute opening statement.

So 20 minute openings from both our guests. We're going to have a comprehensive one today, followed by a 10 minute uninterrupted rebuttal.

Then we're going to get into everybody's favorite part of these debates, the cross exam.

So we've got a lot of time to discuss the topic in cross examination, 50 minutes in total.

That's 25 minutes each. Then we'll have a concluding statement where for our concluding statement,

Keith will start and then Lucas will get the last word as he is the affirmative. And then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved.

We'll have a roughly 25 to 30 minute audience Q &A. So please, if you have a question on tonight's topic, do your best to let me know who the question for Lucas or Keith and also tag me at Donnie or at Standing for Truth.

And that way I won't miss your question. OK, gentlemen, let's jump into our first opening statement.

And so, Lucas, please, whenever you're ready, just let me know and we'll get your timer going.

OK, well, I just want to say it's a true honor to be here with Brother Keith. I'm really looking forward to this. And thank you to Donnie for moderating and hosting us as well.

It's great to be back. And I want to dedicate this opening statement to all my pre -mill brothers.

And, you know, to keep with the humor of this debate, it's time to end the spiritual reign of the king of all mills and take that crown to God be the glory again.

The affirmative I defend tonight, Revelation 19 and 20 are chronological, requires the nature of this debate to be exegetical.

I mentioned this because there was much attempt by my brothers to interpret these two chapters by telescoping for the portions of scripture.

They'll use verses like Psalms 50, 10, the cattle on a thousand hills are gods and claim because a thousand here isn't literal, neither is

Revelation or Matthew 12, where Jesus speaks of binding Satan to say this is the same binding in Revelation 20, which proves that Revelation isn't literal.

But this is equivalent to interpreting Romans 9 with John 3, 16, such attempts don't reflect proper exegesis because they're two different contexts.

Thus, both Keith and I must engage with what John taught in his original intended meaning and not venture outside these chapters.

My position is that if you do this, you'll walk away with Revelation 19 and 20 being chronological and not recapitulatory, thus proving pre -millennialism.

Recapitulation means to go back to a time prior. So it's like watching a movie. And at some point there's a scene that takes you back to a time prior to the present.

Amill's claim, Revelation 20, verse one does this when it says, then I saw as in John is seeing a vision of a time prior to the second coming of chapter 19.

But if this single text of scripture doesn't do this, then amillennialism is wrong. Amillennial scholar

Anthony Hokema admits this and says that if these chapters are chronological, we are then virtually compelled to believe that the thousand year reign depicted in Revelation 20 must come after the return of Christ in chapter 19.

Let me demonstrate that you're compelled to believe pre -millennialism by defending the thesis. The textual evidence of Revelation 19 and 20 favors chronology.

And the first piece of evidence that the ands of chapter 19 and 20 have a chronological pattern.

We see this in verse 20 and the beast was seized and with him the false prophet chronological sequence.

Verse 21, and the rest were killed with the sword, which came from the mouth of him who sat on the horse, chronological sequence.

And all the birds were filled with their flesh, chronological sequence. Now you can get technical and say that and doesn't always mean historical sequence, but can be used as a visionary linking device.

And this is where I'll engage with respected scholar G .K. Beale, who offers two powerful arguments for the amillennial view.

Argument number one of Dr. Beale. He writes in his famous commentary in Revelation, only three out of 35 occurrences of and in 19 clearly indicate sequence in historical time, while the remainder serve as visionary linking devices.

So I agree with Dr. Beale that John does use and as a linking device at times rather than a sequential device.

John does is in verse 19 and I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and the armies assembled to make war against him who sat on a horse and against his army.

The answer here are used to link this event to Christ's second coming and not for chronological sequence. But there's a difference between and being used to link events versus and being used to recapitulate events.

And this is where Dr. Beale gets problematic. He goes on to admit that the three and in verses 20 and 21 are historically sequential.

He even grants that perhaps verse 14 and indicates a sequence in historical time. So he admits that all three ands in verses 20 and 21 are chronological, but then when it comes to chapter 20, verse one claims his pattern is broken by saying it's recapitulated.

And here's where it gets even more problematic. Beale further admits that the majority of ands in chapter 20 are historically sequential.

He writes the majority of the ands in chapter 20 do refer to historical sequence.

Dr. Beale acknowledges that there's a pattern of ands that are chronological. But Dr. Beale is a smart man and argues for more than just one word for the ominal position.

And this leads us into argument number two of Dr. Beale. He states that the word and in reference to an angel coming down out of heaven is always recapitulatory.

He writes where and I saw occurs in Revelation followed by reference to an angel coming down out of heaven.

It always introduces a vision either reverting to a time before the preceding section. So Dr.

Beale arguments that recapitulation is found in a phrase and I saw an angel coming down rather than a single word. And this is

Beale's strongest argument. And I pay my respects to him for engaging with the text. Nevertheless, to solidify this argument, this exegesis must be consistent with the narrative of the story and the whole of chapter 20.

Dr. Beale even admits this and says that the word and cannot solve the problem one way or another. Other contextual evidence must be considered.

In other words, even Dr. Beale admits that your interpretation of Revelation 20 must also account for more than just first one.

We need to look at all the textual evidence. And if we do that, we find that John's use of the phrase and I saw another angel coming down out of heaven, all the data favors chronology and not recapitulation.

And on this note, let me say that I am not against recapitulation. I agree that Revelation does recapitulate at times such as it does in chapter 12.

But for a text to recapitulate, we must have textual evidence. In other words, I disagree with Dr.

Beale, who says that recapitulation is found in a phrase and I saw another angel coming down in heaven. Rather, recapitulation is not attached to a phrase, but rather to the narrative.

And we can easily see this in chapter 12, where we're introduced by a new vision from the previous chapter. Revelation 11 ends with Christ's second coming.

And then chapter 12 changes that narrative to John seeing a woman who gives birth to Jesus and Satan attempting to destroy him and his followers.

Clearly chapter 12 takes us back to the first coming of Christ, but it does so without the phrase. And I saw another angel.

Yet in Revelation 20, we don't have a narrative change of a prior event, but a continuation of the battle from chapter 19.

So if we're to assume that chapters 19 and 20 are chronological, we would predict that after the beast and false prophet are defeated,

Satan would be the next one on the list to go. By the way, this is how science works. It makes a set of assumptions and then based upon that makes predictions to test its validity.

If we make an assumption that chapters 19 and 20 are chronological and predict that right after the beast and false prophet are defeated,

Satan is, we can test this and see this exactly what we find. In verses 20 and 21 of chapter 19,

Christ defeats the antichrist and false prophet, and then Satan in the next chapter. It's important to mention this because there's an unholy

Trinity in Revelation. You have the antichrist, the false prophet, and Satan. So if there's no defeat of Satan in chapter 19, then

Satan isn't defeated. But if we keep reading, we find the narrative continued and just one verse after Christ defeats the beast and false prophet, he defeats

Satan. So there's a single story arc being told. Now, in addition to this, another piece of evidence is chapter 20, verse 10.

Here, John says that after Satan is released after the millennial, he makes another failed attempt to destroy God's people.

Then he is thrown into the lake of fire. And John then mentions that it's the same place where the beast and false prophet are past tense.

John speaks of the beast and false prophets place in lake of fire as having already happened, that is prior to Satan's casting into the lake of fire, which means that he has a narrative in mind from chapter 19 in the past tense, and Satan's arrival is a thousand years after theirs chronologically.

Now, some all males are aware of this problem and in response point out that in the Greek there is no verb are, as some translations have it, as the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and false prophet are.

In the Greek, it just reads that Satan is thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet. Let me point out two things.

One, the majority of Greek scholars recognize this as being in the past tense. The NASB, LSB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, CSB, Young's Literal Translation, even the

NIV all translate this list goes on and on as being in the past tense.

Two, there doesn't need to be a verb are. The word where presupposes that the subject is there prior to that person's arrival.

For example, if I told you that I was going to eat at a restaurant where my brother is, you'd assume that my brother is there before me.

In the same way, John is saying that Satan is thrown into the same place where the beast and false prophet are before Satan arrives.

This means there's chronology. The beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire first past tense, then

Satan is thrown in after them. The only thing that accounts for Satan's later arrival is a thousand year gap, which demands we read these two chapters chronologically, not recapitulatory.

Another piece of evidence for chronology is that there's a total absence of Christ's second coming in chapter 20.

So the Amil agrees with Premil that chapter 19 is Christ's second coming, but then states that chapter 20 recapitulates and covers the time between Christ's first and second coming.

Okay, so where in chapter 20 is the second coming of Christ? I would reference

Dr. Beale on this, but he's completely silent and it doesn't make any mention of any second coming in chapter 20. So let's assume that chapter 20 recapitulates.

We would predict that Revelation 20 mentions Christ's second coming, yet we don't find it here.

It's completely missing. Some postmales have attempted to answer this and say that the fire in verse nine, which comes out and out of heaven to destroy

Satan's army is Christ's return. But if this is actually true, which is a huge stretch, then at best, this is extremely vague and hardly believable.

The textual evidence of chapter 20 is clear. There is no second coming mentioned because John already mentioned in chapter 19, which means that chapters 20,

I'm sorry, that means the chapters 19 and 20 are chronological. Other textual evidence in favor of chronology, the binding of Satan in chapter 20 hasn't happened yet.

Dr. Beale says that Satan's binding is the devil will not be able to stop the preaching of the gospel or his expanding reception during most of the church, most of the age preceding

Christ's return. Or another Omnibill view interprets the binding as Kim Riddlebarger says. Binding of Satan means is that after the coming of a long expected

Messiah, Satan lost certain authority that he possessed prior to the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the savior.

Neither view works with the text. First, the binding of Satan is not a probation, but an incarceration.

So incarceration means being confined to a prison cell rather than having some sort of access to him around. And we see this because Satan is not just bound with a chain.

So John isn't saying that Satan is on probation with an ankle bracelet attached to him. John says in verse three, the angel threw him to the abyss, shut and sealed it over him.

It's a total removal of Satan from the earth. Notice too, it says he's in the abyss. So if we compare this to chapter nine, it talks about an angel opening the bottomless pit and out of this pit come demonic beings who enter earth.

The bottomless pit is in the abyss because revelation nine 11 calls it that. This means in revelation, the abyss is not on earth because the demons come out of the abyss onto the earth.

Thus, Satan is chained, thrown into the abyss. Then that door is shut and sealed, not having any access to the earth, and he's clearly not in probation.

Second, Amos interpret this binding of Satan taking, or I'm sorry, uh, this binding of Satan as taking place at Christ's first coming.

But there's a major problem with this because John says after the thousand years, Satan is released. So here's the problem.

If Christ's work on the cross is a permanent victory, in what sense is Satan released from Christ's victory at the cross after a thousand years?

So what this means is that the binding of Satan here is not referring to Christ's redemptive work on the cross that frees us from Satan's kingdom and brings us into his.

So while I do agree that Christ did bind Satan at the cross, but that binding was redemptive.

The binding of Satan in chapter 20 is a political binding, as John says, so he won't deceive the nations, not a redemptive binding.

And we can't conflate the two. They're two different contexts. Last, Revelation 20 verse four is a bodily resurrection, which happens after Christ returns, proving it follows chapter 19.

In chapter 20, verse four, John says that the martyred souls came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Some Amals interpret the phrase came to life as regeneration, but the subjects are already

Christians, which means they are already born again, which means they're already regenerated, which proves that John isn't referring to regeneration.

Because otherwise John would be saying those born again are born again. It would be a total redundancy.

Other Amals claim the resurrection refers to the intermediate state of saints entering heaven when they die.

Now, while there are times in the Bible that do refer to a spiritual resurrection of saints when they first come to faith, yet nowhere in the

Bible does it describe saints entering heaven as a spiritual resurrection. So again, if the saints are already born again and they already died, the only resurrection that happens after death is a bodily resurrection.

Furthermore, the most important fact of this resurrection here is verse five, where John says the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

This first proves without a shadow of a doubt that the resurrection of the saints here is bodily.

As a sentence example, this is like saying I was flu vaccinated yesterday, but the rest of my family did not get flu vaccinated until a week later.

Regardless of the time, both me and my family were flu vaccinated. So the phrase did not get flu vaccinated until a week later communicates in the sentence that they'll receive the same type of vaccination only later than me, rather than a different type of vaccination.

And I mentioned this, and this is very important because the Amal wants you to believe that the resurrection of the saints is spiritual, a different type, while the resurrection of the dead is physical, a different type.

But John's phrase did not come to life is a negative statement intended to communicate that the same resurrection that happens to the saints is the same resurrection that happens to the dead, with the difference being only at a later time.

So whether the Amal interprets the resurrection of the saints as regeneration or the intermediate state is really irrelevant and a moot point because clearly

John is not saying the rest of the dead did not become regenerated or entered heaven until a thousand years were completed.

Since both groups are experiencing the same type of resurrection, the only interpretation that works is the bodily resurrection, but the

Amal insists that the resurrection of the dead in verse five is bodily while claiming the saints are spiritual.

But let's compare John's phrase came to life with revelation to verse eight there.

Jesus says himself the first and the last who was dead and has come to life both in chapter 20 and chapter two, verse eight.

It's the same exact phrase come to life. So just like Christ, after Jesus died, the resurrection he had was bodily.

So too, when believers die, their resurrection after death is bodily, not spiritually.

So again, the Bible never refers to saints dying and entering heaven as a spiritual resurrection. The only resurrection that Christians experienced after they die is a bodily resurrection, the same one that our

Lord had and that we share in. And John teaches in Revelation 20 that after Jesus comes, the saints will rise bodily and reign with Christ for a thousand years while after the millennial, the dead will be raised to damnation.

Thus, we look at all the evidence. It favors not recapitulation, but chronology, which means that these two chapters teach premillennialism.

Thank you. And that concludes my opening statement. Lucas, thank you very much for that 20 minute opening statement.

We're now going to hand it over to Keith Foskey for his 20 minute opening statement.

So I will reset the timer and Keith, whenever you're ready, let me know. The floor is yours.

Yeah, I'm good. Well, first I want to thank Donnie for putting this debate together and for Lucas agreeing to be my interlocutor and for both of you for being willing to be seen with me in public, the book of Revelation is by far the most enigmatic of all the

New Testament writings. And this is proven by how many variations of theology have arisen based on it.

The most perplexing portion has to be chapter 20, as it too has spawned entire systems of theology to the point that some who hold various positions on this chapter would even anathematize those with differences, something

I find very troubling. If we cannot have at least some humility to our approach of Revelation 20,

I believe we ourselves, we find ourselves as arrogant as the Pharisees and the Sadducees who could not see

Jesus for who he was because they were so committed to their traditions. And even when the truth was standing in their midst, he was unrecognizable.

They were convinced that Jesus has to fulfill certain prophecies according to their understanding. And because he didn't, they rejected him.

I pray that we would never be so foolish. So while I begin this debate, holding strongly to my convictions in this area,

I reject the notion that a difference of interpretation on this passage would be tantamount to heresy as some claim. We can differ on our view of the millennium and still be brothers in Christ as Lucas is my brother.

The question before us today is whether or not Revelation 19 and 20 are chronological. However, the real issue is whether Revelation 20 is meant to be understood as happening before or after the return of Christ.

Both Lucas and I believe Revelation 19 is the return of Christ. Therefore, for his position to be right, he must prove that these two chapters are meant to be understood as chronological.

If I can prove they're not, I've made my case. However, even if I fail to prove my case regarding chronology,

I could be right about the timing of the millennium as many post -millennial advocates see Revelation 19 as regarding the judgment of Christ on Jerusalem in AD 70, which is then followed by the millennium or the church age in Revelation 20.

So there are those who would see them as chronological and yet still hold the position that Revelation 20 speaks of now, the church age.

I say this because I want to make an important point that whether you're amillennial or post -millennial, we're on the same side of this debate.

Both of us believe the church age is the same as the millennium. Both amill and post -mill believe the millennium is the inter -advental event, meaning it occurs between the first and the second coming of Christ.

In fact, up until about a hundred years ago, post -millennialism and amillennialism were not formally differentiated.

In Kim Riddlebarger's book, he cites Louis Burkoff, who said that in his 1938 systematic theology that the name amillennialism is new indeed, but the view in which it has applied is as old as Christianity.

Even B .B. Warfield, usually portrayed as post -millennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend Samuel Craig that amillennialism of this type held by the esteemed

Dutch colleagues Herman Bovink and Abraham Kuyper is the historic Protestant view as expressed in the creeds of the

Reformation period, including the Westminster Standard. So what I'm saying is this is not to say that post -mill and amill are the same, there are differences, but the distinctions lie in the nature, character, and expectations of the millennium, not so much the timing.

Both amill and post -mill are both post -mill. Jesus returns after the millennium. We can call them inaugurated millennialists, or even there's a phrase called nuke millennialism, which means now millennialism.

We believe it's already begun. We believe we're in it, and we believe it is consummated with the return of Christ, where Lucas believes that the church age ends with Christ's return, and then the millennium begins.

This means he believes that the millennium is a post -Advental event, that it comes after Christ's second coming, but before the eternal state.

This introduces an unnecessary interjection not found in any of the New Testament writings regarding the return of Christ.

The New Testament presents Christ returning and the eternal state being established. Death is destroyed and victory is forever won.

We hear much about this age and the age to come, but nothing of some mysterious intermediate kingdom where Christ returns to rule over an imperfect earth, where nations are poised to rise up against him after Satan is finally released.

Premillennialism teaches that Christ will return to an imperfect earth. He will reign over an imperfect kingdom, which will end in yet another battle after he has returned for a thousand years.

While Lucas's position on the timing of the millennium is popular today among many evangelicals, it is not the majority view of the church.

It is not the church historical view, even though some would argue that the premillennial view was held by some of the early church fathers.

It has not been the majority view of the church as a whole. As Richard Mueller has observed, quote, the

Protestant Orthodox, both Lutheran and Reformed, denied the notion of an earthly millennium to dawn in the future and viewed the text,

Revelation 20, as a reference to the reign of grace between the first and second visible coming of Christ, the age of the

Ecclesia Militans, or the church militant. So how do we come to this conclusion?

Well, we begin with the context of the passage, overall context and immediate context.

Overall context of Revelation is that it is prophetic and apocalyptic. It is a literature written in vivid images, which point to greater realities.

It is not intended to be taken woodenly literal, nor are the visions given in expressly, explicitly chronological order.

The visions are pictures which have to be interpreted and often are recapitulating the same events over and over.

Dr. Beale has already been mentioned, but I'll mention him again. G .K. Beale emphasizes that the visions in Revelation are not strictly chronological, but rather cyclical.

The visions presented in the book are not meant to be read as a linear sequence of events. Instead, they're often covering the same ground from different perspectives.

The different visions in Revelation parallel each other, each cycle retelling the story of the end times with varying details of emphasis.

And this means that the same events or themes may appear multiple times throughout the book. For instance, the seals, the trumpets and the bowls are likely not three separate successive acts of judgment, but rather all a retelling of the judgments from different perspectives.

The end of the world is depicted in chapter 6, chapter 11 and chapter 16. The final battle is seen in Revelation 16,

Revelation 19 and again in Revelation 20. And it's interesting that the word the battle, the word battle there with a definite article, indicates one final battle, the battle, not a battle, but the battle.

And it's only used in three specific places, chapter 16, chapter 19 and chapter 20. And they're all pointing to the same event, the final battle.

So instead of seeing Revelation as strictly literal and chronological, we should understand it as progressive parallelism, understanding the visions of Revelation as parallel accounts of the same events, with each cycle progressing the narrative further, providing additional details and additional perspectives.

The immediate context of Revelation 19 gives a graphic picture of the coming of Jesus in judgment.

And take note what happens in this text, because this is hugely important. Jesus returns in glory to bring judgment on his enemies.

The armies of the nations are gathered to make war with him. And in a single act, he destroys the nations which are gathered against him.

He destroys them. At the end of Revelation 19, the enemies of Christ are vanquished.

But then in Revelation 20, we're told that Satan is bound not to deceive the nations. What nations?

Who? Who is he supposed to be deceiving? These nations have just been slaughtered. Their flesh is being eaten by the birds of the air.

This is why it's reasonable to see that Revelation is going back to the beginning and giving a new vision. This new vision will tell the story of triumph again from a different vantage point.

This view will show the heavenly reality which has occurred throughout the church age.

Now, interpreted within this context, we will see that Revelation 20 is going back to the beginning and giving a vision of the church age in three parts.

And like any good Baptist, I'm going to alliterate my three parts. The binded, verses 1 to 3, the blessed, verses 4 to 6, and the battled in verses 7 to 10.

So let's look first at the binded, verses 1 to 3. Is this text meant to be taken literally? Well, no one argues that the chain or the key are literal.

I guess some people do, but various people, most people don't. But they will argue that the thousand years has to be literal.

However, the term thousand is almost always used symbolically everywhere else in Psalm 5010 has already been mentioned, but also

Psalm 90, verse 4, for a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday. Psalm 105, verse 8, he remembers his covenant forever, the word that he commanded for a thousand generations, not a thousand and one because we got to take it literally.

Second, Peter 3, 8, but we do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, not a thousand and one because we have to take it literally.

With all due respect, arguing for the literal nature of the thousand years is by far the weakest argument for my premillennial friends, and this should not be where our battle rages today.

If this is where it goes, that's a real disappointment for this debate. So what does the binding refer to?

Well, when Christ came, he bound Satan through the gospel. Satan is bound, not comprehensibly, not finally, but specifically in regard to one thing.

And this is what it says. It says he is bound in regard to deceiving the nations against Christ and thwarting the proclamation of the gospel.

When accused of being an agent of Satan, Jesus was asked a question and he responded by saying, how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man?

And then he may plunder his house, Matthew chapter 12, verse 29. Well, this is in reference to Christ's work. His work is the binding of Satan.

He is binding the strong man. He said that in the passage. Satan is the strong man. Luke 10, 17, when the 72 returned with joy, they said,

Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name. And he said to them, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

That, again, is an idea of when the gospel is preached, Satan is bound. Colossians 2, 15, talking about the work of Christ, says that Christ disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame by triumphing over them in Christ.

The proclamation of the gospel in the world demonstrates the power of Christ over his enemies, as his church continues to see converts in every tribe, tongue, and nation.

Even to this day, if the binding of Satan were final and complete, there would not be a need for a final battle, which all of us affirm.

Jesus even declares in John chapter 12, verse 31, now is the judgment of the world.

Now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And when I am lifted up, I will draw all people to myself.

In this context, Jesus is referring to his impending crucifixion, lifted up from the earth, and the resulting judgment, which will happen, the prince of this world, the ruler of this world will be cast out.

His crucifixion and resurrection signify the defeat of Satan's power to deceive the nations and keep them from believing the gospel and Christ drawing people from every tribe, tongue, and nation to himself.

Now, one of the arguments for the rise of the antichrist figure at the end of the age is that the restrainer will be removed.

Second Thessalonians 2, verses 5 through 8. So if a restrainer must be removed, that means someone or something is being restrained.

What is that thing? It's Satan himself. Satan is currently being restrained. One day the restrainer will be removed, not through some secret rapture, but God will remove the restraint and that will be the unbinding of Satan.

Everything fits together when we look at it as a whole. Keep this in mind, guys. The gospel is invincible, not the devil.

Jesus is victorious, not the devil. Even in this age where we see drag queens starting the

Olympics, looking like they're trying to pretend to be Da Vinci's Last Supper, even in a world like that,

Satan is not on the throne. He's not. So we would say that Christ is ruling now, that the church is experiencing spiritual victory now.

Satan cannot do all that he wants until he is released from his restraints. So that's the binding.

Secondly, we had the blessed. Now, this is an important conversation, which I will have to limit because of time.

But the question about verses 4 to 6 is, where is this? Is this something on earth or is this something in heaven?

Well, it refers to thrones. In the book of Revelation, almost 50 times the word thrones is used and almost all the times it's used for thrones in heaven.

Martyred souls are in view, similar to Revelation 6, verse 9. So there's only like one or two times where thrones is not used and it's used of the throne of Satan on the earth.

It's not used of thrones on the earth. It's used of thrones in heaven. And the first resurrection is, the question is, what does that mean when it talks about the first resurrection?

This is something that Lucas brought up in his opening statement. And three options are put forth by amillennialists. One is that the first resurrection is the resurrection of Christ, which we share in by becoming believers and having faith in him.

The second is regeneration, which he mentioned. The third is that this could be the intermediate state, which is the position taken by Sam Storms.

And I think it could be referring to all of that because Christ's resurrection creates our ability to be regenerated.

And then when we are regenerated, we are with him. We are seated with him in heavenly kingdoms.

Now, Paul says in Ephesians 2, we are seated with him. And when we die, we are in the intermediate state with him until his return.

It's the very language of the New Testament that before salvation, we are dead in sin. And when we come to Christ and he gives us new life, we are with him seated in heavenly places.

Colossians 2 .13 says, you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, but God made you alive together with him, having forgiven you all your trespasses.

And this is even pictured in the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel chapter 37, where regeneration is pictured of the life coming back to the dead dry bones.

So Kenneth Gentry says, in regard to this subject, he says, according to John, the first resurrection secures the participation of the saints, both dead and living, in the rule of Christ.

This refers to the spiritual resurrection of those born again by God's grace. Finally, we get to verse 7 through 10, and this is the battle.

This says Satan will be released to make war, deceiving the nations and leading them against the saints. But where are these nations?

Where are they coming from? If they were destroyed in 19, which we talked about, if they're already destroyed, if Christ has already destroyed them, their flesh is being eaten by carnivorous fowl, where are these nations coming from?

Some people say, well, these are the children who were born during the millennium. But that would mean that glorified saints and resurrected bodies would be giving birth to children and that some of those saints would be giving birth to children who would not themselves become believers.

I find this the most problematic issue of premillennialism, which I will explore in cross -examination.

The premillennial position posits an interjection of time between this age and the age to come, which has Christ returning to an imperfect world, which remains imperfect, which progressively gets worse while He reigns, and it ends with nations rising up against Him.

This is not the picture that we are given when we see the rest of the Bible talking about the return of Christ.

In fact, I believe this is the scene from Revelation 19 retold there at the end where it says that the fire comes down,

Lucas mentioned it, but it also says the great white throne comes down. Jesus is there and He is judging.

I do believe there is coming a day when the restraint will be removed from Satan and He will lead a charge against God's people.

And I think this coincides with other passages in Scripture where we see that. But that onslaught will be brought to an end with the appearance of Christ in His second coming.

Now, I want to conclude by considering a few thoughts. One is on the parables of Christ.

Those that deal with the return of Christ have a very simple structure, whether it's the parable of the sheep and the goats, the parable of the dragnet, or the parable of the wheats and the tares.

They all have one thing in common. They all end with the return, the judgment, that final event.

None of them in any way add an event following that age and preceding an age to come.

They all go from this age to the age to come. There's no intermediate event in any of Christ's parables of the end.

It's a simple structure. Christ came, He's coming again. No secret rapture will precede His coming and no millennial reign will follow it.

Likewise, none of the parables of the kingdom have any mention of a kingdom being established in an instance in the future, but the kingdom is something that comes in and changes the world over time, just like the church has done, such as leaven, such as a mustard seed, such as the wheat, which is sown in the field.

It changes over time. This is what we see during the church age. And while we should conclude that this is the millennial kingdom because we see the world changing, we see

Christ going to all the areas of the earth through the work of evangelism and through missions work.

Christ came first to give us new life in Him. Believers experience that in regeneration.

And when we die, we are with Him in glory until His return. And when He returns, He will vanquish

His enemies, consummate the millennium, and inaugurate the new heavens and the new earth.

And that is the end of my opening statement. Keith, thank you very much for that 20 minute opening statement.

Gentlemen, that concludes our opening statements and opening arguments for tonight's great

Millennium Debate. I appreciate the time and work put into those well -spoken opening statements.

We got several points on the table to now engage in an uninterrupted rebuttal.

And so for the rebuttal, we have 10 minutes each. Lucas, we will throw it back to you and I'll reset the timer.

Whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. You have 10 minutes and just make sure to hit unmute,

Lucas. You might mic unmuted. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for your opening statement there, Keith. So I wasn't sure where he was going with his first five minutes.

There was a lot of talk going on and like the Postmill stuff. So I really wasn't tracking with that.

First, let me just try to respond to some of this. So Postmill today is not the

Postmill of yesterday. I just want to make that clear. Today, I call it Neo -Postmillennialism, which is a modified version of it.

The reason why, if you know your history, the Puritans held to historicism, which interpreted the book of Revelation as a history book, unfolding in time.

So actually the Postmills of yesterday interpreted the millennial in Revelation 20 as a future dispensation, just like pre -millennials.

So they would actually disagree with Keith and say, no, no, no, this is not covering the entire church age. I mean, you can read about this.

Like Adam Clark talks about this in his commentary on Revelation chapter 20.

So let's not confuse today's Postmillennialism with yesterday's Postmillennialism, but again, I wasn't really sure what that really has to do with it.

There was about five minutes of talk and not a lot of exegesis going on. And then after he did this, he mentioned and brought up this two age problem.

So I can address this and I want to address this, but this is a deterrent from our topic.

The topic of tonight's debate is, is Revelation 19 and 20 chronological? Now we do not do exegesis by throwing problems out of text.

That's not how exegesis is done. And usually, you know, the problems that we posit are just our own problems.

We do exegesis by going to the original intended meaning of the context. So whether or not I think there are problems or not,

I have to determine, okay, what is the text saying? Once we draw that out, then we can deal with the problems, but our problems do not determine what we will and will not accept.

And then you mentioned how pre -mill reigns over somehow in the future, it's Christ reigning over an imperfect world because there's still going to be,

I guess he was going along the lines of, there's still going to be sin and then afterwards Satan's going to be able to deceive some nations.

So let me ask you this. Is it better for me to say that the millennial kingdom is now? I mean, look at where our nation is now.

Do you think 65 million aborted babies is a more optimistic, better view? Do you think

LGBT grooming is a more optimistic view? I mean, if, if pre -millennialism has Christ reigning over an imperfect world, my gosh, brother, you have

Christ reigning over a horrible sin wretched world. So let's just that, you know, that be clear. Then there was some kind of jab at the majority view versus minority view.

Let me just say, pre -millennialism is the only, only millennial view that has the word historic attached to it.

Our millennialism doesn't, post -millennialism certainly doesn't. So why is this?

Could it be that this is the early eschatology of the church? I mean, if you study her church history, it clearly is.

Justin Martyr was a pre -millennialist. Irenaeus was a pre -millennialist. Papias was, you know,

John himself was, I believe. I'm just having a little humor there because I know that that's a debate. And now he mentioned after he did this too, again, still not dealing with exegesis.

I need exegesis. He mentions Beal says it's not linear. Well, that's a claim. You know, you need to show us how it's not linear.

He did offer some things and he mentioned the battle of chapter 16, then chapter 19 and chapter 20.

So let me say, so there, you know, as I said in opening statement, there are times in Revelation that recapitulate. So I'm not against recapitulation, but even under the progressive parallelism, which divides

Revelation to seven units, even they have chronology. So, you know, progressive parallelism, even by itself doesn't rule out the fact that these two chapters could be the same vision cycle, and so a vision cycle could have a chronology.

But let's talk about Revelation 16. So in Revelation 16, it's the preparation for the battle of chapter 19.

And then the chapter 19, that preparation takes place and Christ defeats them, but that's not the same battle.

And if you look at the differences between the two, you can clearly see them. Chapter 19, Christ is destroying the armies and chapter 20, fire out of heaven is destroying them.

So just because there are parallel accounts or similarities, doesn't mean there aren't differences. And we can't acknowledge one without the other.

We have to look at both of them. And he mentioned, uh, how there's progressive parallelism and how he, he dabbed into the second coming

Christ seems to be absent, and this is a big problem too, because why in the world in chapter 19, if, if John is so clear about Christ second coming, you would, you would think it's strange for him to be so vague and implicit that fire out of heaven is somehow symbolic for the return of Christ.

That, that doesn't make any sense there. You know, you would, you would predict that it would be just as explicit if John is starting over.

Especially how progressive parallelism in nature is supposed to show you chronological advancement. Then he mentioned how revelation 19 and 20 and 21 crisis is destroying all the people.

I don't think he is at all. He's destroying the armies of the people. That's not the whole world. So, you know, this leads into the next question.

What about the nations afterwards post? So, uh, let me just mention this. The, this is not related to the, to the topic of tonight's debate or even premillennialism, because even premillennials will disagree on this.

Who makes up the people after the millennial that populate the earth or that Satan deceives.

And that's a sub debate within premillennialism that does not determine whether one is or is not a premillennialist, nor does it determine the topic of the debate, are these two chapters chronological?

Because it could be something that maybe you're just missing in the text, or even I'm just missing, or this person is just missing. It doesn't matter.

John can still teach too, but I, I do take the view and this is what John, John deceives after the thousand years.

And you can ask me some on a cross -examination that encompasses the dead that are resurrected. And if you look at verse five,

John says the rest of the dead are resurrected after the millennial. And then in verse three, Satan is released after the millennial.

So those events are happening simultaneously. So I believe that the nations that Satan gathers encompass those, those people.

Next, he did exactly what I said. He, what I'm millennials do, he quoted Psalms 50, 10, a thousand cattle on a thousand

Hill or, or God to say somehow this isn't literal. So I want to say something here. Imagine if I debated

James white on Romans chapter nine, and we got to verse 13, Jacob, if I loved Esau, have

I hated. And I use John three 16 in my debate to interpret that. If you know

James white, you know that he would chew me out for that and say, that's two different contexts. I'm saying the same thing over here.

You can't bring in all these contexts that Keith brought in tons of context. He, he brought in Matthew 12, exactly what

I said. To interpret these contexts, you need to deal with this intended meaning and then walk through it consistently to show me that you're exegesis, not by telescoping from the portions of scripture.

You need to show me how these two chapters are chronological in this debate. So all those verses that you brought up, we're not irrelevant.

We're not relevant to this debate, but I will say in Matthew 12, Matthew 12, when Christ is talking there, that's not the cross of Christ yet.

So he's, so he is forecasting that. So the timing is a little off on that. Now I want to go into the thrones of chapter four and six.

So the thrones here should be interpreted within their context. You look at verses one through three of revelation, chapter 20, the angel comes down out of heaven.

Where's he coming? He's coming to earth. Satan is bound. He's bound for a thousand years. I do believe those are literal years, but that's not dependent upon my position.

I'm saying all the contextual evidence shows us that verses one through three are on the earth, Satan can't deceive the nations.

Again, the angel came out of heaven. He went to earth to bind Satan. And the context has to do with on the earth. So the thrones,

I don't believe there's a break in the text that somehow goes from earth to heaven. I believe those thrones are on the earth.

And the reason why, because the saints are reigning with Christ on the earth, which revelation five, 10 says the saints will reign on the earth.

So, so there's no problem there. And the throne should be interpreted within, within their respected context, which is what we're supposed to do today.

Now, I also want to mention, this is very important how his, he interprets the coming to life of the saints.

And he takes an all encompassing view. Okay. That's fine. But either way, that doesn't escape your problem.

Because if you look at these souls that John is seeing, they're already Christians.

They're already Christians. What does that tell us? They're already born again. They're already spiritually reigning with Christ.

So when John says to these people who are already born again, who are already reigning with Christ spiritually, they're coming to life, what's that addition there?

The only thing that happens after death to that addition that is coming to life, that that is resurrection language is a bodily resurrection.

And you see this even in chapter five, the rest of the dead did not come to life until a thousand years later. He's saying one group over here was resurrected bodily and the other, the rest of the group won't be resurrected the same type of resurrection they had until a thousand years later.

And this is what George Eldon Land would point out, which I didn't quote in my opening statement because of time's sake, but this is really a deciding factor or Ladd thinks that this is the deciding factor, which means that if he's wrong about this resurrection,

Keith has to take this position. If he's wrong about this resurrection here, he's wrong about Revelation 19 and 20 being recapitulatory.

Cause it's following after the second coming of Christ. That concludes my rebuttal period.

I look forward to a cross -examination period and hopefully we can get, get into the nitty gritty and try to bring out and draw out our differences.

Thank you. Lucas, thank you very much for your 10 minute rebuttal.

Now we're going to hand it back to Keith. I'll reset the timer. Keith, whenever you're ready, you also have a 10 minute rebuttal.

Go ahead. Yes, sir. Thank you. And thank you, Lucas, for your thoughts on that. And want to, want to just walk through a few thoughts as I was listening.

A lot was said. One specific thing happened at the beginning as, as Lucas was making his argument, he was arguing for the use of and as being sequential and that the conjunction always references sequence.

And then he says, but it doesn't always, it can be this over here, you know, but, but it has to here, it has to, because he is, he's already determined the end.

He's already determined what he's going to and how he's going to interpret this passage. And while he's claiming exegesis, he's claiming to say this,

I'm, I'm, I'm simply getting this from the text. He's already, but he, he's, he's, he's drawing an a priori conclusion.

He's saying, well, this has to be because this is his position. This is the position that he's arguing from.

And I, I'm not saying that we don't all do that in some respect. We all sort of have these ideas that we, that we introduce.

Um, but at the end of the day, the, the reason why he's saying it has to be this, even though it's not this over here,

I'll give you an example. Maybe, maybe this would be a better example. And that's the idea of recapitulation. He says, I'm not against recapitulation over here, but I am over,

I am against recapitulation here because this can't be recapitulation because if it is, it destroys my argument.

And so it becomes a, well, what's the deciding factor? What's the deciding factor?

How do you decide what's recapitulation and what's not? Well, that's where my argument comes in, which he has tried to dismiss by saying, well,

Keith has raised irrelevant arguments. I didn't raise irrelevant arguments. I raised arguments he doesn't want to deal with because it's those very arguments that are going to show that this sequential argument that he's making, this argument that it has to be after the return of Christ, there's this thousand years, even though we can find so many problems with that, even though we can introduce so many problems that he's going to say, well, that's an inner, that's premillennialist and we don't want to touch that.

No, we have to touch that because we have to do exegesis according to the rules of context and comparing scripture with scripture.

If we don't compare scripture with scripture, if we don't use the method of looking at the whole of scripture, not just the pieces, not just this one part, but we compare this to everything, we see that the argument of this interjected kingdom following the return of Christ does not fit.

And that's the problem. You have death ending because Christ has come.

He has defeated death. First Corinthians 15, death is swallowed up in victory, but it's not.

There's another thousand years of death, disease, and destruction. And you say, well, that's, that's irrelevant to the debate.

No, it's, it is the debate. That's the debate. If this is chronological, then this is introducing something that none of the rest of scripture ever points to promises.

This is not the blessed hope. The blessed hope is not a kingdom to come where we still have death, disease, and destruction.

The blessed hope is a kingdom with no end, not a thousand year end, but no end that will last forever.

And that kingdom is where the sun will be, the light and the new

Jerusalem, all these things that we see after the destruction of this world and the introduction of the new world to come.

And so I think that we have to consider the fact that even though the arguments are being said to be irrelevant,

I don't believe that they are. And so walking back through again, trying to write as he was speaking, this, having to, having to write down these things, he talks about Revelation 20 and he said,

Christ's second coming is not mentioned in Revelation 20. So if you look, if you, if you limit it to verses one to 10, you might could make that argument.

You could say, well, in verse nine, it says, and they marched up over the broad plain on the earth and were surrounded by the camp of the saints and the beloved city and fire came down from heaven and consumed them.

That could be a picture of judgment. I certainly believe that it is. I believe it's a picture of Christ's second coming, a recapitulation of what was said in chapter 19.

But here's the key. If we go beyond verse 10, we find verse 11. Then I saw the great white throne and him who was seated on it.

Yes, this is Christ's return. That's right there. It's in verse 11. His presence, from his presence, earth and sky fled away.

There was no place found for them. And I saw the dead great and small standing before the throne and the books were opened.

That's the picture of judgment. If you read all of the parables, you find judgment just that way.

The dead and the living in Christ and the dead are brought before the throne and they are separated.

And so what you have with premillennialism is you have multiple resurrections, you have multiple physical resurrections, you have multiple judgments, and you have all of this divided up unnecessarily by this interjection of this kingdom, which can easily be interpreted other ways.

Now I realized that this was not part of his opening statement, but I do want to say something about the fact he asked why

I began with the subject of post -millennialism, my only point, and I know this is a little off, maybe

I shouldn't even do this, really not fair, but I do want to respond and simply say, I'm just simply saying that with post -millennialism and non -millennialism in this debate, we are on the same side.

That was my argument. So I'll, I'll leave my rebuttal there. Hello.

Keith, thank you very much for that rebuttal.

Let me just reset the timer here and okay, gentlemen, great job. That concludes opening statements and rebuttals.

Again, we got plenty of great points on the table to now address in cross examinations.

We got plenty of time to ask each other questions and discuss tonight's topic on the millennium.

Keith just ended with his 10 minute rebuttal and therefore Lucas, we're going to give you the first 25 minutes to lead the way in cross exam.

Gentlemen, the floor is yours. Go ahead. We thought we lost you there for a minute, Donnie.

Yeah. But you know, great to be here, here with you, Keith, before we begin, I just want to say it's an honor to be, to share this platform with you.

Yeah, I'm glad to be here too. Thank you. And you as well. All right. So my first question will be, do you, do you agree that verse five of chapter 20 is a bodily resurrection of the dead?

Uh, yeah. Okay. And do you agree that the phrase in verse five, did not come to life until a thousand years are completed, is a negative statement of John to communicate that the dead are resurrected at a later time than the saints?

In this, if, if for you to arrive at that conclusion, you would have to assume that the idea of resurrection and, and, and all of these instances being brought to life and the resurrection, all these things are all referring to the same type of, of resurrection.

I know you do. I know that's the assumption that you are making, but that's what you would have to, to, to do is you would have to flatten it out and say, this is only referring to one form or type of resurrection and it can't be referring to anything else.

So if, if I told you, and I mentioned this in my opening statement, if I told you that was flu vaccinated yesterday, but the rest of my family did not become flu vaccinated until a week later, would you assume that both me and my family received the same flu vaccination, regardless of the time difference?

Sure. I think that's an oversimplification, but yes. So you would. Okay. Okay. So when

John says in verse four, that the saints came to life right after that, it says in verse five, the rest of the dead did not come to life until a thousand years later.

If the dead here are bodily, as you admit, they are. How is John not saying that both groups, regardless of the time difference, are bodily resurrected?

Okay. Show me where it says the word saints and verse four. I see the souls of those who have been beheaded is the word saints there.

Oh, I'm using saints just to clarify. Cause you're assuming there's a big language barrier there, but let's call them saints for the sake of clarification.

You know, martyrs, however you want to say it. Okay. So restate your question. Yeah, sure.

So if you agreed in that sentence that both me and my family would be flu vaccinated, so my question is, what do you call these saints or Christians or martyrs,

John is saying these people came to life and then in verse five, right after this, the rest of the dead did not come to life until a thousand years after.

If the dead are bodily resurrected in verse five, as you admit, how is John not saying that both groups, regardless of the time difference, are bodily resurrected?

Okay. So again, if we look at this, as Sam Storms has pointed out, is if we look at this as an intermediate state reference, and I said, that's a possibility in my opening statement, then certainly we would say that this is referring to them living and being in life with Christ during the intermediate state, which is something that the unbeliever does not experience until the resurrection.

Now, the unbeliever is conscious in the intermediate state, at least I believe so based on Luke 16, but that's still not ever defined as life.

The unbeliever has never said it to experience life in the same way we do. And so there is a distinction here between the two types of resurrection as again, we can flat it out as you have in your flu vaccination example.

But I think in this sense, we have to look at it from a broader state. So I'm not really getting an answer.

So if you admit in that sentence example, that both me and my family would be flu vaccinated, I'm borrowing, as you know, from John's language,

John is saying the saints here are bodily resurrected in verse five. The rest of the dead aren't until a thousand years later.

How is John then not saying that both groups, regardless of the time difference, are bodily resurrected?

Okay. This again, because I'm saying there's a difference between the word resurrection, your flu vaccination, you're making the argument that it's a one -to -one parable parallel.

I'm saying, I disagree with you. I don't think there's a one -to -one parable parallel in your argument. So that's my answer is

I don't think the first, I don't think the reference to the souls of those who've been beheaded, excuse me, those who came to life, ruling and reigning with Christ for a thousand years,

I don't think came to life there is the same as the idea of those who came to life in verse five.

I do see a difference. Yes. So, okay. Were the saints in verse four, were they resurrected prior to the dead?

No, they're alive. They've been alive since they came to Christ. They were made alive in Christ and they are living in the intermediate state.

So they're living and alive. We, when we come, here's the point. When we are regenerated, when we are born again, we are alive in Christ.

When we die, we are still alive in Christ and we continue to be alive all the way until judgment day.

We continue to live, that life continues. That life is something that is in us and it's life that we have from the moment that we are born again.

Okay. I get your view. So, um, if I can just get like a yes or no in, in verse four, did the saints come to life prior to the dead in verse five?

Yes, because I'm saying they don't, they don't come alive. I'll just say yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then verse five,

John says the rest of the dead did not come to life until a thousand years later. And you want that interpreted as two different types of resurrection rather than John just saying one group is resurrected prior.

One group is resurrected after. Yes. Okay. So, uh, let me ask you this question then in verse four, uh, you could just, you know, restate, cause

I know you mentioned this in your opening statement. You, uh, you interpret the coming to life as sounds like both regeneration and reigning or intermediate state.

Is that correct? I said it could be all three. And I think that all three work together because it, and even

I would include the resurrection of Christ as being referencing the first resurrection. It says he is the first fruit of the resurrection.

And we who come after him are coming after him because he is the first fruit of the resurrection. And we are born again.

We are raised up in heavenly place with him, seated in heavenly place with him, where we reign, uh, with him. Okay. Gotcha.

So do you believe and agree with me that the saints who come to life are already born again and spiritually reigning with Christ?

Yes, but it's not, that's not to say that it can't be the same, the same referent there. So when

John says that these Christians, if you have met and agree with me, are already born again, they're already reigning with Christ.

What is that resurrection? What is that coming to life that they're getting that they don't already have?

Okay. Again, if it is, if it is a referent, if that referent in verse five is to the intermediate state, then it's the death.

It, it is what happens at death. We are with Christ physically or spiritually, not physically.

Oh, so you don't believe it's regeneration then? No, I said regeneration is the cause of it. This is why I put it all together.

This is why I'm saying that because of the resurrection of Christ, we are regenerated, born again, and we never stopped living.

Okay. And we never stopped living even though we die. So we continue to live. And even at death, we live with Christ.

And so this would have been a great blessing and benefit to those who are watching Christians be persecuted and killed to know that they continue to live even after death.

Okay. I'll conclude this section just for time's sake, and I'll let the audience judge on that.

If we go to now to verse 10 of chapter 20, so my question to you is,

I'll read the text, and the devil who deceived them was thrown to the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

My question to you is, is Satan being thrown to the lake of fire chronologically from the beast and false prophet here? Yeah. And this is where, might take more time than you want to give in the

Q and A section as to... We'll give it a nutshell. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So the beast and the false prophet,

I take a partial preterist view of portions of revelation, and I do hold an early view of revelation, and so that would put me as seeing such as the beast as being

Nero, that's fairly simple understanding from my position, not as simple.

I don't want to say it's simple for everybody, but in that position, that puts me as saying, okay, the beast and the false prophet references something that has already taken place in the past, not something that's going to take place in the future.

However, I do believe that it creates a motif that over time there are these organizations or groups or even nations that rise up against Christ, and there tends to be a central figure ahead within that, and so there is a,

I think, a reference and possibly a coming antichrist at the end. I think that's actually probably...

Do you believe that... I'm sorry, not to interrupt you just for time sake, but do you believe... My question was, is Satan getting cast into the lake of fire after the beast and false prophet are, regardless of who you believe they are?

Well, but who I believe they are matters to the question, because if it is Nero, if that's the reference, then yeah, that's already happened.

So Satan being cast into the lake of fire at the return of Christ, that comes later. So does John have

Revelation 19 in mind here when he mentions that the beast and false prophet... No, that's why I was trying to go with my...

You do, okay. Okay, gotcha. Sorry, I don't want to interrupt you. Sorry, brother. No, it's okay. This is where this becomes more difficult.

I believe the beast and the false prophet create a motif that goes through time that takes more of an idealist approach, but at the end,

I do think there is going to be rising up one who will be what some call the antichrist figure or the beast figure at the end, and I do believe that will take place prior to the destruction of Satan, but not a thousand year distinction.

I think that happens chronologically, but not over a thousand years.

Just to clarify, so John does have Revelation 19 in mind here when he mentions this in verse 10?

I didn't say that. If that's what you think, I believe that John is recapitulating the story of redemption with Satan as the focus, and Satan is the beginning and ending focus of this, and that's what

I see. If we just focus on this text without getting into all that preterism view, do you agree that John here is saying the devil is thrown in after the beast and false prophet are?

Yeah, that's what I said. Chronologically, it's not a problem. Okay, so let me ask you this then. If you were to compile a list of all the possible verses that are evidence of these two chapters being chronological, would you be willing to admit that this verse is at least possible for indicating that?

Yes, but again, this is where I said at the beginning, and I'm not conceding the debate, but I am saying there are those on my side, those who would say the millennium ends with Christ's return, who do take a chronological approach and say that the

Revelation 19 is actually the fall of Jerusalem. I don't take that view, so I didn't want to defend that view, but there are those who say that's the way that you are to understand it, and they take a chronological perspective.

That's not my position. Gotcha. Yeah, I mean, I don't see how that helps your position because your position tonight is that you're taking the negative, that this is not chronological, and it seems like you're allowing for some kind of continuity with this verse between these two chapters here.

Sure, but as you and I both know, there's more than chronology at stake here. There's the actual, and I understand chronology is the heart of the debate, and I understand that was my choice.

They even, I mean, you can point that out later if you want to, feel free. I was the one who came up with the idea for that thesis, is the chronology, but the point

I'm making is that ultimately, chronology is going to depend on the nature of the millennium.

That's my point, is that the nature of the millennium will determine whether or not it's coming after this event in 19.

If I believe the 19 is the end, Christ returns, then that, to me, precludes chronology because I don't believe chapter 20 can come after Christ's return because death is swallowed up in victory.

Okay. I'm not really, again, I'm not sure how this helps your view. So let me ask you this. I quoted

Anthony Hokema, and he says, if chapter 19 is the second coming of Christ and does follow, and chapter 20 does follow this, we are virtually compelled to believe premillennialism.

Do you agree with that? No, no. That's why I said, even if the debate tonight, even if I lose the chronology debate, it still doesn't mean that the millennium comes after the return of Christ, and again, it depends on how you interpret chapter 19.

You debated a man from the Anglican church, the ACNA on this program.

Okay. You debated a man on your program who made the point, he believed it was chronological because he believed that Revelation 19 was fulfilled,

I guess through the church age, he didn't say it was 80, 70, but in that, there's a person who's saying that the nature of the millennium is what matters, and that's how you determine chronology.

So you would still be an amillennialist, you're saying, if these chapters were chronological? I think it's possible.

I think it might lend itself more to a post -millennial view, if I took that view. Okay. Let me ask you another question just because we're running out time quick.

If you were to imagine that, because you agree or you possibly can accept some kind of chronology,

I'm actually going to skip that question though, because I'm a little, that we would just be repeating ourselves.

So let's now move into this section. So Christ's second coming in chapter 20, which I want to talk about.

So you, is it your position that the fire out of heaven is Christ's return or verse 11 is

Christ's return? I think it's all one event. I think it's, it's being seen as one event.

The verse nine is the fire coming down from heaven. The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur.

The beast and the false prophet are there and they are terminated day and night forever. Then I saw the great white throne.

That's Christ's return. And all of this is happening in, at the same time. I don't think it's a,

I don't think it's a, well, this happened before. I think it's all happening at once. Do you believe then that, is it your position that the fire out of heaven is symbolic for Christ?

I think it's symbolic of judgment in the same way that we see the fire coming out of heaven, uh, for the prophets of Baal, which consumed, uh, the, the, uh, when

Elijah was there and all those things, it's a picture of judgment. Yes. Do you think that's implicit or explicit that this is the second coming of Christ?

Oh, I think that 11 is explicit. I'm sorry. Well, verse seven is what I was talking about. The fire out of heaven.

Well, verse nine, but still. I'm sorry. Verse. Um, uh, is it verse nine? Yeah. Correct. But no, it's fine.

Verse nine, I think again, is that's not where my argument's based on. I'm saying the fire can be a picture of judgment.

It is a picture of judgment in other places, but verse 11, you said that the return of Christ is not here.

And I'm saying, if you go one verse later, he, it is here. And that's, that's the point I was making. Okay. And do you believe that that is implicit or explicit?

Explicit. Then I saw a great white throne and him who seated on upon it. Who is that other than Christ? Do you think average reader, if they read this, they would interpret that as the second coming of Christ?

Absolutely. In the same way that when Jesus talks about in Matthew chapter 25, the sheep and the goats brought before the throne and separated.

Absolutely. Cause that's what we see right after this. So we see the books open the dead of judge. We see this, this happening right here.

So your position is that the second coming of Christ is in, I'm sorry, is explicit in verse 11.

That's your position. Yep. Do you know any Amil scholar who agrees with you on that? Don't know.

Either do I. Okay. Uh, let me, uh, ask you these questions now. I want to talk about the ans cause, uh,

I mentioned that in my opening statement. I want to talk about it with you. So in, uh, verse 11 of chapter 19,

John, John sees Jesus on a white horse and he says, and then you can drop down to verse 14 and the armies which are in heaven.

We're following him. Do you believe the end here is chronological from verse 11? Yeah. And I, and, and if it saves time,

I can say, I'm going to agree with most of the ones you're about to ask. Okay. Gotcha. Awesome. Thank you. Okay.

Uh, but then your position, so, uh, let me just start then in verse, uh, 2021 revelation 19.

You, you know, there's three ends there. Dr. Beal agrees. Those ans are chronological and it seems like you do too.

And then your position is that right after this chronological pattern of ANS for historical sequence, your position is that verse one of chapter 20 recapitulates, is that correct?

Yeah. And I would take Beal's a similar position to Beal in that saying that we see the angel coming down. This is beginning a new portion of the narrative revelation is given in visions.

And these visions are not always connected chronologically one to another. Even if the word, the chi, which is the

Greek and is there can be translated and, or then, because as it is in the ESV, it's translated, then it's not always a, uh, a coupling of, of sequence.

Okay. And then you, do you also agree with Dr. Beal that the majority of ANS in chapter 20 are chronological?

Uh, sure. As I said before. Yeah. So it seems like then, uh, correct me if I'm wrong. You would then agree with me that there's a consistent pattern of ANS that are chronological between these two chapters.

Well, I, I, I would have to go back and look at each one specifically to give you an answer is to say whether it's a majority or not, but I'm agreeing with you because you seem to have done the legwork before I did to, to see if these are sequential and I think the majority of them probably would be, but it doesn't have to be, and that's the point that I'm making.

Okay. And I agree with you on that, that it doesn't have to be. Um, so, you know, you know, that's why, like, I'm asking you these questions of, of, of the data, which you seem to be agreeing on that there is a consistent

ANS being used that are indicating a historical sequence. That'd be correct. Yeah.

As I said, throughout the word Chi typically, uh, in a narrative is, is introducing a sequence, even though it doesn't always have to.

And that's where we have to ask the question, what else does this imply or what else do we have to have to come up with if that's the case?

Okay. And on that note, let's talk about the binding of Satan. Okay. Okay. This is, uh, this'll be a fun one.

So I don't want to take away from your time. If, if for any reason, my power goes out, I hope it doesn't, but I've very loud thunder.

Don't take away his time, Donnie. I just want to say, if it goes out, I promise to come back, but hopefully that won't happen.

I can jump on my cell phone if I have to, but hopefully, please God, don't let that happen. Yes. Amen. Amen.

All right. Um, is it your position that, uh, that the binding of saying in chapter 20 happened at the cross of Christ? Uh, death, burial and resurrection.

I would say it's all again, not to flatten out the event, but I would say, well, even then

I would say it is, it is the, it is the institution of the new covenant of Christ, which is in his advent.

And so this is where, cause I know, I kind of think I know where you're going with this, so let me just preempt the question by saying it is his advent that introduces the binding of Satan.

We see him binding Satan throughout his ministry with the work that he does. And he explicitly says that that's what he's doing.

And we see him, we see his followers doing it. We see that explicitly stated by him as they come back from preaching.

So I don't think it happened at the moment he died on the cross or at the moment he resurrected. I think this is his advent. His coming, uh, is a binding.

Uh, okay. So do you, uh, do you then believe the atone, uh, Christ's work on the cross then was not the official binding of it, or it was just a part of it?

I'm, I'm trying to understand your position here. I think, I think Christ is, is bound at the advent of Christ in the sense that Christ is coming into the world and binding

Satan. I don't, I, I'm not going to say it happened at this moment because we see his, him referencing it prior to the cross.

So I wouldn't say that it's limited, uh, to, to that moment. I think there was a binding that occurs, uh, prior to that.

Gotcha. Just cause we have five minutes left. Let me then ask you this now. So I contrasted the abyss of chapter 20 with chapter nine of revelation and in chapter nine, an angel opens the abyss and then out of the abyss come demonic beings.

So my question to you is prior to that angel opening the abyss in chapter nine, were the demons confined to the abyss?

Yeah, I'm sorry. I had to go by mine. I'm going back to chapter nine. I kind of, uh, it's in, yeah, it's in a verse 11.

He calls it the abyss. And then, uh, he opens the bottomless pit is open. And then outcome, these demonic beings and they, they torment, uh, people of the earth.

So prior to him opening the abyss, did those demons have access to the, to the earth? Um, I would have to,

I, I want to give you the answer that, that the, my, my initial answer would be probably not.

I think that, but I would have to give more thought to that to give it a better answer had not gotcha.

So let's go off with probably not though. If yeah, it makes me think of, of, of what we, what we hear about in Jude, where Jude talks about those particular ones who have been bound, who have been kept under, uh, chains for a certain time.

So that's what, that's what, that's what comes to mind. But again, I'd have to, I'd have to think more about that before giving you a perfect answer.

Okay. Well, um, I can respect that, but let me just ask you if, if Satan, if, if say this was that they weren't allowed to have access because they're in the abyss chapter 20 says,

Satan has a chain on him. He's thrown into the abyss. That abyss, that abyss is doors close that, that, that door is shut and sealed.

Your position is that Satan still has access to the earth. Where? Okay. So we're, we're back in revelation 20, right?

Yeah. Cause I'm contrasting the two, the abyss, but I don't see a door shut and she sealed. I see it.

I see a specific binding for a specific thing. And he sees the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan.

And he bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into that. Okay. Shut and sealed. Okay. I'm sorry. I was looking at verse three, shut and sealed. And so that he might not deceive the nations.

That's what he is being bound for or being bound to is the absolute deceiving of the nations.

It's not an absolute binding or a complete binding. At least that is my position. This is a binding, which is a binding regarding the deception of the nations.

It's limited by the, the words of the, of the phrase. Therefore it is limited in scope.

Okay. So, so you would then say Satan being in the abyss doesn't mean he's actually in the abyss.

Is that your position? Well, I don't, is the word pit. Is that the same word as the word of this? Abusos?

Yes, it is. I'm looking here now. Uh, yeah, I, I see this again as, as I've said before,

I think this is a picture of the binding of Satan. I think the term here is symbolic.

I do not think that he is bound completely during this time. Well, one more question, just cause we got like two minutes left.

I just want to go, go to revelation two, verse eight. I mentioned this in my opening statement too. Uh, Jesus says, uh, the first and the last who was dead and has come to life.

So that phrase come to life is the same phrase that John uses in verse four, chapter 20 for the saints and the dead.

Do you agree with me on that? Um, I'm sorry to ask you again, and I'll give you extra time if I need to show me where we are again, cause

I that's okay. Yeah. Revelation chapter two, chapter chapter two of revelation, then verse chapter two.

Okay. So that's where I was confused. Okay. So I was in 20 verse eight. Okay. So two verse eight. Yes. He says the first and the last who was dead and has come to life.

And that phrase, even in Greek is the same phrase that John uses of the saints and the dead when he says they come to life, do you agree with me on that?

Uh, came to life, the word Zaho is, is, is the word that's being used there. I guess,

I assume I agree with you until I discern, I mean, I'm not sure what you're going to ask. So, uh, is that, is that, well, um, a question would be then, is that a bodily resurrection of Christ there?

Oh, is this the, this is referring to the words of the first last who died? Yes. This is a body. Yes, sure.

Okay. And so when John says in verse four of chapter 20, the saints, same, same phrase came to life and we share in Christ's resurrection, you're saying that's actually a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily like Christ.

Yeah. And, and again, I want to go back to, uh, I, I, I think I'm quoting Sam Storm.

So, and I'm going to quote him loosely. So forgive me if I, if I, uh, if I do, um, he said that, um, there, there is a sense in which when we come to this passage and we look at the word raised or came to life, we are, we are spiritualizing this because we believe that this is to be understood spiritually.

This is, this is one of the few times where we do that because in other places it's explicitly physical bodily resurrection.

But in this case, in Revelation 20, we do come to the conclusion based on several other factors that this is spiritual, uh, spiritual resurrection.

My time is up. That's right. There we go. 25 minutes has flown by.

Good job, gentlemen. In the first cross exam, fast paced, engaging. I appreciate it.

Okay. I'm resetting the timer and we have our next 25 minute portion of this cross examination.

Keith, you get to lead the way and go ahead. I'll start the timer on your first question. All right,

Lucas. Thank you again for, for doing this. It really means a lot. And I'm having a good time, even though it may not look like it.

Um, all right. So the first few questions should, should be pretty quickly. Um, do the gospels anywhere give us an explicit teaching about a thousand year reign after the return of Christ?

Okay. Uh, so two things. There's a part of me that doesn't want to go there because of the nature of this, the topic tonight.

It's a good question. And I, and I know you're asking it and it is relevant to this, to the overall debate, just not this topic.

But I do want to say though, is that Christ is the one who gave his revelation to John. So I would say even in these chapter,

Christ did teach an intermediate state because chapter 21 is a creation of the new heavens, 19 he comes.

And then what comes in between that is the thousand year reign. Okay. So, uh, the,

I'm going to, I was going to ask several questions. It sounds like you really don't want to deal with them. And that is how this fits with the analogy of scripture.

Are you, are you unwilling to answer questions about other passages, how they may approach our understanding of Revelation 20?

So the example I gave was in my rebuttal, I said, if I was debating James way in Romans nine and try to bring in John three 16, he would chew me apart and I think, you know, he would too,

Keith, I'm saying you're doing this here when you're trying to bring another context to interpret these two chapters.

Okay. How is it another context when I'm asking you about other passages that relate to the end and the return of Christ, how is it a different context?

Well, uh, are you talking about Matthew 12, 12 now? Well, Matt, any, cause I was going to ask you about the parables.

I was going to ask you about Matthew 12. I'm going to ask you about these passages because they're all relevant to how we understand

Revelation 20. Are we not to use analogy of scripture? Are we not to compare scripture with scripture? Well, we are, but not when we agree on a debate topic.

And again, I think, you know, James white, again, if I did this with Romans nine, I mean, listen to his latent flowers debates, he critiques them all day long for this.

So if you were, if I was James white and you were late in flowers right now, he would chew you apart for this.

And I think, you know, this Keith. Okay. But I'm not all right, but you're not answering my question.

Well, no, uh, I, I actually did answer. I said, Jesus is the, uh, Jesus, Jesus is the one who gave his revelation.

So in chapter 21, you have the new creation chapter 19. You have the coming of Christ. What comes between that chapter 20?

So you do have a thousand year reign. Okay. Uh, well, I'm, I'm going to keep asking a few questions.

You're not going to like, but we're just going to have to deal with it because these are important questions. In Genesis chapter one and two, we're told to, uh, two accounts of creation and many people believe they're conflicting and contradictory.

Do you believe that's the case? Oh, I definitely don't believe they're contradictory. Okay. Do you believe they tell the same story in two ways?

Oh yeah. And I would even use, um, I would be fine using the word recapitulation. Okay. So if we do that there with the earliest part of the scripture, why is it wrong to do it in the latest part of the scripture as we're looking at Revelation 19 and 20?

Yeah. So that is a good, uh, that's a fantastic question. And this is why I did deal with this in my opening statement.

I said, I'm not against recapitulation. And what I argued is, is that the narrative has to show it.

So as the argument I gave was there, there's a chronology of ends being used for historical sequence.

We don't see what we see in chapter 11 and 12 going on with a change in the narrative and we, and we also have other problems with what's the resurrection in verse four is saying inbound now after the millennial.

So I'm, again, I'm willing to submit to the text that recapitulation is a biblical truth. It happens many times in Revelation and in other parts,

I'm saying these two chapters here don't qualify. So I, I not take up too much time, but I can't just say a chapter, uh, recapitulates,

I have to deal with the context and have textual data. So I don't believe the textual data favors, uh, recapitulation here.

Okay. All right. So I am going to ask you the question about the strong man, because you, we're talking about the binding of Satan.

Okay. When Jesus said he has bound the strong man, Matthew 12, 29, Mark, Mark three and Luke 11, how do you interpret that?

Okay. So we're going after, so I just want the audience to know what we're doing now. You're taking me out of these two chapters.

I'll answer, but I just want to, to, to be aware of what's going on here. You're not dealing with the context, but let's do this.

Uh, let's go into this though, just so there's an answer. So I take Ladd's position. Ladd said in the meaning of the millennial that this, this speaking of Matthew 12 is different from the binding of Satan in chapter 20 of Revelation.

The former meant the breaking of the power of Satan, the individual men and women might be delivered from his control. The latter binding meant that he should deceive the nations no more.

So I do believe there was a redemptive binding of Satan. As I said in my opening statement too. However, chapter 20 is a political one and that's why he has the phrase, the purpose clause, so he won't deceive the nation.

So I'm not conflating the two. There's two different bindings and two things can be true at the same time. Okay. Is the entire book of Revelation meant to be read in chronological order?

No. And this is where I would agree with dispensationalist too. It's, it's definitely not, it's definitely not a strict chronology at all.

Are you a dispensationalist? No, no. Okay. I, I, I knew the answer.

I just want to be able to hear that. No, no, no. I knew, but I just, you mentioned it.

Yeah. Um, in Revelation one, five to six, it says he has, uh, loved us and freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom priests to, of, uh, priests to his

God and father. What kingdom is he referring to there? Of heaven, of Christ. Is that kingdom a reality now?

Yeah. So I believe in an already not yet reality. And I'm sure you do too. Or I know you do too.

Is Christ ruling now? Oh yeah. Amen. Okay. All right. Um, so how do you determine what's literal spiritual and what's physical or, uh, figurative in, when you're interpreting

Revelation, how do you come to that conclusion? Yeah, that's a great question. So a good rule of thumb is to see if the literal interpretation is absurd.

So if it's absurd, like, you know, Christ, when, when, when, when John sees Christ as a lamb slain,

Christ is in the body of a literal lamb. So we know they're symbolic. So I'm actually not against symbolism at all.

Neither is premillennialism. We're just saying that symbolism is not meant to obfuscate truth. It's meant to reveal truth.

Like Revelation is a revealing. So even in, if you go to chapter one, where John sees Christ standing and there's seven golden lampstands, those seven golden lampstands are symbols that correspond to the seven churches.

So these symbols are actually revealed truth rather than obfuscate truth. Okay. Hopefully that answers.

I'm glad you said that. I'm glad you said that. In fact, I want you to say it again. What was the reason that you would know?

It would be, well, the first one is, is the interpretation absurd. Is it absurd? Okay, good. I'm glad you said that because now

I want to ask you some questions about the millennium and how you understand it. When Christ returns prior to the millennium, in your view, will his saints then be raised in glorified bodies?

Oh, yes. Amen. Yeah. So I believe, I believe verse four is the bodily resurrection. Okay. It's the bodily resurrection of his saints.

Okay. Will these bodies live, will these be the bodies they live in during the millennium?

And for eternity too. And for eternity too. Will unbelievers go into the millennium without glorified bodies?

Yeah. So that, that is a good question. I'm still working this out. I would say as of now, my position is yes.

I will say though too, is that this doesn't discredit pre -millennialism because pre -millennialists disagree on this.

No, that's that, that doesn't mean it doesn't discredit it. That just means you're all wrong. Oh, brother. Come on.

That was not a question. I recant. I will put sackcloth and ashes on later. No, this is.

Well, let me say this then. There's nothing contradictory with saying either position of a pre -millennialist, whether it's going to be glorified bodies or not.

There's nothing contradictory. The model can work with both. Do it. Do unbelievers receive glorified bodies?

No. Yes or no? Believers don't receive glorified bodies. Okay. Unbelievers don't receive glorified bodies.

So there will be death in the millennium? As of now, I would say yes. Yes. Will there be childbirth in the millennium?

Oh yeah. Will this be for believers or unbelievers? Well, I believe that those who enter will most likely all be believers, but you know, there would be some unbelievers mixed in there.

And will there be mixed marriages between glorified and unglorified bodies? Oh no.

Okay. Um, will believers be able to have children? I just asked you this. Will believers be able to have children? If so, are those children being born in glorified bodies?

Oh no, no. I mean, no. Okay. Unless you're getting baptized. I'm joking. You agree that there's physical death in the millennium or you said you didn't know?

As of now, I say yes. Okay. Seems to me there would have to be, well, I can't, that's not a question.

Let me say, because there's a final battle, right? So in the final battle, will people die? Yeah. Yes.

Correct. Okay. So there has to be death, right? Yeah. Oh yeah. All right. So how do you interpret

Paul's words then when he says that at the return of Christ, death will be swallowed up in victory when you're conceding that there will be another thousand years of death and suffering after the return of Christ.

So we're going out of Revelation 19 and 20 now. But again, you keep doing that.

I'm going to ask you this question. Is it wrong to ask a question about the end times on the same topic?

We're not doing John 3, 16 and Romans 9 here. It's the same topic. Well, no, well, the similarity

I gave between John 3, 16 is talking about God's love with Romans 9, 13. So it is a similarity.

So, so, you know, again, I'm saying James White would chew you out for this brother. Well, I'll call him and ask him when we're done, but let's, that'd be fun.

Uh, which verse in first Corinthians though that you want to talk about? Is it verse 50 or verse? Um, actually

I, the, just the citation that death is swallowed up in victory. Oh, death, where's your sting? Oh, death, where's your victory? That when

Christ returns, death is no more. Do you disagree with that? No, no.

So I, yeah. So, uh, if you want to know my view on first Corinthians 15, which is, we, you know, again, this is totally off topic here.

I believe in verse 24 of first Corinthians 15, the end comes after Christ comes when he hands, he delivers the kingdom to God, the father.

So he says in verse 24, first Corinthians, then comes the end. And in verse 23, he came.

So Christ came. Then the end comes when he hands over the kingdom to God, the father, not when he comes.

Okay. So, so you're, you're interjecting a thousand year period in that then. I believe just like Latter and tons of tons of preeminent.

I mean, I don't know any preeminent who disagrees with me on that, that there, that there is a possible or a order of events here that is, even if you don't say it's a thousand years.

There's an indefinite period of time here because Christ comes in verse 23. He says each in his own order,

Christ, the first fruits after those who are Christ at his coming. He comes verse 24, then comes the end.

So the end comes not in verse 23, but verse 24, when he delivers the kingdom to God, the father, when he has abolished all rule and authority and power, that's when the end comes.

According to Paul, it's after Christ comes and it's an indefinite period of time, whether it's a thousand or more, or even a hundred years, there's a clear gap or indefinite undefined period going on between those two verses.

So if I asked you where you find the gap between the return of Christ and the defeat of death, that's where your answer would be. And then

I would also point out to in verse 24, uh, the Greek word, I can't pronounce it, but the word, the Greek word for then is the same word for verse seven, where Paul says he speaks about an order of events in Christ after his resurrection, he says he appeared to more than 500 brethren and then in verse seven, then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

So Paul uses then to indicate sequence in historical time. So there's clearly a chronology going on here.

And I'm saying he's doing this in verses 23 and 24, which allows for a period to exist.

Okay. That, that was my question, the gap. Um, will there be sin happening during the millennial reign?

Yes, that that's my position as of now. Will there be salvation for unbelievers offered during the millennial reign?

Yeah, correct. That, uh, that would follow. Okay. Um, if the believer became, or if the unbeliever became saved during the millennial reign, would he receive his glorified body then, or would he die normally?

Yeah, that's a good question. Uh, I, I would say that, that he would, uh, you know, I mean,

I'm, I'm going to go back to first Corinthians now doing what I don't want to do, but I was, Hey, it's okay. I, I opened the door, run back to first Corinthians.

Um, I, yeah, I, uh, yes to, to the answer to your question. Okay. Um, so what is, is the millennium our blessed hope or is the eternal state our blessed hope?

I would say Christ. So Titus 2 13, looking for the, uh, what does he say? I'm, I'm going off of memory here.

The blessed hope is Christ's return. It's Christ himself. Like, like John 17, three, this is eternal life.

What to know the, the only true God, Jesus Christ who now sent. Okay. So he is our blessed hope. His return is our blessed hope, but our blessed hope is tied to a thousand year reign of him on the earth.

That includes the continuation of death, disease, and destruction. Um, well, uh, it was verse 13 of Titus two, he goes looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of a great

God and savior, Jesus Christ. So he's our blessed hope. And then your second part was in reference to my question.

I believe, I, I, I agree with you that Christ is our blessed hope, but if it is our blessed hope in his, in his coming, his return is, is his return then.

Preceded or does his return precede a thousand year period where death, disease, and destruction still reign on the earth?

So there's going to be sin, but it's going to be uncommon. Like Isaiah 65 20 talks about how a child will die at a hundred years and be thought long.

But I would also say this too, though, Keith. And as I said in my rebuttal, your alternative is even worse.

Your alternative includes 65 million aborted babies and LGBT groomers. You're saying we're in the millennial now.

That's your view is even worse than mine exponentially. But my view is again, a spiritual kingdom that is now that is a church militant that's battling that, where your view is

Christ is here. He's already vanquished my question. Cause I know I got to form this as a question and not a statement.

My question to you is how is my view worse? If you're saying that Christ is here has defeated death as all these things have happened.

And yet it's still death and sin and disease and destruction are still here. So when

Christ comes, I think you agree with me, him putting down an ending abortion and groomers, dry cream story hour, fraudulent elections, all this nonsense.

Hallelujah. That is so much better than this present age. We're saying that this is the millennial now.

When Isaiah talks about the lion drawing with the, with the lamb, the beating their plow share the weapons into plow shares, that's the millennial kingdom.

I don't want to water that down and say, Oh, by the way, it includes Joe Biden's presidency and it includes

Kamala Harris trying to kill Trump. Like that, that that's horrible. Is there a point in the millennium where someone's going to look to someone else and say, man, this started good, but it seems to be getting worse.

In the millennial. I wouldn't say so. So, I mean, I think Satan's loose for a season.

Isn't that going to make things worse? Are they going to look around and say, Hey, this started good, but it just isn't going anywhere. I think it's going to be rather short.

And I do think that, uh, the nations that Satan deceives includes the resurrection of the dead because they happen simultaneously.

And John Gill, by the way, actually agrees with me on this. And Thomas Schreiner too. If the millennial state is our, as I would see is, is, is our final abode and Christ's, uh, teaching on this is that we go from this state to that state.

What is the purpose of the millennial kingdom? What is its ultimate telos? Yeah, that's a great question.

So Christ is the last Adam. So that, you know, Adam was promised dominion. Christ will fulfill that.

Adam lived to a hundred to 930 years. Christ as a second, Adam will live to a thousand years.

The only man, or sorry, rain for a thousand years. The only man that reigned for 1000 years. He'll fulfill those promises.

He's the son of Abraham, the son of David. What, uh, he fulfills the Abrahamic covenant, a land promises, a blessing, all the nations.

He fulfills the Davidic covenant reigning, you know, the, the, the eternal son that God promised. So reigning from Israel over all the nations, ruling them with a rod of iron.

All these things, Christ will fulfill proving he's the Messiah. And it will be a glorious thing to be a part of that.

I look forward to being there with you, Keith, too. Okay. Well, praise the Lord. In the event or in that question,

I want to ask about the, the eternal state, the, the question of what you just said.

Okay. This is the interview or what would you, would you agree with me that the , um, is an inter, uh, objection between this age and the age to come?

Um, I believe is it the age to come? Gotcha. Yeah. I believe it's a part of this age and it's a first initiation to the new creation.

Okay. So the millennium is still this age. Correct. So Christ returns and he sets up his kingdom, but it's still this age.

Correct. Yeah. And I just use language to the first initiation of the new age.

So, you know, you, so it's, so it is, it is an intermediate age. It's a dispensation within this age.

Yeah. Within the, and not dispensationalism, by the way, I'm not a dispensationalist. I mean, just a period of time.

Foot shall slip in due time. Sorry. Okay. So the point

I'm making is, uh, is the promise of Christ's reign and all of these things and his return, uh, how is that not the eternal state?

How is, how did Christ, if we consider the four, the four overall parts of the metanarrative of scripture, which are creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.

So you're saying restoration has a multifaceted, uh, schedule,

I guess is the word I'd find there's a structure to things got, you know, um, if you zoom out, you can see, okay, this is what

God is going to do. You zoom in there, their structure, there's order, like even first Corinthians 15, the end comes after Christ returns.

So clearly, you know, again, like whether you interpret that as a thousand years or even a day or even an hour, there's some kind of period of time going on between there.

So the end comes when Christ delivers the kingdom of God, the father, not when he returns, Paul says. Okay. Um, in Romans, again,

I know you don't like this. I, I can tell you're like feeling the tension to quote those verses.

Well, I have, I have a whole list that I didn't do. I just, I'm, I'm my, because you're, you're, you seem to be averse to wanting to answer questions.

I don't want to poison the well, I'm not averse to it. Like I do, I do do broad debate subjects, but just in relation to this, and I would just point this as a, as a weakness of the

Amal who can't interpret these two chapters without telescoping from other portions of scripture, you should be able to walk through these chapters and prove to me your position.

If you can't, that shows a weakness. I'm going to try to form this as a question. How is it when I gave you a exegesis of the text, even though you disagree, how are you saying

I didn't deal with the text in my opening statement? When I gave a three -part exegesis, giving the, the binding, the blessing and the battle, at least,

I mean, I did it as any good Baptist would. How have I not dealt with the text because I've answered your questions, even though you're not satisfied with my answers.

How, where was I in error? Now I'm taking you out of the text, but I, I, where did I not fulfill the requirements of the debate?

Gotcha. And I just want to make sure, you know, clear, I do respect you, you know, brother Keith, so, you know, I hope this doesn't come across like, you know,

Lucas is just trying to be mean towards him. So I sincerely, you know, respect you as a brother in Christ. I think you made a lot of claims and you talked about progressive parallelism and you threw a lot of problems at the text, but you didn't give a firm and consistent exegesis walking us through this chapter, verse by verse.

Okay. And, and that's what is expected in 20 minute opening statement?

Absolutely. Yeah. All right. Exegesis. So, um, I think theology should be dictated by exegesis rather than dictating exegesis by our system.

So I want to be exegetical and all that I believe and draw it out from the text. No, I agree. And I believe

I did. I believe I walked through the text. I gave an answer for what the text says. And I believe, again, following James White's example,

I took you from the beginning of the text to the end of the text and gave you an understanding of my position, but again, that's not a question.

So I'm breaking the rules. In Romans 8, 18 to 25, it indicates that creation longs for the return of Christ because it desires restoration.

When Christ returns, will the world be restored? It's going to be. So again, if you zoom out, like this is what

God is going to do. You zoom in there, there's a structure to it. So the same, so, you know, this is Paul here in two, who wrote first Corinthians 15, but again, there's going to be a structure to weigh to the reason or to the ways that God does things.

So Christ comes, he will, you know, the lion will dwell with the lamb. The nations will beat their weapons into plowshares, but you also have

Isaiah 65, 20, how there's going to be a child who, if he dies at a hundred years, he'll be thought young and accursed.

So you're not allowed to go to other passages. Remember? Well, you're making me do it. You're making me do it,

Keith. All right. So the point I'm making is during the millennium, will there be earthquakes, floods, drought, tsunamis, and hurricanes?

No, I'm not an amillennialist. I'm sorry? I'm not an amillennialist. So I don't believe during the millennial, there will be earthquakes, droughts, and tsunamis.

You believe that, not me. No, yeah, no, I, no, I do. Cause I believe that. Yeah. So I don't believe that.

No, no, no, no. But I'm asking you during the millennium, when Christ is here, will those things be occurring? Oh, as a premillennialist?

No, I don't believe that. That would help me. That's all right. So it's a, it's a, it's a world that's restored, but not completely.

Yeah. Like, uh, and again, it's a, the first stage or the initiation to this, but the end comes after he puts down all rule and authority and power and when he did hands over the kingdom of God, the father.

Okay. I have one final question. I know we're about out of time, Donnie. So thank you. Uh, this is, uh, something

I ask in a lot of debates if I have time and I do. So I'll ask you, what was my best argument?

Your best argument. Um, when you went outside of revelation and I, no, I'm joking. That's fair.

I would have to re to recap. Um, I probably think you caught, you probably could have questioned me more on the wars.

I'm surprised that, uh, that you didn't. I think that's one good on mill argument that, uh, that they have.

Where I'm what? I didn't hear you. On, on the wars in chapter 16, 19 and 20, where John typically uses, you know, similar phrases.

I think that's a powerful, all male argument that they offer. Okay. That was it.

Yeah. All right, gentlemen, very thought provoking 50 minute cross examination.

You guys had me right into it, enjoying the back and forth. And it's like, you guys have done this before.

You knew to ask question after question. You guys understand the rules. And as a result, you gave me a very easy job as a moderator tonight.

So Keith Lucas, my brothers appreciate the excellent and cordial cross examination.

So with that, we have concluding statements. So this is a good opportunity to wrap up our thoughts, wrap up our points and address anything in terms of arguments and points that we feel may have been left.

Now, Lucas is in the affirmative. So Keith, we're going to give you the first concluding statement.

And again, you got five minutes. Go ahead, Keith. All right. The problem with the premillennial view, which assumes the continuation of chapter 19 into chapter 20 and forces

Christ's return to precede a millennial kingdom on the earth, the problem with that view is, is it forces an intermediate, unnecessary interjection in between this age and the age to come.

It presumes that the promises to Israel were not fulfilled in the church, but had been postponed to some future state of being, which is in the intermediate between this age and the age to come, something the

Bible never teaches. Now, Lucas didn't say that. So I just want to say that's what a lot of people who believe the premillennial view understand.

So I don't want to put that on to him. Never does Jesus say, in this age, in the millennium, and then the age to come.

It's always constructed as this age and the age to come. There's nothing intermediate. There's nothing in between. There's nothing to look forward to that will separate this age and the age to come.

When I interpret Revelation 20, I'm interpreting it by comparing Scripture with Scripture. And since there's nothing else in Scripture that would indicate this thousand year interruption, a question that I really didn't get to ask, and that's the question of, is there anywhere else in Scripture where this millennium comes up?

Because there isn't, I'm forced to interpret the millennium in light of other much clearer passages.

If you hold your premillennial view, you must believe that physical death continues after the return of Christ.

So death is not defeated at the return of Christ, which to me is in direct contradiction to Paul's words in 1

Corinthians 15, where he says, behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet.

For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable and we shall all be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable and this mortal body must put on immortality.

When the perishable puts on the imperishable and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? The sting of death is sin. The power of sin is the law, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our

Lord Jesus Christ. Other than with a particular reading of Revelation 20, there's nowhere you will find a gap between the return of Christ and the defeat of death, even though we saw one tried to be introduced.

The reason is, or rather this is reason enough to say that those who hold their premillennial view should reconsider how they understand

Revelation chapter 20. The practical problem for premillennialism is that we're never called to hope for another age of already and not yet.

That's where we are now. We're not looking for that. In premillennialism, Christ is here, his kingdom is here, but it's still not yet.

We're still not yet in the eternal state. It's at best closer, but not complete. I think given the choice, we'd all want to skip and go right into the new earth.

Now I realize our choices don't make reality, but it's something to consider when we think about the desire God has put in the believer.

We don't have a desire for an intermediate kingdom. God has put a desire in the hearts of his people that death and sin and all of that that goes with it will be destroyed when

Christ returns. It will no longer affect the new heaven and the new earth. We desire the final eternal state promised by Christ where sin and death will be no more.

This is what the parables teach. This is what the epistles teach. Therefore, this is how we ought to interpret

Revelation 21 through 10. I believe the millennium is now, the kingdom is now already, but not yet.

The not yet is that the eternal state is coming, not another millennium where we're still dealing with death, disease, and destruction, but a kingdom which will have no end and there will be done away with death, disease, and destruction.

Our blessed hope is that while we expect Satan to be released for a season, we know that when Christ returns,

Satan will be vanquished. The eternal state will begin. So we say, Maranatha, come

Lord Jesus. Thank you. Thank you, Keith, for that five minute concluding statement.

I appreciate it. Lucas, we'll now hand it over to you. And you also have five minutes.

The floor is yours. Over the recent years,

I've been seriously studying eschatology. And what started me on this journey are the many attacks and rhetoric against premillennialism.

So I wanted to give it a defense of what is the historic earliest belief regarding the millennial.

And this journey has led me into dealing with all sorts of arguments from all sorts of views, but out of them all, I must say, amillennialism has one of the strongest, and to compare this, compared to neo -postmillennialism, that's what

I call a modified version of historic postmillennialism, they offer little exegesis and much rhetoric.

And their arguments feel forced to artificial interpretation. So it fits into their 80 -70 paradigm.

The reason why I mentioned this is that unlike them, a good amill recognizes that our theology must be determined by exegesis and not by a commitment to a theological system.

So preparing for this debate, I was glad to really lock arms with their arguments and through it, I was even able to learn more about this topic as they taught me things about the book of Revelation.

So for that, I am grateful and I hope my opening statement showed my respect by dealing with their arguments.

So I'm not thinking or viewing the amills or my amill brothers as these unintelligent men who aren't doing exegesis and aren't attempting to deal and struggle with the text.

So I just really wanted to be clear that amills have one of the best arguments for the millennial kingdom. Nevertheless, there is a second and premillennialism is first.

So the amill, though clever and intelligent, is ultimately not satisfying to the text of scripture, and I believe that this debate demonstrated that.

There's issues and problems here that weren't really being addressed. One of them was,

Keith seems to be allowing for, even if there is chronology, I'm not wrong still. Well, that's not true.

If you talk to a good amillennial scholar like Anthony Hokema, he'll admit that there is, we're virtually compelled to be premillennialists.

And I know just because, you know, common nowadays predestined postmills don't really interpret these two as chronological.

It doesn't mean that you can go down that route. I mean, what else are we debating tonight? As I showed, there is a consistency of ands being used chronological and there's exegetical problems such as the binding of Satan.

Satan is not bound now. I think it's hard to say and look around at the world and think that no nation right now on this earth is deceived by Satan.

So what's the conclusion there? Even our experience tells us that Satan isn't bound. And he's in the abyss.

Revelation 9 talks about the abyss there. He says probably, or maybe not, you know, he has to do a little bit more studying.

You can compare it. The abyss there locks demons away. When it's open, they come out. In chapter 20,

Satan is thrown into that. The door is shut and sealed. You go into chapter or verse four of chapter 20, more exegetical problems.

There's somehow two types of resurrections there. When John clearly says one group comes to life here, the other group comes to life after the millennial.

Clearly John is saying the same resurrection happens to both of them. The difference is just times. It's a bodily resurrection.

John even uses that same phrase in chapter two of verse eight of Christ. And the only resurrection the

Bible speaks of that, that happens to Christians after they die, I'm talking about after they die, not before.

Yes, there is a spiritual resurrection of regeneration of reigning with Christ now. But in chapter of 20 of revelation of verse four, the saints there, they're already

Christians and they're already bodily dead. And then John says they come to life. What is that coming to life that happens after we die?

Bible tells us it's a bodily resurrection, the same resurrection to happen to Christ. Furthermore, I also want to mention some things that were brought up tonight, how premillennialists still are saying that there is a imperfect reign of Christ on the earth.

Listen, what's the opposite to say that we're, that we're in the millennial now is to say that when Isaiah, and I talked about this during my cross examination period by brother

Keith, when Isaiah, the prophet spoke of the lion dwelling with the lamb and the nations worshiping Christ and beating the weapons in the plowshares, that actually means that 65 million plus aborted babies are dead and it keeps on climbing.

That actually means that we have drag queen story hour. That actually means that we have LGBT grooming going on all these things, fraudulent elections.

When Christ comes, no way will it be like that. He's going to end all this. And he's going to do what

John says in revelation 19, rule them with a rod of iron. And unlike all the men in the

Bible who never made it to a thousand year reign, Christ, the second

Adam will make it to a thousand years. The first Adam died at 930 years. Christ, the second Adam will reign for a thousand years.

Jesus, the Messiah will make it and he will rule, rule them with a lot rod of iron and let all the praise and glory be to the king of the millennial,

Jesus Christ. Thank you, brother Keith, for this debate. It was really honored to share this with you. And, um,

I, you know, I respect you for doing this and I hope that I was able to be respectful to you. And thank you to Donnie for hosting us and to the audience for tuning in.

God bless. Thank you, Lucas. It's my pleasure, gentlemen.

I appreciate the concluding statements and that was an excellent war for the millennium right up there with the war for the one ring,

I would say, which you're familiar with that trilogy is pretty Epic. So you guys did not let us down Lucas and Keith Epic showdown.

I appreciate it brothers. Okay. Well, we've had a very engaged chat and some excellent questions have come in for us to interact with.

So let's get into some audience questions. Gentlemen, what we typically do in terms of format for our audience

Q and A is whoever the question is for, just so we can move along smoothly. From question to question is whoever the question is for gets the last word.

So Keith, let's say the question's for you. You get to respond. Lucas, you can have a response as well, provide a rebuttal, however you'd like to do, and then we'd throw it back to Keith for a quick final word.

And so, okay, let's start right at the beginning.

We've had questions come in all the way through. So if it's a question pertaining to something you gentlemen already answered or responded to.

I apologize, but this gives us the opportunity to elaborate on certain points.

So here we go. Psalm 19 one, appreciate the question. Question for Lucas. I, John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.

Revelation one verse nine. How can John be in the kingdom if it doesn't exist yet?

So, so I believe the kingdom does exist now. So I'm not a classical dispensationalist because I think some, some new dispensationalist would, would probably say there isn't already, not yet.

But I believe the kingdom does exist now. There's just going to be a final consummation and the millennial reign is a dispensational rule.

Now I'm not dispensationalist, but a dispensation is a period of time reign of, of Christ and even all males and post males agree that there's an unfulfilled aspect to God's kingdom.

So this is already not yet. So we're reigning with Christ. Now we are priests, as he says in chapter one, and you go to chapter five.

John also says they will reign upon the earth. So John is teaching both a current reign, a spiritual reign, and then a physical reign that will reign upon the earth.

And that happens in chapter 20 after Christ returns. Do I have one minute? You said to respond to that.

Is that what it is? I would say somewhere between a minute and two. That's fine. We're not too strict here.

Um, so if there's, if there's something else you wanted to add or I just want to make sure I didn't go. I appreciate it,

Lucas. Very good. Keith, the floor is yours. Go ahead. No, I understand the heart of the question. And I, I, I anticipated

Lucas's answer based on things that he has, that he said in the debate, and that is that he believes that the kingdom is here in an already not yet, uh, uh, form, uh,

I just think the not yet is the, is not the millennium, but the not yet is the, uh, the return of Christ, which institutes the eternal state.

So that's, that's where we would differ on that. But we both believe in some form, the kingdom is here. I would probably say,

I maybe believe that it's here more than he does in one sense, uh, but, uh, the rule and reign of Christ is happening here in Lucas.

And I both affirm that. Thank you very much, Keith, Lucas, if you'd like to, you can have a final word question was for you.

Oh, okay. Um, I didn't find too much. I disagree with, with Keith on that. I mean, he acknowledged that we both believe in already not yet.

So, you know, uh, I would just amen that with him and not have too much tension with that. Okay.

Very good. Appreciate it. Next question comes in from Josh C question now for you,

Keith, how does Satan being bound correlate with Ephesians two verse two, when

Paul suggests Satan is working in the sons of disobedience and second

Corinthians four for the God of this world. Well, again, as I said, uh, in my statement, the binding is limited by the context of revelation 20, where it says bound not to deceive the nations.

The gospel is going out to the nations and people are believing from every tribe and tongue and people.

And we see that through the work of missions. We see that through the work of evangelists going out and it has been happening ever since the beginning of the church, and this is the picture of the seed, you know, the mustard seed produces this big tree, the, the, um, the, the, the leaven leavens the whole lump.

And the reason why is, is it, is it works over time and the, this binding got,

Christ is crushing Satan under our feet according to Romans 16, 19. So yes,

I do think that Satan is at work. I think, I think he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

That is true. But through the proclamation of the gospel, there is an active and continual binding of Satan that is happening.

The same that happened when the 72 went out and preached in Luke's gospel. And Jesus said, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, uh, at the preaching of the gospel.

And so I, I, I, I see that as, again, it is a spiritual or not spiritual, but a symbolic understanding of the binding, but that's the way

I understand it. Thank you very much, Keith Lucas over to you.

Yeah. So the purpose clause in revelation, so, uh, of Satan's binding is so he won't deceive the nations, but what's dependent upon that purpose clause is where Satan is.

So the location he's in the abyss. So it's not just, he has a chain, he's on a dog on, on a leash.

He has a chain he's thrown into the abyss. The door is closed and then it's shut and the abyss is hindering.

It's a prison cell. So obviously Ephesians is not, you know, uh, consistent with, uh, with that reading where, yeah, it's, it uses a strong, uh, symbolic language, which by the way, there are many literal things in verses one through three revelation 20, the nation's literal, that heaven is literal earth is literal.

The, uh, you know, Satan is, is, is literal. So yes, it uses symbolic language.

If it's not meant to obfuscate truth, it's to reveal truth. And where is Satan? He's, he's locked away in chapter 20. He's clearly not locked away in Ephesians.

He's, he's roaming the air. He's working in the sons of disobedience. Thank you,

Lucas. Keith, you get the last word. Go ahead. Again, I think the, the overall, uh, litmus test of revelation is when we look at the subject of how do we understand things symbolically rather than woodenly literally, and when we talk about doors and chains and keys and things like this,

I think we're imposing a wooden literalism onto the text that isn't intended to be there. Appreciate it,

Keith. Okay. Next question now for you, Lucas Curcio, Paul Anchor.

Appreciate the question here, Paul. Will the gospel be preached and people be saved by it during the millennium?

If so, what is the fundamental difference between now and this future time?

The, yeah, the gospel will, uh, will be preached even in eternity. I think we're always going to remember the gospel and praise, praise

Christ, you know, uh, because of it. And I do believe that of the unresurrected bodies and there's children that those children would, would at some point come to faith in Christ.

And there will be even some unbelievers, even if it's just hard, um, hard to tell. I don't see, I don't understand.

And so the last part of the question, if so, what is the fundamental difference between now and this future time? Um, I guess

I'll answer this by saying Christ being on the earth, ruling as a monarch from Israel over all the nations, ruling them with a rod of iron.

And you can see that even in the prophets, Zachariah, Isaiah, there's still sin involved. It's not going to be the norm, but there will be exceptions.

But you know, the difference will be crisis here, and that's going to be all the difference in the world. And that'd be so much better. Thank you very much,

Lucas. Keith, floor is yours. Go ahead. Um, I think the, the, the, the, the people being saved during the millennium, as I said, in my, my, um, conversation in the, the cross -examination is, is part of the problem because what happens, the, the question of what happens to these people when you, when you really begin to examine premillennialism and you begin to ask these questions, you know, what's the difference?

I think, I think that's when the issues really raise. And I understand Lucas and I would disagree on that, but that's, this is the heart of it.

You know, can people be saved? Will they be saved? Will they receive glorified bodies? Then will they die? Will they not die? I think these are all questions that have to be considered.

Uh, even though one would say, well, we just don't know the answer. Okay. But this is presenting some pretty serious problems.

And that's what the question is trying to get to. Thank you. Yeah. Lucas, go ahead.

Oh, thank you. Sorry. Yeah. So I would just say, uh, just because there are different views, doesn't, and, or problems, as you say, doesn't mean that it's inconsistent.

I mean, you even acknowledge in certain cases that there might be chronology between these two chapters. So if, if you can say things like that,

I can say, well, this might be this way. This might be that way. We don't know on everything. We're not claiming we know on everything.

What I'm saying, certain things are clear. And the text of scripture, we believe is clear. Christ comes before the millennial, which means that the thousand years follow after he returns, not before or concurrent with his spiritual reign now.

Thank you, Lucas. Appreciate it. Okay. So this next question looks like it's just a question for the both of you.

So no one really specific. So we'll get one response each. Lucas, why don't we start with you? Since you got the last word on the last question, this way

Keith can get the second response. So here we go. A question for the debaters. Was the end, was the end was in reference to Israel in the old covenant?

If so, why should anyone extend the end beyond the end of the temple sacrifices? Yeah. So I believe that Matthew, uh,

I think he's referencing maybe like the Olivet discourse, I believe Matthew 24 is a double fulfillment. So there's more, there's, it's, it's kind of hard to tell sometimes with the double fulfillment of what's going on, but Christ talking about both 80, 70, and also beyond that.

Um, I did a debate recently on this preterism versus futurism on my channel. Uh, so I do believe that there's a double fulfillment.

So there was an end of the old Testament age, but there's also an end of this age, which Christ and even

Amill brothers agree with in their two kingdom or two age model, this age and the age that come. So, um,

I hope that answers the question. Appreciate it. Lucas, Keith, over to you. Um, I hate,

I know this breaks the rules. What was your, you said preter, partial preterism could be true based on your position,

Lucas? Oh, I'm definitely not a partial preterist. No, I'm, I'm a futurist who just holds that to a double fulfillment of Matthew 24.

Oh, Matthew 24, but not revelation. Okay. That, that, that was, okay. So that, that was all.

Okay. So, but you think this is in reference to the end referring to Matthew 24? I think, well, I mean, it's probably made me think about first Corinthians two, where there's a

Paul talks about the end of the ages, but, but I would imagine he was probably primarily dealing with the all of the discourse.

Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out the heart of the question. I'm sorry, Donnie. I don't mean to be, no, that's okay.

Just want to make sure, you know, was the end was in reference to Israel and the old covenant, the end of the age, I would say in Matthew 24, he's probably asking.

Maybe it almost sounds like he's coming from a full preterist viewpoint.

I could be wrong about that, but it kind of sounds, cause you know, the full preterist looks to the end of the age as being the end of the old covenant.

Now we're in the new covenant, AKA the new heaven, new earth. What maybe we're maybe referencing what I said when

I talked about this age and the age to come. Some, sometimes there is a reference that could be the age, the old covenant age and the age to come being the new covenant age, there are some who interpret that, that phraseology that way.

And if that's the case there, I think there may be a few passages that could lend itself to that. But overall, when we hear about this age and the age to come,

I believe it's referring to this age as being the age prior to Christ's second coming. And then, oh,

I am full preterist. He just said, yeah. Okay. All right. So, yeah,

I just don't agree with you, but as far as the, this age and the age to come that preterists would,

I think preterists would say this age and the age to come is the old covenant, new covenant where, and I think that might fit in some context, but in regard to what

I was saying today, I think in reference to this age, being the age prior to Christ's return and consummation and the age to come being the eternal state.

Okay. Appreciate the responses gentlemen. And there's some agreeance there with you both

Lucas and Keith on the nature of full preterism. Okay. Next question comes in from Ray Sautter.

Question for you now, Lucas. When would the tribulation slash millennial saints receive their glorified bodies or do they?

Yeah. So easy question. When Christ returns, as we asked, that's when we will receive our glorified bodies at the second coming of Christ.

Or is that a question? When will the tribulation? I think he means during the millennium. If you want the word tribulation threw me off the millennial saints.

Yes. Okay. Gotcha. So that would be in verse 50. I believe going off in memory of first Corinthians 15 after Christ abolishes everything.

The last enemy will be defeated is death. And so that would, when in that question that would, when they would receive the glorified bodies.

Okay. Thank you, Lucas. Keith, any thoughts? Um, well, the, the, the amillennial answer, the simple answer is that the glorified bodies are received when

Christ returns. That's the, that's what some people call the rapture. We believe it is concurrent with Christ returns.

We are raptured with glorified bodies. Christ returns with his saints because we caught up to meet him together in the clouds.

We return with him in the same way. The Roman processional was done where those in the city would go out to meet the

King and bring him in. And, and, and that's the picture of first Thessalonians four. And therefore, um, that's when they would receive their glorified bodies.

If Lucas is correct. And there's a millennial kingdom after that they would be going into the millennium with their glorified bodies. Um, but if my position is correct, they would be going into the eternal state with their glorified bodies.

Either way, the glorified bodies would come there. The question would be what happens after that. If there's a millennial reign that's on this earth, will they have babies?

Will they procreate? Will they, that's the questions that I was raising earlier. But as far as the timing of the glorified bodies, I think we both would agree.

Okay. Appreciate it, Keith. Lucas, you can have the last word if you'd like. Yeah. Uh, I mean, we agree in terms of when, when

Christ comes is there is a resurrection, but as a premillennial, as you know, as Keith pointed out, you know, there's some nuances, you know, between us when in reference to this question, when the millennial saints, you know, receive the glorified bodies.

And I would just, again, just to reiterate, I think the end comes in verse 24, fourth Corinthians 15. You know,

I need to clarify something. I actually, I read the question wrong. Cause I was listening and reading, they were talking about people who become saints during the millennium.

Gotcha. So my answer did not answer their question. I apologize. That's my mistake. I just misunderstood the question. Okay. If you want to re -answer you can.

No, I would say that's one of the questions I asked you was if people are saved during the millennium, when do they receive their glorified bodies?

And we talked about that during cross -ex, so I don't need to ask it again. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah. So I would just say after, uh, verse 24, fourth

Corinthians, then comes the end when, when he delivers up the kingdom of God, the father, when he abolished all rule and authority and power, and then he goes on to talk about how the last enemy is death.

So that would be when. Okay. Thank you very much for the final word there,

Lucas. Next question comes in for Keith. From underground publishing, please ask

Keith to exegete Isaiah 19, 18 to 25. In two minutes.

Okay. When did Egypt speak the language of Canaan and swear to the

Lord and Egypt and Assyria become one nation with Israel? Keith, you got an hour.

We'll give you an hour. I'm going to fill on this question too. Huh? I'm going to fill on this question too.

Power exegesis. But the heart of the question I think is, and I'm not going to give a, I'm not going to try to exegete that passage in this short amount of time, but I think the heart of the question is what do you do with these passages that give promises of things that we don't believe have been fulfilled?

And this comes down to the issue of the question of the promises that are given into the old Testament. Are there promises in the old

Testament that have not been fulfilled in Christ? And if they're not fulfilled in Christ, do we have to have a future kingdom for them to be fulfilled in?

And while I would say there are passages that are difficult to fit within that paradigm, I do believe that all of the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and therefore these promises of this, of this, that are referenced in the, in the passage there and others would have a fulfillment in Christ, even though we may not understand them now, much like the fair, this is what

I said in my opening statement. Maybe this will clarify what I was saying, Lucas, when I said my opening statement, I was talking about the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Pharisees and Sadducees misunderstood Christ's first coming for many reasons, but not the least of which is because they had an already understood understanding of what the

Messiah was going to be. And when Christ wasn't what they thought he should be, they immediately rejected him. And my point is when we come to passages like this, we say, well, this is how this must be fulfilled.

Therefore, that's why we have to have this millennial kingdom fulfill this. And that's not what Lucas said, but that's kind of the heart of this question is, well, there are these things that have to be fulfilled.

How can we say these things have any fulfillment in the first coming of Christ and in the church age? I think we can.

I think it might be difficult sometimes to fit those in, but I go back to 2 Corinthians, it says, all the promises of God find their yes and amen in Christ.

And Christ is the fulfillment of the promises given to Israel. He is, in fact, true Israel. He is, and in him, we become children of Abraham.

So that's my answer. Appreciate it, Keith. Lucas, over to you. Yeah. So, I mean, it's a lot to unpack in two minutes, so I'm not going to do it justice.

But, and I do agree with Keith that the promises are fulfilled in Christ, but it doesn't negate a real corresponding to reality.

Even go to Romans 11, Paul talks about in reference to Israel, because he mentioned, you know, the promises to Israel, such as in Isaiah, being fulfilled in Christ, it is, but there's still going to be a future restoration.

So prophecies like this, they will be fulfilled. And I don't think we can call them problem passages.

It's not, it's only a problem if you're an Amil. If I'm a Premil, yeah, it's going to be fulfilled when Christ comes back and reigns for a thousand years.

These things are really going to happen. Zechariah is going to happen. Isaiah, you know, 65 and verses like this will actually happen.

Appreciate it. Lucas and Keith, you get the last word because the question was for you. Go ahead. No, I think that was fine.

I think there are both of us gave our, gave good answers. I think that's, that's enough. All right. Very good. Keith, Lucas, appreciate it.

Next one comes in from Pseudo Nim, $5 super chat. Appreciate the support for tonight's debate.

And here's the question. Describe the battle of Gog and Magog based on either's position of Amil and Premil.

An example is the great white throne chronological to wicked raised or pseudonymous.

Pseudonymous and pseudonymous. I'm not sure they're doing it correctly, but possibly.

Do you want me to go first or? Yeah, yeah. Keith, we'll have you go first. I, I, one final battle when

Christ returns and he swallows up death and victory and destroys all. That's why I said chapter 16, chapter 20 in the end, or chapter 16, chapter 19, the end of chapter 20, all referencing the battle, the single battle again, with the definite article.

And so I would say it's all the same. I don't think there's multiple battles where Christ has to win and then win again and then win again.

So appreciate it. Lucas, thoughts? Yeah, I do agree with John Gill on this. And by the way, you can read

John Gill's commentary online. I just Google it on revelation. So he was, so John Gill was a Baptist Calvinist.

He was a premillennialist and he even believes that the Gog and Magog and revelation and 20 reference to this question is an allusion to that battle.

So I would probably say, I do want to study this more actually. And this digs into more, more of the old Testament, which I have to just to study more on this.

I want to find, find out the different views on this and come to an exegetical conclusion on when that battle actually takes place.

But I don't believe in revelation. I think John is just alluding to this or, or as an illusion saying this is what is going to happen just like this battle.

I don't think it's, it's the same battle of Gog and Magog verbatim.

John Gill also is afraid to use a period. If you've ever read, he loves Roman sentences.

He will use a sentences go forever. That's my final word on that.

Appreciate it. Gentlemen. I think this one's for you, Lucas, Michael CA, if they are sequential revelation 19 to 20, how is the bride coming down then in revelation 20, it goes back to Satan's binding.

A kind of an awkward question, or I don't know, I'm, I'm having some trouble, but I I'll, I'll do my best. I'm assuming he's going to the earlier chapters of verses of chapter 19 where the bride is coming down.

And I think that that symbolism, again, I'm not against symbolism for the marriage supper, what's going to take place when

Christ returns with his bride, the church. So that was still follows a sequential order there with chapters 19 through 22.

Thank you, Lucas. Keith, any thoughts on that one? Um, is if they are sequential, how's the bride coming down?

Uh, I, I mean, I, I don't believe they're sequential. So I, I think that, um, there are things that are out of order and I think that's, uh,

I, I, I'm not quite sure though, what passage he's referenced. I wish there was a scripture that I could look at and say, this is what

I'm, because I'm not quite sure which one Lucas, what, what, yeah,

I know, I know you said that I'm thinking, is he going to chapter 21 with a new bride comes down in chapter 21, the, uh, uh, if it chronologically would be after.

Maybe he's thinking about that. Yeah. So, uh, you guys, he has us both confused.

He should be debating us. Okay. Here we go.

Next question from Ray. It's for you, Keith. At what time will the host of Israel look upon him whom they have pierced?

Uh, at his second coming. Okay. Short and sweet. Appreciate it,

Lucas. Yeah. Amen. When, when Christ returns, that's when they'll look upon him, whom they have pierced.

Yeah. Okay. I'm sure there's more to the question, but that's the simple answer.

There, there, there, I guess I could answer a little bit more. There, there are those who would say that Christ did return in judgment in 80, 70.

And so there's a preterist understanding of that. That might be what the question is getting to, or the question of the millennium, if it happens during the millennium, the

Jews see Christ for who he truly is. And, you know, so, so there's a lot. I just think it's when

Christ returns. I was going to say though, Keith, that that is a non -preteristic answer of you. I know.

That's why I just gave, I just, I just fixed it. Yeah. You guys are good sports.

I appreciate it. So this one, Mr. Bob G question for both. So maybe Lucas, we'll start with you this time for this one.

What is at stake now? If your opponent is wrong. Oh, your opponent is wrong or okay.

Um, I, I think that'd be a bit, if, if I'm wrong. Yeah. I was, I was kind of assuming that's how it'd be.

I think he's saying if I'm wrong, Lucas, what, what's the danger of me being wrong? Cause you, you believe you're right.

I believe I'm right. If you believe you're right, I'm wrong. What's the danger of believing like I do. Gotcha. I don't,

I, um, I definitely, uh, do not think that on one Hills are heretics and not Christian. I think this is a secondary difference, you know, unless you're a full preterist and I don't think you're,

Oh, I don't count you as a brother. Keith is not. So, um, I definitely don't think it's a salvific one.

I just want to be, you know, just like Keith, you know, Keith wants to be faithful to the scriptures. And we want to teach the whole council of God. So we, so we believe that these things, things matter.

And especially, you know, Keith is, is a pastor. Um, and you know, I have some online ministry. I'm not equivalent whatsoever to Keith.

I'm a, I'm just a lame man. But again, I want to tell people the truth accurately and be consistent with that. So I would hope that I would do my best honor and please the

Lord. And not say anything wrong that he's like, Lucas, you shouldn't have said this or done that, but, and vice versa.

Thank you, Lucas. Keith, what are your thoughts on that? I want to say amen. And, uh, what, you know, right away,

I think this is definitely, I would even put this in the category of a tertiary, not even secondary, because I think that people within the same church maybe can hold to a view different on this and, and, and still be brothers in Christ.

And I certainly believe Lucas that you are my brother in Christ. So, um, but I will say that there is, um, there is at least in the last hundred years, particularly with dispensational premillennialism.

And this is not the position Lucas holds, but there has seemed to been a, um, a. And, uh, and when

I say this, I know I'm going to get slammed for it. So forgive me, but yeah, I mean, I'll probably agree with you actually.

No, no. I'm saying, I'm saying from the audience may, those who are, those who are dispensational are going to get upset when I say this, but there seems to be an inherent pessimism in dispensational premillennialism where, you know, we're just rearranging deck chairs on the

Titanic and we need to, you know, don't worry about this, just the Millennium's coming. Right. Um, and I, and I do think that within, uh, uh, the postmillennial view, which

I, I'm not proposing, but in the postmillennial view, there does seem to be an, an Optimism that creates social concern, which creates movements towards those things, which

I think are positive. And I think as an Optimistic Amillennialist, I can stand alongside many of them, even though I would disagree with some of their conclusions as to what's going to happen.

So I think there, I think there are some things that can affect how we engage with the world and social concern and things like that, but it's, it's not leading me to say in any way that Lucas is an inferior

Christian or Lucas is a, you know, or, or anything like that. Or John MacArthur is an inferior Christian because he's dispensational premillennialist,

I just think it might affect how we, how we operate socially, how we operate culturally, what we expect.

And that would be the only thing that is at stake is perhaps some behavioral issues, but, but it's not going to change you know, the position in Christ.

So that would be, I think that answers the question. All right, brothers. Appreciate those well thought out responses to a good question.

All right, here we go. Lucas Curcio comes in from Paul Anchor. Is the temple in the millennium for both

Jews and Gentiles to worship? Why should it be necessary if Jesus can be worshiped without a temple as now?

Okay. So this is where I'm not a dispensationalist. So as of now, I don't think there's going to be a return to the

Mosaic ceremonial law in this. Now I'm not going to say there are heretics for saying this, because I think people go too far because if you study the dispensationalist, they're careful to say it's a commemorative, not a propitiatory, not a propitiatory sacrifice, so I wouldn't, as of now,

I don't think there's going to be a return to the Mosaic law because they use the word temple, so I'm assuming that's what they mean there.

So I would just point out that the temple is the body of Christ. I agree with you.

I think this is a question that would be more in line with the dispensational person, and since you're not that, it really doesn't land in your wheelhouse.

And so, yeah, I think you're fine with it being there or not being there.

Yeah. Correct. All right, gentlemen, that is about 30 minutes of questions.

I appreciate the fast -paced nature of this Q &A. The entire debate was a good professional war for the millennium, and as you both said, largely an in -house war, though, so Lucas and Keith, you both gave us a debate to remember, that's for sure.

I've been excited for this, and you didn't let me down, so thank you for that. Gentlemen, if we could, let's get some quick final words, final thoughts.

Again, I did want to thank you both. I know how busy you both are, Lucas and Keith, my brothers, and so I appreciate you offering not only the time for the debate itself, but the time that is required for prep leading up to the debate.

So Lucas, let's start with you again. Thank you so much for doing this. And final words, final thoughts?

Well, I just want to say, onmills, I really respect them because it's hard to debate postmills for some reason, and you would think it would be the opposite.

I noticed that onmills are more willing to talk about this, and I really respect them for that. And they have a lot of good arguments, and again,

I really respect them for that. So I don't think that there are these people who are just trying to do, what is it, eisegesis with the text or anything.

So I have tons of respect for them, and they actually try to deal with the context and struggle with the text, and I really appreciate

Keith for showing up and doing this and being a good example and a good character, or showing good character of all millennials out there.

So I appreciate you and your faithfulness and your ability to challenge me and articulate your positions, and I love the work that you're doing for Christ.

Thank you, Keith. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you for doing this as well. Well, thank you, Donny, for putting it together.

And Lucas, I do want to say from the bottom of my heart, I really appreciate you reaching out, doing this, and obviously you put a lot of work into this, and I super appreciate the conscientious nature that you took in putting all this together, and I will say this.

I said it in the debate, but I want to restate it. I did say this should be the topic of the debate, which is the chronology.

And I think that in my heart of hearts,

I thought that we might go a different direction, so I feel like that maybe at certain points we diverged a little bit from the original conversation, and in doing so,

I in no way intended to be unfair or try to hit you from the left field. I was just making arguments that I thought were relevant.

But I do want to say you've been very professional, very fun to work with. I love the fact that we were able to put together that really cool thumbnail with us as characters from Lord of the

Rings or whatever it is. You look like a great knight, and I look like a hobbit, or a

Viking. You're a Viking king. Yeah, but I really have appreciated you in this, and I think you gave me a lot of things to think about, and I mean that, and I appreciate your faithfulness to the text, even though you're a

Methodist. Thank you, Keith. Let's do round two on another topic.

Yeah, I would love to do it again. I think it was a lot of fun. Well, we'll have to get the

War for the Millennium trilogy, much like we have the War for the One Ring trilogy. So Lucas and Keith, again, great sports, very professional, both very knowledgeable, clearly on this topic.

So I do truly believe this is one of those go -to debates on the Millennium that people can analyze and come to hopefully an objective conclusion on whether or not premillennialism or amillennialism is biblical.

So with that, Lucas and Keith, my brothers, God bless the two of you. I appreciate you guys doing this, and please enjoy the rest of your weekend.

I'm going to let you guys get out of here. Lucas, God bless. Keith, God bless, and okay.