When the Resurrection Debate Isn’t Really About the Resurrection

Lessons on tone, audience, and pastoral framing from a messy exchange

Setting the Scene

The MythVision episode titled Full Preterism Resurrection Debate: Did the Resurrection Really Happen in AD 70? was billed as a theological face-off. On paper, it paired Don K. Preston, a long-time advocate of Covenant Eschatology, against Tristan Gabriel, introduced as an agnostic critic of Full Preterism.

From the outset, though, it was clear this would not be a normal intra-Christian exchange. Gabriel was introduced as an agnostic and spoke from a non-believing perspective, making it clear through his remarks that he does not hold to the Bible’s resurrection claims, and had, in the past, embraced a version of Preterism before walking away from faith entirely. His approach to this debate was shaped as much by personal grievance as by theological disagreement.

That framing changes everything: what unfolded was less a mutual exploration of Scripture, and more a collision between detailed exegesis and a ridicule-heavy skepticism.

The Technical Case That Didn’t Land

Don Preston brought to the table what he always brings:

• Tight integration of Daniel 12, 1 Corinthians 15, Matthew 24, and Revelation 20.

• Old Testament prophetic idioms for “resurrection” applied corporately to the covenant people.

• Emphasis on time-texts (“this generation,” “about to,” “at hand”) that anchor fulfillment in the first century.

On a technical level, Preston’s case was internally consistent. But debates are not just about what is true; they are also about what is heard. His delivery assumed the audience could track rapid cross-references and grasp the covenantal framework without much narrative resetting. For those unfamiliar with his terms, it was easy to get lost.

The Counter-Case That Wasn’t

Tristan Gabriel did not present an alternative eschatological system so much as a posture of disbelief:

• Ridicule was the primary rhetorical tool (“So you’re saying nobody came out of the ground?”).

• Traditional futurist assumptions were deployed as a foil, but never exegetically defended.

• Core time-text arguments were sidestepped entirely.

In place of a sustained counter-argument, Gabriel appealed to audience intuition: if the resurrection already happened, the world should look different; if “this generation” doesn’t mean what futurists expect, something is suspect. These were coupled with frequent off-topic remarks, ad hominem jabs, and rhetorical tactics that shifted blame for tone and direction back onto Preston; a pattern often described as gas-lighting. The repeated claim of being the insulted party, even after extended ridicule of his opponent, was one of the debate’s more striking reversals. These appeals were emotionally potent but logically thin.

Why the Debate Felt Chaotic

The exchange suffered from three mismatches:

1. Goal Mismatch - Preston was defending a system he believes is biblically true; Gabriel was attacking the plausibility of the Bible’s claims altogether. In fact, Gabriel said in his closing that his stated goal for the debate was to get Preston to say something that would be detrimental to his ministry.

2. Tone Mismatch - Preston’s scholarly seriousness vs. Gabriel’s sarcastic undercutting left the conversation pulling in opposite directions.

3. Audience Mismatch - Preston was speaking to those willing to follow the textual trail; Gabriel was speaking to those who would never leave the surface.

This combination made it nearly impossible for the debate to stay on one playing field.

The Pastoral Undercurrent

Perhaps the most telling detail was Gabriel’s personal story: his prior engagement with Preterism left him disillusioned. It’s not hard to imagine the path - Preterism dismantled his futurist framework, but he was never shown how the fulfilled hope of AD 70 is not an ending, but the secure foundation of the kingdom age.

Without that pastoral framing, the shift feels like loss: “the thing you were waiting for is gone.” For Gabriel, this became part of his deconversion story.

This is the Gabriel Outcome: deconstruction without construction. It’s a sobering reminder that accurate exegesis is not enough. Truth, when poorly framed, can leave hearers with less faith, not more.

Lessons for Future Debating

This debate may not have been a model of fair theological engagement, but it offers valuable takeaways:

1. Frame the Gain First - Lead with the benefits of fulfillment before dismantling futurist timelines. Show what believers have now in the New Covenant age.

2. Control the Playing Field - Don’t let ridicule dictate pacing. Reassert definitions and terms of engagement.

3. Adapt for Audience Capacity - Dense argument chains need “you are here” markers to keep listeners from getting lost.

4. Name the Tone - If one party is mocking, say so calmly and clearly; it forces the audience to reckon with method, not just message.

5. Guard the Pastoral Core - Every technical point should land in a pastoral takeaway. If you win the text but lose the hearer’s hope, you’ve lost the war.

6. Define the Debate - A Scripture-based debate is impractical, if not impossible, when both participants do not believe in the Scriptures. The most productive debates begin with a foundation of shared authority, so that the disagreement can be evaluated on common ground. Attempting to discuss a rich theological point like resurrection with an unbeliever, especially one whose stated aim is personal harm, is not just unproductive; it is worse than ill-advised.

Closing Reflection

This was not the clean, point-by-point duel that some viewers may have hoped for. But it was a vivid case study in what happens when debate partners aren’t actually debating the same thing.

For Covenant Eschatology advocates, the lesson is twofold: sharpen the exegesis and sharpen the storytelling. The hope fulfilled in AD 70 is not the removal of expectation, it is the arrival of the kingdom that will never pass away. That must be said, and said well, if we want the next “Tristan Gabriel” to walk away convinced instead of disillusioned.

Debate Review: Amillennialism vs. Postmillennialism

This is the second in a series of debate reviews intended to highlight opportunities for better discussion, especially about eschatological topics. As with the first installment, we will utilize a consistent debate review format that blends traditional evaluation methods with theological-specific metrics. As always, identifying a “victor” is purely within the context of argumentation and logic, not agreement with their position. A better debate performance does not necessarily equal biblical accuracy. That question is handled separately.

As always, both participants should be commended for their study and willingness to present their views in a public fashion. This review is not meant personally in any way, and I appreciate the effort of both men.

This was not a formal debate. As with so many exchanges, the only thing that really seemed debate-like was that they took turns and kept a timer for each section. There was no clear proposition, the topic was much too broad and ill-defined for the time allotted, and each side argued more for a general sense of their own view than for specific exegesis. That is fine; I am not arguing for strict formality, but there is a reason that the debate format works and it would be nice to see something more than a loose discussion but less than collegiate rigor.

This particular exchange offers one central contrast. Both speakers are Reformed. Both affirm the authority of Scripture. And neither believes the Kingdom has fully come. But one sees a future golden age led by the Church; the other sees history devolving to a scant representation of true Christianity.

But what if both are missing something?

We’ll walk through the structure of the debate, highlight the major points of tension, assess the argumentation, and then finish with a Scripture-based evaluation of each topic; not just what was said, but what the Bible actually teaches.

Debate Details

Title: Amillennialism vs. Postmillennialism

Participants: Alexei Kokoulin (Amillennialism) vs. Joe Harper (Postmillennialism)

Date: July 2025 (online discussion)

Format: Timed discussion, no formal proposition or cross-examination

Video Link: YouTube

System Models Represented

Kokoulin (Affirmative/Defense): Amillennialism - the millennium is a symbolic present-age reign of Christ over a small faithful remnant; gospel advance is real but limited; world history trends toward decline before the final judgment.

Harper (Affirmative/Defense): Postmillennialism - the millennium is a future golden age on earth, marked by unprecedented gospel success and cultural transformation before Christ’s return.

Argumentation Strengths

Alexei Kokoulin (Amillennialism)

• Consistently emphasized the reality of suffering and apostasy passages, reminding listeners that the Bible warns against triumphalism.

• Held firmly to a Christ-centered eschatology that does not make human achievement the driver of God’s kingdom.

Joe Harper (Postmillennialism)

• Attempted to frame the discussion around identifiable biblical themes: the binding of Satan, the nature of the millennium, and gospel advancement.

• Presented a hopeful vision of the gospel’s triumph, appealing to the promises of Christ’s authority and the Great Commission.

Argumentation Weaknesses

Alexei Kokoulin

• Rarely engaged in direct exegesis; often asserted presuppositions as conclusions.

• Reduced the Great Commission to token global presence rather than robust discipleship of the nations.

• Used rhetorical hyperbole (.1, .01, .001) and even the “two believers in Sierra Leone” example to justify a minimal view of gospel fulfillment.

Joe Harper

• Did not always press Kokoulin on exegetical grounds when opportunities arose.

• Constructed a theological arc in which God brings global gospel victory through the Spirit, only to allow a Satanic resurgence in the “last days.”

• Occasionally relied on generalized optimism rather than tight textual argumentation.

Logical Victory Assessment

Category	Assessment
Exegetical Weight	Harper
Logical Coherence	Harper
Debate Tone Management	Harper
System Integration	Harper
Audience Resonance (non-specialist)	Kokoulin
Polemic Force	Harper
Pastoral Simplicity Appeal	Kokoulin
Scholarly Control of Textual Argument	Harper

Overall Logical Victor: Joe Harper (Postmillennialism)

Rationale: While both participants showed conviction, Harper gained the edge by at least attempting to frame the discussion in definable biblical categories (e.g., the binding of Satan, nature of the millennium, gospel advancement) and providing some exegetical reasoning for his claims. Kokoulin’s approach leaned heavily on presuppositional assertions without grounding them in the text during the debate. Though Harper’s conclusions are not fully supported by the broader witness of Scripture, his performance was more structurally coherent within the debate’s format.

Major Points of the Debate

1. The Binding of Satan (Revelation 20:1–3)

Kokoulin’s Position (AMill, as argued here):

Satan is already bound in the present age. This binding prevents him from stopping the Gospel from being preached to the nations, but it does not mean he can’t spiritually blind the nations. Even a very small number of believers in each nation would fulfill Christ’s command. The reality of the present age is persecution and decline, with the faithful always a small remnant.

Harper’s Position (PostMill, as argued here):

Satan is not bound now. Present-day persecution of the Church is proof that Satan is still active and free. The binding will happen in the future, ushering in a “golden age” in which the Gospel will triumph worldwide and most of humanity will turn to Christ before the end.

Exegetical Weaknesses:

Kokoulin: His view guts the force of Revelation 20’s imagery. A binding so limited that Satan can still “deceive the nations” into wholesale unbelief seems to contradict the stated purpose of the binding (“so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended.” Rev. 20:3). His interpretation reduces the binding to a token, almost meaningless restriction.

Harper: His claim that persecution proves Satan is unbound assumes that the binding would eliminate all persecution, which the text does not say. By placing the binding in the future, he ignores the strong first-century time indicators for Christ’s reign and the overthrow of Satan (Matt. 12:28–29; John 12:31–32; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14).

What Scripture Says:

Revelation 20’s “binding” is a restriction with a specific purpose - to stop Satan from deceiving the nations. The New Testament repeatedly affirms that this decisive limitation began during Christ’s earthly ministry and was solidified in His resurrection and ascension (Matt. 12:28–29; Luke 10:17–18; John 12:31–32). The Gospel’s rapid advance across the Roman world in the first century fulfills the prophecy of nations no longer being held in darkness (Acts 26:18; Col. 1:5–6, 23).

The binding did not mean Satan ceased all activity, only that his power to hold the Gentile nations in covenantal darkness was broken, fulfilling Isaiah’s vision that the Servant would be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6). Isaiah 42:6–7 echoes the same mission, and is explicitly quoted in Acts 26:18, tying the Servant’s light-bringing role directly to the apostolic commission. This aligns with Christ’s promise that the Gospel would be preached “in the whole world as a testimony to all nations” before the end came (Matt. 24:14). Persecution _after_ binding is explicitly predicted (John 16:33; Acts 14:22; 1 Pet 5:8-9), which means the presence of persecution is not proof that Satan’s deception of the nations remains intact. Revelation 12:7–9 parallels this; Satan is cast down and decisively limited, yet still active in persecution, showing that binding does not mean inactivity.

Both Kokoulin and Harper miss the time-bound nature of this event:

• It began in the first century with Christ’s victory over the powers (Col. 2:15).

• It continued through the apostolic mission as the nations were discipled.

• It ended with Satan’s brief loosing in the Jewish–Roman War, culminating in his judgment alongside the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple system (Rev. 20:7–10).

By seeing this as either a token present restriction (Kokoulin) or a future event (Harper), both positions fail to integrate the clear NT testimony that the binding was already a reality for the apostles and the early Church - a reality that empowered their mission and vindicated Christ’s reign. This is further confirmed by Paul’s assurance in Romans 16:20: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” This was a promise to the Roman church of Paul’s day, underscoring its imminent fulfillment and excluding a delay of thousands of years.

In fact, other than one brief reference to the generation of Matthew 24, there was no discussion of time statements at all.

2. The Nature of the Millennium (Revelation 20: 4-6)

Kokoulin’s Position (AMill, as argued here):

The “thousand years” is symbolic for the entire period between Christ’s first and second comings. Christ reigns now from heaven, and the “reigning saints” are the souls of deceased believers who share in that reign spiritually. The millennium is not an earthly transformation but a heavenly reality, concurrent with tribulation, gospel advance, and Satan’s restrained activity.

Harper’s Position (PostMill, as argued here):

The millennium is a future golden age on earth, beginning after Satan’s future binding. In this period, the gospel will triumph to such an extent that most of the world will come to Christ, justice will prevail globally, and the church will have unprecedented cultural influence. This is not the eternal state but a pre-consummation era leading to the final judgment.

Exegetical Weaknesses:

Kokoulin: By stretching the “thousand years” over the entire church age, Kokoulin detaches Revelation 20 from its historical sequence in chapters 18–19. He sidesteps the _short_ post-millennial loosing and fails to connect the reign of the saints with the covenantal crisis of the first century. This reduces the millennium to an abstract, ongoing state rather than a defined, climactic reign.

Harper: Harper’s view depends on reading Old Testament kingdom prophecies (e.g., Psalm 72; Isaiah 2) as predicting a global Christianized culture before Christ’s return, without addressing how the NT reinterprets those prophecies in light of Christ’s finished work and the judgment on the old covenant order. He does not account for the symbolic nature of “thousand years” or its placement after the first-century fall of the beast and false prophet.

Common Failure: Neither locates the millennium in the covenantal and prophetic sequence that runs from Daniel 7 through Revelation 20 - where the saints receive the kingdom _after_ the fourth beast is destroyed, not thousands of years later.

What Scripture Says:

Revelation 20’s millennium follows:

1. The destruction of the beast and false prophet (Rev. 19:20) - first-century imperial and covenantal persecutors (Rome and apostate Jerusalem) overthrown in the Jewish–Roman War.

2. The binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1–3) - breaking his hold over the Gentile nations so the gospel could advance (cf. Acts 26:18; Col. 1:5–6, 23).

The “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:4–6) describes the vindication of the first-century martyrs and faithful dead, those “beheaded for the testimony of Jesus,” who, through baptism, had already been united to Christ’s resurrection (Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12) and so would not be held in Sheol (Rev. 1:18) - a reality anticipated in Revelation 6:9–11, where the souls under the altar are told to rest a little longer until their vindication, directly linking the martyr scene to the enthronement in Revelation 20. Paul reassured the Thessalonians that “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16), meaning they would share in Christ’s reign before those still alive; a concern that only makes sense if His return was imminent in their generation.

This reign is symbolic - “a thousand years” signifying completeness - and bounded by the _short_ loosing of Satan (Rev. 20:7–10), corresponding to the rebellion and upheaval leading to Jerusalem’s destruction (cf. Dan. 12:7). The period ends with Satan’s final judgment (Rev. 20:10) and the great white throne scene (Rev. 20:11–15).

The Coherence Problem of the Futurist Return to Earth:

If these martyrs are already reigning with Christ in heaven, the ultimate hope of believers, why would they return to a temporary earthly reign before the final state? NT resurrection hope is always forward-moving into the permanent presence of Christ (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:4), not backward into a lesser condition. This forward-only trajectory mirrors Hebrews 11:39–40, which envisions the perfected state as the consummation of faith, not a regression to a provisional arrangement.

Placed in its covenantal context, the millennium is not a 2,000-year invisible reign or a future cultural utopia. It is the first-century reign of Christ’s vindicated saints, fulfilling Daniel 7:22. In Daniel 7, the saints receive the kingdom immediately after the beast’s destruction, leaving no chronological gap for either an extended church age (amillennial) or a future golden age (postmillennial) to intervene. This harmonizes the prophetic sequence of Revelation without forcing the text into either modern amillennial or postmillennial molds.

3. The Sequence of Binding, Loosing, and Judgment

Kokoulin’s Position (AMill, as argued here):

The binding of Satan began at Christ’s first coming and continues until just before the end of history. Near the end, Satan will be released for a brief time to deceive the nations, leading to a final rebellion that will be crushed by Christ’s visible return, the last judgment, and the eternal state.

Harper’s Position (PostMill, as argued here):

The binding is future, beginning with the start of the millennium. After a long golden age of gospel triumph, Satan will be loosed for a short rebellion, which Christ will end at His return, followed by the final judgment.

Exegetical Weaknesses:

Kokoulin: By extending the binding from the cross until the end of history, Kokoulin’s position fails to explain the intense and short-lived nature of Satan’s final loosing in Revelation 20:3. His model essentially redefines “short time” to mean “the very end of an age that has lasted thousands of years,” which strains the language and the narrative urgency of the text. Moreover, his view offers no covenantal or redemptive-historical rationale for such a loosing, no breach, prophetic trigger, or moral necessity, making the release appear as an unmotivated plot device. This contrasts sharply with Matthew 12:43–45, where the return of the unclean spirit with greater force has a clear moral logic in Israel’s rejection of Christ - a rationale entirely absent in futurist scenarios.

Harper: Harper’s postponement of the binding ignores Jesus’ first-century declarations of Satan’s defeat (John 12:31; Luke 10:18) and the apostolic testimony that demonic powers had been subjected (Colossians 2:15). His model also severs Revelation 20 from the immediately preceding judgments in Revelation 19, creating an artificial chronological gap. Moreover, the ‘short time’ of Revelation 20:3 must be read alongside the book’s own temporal markers (‘what must soon take place’ (Rev. 1:1; 22:6) and ‘I am coming quickly’ (Rev. 22:20)) which resist any extension into millennia. Beyond this, his future-golden-age model faces a deeper ethical and sequencing problem: in Revelation’s first-century framework, Satan’s loosing serves the clear covenantal purpose of gathering hostile powers for Jerusalem’s destruction and the temple’s judgment (Deut. 32; Dan. 12:7). In the futurist model, however, the millennium is the high point of gospel success, with most of humanity regenerate. To then release Satan, resulting in a global apostasy, would mean God overturning the very triumph accomplished by the Spirit during the millennium. The text supplies no prophetic necessity or moral grounds for such a reversal, leaving the loosing both unexplained and incoherent.

Common Failure: Both positions neglect the integrated, first-century flow from Revelation 19 to 20 - the fall of the beast and false prophet, the binding of Satan, the reign of the saints, the short loosing, and final judgment - a sequence anticipated in Daniel 7 and 12.

What Scripture Says:

The flow of Revelation 19–20 is seamless:

1. Rev. 19:11–21 – Christ’s covenantal judgment falls on the beast and false prophet, imperial Rome and apostate Jerusalem, in the Jewish–Roman War.

2. Rev. 20:1–3 – Satan is bound to prevent the deception of the Gentile nations, allowing the gospel’s unhindered spread (Acts 26:18; Rom. 15:18–21; Col. 1:5–6, 23).

3. Rev. 20:4–6 – The “first resurrection” is the vindication and heavenly enthronement of the first-century martyrs and faithful dead. United to Christ’s resurrection through baptism (Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12), they no longer enter Sheol (Rev. 1:18) but reign with Him until the final judgment. Paul’s assurance in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (that “the dead in Christ will rise first”) addresses the fear of missing Christ’s kingdom, a concern intelligible only if His return was expected within that generation.

4. Rev. 20:7–10 – Satan’s “short time” is the concentrated rebellion of the Jewish–Roman War, culminating in his destruction. Daniel 12’s ‘time, times, and half a time’ provides the built-in limit for this loosing; a fixed, covenantal countdown that the futurist model leaves without prophetic cause or terminus. This matches Daniel 12:7’s “shattering of the holy people” as the last act before the everything is finished.

5. Rev. 20:11–15 – The great white throne judgment, the final defeat of Satan, and the consummation of God’s kingdom.

This reading preserves the prophetic compression of the binding–loosing–judgment cycle, keeps it within the covenantal crisis of the first century, and aligns with Jesus’ promise in Matthew 24:14 that the gospel would be preached “in the whole world” before the end came.

4. The Extent of Gospel Advancement

Kokoulin’s Position (AMill, as argued here):

While the gospel advances in every generation, Scripture does not promise a global Christianization of the world before Christ’s return. The church should expect both growth and opposition until the end. He cited Matthew 24:14 as a marker that the gospel must be preached to all nations but did not press the New Testament’s own declarations that this had already occurred in the apostolic era. His tone suggested perseverance under tension rather than triumphalist optimism. He also used exaggerated numerical hyperbole (.1, .01, .001) to depict the faithful remnant. He illustrated this by saying that even two believers in Sierra Leone would be sufficient to fulfill the Great Commission’s call to disciple the nations.

Harper’s Position (PostMill, as argued here):

The millennium will be characterized by massive gospel success, with most of the world coming to faith and living under Christian ethics. Drawing from Old Testament kingdom prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 2, Psalm 72), he argued that these await literal earthly fulfillment. In his model, the binding of Satan ensures the removal of spiritual obstacles, leading to an era where the Great Commission is realized in its fullest sense before the final judgment. Yet after this golden age, he allows for a final “last days” apostasy before Christ’s return.

Exegetical Weaknesses:

Kokoulin: This minimization strips the mandate of its covenantal fullness and ignores the scriptural expectation of gospel success within the first-century mission. It also fails to reconcile the universal scope of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) with the New Testament’s own record of its completion (Col. 1:23; Rom. 10:18). Reducing the discipling of nations to the presence of a handful of scattered believers strips away the prophetic and corporate scope of “nations” (_ethnē_) as peoples brought into covenant allegiance to the Messiah (cf. Isa. 60:3; Rev. 21:24), not merely isolated individuals without visible societal transformation.

Harper: His model constructs a theological scenario where God effectively undoes His own triumph, permitting Satan to reassert dominance in the very age supposedly marked by unprecedented gospel victory. This raises the same ethical and sequencing problem noted in Point 3; why God would permit the total undoing of an era allegedly marked by the Spirit’s fullest victory. Such a portrayal is not only textually unsupported but misrepresents the permanence of Christ’s victory and the unshakable nature of His kingdom (Heb. 12:28; Matt. 16:18).

Common Failure: Neither debater integrated Matthew 24:14 with its parallel in Mark 13:10 and the recorded fulfillment language in Acts and Paul’s letters. Without this, both positions float in abstraction rather than being anchored in concrete first-century events.

What Scripture Says:

Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:14 (“this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come”) is not left open-ended in the New Testament record. Paul affirms in Romans 16:26 that the gospel “has been made known to all nations,” and in Colossians 1:23 that it was “proclaimed in all creation under heaven.”

The NT’s claim of fulfillment uses its own time-and-space definitions. “All nations” and “all the world” are framed in the covenantal geography of the Roman _oikoumenē_, not the modern sense of every ethnic group on the globe. Luke’s use of _oikoumenē_ in Luke 2:1 (for the census under Caesar Augustus) and Acts 11:28 (for the famine prophecy) demonstrates this scope.

This global reach was not a modern statistical percentage but a covenantal milestone; the reclaiming of the nations disinherited at Babel (Deut. 32:8–9). With the nations re-inherited through the gospel, the final covenantal judgment - the destruction of Jerusalem - could occur, marking the full arrival of the kingdom.

Old Testament kingdom prophecies (Isaiah 2, Psalm 72, Daniel 7) are fulfilled in the enthronement of Christ and the inclusion of the nations into His rule, not postponed to a future golden age. The “increase of His government” (Isa. 9:7) is a present reality flowing from a completed victory, not an incomplete mission awaiting a later stage.

5. The Identity of the Nations in Revelation 20

Kokoulin’s Position (AMill, as argued here):

“The nations” in Revelation 20:3, 8 are humanity in general, spanning from the first century to the end of history. The “deception” refers to Satan’s opposition to the gospel throughout the present age, and the “loosing” near the end is a final outbreak of opposition before Christ’s return. The millennium is symbolic of the whole church age, so “nations” here simply means those under Satan’s influence until the final judgment.

Harper’s Position (PostMill, as argued here):

The “nations” are geo-political peoples who will progressively come under Christ’s rule during the millennium through gospel triumph. The binding of Satan permits the unprecedented spread of Christianity, resulting in the discipling of the nations themselves. The “loosing” is brief and unsuccessful, a final rebellion crushed at Christ’s visible return.

Exegetical Weaknesses:

Kokoulin: Provides no textual basis for identifying “the nations” as all humanity across history. Ignores Revelation’s repeated link between “nations” and “kings of the earth” in its first-century narrative. Leaves the binding vague and unanchored in any concrete historical moment, making the sequence incoherent.

Harper: Reads “nations” as modern geopolitical entities without accounting for Revelation’s own internal storyline. Pushes the loosing of Satan to the end of history, creating a gap between Revelation 19 and 20 that the text itself does not indicate. Does not deal with the covenantal and prophetic identity of the nations in light of Israel’s judgment.

Common Failure: Both positions neglect the fact that Revelation 20’s “nations” are part of the same narrative stream that runs through chapters 17–19, where these powers are already on the stage, judged, and overthrown in the first century.

What Scripture Says:

Revelation 20’s “nations” are not an undefined, timeless mass of humanity. The text connects them with the same “kings of the earth” motif used earlier (Rev. 17:2; 18:3; 19:19); a group already under judgment by the time the millennium begins. In Revelation’s storyline, these are the covenant-breaking powers and rulers of the _oikoumenē_ (the known Roman world) who opposed the Lamb and persecuted the saints.

When Satan is “bound” so that he cannot deceive the nations any longer (Rev. 20:3), it aligns with the first-century gospel expansion described in Acts and anticipated in Matthew 24:14, Colossians 1:5–6, and 1:23. The “loosing” is the coordinated resistance to the gospel seen in the Jewish–Roman War, climaxing in the destruction of Jerusalem; a judgment scene already previewed in Revelation 19:11–21.

These “nations” are the same ruling order whose downfall clears the way for the unification of Jew and Gentile under one Lord (Eph. 2:14–16). Their defeat is not postponed to a distant future but narrated as part of the first-century vindication of the saints (Rev. 6:9–11; 18:20). If it were postponed, then there would be no present day adoption of the Gentiles into the kingdom.

When the harlot (Jerusalem) is judged (Rev. 17:16–18:24), the very nations once allied with her turn and are then depicted as opposing the Lamb directly (Rev. 17:14; 19:19). This ties the “nations” and “kings of the earth” in Revelation 20 back to the first-century destruction of the Jewish covenant economy.

Once the harlot is removed, the old alliance between apostate Israel and the Roman powers fractures. Satan’s last-ditch “loosing” manifests in their combined opposition to the Lamb - an opposition crushed swiftly, just as Revelation 19 depicts.

The continuity of this imagery means the “nations” of Revelation 20 cannot be a distant-future, generic humanity. They are the same political-spiritual powers already present in the first-century stagecraft of Revelation 17–20, whose judgment forms one seamless narrative bringing the old order to its end.

6. The Identity of the Reigning Saints (Revelation 20:4)

Kokoulin’s Position (AMill, as argued here):

The thrones of Revelation 20:4 represent all believers who have died in Christ, reigning with Him in heaven throughout the present age. The “souls of those who had been beheaded” are symbolic of the church triumphant, not limited to literal martyrs. This reign is spiritual, invisible, and continuous until the final resurrection at the end of history.

Harper’s Position (PostMill, as argued here):

The enthroned saints are likewise all believers of the millennium era, enjoying the fruits of a Christianized world under Christ’s authority. The reference to beheading is treated as a representative description of faithfulness, not an exclusive group. The “first resurrection” is either regeneration or the believer’s entrance into heaven at death, and it continues for the entire thousand years until the final resurrection.

Exegetical Weaknesses:

Kokoulin: By generalizing the enthroned saints to all deceased Christians across history, he severs the scene from Revelation’s own immediate context; the vindication of those slain under the altar in Revelation 6:9–11, who were promised they would reign after the full number of martyrs was complete. This removes the covenantal and judicial specificity of the vision, flattening it into an ongoing heavenly reality without the first-century climax Revelation is building toward.

Harper: By universalizing the reigning saints to all believers in the golden age, Harper likewise ignores the tight link between Revelation 20:4 and the first-century martyrdom theme in chapters 6, 11, 13, and 14. His view lacks an explanation for why John’s vision singles out beheaded witnesses rather than the church in general. It also detaches the “first resurrection” from its prophetic role as the vindication of the martyred faithful in history, turning it instead into an abstract spiritual state with no narrative urgency.

Common Failure: Both views skip over the Daniel 7 connection, where “the saints” receiving the kingdom are those oppressed by the beast until his destruction; a context that fixes the enthronement to the fall of the beast and does not permit stretching it over millennia.

What Scripture Says:

The reigning saints of Revelation 20:4 are not a timeless, undefined company. They are the specific covenantal martyrs of the first-century crisis (“those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God”) whose blood had been crying out for vindication (Rev. 6:9–11) and who are explicitly linked with overcoming the beast (Rev. 15:2).

Their enthronement fulfills Daniel 7:21–22, where the saints are given the kingdom immediately after the beast is destroyed, not thousands of years later. The “first resurrection” is their entrance into vindicated life with Christ, never to be consigned to Sheol because at their physical death they were alive in Christ, resurrected from spiritual death through faith (Rev. 1:18; Heb. 12:23). This resurrection is covenantal and judicial - the public declaration that their witness was true and their persecutors judged - not a generic description of all believers going to heaven.

By keeping the identity of the reigning saints anchored to the martyr company of the first century, Revelation’s narrative integrity is preserved: the beast is overthrown, the martyrs are vindicated, the kingdom is received, and Satan’s loosing is the last gasp of a defeated order before the great white throne judgment over the remaining dead.

7. The Nature of the Final Judgment (Revelation 20:11–15)

Kokoulin’s Position (AMill, as argued here):

The great white throne judgment is the single, universal final judgment at the end of history. All the dead, righteous and wicked alike, are physically resurrected and judged together. This marks the end of the present age, the destruction of the old creation, and the ushering in of the eternal state described in Revelation 21–22.

Harper’s Position (PostMill, as argued here):

Harper agrees with Kokoulin that Revelation 20:11–15 is the universal final judgment, following the millennium and the loosing of Satan. All humans who have ever lived are physically raised and judged, with the righteous entering the eternal state and the wicked consigned to eternal punishment. The key difference is that in his sequence, this judgment follows a future golden age rather than the ongoing church age.

Exegetical Weaknesses:

Kokoulin: By projecting the great white throne scene to the end of all time, Kokoulin detaches it from the covenantal sequence in Revelation 19–20, where the beast, false prophet, and Satan are all judged in close succession. He does not address the prophetic precedent in Daniel 7:9–14, where the court sits in judgment immediately after the beast’s destruction; a sequence that fits the first-century crisis but is obscured by a two-thousand-year gap.

Harper: Likewise extends the judgment beyond Revelation’s own “soon” time frame (Rev. 1:1; 22:6). His model also requires that the judgment of the dead in Revelation 20:12–13 be identical in scope and nature to the final judgment of all humanity, without accounting for the symbolic and covenantal language that pervades the scene; especially the books being opened (cf. Dan. 7:10; Mal. 3:16) and the “death and Hades” motif (Rev. 20:14) as indicators of Sheol’s emptying after Christ’s victory.

Common Failure: Both treat the passage primarily as a literalistic, end-of-history tribunal rather than the consummation of the covenant lawsuit motif that runs through the prophets and climaxes in the vindication of the martyrs and the removal of the old creation order.

What Scripture Says:

The great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11–15 is the covenantal climax of the sequence begun in Revelation 19:11; the public vindication of Christ and His saints, the final defeat of Satan, and the end of the old creation order.

The imagery mirrors Daniel 7:9–14: the Ancient of Days takes His seat, the books are opened, and the beast is judged, immediately followed by the saints receiving the kingdom. Revelation’s “books” and “book of life” recall covenantal records (cf. Exod. 32:32–33; Mal. 3:16) that distinguish the faithful from the apostate.

The “dead” here are best understood covenantally; those in Sheol/Hades, the intermediate state, awaiting their vindication or condemnation. Christ’s possession of the keys of death and Hades (Rev. 1:18) means that at this point, Hades is emptied (Rev. 20:13) and then abolished (Rev. 20:14). This is the final removal of the death-hold that had bound humanity under the old covenant (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54–57).

By keeping this scene tied to the first-century overthrow of the old order, the great white throne judgment is seen not as a remote, end-of-history event, but as the decisive and public covenantal verdict that seals the victory of Christ’s kingdom and transitions into the new heaven and new earth; the unshakable kingdom that cannot be destroyed (Heb. 12:28).

Conclusion

The debate between Kokoulin and Harper exposed the weaknesses of both modern amillennial and postmillennial frameworks when measured against the covenantal and prophetic structure of Revelation 19–20. Both speakers imported theological systems that stretched or compressed the text to fit their pre-commitments, rather than allowing the sequence, imagery, and time markers of the passage to stand on their own terms.

The amillennial position here suffered from an over-symbolization of the millennium and a minimization of gospel success, reducing the Great Commission’s scope to a token remnant and detaching the saints’ reign from the first-century vindication promised in Daniel 7. The postmillennial position, while affirming gospel triumph, created an ethical and sequencing paradox; a Spirit-empowered golden age inexplicably followed by a divinely-sanctioned global apostasy. Both failed to identify the “nations” of Revelation 20 as the first-century ruling order already judged in the preceding chapters, and neither grounded the binding and loosing of Satan in the moral and covenantal logic the text itself provides.

In contrast, the integrated first-century reading preserves the prophetic compression of Revelation’s narrative, the ethical coherence of Satan’s release, and the covenantal milestones of gospel proclamation, martyr vindication, and kingdom consummation. It honors the “soon” and “near” time statements, aligns with the Old Testament prophetic backbone, and removes the need for speculative gaps of thousands of years. This reading sees Revelation 20 not as an isolated end-times chart but as the covenant lawsuit’s closing arguments; the final verdict on the old creation order and the unshakeable establishment of Christ’s kingdom.

Beyond the Sky: Why Futurist Readings Miss the Clouds of Scripture

“He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him…” - Revelation 1:7

In a thousand church pews, this verse conjures images of a breaking sky and a glowing Christ descending like Superman through the atmosphere. The imagery is vivid, and in the popular imagination, unquestioned. But does Scripture actually describe Jesus’ “coming on the clouds” as a literal sky event? Or has our theology been shaped more by movies and tradition than by biblical precedent?

In our last post, we explored how “coming on the clouds” is Old Testament language for divine judgment, not visible descent. Now, let’s contrast that with how popular futurist interpretations have misunderstood, or ignored, that precedent.

Futurism’s Cosmic Assumptions

Futurist interpreters often assume the following:

1. Jesus must return physically and visibly to earth.

2. The sun, moon, and stars will literally go dark.

3. This return is global and must be seen by every human eye.

4. Clouds indicate a physical location (the sky), not a symbolic role (judgment).

This view is reinforced by countless end-times films, best-selling books like Left Behind, and even common worship songs. But when we look at the actual biblical data, these assumptions face serious challenges.

What the Bible Actually Shows

Let’s compare the two views directly:

Theme	Biblical (Covenantal) View	Popular Futurist View
Cloud Imagery	Theophanic symbol of judgment (Isaiah 19:1; Psalm 18)	Literal atmospheric descent
"Every Eye Will See"	National mourning language (cf. Zechariah 12:10)	Global visual event, possibly via technology
Timing Statements	“This generation” (Matthew 24:34) taken literally	Reinterpreted as “race” or “future people”
Daniel 7:13 Reference	Ascension to heaven to receive kingdom	Recast as descent to earth at end of history
Coming “in glory”	Like the Father came in OT judgment	Treated as a future, final visible return
Primary Fulfillment	AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem and temple system	Still future event ending human history

What About Revelation 1:7?

Revelation 1:7 says: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him…”

This is often cited as a future global event. But read it carefully.

• “Coming with the clouds” echoes Daniel 7:13, where the Son of Man ascends to receive authority.

• “Every eye will see Him” is idiomatic, rooted in Zechariah 12:10, which refers to those in Jerusalem mourning over the one they pierced. This is covenantal language, not universal visibility.

• “Those who pierced Him” were first-century Jews and Romans. If the text means what it says, those alive in that generation would experience this "coming."

The passage is not about the end of the universe. It is about the vindication of the Son of Man in judgment on the old covenant order, witnessed by the very generation that rejected Him.

Why This Matters

Popular futurism unintentionally undermines the power and precision of Jesus’ words. He didn’t say, “I’ll come back thousands of years later.” He said:

“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:34)

If futurism is right, Jesus missed His own deadline. But if the covenantal reading is correct, Jesus came just as He said; on the clouds of judgment, in the glory of His Father, within the lifetime of those who saw Him crucified.

Covenantal cloud-comings may not satisfy the Hollywood imagination, but they are far more faithful to the biblical text. Jesus kept His word. He came in judgment, just as the Father had before Him. The temple fell. The old age ended. And His kingdom stands.

Let’s stop waiting for what has already happened. Let’s start recognizing the kind of King who keeps His promises.

Clouds of Judgment: What the Bible Really Means When God Comes Down

“For the Lord rides on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt...” Isaiah 19:1

When most people hear the phrase “Jesus is coming on the clouds,” they imagine a global, physical descent from heaven. Many envision a visible return somewhere in the sky, accompanied by cosmic fireworks and the literal dissolving of the universe.

But what if that is not what the Bible means at all? What if “coming on the clouds” is a thoroughly biblical concept, not futuristic in the way most assume? And what if it points to something more powerful than a supernatural spectacle?

It is time to rediscover what Scripture actually says about how God comes, and what it means for Jesus to come "in the glory of the Father."

God Has Come Before, on Clouds

We are used to talking about the “Second Coming” of Christ as a future event. However, long before Jesus walked the earth, the Hebrew Scriptures were filled with examples of God “coming” in judgment. These were not incarnational appearances. They were historical acts of justice and vindication that had profound effects on nations and peoples.

Consider a few examples:

• Isaiah 19:1 - “Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt.” This prophecy refers to the Assyrian invasion of Egypt. God is said to ride on a cloud, yet no one saw Yahweh physically descend.

• Micah 1:3-4 - “For behold, the Lord is coming out of His place… the mountains will melt under Him.” This is a prophecy of judgment against Samaria, fulfilled through the Assyrians.

• Isaiah 13:10,13 - Babylon’s fall is described with language like, “The stars will not give their light… the heavens will tremble.” This happened when the Medes conquered Babylon, not at the end of the world.

These events all demonstrate the same pattern. Scripture uses vivid, cosmic imagery to describe real historical judgments. God “comes” through empire, fire, war, and upheaval. His presence is revealed through consequences, not through clouds in the sky.

Jesus Said He Would Come the Same Way

In John 5:19-23, Jesus makes a clear statement:

“The Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son… the Son does nothing on His own, but only what He sees the Father doing.”

Jesus is saying that His judgments would reflect the Father’s prior judgments. The Greek word used is homoios, which means “in the same way.” So how had the Father judged in the past? As we have seen, the Father had “come” many times; through historical events, not by descending bodily. And this is exactly how Jesus said He would come.

Now consider what Jesus says in Matthew 16:27:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father…”

Jesus is drawing directly from the pattern of God’s Old Testament judgments. And in the very next verse, He adds that some standing there would not die before they saw this event happen. That means it had to occur within that generation. The only alternative is that Christ failed as a prophet.

Clouds Represent Theophany, Not Aviation

A theophany is a visible sign of divine rule and intervention.

In Matthew 24:30, Jesus says, “They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.” This is a quote from Daniel 7:13, where the Son of Man is not coming to earth, but rather approaching the Ancient of Days to receive a kingdom. It is an ascension scene, not a descent. So when Jesus says He will come on the clouds, He is pointing to a moment of enthronement and vindication. It would be revealed on earth through judgment. And He stated plainly that it would all happen within that generation (Matthew 24:34).

God had ridden on clouds many times before. We look at those Old Testament examples and do not doubt their fulfillment, even though no one saw God physically on a cloud. And Christ tells us plainly that he was going to follow his father’s example in judgement. Why should we expect something different?

A Consistent Pattern of Judgment

Here is a comparison of judgment events in Scripture:

Event	Judgment Language	Fulfillment Description
Egypt (Isaiah 19)	“Lord rides on a cloud”	Assyrian invasion
Babylon (Isaiah 13)	“Sun darkened… stars fall”	Fall to the Medes
Edom (Isaiah 34)	“Heavens dissolved… sword from heaven”	Destroyed by Babylon
Israel (Micah 1, Amos 1)	“Mountains melt… Lord roars”	Assyrian conquest
Jerusalem (Matthew 24)	“Sun darkened… Son of Man comes”	Destruction in AD 70

Each time, the language is apocalyptic, but the fulfillment is historical and political, not cosmological.

Jesus Kept His Promise

Jesus did not fail to return. He returned in power and judgment, just as He said He would. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the vindication of His identity and authority. It marked the end of the Old Covenant age and the triumph of His kingdom. He came in the glory of the Father; not in visible form, but in the same manner the Father had come before. This was not a delay. It was not a failure. It was fulfillment.

Conclusion: Rethinking the Clouds

The phrase “coming on the clouds” should not automatically trigger expectations of a physical return from outer space. It is covenantal language. It is the language of enthronement and judgment. And most importantly, it is biblical language that has always pointed to historical acts of divine sovereignty. When Jesus said He would come in the glory of the Father, He was not pointing to a delayed future event. He was claiming the divine prerogative to judge as the Father had judged before; through real, recognizable upheavals in history.

Understanding this helps us read Scripture more faithfully. And it reminds us that Jesus has already fulfilled what He promised.

Debate Review: Has the Olivet Discourse Been Fulfilled?

This is the first in a series of debate reviews intended to highlight opportunities for better discussion, especially about eschatological topics. We will utilize a consistent debate review format that is a mixture of traditional evaluation, along with metrics that are aligned more with the theological elements of religious debate. The identification of a “victor” is within that framework and does not imply agreement with the position of the participant, as should always be the case when evaluating debate performance. Similarly, the assessment of which speaker came out on top in any category is in relation to their opponent, not necessary a claim that one or the other did an objectively “good” or “bad” job in that regard. I will then go on to evaluate the scriptural strength of the arguments as a separate component.

There is an odd mix of semi-formal debate structure and poorly defined resolution that is common to modern debates. We can, of course, have conversations about any question or topic, but a debate that proposes an affirmative and a negative, with rebuttals and cross-examination, really needs a well structured propositional statement to make sense. Not only does it give you something to affirm or deny, it helps to hone in on a topic that A) highlights a real and substantive point of tension that needs examination B) specifies the topic so that it can be fully addressed within the amount of time typically allotted for a debate, and C) takes the time to identify the true point of departure for two interlocutors that avoids question begging distraction and choir preaching.

For example, in today’s debate, the participants, although both apparently Calvinist, do not agree with some pretty basic hermeneutical principles. The question of “Why do you interpret this that way” comes up quite a bit. A more productive initial debate would like have been something along the lines of “Scripture asserts that Apocalyptic Language should be interpreted consistently across its usage in the Biblical text.” Even that would be subject to some further definition. Or maybe that is too far along already. There should first be a discussion and agreement, or maybe a preliminary debate, about what constitutes Apocalyptic Language. Any of these topics could easily consume a 90 minute session.

When entering into a topic that is dependent on presuppositional agreement to foundational issues, it is no wonder that so much time is spent arguing, not about the topic at hand, but about the disagreements that make the topic at hand not discussable! 90 minutes is not enough time for a reasonable handling of The Olivet Discourse in any case (the topic should have been pared down much more for this time allowance) but it is impossible, and indeed leads to even more confusion, when most of the time is spent dealing with how Old Testament prohecy should be viewed at a fundamental level.

So, in many ways, this session was doomed from the start, if its goal was to provide clarity and education on a topic of wide disagreement in modern theological thought.

But God bless Brothers Moon and Powell for the willingness, courage, and effort to stand up and defend what they believe. As challenged as this session was (IMO), far worse is the tendency to avoid conversation altogether and huddle together only with those who already agree with us. We need more high quality conversation, and it needs to focus on fundamentals, not just on the “flashy topics.”

Debate Title: Preterist vs. Futurist | Has The Olivet Discourse Been Fulfilled or Not?
Participants: Mason Moon (Partial Preterist) vs. Josh Powell (Futurist)
Moderator: Sean (Odyssey Ministries)
Date: June 2024
Location: Odyssey Ministries Weekly Debate Series
Video Link: YouTube

System Models Represented

·      Affirmative: Partial Preterism (Mason Moon)

·      Negative: Classical Premillennial Futurism (Josh Powell)

Argumentation Strengths

Affirmative (Mason Moon)

• Demonstrated lexical control over Greek terms such as “this generation” (houtōs) and “that day” (ekeinos).

• Built an internally coherent timeline from Matthew 23 through early 24, cross-referencing Josephus and Eusebius.

• Use of apocalyptic genre to interpret symbols (e.g., sun darkening, stars falling).

Negative (Josh Powell)

• Maintained a consistent literal hermeneutic.

• Emphasized pastoral applications and the hope of a visible, future return of Christ.

• Raised appropriate challenges on the interpretation of “the sign of the Son of Man” and global tribulation language.

Argumentation Weaknesses

Affirmative (Mason Moon)

• Introduced an interpretive break at Matthew 24:36 without syntactical necessity.

• Did not fully develop the implications of the gathering of the elect or resurrection language.

Negative (Josh Powell)

• Struggled to account for the grammatical force of “this generation” and failed to engage the original Greek convincingly.

• Lacked awareness of first-century historical fulfillment claims.

• Appealed to signs that were never meant to be literal astronomical events.

Logical Victory Assessment

Category	Assessment
Exegetical Weight	Mason Moon
Logical Coherence	Mason Moon
Debate Tone Management	Josh Powell
System Integration	Mason Moon
Audience Resonance (non-specialist)	Josh Powell
Polemic Force	Mason Moon
Pastoral Simplicity Appeal	Josh Powell
Scholarly Control of Textual Argumentation	Mason Moon

Overall Logical Victor: Mason Moon (Partial Preterist)

Rationale: Mason delivered a more cohesive, historically anchored, and textually integrated position. Though Josh offered a heartfelt futurist perspective, his framework required compartmentalization of clear time indicators and symbolic language that he struggled to support exegetically.

Scripture-Centered Evaluation of Key Claims

“This Generation Will Not Pass Away” (Matthew 24:34)

• Mason: Correctly ties “this generation” to Jesus’ contemporaries, consistent with every usage of the phrase in Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Matt. 11:16, 12:41-45, 23:36).

• Josh: Reinterprets “this generation” as the future generation who sees all signs, but this lacks grammatical and contextual support.

• Scripture’s Support: Jesus used “this generation” repeatedly to refer to His contemporaries. The claim that all these things would happen before that generation passed is best read as a time-bounded prophecy. But Matthew 24 does not stand alone in this time-based claim. Every constituent element of the “end times” events can be shown to have its own time-statement, including the resurrection, the day of the Lord, salvation, the cessation of miraculous gifts, the new Heavens and Earth, etc. Isolating the time statement conversation to “this generation” in this passage alone ignores the advantage of the weight of scripture on this topic.

Cosmic Signs (Matt. 24:29)

• Josh: Takes these literally (sun darkening, stars falling).

• Mason: Interprets them ‘figuratively’ based on Old Testament precedent.

• Scripture’s Support: Prophets frequently used this language metaphorically to describe national judgment (cf. Isa 13:10 on Babylon, Ezek. 32:7-8 on Egypt, Joel 2:10). The New Testament draws from this apocalyptic imagery rather than forecasting celestial destruction. This alone would have been too much for a 90 minute debate and there is no way to stay on topic when this part needs to be discussed. It is important to note, here, that ‘figurative’, ‘metaphorical’, ‘spiritual’ does not mean ‘not real’. God oftens accommodates descriptions of spiritual things that are beyond our ability to comprehend. Those spiritual things are miles beyond both the best and the worst things that we can imagine. God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts, to the point that we struggle to grasp them even when told to us. Just because Christ did not appear visibly on a cloud does not mean that his appearing did not have real, devastating, lasting effect.

The Coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:30)

• Josh: Insists on a literal, visible return.

• Mason: Suggests it may be visionary or represent vindication.

• Scripture’s Support: Daniel 7:13 portrays the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days, not to Earth. Jesus’ words to Caiaphas in Matthew 26:64 confirm this as a vindication event, not a future bodily return. The courtroom scene of Daniel is critical to understanding the language of the revelation of Christ. ‘Son of Man’, ‘coming on clouds’, ‘receiving a kingdom’; these are all phrases that the New Testament writers capitalize on. And Daniel makes it clear that all these things will be finished when “the power of the Holy People' has been completely shattered.” (Dan. 12:7)

The Abomination of Desolation

• Josh: Associates it with a future Antichrist in a rebuilt temple.

• Mason: Points to Luke 21:20, which interprets it as the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

• Scripture’s Support: Jesus explicitly explains this sign in Luke. The historical event matches this description, aligning with Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem. 1 John 2:18 says that “it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; there fore we know it is the last hour.” There was never a singular antichrist personality, there was a general spirit against Christ, which John says had already manifested itself in many people and was a sign that it was the last hour. Christ’s reference to a generation has now, in 1 John, focussed down to the last hour precisely because what was promised was being seen to come true. The expectation of a future, distinct AntiChrist is not supported by scripture.

The Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21)

• Josh: Argues this must refer to a globally unique calamity.

• Mason: Describes the unparalleled suffering of AD 70.

• Scripture’s Support: Josephus’ account records a horrific siege, where over a million Jews perished and the temple was utterly destroyed. Jesus’ warning that “no such tribulation has occurred” must be evaluated in terms of covenantal significance, not raw death toll. But Moon’s agreement that this portion of Matthew 24 points to the desctruction of Jerusalem should give him great pause about his division of the chapter. The events that are said to come immediately after this tribulation cannot be logically separated from the balance of New Testament prophecy or the Revelation accounts. Moon is opting for system preservation over a balanced view of scripture just as badly as Powell is.

Gathering of the Elect (Matt. 24:31)

• Josh: Sees this as a future rapture.

• Mason: Suggests a continuing kingdom expansion.

• Scripture’s Support: The imagery of angels gathering the elect mirrors Isaiah 27:13 and Deuteronomy 30:4; God’s covenantal regathering of His people, fulfilled through the gospel. Christ says, and Paul reiterates, that three things must happen to fulfill the Law and the Prophets; He had to be crucified, He had to be resurrected, and the gospel had to be preached to the all the nations. (Luke 24:44-47, Acts 26:22-23) Colossians 1:23 confirms that the gospel had been preached to every creature. The gathering of the Elect was God re-inheriting the nations that were dis-inherited at Babel and gathering all believers, Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile, into the consummated kingdom. This was the revealing of the Sons of God that creation was groaning for in Romans and the vindication of the martyrs in Revelation 6. Reward and punishment in one judgmental sequence.

Conclusion: What Does Scripture Say?

This debate highlighted how different presuppositions about genre, time indicators, and audience shape one’s eschatology. When evaluated strictly against the biblical text:

·      The Olivet Discourse consistently emphasizes nearness and audience relevance.

·      The apocalyptic language is rooted in Old Testament prophetic tradition.

·      The signs Jesus describes were fulfilled in the generation to whom He spoke.

The weight of scriptural evidence supports that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the first century. The temple was destroyed. The abomination stood. The elect were gathered. Christ came on the clouds in judgment against Jerusalem, just as He said He would.

If this is true, the church today stands not in anxious expectation of these events, but in the realized hope of a kingdom already consummated. Christ reigns. The old has passed. The new has come. If we could grasp the extent of the victory already delivered by Christ, imagine how that would change the world. Today, hundreds of thousands are dying because of bad Eschatology. This is a vitally important topic.

For further study, readers are encouraged to explore Matthew 23–25, Daniel 7, 9, & 12, Isaiah 13, Joel 2, and Luke 21 & 24.

The Compression Crisis in Amillennial Eschatology: Zechariah 13 as a Case Study

Amillennial theology has long depended on the concept of prophetic compression; the idea that Old Testament prophets saw multiple distant events compressed into a single prophetic moment. This principle allows Amillennial interpreters to treat prophecies about Christ’s first and second comings as part of one undifferentiated “day of the Lord.” And while this tool can smooth over certain apocalyptic texts, it introduces a structural weakness: some prophecies resist compression.

One of the sharpest examples is Zechariah 13, a passage that exposes the limits of the compression model and raises uncomfortable questions about prophetic cessation, ecclesiology, canon authority, and even the unspoken parallels between Protestant Amillennialism and Roman Catholic magisterial claims.

Zechariah 13: The Fault Line

The chapter opens with three sequential, and tightly linked, prophetic elements:

1. A fountain opened for cleansing from sin and impurity (v. 1)

2. The removal of idols, prophecy, and unclean spirits from the land (v. 2)

3. A social mechanism for suppressing future prophecy, including parental discipline (v. 3)

Amillennial commentators, such as Hoekema, Beale, and Riddlebarger, consistently interpret the fountain’s opening as symbolic of Christ’s atoning death and the New Covenant era (cf. Heb. 9:14; 1 John 1:7). But this leads to a theological tension: if the fountain opened at the cross, why does prophecy continue well into the apostolic age?

Staging the Cessation: A Delayed Solution

To manage this conflict, Amillennial scholars like Richard Gaffin and Sam Waldron introduce a time-staging solution: prophecy continued only until the apostolic foundation was complete (Eph. 2:20), at which point it ceased. This places the cessation decades after the cross, pushing Zechariah 13:2–3 to the edge of the first century; a maneuver necessary for the model to survive.

But this introduces another question:

Who determines when prophecy ends?

Canon Recognition vs. Prophetic Function

The standard response comes from canon scholars like F.F. Bruce and Michael Kruger, who argue that the canon was recognized providentially, not through continuing revelation. This preserves the doctrine of sola scriptura by avoiding ongoing prophetic authority.

However, a deeper inspection reveals a functional overlap:

• Prophets often declared not new revelation, but covenant applications and divine judgments.

• Canon recognition (claiming divine authorship and binding authority) performs the same role.

In both Testaments, Spirit-led discernment of God’s voice is the defining mark of prophecy. So what exactly is the difference between post-apostolic canon recognition and the very kind of prophecy Zechariah 13 forbids?

A Protestant Parallel to Rome?

Here, a disturbing parallel emerges. Both Amillennialism and Roman Catholicism claim:

Element	Amillennialism	Roman Catholicism
Revelation Ends	With apostolic era	With apostolic era
Post-Apostolic Authority	Providential recognition	Magisterial infallibility
Canon Formation	Spirit-led discernment (non-prophetic)	Church-defined authority

The mechanisms differ, but the functions align: a Spirit-led, post-revelatory authority binding on the conscience of the church. Yet Zechariah 13 insists that once the fountain is opened, no such authority remains; any post-fountain prophetic activity is categorically false.

Verdict: A Fragile Foundation

Zechariah 13 collapses the compression framework precisely where it needs to hold. The attempt to stretch the timeline while maintaining a categorical cessation breaks under textual scrutiny. And if the prophetic office ended with the opening of the fountain, as Zechariah states, then the existence of Spirit-led canon recognition, or indeed the development of the canonical books themselves, after that point becomes theological sleight of hand; affirming what is functionally prophecy while denying the name.

This crisis in compression theology doesn’t stay isolated. It leads to:

• Conflicting cessation timelines

• Ambiguous ecclesial authority

• Incoherent canon logic

• Subconscious reliance on Catholic categories

We can identify the opening of the fountain, the completion of the canon, and the cessation of prophecy and evil spirits with a consistent approach to scriptural interpretation.

As we continue testing the compression model in more prophetic texts, particularly Revelation 20, we anticipate further structural collapse. For now, Zechariah 13 stands as a warning: systematic consistency must yield to scriptural clarity.

Further Reading

• Hoekema, The Bible and the Future

• Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology

• Kruger, Canon Revisited

• Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost

• Bruce, The Canon of Scripture