What Jesus did to His apostles' minds was open them to see what was in Scripture — not to pour new meaning into Scripture (Luke 24:45). - Dan Phillips

The covenant which “is becoming obsolete and growing old” and “is ready to vanish away” in Hebrews 8 is the Sinaitic Covenant, not the Abrahamic nor Davidic covenants. It’s astounding how often believers assume everything in the Tanakh is obsolete.

Read more carefully, saints. - BA Purtle

God hath given to man a short time here upon earth, and yet upon this short time eternity depends. ~ Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667)

Scripture says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a wedding banquet a King prepared for His Son. Psalm 2 records the conversation of a Father promising His Son all the nations as His inheritance. In the best way possible, the ultimate rescue, reconciliation, and redemption of humanity says absolutely nothing about us. However, it says everything about the Son. In that Day, every accolade and every idol will be brought low. Jesus alone will be exalted. Maranatha. - Grayson Borders, CS Lewis and the Controversy of Zion   

It’s hard to fully appreciate the utter humility and mercy the apostles demonstrated at the Jerusalem Council. Led by the Spirit, they reduced 613 laws to just 3 for the Gentiles to keep. When some within the council protested at how absolutely unfair this was, Peter responded:

Why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Much could be said about the gratitude we owe our older brother for such a generous acceptance to the Father’s house. However, much more could be said about how God’s masterful plan to save every nation, through the Seed of one nation, ultimately exalts only One Man. - Grayson Borders, CS Lewis and the Controversy of Zion   

Asking someone to teach the Bible without mentioning Israel is a bit like asking a professor to teach the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe without mentioning Narnia. - Grayson Borders, CS Lewis and the Controversy of Zion   

Theology 101: Tradition without truth just means the error is old. -Dr. Micheal Svigel

When Jesus used metaphors, it doesn’t mean the real things no longer matter. His references to the Temple, Passover, and more point us deeper into their meaning, not away from them. - Jacob Fronczak

Irenaeus's eschatological vision includes many details which we will explore and fill out in due course. However, we will see that his eschatological perspective may be described as premillennial and futurist, as he believed in a 7 year tribulation period at the end of the age, climaxing in the return of Christ as king, the resurrection of the righteous as well as a remnant of mortal survivors of the Antichrist reign left to repopulate the Earth, followed by a 1000 year intermediate Kingdom and concluding with the resurrection of the wicked and ushering in of the eternal renewed creation. Though he claimed to have received this foundation in structure of his eschatology from his previous generation, - the students of the apostles- this eschatology took different paths after the second century. - Michael J. Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p.8 

1. Hermeneutics and exegesis are vital for understanding and obeying Scripture. 

2. Prayer and the work of the Holy Spirit are vital for understanding and obeying Scripture. 

3. Points 1 and 2 should never be pitted against each other. They work in harmony by God’s design. 

- BA Purtle

Everything that Jesus sealed and guaranteed at His first coming, He will bring to completion when He returns. At the cross and through His resurrection and ascension, Jesus secured every promise of God—our forgiveness, our future resurrection, the restoration of all things, and the coming Davidic kingdom of righteousness and peace. What He accomplished in His first coming is decisive and irreversible, but the fullness of those promises awaits His second coming. This is the hope of the Gospel. What Christ began, He will finish. Far too many in the Church fail to emphasize His return with the same urgency and centrality that the New Testament does. Scripture does not treat the second coming as a marginal doctrine. It is the blazing, glorious center and focal point of all Christian hope. Until then, we wait with confidence and expectation—because the One who guaranteed every promise is coming back to make them all a reality. Maranatha. - Joel Richardson

The present circumstances can either prepare us to stand in coming trials, or they can make us resistant to the grace of God. My exhortation is to not waste your peacetime. Don’t waste your minor trials. Lean into God with humility, submit to Him in the trial, grow in integrity and faith. Horses and thickets are approaching. - Bill Scofield, Anticipating Horses and Thickets

The atrocities of northern Nigeria, Mozambique, and across much of the Middle East seldom make their way into our newsfeeds because the algorithms know—they know that we find these things weird and abnormal. They are uncomfortable to us because deep down we suspect, we hope, that our discipleship setting in the West is the new normal. Spoiler alert: it isn’t.

I am certainly as guilty as my neighbor of subconsciously exempting myself from suffering for the Gospel. I don’t reject it. I believe it when I read it. Yet, most of my days are spent trying to figure out how to walk with Jesus as though my current setting was going to be my context for following Jesus forever. And herein lies the warning: horses and thickets are coming. As Jeremiah was busy trying to figure out how to get the bad guys out of power, God interrupts to remind him that things aren’t going on like this forever.

Jesus and His apostles framed life in the same way for those who took the plunge of becoming His disciples. James began his letter with a well-known statement,

Consider it a great joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you experience various trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance.

Endurance, of course, is only valuable if you know that you will be encountering greater difficulties than you are now. James placed value on present difficulties precisely because greater trials were coming, and the current problems were the way disciples might prepare for them. This passage in James concludes with,

Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God—who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly—and it will be given to him.

If peace is temporary, and security is certain to dissipate, then wisdom beckons that we use this time to prepare for more difficult times ahead. Projecting the current peace and security onto the future is folly. - Bill Scofield, Anticipating Horses and Thickets

These themes (the Day of the LORD, divine judgment, resurrection of the dead, and the coming Messianic Kingdom) are shown to have continuity from the Hebrew Bible into later apocalyptic writings and into the New Testament, particularly in the teachings of Jesus and Paul. - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

Apocalypticism is not a break from the Hebrew Scriptures but their natural progression, amplifying prophetic themes like exile, judgment, and restoration. It introduces a two-age framework: the current age marked by evil, and the age to come defined by justice, resurrection, and divine rule. - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

The word “apocalyptic” is popularly associated with fanatical millenarian expectation, and indeed the canonical apocalypses of Daniel and especially John have very often been used by millenarian groups. Theologians of a more rational bent are often reluctant to admit that such material played a formative role in early Christianity. There is consequently a prejudice against the apocalyptic literature which is deeply ingrained in biblical scholarship … Whatever we may decide about the theological value of these writings, it is obvious that a strong theological prejudice can impede the task of historical reconstruction and make it difficult to pay enough attention to the literature to enable us even to understand it at all. - John J. Collins 

Central to this worldview (Jewish Apocalyptic) is a linear view of history moving toward a climactic “Day of the LORD,” involving judgment, resurrection, and the restoration of Israel. Far from myth or metaphor, Jewish apocalyptic literature reinforces and intensifies prophetic themes. Understanding these expectations is critical to interpreting Paul’s writings within their native Jewish framework rather than through later theological innovations. - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

Life is a privilege undeserved,

Sin has warped our view of all;

Hold fast, soldier, do not swerve,

From the path, the upward call.

We have union with our God,

For the blood of Christ prevails;

Bright communion, bottomless, broad,

Love from Him, it cannot fail.

Let us then look unto Jesus,

Clinging firmly as He guides;

Through bleak gales or tranquil breezes,

In our Saviour's Word, abide.

-BA Purtle

When there is not a constant course of mortification set up, but lust is let alone to reign without control, you have no interest in Christ. —Thomas Manton, Works 16:103

People often claim that when Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36) he was emphasizing the heavenly, non-earthly nature of his kingdom, which, historically, has also led many Christians to disconnect the land of Israel, and even the entire physical earth, from their eschatology. 

What these people miss, however, is that the Greek word for world (kosmos) can have either a geographical/territorial meaning or a qualitative/ethical meaning in the NT.  

For example, when Paul says that God made the world (kosmos) (Acts 17:24), he is  using kosmos in a basic, geographical sense to refer to the material world. 

On the other hand, when Paul says, "The wisdom of this world is foolishness" (1 Cor. 3:19), he is not saying that the mountains and the oceans are stupid. 

He is saying that the values, ways of thinking, and qualities of people in this world do not bring them to an understanding of the Gospel. 

That's the second way the NT authors will often use the word kosmos. 

Again, the usage there is more qualitative and figurative, not geographical. 

So when Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world" (Jn. 18:36), he is not saying that his kingdom will never be established on this earth, nor is he saying that his kingdom will never be established in Israel, because we know that's not true (see Luke 1:32, for example, where Gabriel says Jesus will inherit "the throne of his father David," which is in Jerusalem, not in heaven."  

The point of John 18:36 is simply that Jesus' kingdom was not going to be instituted through worldly means.  

This is why he follows up by saying: 

"If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews." (Jn. 18:36b) 

All Jesus is saying here is that his kingdom was not dependent upon his followers engaging in worldly violence to stop him from being crucified. 

His kingdom was going to advance in spite of his crucifixion, and in reality, because of it.  

Notice the direct connection in the context between "this world" and "fighting."  

Thus, in no way does John 18:36 provide a repudiation of the first-century, Jewish expectation that the Messiah would reign  *on this earth, from Jerusalem.* 

Jesus is simply saying here that his kingdom would come first through his suffering, as well as through the suffering of his followers. 

This entire statement needs to be understood as an explanation of why Jesus was submitting to crucifixion at that time. 

And, just as a sidenote, this verse also does not justify total Christian pacifism in the face of evil, and it also doesn't cancel out the idea that Jesus will return as a man of war at the time of his second coming (see. Rev. 19:11). 

Again, Jesus is not giving us a comprehensive political philosophy here, and nor is he giving us a comprehensive eschatology as it relates to what he will do when he returns. 

He is simply saying, "My kingdom must advance through my suffering first, not through my disciples taking up arms in an attempt to violently stop my crucifixion." 

Now, of course, there are applications of this statement for us in the modern day as well. 

Maybe we can glean from this verse that as much as we should try not to lose in the political sphere, we shouldn't try to win at the expense of following Jesus, or at the expense of picking up our cross. 

Furthermore, as much as we should not become self-appointed martyrs, and as much as we should hope that the people who hold governmental power are either Christians or at least friendly to Christians, and therefore willing to implement Christ-honoring policies, maybe John 18:36 is there to remind us that sometimes, the people of God simply cannot avoid losing and suffering in this world, and that when we do, God is still in control and His kingdom is still advancing nonetheless.  

Indeed, the Messianic kingdom is not of this world. 

It is not dependent upon us engaging in every worldly methodology to only win and never lose, or to only triumph and never suffer. 

Rather, the Messianic kingdom is solely dependent on the crucified Son of Man who went to the cross so that he can return with a sword. 

His kingdom was inevitable even in the face of his suffering, defeat, and loss, and it is inevitable even when we experience the same. - Travis M. Snow

Don't blur the Cross of Christ with the daily cross of the disciple. You cannot carry Christ's cross. You cannot die as a "ransom for the many." Your cross does not make atonement, nor is it a penal substitution or propitiatory sacrifice. You can't even justify yourself, much less "the many." His Cross redeems sinners. His Cross "purchased" the church (see Acts 20.28).

Our cross is derivative. It exclaims His worth and reminds us to die to ourselves for the sake of His name and for others.

Don't conflate the two. Rest in His Cross-work and carry your daily cross in worship and witness. Therein is the pilgrim way. -BA Purtle.

Galatians 2:19 is then logically linked with 2:18, which itself expresses Paul’s conviction that he tore down the Law as the basis of justification, implying that 2:19’s “death to the Law” is not a death to Law-observance in itself, but a death to the Law as the basis of eschatological righteousness. - Paul T. Sloan, Jewish Law-Observance in Paul

Eventually, all of mankind will learn the difficult lesson: We all yearn for Eden, but for now, we must patiently endure the status quo of this age until Yeshua, the King returns, crushes His enemies like grapes, and establishes righteousness on the earth.

On the side of this narrow road of patient endurance are two ditches: One refuses to wait for Jesus and seeks to establish a theocracy now, leading to untold human suffering. The other just lies down in total resignation, leading to untold human suffering. - Joel Richardson

"This message is from the LORD, who stretched out the heavens, laid the foundations of the earth, and formed the human spirit. I will make Jerusalem like an intoxicating drink that makes the nations drunk when they send their armies to besiege Jerusalem and Judah. On that day I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock. All the nations will gather against it to try to lift it, but they'll give themselves a hernia." - Zechariah 12:2–3

With sincere respect for many fine brethren who would disagree, I believe the false hope of postmillennial Christian Nationalism, as well as the false hope of a pretributional rapture (on the other end of the spectrum), will both be agents of the falling away of many in the events leading up to Christ’s return, when things don’t unfold as each of these views posited that they would.

Better to be anchored in the truth that there are two comings of Christ in Scripture— the first to make atonement, the second to judge the nations (which means they won’t all be Christian nations) and restore all things (which means restoration will be necessary).

Until that Day, let the Church grow in holiness and joy, stewarding well the responsibilities God had given us, advancing the Gospel among all peoples whether we prosper or suffer, laboring and longing for His blessed return. 

I believe “New Covenant Premilennialism” (or the kind of historic premillennialism held by men like Spurgeon, McCheyne, Bonar, Ryle, etc.) is most in keeping with Scripture, and is a safeguard against false hopes and misguided aims that cause the church to swerve from “the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.”

Again, I acknowledge that many godly men see things otherwise, but that is my firm and longstanding conviction. -BA Purtle 

My teaching on Zechariah 12-14. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

Contrary to the dominant Christian tradition that views Paul as leading Gentiles away from Jewish identity and expectations, Paul actually discipled Gentiles into the knowledge and hope of the God of Israel, rooted in the Jewish apocalyptic worldview. - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

COVENANT AND CONTROVERSY: THE GREAT REIGN

For Paul, one way that ethnic particularity is expressed is by not doing (gentiles) or doing (Jews) the Mosaic Law. Though that Law-keeping (or not) does not save, it marks them out as those whom God has saved as Jews (or gentiles). Said differently: such Torah-observance by Jews did not earn their salvation, but it was the expected practice of Jews whose Lawkeeping expresses their Jewish nature, which God did save. That is, God through Christ is saving gentiles as gentiles, and he is saving Jews as Jews. 

Consequently, gentiles ought not Judaize by circumcision, and the logic that compels Paul to prohibit gentile Judaizing by circumcising specifically and whole-Torah-observance generally, which is partially based on God’s promise to save the gentiles qua gentiles, likewise compels him to expect Jewish Law-observance as a second-order good that expresses their Jewish nature in view of his conviction that God will justify “the circumcision” and those “of the Law”, i.e., Jews, as Jews. - Paul T. Sloan, Jewish Law-Observance in Paul

The mistake occasionally made by Pauline interpreters, I think, is collapsing Paul’s arguments about what the Law cannot do into wholesale rejections of the Law for any other purposes. Thus, a Pauline statement to the effect that the Law does not justify or resurrect is erroneously interpreted to imply that Paul assigned no positive, even obligatory, value to any kind of Torah-observance and regarded it as a matter of complete indifference. However, such a construal fails to recognize the rather obvious point that denying something as a means to a first-order good, i.e., the Law as the path to justification, does not entail a denial of it as a means for other goods, goods that Paul himself describes as God-ordained realities. Thus, Paul denies that justification is through works of the Law, but he implies that a continued observance of the Law by Jews marks them out as Jews and that their distinction as Jews is something that God himself ordained and desires. This is the point missed (or dismissed) by those who deny that Paul continued to consider Jewish Law-keeping as good and intended. - Paul T. Sloan, Jewish Law-Observance in Paul

But can anything else be said about the potential difference between the obligating content of “the Law of spirit and life” and “the Law of sin and death” (8:2)? Though requiring a longer treatment in its own right, it is important to recognize that given the Law’s incapacity to resurrect (Gal 3:21), and given Paul’s conviction that human bodies will become immortal in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:42–53), it may be that some of the Law’s commandments cease to function then (in the resurrection) as they do now. The difference between the ages, their respective bodies, and the commandments, though, lies not in the insignificance of the Law in Paul’s thought, but due to the supposition that the Law given to Israel regulates mortal bodies subject to impurity and death.

However, once resurrected and immortal, humans will possess bodies no longer subject to decay and impurity, and as such, laws that regulate such impurity will cease to be of significance. Without death and dying, purity regulations cease to be needed. Thus, it is not “the impurity laws” themselves that cease, but impurity. This kind of legal reasoning is evident in Luke 20, wherein the Sadducees present Jesus with the scenario of one woman having married several brothers before asking, “In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will she be?” (Luke 20:33). Jesus’s response is telling: “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:34–36). The change in the material quality of the resurrection body impacts a law that legislates marriage not because the “law” is insignificant but because it legislates a condition (mortal bodies that must procreate, the context of which is marriage in Jesus’s setting) that no longer obtains in the resurrection given the deathlessness of the bodies of that age. - Paul T. Sloan, Jewish Law-Observance in Paul

Rather than simply distancing his audience from the Law in itself, Paul says that because the Law, experienced without the Spirit, entangles one with sin and thus with death, what is needed is liberation from “sin” (cf. 6:6–11) and “the Law of sin and death” (8:2), which is the commandment seized by sin that leads the one “in the flesh” to death (7:11–13). 

Significantly, Paul goes on to say that “dying to the Law” liberates one from sin and death, not “Law” generally or even the Mosaic Law specifically. This becomes clear at the closing of Romans 7 and the transition to Romans 8 (see King 2017), wherein the members of one’s fleshly body were captive to “the Law of sin” (7:23), but with the gift of the Spirit, those in Christ who “walk according to the Spirit” can fulfill the Law’s requirement (τὸ δικαίωµα τoῦ νóµoυ) (8:4). Thus, having “died to the Law” (or possibly “by the Law”) (7:4; cp. Gal 2.19) and having been “released from the Law” (7:6) most plausibly refer to the liberation from “the Law of sin”, by which he means the Law as “seized” by “sin”, which effects death (7:9–13). The problem surrounding the Law, then, was not “the Law” itself, but the fleshly composition of its recipients (8:3), who, when told not to covet, were not equipped to fulfill this demand - Paul T. Sloan, Jewish Law-Observance in Paul

Significantly, Paul does not in Galatians or elsewhere blame the Law or criticize it for this function of “killing”; rather, like many Second Temple Jews, he interpreted Israel’s history after the giving of the Law as one of disobedience and covenant violation that incurred the promised discipline, leading to Israel’s “death”. - Paul T. Sloan, Jewish Law-Observance in Paul

My teaching on the healing of the woman with the issue of blood and the raising of Jairus's daughter from Luke 8. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

Moreover, a few verses not routinely interrogated along these lines (Rom 4:11–16) suggest that Paul continued to regard the Law and its keeping as a defining characteristic of Jewish social identity that he expected to perdure at least until the general resurrection. Such expected Law-keeping does not function at the soteriological register, as if Paul thought Jews merited salvation by Law-observance; rather, according to Paul’s reasoning, such Jewish Law-keeping expressed their belonging to those “of the circumcision”, a people whose existence and perdurance Paul regards as ordained by God as one of the nations comprising Abraham’s promised “seed”.  - Paul T. Sloan, Jewish Law-Observance in Paul.

“It’s all about Jesus” is often used as a cop out for neglecting important passages, commands, and themes in Scripture. Of course it’s all about Him, for He alone is preeminent, but it’s about Him on His terms, not ours. “All Scripture is God-breathed.” - BA Purtle

If your worldview is characterized by a sense of victimhood, entitlement, and suspicion, you haven't got a hold of a Christian one. Some stranger, some hired hand, some wolf has laid hold of your ear. Break free immediately, and find the voice of the Good Shepherd again. - BA Purtle

Drunk Lot impregnated his daughter, who bore Moab, whence came Ruth, the great-grandmother of David, the king who murdered Bathsheba's husband and with her fathered Solomon, who filled Jerusalem with idolatry.

Christ's genealogy preaches his will to save even the most messed up of families. - Chad Bird

“In the matter of Christ’s second coming and kingdom, the church of Christ has not dealt fairly with the prophecies of the Old Testament. For too long we have refused to see that there are two personal advents of Christ spoken of in those prophecies: an advent in humiliation and an advent in glory, an advent to suffer and an advent to reign, a personal advent to carry the cross and a personal advent to wear the crown.” - JC Ryle

Via BA Purtle

“You see, brother, how many THOUSANDS there are among the Jews of those who have believed [the Gospel...]" -Acts 21:20

The idea that the "Jews rejected Christ" in the first century is a total myth. There was no difference in terms of Jewish vs. Gentile acceptance/rejection of the Gospel at this time.

Thousands of people coming to faith from one people group (in this case Jews) is actually an amazing result! Ask any missionary today! - Travis M. Snow

Hubris is common. It emits from us easily.

Humility is uncommon— a product of cruciformity.

Pray that you may be truly humble— seeing Christ acutely, treating others rightly.

At the last day you will not regret a meek life. “The meek”, not the proud, “shall inherit the earth.”

-BA Purtle

There perhaps millions of people asking afresh today, "Who or what is Israel?"

J.C. Ryle would like a word. This is from his book, "Coming Events and Present Duties," chapter 5. It was written in 1867.

------------------------

The MEANING of the word "Israel."

"The definition of terms is of first importance in theology. Unless we explain the meaning of the words we use in our religious statements, our arguments are often wasted, and we seem like men beating the air. The word 'Israel' is used nearly seven hundred times in the Bible. I can only discover three senses in which it is used.

First, it is one of the names of Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes; a name specially given to him by God.

Second, it is a name given to the ten tribes which separated from Judah and Benjamin in the days of Rehoboam and became a distinct kingdom. This kingdom is often called Israel in contradistinction to the kingdom of Judah.

Thirdly and lastly, it is a name given to the whole Jewish nation, to all members of the twelve tribes which sprang from Jacob and were brought out of Egypt into the land of Canaan. This is by far the most common signification of the word in the Bible. It is the only signification in which I can find the word 'Israel' used through the whole New Testament. It is the same in which the word is used in the text which I am considering this day. That Israel, which God has scattered and will yet gather again — is the whole Jewish nation.

Now, why do I dwell upon this point? To some readers it may appear mere waste of time and words to say so much about it. The things I have been saying sound to them like truisms. That Israel means Israel, is a matter on which they never felt a doubt. If this be the mind of any into whose hands this address has fallen, I am thankful for it. But unhappily there are many Christians who do not see the subject with your eyes. For their sakes I must dwell on this point a little longer.

For many centuries there has prevailed in the Churches of Christ a strange, and to my mind, an unwarrantable mode of dealing with this word 'Israel.' It has been interpreted in many passages of the Psalms and Prophets, as if it meant nothing more than Christian believers. Have promises been held out to Israel? Men have been told continually that they are addressed to Gentile saints. Have glorious things been described as laid up in store for Israel? Men have been incessantly told that they describe the victories and triumphs of the Gospel in Christian Churches. The proofs of these things are too many to require quotation. No man can read the immense majority of commentaries and popular hymns without seeing this system of interpretation to which I now refer.

Against that system I have long protested, and I hope I shall always protest as long as I live. I do not deny that Israel was a peculiar typical people, and that God's relations to Israel — were meant to be a type of His relations to His believing people all over the world. I do not forget that it is written, 'As face answers to face, so does the heart of man to man' (Proverbs 27:19), and that whatever spiritual truths are taught in prophecy concerning Israelitish hearts — are applicable to the hearts of Gentiles. I would have it most distinctly understood that God's dealings with individual Jews and Gentiles — are precisely one and the same. Without repentance, faith in Christ, and holiness of heart — no individual Jew or Gentile shall ever be saved.

What I protest against is the habit of allegorizing plain sayings of the Word of God concerning the future history of the nation Israel and explaining away the fullness of their contents in order to accommodate them to the Gentile Church! I believe the habit to be unwarranted by anything in Scripture, and to draw after it a long train of evil consequences.

Where, I would venture to ask, in the whole New Testament shall we find any plain authority for applying the word 'Israel' to anyone but the nation Israel? I can find none. On the contrary, I observe that when the Apostle Paul quotes Old Testament prophecies about the privileges of the Gentiles in Gospel times, he is careful to quote texts which specially mention the 'Gentiles' by name. The fifteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is a striking illustration of what I mean.

We are often told in the New Testament that under the Gospel believing Gentiles are 'fellow-heirs and partakers of the same hope' with believing Jews (Ephesians 3:6). But that believing Gentiles may be called 'Israelites,' I cannot see anywhere at all.

To what may we attribute that loose system of interpreting the language of the Psalms and Prophets, and the extravagant expectations of universal conversion of the world by the preaching of the Gospel, which may be observed in many Christian writers? To nothing so much, I believe, as to the habit of inaccurately interpreting the word 'Israel,' and to the consequent application of promises — to the Gentile Churches with which they have nothing to do!

The least errors in theology always bear fruit. Never does man take up an incorrect principle of interpreting Scripture, without that principle entailing awkward consequences and coloring the whole tone of his religion. Reader, I leave this part of my subject here. I am sure that its importance cannot be overrated. In fact, a right understanding of it lies at the very root of the whole Jewish subject, and of the prophecies concerning the Jews. The duty which Christians owe to Israel, as a nation, will never be clearly understood, until Christians clearly see the place that Israel occupies in Scripture.

Before going any further, I will ask all readers of this address one plain practical question. I ask you to calmly consider — What sense do you put on such words as 'Israel,' 'Jacob,' and the like — when you meet with them in the Psalms and Prophecies of the Old Testament? We live in a day when there are many Bible readers. There are many who search the Scriptures regularly and read through the Psalms and the Prophets once, if not twice, every year they live. Of course you attach some meaning to the words I have just referred to. You place some sense upon them. Now what is that sense? What is that meaning? Take heed that it is the right one.

Reader, accept a friendly exhortation this day. Cleave to the literal sense of Bible words and beware of departing from it — except in cases of absolute necessity. Beware of that system of allegorizing and spiritualizing and accommodating, which the school of Origen first brought in, and which has found such an unfortunate degree of favor in the Church. In reading the authorized version of the English Bible, do not put too much confidence in the 'headings' of pages and 'tables of contents' at beginnings of chapters, which I consider to be a most unhappy accompaniment of that admirable translation. Remember that those headings and tables of contents were drawn up by uninspired hands. In reading the Prophets, they are sometimes not helps, but real hindrances and less likely to assist a reader than to lead him astray. Settle it in your mind, in the reading the Psalms and Prophets, that Israel means Israel; and Zion means Zion; and Jerusalem means Jerusalem.

And, finally, whatever edification you derive from applying to your own soul the words which God addresses to His ancient people — never lose sight of the primary sense of the text."

-BA Purtle

Look at Jesus. He is always weeping, a man of sorrows. Do you know why? Because He is perfect. When you are not absorbed in yourself, you can feel the sadness of the world. - Timothy Keller

“Prayer does not fit us for the greater work; prayer is the greater work. The work in prayer is the labor of birth.” - Oswald Chambers 

via BA Purtle

Likewise, the parables of the mustard seed and leaven (Matt. 13:31–33) would have been understood negatively, spoken “to them” (v. 13) and interpreted apocalyptically, in light of “the end of the age” (v. 40). These two terse parables are simply negative teaching devices with a single player, akin to the parables of the rich fool (Luke 12:16–21), the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6–9), and the counting of the costs (Luke 14:28–33). Leaven was commonly understood as a bad thing (cf. Ex. 12:15–20; 34:25; Lev. 2:11; Matt. 16:6, 11–12; 1 Cor. 5:6–8; Gal. 5:9), and the allusion to Nebuchadnezzar concerning the mustard seed (Matt. 13:32; cf. Dan. 4:12) probably evoked highly negative emotions in Jesus’ hearers. Thus the leaven and the mustard seed most likely would have been associated with the preceding and following “weeds” (vv. 25, 38), which were destined to be “burned” (vv. 30, 40)—especially since the mustard seed and leaven parables are given no explanation (a point rarely appreciated). In this way, they simply communicate that God, in his great mercy, will allow wickedness to grow to its full measure (an idea seen throughout the Scriptures; cf. Gen. 15:16; Dan. 8:23; Zech. 5:5; Matt. 23:32; 1 Thess. 2:16) until the judgment at the end of the age. Again, if the mustard seed and leaven parables are bookended by a parable concerning God allowing evil to continue to maturity, then should we not assume the unexplained parables in the middle to communicate the same message? - John P. Harrigan, The Gospel of Christ Crucified, p.278-279

Such a theology of Jewish election and stewardship weighs heavily in the discussion of the role of the Jews in the land of Israel today. Many argue vehemently that the Jews no longer have a role or calling in the land. Others say that the Jews retain a unique calling to keep the land. We must heartily affirm the latter. Though many in the land today are indeed apostate, that too was the case before the exile (cf. Isa. 3:9; Jer. 2:19) and before the ad 70 destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 7:51; Rom. 11:25). Though the Jews have always fallen short (as have all Gentiles!), ought we not support their divine right to promulgate the oracles, of which the land itself stands at the forefront (cf. Ps. 72:8; 89:25; Zech. 9:10)?  - John P. Harrigan, The Gospel of Christ Crucified

The Great Reign (COVENANT AND CONTROVERSY) • First Teaser Trailer

My teaching on Zechariah 7-11. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

On the way to Gethsemane, Jesus also identified himself as “the shepherd”of Zechariah 13:7, saying, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered ’” (Matt. 26:31). Jesus had told his disciples earlier, “You will be scattered.  .  . and will leave me alone” (John 16:32), which found fulfillment during his arrest when “all the disciples left him and fled” (Matt. 26:56). Zechariah 11–13 broadly portrays this “shepherd” as being rejected (chap. 11), pierced (chap. 12), and struck (chap. 13) before the final vindication of the day of the Lord (chap. 14). So John quotes Zechariah 12:10 concerning the crucifixion:“These things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: . . . ‘They will look on him whom they have pierced’” (John 19:36–37). As with Isaiah 53, Zechariah 11–13 also leads up to a prophecy of eschatological glory in chapter14. Therefore Zechariah 12:10 is rightly quoted in light of the return of Jesus: “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn over him. So it is to be. Amen” (Rev. 1:7, csb). - John P. Harrigan, The Gospel of Christ Crucified, p.195

The attempt to argue for a purely “spiritual” kingdom in this age, in contrast to a “visibly manifest” kingdom in the age to come, is patently Platonic. There is no immaterial world seeking to manifest itself in materiality. Rather, Jesus sits enthroned over the heavens and earth, waiting in mercy to judge the living and the dead. This age remains this age (Gal. 1:4; Titus 2:12), essentially characterized by the cross (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19–21); and the age to come remains the age to come (cf. Eph. 1:21; Heb. 2:5), essentially characterized by judgment (Acts 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:1). Where in the Scriptures does the messianic kingdom ever precede the day of judgment? Rather, divine judgment always initiates the kingdom (cf. Ps. 2; Isa. 24; Dan. 7; Hab. 2–3; Zeph. 2–3; Zech. 12–14; Mal. 3–4). - John P. Harrigan, The Gospel of Christ Crucified, p.187