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.