"Moreover, a man among us named John, one of Christ's Apostles, received a revelation and foretold that the followers of Christ would dwell in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and that afterwards the universal, and in short, everlasting resurrection and judgment would take place" -Justin Martyr (Dial. 81).

Simply put, in no way would first-century Jewish or Christian readers familiar with Enochic imagery have drawn the conclusion that the language and imagery of Revelation 20:1-3 portrayed anything other than Satan's total incapacity--utter removal from the inhabited creation. Because Satan and his demons are not, in fact, imprisoned in a place that is cut off from this present world, Revelation 20:1-3 must await a future fulfillment. -Dr. Michael Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p.136

For most people, for much of the history of the church, this background literature [Enochic] - which would have shed light on the original understanding of the binding of Satan in Rev 20:1-3- was unavailable. Just as adjustments to biblical interpretation and theology occurred in the Reformation with the recovery of ancient biblical texts and writings of early church fathers, perhaps some age-old assumptions about the original meaning of Rev 20:1-3 should have been revisited in light of the restoration of these important texts. Alas, Protestant Reformers mostly adopted and adapted the old Augustinian amillennial reading of the text, doubling down on the partial, limited binding of Satan in the present church age This failure of recovery and reassessment led to the perpetuation of weak exegesis of the passage, which in turn codified an anti-premillennial eschatology for centuries. But if we read the passage in light of its original historical-theological-literary context, a blurry picture that can be manipulated in a number of ways becomes more focused and defined. -Annette Yoshiko Reed

Prioritizing the Muslim World • INTRO TO THE EMMAUS TABLE • MARANATHA G...

Audio file. 

Paul was a Jewish apostle to the Gentiles. He often self-identified with his "fellow Jews" (Rom 11:14), his "kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom 9:3). He was a "descendant of Abraham" (Rom 11:1; cf. 2 Cor 11:22), "a Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5). Being a Pharisee (a group that numbered relatively few), Paul might have viewed himself as even more Jewish than the elders in Jerusalem. - John P. Harrigan, Extending Mercy to the Gentiles. p.193

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus kept the purity regulations and taught others to do the same. Contemporary claims to the contrary typically reveal modern confusion over basic issues from Leviticus and Deuteronomy rather than well-founded conclusions about either the Law or the Gospels. - Paul T. Sloan, Jesus and the Law of Moses

Thus with Justin, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus- and many others from the early church -I understand the book of Revelation to refer primarily to future things. -Dr. Michael Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p119

It isn’t the only time Scriptures speak of creation parting wide to save Israel’s children from armies crowding them into vulnerable corners and corridors, of an eleventh-hour intervention saving the covenantal nation from certain death. Zechariah wrote it will happen again, but with the dirt of the hill facing Moriah—the mount of the promised provision—instead of waters along Egypt’s borders. The LORD who will provide Himself a lamb will also “gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle,” and it will not look pretty: “the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped.”

It’s gnarly. And it’s glorious—because this is the moment “every eye will see Him.” - Stephanie Quick, The Son Not Spared

But the firstborn sons of Abraham’s promise were spared, provided they adhered to the Word of the LORD and painted their doors with the blood of their stand-in lamb, marking their homes like a gruesome circumcision. That night, Death passed over all of Jacob’s sons. While Egypt grieved the following morning, the covenantal nation “consecrated all [her] firstborn sons” to the LORD. Every firstborn was preserved by the blood of the lamb; every one of them now belonged to the LORD. - Stephanie Quick, The Son Not Spared

The great irony of realized eschatology is that it relies on texts which in truth perfectly contradict its message. Realized eschatology argues that the debatable texts (Matt. 4:17; 11:11; 12:28; 13:31; Luke 17:21; John 3:3) communicate

(1) a good thing of divine blessing, 

(2) aimed at believers, 

(3) individually, 

(4) in the present. 

However, the kingdom being at hand, coming upon you, and coming into your midst is very much

(1) a bad thing of divine judgment, 

(2) aimed at unbelievers, 

(3) corporately, 

(4) in the future. 

In truth, realized eschatology turns Jesus’ message on its head and robs it of its strength and conviction. - John P. Harrigan

"In light of the theological anti-Judaism that flowed forth with dominant influence out of Augustine's eschatology, it is easier to understand how premillennialism suffered Cinderella-like belittlement as a consequence." - Barry E. Horner, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged

The coming kingdom portrayed in picturesque, figurative kingdom oracles in the book of Isaiah entails a glorious future. In an undefined time in the future (Isa 2:1: 9.1). God's people, having suffered just judgment for their covenant unfaithfulness (Isa 1:2-24; 27:7-11; 31:6-9), will turn again to God in repentance and will be called back from their places of exile around the world to be restored to their own land in a kind of ultimate exodus (Isa 2:1-4; 4:4; 11:11-12; 27:12-13; 30:18-19; 32:16-18: 35:10; 41:8-9; 43:5-7, 11-17; 49:9-13; 52:11-12). This restoration will be through the enthronement of the anointed and Spirit-empowered king in Jerusalem -the ultimate Servant of the Lord -who will rule with justice, righteousness, peace, and equity, along with a plurality of rulers reigning with him (Isa 2:4; 9:6-7; 11:1-16 16:4-5: 32:1; 42:1; 52:13; 53:1-12: 60:15-18). -Micheal Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p.67

The hope in a thousand-year reign of happiness preceding the final denouement of history was widely shared by the first Christians. ... It still clearly dominates in Saint Irenaeus. It will be profoundly relativized from the fourth century onward in favor of a symbolic reading of the book of Revelation. This reversal will be carried out mainly under the influence of Saint Augustine, though also by Tyconius, who appears to us in this matter to have been a true "Augustine before Augustine." The rejection of a literal understanding of Revelation 20 became the dominant position of the Church and then, after the Reformation, of the main churches." -Bernard Hort

My teaching of an introduction to an ancient Hebrew worldview. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. Video

This survey of voices... reveal a few important points regarding the early precedence of Irenaean premillennialism. First, when they were not silent on the issue of the millennium, first-century and second-century Christian texts espoused a premillennial perspective (Didache Barnabas. Papias of Hierapolis, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Hippolytus). This premillennial perspective was not isolated to one place but was geographically widespread (e.g., Didache in Antioch, Barnabas in Egypt, Papias in Asa Justin and Hippolytus in Rome, Irenaeus in Gaul, and Tertullian in western North Afríca), Also, premillennialism was presented in diverse texts and traditions-from the allegorizing of Barnabas to the careful, almost systematic articulation and defense by Irenaeus, By the time we reach Irenaeus in the late second century, premillennialism is fairly well developed, exhibiting all the signs of a well-thought-out eschatological system, From where did Irenaeus get such teachings? By his own words, he claims to have received them from his own teachers who had received them from the apostles themselves (Haer, 5.33.3; Epid, 61) - Dr. Michael Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p.62

“To seek to interpret the various Old Testament documents for themselves and apart from the vantage point of the New [Testament] exposes one ultimately to misinterpreting them.” —Richard B. Gaffin Jr. 

Gaffin’s a brilliant man, and I’ve loved a host of things he’s written— but I can think of few concepts in the evangelical theological world that are more erroneous than this. This is the basic claim of “New Testament Priority” hermeneutics, which in the name of Christocentricity opens the door for all kinds of misinterpretation while crowning itself a safeguard against misinterpretation. (It’s also a system that often fuels supersessionism, since it fails to be adequately mindful of authorial intent in the OT.) 

Of course Christ is the τέλος of the law, the One to whom Moses and the prophets pointed, the One to whom belongs the preeminence. Yet we must hold not merely to NT priority, but to the priority of whatever biblical passage is in view. We must revere and hold high the irreplaceable value of authorial intent (both the human and Divine authors), and the God-breathed authority and usefulness of every passage, whether in the Old or New Testament. 

Everyone claims to do that, but who’s really doing it? There are times when the Old sheds light on the New and times when the New sheds light on the Old. The analogy of Scripture is REAL. The NT Priority proponent claims to value the OT (and many do in significant respects), but his hermeneutical system actually fails very often on just this point. Authorial intent is pushed to the periphery, even blacklisted (perhaps unconsciously), and misinterpretations ensue— most often in handling OT texts. And if one twists the meaning of OT texts (which the NT authors revered and were immersed in), how trustworthy is one’s handling of the New? It is worth asking. 

Hebrews 1:1-2: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” 

Yes, “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,” and we are humbled and grateful to see the mystery kept hidden for ages now revealed. All praise to the slain and risen Lamb! Yet and still, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.” The OT authors (just like the New) wrote WITH INTENT, and God spoke through them WITH INTENT. And there were those who heard and read and believed before the NT was written— that is, there were those who understood and felt and obeyed the authorial intent of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

The arrival of the New and better covenant doesn’t mean the belittling or downgrading or redefining of the authority of God’s speaking “by the prophets.” God spoke then. And God has spoken in/by His Son. And to this day He is still speaking through the whole counsel of Scripture. 

The New Testament Priority approach, while held by many sincere believers and many learned scholars, is simply not the view held by Christ or the apostles. “The Scripture cannot be broken”; “all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable.” Let us return to “rightly handling the Word of truth.” Let us return to Christ-exalting exegesis and interpretation, placing hermeneutical priority on the passage before us, 

1. with authorial intent in view— discovering what it meant to them before asking what it means for us, 
2. being mindful of how the immediate text contributes to and harmonizes with the grand revelation of Scripture as a whole, 
3. glorying in all the ways the Scriptures anticipate or articulate the Gospel (which includes the 1st and 2nd advents, by the way), 
4. remembering that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” We need only to give each passage the attention it deserves. Doing so will not make less of Christ, but enable us to get closer to how He and His apostles understood and treasured “the sacred writings.” 

Isn’t that what hermeneutics is all about? - BA Purtle

When his Son comes, he will abolish the season of the lawless one, he will judge the ungodly, and he will change the sun and the moon and the stars, then he will truly rest on the seventh day. -Epistle of Barnabas 15.5

But when this present fashion of things passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, then there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain continually, always holding fresh converse with God. - Irenaeus (Haer. 5.36.1)

Resurrection is not reanimation or resuscitation. When we meet the resurrected Jesus, we meet someone who has been transformed. He has not just been brought back to life. He has been raised to a new kind of life. 

Resurrection is also not about souls going to heaven. Instead, resurrection is for whole people, body and soul together. The church has sometimes highlighted this truth -the resurrection is about hope for bodies-by confessing belief in the resurrection of the "flesh." Flesh is a strong word, one that works against any tendency to cut our hope off from muscles and marrow. In the resurrection, we have meaty hope, hope that extends into every part of creation and every aspect of human being. -Beth Felker Jones

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)