This is how the Day of the Lord will work. It will be like a filter that causes the meek and lowly things of this age to rise to the top. The opposite will be true for the proud and lofty. The teachings of Jesus can rightly be summarized in this way: ‘The least will be the greatest, the last will be first. So, live accordingly.’ [Mt 20:16] - Bill Scofield, Humility and Eschatology

This is where humility takes on an apocalyptic sense in the teachings of Jesus. The Day of God and, with it, the reversal of fortunes were at hand. This changes everything. By Luke’s account, Jesus began his ministry when he entered a synagogue in his hometown and read Isaiah 61. He began,

“The Spirit of the Lord God is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.” [Is 61:1 CSB]

The word here translated ‘poor’ is most often translated as ‘humble’ in the Hebrew Bible. His Gospel was good news for the humble. The year of God’s favor was truly going to come. God was certain to re-seat the table, the ‘proper time’ was coming. The lowly would soon be exalted, loss would be turned to gain, and the meek will inherit the earth. While we certainly find this eschatological thrust in the Hebrew Bible, Jesus—and later His disciples—lived with a certainty of this coming day that empowered them to embrace humility in a way that gave meaning to loss incurred and gave courage in the face of vulnerability. - Bill Scofield, Humility and Eschatology

Humility permeates the teachings of Jesus as a conviction of the certainty of God’s coming Day. The table will most certainly be reorganized one day. If the prophets are true and God’s Day still delays, then faith most naturally expresses itself in humility. - Bill Scofield, Humility and Eschatology

Humility, “results in wealth, honor, and life.” [Pro 22:4] “A person’s pride will humble him, but a humble spirit will gain honor.” [Pro 29:23] A lot is at stake here. Humility, after all, didn’t reference a personality trait or a nice way of talking with others. It had very action-oriented implications. The invitation throughout the Hebrew Bible is to embrace a more difficult way of life, but one that will be richly rewarded. Humility in the Hebrew Bible is the means to obtain favor from God. 

Do you lack wealth, honor, wisdom, life? Humility is the way to obtain them.

Except, of course, for the fact that this doesn’t usually happen. While it may certainly grant a sense of nearness to God, this closeness seldom produces the advertised outcomes. In fact, 1st century Judaism—much like our own day—was defined by the opposite. The proud were the ones who had obtained wealth and honor. The humble were generally oppressed; they were poor and weren’t usually the top of the banquet invite list. I can imagine the humble asking for their money back. This created a problem for the Jewish world in the second temple period. When exactly should we expect the humble to be exalted? When will the arrogant be deposed of their roles of honor and power?

The prophets weigh in here: A Day is coming. God’s Day—referenced from the earliest prophetic period [Is 2]—was the answer to the question. This day would see the proud brought low [2:11]. They will be like stubble consumed in a fire on His day [Mal 4:1]. The humble will also encounter a change in fortune. Isaiah announces that,

“Every valley will be lifted up, and every mountain and hill will be leveled…See, the Lord God comes with strength, and his power establishes his rule. His wages are with him, and his reward accompanies him.”[Is 40:4 CSB] 

This conversation within the Jewish world helps us understand the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.  - Bill Scofield, Humility and Eschatology

By the 1st century, the subject of humility in Jewish thought had come to reference something quite different—something beyond a desirable human virtue. It referenced an eschatological conviction. - Bill Scofield, Humility and Eschatology

In sum, Irenaeus articulated quite explicitly not only a futurist view of the impending Day of the Lord but also fleshed out details of the reign of antichrist, which will take place in a future seventieth week of Daniel 9. This perspective, he says, he received not only from the Gospels, Paul's epistles, and the book of Revelation, but also from his own teachers who received this eschatology from the apostles themselves. -Dr. Michael Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p.219

In the first-century Didache, the language in the final eucharistic prayer in 10.5-6 reflects the sentiments of the Lord's Prayer, interpreting the language eschatologically and calling for an end-times ingathering of the church from throughout the word into the kingdom. -Dr. Michael Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p.210

Most Christians say Jesus “fulfilled the Law and the Prophets” in His first coming.

Is this true?

What they usually mean is this:

Jesus was sinless, became the atoning sacrifice, and we are now saved by grace rather than through the Law of Moses.

I agree with this. Absolutely. But…

…that only explains how He fulfilled one aspect of the Law. Interestingly, I have almost never heard anyone explain how He fulfilled the “Prophets”.

Jesus didn’t say He came to fulfill only the sacrificial system. He said:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

— Matthew 5:17-18

Let’s be clear. 

Jesus fulfilling the part of the Law/Torah that required faith in the sacrifices of Torah to forgive sins is complete.

But it is typically overlooked that the prophets are speaking literally of future events that have yet to be fulfilled—events that stem from the Torah and Writings.

So, it’s far more biblical to say, as Peter did, 

“But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

— Acts 3:18-21

Yes, Jesus fulfilled atonement for sins so that all men can repent and receive eternal life, but we await the remainder of this fulfillment—“the restoration of all things,” which is the complete fulfillment of every stroke and letter of the Law/Torah and the Prophets. 

Peter emphatically declares: “This is what God spoke about by the mouth of His prophets from ancient time!”

We must therefore allow Jesus to do what He said. He does not expect us to say He fulfilled everything from the Law and Prophet’s in His first coming because He died on the Cross. If He did expect this, Peter’s sermon would’ve been radically different. 

He expects us to do as Peter did: honor His sacrifice on the Cross and encourage men to repent, and then pray that He will come again and fulfill everything else the Father said in the Law and Prophets. 

The good news is that He will not stop until every stroke and letter is fulfilled. -Stephen Holmes

My teaching of the feeding of the 5000 from Luke 9. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

The Jewish narrative, rooted in Second Temple Judaism, envisions a linear history culminating in the Day of the LORD, resurrection, and a renewed heavens and earth. 

In contrast, the Greek redemptive narrative, influenced by Platonic dualism, views salvation as escape from a corrupt material world into an immaterial realm. 

The Roman narrative, shaped by imperial theology, interprets divine sovereignty as fulfilled through the Roman state, later, the church. 

Augustine synthesized the Greek and Roman models, identifying the kingdom of God with both the immaterial heavenly destiny and the institutional church. The Middle Ages institutionalized this synthesis, marginalizing the Jewish narrative. 

Later developments included dispensationalism, which combined Greek and Jewish elements, and Inaugurationalism, which blended Jewish and Roman frameworks. 

These theological shifts often spiritualized or politicized biblical promises, moving away from their Jewish historical context. Despite these developments, revival and reformation movements periodically revived aspects of the Jewish apocalyptic hope. 

Ultimately, the session calls for recovering Paul’s original framework, resisting synthetic theologies, and recognizing how the biblical narrative is anchored in Jewish apocalyptic expectations concerning the return of the Messiah and the coming Messianic Kingdom. -  John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

Outside of Revelation 20, chiliasm/millennialism is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but it was a minority view in Second Temple Judaism that seems to have been confirmed by the revelation to John.  - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

This is a CHEAT-SHEET of short rebuttals to common anti-Jewish misinterpretations of biblical prooftexts.

PROOFTEXT: “Galatians 3:28 says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek!”

ANSWER: It also says there is neither male nor female. This verse doesn’t mean Jesus abolished gender, nor does it mean He abolished ethnicity. It simply means that everyone—Jew or Gentile, male or female—has equal access to God’s salvation through the Messiah. Jews and Gentiles are equal in Messiah, but we don’t stop being Jews and Gentiles.

PROOFTEXT: “Romans 9:6 says not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. This means the Jews aren’t really Israel, and true spiritual Israel is the Church. Israel isn’t about ethnicity.”

ANSWER: Paul is discussing an “Israel within Israel,” so to speak. Not all ethnic Israelites/Jews are part of this inner “Israel”—but nowhere does Paul say that *non-Israelites* (Gentiles) become part of it either. He is narrowing “Israel” for the sake of his argument here, not redefining or replacing ethnic Israel with the Church. Note that in the two verses right before (Romans 9:4–5), Paul explicitly calls unbelieving Jews “Israelites” and says the covenants and promises still belong to them. Paul is not revoking God’s calling of ethnic Israel; he is affirming that the blessings of that calling are confirmed to the faithful remnant who believe in the Messiah—even when the majority of Jews are straying from their calling.

PROOFTEXT: “Romans 2:28-29 says that one is not a Jew who is so outwardly, but one is a Jew who is so inwardly. In the New Testament, being a Jew has nothing to do with ethnicity—Christians are the true Jews!”

ANSWER: In this section of Romans, Paul is speaking directly to the Jews in his audience. He is telling them that in order to be the Jews that God made them to be, they need to walk in that calling and make it an inward heart-condition by walking faithfully in Messiah. Paul is saying that Jews need to also be Jewish inwardly—he is not saying that Gentiles become Jews inwardly.

PROOFTEXT: “Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 calls Jews the Synagogue of Satan!”

ANSWER: No it doesn’t. It explicitly says that these people *say* that they’re Jews, but they’re actually not. It refers to a group of Gentiles who lied by claiming to be Jews. There is no reason in context to understand “they are not Jews” as anything except “they are not Jews,” as it plainly says.

And no, modern Jews aren’t Khazarians or Edomites or Kenites or anything weird like that—Jews are still Jews, and have a contiguous ethnic history and heritage tracing back to the biblical people of Judah. When we say we’re Jews, we aren’t lying. Don’t believe antisemitic revisionist pseudo-history.

PROOFTEXT: “Galatians 3:16 says that the promises to Abraham are to one seed: Christ. The promises are all fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the true Israel, ethnic Israel isn’t really Israel.”

ANSWER: Paul is showing the dual meaning of God’s promises to Abraham, not redefining the promises. The word “seed” (as used throughout the book of Genesis and other places in Scripture) is singular for grammatical reasons, but it is regularly used in overtly plural contexts to refer to the entire nation of Israel. Paul’s point is that the singular form of the word “seed” hints at the fact that Israel’s promises culminate in the coming Messiah—but this does not negate God’s national promises to the Jewish people. The covenants are to Abraham and to his seed—the promised people of Israel, and the promised Messiah of Israel.

PROOFTEXT: “Matthew 21:43 (also Mark 12:9 and Luke 20:16) says that Jesus took the kingdom from the Jews and gave it to the Gentiles!”

ANSWER: Two verses later, the narrative specifically says that He wasn’t talking to the entire Jewish people, but specifically to the Pharisees and other corrupt leaders. And then it specifically contrasts the Pharisees with the Jewish crowds, who esteemed Him as a prophet. This passage is about God’s judgment of the Pharisees, not God’s rejection of the Jewish people.

PROOFTEXT: “In Matthew 21:19, Jesus cursed the fig tree to never bear fruit again. God has cursed and rejected Israel forever!”

ANSWER: He never calls the fig tree “Israel.” In fact, He doesn’t even say the fig tree is an allegory or a parable. He simply uses it as an example of the power of faith, saying that if we have faith, we can do even greater things than make fig trees wither! The fig tree has nothing to do with the Jewish people.

PROOFTEXT: “1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 says that Jews killed Jesus and they’re enemies of all mankind!”

ANSWER: No, it says that *the group of Jews who killed Jesus* were enemies of all mankind. Paul is encouraging the Thessalonian believers, saying that they aren’t alone in being persecuted by their countrymen, because the Jewish believers in Judea were also persecuted by their countrymen—the same countrymen who had Jesus crucified in the years prior. Paul is speaking as a Jew himself, and also talking about the other Jewish believers. This is not a blanket condemnation of the entire Jewish ethnicity.

Additionally, Jews and Gentiles both participated in the crucifixion. Yes, Jews killed Jesus, but so did Gentiles. It is not biblically tenable to pin Jesus’ execution solely on Jews, nor to spread that guilt to the entire Jewish people, nor to transmit that guilt down through the generations.

PROOFTEXT: “John 8:44 says that Jews are children of Satan!”

ANSWER: No, it says that *the specific group of Jews* that Jesus was addressing were children of Satan, because they were slanderous and murderous like Satan. Anyone who acts like Satan—Jew or Gentile—is a son of the Devil. Jesus was not condemning this group of Jews because they were Jewish, but because of their actions. Likewise, when antisemites slander Jews and seek to harm them, the antisemites are the ones who are children of the devil.

PROOFTEXT: “Jeremiah 3:8 says that God divorced Israel!”

ANSWER: God divorced the *Northern Kingdom of Israel* but He never divorced the Kingdom of Judah, from whom modern Jews descend. God always preserves Judah as a remnant of Israel. And even God’s divorce of the Northern Tribes is not permanent, and He will bring all Twelve Tribes of Israel back together one day. God will always be faithful to the Jewish people.

PROOFTEXT: “Galatians 3:7 says that it is those of faith who are children of Abraham! It’s not about physical lineage, it’s spiritual.”

ANSWER: Paul doesn’t say that ONLY those of faith are children of Abraham. God made multiple promises to Abraham, some fulfilled physically and some fulfilled spiritually. Ethnic Jews are children of the promise by flesh, Gentile believers are children of the promise by faith, and Messianic Jews are children of the promise both by faith and by flesh.

PROOFTEXT: “Galatians 6:16 says that the Church is the Israel of God!”

ANSWER: No, it doesn’t. Paul uses the term “Israel of God,” but he never equates it with the Church. There is not a single verse in the Bible where the word “Israel” is completely divorced from an ethnic definition. There is nothing in the context here which gives us the liberty to view this verse any differently. The Israel of God likely either refers to all Messianic Jews (members of Israel who are faithful to God through Messiah), or more specifically to the Messianic Jews who weren’t trying to Judaize the Gentile believers and convince them to convert and get circumcised.-Josiah Geoffrey

The Greek redemptive narrative leads disciples into asceticism and monasticism.

The Roman redemptive narrative leads disciples into political influence and the Crusades.  

 - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

It must be pointed out that the interpretation of the future eschatological dimension of the hope has been largely a stream of misinterpretation in the history of the church. To be sure, both Albert Schweitzer and Martin Werner have drawn attention to the de-eschatologizing of the early Christian message in the history of the church. However, their basic insights have until recently been neglected by systematic theology and biblical scholarship alike. The history of futurist eschatology in the church has been one long process of spiritualization and/or ecclesiologizing or institutionalizing, especially under the influence of Origen and Augustine. From the condemnation of Montanism in the second century and the exclusion of chiliastic apocalypticism at the Council of Ephesus (ad 431) through its condemnation by the reformers (in the Augsburg Confession) and until today, future eschatology was pushed out of the mainstream of church life and thus pushed into heretical aberrations. The impact of this spiritualizing process and the distaste for apocalyptic speculations made by sectarian groups have no doubt contributed to the overwhelmingly negative estimate of apocalyptic by biblical and theological scholarship since the Enlightenment. - J. Christian Beker,  Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought  

The Middle Ages on the whole did not understand well this worldly future dimension of the kingdom of God. This was so due to three factors: a widespread ignorance of the apocalyptic Jewish background of this expectation, together with an acute Platonizing longing for the eternal, for a place outside of time and history. This is the first factor. To it we must add the Augustinian transformation of the kingdom into the church militant and triumphant, and lastly the imperial ideology of the Christian empire as the kingdom of God on earth. - Benedict T. Viviano, The Kingdom of God in History  

Paul’s Jewish identity, Acts tells us, was already being called into question by the early second century. In that same century, Paul’s god (sic) underwent a similar identity crisis. The ethnicity of the high god shifted: God the Father lost his Jewish identity too. Though some pagans continued to identify the high god as the god of the Jews, educated ex-pagan Christian theologians increasingly thought otherwise. In the work of Valentinus (fl. 130s), of Marcion (fl. 140s), and of Justin Martyr (fl. 150s), we can trace this process whereby God the father of Christ became no longer Jewish. The point of orientation shared by all three thinkers—a point fundamental to the theology of Middle Platonism—was that the highest god was radically transcendent and changeless, and that another, lower god, a demiurgos, organized the material cosmos. This demiurge, functioning as a metaphysical buffer, protected the high god’s immutability, radical stability, and absolute perfection. It was he, not the high god, who arranged unstable matter into cosmos, “order.” -Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle

While Revelation is Apocalyptic as in the genre of literature, the entire NT is Jewish apocalyptic in its theological orientation. - Bryan Butler

The new creation model of eternal life draws on biblical texts that speak of a future everlasting kingdom, of a new earth and the renewal of life on it, of bodily resurrection (especially of the physical nature of Christ’s resurrection body), and of social and even political concourse among the redeemed. The new creation model expects that the ontological order and scope of eternal life is essentially continuous with that of present earthly life, except for the absence of sin and death. Eternal life for redeemed human  beings will be an embodied life on earth (whether the present earth or a wholly new earth), set within a cosmic structure such as we have presently. It is not a timeless, static existence but rather an unending sequence of life and lived experiences. It does not reject physicality or materiality, but affirms them as essential both to a holistic anthropology and to the biblical idea of a redeemed creation. - Craig Blaising, “Premillennialism,” Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond

My teaching on Jesus send out the 12 from Luke 9. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

Christian theology has largely been shaped by three synthetic redemptive narratives:

 – Augustinian (Greek + Roman)

 – Dispensational (Greek + Jewish)

 – Inauguration Theology (Jewish + Roman). 

These frameworks have repeatedly resurfaced and shaped how the church interprets Scripture and God’s redemptive work.  -  John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

In contrast to Paul’s Jewish apocalyptic narrative, Greek and Roman redemptive narratives began to reshape Christian theology over the centuries. These narratives introduced spiritualized, philosophical, or imperial visions of salvation that diverged from the Jewish prophetic hope. - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

Paul’s worldview was shaped by Second Temple Judaism and its apocalyptic vision of history, which centered on a divine climax involving the Jewish people and God’s redemptive plan. - John P. Harrigan, Discipling the Gentiles into the Hope of Israel

One of the most common errors of Christian theology is assuming the return of Jesus is a late-stage development—a novel Christian doctrine derived from a handful of New Testament prooftexts. Scripture does not allow this. The return of Jesus is the climactic fulfillment of the central narrative of the entire Bible. It is the climax of the story that God has been telling since the Exodus.

From Moses to the Prophets, from the Psalms to the Gospels, the Bible consistently frames salvation as God coming from heaven, marching, returning to dwell with His people, and leading His redeemed along a highway, from Sinai to Zion. The many passages that speak of these things are not mere poetry. They are framed as a far more glorious amplified version of the very real historical events of the Exodus. Even as God liberated Israel, led them out of Egypt, defeated their enemies, and brought them into the promised land, so also do the prophets promise a far greater and more glorious personal appearing of YHVH in which all of the previous events are repeated. Even as He once came down on Mount Sinai, so will He come back in glory to restore His people, judge His enemies, and reign on the earth from Zion.

The New Testament doesn’t invent this expectation. It looks to the many promises and prophecies found throughout the Old Testament and it appropriates them all and applies them to the return of Jesus. The central hope of the Old Testament is the crowning hope of the New Testament, only now YHVH is given a name—Jesus, or more accurately, Yeshua. - Joel Richardson

Israel plays a major role in every aspect of the biblical narrative. - Lee Cummings

Discipleship & Covenantal Faithfulness with John Harrigan

Audio file

Theology 101: Warning: whatever gimmicks you use to attract a crowd, you must increasingly out-do to keep them. - Dr. Michael Svigel

“The use of Ps. 118:26 is typological in originally depicting the king leading pilgrims to the temple and receiving a greeting of welcome from the priests at the temple, probably on the occasion of some major victory. This greeting/blessing recognized that the king and his entourage came with the Lord’s approval. . . . As it was then, so it should be in Jesus’ time. He should be welcomed as a leader and agent of God. The association of Ps. 118 with eschatological hope and the Feast of Tabernacles also heightens the sense of nearness of eschatological fulfillment.” (Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT)

Why am I so passionate about premillennial eschatology? Because the Jewish apocalyptic hope offered in the Scriptures anchors my heart to the age to come like no other story can. It is not a vague, foggy “future,” but the promised Davidic Kingdom spoken of throughout the Bible in concrete, flesh-and-blood language: the Son of David reigning from Zion (Isaiah 9:6–7; Jeremiah 23:5–6), the nations streaming to Zion to learn His ways (Isaiah 2:2–4), war finally brought to an end among the peoples of the earth (Micah 4:1–4), the world filled with the knowledge of YHVH as the waters now cover the ocean floor (Isaiah 11:6–9), the meek and forgotten inheriting the land (Psalm 37:9–11), and the righteous flourishing under the Branch who builds the temple of the Lord and rules upon His throne (Zechariah 6:12–13). 

This is a hope textured with real geography, palpable justice, resurrection, peace, and a real embodied life—a Kingdom you can see, touch, taste, and live in (Daniel 7:13–14; Ezekiel 37:24–28). A future untethered from these promises—reduced to abstractions and hazy metaphors—they just cannot steady the soul in the same way. Whatever theological system one ultimately embraces, it is difficult to deny that premillennialism tells the fuller, richer, and best story. And if beauty has any evidentiary power at all, it is awfully hard to believe that the inferior story is the true one. -Joel Richardson 

If you live in a time of apostasy, you may be tempted to think that the primary battlefield is doctrinal. But is that really the case? 

When we look at the passages that deal with apostasy and last-days living, we see that things are more complex. Apostasy doesn’t come about as a result of intense and learned debates that produce a change in one’s thinking. It comes from what we give heed to, and how we hear. Paul tells Timothy, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons…”

Is apostasy then a matter of beliefs only, or of what we give heed to?

Paul also connects it to “speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” Notice: he mentions all these things before he comes to mentioning any particular items of false teaching. (See 2 Tim 4). So, have we been focused on the facts of apostasy, what constitutes it, or have we focused on what drives it, and what are the dynamics of falling away?

Apostasy is not a matter of the mind—whether one can sign off on a statement—but of the heart. Missing this has been a colossal pastoral failure in the Western church. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul says that people will be deceived and then deluded “because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

In our day, truth is plastic, even elastic, and molded like Play-Doh to serve one’s desired narrative.

The fear of the Lord, which is to hate all evil, includes valuing the truth — because God is true and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. We are constantly told by Jesus and His apostles to “take heed.” Those passages, always so vital, are today more critical than ever. To guard our hearts against the inroads of easy grace (sin without consequence) and the world’s powerful and incessant drumbeat, we need to listen to Solomon:

Buy the truth and do not sell it! - Nick Uva

"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