Theology 101: Generally speaking, in their earliest iterations, typology and allegory were used to illustrate original apostolic doctrine. In their later iterations, they were used to invent and defend man-made doctrines. ~ Dr. Michael J. Svigel

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