The Fathers on the Future: A 2nd-Century Eschatology for the 21st-Century Church

by Michael J. Svigel

Many today with an interest in eschatology face a They have forgotten the past. Incorporating the basic foundation and structure of the second-century premillennial, futurist eschatology of Irenaeus of Lyons and other church fathers, this book develops and defends their positions through a thorough exegetical, theological analysis. It makes a case for a contemporary Irenaean premillennial eschatology, arguing that it is a reliable framework for a biblically defensible, theologically balanced, and historically informed eschatology.The Fathers on the Future begins with the belief that Irenaeus and other early church fathers represented a widespread and well-developed eschatology inherited from those who were close associates of the apostles. It then explores some of features of that early eschatology, clarifying obscure points, strengthening some elements, and correcting a few missteps. By looking back to Irenaeus and the eschatological emphases of his age, this book provides a new approach to eschatology today—new to contemporary readers but ancient in its original perspective.

Genres: Theology, Church History

344 pages, Paperback

Published November 5, 2024

About the author

Michael J. Svigel, Ph.D. is a patristic scholar, professor, and writer living in Dallas, Texas. His books and articles range from text-critical studies to juvenile fiction. He enjoys books, film, Bob Dylan, coffee, travel, and spending time with family and friends.

Reviews

[Samuel G. Parkison · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a really good, convenient defense of premillennialism. I would give it 4 stars but for the fact that I feel a bit misled. I had the impression that this book would include more historical work than it had. By “second century fathers” the book means “Irenaeus,” and by “Irenaeus” the book means “mostly Svigel with a bit of Irenaeus.”

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to insinuate Svigel is dishonest or unfair with how he does interact with Irenaeus: I think he’s pretty much a good interpreter of the bishop of Lyons (although I did find his discussion on Irenaeus’s theology of the beatific vision and the millennium’s purpose thereof to be a bit lacking), but this book does seem like more of a Svigel proposal than an Irenaeus one (or a second century one). I also think some of Svigel’s reading of the early Church data on eschatology is a wee bit too generous toward a premillennial interpretation.

Still, Svigel has organized all the major arguments for (progressive dispensational) premillennialism and has made a good exegetical case for them. I remain unpersuaded, but Svigel offers as good a presentation as is on offer right now, so I’m thankful for his work here.

[Lindsay John Kennedy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Update: after reflecting some more, I'm adjusting my ranking to 3 stars. My earlier score emphasized the mismatch of presentation vs. content—the book isn't what it's presented to be and what it is isn't entirely realized. But while the presentation and context hurt the book, the content of individual chapters is strong. There is much good here, and other reviews note this. So in order to reflect what the book is, I've decided to bump up to 3 stars—4 for content, 2 for presentation.

Svigel's scholarship is strong. But a book's aim and argument should be clearly presented and then supported by focused evidence. By these criteria, the book was a miss for me. There's a mismatch of presentation and content.

The title “The Fathers on the Future” suggests this is a survey of what the early church believed about the end times. There are hints of that book existing within this book. But on the whole, the book is a fresh approach to eschatology that draws from the church fathers at times, but is primarily exegetical and theological. I was sorely disappointed when I thumbed through the book and realized it wasn’t what I thought I bought.

I struggled to find a clear thesis in the introduction, though this comes close: “by looking back to the earliest church fathers as the foundation and framework for exegetical insight and theological vision I provide a new approach to eschatology today[, one that is] ancient in its original perspective” (pg 3). But it takes four chapters before we even get to the eschatology of the earliest church. What I think should be the heart of the book is instead a single chapter: “The Earliest Fathers and the Coming Kingdom.” This one chapter was sorely lacking in substance, given the role it should have played.

Most of the fathers' eschatology is relegated to the sidebars. These sidebars direct the reader to visit a companion website to read more. For this chapter, relegating this content to sidebars is a mistake because they’re where Svigel engages with what the fathers say about the future. These portions are essential to Svigel’s argument and the promise of the book. I was shocked to read in his section on Irenaeus “a more detailed examination of Irenaeus’s view of the coming kingdom is found [on the companion website]” and “Readers are also encouraged to read through Book 5 of Against Heresies” (pg 61). Naturally, a book can’t do everything, but a 300+ page book should give me what I need. This isn’t side-matter. Irenaeus is Svigel’s main interlocutor—Svigel presents his book as offering an Irenaean premillennialism. For a book that recovers Irenaeus’ eschatology, the reader needed to be exposed to far more of Irenaeus' eschatology.

The companion website contains 300+ pages of additional content. I suspect Svigel turned in a 700+ page manuscript and his publisher told him (or they took it upon themselves) to trim the content by half. If so, I think poor choices were made in the process. For example, in the conclusion to this same chapter, Svigel refers to the rise of amillennialism (pg 63). But he didn’t deal with this in the chapter itself (“based on the survey in this chapter and its technical excurses”, pg 63). I was very surprised to read a chapter summary that depended upon content that wasn’t in the chapter itself. I think that some poor choices were made as to which portions should have been kept vs relegated to the companion site; as a result the thesis suffered.

I am a little skeptical of how the fathers are used at times. Many in the early church believed the 2 Thess 2 "restrainer" to be the Roman Empire. After showing that this view was widespread in the early church, Svigel suggests that the fathers thought the restrainer was the Roman Empire because the government restrained evil. Then he finds other early Christian quotes to the effect that the church also restrains evil. On this basis, he argues that the church is the restrainer, which supports the idea of a rapture happening before the coming of the antichrist (pretrib). But that is not the logic of the early church, these are Svigel's connections and conclusions. The fathers do explain their logic about the Roman Empire being the restrainer: it was their reading of Dan 2/7. They believed Rome would be reborn (the ten toes/horns) but since Rome was alive in their time, it first must fall or “be removed” before the Antichrist could revive it. This is only one example, but it undermines my confidence about Svigel's approach to the fathers in the book. It feels like the eschatology presented is Svigel's and the fathers are brought in when helpful. But I worry they are being used in ways they might not approve or that key aspects of their theology are overlooked. Svigel didn't mention how many church fathers grounded their premillennialism in their belief that the world would last 7,000 years. I was also surprised by the idea of Irenaeus holding to a partial pre-tribulation rapture. I suspect there's more to be said about this section of Irenaeus. But I'm no expert—I’m curious to see scholarly reviews.

I want to love this book. The fathers are enjoying a comeback, and I think that we cannot overlook their eschatology and the hermeneutics that informed it. To do that, we need to recover the fathers' eschatology from the ground up—tracing the texts, summarizing, interpreting them and then integrating them. I expected this book to be a “mere patristics eschatology” and sometimes it is that. But at its heart, this book is more Svigel’s own exegesis and theology with the fathers being referenced as needed. Often the fathers’ words themselves were proof-texted, summarized without quotation or interaction, or relegated to a companion website.

I know how much work goes into a book. Svigel has clearly invested much good thought and effort in his work. I’m deeply impressed by the scope of his scholarship and familiarity with primary sources throughout history. This only increases my disappointment and frustration with the book that I hold in my hands.

[Todd Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Prophecy is hard. There's so much ignorance of Biblical prophecy today because there is just a lack of interest in it for some reasons. "We die and live eternally" about sums up the prophecy of most Christians. And probably because of that, those of us that have tried to learn something of it often find ourselves heatedly divided when it comes to debates. Though in reality, we are at least united in our interest of the field.

All that said - our replacement theology friends (and I do consider many of them friends) often suggest that premillennialism and/or any belief of a future for a restored and converted Israel is a new belief. This book just squashes that idea. And I appreciate what is here for that point alone.

I don't agree with some of the sub-points made by the author here and there, but they were "speciality" issues, I think. Svigel and I agree on the big picture and I thought this book defended it well.

This is more than a historical study. It is also a Biblical defense of premillennial eschatology including the restoration and conversion of national Israel. It's well worth the time.

[William Struse · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read many books on eschatology over the last 35 years, but I don't remember ever reading one that left me as surprised as Dr. Svigel's new book, The Fathers on the Future: A 2nd-Century Eschatology for the 21st Century Church.

First, the author, for some inexplicable and short-sighted reason, began his exploration of the early church fathers' eschatology with a condescending lecture about his peers and their eschatological writings. For this book, Dr. Svigel created a novel four-tiered classification system to rate the eschatological writings of others.

At the bottom of this genre are what he calls the "hacks and quacks." Disdainfully he describes them as producing "mediocre, uniformed, trite works for the purpose of self-promotion or money," whose "lack of training in biblical languages, extrabiblical literature, history of interpretation, doctrinal development, and experience in theological method leads to all sorts of strange – even bizarre and dangerous – doctrines." He further describes them as promoting "outlandish theories, badly argued conclusions, and outright errors of observation and interpretation of Scripture."

Just above these bottom feeders are what Dr. Svigel classifies as writers of "pop eschatology." These are the "trained scholars, pastors, or other qualified men and women…" who write "popular-level treatments of the end times – usually with a subdued sensationalist bent…" who sometimes "shift into low gear and rough it through the off-roads of speculation." Dr. Svigel assures his reader that "for the record, I have nothing against popular level books per se, but sometimes they tend to be campy, presenting debatable issues as dogma and given the impression that unclear matters of eschatology in Scripture are clear and unquestioned."

Above the writers of "pop eschatology" are the "informative introductory texts written for college and seminary students." Dr. Svigel states, "…these didactic and dispassionate treatments of eschatology are parts of larger systematic theologies, for which eschatology is the necessary concluding locus of theology."

Finally, we get to the top of Dr. Svigel's eschatological pyramid, where we find the "intermediate-to-advanced academic treatment" of eschatology. It is into this category that Dr. Svigel boldly proclaims that "I place this volume." From this lofty intellectual ivory tower, he reaches down to poor souls hoping to "rekindle interest in the serious study of eschatology, drawing people out of hackery and quackery…".

Besides the apparent reason for self-aggrandizement, I can't understand why Dr. Svigel thought this approach was a good idea. What is it about super-educated and intelligent people that makes them forget from whence they came?

The facts of the matter are that most believers were introduced to Bible prophecy by the writings of one of Dr. Svigel's "hacks, quacks, or pop" eschatologists. Many came to Christ through these very same writings, over time, most matured and moved on to a deeper study of the subject. Yes, many of these books are flawed, but they serve a purpose that cannot be filled by "intermediate-to-advanced academic" treatments of the subject. If you want to completely ruin a new believer's excitement for Bible Prophecy and the expectancy of Christ's return, just give them a book like The Fathers on the Future, if they didn't fall asleep by the first chapter, they would be so overwhelmed by chapter three they probably never read another book on eschatology again.

35 years ago, for my eighteenth birthday, my dear mother (who for several years was aware of my interest in Bible prophecy) bought me an airplane ticket so I could go to a prophecy conference across the country in Orlando, Florida. (I think secretly she was hoping I would find a wife.) Anyway, if you've ever been to a prophecy conference, you know that there is a lot of gray hair in the room. When I got to the conference hall that first day, it was full, but I was the youngest person there by at least 20 or 30 years (no wife material for an 18-year-old). After that weekend I came home with a suitcase full of the writings of quacks, hacks, and pop eschatologists. Those books changed my life. They gave a lonely, troubled young man hope. That hope remains undiminished after all these years.

Looking back, many of the things discussed in those books fit into the first two categories of Dr. Svigel's eschatological pyramid, but so what? I doubt anyone with a serious interest in eschatology hasn't entertained or written hacky or quacky things about the subject at some point in their life, including Dr. Svigel. I know I have. But with God's grace, we learn, mature, and grow. And yes, books like Dr. Svigel's are eventually part of that growth.

Another reason I was surprised by Dr. Svigel's opening approach is he leaves himself very little room for error. We all make mistakes. Dr. Svigel has placed himself on a very high pedestal. After so bluntly spelling out the errors of his peers, his advanced academic work has to be darn near perfect or he will likely be judged even more harshly than the harsh standard by which he judges others.

~
When Dr. Svigel finally gets around to talking about The Fathers on the Future, he makes a very academic case for premillennial eschatology. I agree with some of his conclusions, some were new to me (not sure what I think about them), and some of his conclusion I did not agree with. Like most books on eschatology, it was a mixed bag.

One thing I clearly do not agree with Dr. Svigel's on is his premise that Irenaean eschatology should be considered the "heir apparent of apostolic teaching". I believe there are at least three good reasons why Irenaeus’ eschatological views should not be a model for the 21st century church.

1. Irenaeus’ failed eschatological view of the millennium was in large part responsible for the rise of amillennialism.

I’ll explain, but first here is Dr. Svigel describing Irenaeus’ millenniumism from his Go Deeper excurses #8 and from The Fathers on the Future:

• Irenaeus interprets the six days of creation as both a historical account of the creation as well as a prophecy of the six thousand years of history, noting that all things will come to an end after six thousand years (Haer. 5.28.3) (Svigel – Go Deeper Excursuss 8, p.2)

• Irenaeus’s understanding of the return of Christ is quite clearly premillennial and futurist in its orientation. He adopts the view earlier reflected in the Epistle of Barnabas (see Go Deeper Excursus 7) that following the six thousand years of human history, Christ will return to usher in the seventh thousand-year period, the “millennium,” which will precede the “eighth day” of the eternal new creation. Though we could speculate on the reasons for the decline of premillennialism and the rise of amillennialism from the third to fifth centuries, based on the survey in this chapter and its technical excurses, five motivating factors seem to have contributed most. (Svigel – The Fathers on the Future, p.128)

In the second quote by Dr. Svigel he gives five reasons that “seemed to have contributed most” to the “decline of premillennialism and the rise of amillennialism from the third to fifth centuries”.
While Dr. Svigel’s five reasons do indeed seem to play a role in the decline of premillennialism and the rise of amillennialism in the early centuries AD, Dr. Svigel does not address the main contextual factor in the decline of premillennialism from the third to the fifth centuries. That factor was the chronological context of the LXX (Septuagint) Greek version of the Bible. Simply put, based upon the early Church’s calculations of the chronology given in the LXX , the 6000 years from Adam fell near the end of the third century. The millennium was expected to begin sometime at the end of the 3rd century or the beginning of the 4th. Irenaeus, his disciple Hippolytus, and other church fathers expected the return of Christ and the start of the millennium by the 4th century. When this did not occur, the seeds of amillennialism that had sprouted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries began to flourish. Failed Irenaean eschatology was arguably the most significant contributing factor to the demise of premillennialism!

Here is the irony of the situation: if Dr. Svigel had written The Fathers on the Future in the 5th century, his Svigel classification scale would have rated Irenaeus and Hippolytus as date-setting “hacks” and “quacks” who “fall into the ditches of date-setting” who had promoted “badly argued conclusions, and outright errors of observation and interpretation of Scripture.”

2. Irenaeus was a supercessionist
Another reason I don’t believe Irenaean eschatology is a good model for the 21st century church is the demonstratable fact that Irenaeus believed that the Jewish people had been “disinherited” and the Church had inherited the blessings promised to Abraham’s seed. When addressing this subject, Dr. Svigel states the following:

While Irenaeus understood the present Church to constitute the “spiritual seed of Abraham,” he may have also understood that the literal descendants of Abraham would be regathered from among the nations in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Haer. 5.32.2; 5.34.1). Thus, rather than affirming an either/or approach to biblical prophecy, Irenaeus employed a both/and approach that allowed for partial, spiritual fulfillment of prophecies in the Church today while expecting a complete, literal fulfillment at Christ’s return. ( Svigel, Michael J.. The Fathers on the Future: A 2nd-Century Eschatology for the 21st-Century Church (p. 127). Hendrickson Publishers. Kindle Edition.)

In the above statement, Dr. Svigel admits that Irenaeus believed in a type of spiritual replacement theology but still held to a future time when physical Israel inherited the promised blessings of Abraham. He tries to thread this theological needle by appealing to the vagaries of the various Greek translations of Irenaeus’ book Against Heresies. To get the full context of Dr. Svigel’s arguments, I recommend reading pages 123-131 in the Kindle addition of The Fathers on the Future and Go Deeper Excursus 8 & 9. The bottom line is that based upon Dr. Svigel’s own presentation of the facts, he is initially only willing to acknowledge that Irenaeus, “may have also understood that the literal descendants of Abraham would be regathered from among the nations in the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.”

The problem with this inconclusive statement is that in the very next sentence Dr. Svigel asserts as fact that “Irenaeus employed a both/and approach that allowed for partial, spiritual fulfillment of the prophecies in the church today while expecting a complete, literal fulfillment at Christ’s return.” If you are not paying really close attention, you’ll miss this jump from “may” to an assertion of the idea as fact. For the balance of the book, Dr. Svigel presents Irenaeus’ “both/and” approach towards the Jewish people and their return to the promised land and the promised covenant blessing of Yahweh to them as fact without qualification. Here are a couple of examples:

Just as Irenaean premillennialism embraces a both/and approach to prophecies of the coming kingdom, the new covenant, the resurrection, and the binding of Satan, so it also holds a both/and approach to the future repentance and restoration of the nation of Israel.
Svigel, Michael J.. The Fathers on the Future: A 2nd-Century Eschatology for the 21st-Century Church (p. 326). Hendrickson Publishers. Kindle Edition.

His eschatology also involved a number of fairly “earthy” elements consistent with the emphases of his own teachers and contemporaries in the second century but scorned by later theologians. These included a literal rebuilt temple in the tribulation, a future fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan 9:27), a real conversion and restoration of the remnant of ethnic Israel under Christ, literal antichrist and false prophet figures, and even, as we will see, a literal assumption of at least a portion of the Church prior to the future tribulation.
Svigel, Michael J.. The Fathers on the Future: A 2nd-Century Eschatology for the 21st-Century Church (pp. 124-125). Hendrickson Publishers. Kindle Edition.

The problem with Dr. Svigel’s switcheroo from it “may” be true - to a representation of that assertion as fact, is that this assertion is not supported by a holistic reading of Against Heresies. Here are just a few of the ways Irenaeus describes the Church and the physical seed of Abraham:

• “being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, am disinherited from the grace of God.” (AH Book 3.21.1)
• “…who introduces, through Jesus Christ, Abraham to the kingdom of heaven, and his seed, that is, the Church, upon which also is conferred the adoption and the inheritance promised to Abraham.” (AH Book 4.8.1)
• “And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the [J---] do not offer thus: for their hands are full of [b-----]; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God. Nor, again, do any of the conventicles [s-------] of the heretics.” (AH Book 4.18.4)
(Note: words omitted in brackets because the full quote is often rejected in a book re view)
• AH Book 4.18.14 – too long to quote here but a classic example of Irenaean replacement theology.
• “For by His advent He Himself fulfilled all things, and does still fulfil in the Church the new covenant foretold by the law, onwards to the consummation [of all things].” (AH Book 4.34.2)
• AH Book 4.21.3 – another classic example of Irenaean replacement theology.
• “Unless, then, the [J---] had become the slayers of the Lord (which did, indeed, take eternal life away from them), and, by killing the apostles and persecuting the Church, had fallen into an abyss of wrath, we could not have been saved.” (AH Book 4.28.3)
• AH Book 5.15.1 – too long to quote in full here. But Irenaeus describes Israel’s restoration in Isaiah and Ezekiel 37’s “dry bones” as prophecies describing believers (the Church) not the children of Israel who are actually described in the text. Here is Irenaeus’ summation in part:
“As we at once perceive that the Creator (Demiurgo) is in this passage represented as vivifying our dead bodies, and promising resurrection to them, and resuscitation from their sepulchres and tombs, conferring upon them immortality…”
• AH Book 5.32.1 to long to quote in full. The entire passage is necessary to get an accurate sense of Irenaeus’ claim that Abraham’s “seed is the Church”.
• AH Book 5.34.1 – The entire passage is required to understand the full context of Irenaeus’ claim that “the church is the seed of Abraham”.

In summary, a holistic reading of Irenaeus provides virtually no evidence for a both/and approach to the promised covenant blessings sworn with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and confirmed by both the Old and New Testaments. Irenaeus, in fact, believed that Israel was disinherited and the Church had received the blessings promised through Abraham. In this regard, Irenaeus is certainly not a good model for the 21st century church. Whitewashing Irenaeus’ words only encourages a new generation to build upon this horrible failed eschatology.

3. Irenaeus and the 70 Sevens Prophecy

Often overlooked is the overweight influence that Irenaeus had on the prophecy of 70 Sevens found in Daniel 9:23-27. On page 548 in his respected commentary on Daniel, J.P. Tanner notes that:

• “Though most early church fathers took a messianic view of the seventy-weeks prophecy, they tended to favor a messianic-historical position, meaning that the entire seventy weeks was fulfilled at some point in the first century A.D. Only a few opted for a messianic/eschatological position in which the seventy weeks would not be completed until some future point beyond the first, century, such as the reign of antichrist or the second advent of Christ. This latter position is found in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Apollinaris (all of who were chiliasts).

Before Irenaeus, the Church understood that all 70 Sevens of Daniel 9:23-27 were fulfilled in Christ at his first coming. In other words, they saw the prophecy as representing the death – and – resurrection of Jesus. After Irenaeus and his supersessionist views of the Jewish people, the prophecy of 70 Sevens spoke only of the death of Christ and the wrath of God poured out upon Daniel’s people. The prophecy became a reflection of Irenaeus’ supersessionism.

Dr. Svigel appeals, in many places in The Fathers on the Future, to the chronology of Daniel 9:23-27 in support of his eschatological framework as it relates to the book of Revelation and other end times prophecies. In an advanced academic work such as Dr. Svigel claims The Fathers on the Future to be, Irenaeus’ influence on the prophecy of 70 Sevens is an essential part of the context. Without this context the reader is ill-equipped to evaluate the relevance of the prophecy to Dr. Svigel’s claims regarding the chronological framework of the Future.

In summary, The Fathers on the Future is a cautionary tale. In my opinion, it is an example of what happens when the uninspired words of men are given too prominent a place in our eschatological worldview. It is also a reminder that regardless of our station in life we are all fallible humans. When it comes to eschatology, like Irenaeus, at some point in our lives we probably all deserve the titles of “hacks” and “quacks”.

[Joel Opificius · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. I am thoroughly impressed by this book. This has to be the most detailed and thoughtful book I have read yet relating to eschatology. Svigel’s scholarship is unmatched. He has clearly done his homework, and cites an abundance of relevant primary and secondary sources. He shows proficiency in not only Greek and Hebrew, but also Latin, Syriac, French, German, and Spanish. Although the name of the work is “The Fathers on the Future,” not every chapter is explicitly about the patristics; he does present his own exegetical and theological work. This book is a great example of a coherent, balanced theological method, incorporating exegesis, biblical theology, historical theology (retrievalism), and systematic theology.

It took me a much longer time to get through this book than I originally thought. After reading the first few chapters, I considered it profitable to steep in his arguments longer and evaluate his primary sources first hand (in the original languages, as I was able).

Svigel presents a holistic eschatology, encompassing physical, spiritual, personal, and cosmic applications. As I have been studying biblical theology and eschatology personally, I have been thinking a lot of what Svigel presents here, but he has helped me to solidify my thoughts and put them into words.

He does not outright state his view on continuity/discontinuity in this book, it is evident that he holds to a progressive dispensational view, but concedes (or at least is open to conceding) a few points of progressive covenantalism and new creation millennialism.

In addition, Svigel’s evaluation of second century patristics and salvation-historical connections have made me more confident in the pre-tribulation view of the assumption of the church.

This book is one that has made me more interested in reading the patristics for myself. As a result of reading this book, I have picked up a hard copy of the Apostolic Fathers that I intend to read soon, and I would also be thrilled to read through Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” soon.

This work is also closely connected to a research interest of mine. I am interested in pursuing a Ph.D in biblical theology someday, and Svigel’s work on this project has made me more interested in adding DTS to my list of potential seminaries.

Well done, Dr. Svigel.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am a little torn on how to review this book. If you are expecting this book to be an examination of patristic eschatology with some ideas on how to apply that to our modern context, then you will likely be disappointed by this book. It does do some of that but this book is primarily an defense of premillennial eschatology with a helping of the fathers. He does use the fathers, primarily Irenaeus, to argue a version of dispensational premillenialism is the most faithful to the Biblical text and the original interpreters of it. I expected the book to be more of the former, but once I adjusted my expectations I enjoyed it. I do think this is the best and most thorough defense of dispensational premillenial eschatology that I have ever heard.

There is a large amount of material that is online rather than being inside of the book. I don't know if I should consider that material as a part of the book or more as deleted scenes for those who want more. Some of them are full of the patristic material I wished more of the book had been and were deeply worth reading. I might encourage someone to seek those out, since they are available for free if that is the primary driver behind interest in this book.

What I appreciated the most about the book is Svigel's humility and nuance. He is clear on which interpretation of the fathers and the scriptures he believes is the correct interpretation. But he admits where their is ambiguity and where there may be better options. In an age of overstatement, I always appreciate charity and humility in academic writing. He did give the best defense of a pretribulation rapture I have ever heard. He did not quite convince me, but he makes a great case.

I am probably biased in my enjoyment of this book. I have taken a class with Dr. Svigel and have a great amount of respect for his patristic scholarship. I am also a begrudging premillenialist so I don't mind the change in focus as others might. I would recommend this one if you want to hear a thorough defense of dispensational premillenialism based on the fathers. I might cation against picking this one up if you are only interested in reading a general engagement of patristic eschatology.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you ever want to know what an eschatology class at DTS is like (at least, taught by Dr. Svigel), read this book. I took the class as a weeklong intensive, and had to read this book as a textbook. It gave me 'Nam flashbacks to sitting still from 8-5.

There are some things from the class that didn't make the cut for the book, but broad strokes and even medium strokes are all here.

I came into the class (and thereby the book) Amillennial in my eschatology due to my desire to keep the book of Revelation relevant to today, and left the class with many of the same beliefs, just with a premillennial return added on.

All this to say, there are clearly versions of premillennial eschatology that I would take issue with, but I can stand the eschatology of this book.

But, as Dr. Svigel himself said in class, I should probably suspend judgment for a few years, and come at it again to see if I really believe it or not.

[Erik Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommended. There is much to learn for all in this landmark book—even if one is not premillennial. Much criticism of premillennialism is disarmed as the author offers a nuanced premillennial #interpretation of Scripture free from pop-dispensationalism and rooted in the teaching of 2nd century Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon. Chapter 21 is phenomenal as Dr. Svigel lays out our future hope of eternal progressive glorification / the beatific vision / eternal life / theosis. This is especially uplifting after the author’s careful reasoning, thoughtful exegesis, and historical analysis throughout the previous 20 chapters. All Christians need to read Chapter 21 as a bare minimum, but that chapter is especially powerful because it is the capstone to such a weighty work. Anyone wishing to seriously study eschatology would be negligent if they did not studiously interact with this work.

[Shelby Pritchard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Svigel has provided readers with an absolutely incredible resource chock full of exegetical studies, examinations of the Fathers, and interaction with scholars of all ages. I couldn't ask for anything more!

This is a scholarly and quite dense look at eschatology, and is supplemented by the free "go deeper excuses" on his website that is very nearly as long as this book!

He addresses key passages, looks into commonly cited works of the Fathers, and shows an incredible knowledge of the subject matter. While I may disagree with a point or two here or there, this is an invaluable resource.

I can't recommend this enough.

[Davey Ermold · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptional defense of pretribational premillennialism, rooted in the early church fathers and exegesis. I understand and respect where some of the four-star reviews are coming from, but this to me is a must-read for anyone studying eschatology.

[Dillon Reinkensmeyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Svigel is a great writer and gives a good defense of premillennialism, however having to read the online excursions in addition to the book took the wind out of my sails a bit here. I will say that I will probably come back to reading this again in the next few years

[Allan Nemer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with the reviews that stated they were disappointed. In short this book was not as I expected. Far less history than I thought.