Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened - a Book Review

This book contains three essays that were originally delivered in lecture form at the "Symposium for Church and Academy", held at Crichton College. The first two lectures, on Jesus' Crucifixion and Burial respectively, were given by Craig A. Evans, while the last one, on Jesus' Resurrection, was given by N. T. Wright. They offer a New Perspective reading of the three events, though in a rather compact form, as each essay is the written equivalent of only one lecture. In spite of their brevity, there is much good material here. The essays are really designed for those, however, who haven't encountered a New Perspective approach to these matters. Those who have read much of what, say, Wright has written, will probably not find anything earth-shaking here. Wright's essay, in fact, is simply an abbreviated form of his book Surprised by Hope, itself an abbreviated form of his book The Resurrection of the Son of God.

And while there is much good material here, I can't help but have one major qualm, and that has to do with the authors' general approach to Scripture. These essays, as much of the authors' other works do, have a particularly apologetic quality about them. They are seeking to defend the Scripture's testimony regarding the events of Jesus' trial, death, burial, and resurrection, of which they do a very good job. And yet, in so doing, they seem to me to give up the ship. The major problem, it seems to me, is that they both begin by granting to the skeptic the possibility that Scripture's report of the facts may not actually be true, thereby compromising it as the inerrant Word of God. Both scholars, within the context of their respective essays, affirm the possibility of errors within the text of Scripture itself. Now I appreciate the work both men have done in interacting with more liberal scholars, in an attempt to recover a reliable view of God's Word. But if we can't hold to the view that all of the Bible is without error, then we are tearing the foundation out from under the building we're seeking to construct. For this reason, I couldn't recommend this book to the average reader. For someone who is well-versed in Scripture, as well as historic and systematic theology, this might be a helpful read. But the average reader would do better to turn their attention toward some of the apologetic works produced by more Evangelical and Reformed scholars.

Joshua 13-19, the Distribution of the Land of Israel

I have no clue how to format this properly, so I hope it isn't too hard to follow.

***************************************************

Joshua 13-19, the Distribution of the Land of Israel

I.) Distribution of Transjordan (13)

Prologue to the Distribution of Transjordan (13:1-7)

A.) Distribution of Transjordan (13:8-13)
1.) Reuben - Leah
2.) Gad - Leah's servant Zilpah
3.) Manasseh - Rachel

B.) Levites' Inheritance was the Offerings of the LORD (13:14)
A'.) Distribution of the Transjordan by Tribe, Detailed (13:15-32)
B'.) Levites' Inheritance was the LORD (13:33)

II.)Distribution of West Jordan (14-19)

Prologue to the Distribution of West Jordan (14:1-5)

A.) Caleb's Inheritance, First Part (14:6-15)
B.) Judah's Boundary Lines (15:1-12) - Leah
A'.) Caleb's Inheritance, Second Part (15:13-19)
B'.) Judah's Cities (15:20-63)

C.) Prologue to the Distribution of the Land to Joseph, Boundary of the Land (16:1-4) - Rachel
D.) Ephraim's Allotment (16:5-10)
D'.) Manasseh's Allotment (17:1-13)
C'.) Epilogue to the Distribution of the Land to Joseph, Boundary Expanded
(17:14-18)

E.) Prologue to the Distribution to the Remaining Seven Tribes (18:1-10)
1.) Israel at Shiloh, Tent of Meeting and land (18:1)
2.) Joshua rebukes Israel for not taking possession, and takes steps toward conquering the land (18:2-10)

a.) Benjamin (18:11-28) - Rachel
b.) Simeon (19:1-9) - Leah
c.) Zebulun (19:10-16) - Leah
d.) Issachar (19:17-23) - Leah
e.) Asher (19:24-31) - Leah's servant Zilpah
f.) Naphtali (19:32-39) - Rachel's servant Bilhah
g.) Dan (19:40-48) - Rachel's servant Bilhah

E'.) Epilogue to the Distribution to the Remaining Seven Tribes, Epilogue to the Distribution of West Jordan (19:49-51)
2'.) Joshua receives land and he conquers it (19:49-50)
1'.) Israel's representatives at Shiloh, Tent of Meeting and land (19:51)

Evangelicalism, and the Use and Misuse of Art

We tend to move slow as molasses in Bible study. That would, of course, be my fault. I can be incredibly long-winded for an introvert. (To defend myself a little, I might also note that there are many, many symbols in Revelation, and adequately explaining their significance takes some time. At least, that's my excuse.) The result is that I've been studied up ahead of schedule for a while now, and I've been able to turn my attention to other things. I've had in mind to read a couple of books that have been popular in Christian circles over the past few years, so I can intelligently interact with other believers about them, and maybe even write a critique or two. After a few pages of each, however, I was ready to shoot myself in the head. Evangelicals just don't know how to write. When I have reactions like that, though, I try to back up and give my own criticism some criticism. Perhaps I am being hasty in my response? I decided the best thing to do would be to take the time to read some classic literature - to sort of remind myself of what good literature is like, in order to offer a reasonable critique of the Christian literature in question. So I've read some short stories, and a couple of novels. Perhaps most importantly, I've returned to reading some of the works of Flannery O'Connor, both her fiction and non-fiction.

Few people understand fiction - or art in general - the way that O'Connor did. After her death, a collection of her essays was published, entitled Mystery and Manners. Out of all that I've read on art, this book stands near or at the top of the list. She discusses what it is to be a fiction writer, giving special attention to her status as a Southerner and a Catholic Christian. While she was a highly intelligent woman (she read a portion of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas every night before she went to sleep), her non-fiction writing was no-nonsense. Her are a couple of my favourite quotes from her, which I've posted before, but which bear repeating:

“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”

"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."

The second quote, I believe, is especially important in considering the question of so-called Christian art. Along with considering popular Christian literature, I've been listening to some Contemporary Christian radio stations, mainly out of curiosity. There's alot I've noticed, but one thing I've learned that's relevant here concerns the purpose of Christian art. I've realized that its purpose, generally speaking, is not that the form of the art itself in any way be for the good of the individual participating in it. Rather, the form of the art is merely as a vehicle for communicating a message. In fact, I've even heard popular CCM artists admit as much. The "art", to the degree that it is art, is simply Utilitarian, or Pragmatic, in its reason for being. Cultural critic Ken Myers notes this in his book All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes, as he compares Popular Culture with Traditional and High Cultures. He points out that in Popular Culture, art is something that's used. In Traditional and High Cultures, however, art is something that is received. In other words, in Popular Culture, the art is something that I am sovereign over, which must submit to me. It meets me where I am, and raises me no higher. But the art of Traditional and High Cultures require that the participant submit to it. It is greater than the participant, and challenges him to ascend beyond himself.

The fact that Evangelicalism, in its worship, its music, its teaching, and so on, tends to make chief the idea of God meeting us where we're at seems no coincidence here. As in Popular Culture, whether Christian or non-Christian, the God of Evangelicalism is Immanent, and never any different. He is common, and in no way mysterious. There is no room for what is communicated by Traditional and High Cultures - a God who is Transcendent, who demands we approach Him in reverence and with awe. I have been in many different churches over the past several years, and in all of the ones that are Contemporary in their approach to worship, this has been true. If there is any fear of God before their eyes, it sure doesn't come out in the way they worship.

My point in all this is to note that Evangelicals seem to not understand the importance of form. They only see Scripture as a summary of the Gospel and a few good teachings, and they don't think the form of it really matters. Consequently, large chunks of it go unexamined. Just as O'Connor noted in the way some people approach her stories, so we tend to approach Scripture. We want to take it, shake out the chaff, and keep the wheat. But all of Scripture is inspired, including those portions of Numbers that seem totally irrelevant to your life. None of it is chaff.

We think the way we do ministry or worship doesn't matter. As long as the message gets across, then we've done our job. And yet think of how contrary to Scripture this way of thinking is. Just look at how many pages of Scripture are devoted to the constructing of the Tabernacle and the Temple (both Solomon's and Ezekiel's). Look at the attention given to the dividing of the land of Israel in the Book of Joshua. Consider the detailed way in which Israel was to march and to camp while in the wilderness. If Scripture reveals the character of God - and it does - then these and other passages would suggest that our God is One to whom form, matter, and order are important. Just as with O'Connor, if you want to know the meaning of God's Story, then you need to learn the whole Story, because the whole Story is the meaning.

And so, leaving aside a critique of any specific musician or author, I would encourage my fellow believers to think more carefully about the forms of media they participate in. In fact, here's an idea. Insofar as it is in your power, take a period of time - at least a month - and separate yourself from all forms of popular media. That includes TV, movies, and music. It's especially important that you stay away from commercial TV and radio. Take the time to engage more fully in prayer, in meditation, in silence. Shop as little as possible. Stay away particularly from Christian stores. Read some classic Christian literature - don't read anything written in the past twenty years. C. S. Lewis is very accessible, and would be a good choice. It would be good to read some classic literature that isn't specifically Christian as well. If you listen to music, listen to some classical, or traditional folk music, whether American, or of some other culture. Once the time is up, go back and begin to live as you had before. See if you respond to your old music and TV the way you used to. If you are open to the experiment, I expect you will find yourself a changed person, and that for the better.

Eastertide

Easter was day before yesterday, and as most Americans (especially Protestants) celebrate Holy Days, Easter ended day before yesterday. But traditionally the Church has recognized the whole period from Easter until Pentecost to be Easter Season, also called Eastertide. Jesus' death fell exactly in line with Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as was established by Yahweh in the Jewish calendar as a part of the Mosaic Law. It also fell such that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath, the typological Eighth Day. This established our celebration of Holy Week, as well as the New Covenant Sabbath, which we call Sunday (Leviticus 23:3-8). Forty days later Jesus ascended to Heaven and took His place on David's throne, from which He now reigns the universe. The Church has traditionally observed that day as Ascension Day. Ten days after his ascension was Pentecost, also called the Feast of Weeks, originally established in the Mosaic Law. In Acts, we are told that the Spirit descended upon the Church during the Feast of Pentecost. And so the Church has historically celebrated Pentecost as the day of its birth. This is the beginning of Ordinary Time, or the Trinity Season, as it is sometimes called. Trinity Season lasts until Advent. The point of all this is to say that we in America tend to observe only part of the Church calendar. The calendar most of us actually observe is a secular calendar, as established by the civil government, a mixture of Christian holidays and state holidays. But the Church is perpetual; no State is. As Alexander Schmemann said, man is by nature liturgical. It is inevitable that we will mark times and seasons. The question is: will we mark them by Redemptive History, or by the false narrative of a Secular History? I think we are wise to prefer the former.

Why I Won't Go to a Seder

As I begin writing this, it is the night of Maundy Thursday. Traditionally on this day the church has remembered Jesus' upper room discourse and the establishing of the Eucharist. This has usually involved a standard corporate worship service in which the congregation has partaken of Communion. It has sometimes also included the practice of the washing of one another's feet, and/or the "stripping of the altar", which involves the removal of all celebratory items from the altar and the sanctuary.

It seems to have become more common in recent years, however, to observe the Passover Seder feast on or on a day near Maundy Thursday. I've known of individual families to do this in their homes, but I hear more and more of local congregations observing it together. The Seder is still a traditional Jewish practice. But I'm a bit baffled as to why Christian congregations would want to do it. I can't pinpoint the origin of observing the Seder in modern Christian churches exactly. It might have begun among Messianic Jewish congregations; I'm not certain. But the idea seems to have really taken off in Evangelical (that is, non-Reformed) churches. And now, I find some traditional liturgical churches are taking up the practice.

The logic seems to be thus: Christ celebrated the Passover feast with his disciples on the night in which he was betrayed, i. e. Maundy Thursday. It is reasonable then, it is thought, for us to celebrate it as well. Also, it supposedly brings us more in touch with our Jewish heritage.

The fact that it has been predominant among Evangelicals, though, suggests to me that a couple of other things are going on. For one thing, there is the obsession with all things Jewish that is common among Evangelicals, and which is fueled by a Dispensational misunderstanding of Scripture. In spite of the clear teaching of the New Testament that the Church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is now God's Chosen People, we hanker after Jewish practices with the jealousy of the second favorite child. ("Oh, to be loved as much as the Jews! Too bad the Church is Plan B." Thankfully, that isn't the case.) I also think the dearth of a deep liturgical practice and culture in the Evangelical church is to blame. In ancient cultures - Jewish or otherwise - there is a strong draw upon modern American Evangelicals who find a great lack of the nobility of age in their own culture and church life. The answer to this, of course, is the ancient Christian liturgy (we are Christians, after all) and not a Jewish - or non-Christian - liturgy.

Beyond this sort of socio-theological analysis, though, I would suggest that this is an inappropriate thing for a church to do. And the reason is simple - we aren't Jews. We live in the New Covenant, and the Seder is an Old Covenant practice. Just as it would be inappropriate to sacrifice bulls and goats to God as an offering in the manner of the Tabernacle system, so it is inappropriate to observe the Seder. At the Last Supper, our Lord replaced the Passover with the Eucharist. That is now our ritual meal. In it, we feed on His Body and Blood, as he has commanded us to. To go back to the Passover Seder is to return to the shadows of the Old Covenant, a thing which Scripture strongly condemns.

Now if a family wants to do a mock Seder as a sort of homeschool learning tool, I could see that as permissible. The original Seder was celebrated in individual homes anyway, so why there would be a trend to bring it into the church is a bit strange anyway. But it must be clear that it isn't a ritual meal for today. The Old has gone away; all things have been made New.

The Windows - George Herbert

THE WINDOWS.

LORD, how can man preach thy eternall word ?
He is a brittle crazie glasse :
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.

But when thou dost anneal in glasse thy storie,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy Preachers, then the light and glorie
More rev'rend grows, and more doth win ;
Which else shows watrish, bleak, and thin.

Doctrine and life, colours and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and aw : but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring.

"Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Poythress - a Review

This is probably the most even-handed critique of Dispensationalism available. There have been many books that have critiqued Dispensationalism's founding and history, as well as some of the more bizarre tenets of its chief teachers and adherents. And there is a place for that. Vern Poythress, however, takes a completely different approach. His goal, which he states very clearly, is one of dialogue, rather than immediate alienation.

Beginning with Darby and Scofield, and then moving on to more recent Dispensationalists, Poythress looks at some of the key hermeneutical distinctions that separate the system from Covenant theology. He then notes some recent developments in Covenant theology, and moves on to a critique of Dispensationalism.

Poythress raises alot of good issues, and the various lines of critique he offers are deserving of much consideration by Dispensationalists. He shows Dispensationalism’s failure to adequately deal with the New Testament’s interpretation of Old Testament-based typology. And his criticism of the lack of clarity and consistency in one of Dispensationalism’s main hermeneutical positions, that of the claim of a “literal” hermeneutic, is right on track. Poythress is an all-around brilliant guy, well-studied in linguistics as well as theology, which makes him particularly suited for this task.

And this brings us to a few minor problems I have with the book. Poythress is an Amillennialist, and not a Preterist. His exegesis is off in a couple of places because of this, but this is relatively tolerable. The real difficulties come with Poythress’s brilliance. Along with his knowledge of theology and linguistics, Poythress is a professor of science and mathematics. While he brings a technicality and detail to the discussion that is much needed because of this, the book is consequently very laborious reading in places. The sections particularly where he incorporates his linguistic knowledge would prove tough plowing for even most educated readers, if they have no understanding of linguistics themselves. Thankfully, this is not true of the entire book.

In summary, “Understanding Dispensationalists” offers a helpful critique of Dispensationalism, but is probably left to trained theologians and those laypeople who have a greater measure of theological knowledge. For the average layperson, I would recommend Keith Mathison’s “Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?” instead.

This Bread I Break - Dylan Thomas

This bread I break was once the oat,
This wine upon a foreign tree
Plunged in its fruit;
Man in the day or wind at night
Laid the crops low, broke the grape's joy.

Once in this wine the summer blood
Knocked in the flesh that decked the vine,
Once in this bread
The oat was merry in the wind;
Man broke the sun, pulled the wind down.

This flesh you break, this blood you let
Make desolation in the vein,
Were oat and grape
Born of the sensual root and sap;
My wine you drink, my bread you snap.

The sun worshipper

I sacrifice my body, nearly naked, to you,
O Helios, charioteer of the sky,
With three pieces of Lycra
Feigning to conceal my shame.
Anointed in coconut oil, with a libation of mimosa,
I lay before you on this altar of vinyl and aluminum
As you send down your fire to consume me.

Worthy are you, o bestower of brown skin,
Of this my offering and praise;
For you give much, and ask little in return.
You stand almost supreme in the pantheon;
You are next only to Captain Morgan and Jack Daniels.

But soon I must return to my dark cubicle
Where I will lament my difficult life
And complain of my bondage to other gods,
Imagining true freedom
And longing for an exodus
To other temples where I might drink away my pain,
Or to you, to recline in obeisance once again.

They say I am vain
But this is no surprise to you
For beneath you is nothing new
And there is no one above to see me
But You.

I Hear the Accuser Roar

Internet searches have turned up pieces of the hymn in various forms, but never exactly the way I learned it, nor as complete. So I thought I would post it for the benefit of others. The only tune I know for it is a contemporary one, though it is apparently an older hymn. The author was Samuel Grandy, about whom I know nothing.

***********************************

I Hear the Accuser Roar


I hear the accuser roar,
Of ills that I have done;
I know them well, and thousands more;
Jehovah findeth none.

Sin, Satan, Death, press near,
To harass and to appall;
Let but my risen Lord appear,
Backward they go and fall.

Before, behind, around,
They set their fierce array,
To fight and force me from my ground
Along Immanuel's way.

I meet them face to face,
Through Jesus' conquest blest;
March in the triumph of His grace,
Right onward to my rest.

There, in His book I bear
A more than conq'ror's name,
A soldier, son, and fellow-heir,
Who fought and overcame.

His be the Victor's name
Who fought our fight alone;
Triumphant saints no honor claim,
Their conquest was His own.

By weakness and defeat
He won the meed and crown
Trod all our foes beneath His feet,
By being trodden down.

He hell in hell laid low;
Made sin, he sin o'erthrew;
Bowed to the grave, destroyed it so,
And death, by dying, slew.

Bless, bless the Conq'ror slain!
Slain in His victory!
Who lived, who died, who lives again,
For thee, His Church, for Thee!

Marginalia by Billy Collins

Sometimes the notes are ferocious,
skirmishes against the author
raging along the borders of every page
in tiny black script.
If I could just get my hands on you,
Kierkegaard, or Conor Cruise O'Brien,
they seem to say,
I would bolt the door and beat some logic into your head.

Other comments are more offhand, dismissive -
"Nonsense." "Please!" "HA!!" -
that kind of thing.
I remember once looking up from my reading,
my thumb as a bookmark,
trying to imagine what the person must look like
who wrote "Don't be a ninny"
alongside a paragraph in The Life of Emily Dickinson.

Students are more modest
needing to leave only their splayed footprints
along the shore of the page.
One scrawls "Metaphor" next to a stanza of Eliot's.
Another notes the presence of "Irony"
fifty times outside the paragraphs of A Modest Proposal.

Or they are fans who cheer from the empty bleachers,
Hands cupped around their mouths.
"Absolutely," they shout
to Duns Scotus and James Baldwin.
"Yes." "Bull's-eye." "My man!"
Check marks, asterisks, and exclamation points
rain down along the sidelines.

And if you have managed to graduate from college
without ever having written "Man vs. Nature"
in a margin, perhaps now
is the time to take one step forward.

We have all seized the white perimeter as our own
and reached for a pen if only to show
we did not just laze in an armchair turning pages;
we pressed a thought into the wayside,
planted an impression along the verge.

Even Irish monks in their cold scriptoria
jotted along the borders of the Gospels
brief asides about the pains of copying,
a bird singing near their window,
or the sunlight that illuminated their page-
anonymous men catching a ride into the future
on a vessel more lasting than themselves.

And you have not read Joshua Reynolds,
they say, until you have read him
enwreathed with Blake's furious scribbling.

Yet the one I think of most often,
the one that dangles from me like a locket,
was written in the copy of Catcher in the Rye
I borrowed from the local library
one slow, hot summer.
I was just beginning high school then,
reading books on a davenport in my parents' living room,
and I cannot tell you
how vastly my loneliness was deepened,
how poignant and amplified the world before me seemed,
when I found on one page

a few greasy looking smears
and next to them, written in soft pencil -
by a beautiful girl, I could tell,
whom I would never meet -
"Pardon the egg salad stains, but I'm in love."

Buttprints in the Sand

From Greensboro's own Charlie and Ruth Jones, better known as Peculiar People - http://www.peculiarpeople.com/ - a spoof of the sentimentalistic and theologically dubious poem "Footprints in the Sand":

Buttprints in the Sand

One night I had a wondrous dream
One set of footprints there was seen
The footprints of my precious Lord
But mine were not along the shore.

But then some strange prints appeared
I asked the Lord, "What have we here?"
Those prints are large and round and neat
"But Lord, they are too big for feet."

"My child," He said in somber tones
"For miles I carried you along
I challenged you to walk in faith
But you refused and made me wait."

"You disobeyed, you would not grow
The walk of faith you would not know
So I got tired, I got fed up
And there I dropped you on your butt."

"Because in life there comes a time
When one must fight and one must climb
When one must rise and take a stand
Or leave their butt prints in the sand."

Greensboro, the Gospel, and the International Civil Rights Center

As those of you who live in the Greensboro area know, the International Civil Rights Center was to finally open this weekend, after a long time of planning, and following no small measure of controversy. My knowledge of what has been going on the past couple of years with regard to the Center has been limited. And I have made no attempts to follow the controversy, though, working with the public as I do, I can hardly avoid hearing a little bit about it. The opening of the Center was to be celebrated by a number of events, which were to be attended by a handful of African-American celebrities. I expect, however, that since Greensboro has been hit with a fairly heavy snow storm this weekend, not all the events have gone on as scheduled. It's rather strange for us to get this much snow, and disappointing for the event organizers, I don't doubt.

Greensboro was a fairly important player in the civil rights movement in the sixties. Those not familiar with the history can read about it here:

http://library.uncg.edu/dp/crg/

Growing up here as I did, I learned about the civil rights movement through history class in grade school. And living here most of my life since, I've also learned that not everyone was happy about it then, and many still aren't. It seems pretty clear that Greensboro is still an area of great racial tension. I follow Greensboro politics little (as I actually don't live in the city, but just outside), but enough to notice how this tension has manifested itself in the past few elections, as well as in the meetings of the city council.

The most familiar event, and most celebrated, of the civil rights movement, was the famous sit-ins at the Woolworth lunch counter in 1960. What is lesser known - entirely unknown to me, until a few years ago - is the street demonstrations of 1963. In some sense, it was actually the events of '63 that made it possible for African-Americans to begin to participate in all the aspects of society that White citizens had access to. Here is a good intro to those events:

http://library.uncg.edu/dp/crg/topicalessays/busdesegprotest.aspx

I first learned of the demonstrations of 1963 through a class on Southern History after the Civil War that I took at UNCG a few years back. We were required to do an oral presentation on one of a handful of topics relating to the civil rights movement in Greensboro, and I chose the events of '63 at random. This led to my finding my way into a largely neglected (but very nice, I might note) part of the UNCG library where microfilm of Greensboro's newspapers - formerly the Greensboro News (sold in the morning) and the Greensboro Record (sold in the afternoon) - were kept stored.

What was especially interesting for me as I searched through several days of newspaper was coming across something I didn't expect. I ran upon a response to the demonstrations, published around the beginning of June '63 in one of the Greensboro papers (I failed to make a note of which one, sadly), and written by a handful of local Christian men, who were more than likely all ministers. (I say more than likely because I am only familiar with two of the names - H. G. Mackay and Roy Putnam, both of whom were ministers in the area: Forest Avenue Tabernacle - now Shannon Hills Bible Chapel - and Trinity Church, respectively. Though I would assume that the other men were ministers as well, I can't say for sure.)

Their response took the form of a doctrinal statement, and is worth the reading, especially for those who are from or live in Greensboro. You will find it posted below. While I might differ with a minor point here or there, I would agree with it, and that almost wholeheartedly. It articulates something that desperately needs to be considered again in Greensboro today and which, I suspect, rarely is by those who regularly seek to take the reigns of power in Greensboro. You can fight for your rights and for the rights of others all you want. But if the Gospel is left out, your warring will be disastrous, for yourself as well as for others. The civil rights movement has usually been accompanied by a pseudo-Christian belief and church life that affirms a "Social Gospel", which is no Gospel at all. I'm in favor of honoring one's heritage, and the liberation that God has given the African-American community is something to praise Him for. But if the worship of Christ and the preaching of the True Gospel are to be replaced by the worship of one's own racial cause, then that is idolatry, something God doesn't take lightly. And ultimately, the Gospel entails the tearing down of racial divisions, not the establishing of them. Hopefully, the International Civil Rights Center won't just be another Tower of Babel. Considering Greensboro's recent history, I can't say I'm particularly encouraged that that will be the case.

**********************************************

A Statement of Evangelical Concern

We, the undersigned, as individual believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, desire, in view of the racial tensions now distressing our city and nation, to set forth the following statement of evangelical concern:


1. Our only recourse in this or any problem is to the God of the Bible and the Lord of History. Because He is the One with Whom we have to do, we "cease from man" and every human solution. We also bow to the truth that "God is no respecter of persons." He plays no racial favorites, but all men are accountable to Him, their Creator and Judge, on the basis of their common humanity. (Ps. 60:11, Jer. 3:23, Acts 10:34, Rom. 14:14.)

2. The humanity which men share, however, has been deeply dyed by sin with the result that they are estranged both from God and from each other. No longer do they view their fellows, as God does, without partiality. Rather do their sinful natures express themselves by an inborn pride which glories, among other things, in racial distinctions. (Rom. 3:23, Is. 59:2, Luke 18:11, John 4:9.)

3. We must acknowledge that the current unrest had its origin in the sin of our forefathers, North and South, who for their own selfish ends brought an unwilling people to these shores. Furthermore, we admit that we too bear a measure of blame, for we have been reluctant to face the spiritual implications of the gulf existing between the races.

4. Because we know our own hearts and because we believe God's Word, we can see no permanent solution arising out of man's efforts to right wrongs and conciliate grievances. Human attempts to bring the races together in Northern cities have only compounded the problem. There racial pride has been driven underground - by legislation, executive order and judicial decision - only to reappear in subtler forms and uglier guises. (Job 14:4, Matt. 12:43-45, John 15:5, II Cor. 3:5)

5. We submit that the only Scriptural hope for any lasting reconciliation between men is to be found, not in one race demanding justice from another race, but in individuals of both races humbling themselves as sinners and claiming the grace of God in Christ. In that act they will experience what Christ described as a Second Birth, with the changing of heart attitudes and the redirecting of personal motives. We do not claim that the new Birth will automatically resolve all tensions but that it alone opens up the possibility of a true solution. (John 3:3, II Cor. 5:17, Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11)

6. In support of this claim we point to the decisive results of the Great Evangelical Awakening which came to England two centuries ago. When that nation was poised on the precipice of a bloody social revolution, hundreds of thousands in all classes experienced the New Birth. As a direct consequence the whole atmosphere of English life was improved and the needed reforms peacefully introduced. Nor was it a coincidence that the Emancipation of the slaves, first in the British Empire and then in the United States, owed its inspiration to William Wilberforce, a product of the Awakening.

7. It is our deep conviction that the living God is speaking to Greensboro through its present troubles. He it is Who, more that any racial group, is shaking the foundations and calling the citizens of this city to repentence and saving faith in His eternal Son. Increasingly the message of a Savior slain and risen has been “despised and rejected” by both Negroes and Whites in favor of manmade programs of social betterment. Now, with these failing, God would summon us back to the redeeming Cross around which men of both races can stand together on level ground. (Acts 20:21: I Cor. 1:23,24; Eph. 2:13, 14.)

A. L. Parker
Roy C. Putnam
Frederick W. Evans, Jr.
H. G. Mackay
James A. Raines
R. Harold Mangham
Russ A. Heyne
Edwin L. Smithwick.

Four Approaches to Interpreting the Book of the Revelation

This is the last of the prepatory notes designed to precede our study of Revelation. My goal was to give short definitions of the four positions, and offer a brief critique of the three views I disagree with. Brevity was a chief goal here, as you will notice. Of all the sets of notes I've prepared recently, these cover the subject of which I'm the least knowledgeable, particularly with regard to Idealism and Historicism. I trust those of you who are more familiar with these positions will offer your thoughts if you feel I have misrepresented them.

**************************************

Four Views of Revelation

American satirist Ambrose Bierce accurately reflected the sentiments of many who have attempted to make sense of the last book of the Bible when, in his book The Devil's Dictionary, he defined "Revelation" as "a famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing." Such cynicism is understandable, in light of Revelation's complexity. And yet, if we are to take Paul's words seriously when he says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16), then to allow such cynicism to keep us away from a deep study of the book is inexcusable.

Acknowledging this, of course, doesn't make the task any easier. There have through the years been endless attempts to come to a conclusive, systematic understanding of the book. From these many attempts, however, have emerged four dominant approaches. A consideration of these before examining the book itself should prove helpful in our own study.


I.) Futurism

Futurism is the view that holds that the major portion of Revelation (from chapter 4 to the end of the book) has yet to be fulfilled in history, and will be fulfilled at the end of the current age. The seven year Tribulation, the coming of the Beast, the last battle, the Millennium, and other common themes of Bible prophecy, have yet to happen. This view is the majority view in the church today, as the majority of the church is Dispensational. Not all Futurists, however, are Dispensationalists.

Because of its wholly future nature, Futurism is subject to "newspaper exegesis". Each generation of Futurists, when encountering the evil of the world around them, has a tendency to come to the conclusion that they must be living in the "last days". The fruit of this is a proclivity to attempt to fit current events into prophetic passages, often resulting in bizarre and even humorous interpretations. Any political leader, for instance, who finds himself with an unusual amount of influence on world events is subject to the suspicion of being the Beast of Revelation 17. Yet while Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, and Ronald Reagan have all returned to dust, Futurism continues to try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, ignoring all its prior failures to predict the happenings of the end of days.


II.) Historicism

Historicism teaches that the central portion of Revelation is an unfolding of the course of history from the establishing of the Church until the Second Coming of Christ. Certain elements in Revelation are regarded as corresponding to specific historical events, such as the destruction of Rome, the rise of Islam, and the Protestant Reformation. A key aspect of the Historicist view is the belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and that the Papacy is the Beast. Historicism was the view held by the vast majority of Protestant theologians up until the 19th century. It is in our time probably the least commonly held of the four positions.

When it comes to the obstacles this position faces, Historicism suffers from much the same problem as Futurism. While one might comfortably align passages with historical events from earlier centuries, the struggle comes when one seeks to find one's own era in Revelation. The Reformers thought that the end of the Church age would be soon and, seeing themselves freed from "the Beast", thought that they would certainly be entering the Millennium very shortly. And yet, as its predictions have failed, Historicism has undergone repeated revision. This state of flux has no doubt been a contributing factor to the majority of interpreters abandoning this approach.


III.) Idealism

The Idealist approach (also known as the Spiritualist approach) sees Revelation as a series of allegories of the life of the Christian and the Church. Rather than attaching the events in the book to specific historical occurrences, Idealism views Revelation as containing images of the struggles every Christian goes through in life, or that individual churches will experience in history. These are to be taken as a source of encouragement. Idealism is a common view in our time, particularly among Amillennialists.

While it is proper to look to Revelation for examples of how to conduct oneself in the world, to reduce it in all its complexity to mere moral lessons seems to dishonor the text. Would God really give us such details, only to have them correspond to nothing in particular? For God to everywhere in Scripture be concerned about place, matter, and history, to then give us a book that has no link to these things, seems to me to be incongruent with His character as Scripture reveals it to us.


IV.) Preterism

Preterism teaches that the majority of the Revelation was fulfilled in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A. D. Building off of and fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, Revelation shows God bringing destruction upon Israel and specifically Jerusalem for her repeated failure to trust and obey Him, which culminated in her rejection of her Messiah. While it is still a minority view, Preterism has become more common in recent years.

There have been attempts at combining the above views in various ways. Most common is the attempt to combine elements of Preterism with Idealism, such as is done by Hank Hanegraaff. Nonetheless, these four are the major views taught in the church today.

Dispensationalism Notes

The following is my brief examination of Dispensationalism that we went over in our Bible study group a couple of months ago. I got mixed reviews on it, and that's why I didn't initially put it on here. But after some thought, I decided to post it anyway. Let me note a couple of things as a preface to it.

First, it isn't the best writing I've ever done. So if you're thinking that as you read it, be comforted that I think that as well. Secondly, one can hardly leave their house nowadays without stepping on a Dispensationalist. Though the system is becoming more and more discredited by actual scholars, the average layman still believes Dispensationalism to some extent, though he may not be able to identify it as such. Consequently, any number of Dispensationalists may read this and say, "that isn't my position." But the goal here is mainly to represent Classic Dispensationalism, as taught by people such as Lewis Sperry Chafer and C. I. Scofield, not the hybrid systems that most individuals hold to today. The reader may think what I have written is overly harsh, or a misrepresentation of the system. But what I have presented here is accurate, I would contend, and I have been much gentler than one finds in critics such as John Gerstner, Cornelis van der Waal, Lorraine Boettner, Hank Hanegraaff, Reginald Kimbro, or Michael Williams. It is true that I have brought up some radical issues at times. But whereas I did not provide references to substantiate my claims, anyone wishing to track them down may consult the aforementioned authors.

*********************************************

In the life of the Church there have been various approaches to understanding God's way of working in the world through time. An exhaustive study of this would be impossible, even after a lifetime of research. Nonetheless, certain approaches have been more generally accepted, and therefore an examination of them is not only profitable but necessary.

Two views on God's overarching plan for the universe stand out in particular: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.


I. Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism originated around 1830 in the British Isles. While elements of the system emerged from various teachers of the Plymouth Brethren movement, its main systematizer was John Nelson Darby. In the United States, Dispensationalism was disseminated largely through the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible. Eventually the system became the predominant approach to interpreting the Scriptures among Christians in the United States.

Dispensationalism teaches that God's working in the world is carried out in a series of dispensations or stewardships. At the initiation of each dispensation, God comes to man and gives man a fresh revelation of Himself. Man is then faced with new obligations before God, through which God tests the faithfulness of man. So long as man is obedient, the dispensation continues and man is blessed. But in each dispensation, it is said, man inevitably fails, bringing God's judgment upon himself.

There is disagreement among Dispensationalists on how many dispensations there will be. But the majority, drawing off of the writings of C. I. Scofield, hold that there will be a total of seven dispensations:

1.) Innocence - from Creation to the Fall
2.) Conscience - from the Fall to the Flood
3.) Human Government - from the Flood to Babel
4.) Promise - from Abraham to Egypt
5.) Law - from Moses to Christ's 1st Advent
6.) Grace - from Christ's 1st Advent to His 2nd Advent
7.) Millennium - from Christ's 2nd Advent to the Final Judgment

But while an ordering of history by a scheme of dispensations is a key feature of Dispensationalism, it is not the most important feature. The most important feature of Dispensationalism is the distinction it makes between Israel and the Church. Israel and the Church are considered to be as unmixable as oil and water. The distinctions that Dispensationalists make between the two groups are numerous. Chiefly, Israel is regarded as a physical and earthly people, whereas the Church is regarded as a spiritual and heavenly people. All other distinctions between the two arise from these.

Dispensationalists claim that God's primary concern in the history of the world is Israel. And so when Christ first came to earth, His purpose was to set up His kingdom in the earthly Jerusalem, as promised by God through the prophets. And yet Israel crucified him, having rejected His offer to rule over them.

Having risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, Jesus Christ now sits as a rejected Messiah. The kingdom is postponed until His second coming, at which time He will set up His reign in Jerusalem as He sought to do in His first coming.

So what, according to Dispensationalists, is the time we are living in now? This is the Dispensation of Grace, also known as the Church Age. Since Israel has rejected His legitimate offer, Christ has set Israel aside and has inaugurated the Church. The Church is not God's primary concern; Israel is. And so some Dispensationalists have gone so far as to refer to the Church as "God's Plan B". The Church Age is regularly considered and referred to by Dispensationalists as a "parenthesis" in God's prophetic scheme.

The Church, we are told, is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. They say that the Church was entirely hidden and unknown prior to its being revealed by Christ during His earthly ministry. And so all the prophecies in the Old Testament apply only to the nation of Israel and her interaction with the Gentile nations considered apart from the Church.

Since there are, in the Dispensational scheme, O.T. prophecies yet to be fulfilled, and the Church is not in them, and since God can only deal with one "people" at a time, then the Church must be taken out of the world before God can begin His work with Israel again. Hence, Dispensationalists propose that the Rapture occurs prior to the Tribulation.

In the Tribulation, Israel, God's first love, will return fully to the land of Israel and be restored as a nation. During that time, the Antichrist will arise and rule the world, until Christ returns and destroys the Antichrist and all those who aligned themselves with him.

One of the features of this idea of the reconstituted Israel that has come under critique by non-Dispensationalists has been the belief that Solomon's Temple will be rebuilt, in which the O.T. sacrificial system will be reinstated. The sacrifices will not only exist during the Tribulation, but will continue throughout the Millennium. This is believed, in spite of the fact that the Messiah, whom the sacrifices were originally instituted to point forward to, will Himself be seated on David's throne in Jerusalem. This is also criticized by non-Dispensationalists because of the Book of Hebrews' teaching that in His death Christ fulfilled all the types of the O.T. sacrifices through his once-for-all sacrifice, and actually propitiated sins, which Hebrews tells us the O.T. sacrifices could never do.

At the end of the Tribulation, Christ will return with the Church, will destroy His enemies, and will set up His Kingdom in Jerusalem, from where He will rule the earth for a thousand years. This is the Millennium, the seventh dispensation. In the Dispensational scheme, this means that believers who were raptured and therefore already have their resurrected, perfected bodies will dwell on earth and live forever, while those saved during the Tribulation will die and be buried. Non-dispensationalist theologians, of course, have noted the strange nature of this arrangement fairly regularly in their critiques. It would also seem contrary to the Israel-Church distinction to have the Church return with Christ and dwell on the earth with Israel, when the Church is considered a non-earthly people. Some have proposed, however, that after the Millennium, when God creates a New Heavens and a New Earth, Israel will inhabit the new Earth for eternity, whereas the Church will inhabit the new Heavens for eternity. And so the two groups will remain forever separate.

Classical Dispensationalism differs from historic orthodox Christianity on so many points that Dispensationalists have found themselves having to defend their doctrines fairly regularly since their system emerged in the 19th century. Here are a few more controversial ideas found in Dispensationalism.

1.) Classical Dispensationalism sees the world as ruled by Satan. They define the world as the works of man apart from God, which to them includes practically all aspects of culture. Sometimes, however, Dispensational theologians have slipped into condemning the material universe altogether, thus falling into the ancient heresy of Dualism, which states that all matter is evil. In condemning all culture, the result among consistent Dispensationalists has been to withdraw from society to a large extent, which in turn has led to the creation of the Christian subculture.

2.) Classical Dispensationalism sees man as made up of three parts: soul, spirit, and body. Historic Christianity regards man as composed of two parts: spirit and body. The latter view is called Dichotomy. The former view is called Trichotomy, and was condemned in the theology of Apollinaris by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

3.) Classical Dispensationalism has often been confusing in many ways when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. Historic orthodox Christianity teaches that man does not achieve favor before God (that is, salvation) by good works. And yet, good works accompany salvation in such a way that no person who is without good works will be saved. In other words, good works are the natural and necessary result of salvation, not the cause of it. Dispensationalism takes these distinctions and reverses them.

On the one hand, Dispensationalism makes a strong distinction between a Christian's position in Christ and his practice before Christ. A person may be saved, they say, and his position in Christ is therefore secure. And yet that person in practice may be living in total rebellion against God. This also shows up in the distinction between the "spiritual" Christian and the "carnal" Christian. A "spiritual" Christian is one who is saved and living according to God's word; a "carnal" Christian is one who is saved but is living contrary to God's word.

On the other hand, some Dispensationalists have fallen into teaching that the people of God have been saved in different ways in different dispensations. In particular, certain statements made by C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, suggested the belief that, whereas people in the Church Age are saved by grace, those who lived in the Age of Law were saved by good works. Later Dispensationalists have denied that their system teaches different ways of salvation, and have sought to prove that this is not what Scofield and Chafer believed. Nonetheless, no small measure of confusion on this exists in their writings.


Dispensationalism has gradually changed since its inception, as its adherents, through dialogue with non-dispensationalists, have sought to correct its more egregious errors to bring it more in line with historic Christianity. This is most notable in the school of thought known as Progressive Dispensationalism. Progressives view the dispensations as progressively building one on another (hence the name) through time, in contrast with the Classical Dispensational view, which sees each new dispensation as an entirely new era of God's dealing with man. Progressives believe, along with Covenantal theologians, that Christ is now seated on David's throne in heaven, though they believe in a future Millennium. They also see the Church and Israel in a more united fashion, though they maintain that certain promises made to Israel remain Israel's alone.

While Progressive Dispensationalism has gradually grown through the past twenty years of its existence, it has yet to make many inroads into local churches, its impact being felt moreso at this point at the seminary level. The vast majority of Evangelical churches still hold to Classical Dispensationalism as I have outlined it here, though they may not hold to every detail. And while the differences between Classical and Progressive Dispensationalism are so great that many consider Progressives to not even be Dispensationalists, they still maintain enough of traditional Dispensationalism that they cannot be considered Covenantal.

The Millennium

The following is a continuation of our study of eschatology. I wrote it about a month ago, and we finally read and discussed it tonight. Having re-read it now, I think it was moderately well done. The goal in presenting this to the group was not an extensive discussion of millennial views, so much as it was a cursory overview, sufficient to prepare everyone for a detailed Bible study on Revelation. It gets a little sarcastic at times. And rather than making fun of Dispensationalism, as is my custom, I decided this time to pick on Amillennialists a little bit. Feel free to post your comments.

*************************************

The Millennium


One of the unique aspects of this moment in Church history is the amount of detailed attention given to eschatology, also known as the study of last things. While there have always been plenty of theories on the end of the world, both in Christian and pagan cultures, never before have there been positions so neatly defined and distinguished such as we have now, particularly in Christian theology. Whether or not the theologians have successfully gotten at Scripture's teaching on the end times is, as is the case with most everything, still a matter of debate. For now, we have a handful of choices to make in navigating the eschatological waters, and only history will tell which theologians are the closest to the truth.

It is a testimony to the strangeness of the Christian Church that in categorizing various views on the end times, we would begin by going to the most complicated and highly symbolic book in Scripture, choose one number out of the many in the text, translate the word for it into a dead language, and make it the hinge on which everything else turns. And yet this is, in fact, the current state of affairs in the study of Biblical prophecy. Inquire of anyone who is moderately theologically cognizant as to what their view of the end times is, and they will more than likely respond that they are either Premillennial, Amillennial, or Postmillennial. Derived from Revelation 20:1-7, the word "millennium" is the Latin Vulgate translation of the Greek word "chilia", both of which mean "one thousand". No other passage anywhere in Scripture, outside of these few verses in Rev. 20, speaks of Christ reigning for a thousand years. And so some theologians have reasonably asked whether it is wise to make so much of such a unique passage. Whatever the answer to this may be, the state of affairs in eschatology is such that naming one's millennial view is the starting place for interpreting the rest of Biblical prophecy.

We have already named the three basic millennial positions above. For each, however, there are two common variations, bringing the total to six. We will survey each in turn, taking note of some similarities and contrasts along the way.


I. Premillennialism

Premillennialism in its simplest form is the view that Christ's Second Coming is to occur prior to the establishing of His Kingdom upon the earth. And yet more is included in the idea of Premillennialism than this, as we will see. There are essentially two forms of Premillennialism: Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism.

A. Historic Premillennialism

Historic Premillennialism is called such because it is a view attributed to certain of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. Because of this, Historic Premillennialists have often stated that their view is the single view of the early church. And yet much evidence has surfaced over the past few years to suggest that there was a greater measure of diversity among the early theologians on eschatology, and that the more prominent view among them might have been more along the lines of Postmillennialism or Amillennialism. Nonetheless, the name remains.

The basic outline of Historic Premillennialism is as follows:

- Christ is now reigning in Heaven, and yet the full establishment of His reign as David’s heir will not occur until His Second Coming.

- The current age in which we live will be one predominantly characterized by defeat, as the Church’s attempts to spread the Gospel and influence the world for good will be overwhelmingly thwarted by Satan’s work.

- As the Second Coming approaches, the world will grow more and more wicked. The Great Tribulation will begin at the end of the age, and the Antichrist will arise to dominate the world.

- Christ will return at the end of the Tribulation, defeat all His enemies, bind Satan and throw him into the Lake of Fire, and set up His throne in Jerusalem. His reign, most say, will be for a literal one thousand years. This will be a period of worldwide peace and prosperity.

- At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be released, and he will lead a revolt against Christ. God will send fire from heaven, which will consume all the enemies of Christ.

- God will then make a new heavens and a new earth, and the eternal state will begin.

B. Dispensational Premillennialism

Dispensational Premillennialism agrees largely with Historic Premillennialism, only allowing for Dispensationalism’s unique views on the Church and Israel. Whereas Historic Premillennialism holds that there is one people of God through the history of the world, Dispensationalism teaches that there are two peoples of God. And so Dispensationalism generally teaches that the Church will be raptured prior to the Tribulation, while Historic Premillennialism teaches that all those living at the end of the age will go through the Tribulation, including the Church.


II. Amillennialism

The term “amillennial” literally means “no thousand”, and whether or not Amillennialists believe that there is no thousand year reign of Christ depends on which one of them you ask. Some Amillennialists claim that the reign of Christ in Revelation 20 refers strictly to the reign of Christ in the hearts of the elect through Church history. Some say that it is the reign of Christ with the departed believers in Heaven. And some say that it is His reign in His Church on earth. Generally speaking, Amillennialists agree that the thousand years is a symbolic number, referring to the period of time between the first and second comings of Christ. And yet it is not uncommon to hear Amillennialists, seeking to distance themselves from both Premillennialism and Postmillennialism, say, “there is no one thousand year reign of Christ”.

There are two forms of Amillennialism. One we will call Pessimistic Amillennialism, and the other Optimistic Amillennialism.

A. Pessimistic Amillennialism

Pessimistic Amillennialism in its basic form looks like this:

- When Christ ascended to Heaven forty days after His resurrection, He took the throne of David in Heaven, where He reigns until His second coming.

- During the period in between the two comings, the righteous and the unrighteous will both dwell together in the world, neither having particularly greater sway over society than the other. The Church’s efforts in spreading the Gospel will have mediocre success, despite the fact that Satan is bound during this period.

- Toward the end of the Millennium, evil will grow worse and worse, culminating in a great tribulation

- Christ will return, destroy His enemies, and a new heaven and a new earth will be created.

B. Optimistic Amillennialism

Optimistic Amillennialism is a very new term in eschatology. As of yet, there have been no lengthy systematic works written to defend it, and so laying out the position in any detail is currently impossible. It largely follows the pattern of Pessimistic Amillennialism, except it expects greater success for the Church in the spreading of the Gospel between the two Advents. The degree to which it expects the world to get better depends on which theologian is addressing the question. And yet one thing is for certain for all Amillennialists - there will be no “Christianization” of the world as is taught by Postmillennialism.


III. Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is the view that leading up to the Second Coming there will be a gradual overall betterment of the world. The Gospel will be met with success as it is preached throughout the world, so much so, in fact, that when history has come to an end, the majority of people who have lived will be saved. Consequently, blessings will abound to every part of life. Peace will increase; there will be great strides in technology, the arts, politics, and every other sphere of society. These things will come slowly, however, as yeast works its way through a lump of dough. During the Millennium, Christ is reigning on the earth through His saints, who exercise His reign in their respective callings. When Christ returns, He will return after the Millennium to a world that is mostly Christianized, though not every person will be saved.

There are two basic Postmillennial views. We will call them Puritan Postmillennialism and Modern Postmillennialism.

A. Puritan Postmillennialism

I have named this view “Puritan Postmillennialism” because it is the view that was held by the vast majority of Puritans, not to mention the majority of the Protestant Church, until the 19th century. For the Puritans, the Millennium was not the entire period between Christ’s two comings. Instead, the Millennium referred to a golden age that would come toward the end of the New Covenant period. Some believed that this would be a literal one thousand years, while others did not.

B. Modern Postmillennialism

This is a variation of Postmillennialism which emerged in the 20th century, and that, like Amillennialism, saw the entire period between the first and second comings of Christ as the Millennium. Yet, unlike Amillennialism, Modern Postmillennialism holds to a more positive outcome to the influence of the Gospel in the world.


One of the problems in Eschatology that is often discussed is the question of terminology. The term “amillennial”, for instance, is a very new term, having been coined in the late 19th century. Prior to that, what we call “Amillennialism” was just a variety of Postmillennialism. Both, after all, hold the view that Christ will return after the period delineated by the “one thousand years” in Revelation 20. For this reason, some Amillennialists are quick to note their dissatisfaction with the term used to identify their view.

While these are the most common views of the end times, there are endless variations on these, due to the complexity of the subject matter. For instance, some Amillenialists believe in a future personal Antichrist, while others do not. Also, most Premillennialists believe the Millennium is exactly one thousand years long; but it’s perfectly possible to be a Premillennialist and take that number to be symbolic of an undisclosed period of time. As we continue our study, we will find the possibility of even more variations, many of which concern the Book of the Revelation itself.

A poem by John Donne, for the leaving of the old year and the coming of the new

A HYMN TO GOD THE FATHER.
by John Donne


I.
WILT Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

II.
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

III.
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore ;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore ;
And having done that, Thou hast done ;
I fear no more.

Plague Victims Catapulted Over Walls Into Besieged City - by Thomas Lux

Early germ
warfare. The dead
hurled this way look like wheels
in the sky. Look: there goes
Larry the Shoemaker, barefoot, over the wall,
and Mary Sausage Stuffer, see how she flies,
and the Hatter twins, both at once, soar
over the parapet, little Tommy's elbow bent
as if in a salute,
and his sister, Mathilde, she follows him,
arms outstretched, through the air,
just as she did
on earth.

C. S. Lewis on Theology and Devotional Literature

Now the layman or amateur needs to be instructed as well as to be exhorted. In this age his need for knowledge is particularly pressing. Nor would I admit any sharp division between the two kinds of book. For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens" when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.

-- C. S. Lewis, from his introduction to "On the Incarnation of the Word of God" ("De Incarnatione Verbi Dei") by St. Athanasius

And Politicians, and Televangelists, and That Snake Lucifer...

"Consul," remarked the detective, dogmatically, "great robbers always resemble honest folks. Fellows who have rascally faces have only one course to take, and that is to remain honest; otherwise they would be arrested off-hand. The artistic thing is, to unmask honest countenances; it's no light task, I admit, but a real art."

--Around the World in Eighty Days, Chapter 6, Jules Verne

The Idolatry of Rationalism

The Manicheans did no idols make
Without themselves, nor worship gods of wood,
Yet idols did in their Ideas take,
And figured Christ as on the cross he stood.
Thus did they when they earnestly did pray
Till clearer Faith this idol took away.

We seem more inwardly to know the Son
And see our own salvation in his blood
When this is said, we think the work is done
And with the Father hold our portion good,
As if true life within these words were laid
For him that in life never words obeyed.

If this be safe, it is a pleasant way,
The Cross of Christ is very easily borne;
But six days' labour makes the sabbath day,
The flesh is dead before grace can be born,
The heart must first bear witness with the book,
The earth must burn, ere we for Christ can look.

--Sonnet 89, from Caelica, by Lord Brooke Fulke Greville (1554-1628)

Covenant Theology Notes

In a Bible study I attend, we've been doing a brief overview of the two major Evangelical approaches to interpreting Scripture, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. I drew up a short overview of both approaches, and below is my overview of Covenant Theology. I also drew up notes on Dispensationalism, but they didn't turn out as well as I would have liked, and the general response I got was that they weren't as clear as they could have been, so I don't intend to post them. Our next foray into theology will be a survey of major Millennial positions, and then a survey of the four major approaches to interpreting the Book of the Revelation. I intend, Lord willing, post each of these in time. All of this is in preparation for a lengthy study of the Book of the Revelation.

The more theologically astute will note that I left out many key issues in Reformed theology, such as church government, the sacraments, family life, and worship. The reason for this surrounds the purpose of my notes. The goal was to give an overview of Covenant Theology as a hermeneutical system, and to show how it places the Gospel in the center, as opposed to Dispensationalism, which places eschatology and God's dealing with Israel at the center. My goal also was to show the unity of God's people in Christ through the Gospel, also in contrast to Dispensationalism. In these things I believe I succeeded.

************************************

II. Covenant Theology (or Reformed Theology)

Because of their prominence in Scripture, covenants have been a matter of discussion by theologians throughout church history. But it was the late medieval theologians who, through a more careful consideration of the covenants, laid the groundwork for the systematization of Covenant Theology under the Reformers.

While the structuring of history by covenants is a foundational matter, a more basic issue exists for Covenant Theologians. That issue is the Sovereignty of God.

What is proposed by the Sovereignty of God is the belief that all things that take place do so strictly by the will of God. Before the creation of the universe, God foreordained all that would come to pass in history. All event were decreed by God, and happen infallibly as He decreed. Included in this is the belief that God determined in advance who would or would not be saved. God has predestined certain men and women, His elect, to salvation, leaving others to perish in their sins. This predestination is not determined by the acts of men and women, but by the will of God alone (Unconditional Election).

God's foreordaining of all things in no way makes God the author of sin. Nor does it mean that the choices that people make aren't real choices. And so Covenant Theologians recognize a mystery here. God's reasons for these things He alone knows, though we can rest assured that He has done this for His own glory, as he does in all things.

Having foreordained all things, God oversees all events in history, personally directing all things that come to pass. This is known as the doctrine of Providence.

Covenant Theologians are fairly consistent on the number of covenants they believe to be taught in Scripture, holding that God established two basic covenants with mankind: the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created them perfect and having positive righteousness. God gave them the responsibilities of tending the garden, ruling over the earth, and bearing children. Amid these responsibilities, God gave them one specific negative command - to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While this command was a requirement of both Adam and Eve, God gave the command specifically to Adam. As the Federal or Covenantal Head of mankind, Adam was the representative of all humanity, and the state of mankind's relationship with God depended upon Adam's obedience to this one command. And so when Adam disobeyed and ate of the fruit of the tree, he not only fell into sin himself, but brought mankind into a state of corruption and guilt before God and plunged all of creation into sin. The will of man was bound to sin, and man in himself was unable any longer to choose good (Total Depravity).

Upon the fall of Adam, God made a new covenant with mankind, called the Covenant of Grace. In the Covenant of Grace, God promises salvation to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ, who is the Second Adam, the Federal Head of the Covenant of Grace. Prior to the coming of Christ, the salvation He would provide was foretold and administered through Scripture, as well as the types and shadows provided in history and in the law. This period before Christ's first advent was known as the Old Covenant. After Christ's coming, this salvation has been provided through Scripture, and through the worship and discipline of the Church. This period, which we now live in, is called the New Covenant. And yet there is a union to God's people in both Covenants. There is no fundamental Israel-Church distinction as in Dispensationalism. Since all who trust in Christ are in union with Him, we are in union with one another, and to divide them is to attempt to divide Christ.

Covenant theologians recognize the other covenants in Scripture such as the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Davidic. These covenants, however, are viewed as administrations of the one covenant referred to in Scripture as the Old Covenant.

When Christ came to live and die in our place, the salvation He provided was sufficient in every way. Christ fulfilled the Law through His life, so keeping the requirements of the Covenant of Works which Adam failed to keep, and made full atonement for sins in His death. For this reason, Covenant Theologians hold the view that Christ's death was not for all people who would ever live, but for the elect alone. This view is most commonly called Limited Atonement, though some prefer the term Definite Atonement.

In time and according to God's purpose for each elect individual, God would draw that individual irresistibly to Himself (Irresistible Grace). Having been saved, that elect individual will necessarily persevere in faithfulness to God until the end of his or her life (Perseverance of the Saints). This does not mean, however, that elect individuals can never fall into serious sin, or go through a period of rebellion against God. Yet none whom God has chosen can fully and finally fall away from Him, but God sustains them in salvation, and the general tenor of that individual's life will be one of obedience to God. In Covenant Theology, there is no "Carnal Christian - Spiritual Christian" distinction. All Christians are Spiritual, and anyone who is Carnal is an unbeliever.

Covenant theologians are in agreement on certain issues regarding the end times: Christ will return, a single resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous will occur, His saints will meet Him in the air, He will destroy His enemies, there will be one final judgment, He will create a New Heavens and a New Earth, and His saints will dwell with Him forever. But beyond that, Covenant Theology allows for a broad selection of views on the end times and the interpretation of prophecy. Though there is a basic union between all people who are in Christ, some Reformed theologians have held that one feature of the end times will be that God will reestablish Israel in the land He originally gave her. It is considered out of the bounds of accepted belief, however, to believe in a reinstitution of the Temple sacrifices during the Millennium. It is also considered out of bounds to believe that Christ is not yet reigning on David's throne. No matter what one's view is on other events of the end times, all Reformed people hold that Christ took His seat as the Davidic king in His ascension, and so now reigns in Heaven.

The Wisdom of A. W. Tozer, Part 1

I've been thinking a fair bit recently about the twentieth century Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor A. W. Tozer (1897-1963). Various terms have been applied to him, such as "prophet" and "mystic", in an attempt to characterize just what a uniquely great man he was. But whatever one may call him, he was a godly man, a great Bible teacher, and especially insightful in his consideration of the interaction of the Church with secular culture. Because of his unique contributions, I thought I would start a series of quotes from Tozer, posted every now and again as I run across them. There is a great need for the Church today to interact with the wisdom of other generations, those who are not trapped in the same way of thinking that we are. A. W. Tozer, I believe, is a good one to look to.

The first quote is one of my favorites, and comes from the book Man: The Dwelling Place of God.

******************************

It hardly need be said that most of us are not selective enough in our reading. I have often wondered how many square yards of newsprint pass in front of the eyes of the average civilized man in the course of a year. Surely it must run into several acres; and I am afraid our average reader does not realize a very large crop of his acreage. The best advice I have heard on this topic was given by a Methodist minister. He said, "Always read your newspaper standing up." Henry David Thoreau also had a low view of the daily press. Just before leaving the city for his now-celebrated sojourn on the banks of Walden Pond, a friend asked him if he would like to have a newspaper delivered to his cottage. "No," replied Thoreau, "I have already seen a newspaper."

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

Once there was a fellow who, sentenced to life without parole, found himself in the top bunk of a cell on his first night in prison. The prison was quiet until, after a while, a prisoner in a nearby cell yelled out, "34!" The whole prison erupted in laughter. After a few more minutes of silence, another prisoner called out, "56!" Again laughter broke out. A little bit later, a third prisoner yelled out, "22!" Once more, the prison echoed with laughter.

Finally, curiosity got the better of the new inmate. "What's the deal with the numbers?" he asked his cellmate. "Oh," said the cellmate, "we only know a few jokes, so we've given each joke a number. So rather than saying the whole joke, we just call out the number, and everyone knows what the joke is."

The new prisoner said to himself, "I think I'll give it a try." So he called out, "47!"

Nobody laughed.

On the bottom bunk, his cellmate mumbled to himself. "Some people just don't know how to tell a joke."

I'm around...

...I've just been too busy to blog. Working, studying Hebrew locally at Westover Church, a group book study on Calvin's Institutes, and Bible study on the basics of Eschatology, soon to move into a study of the Book of the Revelation. Hopefully I'll return to some substantial posting soon. Meanwhile, visits to the page here have been up, so thanks to all of you. Keep coming back - I'll get back into the swing of things before long.

The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry: A Movie Review

I was off work today, so I decided to run by the movie theater and check out the latest Evangelical movie making the rounds, the title of which is The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry. Since it's fresh on my mind, let me offer a few thoughts on it.

Set in small town America in 1970, the movie is based on a true story, and revolves around a young boy named Dustin, his two best friends, and an elderly man named Jonathan Sperry. Sperry takes it upon himself to strike up a friendship with Dustin and his two friends, and starts a Bible study with them, inspiring the boys to give the Gospel to others, which leads to more boys joining the Bible study. Much of the film surrounds Dustin's fascination with a young girl and his desire to date her. Then there is the town bully, who Sperry himself leads to Christ. Lastly, there is a crotchety old neighbor, whose role in the tale remains largely mysterious until the last few minutes of the film. For any who are planning on seeing the film, I will leave the rest of the plot for you to discover for yourself. Having said that, let me recommend that you don't go see this film.

In short, this is the worst film I have seen in a very long time. "Harsh words," you might say. An understandable response. I have heard from others who thought this was a fantastic film, which inspired me to go see it. I hate to question their taste, but I'm afraid it's unavoidable. My intention is neither to offend nor to stand in the way of something that might be used for the good of the kingdom of God. I just think it's time that Evangelical Christians stop supporting bad art made in the name of Christ.

And this film is bad art, if anything. Granted, there are redeeming qualities here. For one thing, the Gospel is present in the movie. One can hardly complain there. And the moral lessons of Scripture that are given are, of course, wonderful. But just as the some of the best of Evangelicalism is on display here, so is some of the worst.

First of all, the script is terrible. The dialogue was so bad it hurt (I mean that quite literally - it was painful to listen to). A disproportionate part of the film is spent listening to the three boys prattle on about Dustin's love interest, a young girl who was a classmate and who worked at a local diner that about half the film was shot in. And prattling it was. Certainly, we're talking about young boys here. And anyone can sound pretty annoying when fascination over the opposite sex kicks in. But this was incomparable. First they are in the diner, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then they are walking across a bridge, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then Dustin is calling his friends on the phone and whining over the girl. Then back to the diner... sheer misery. A couple of brief scenes would have been enough to get the point across. But the moping going on was beyond anything resembling masculinity, even young, immature masculinity. The movie may have been clean, but if I was the father of a boy, the last thing I would want to do would be to expose him to such garbage.

Almost all of the dialogue of the film was of this nature. Even the lessons which Sperry taught to the boys, lessons based in Scripture, were told in such a mundane fashion that they hardly resembled the depth one finds in Scripture itself. Was this a reflection of how the actual Jonathan Sperry spoke to the boys? I have no clue, of course. But I highly doubt that the boys (now adult men) who actually learned from Sperry remember his lessons word for word, leaving hope that the real Jonathan Sperry was a far more interesting teacher. He was evidently a man of great character; that doesn't say anything about his teaching, however. All in all, the basic outline of the story had great potential. But the script itself was nowhere near to doing justice to the ideas behind it.

Then there was the acting. The film featured two seasoned actors in Gavin MacLeod and Robert Guillaume. I didn't even recognize MacLeod, and only discovered it was him in watching the credits. I remember watching him on "The Love Boat" as a child, and he fit his role there. But any other time I remember seeing him act I found him less than interesting, and there was no exception here. Robert Guillaume was his typical splendid self, and was the only bright spot acting-wise in the film. And yet even he seemed hindered by the terrible script, though this was probably helped along by some bad directing as well.

The rest of the cast was fairly painful to watch. One can only expect so much from child actors, I suppose. But while watching them was torture itself, the other actors faired little better. The best word I can come up with is "wooden", though even that is insufficient. Words can't really express how bad both the body language and line delivery were.

There was throughout the film a prevailing sense of sentimentalism, something which is common whenever Evangelicals attempt to make art. It is interesting that Evangelicals as a whole tend to carry with them the feeling that ever since the 1960's, the pagans have taken over the culture, and morality has gone down the tubes. And in a minor sense, I suppose that's true. But a more accurate account of it recognizes that Evangelicals actually retreated from society, a retreat that started long before the '60's. And as nature abhors a vacuum, the pagans simply rushed in to fill in the void. This can be attributed to a number of things, though a large measure of blame, I would say, lies at the feet of Dispensationalism and its self-fulfilling prophecies of the downturn of society. So while it is a fact that small town America was a more moral place in 1970, it wasn't idyllic. Children go astray because their parents go astray. The rebellion of the sixties took place because Christianity had come to be defined as external conformity to certain behaviors deemed "Christian", and the Gospel had been replaced by the fear of man. So those who would return to mid-twentieth century America would simply be setting us up for another cultural revolution as ungodly and tumultuous as the one we have been through in the past thirty years. Not something to be desired, I dare say.

Then there is the whole purpose of the film. As is customary in Evangelical art, it was clear that the goal that the film makers had in mind was not to make good art, but rather to use the film merely as a vehicle through which to spread the Gospel. Once again, one can hardly criticize the desire to see people saved. But as inevitably happens whenever Evangelicals take such a route, the art suffers at the expense of sharing the Gospel. Part of this is due to the unbiblical and hokey way we tend to express the Gospel in the Evangelical church. As much as my Evangelical friends react against this, the Gospel is not "asking Jesus into your heart". It also is not "having a personal relationship with Jesus". These are sentimentalistic attempts at expressing the Gospel, and one will search in vain to find anything resembling these phrases in Scripture. According to Scripture, the Gospel is repenting of one's sins and trusting in Christ for salvation. There are other ways this is expressed, but none of them come even close to the above two phrases. Does this mean that I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus? Of course I do. But the phrase reflects a romantic and sentimentalistic approach that comes not out of Scripture, but out of Western culture, and as such is at odds with Scripture. Why we get so hung up on these Evangelical catch phrases and choose them over Scripture's way of speaking is bizarre to me. It suggests that we look to find our comfort not in Christ, but in the Evangelical subculture.

We seem to think that all God cares about is what we deem to be the substance of the Gospel. We think that form is irrelevant. But nothing is so unbiblical as that. The same God that said, "repent and be saved" spent pages and pages of His word detailing specifications for Noah's ark, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the ordination of the priesthood, the rituals of cleansing, the genealogies, the numbering of the tribes of Israel, and so on. God loves detail, and He has great concern for form and order. The fact that we pay little to such things is a demonstration that we have fallen far short of thinking with the mind of Christ.

And this is not limited to some segmented sphere we call "religious life". As God created all the world, and did so with deliberate form and order, so He continues to be concerned with these things throughout all creation. This includes the meals we eat, the order of our homes, the clothes we wear, and, yes, the art we create. Beyond this, why can't Christians just make good movies? Where does Scripture say that the only art we can make has to be for spreading the Gospel? It doesn't. God didn't have to slap a Bible verse on every tree in the forest, because His glory spoke through it as His handiwork. Even so should we imitate Him in our art. Paintings don't become Christian because they have a Bible verse underneath them. If it's a good painting, it will reflect God's glory.

What's sad is that pagans recognize this importance of form, while the church does not. As a side note, this in itself, I would suggest, has more to do with driving youth away from the church than we realize. It isn't because we aren't following the secular culture in our modes of worship. It's because we aren't following Scripture in even thinking carefully about our modes of worship.

So when we present the Gospel, the same is true, whether it be in a movie, or some other context. Truth and Goodness aren't sufficient. Our presentation must be beautiful as well, not by the ungodly culture's standards of beauty, but of God's. Here, The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry fails miserably.

And yet, with all of the Evangelical church's abandonment of secular culture, we turn and pander after it as if we are its servants. The presence of the two aforementioned secular actors in the film itself is an indicator of this. But then there is the actor who plays Dustin. While he has made a number of appearances on TV and as the voice of cartoon characters, he wasn't chosen, I would suggest, for his great resume. And I hope he wasn't chosen for his acting skills. His name, in fact, is Jansen Panettiere, and I think it should be obvious why he was chosen. He is the younger brother of actress Hayden Panettiere, who has appeared in numerous TV and movie roles, and is probably best known for her lead role on the TV show "Heroes". Evangelicals are so obsessed by pagan Hollywood that all it will take to get them to go see a Christian film is a recognizable name like that. Quick quiz: how many professing believers spend more time reading People Magazine than they do reading their Bibles? I'm scared to even guess the answer. It's one thing to appreciate some of the products of Hollywood - an appropriate thing, so far as they are allowable by Scripture's standards. It's entirely another matter that we think the only way we can get Christians to watch Christian movies is by using Hollywood stars and their younger siblings.

Some would say that this is an attempt to draw unbelievers in to see the Christian film, hear the Gospel, and hopefully be saved. This is a good desire. But isn't the definition of insanity to repeat an action and expect different results? This never happens on any broad scale. Sure, one might be able to name the occasional person who comes to one of these films and trusts in Christ. But where are the masses of people who are supposed to be saved this way? The silence is deafening. I suppose it would be a true miracle for an unbeliever to get past the bad art and hear and believe the gospel (though salvation itself is always a miracle, no matter the circumstances). But the fact that this is rare at best should make us reassess this approach, and reconsider how we allot the resources over which God has made us stewards.

So if I haven't made it clear by now, I didn't like this film. I don't question the motives of anyone involved in the making of it. I'm sure the intention was the salvation of souls and the glory of God. And by that intention alone, God will be glorified. The question here is rather whether or not there are better ways of glorifying God, and I would suggest there are.

And if you've dying to see a movie this weekend, rent WALL-E, or wait a few days for UP to come out on DVD. I can guarantee that they won't be a waste of money.

Martin Luther on Justification by Faith Alone

I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, "the justice of God," because I took it to mean that justice whereby God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust. My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage him. Therefore I did not love a just and angry God, but rather hated and murmured against him. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a great yearning to know what he meant.

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that "the just shall live by his faith." Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the "justice of God" had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven...

If you have a true faith that Christ is your Saviour, then at once you have a gracious God, for faith leads you in and opens up God's heart and will, that you should see pure grace and overflowing love. This it is to behold God in faith that you should look upon his fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness. He who sees God as angry does not see him rightly but looks only on a curtain, as if a dark cloud had been drawn across his face.

The Parallel Structures of Ruth 1 & 4

In our Wednesday evening Bible study group we just completed the Book of Ruth. As we were going to be finishing up ch. 4 the other night, I threw together this bare bones outline to show the parallel structures of Ruth 1 & 4. Ruth 2 & 3 also parallel one another, the result being that the book functions somewhat chiastically. In chapters 1 and 4, the Prologue in ch. 1 (I.) parallels the Epilogue in ch. 4 (III.). The Negotiation in ch. 1 (II.) parallels the Negotiation in ch. 4 (I.). And the Rest in ch. 1 (III.) parallels the Rest in ch. 4 (II.). The reader should also take note of the preponderance of "threes" in the outlines. This is something inherent to the text, not simply an arbitrary choice I made in outlining it. I would suggest also that this is a manifestation of the Trinitarian foundation of the Covenant, which plays a central role in the Book of Ruth, as in all of Scripture, and all of life, for that matter. But that is a discussion for another occasion. Lack of time has prevented me from doing either a basic outline of chs. 2 & 3, or an outline of the whole book. For now, at least, I thought I would post what I had.

********************************************

Ruth 1 - Structure


I.  Prologue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 1-5


II.  Naomi "arose" - Negotiating a relationship on the way back to Bethlehem

 A.  Naomi's First Speech - vs. 8-9a

  A'.  Ruth and Orpah's verbal and nonverbal response - vs. 9b-10

 B.  Naomi's Second Speech - vs. 11-13

  B'.  Ruth and Orpah's nonverbal responses - vs. 14

 C.  Naomi's Third Speech - vs. 15

  C'. Ruth's verbal response - vs. 16-18


III.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Naomi and Ruth arrive in the land - vs. 19a

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 19b

 C.  Naomi renames herself - vs. 20-21



**********************************************

Ruth 4 - Structure


I.  Boaz "had gone up"- Negotiating a relationship at the gate of Bethlehem

 A.  Boaz's First Speech - vs. 3-4a

  A'.  Redeemer's verbal response - vs. 4b

 B.  Boaz's Second Speech - vs. 5

  B'.  Redeemer's verbal and nonverbal responses - vs. 6-8

 C.  Boaz's Third Speech - vs. 9-10

  C'.  Elders' and People's verbal response - vs. 11-12


II.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Boaz and Ruth "arrive" in the land - vs. 13

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 14-16

 C.  Women name Obed - vs. 17


III. Epilogue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 18-22