A Fate Worse Than Death?

In Plato's Laws, the punishment for husbands killing wives and vice versa is permanent exile from their homeland. Fratricide, Matricide, and Patricide receive the death penalty. From a modern vantage point it would seem that exile is the lesser sentence, but for those in the dialogue, it is much worse. Part of the reason is likely due to certain beliefs about the afterlife--that a murdered soul will continue to inhabit the land where he dies, and thus torment the soul of his murderer. Thus, an exile that dies outside of its homeland must wander not only in life but also in death--permanently separated from the soil from everything that mores his identity and purpose--homeland, people, ancestors, progeny.

In this observation the punishment of exile seems much closer to the Christian idea of eternal damnation--the torment of being forever exiled from the God who gives identity and purpose to all that He has made. To be exiled in the second death is indeed a fate worse than death itself. The immortal soul destined to wander without identity or purpose seems torment enough--to be left alone, entirely alone, knowing that you abandoned your only hope of restoration would be a torment akin to a lake of fire for the soul.

Athanasius's On the Incarnation, IV

Welcome to the fourth post in the series on Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The first post discussed some of the historical context surrounding Athanasius's work. The second post discussed the context of On the Incarnation in Athanasius's three-fold portrait (or trilogy) of human salvation. The third post looked at Chapter 1, the first five sections of On the Incarnation.

The fourth post will begin covering the text of Chapter 2 of On the Incarnation. The Christian Classics Ethereal Library version of the text is easily accessible, so I'll be using that text for this series of posts. I welcome those interested in an alternative translation and arrangement to seek out John Behr's translation, published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

I'll summarize each section followed by commentary in italics.

II.6 Athanasius lays out the first half of the first divine dilemma, that God should leave man subject to death and corruption. He says that ignoring man's plight is unworthy of the goodness of God, since it would result in man being brought to nothing, bringing God's purposes to naught. It would be better that man had not been made than to be made in the image of God only to be lost to corruption.

II.7 Then comes the second half of the first divine dilemma, that God should go back on His word concerning the just penalty for man's transgression. He could not relent of His sentence, but neither could repentance suffice, since, though repentance removes the action of sin from the soul, it does not remove the corruption that inheres. Repentance does not restore the incorruption. Only by having the Word, who made all from nothing, suffer in the place of man, could man be remade in the incorruptible image which he had forsaken.

The first two sections present the first dilemma, regarding the plight of man in death and corruption. God, being good, cannot allow what He has made for Himself to be brought to nothing, but God, being just, cannot allow His word to be broken. Thus, in order to fulfill His word as well as His purposes for creation, the Word through which all was made must enter into creation's corruption, satisfying the just penalty in such a way as to bring the corruption through death and into incorruption. The precise way remains to be discussed, but here Athanasius has presented the problem and its only solution.

II.8 The Word of God fills all things that He has made, yet in the Incarnation He enters into creation in a new and unprecedented way, revealing Himself personally through the thing He has made. For what reason? His pity and compassion for man's plight led him to take up a human body, a human nature--not the appearance of a body and nature, but a body such as our own--using a "spotless, stainless virgin, without agency of human father," that is, not made though intercourse and transmission of sin. Yet he took on a body subject to corruption and carried it into death as a substitute for all; offering it to the Father. His death for all abolished death's power over all, and through resurrection He procured the incorruptible life for all. The great exchange of the Word's flesh for human flesh results from God's compassion for man. He is willing to enter into the lowly flesh, and take it through the penalty for sin, death and corruption, that death might be swallowed up in God's own incorruptible life, resulting in life incorruptible for all men.

II.9 The exchange of the Incarnate Word's life for man's life is sufficient because of the value of the divine life united in the body. The exchange of the Incarnate Word's life for man's life is complete because the incorruption of the divine life ensures that the body cannot remain in death, but must enter into new life in resurrection. Man possesses solidarity in their common nature, which the Word entered into when He took up flesh, and through the flesh He took up influenced all men by that same commonality of nature. Athanasius compares this to a King who takes up his dwelling in a city, simultaneously ennobling it and preventing it from molestation from evildoers. The analogy of the King's taking up residence in the city must have resonated with Athanasius's audience, not only for its truth, but perhaps even more in contrast to failed kingships that promised the same, yet could not deliver. The affirmation of man's common nature here is striking, since, as yet, Athanasius makes no distinctions between men who appropriate the life of Christ and those who remain in their corruption in Adam. Rather, the exchange apparently affirms the universality of the Incarnate Word's work throughout Creation. Whereas before death reigned in power, now the power of death is swallowed up in life. Whereas before there was only darkness, now the whole earth is swathed in the light of the Son. 

II.10 Again Athanasius highlights the goodness of God as the source of salvation, and he uses the analogy of kingship. The king who founds a city protects rather than neglects it; much more then shall God protect the race of men who are His own. He cites Scripture to show his fidelity to God's Word on the matter and to reinforce the Incarnation as the only proper solution to the problem of death and corruption: the sacrifice of the Word's own body put an end to death and made a new way into life through the resurrection. The divine dilemma regarding death and corruption is solved! Here Athanasius closes his argument with appropriate proofs from Scripture indicating what he has heretofore claimed; that the Word must become man in order to bring man out of death and into life. 

Having resolved the first divine dilemma, the next chapter will see Athanasius solving the second, which regards the loss of knowledge due to man's transgression.

Athanasius's On the Incarnation II

Welcome to the second post in the series on Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The first post discussed some of the historical context surrounding Athanasius's work. In this second post, I'll briefly set On the Incarnation in its place within Athanasisus's trilogy on human salvation. I'm drawing mainly from John Behr's introduction to the St. Vladimir's Seminary Press edition of On the Incarnation.

It is undisputed that On the Incarnation is the continuation of Athanasius's earlier treatise Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen). Athanasius refers to this work in the preface of On the Incarnation. In Contra Gentes Athanasius sets out to refute idolatry, the overwhelming religious competitor of his day, and demonstrate the reasonableness of the Christian faith. Having done this, On the Incarnation sets out to show how God solves the problem of death, on the one hand, and the problem of human ignorance of God, on the other. The incarnation of God dissolves two divine dilemmas:

The Divine Dilemma of Death: since through sin death has entered the world and laid claim to man,
1. Either God must abandon man to death, showing Himself weak or uncaring for His creation,
2. Or God must disregard His own law, which was that disobedience of the creature would result in death and ongoing corruption.

The Divine Dilemma of Knowledge: since through sin man has turned away from the divine to materials things and lost the knowledge of God,
1. Either God must abandon man to ignorance, showing Himself weak of uncaring for His creation,
2. Or God must reveal himself through the material things to which man has turned, thus breaking His law against idolatry.

The incarnation dissolves both dilemmas, since the God-man's entrance into death fulfills the demands of death such that all humanity may escape; and through his coming as God-man men come to know him as a true man, yet through his divine works that he draws men's mind back to what is truly Divine.

Thus, the two works represent Athanasius's defeat of the idolatry that stands opposed to the Gospel and his articulation of salvation proclaimed by the Gospel.

So what forms the third work, and what is its place in relation to the two? Behr makes the point that Athanasius's Life of Antony, the biographical sketch of the desert ascetic, demonstrates the effects of the work of the incarnation articulated in On the Incarnation in the life of the Church through the life of Antony as a model for imitation. Throughout Life of Antony Athanasius shows that all of Antony's efforts--his renunciation of material goods, his seeking battle with demonic powers in the isolated realms where they dwell, his struggles against the temptations of the flesh, the world, and Satan (or lusts of the eyes, lusts of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life)--are made successful through the work of Christ in Antony. In particular, it is through Christ's conquest of death and corruption in the flesh that has made it possible for men to overcome the corruption of the flesh until death brings them into new life. The general movement of Life of Antony goes from intense solitary preparation for Antony to an outpouring of the fruits of the Spirit's work in his life in the lives of those who come to visit him. Moreover, through the intense suffering of affliction at the hands of Satan and his demons, Antony comes through with greater health and mastery over his body--and all of this Antony attributes to the power of Christ.

Thus, Contra Gentes demonstrates the vanity of idolatry, On the Incarnation demonstrates the hope of humanity, and Life of Antony demonstrates the faith upon which the Church progresses toward the culmination of the eschaton.

In the next post we'll look at Chapter 1 of On the Incarnation.

Athanasius's On the Incarnation I

After a few months of inactivity, I'm ready to jump back in with a writing project. I'd like to attempt blogging through Athanasius's, On the Incarnation, while I am teaching it to my eighth grade class. I'll begin with a post discussing the historical situation in which the book was written, and then a second post will place On the Incarnation within the corpus of Athanasius's writings. Subsequent posts will deal with each chapter of the work.

Just for classroom context, I've spent the first half of the year walking my students through the New Testament and the Early Church, using the Bible; Eusebius's, Church History; and several other primary texts. The main topics included how the Gospels and Acts write history and presents the person of Jesus; how Eusebius writes history and presents the narrative of the Church from a relatively peaceful obscurity through persecution and into an ascendant peace with Constantine. That brings us to Athanasius, whose book, On the Incarnation, both presents the orthodox understanding of salvation as well as the orthodox view of the Son of God in contradistinction to Arius. In order to prepare the students for the doctrinal context of the book, we discussed the Arian controversy as it played out between the first two ecumenical councils. We did this relying upon David Bentley Hart's chapter from, The Story of Christianity, entitled, "One God in Three Persons: The Earliest Church Councils." What follows is a summary of Hart's discussion.

Although the Edict of Milan brought an end to official persecution of Christians, it opened the opportunity for Christians to discuss their own understanding of Jesus Christ, in particular, His relationship to God the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There are three groups of Christians, other than the orthodox, Hart mentions as vying for their understanding of the Son's identity:

1. "Modalists" held that there is only One God who manifests at different times as "Father," "Son," or "Holy Spirit;" these being "modes" of the One God's singularity.

2. "Adoptionists" held that Christ had been a man who had been "adopted" into divine Sonship by the Father.

3. "Subordinationists" held that the Father alone is God in the fullest sense, the Son being a lesser expression of God, and the Spirit being a lesser expression of the Son.

Subordinationists were particularly concentrated in Alexandria, in part, perhaps, due to the fact that Jews and Pagans also held subordinationist views of God. Philo argued that the Logos, "Son of God," through whom the world was created, served as an intermediary between God and the world. Platonists held that the ultimate divine principle (the One) was so utterly transcendent of the world that all other things exist only through an order of lesser, derivative divine principles. Origen of Alexandria was the most influential early Christian thinker of his day, and his thought, though distinct from these Jewish and Platonist views, nevertheless shared some assumptions about the idea of transcendence and mediation; and he was a subordinationist.

It was in this Alexandrian context that Arius's own views developed and exceeded subordinationists. While Origen denied that the Father and Son we coequal, he nevertheless considered them coeternal. Arius went further, denying both coequality and coeternality to the Son, arguing that "If the Father begat the Son, the one that was begotten has a beginning of existence and from this it is evident that there was a time when the Son was not" (Hart quotes this from Socrates Scholasticus's The Eccelsiastical History). Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria during the time of Arius's arguments, expelled him Alexandria and from his position as presbyter there in 321. Arius published his views and even put them into popular song in 323.

By 324 Constantine had conquered Licinius, the last of his rivals, and brought stability to the empire. Having taken up Christianity as a stabilizing religion for the empire, he could not allow the dissension within the Church to continue. When Arius and Alexander could not be reconciled, Constantine called for a universal council of bishops to convene and determine the position of the Church on the relation of the Son of God to the Father. The First Council of Nicaea convened in 325 and included Arius, Alexander, and the young Athanasius (deacon to Alexander) attended in addition to three hundred or so bishops, most of whom came from the Eastern churches. Arius's doctrines were condemned, and only six bishops (included Arius) refused to accept the orthodox formula set forth in the Nicene Creed. The formula included a term foreign to Scripture, homoousios (consubstantial), which means "of the same substance," to describe the relation of the Son and Father. Though the idea reflects Scriptural descriptions of the Father, Son, and Spirit, it would be the source of ongoing strife.

Despite the unifying purpose of the First Council of Nicaea, the Church continued in controversy over the identity of the Son of God; and even Constantine was persuaded to become Arian by several prominent women in his household. Until the First Council of Constantinople in 381, where the final version of the Nicene Creed was formulated, bishops like Athanasius contended for Nicene orthodoxy over and against the majority who were Arians; often being exiled when Arian emperors came to power, or restored when Nicene emperors came to power. During the aftermath two groups articulated alternatives to Nicene orthodoxy:

1. "Homoeans" held that the Son is "of similar substance" (homoiousios) with the Father.

2. "Anomoeans" held that the Son is altogether unlike the Father.

It turned out to be the anomeans, in the figure of Eunomius, who came to represent the most prominent opposition to Nicene orthodoxy in the generation after 325. Athanasius did not live to see the final stroke fall upon the Arian heresy and its correlates--a threefold stroke struck by the Cappadocian fathers: St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Hart notes that their complex defense of Nicene orthodoxy could be faithfully reduced to a simple series of propositions that were central to salvation in the life of the Early Church (represented also in Athanasius's On the Incarnation): "if it is the Son who joins us to the Father, and only God can join us to God, then the Son is God; and if, in the sacraments of the Church and the life of faith, it is the Spirit who joins us to the Father, and only God can join us to God, then the Spirit too must be God."

The debates all turned on the nature of human salvation--what it took for man to be reconciled with God--and, in the end, only God-Man--fully God, fully Man--could reconcile all men to the Father and restore all Creation to incorruption.

In the next post we'll look at how On the Incarnation provides the cornerstone for Athanasius's three-fold portrait of human salvation.

The Intellectual Life as an Intellectual Labor, Introduction

This month a book club I participate in is reading A.G. Sertillanges' book, The Intellectual Life. The book is a lengthy meditation on and preparation for the life given by the book's title. I've read it once before and was excited by many of its insights, but I've not made much conscious use of them (I do hope some profitable unconscious effects have been produced!). This time around I'm attempting to be more intentional in my approach. The remaining post is an outline of that intention.

Phase I: Tilling & Sowing

In the first phase of reading The Intellectual Life, I'll be writing meditative summaries of the book's chapters after reading each one. Sertillanges' book is very well organized and lends itself to easy summary. The ease is dangerous, however, since it would be deceptive to think that one has profited by summarizing the points of each chapter and its sections. Sertillanges' language is so simple that it gives the appearance of ease, where great difficulty is actually present. Thus, I've added the task of "meditative" to my summaries; allowing room for my thoughts to analogize, apply, question, and so forth, and put all of that into written words. I'll then type the meditative summaries on this blog, critically reviewed and potentially substantively altered.

Phase II: Watering & Weeding

If it can be done, I am hoping to draw in a couple of the other men from book club to develop some specific applications of Sertillanges' book in some aspect of our own lives, whether as part of our individual development, or as a part of our vocations (several of us are teachers, who are paid to pursue an intellectual life, in my opinion). The very first chapter of Sertillanges' book emphasizes the necessity of community both as a necessary part of the intellectual vocation as a productive art (giving it life & health), as well as a recipient of the intellectual vocation's produce (partaking of its fruit). Phase II will be harder to accomplish, but will certainly make the fruit of higher quality and of greater quantity.

Phase III: Harvesting & Feasting

Should the work reach completing, there should be some fruits to be enjoyed and shared with others. There are some vague ideas in my mind of what fruit might result (curricular changes, pedagogical changes, articles written, lectures given, seminars conducted, etc.) but there will be plenty of room for surprise, especially if some non-teachers are able to join in the labor.

Phase IV: Composting & Reproducing

In the wake of our feasting, I hope the leftovers will lead into future activities of like kind, whether they involve repeating The Intellectual Life, or moving on to a different book, or developing an analogous project with some other medium or means of application. This is the vaguest and least imaginable phase, since it is so dependent upon the labors that have only just begun. However, I hope to look back upon this beginning in a few months, or a year, or more, and find that it was not wholly in vain.

And righteousness like a mighty stream

Justice is often associated with the meting out of law: giving the guilty man, or the righteous man, what he deserves in proportion to the quality of his deeds. You stole your neighbor’s pencil and broke it? You’ll have to give him four of yours in return. You finished all of your chores? You can do what you want now. Justice, in this sense, is about keeping the social order harmonious. In a just society, good laws are the vehicles for good order.

For Augustine, however, justice does not begin with the social order, but with the soul of each man. Justice, in this sense, is about keeping the soul’s order harmonious. In a just man, reverence for God is the vehicle for good order, for Augustine says:

For though the soul may seem to rule the body admirably, and the reason the vices, if the soul and reason do not themselves obey God, as God has commanded them to serve Him, they have no proper authority over the body and the vices. For what kind of mistress of the body and the vices can that mind be which is ignorant of the true God, and which, instead of being subject to His authority, is prostituted to the corrupting influences of the most vicious demons? It is for this reason that the virtues which it seems to itself to possess, and by which it restrains the body and the vices that it may obtain and keep what it desires, are rather vices than virtues so long as there is no reference to God in the matter. (City of God, XIX, 25, italics mine)

David is a fine illustration of Augustine’s claim. When Nathan confronts David concerning his unjust killing of Uriah after having stolen his wife and adulterated their marriage, Nathan appeals to David’s sense of justice: the story he tells so obviously mirrors David’s own, but David has suppressed his conscience so far that he does not see himself properly. Yet the pressure of guilt is so great that when David hears Nathan’s story, his conscience bursts forth in righteous anger, allowing Nathan to simply insert David into the story and complete the confrontation by pointing to the ingratitude exhibited by David’s actions:

Thus says the LORD God of Israel: “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!’ Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight?” (2 Sam 12:7-9, NKJV)

David sees himself rightly, and repents of his sin against the LORD. David acknowledges the root of his transgression was forsaking proper reverence for God.

Granting the Holy Spirit His primary role as bringing about conviction, I submit that David’s repentance over his social injustice was possible in the way it occurred because David had been feeding his soul upon God’s Word: “how can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word” as he wrote in Psalm 119. As human beings in a world characterized by sin’s corruption of God’s good Creation, and especially sin’s corruption of man, we will inevitably receive unjust treatment, and each of us will be, at times, inclined to commit injustice; the bonds of social order will fray. If any of us would bind them back together we must fill our hearts now, and continually, with reverence for God by filling our minds with the knowledge of God found in His Word; confessing with David, “Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You! Blessed are You, O Lord! Teach me Your statutes!. . . .I will meditate on Your precepts, and contemplate Your ways. I will delight myself in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.”

Then, and only then, can “justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream” flowing freely and fully in our homes, in our churches, and in our society. If we would see such justice, let us give ourselves over to the Word of God and be transformed by the renewing of our minds. 

The Christian Mind quotation

But whatever the quality of twentieth-century Christians, the Church remains unalterably secure. And no Christian who understands the Church's true nature can talk of the Church being in danger of being engulfed. It is too late for the world to destroy the Church, two thousand years too late. The world had its chance and did its best--and its worst--on Calvary. God answered with a body of men and women against whom the gates of Hell shall not prevail. We have his word for it. And if the gates of Hell shall not prevail, need we worry unduly about the latest secularist estimate of the Church's statistical manpower or the jibes of shallow brains-trust intellectuals who have yet to find their peace? ~Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind, (1963), p. 153. 

Smelting in the Refiners Pot

Great things take time to complete. This is true not only of good things, but of bad things as well. Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August details the dedication, precision, and long-term calculations of the German military. But for a few poor decisions and the surprising resolve of their opponents, the outcome of the Great War could have easily been different. The culmination of Germany's actions in World War I resulted from motivations that stretched far into her history, even before the Franco-Prussian war. Indeed, one could argue that it stretched back to Germany's beginnings as bands of tribes overshadowed and overpowered by Roman might, learning, and opulence. Was their a envy of the conquerors that grew into a desire to demonstrate through conquest the greatness of the German people? Perhaps this is too great a claim, but Tuchman characterizes German leaders as haunted by a specter of unwarranted disrespect and ostracism. Nevertheless, in the crucible of Germany's history, it is hard not to conclude that a significant amount of dross rose to prominence in its culture during the 19th and 20th centuries, and perhaps continues to be skimmed, or in need of skimming.

I imagine that applying the refiner's pot to a nation, even one as easy to pick on as Germany, rings hollow to many ears. As modern citizens of the United States steeped in the waters of individualism, there is a temptation to imagine the refiner's pot in terms of individual purification--the Lord takes each of His servants and purifies their soul of the dross of sin and corruption. There is nothing false about individual application here, but it is not the only interpretation that suits, nor is it, perhaps, the most important or relevant. Indeed, many passages of Scripture that use the crucible or the refiner's fire involve the entire nation of Israel. Moreover, the New Testament people are referred to as a body, a vine, and a bride--individual images applied to a corporate entity. There is good reason to avoid immediately individualizing; to try and consider the corporate nature of Christ's smelting (or perhaps, discipling) the nations. Consider the following an attempt to think it through.

Unrefined metals are purified through intense heat. The weightier, desired metal remains on the bottom of the pot while the lighter, undesired metals rise to the surface. The refiner scoops the dross from the surface and pours the pure metal into the desire molds for cooling. When the process is complete the purified metal has been formed into the pure image crafted by the refiner. If a culture is suited to this analogy, what would constitute the refiner, the intense heat, the pure metal, and the dross? If God is the refiner, the pure metal could be His own servants, the dross could be the servants of Satan, and the intense heat could be trials and circumstances--things like "acts of God" (earthquakes, famines, floods, etc.), wars with foreign powers, societal conflicts (persecutions, injustices, corruptions at various levels of authority), and all other circumstances that draw out the true nature of a people--will they respond as pure servants of God, or will they reveal themselves to be servants of Satan? Once the heat has become intense enough to cause full separation, the Refiner is free to remove from the midst of His people those servants of Satan that have been corrupting their collective purity.

Depending upon the relative purity of the ore, there may be less or more precious metal present. The less pure metal, the longer the process of refining, since the dross will be great and may require a number of scoops to removes all that is present. Even when the presence of precious metal of an ore is relatively high, the purest form of that precious metal requires the most intense heating treatment, to ensure the full separation of the dross.

Regardless of what quantity of precious metal a culture retains, or of what quality of purity the Refiner desires to make, there is one factor that is inevitable, and that is the presence of intense heat. The people of God will not always face trials of equal intensity, trials of equal kind. But any culture without trials is a culture that is, a) fully refined, or b) cooling into a mold, or c) not in the Refiner's care. The first scenario would be impossible this side of glory; the second would be a transitional place--a respite between one round of refining and the next; and the third scenario would make the culture dross, a culture to be cast aside.

As a citizen of the United States and a Christian who takes Christ's command to disciple the nations as a statement of His plan for universal conquest, it doesn't take long to identify the process of separation occurring within the culture. The State continues to embrace political agendas that marginalize Christian doctrine and practice in the public sphere, and a good number of Christians have embraced this marginalization as a healthy, right, and desirable place for the Church. Public education has consistently undermined the authority of the Scriptures and the validity of theological claims in any arena of debate that isn't explicitly religious--even ethical debates exile theological argument, usually distinguishing ethics as a public arena, and pushing theology into the private arena of "morality," unwilling to question the suitability of such distinctions. Christians who wish to live faithfully to Christ are more and more frequently being pushed out of not only the public sphere of policy-making, but the economic and educational spheres of life as well. Christian businesses being prosecuted for refusing to supply employees with benefits, which can be used for abortions; or Christian business being prosecuted for refusing to offer services that compromise their religious convictions about faithful practice are becoming commonplace.

The separation of Christ's precious metal from the surrounding dross appears more evident now than ever, and it can be a cause for thanksgiving, for it will be less and less difficult to see the choice between obedience and disobedience, faithfulness and faithlessness. The difficulty comes in being tried by fire to choose obedience over disobedience, faithfulness over faithlessness. For those who claim that seeing the right choice remains difficult, there is real danger that there is nothing precious to be recovered, that the heat won't be felt, because they are not in the pot, or are already floating on the surface, away from the heat and ready to be swept away. As the heat intensifies, the precious metals may be plunged beneath the surface, but they will be together, and a greater purity--a greater unity--will emerge, though it may not be noticeable for all the dross that may be present to the eye. Those with ears to hear and eyes to see will be where the precious metals are, weighted down with the glory of Christ their Head, for that is how the smelting process of the Refiner's pot works.

Resurrection Power

In trying to live conscious of the ongoing celebration of Easter this week, I've encountered two circumstances that seem to oppose my efforts to maintain joyfulness at Christ's Resurrection, but upon closer inspection are precisely why the Resurrection offers joy to those who place their trust in Christ.

The first circumstance is that, since Resurrection Sunday, I've been laid low by illness. A low grade fever complete with chest congestion, cough, sinus congestion, runny nose, sneezing, and today the illness added another twist I'll not mention for those readers less interested in such details. Needless to say the power of the Resurrection is easily overshadowed by the veil of sickness, lethargy, and the necessity to survive the basic tasks of cleaning, feeding, clothing, and caring for a family of four boys seven and under without pandemonium.

The second circumstance is that I've been reading Barbara Tuchman's excellent book on the first month of WWI, Guns of August. It is a long, engaging, interwoven account of the figures and their decisions that led to war, drew it out for far longer than most expected, and (I've yet to read the end) may conclude on a note of deep sobriety. The incompetence, petty pride, juvenile natures of the men who pursued their objectives during the war is a sad tale of human corruption, all in the name of peace, salvation of humanity, and the obtaining the rightful place of X in the world. It is remarkable to me that Germany could have exhibited the sort of blind indifference to the full nature of their actions. It seems as though the more vibrant the Christianity of an earlier age, the more precipitous becomes the descent into idolatry and self-destruction; at least if Europe is any kind of litmus test for such a claim.

It would seem that such distracting and dark features would obscure the glory of the Resurrection, but quite the opposite has been the case. Looking through the discomfort of sickness and the distress of human atrocity at the risen Christ is the only reminder that these trials and tribulations are not purposeless agonies thrust upon us from out of the void, nor are the they History's slaughter bench toward self-actualization of the autonomous individual. Illness, pain, death, evil, pride, hubris, lethargy, lasciviousness, and all the other vices and dark certainties of life are a Great Curse, the power of which was destroyed forever in the Resurrection of the God-Man who both brings divinity close to man, and man close to the Divine.

It is a slow leeching, this power of the Resurrection. Enemies will continue to try and repulse it. Christians will continue to pretend they don't need it. The world will ebb and flow in its courses of greater and lesser acknowledgment of the King of Kings, but there is no overcoming the Great Fact of His Reign; there is no retreat from the wake of His host. The sooner we are able to submit ourselves to His gracious reign, the sooner we will find ourselves caught up in the realities of Resurrection power that are pressing heaven into this vast and universal globe of existence until it can no longer keep any darkness hidden, no corruption unconquered, no hurt un-mended, no joy unfulfilled.

Despair is dead.
Defeat is dead.
Death is dead.
Christ is Risen!

The Bloods of Righteous Men

And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

In the process of time Cain and Abel brought an offering to Yahweh. The offering was probably not an offering for sin, but rather a thank offering, since it involved the first fruits of each man's labors under the sun. Yahweh accepts the offering of Abel, thereby acknowledging Abel's righteousness in giving the gift. On the other hand, Cain's offering is rejected because of an undisclosed unrighteousness. Like Abel and Cain, Jesus Christ and the Self-Righteous Jews bring their offering to God, the fruits of their labor. Jesus Christ offers his humble obedience to the Father's commands, and the Pharisees offer their man-made piety.

When Cain has his offering rejected he becomes envious of Abel and resentful toward Yahweh. If he cannot find acceptance in Yahweh's eyes, then he will destroy the object of God's pleasure so that He would have no other choice but Cain to show His favor toward. Rather than acknowledging God's choice and following his brother's example, Cain strikes Abel down. Like Cain, the Self-Righteous Jews envy Jesus Christ and cannot abide the glory he receives from the people, nor the power he wields over sin, the effects of the curse, and the enemies of God. Rather than submit themselves to God's choice and follow Christ's example, the Self-Righteous Jews strike Jesus down.

After Cain kills Abel, the blood of this righteous man cover the earth and cries out to God for redress.  The blood of Abel brings Cain's sin into the light, and in that light God pronounces His judgment upon Cain. Cain receives a harsh sentence, he must live with his sin, and he must do so as a wanderer without a land, without the family of God. Like Nineveh Cain receives a reprieve, but the line of Cain will eventually be destroyed in the Flood of judgment and cleansing the covers the whole earth. Like Abel, Jesus Christ's blood spills forth and covers the earth. Like Abel, the blood of Christ cries out to God for redress. Like the blood of Abel, Christ's blood brings the sins of the Self-Righteous Jews and the complicit Gentiles into the light, and in that light God pronounces His judgment upon these sons of Cain.

But unlike the blood of Abel, whose righteousness could only grant a reprieve, the blood of Christ speaks a better word--a word of full release. Though the whole of men stand like Cain guilty of the murder of the Better Brother, it is not a Flood of judgment that God unleashes upon the earth, rains from heaven and geysers from under the earth. Rather, God unleashes the Flood of righteous Blood and Water that came down from Heaven, descended into the earth, sprang up from the grave with the souls of the dead and ascended into Highest Heaven to Reign, sprinkling from His throne the blood that removes the stain of sin and turns the exiled wanderers and orphans into landed sons of God.

The blood of the righteous martyrs speaks, but it cannot speak in its own power on behalf of the world. It is only the blood of God Incarnate that has the power to destroy the power of death and bring the dead into resurrected life. So much better is the blood that Jesus speaks that should all the blood of all the righteous men of all the ages were to speak on behalf of mercy, it could only offer the reprieve of time. Only the blood of eternal God-become-Man could offer an eternal reprieve to those created to be Man-become-Image of God, but who fell into their own corruption and unmaking.

May we all learn the lesson of Abel, that there can be no righteous bloods, no power of fallen man that can make anew the unmade nature of Man. Only by the blood of the Second Adam, whose incorruption corruption swallowed into its bosom and was itself consumed, unmade, and remade in incorruptible righteousness.

Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ!

The Gradual Incarnation, or, From Advent to Advent to Advent.

There is a curious trajectory in the Genesis narrative. In the Garden, God's intimacy with man was unimpeded and full; God could walk amongst his vicegerents and observe their works; He could bring the animals before the man and watch him name them according to their kind. After the Fall, however, Holy God must be separated from the man. Man is put out of the Garden and his nakedness is clothed with the skin of a sacrificial offering. 

With each new evil, it seems as if the rift between God and man grows beyond repair. Cain slaughters Abel and must not only be exiled from the Garden, but must wander detached from the land and from his relations. Even as Lamech draws many wives to himself, he sunders life from those who offend him, signifying in his wrath the state into which he is himself plunged by his rebellious autonomy. By the time of the Flood, the rift is complete, and every intent of every thought of man is only evil continually. 

Yet in the midst of the increasingly wide gap between God and man, there is a gradual movement towards intimate presence. God visits Eve in her grief and provide a life where there was death. The moment is somewhat fleeting, but it is sure. We even get the glimpse of God's desire to receive man into His fellowship again, for Enoch, who walked with God, was taken from the earth--out of corruption and into the Lord's presence. Noah is visited by God, and not only the man, but his whole family and a host of animals--Noah's name was itself a prophetic hope that relief from the curse upon the rift between man and the earth would come. When God promises never again to flood the earth, it is not a message of grandfatherly leniency ("no matter what you do, I won't punish you THAT badly again"), but of promised presence, as if to say, "I will never let you go so far from me again that such measures are necessary." It is the promise of His presence where the world before the Flood was a picture of a world utterly devoid of God's restraining and embracing Spirit.

Abraham, the father of nations, is also an answer to the Flood, and to Babel. The cleansing and scattering are sundering man, but in Abraham the nations are gathered together under the promise of God's abiding presence. God reassures Abraham of His continued presence, even so far as to be his shield in battle--a protection not before offered to man. God moves closer to man; he is more visible in the incarnate affairs of man's life.

Abraham's own relation to the promised seed goes from decreasing to increasing intimacy. Sarai is barren, but Abraham has provisions, albeit at a remove. Eliezer, a servant of Abraham out of Damascus, is his first recourse. Too far removed. The next recourse is to his concubine, Hagar, and the son of their union, Ishmael. Too far removed. From the flesh of Abraham and from the flesh of his flesh, Sarah, shall the promised son come into being.

The entire history of Israel could be made an image, the approach of the King from His distant throne into the presence of His people. With each step comes more power and influence in the affairs of His people, until it is such that when the Risen Lord returns to His distant throne the Spirit of His Presence pervades His People; His blood courses through His Body, His flesh envelopes His Body; and each summons is met with the nourishing invigoration of this intimate communion, so bountiful in its provision that it overflows wherever His Body stretches its limbs and ambulates about His Kingdom.

There is no turning back, no reversals, no Floods or sunderings left to happen. The Body is only just realizing what it is like to live without the separation caused by sin; to live in the liberating life of the One Who sundered Himself in death, Who scattered Himself in Resurrection, and Who will Gather Himself (that is, His Body) in due time.

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Musing on the Biblical Theology of the Flood

Immediately prior to God's cleansing the world of sin in the Great Flood, Genesis 6:5 says, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Surely Satan and his legion of evil ministers perceived that they had nearly stolen victory over God and the Promised Seed, as none could be found who sought faithfulness to God Almighty. None but Noah, that is. But God did not destroy the world utterly, nor did He hand it over entirely to the Prince of the Evil Age, but rather baptized the earth in water, destroying its corruptions and renewing the land for a second opportunity for Noah to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth in accord with God's commandments.

Immediately prior to God's cleansing the world of sin in the Second Great Flood--that is, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit--we do not receive an explicit comment on the evil of the age, but we find it visible in every Gospel. The surge of demonic activity--nowhere in the Old Testament or after the Apostolic Age so virulent and pervasive--was dominating the earth and corrupting even the people of God (it is no exaggeration when Jesus refers to the leaders of Israel as sons of their father, Satan). When the Son of God appears on the scene, the demons are surprised, asking if Jesus had come to torment them before the time. The Seed has come, but the armies of heaven had not yet been assembled for the final engagement. Why then had the Commander of the Host of Heaven come? Whereas the Great Flood covered the Creation in water, there is a double baptism that inaugurates the  Age of the Heavenly King. He dies on the cross and bathes the world in His own blood, making it possible for all who would turn to Him in their allegiance to receive cleansing from their corruption. Then as the King ascends to take up His session upon the Throne of Heaven, He gives gifts to His thanes and companions, the Church, His own Spirit, which is poured out like a Flood of water and fire upon the people. The strong man was cast off the throne of the earth, to be bound for a time, and his ministers of evil were being cast out by the power of the name of the King and by His Spirit, working in and through the Body of Christ, the Church, and in particular its appointed leaders.

The way was thus cleansed for yet another opportunity to be fruitful and multiple and fill the earth in accord with God's commandments. However, like the sons of Noah, the children of the Age of the Heavenly King are not yet given complete victory. There is a time of long-suffering while all those whom the King desires to bring into His Kingdom shall be found and brought within its gates. Then comes the final Flood, the Host of Heaven and the Saints of the Most High God shall ride in the train of the King as He tramples the remaining corruption, and removes His enemies forever; casting them into the lake of Fire along with all those who refused to cast their allegiance with the High King of Heaven. Then shall all cleansing be consummated the Great Renewal shall be begun, and the fruitfulness and multiplication and filling of the earth shall be complete, and resplendent and redounding glories shall be on the lips of the people of God forever more.

History & Historiography

Gordon Clark's, Historiography Secular and Religious, is not a typical historiography, insofar as it does not provide a comprehensive analysis of approaches to history. Rather, it treats of several kinds of secular historiography, showing their deficiencies--not historical in nature, but rather philosophical. For instance, any sort of ethical judgment requires the establishment of an epistemology that forms the basis of ethical norms. Clark shows the inability of secular historians to provide such an epistemological basis.

On the positive side, Clark provides a brief exposition of Augustine's view of history as the representative Christian historiography. Borrowing from Collingwood, Clark addresses four aspects of the Christian concept of history: 1) it is universal, 2) it is providential, 3) it is apocalyptic, and 4) it is periodized.

The first aspect of universal history is easily granted, Clark says, as a necessary consequence of basic theism: "If God is the creator of the universe and exercises omniscient providential control, the theory must embrace all nations in some way or other, no matter how little we may know of them" (221). Augustine, according to Clark, asserts that, "Since the time of Christ the geographical or national center of gravity [for universal history] has been replaced by a spiritual center, the church. The City of God and the worldly city no doubt produce history by conflict, but the whole process is for the good of the City of God" (222). Whereas Collingwood argues that any center of gravity is destroyed by the universal aspect of Christian history, Clark shows that the opposite is the case: it is not that the center of gravity is destroyed, but it is transformed from the geographically localized, to the geographically dispersed; and from the spiritually diverse and changing to the spiritually unified and constant.

The second aspect of divine providence also follows from Christian theism, and the entirety of Jewish history up to the time of Christ is an exposition of God's providential ordering of history for the arrival of His Messiah from among the Jews. Clark quotes Daniel 4:35 as a representative OT acknowledgement of Providence: "All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing, and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand or say, What doest Thou?" (222). It is not the agency of men, or of sociological forces, or dialectical materialism, or any other combination that history is assuredly accomplished, but rather by preordained Providence working through any and all immediate and intermediate powers. Whether by the wisdom or by the folly of men God works all according to His purpose. Collingwood's attribution of providence eschewing the wisdom of men is therefore misleading, and deficient, though not entirely incorrect. Providence uses all means, and no means are free from God's power and purpose.

As for the apocalyptic aspect, Clark agrees that Collingwood rightly identifies the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the central events of divinely ordained history, but Collingwood leaves out significant future details. That all history looks back to the death and resurrection should not obscure the also forward-looking hope of the culmination of history in the return of the Lord at the end of the age (a hint toward periodization). Thus, while Collingwood is deficient on the future orientation of the apocalypic aspect, he still scores well on the point itself, as well as the consequence of periodization, which in the most general of levels would include those times before the event of Christ's death and resurrection, and those following.

To Collingwood's four aspects Clark adds a fifth, borrowing from Herbert Butterfield; it is the methodological significance of revelation (224). The Scriptures are continually on the mouth of Augustine as he unfolds the history of the two cities, and Augustine is not implicit in his use of them, saying, "We must lay down holy scriptures first as the foundation of our following structure (XX, 1)" (224). Butterfield makes the important distinction, according to Clark, "that historical research might prove that Jesus Christ actually lived at a certain date; and such a conclusion of research, like any other properly obtained, would have to be accepted by Christian, Marxist, or Mohammedan. But the divinity of Christ or the rightness of the Reformation is not susceptible of historical proof" (224). Such claim are theological in nature, but indispensable for understanding the course of history within the Christian concept. Clark concludes on this matter, "To cast the results of historical research into the framework of a providential view, one must come to history with Christian ideas already in mind, and this requires revelation as a methodological principle" (225). If Clark is right, and I think he is, the most important knowledge the Christian historian must possess is a knowledge of Scripture, and its own self-revelatory philosophy of history. Without it, the Christian cannot provide a Christian account of history, no matter how comprehensive and erudite his historical research.

Clark concludes the chapter on Augustine by examining some of Karl Popper's claims about Christianity, first by quoting Popper's acknowledgment that one must come to history with a point of view already in mind, and second by an extended refutation of Popper's criticisms of Christian historicism.

The upshot of Clark's exposition and defense of the Augustinian view of history, which is, perhaps, as close as we've yet come to the Biblical view of history, is of enormous importance to the task of educating Christians in matters historical. If the Christian teacher of history does not provide his students with the Scriptural methodology; if he does not continually use the ideas of universality, providence, and the two-fold culminations of death and resurrection and consummation at the end of the age along with its basic periodization, then the Christian teacher does not provide a Christian view of history. At worst he will adopt a secular structure and methodology for viewing history, and at best he will provide a skeptical view of all structures and methodologies, which leaves the Christian without foundation for positive historical claims. Certainly the necessary skepticism toward secular history is without fruit unless the roots of Scriptural history have travelled deeply into the soil of students' minds. Let us hope that more rather than less Christian teachers and scholars of history are making good use of the Scriptures so that this indispensable aspect of Christian doctrine and its applications isn't lost upon future generations.

Principles of the first order

I've been thinking a lot about the proper order of things recently, and in particular the proper order of things that should concern the Christian mind, motives, and efforts. If you randomly select several Christian denominations, you are likely to find that each one differs in what it emphasizes as "first order" principles. I don't mean "first order doctrines," although, unfortunately, those things do sometimes differ. It is less often the case, however, that you see Christians disagree that the Trinity is the most basic of Christian beliefs, followed by the definition of Christ's divinity and humanity, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and other issues directly relating to the nature of the God we worship. It makes sense that any religion that is intellectually rigorous would acknowledge the priority of defining its object of worship, not only for the positive function of understanding what it is one is worshipping, but also for the negative function of distinguishing the object of worship from alternative objects (false gods) and erroneous conceptions of the true object (heresies).

Rather, by "first order principles," I mean those aspects of Christianity that Christians like to emphasize as distinctive of their particular communion. When one moves into the questions of what such "first order beliefs" ought to be, and how those translate into the daily living of Christians in God's overarching purposes, things become quite a bit murkier. Just as Aslan counsels Jill when she is up on the mountain in Aslan's country that the signs she is to remember will not appear as clear when she is in the fog of the world below, so Christians too find that the clearest of doctrines in their intellectual consideration them become murkier when they are applied in the "darkened glass" of this present life. Or better yet, one wonders whether any systematic or universal approach is taken in the development of first order principles? What are the prerequisite principles God has given for us to know as Christians, in order that we may properly integrate all that God has revealed to us, and for the purposes He has given us to follow, obediently?

The following is my attempt to identify and explicate three basic prerequisites of consistent Christianity that are consonant with a Biblical understanding of reality, and therefore are necessary and sufficient for propagating a healthy Church in the midst of a world full of alternatives and errors that will ultimately undermine Christianity and destroy the health of the Church. Let's call these "principles of the first order."

1. Scriptural Presuppositionalism. The first principle has been a facet of the Reformation tradition from the beginning, but has been most explicitly formulated of late by Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark in the field of apologetics. Scriptural Presuppositionalism is a first order principle because it precludes the adulteration of God's revelation to man. Unless one begins and ends one's thoughts upon the authority and content of Scripture, one will have an alternative and competitive authority in its place. Christ is clear that one cannot serve two masters, and that man is to live by every word that proceeds from God (Matt. 6:24 and Matt. 4:4, respectively). If one does not begin and end with Scripture, then there is another master he serves and another word he lives by, whether wholly or in part. This first order principle corresponds to the philosophical category of epistemology, or what concerns knowledge.

2. Theonomic Ethics. The second principle has also been around at least since the Reformation, and even the major opponents of the capital "T" theonomy (e.g. Meredith Kline) acknowledge that the Westminster Confession of Faith is a theonomic document. I don't think it is necessary to have a fully developed jurisprudence based upon OT and NT law in order to fulfill the requirements of this second principle. The main point is that for the Church to thrive it must love God's law as summarized in the Ten Commandments, and wish to see others conform to God's law, whether out of genuine love, or fear of divine or divinely ordained (i.e. the State) retribution. Some may grow antsy at such a suggestion, but consider that few people (and none who are relatively powerless) would want to live in a society that did not actively seek to curtail blasphemy, disregard for authority, murder, lying, stealing, adultery, etc. Also, theonomy follows upon Scriptural Presuppositionalism by logical implication. If one's authority begins and ends with Scripture, then one's ethics and code of laws must also be Scripturally derived. What man or group of men will be capable of providing laws and a code of justice equal in wisdom and goodness to those laid down by God Himself? The Church need not agree on whether a fornicator should be executed or only pay remuneration in order to agree upon the necessity of having the State actively seek to prevent fornication. Christians who aren't theonomists seem to unwittingly acknowledge the legitimacy of theonomy in their opposition to things like State mandates for the distribution of birth control and STD vaccinations to children. Is not their presupposition that the State ought to curtail rather than enable fornication?* And the point is not to argue that laws will change hearts, save families, and make societies regenerated. But a society that honors God's law, even if only outwardly, will be a more just society than one that disdains God's law. How much more so for the Church, who is the bride of Christ and beholden to her Husband's commands? This first order principle corresponds to the philosophical category of ethics, or what concerns duties.

3. Postmillennial Eschatology. The third principle is predates the Reformation and it has been the prominent view in the Church until recent years. Like all other eschatologies it acknowledges Christ's sovereign rule and power over all principalities and powers, whereby all principalities and powers shall ultimately be subdued "under the feet" of the conquering King Jesus. The main difference is that postmillennialism further acknowledges that the Church has a direct role in the King's conquest, through the baptizing and discipling of "all nations," according to the "Great Commission" given to the disciples by Christ after His resurrections. Christ first declares that all authority is His, then, upon the basis of that authority He gives the command to disciple the nations, and finally, He ensures their success by promising His presence in their efforts "until the end of the age." That Christ shall reign until all enemies have been put under his feet (the last enemy being death) is of key importance. Interestingly, in Romans 16:20 Paul tells the Church that God will soon crush Satan under their feet! Paul seems to expect that the Spirit is working presently toward that end through the efforts of the Church, rather than forestalling conquest until a cataclysmic end-game-rescue by Christ, whether after a spiraling diminution of the Church in a increasingly sinful world, or by a relatively, but not world-wide effectual influence of the Church. The inseparability of the Head of the Church (Christ) from the Body of the Church (Christians) is another prima facie argument for postmillennialism, if you take the time to think it through. Also, one need not lapse into progressivism (the life of the Church in the world grows better and better uninterruptedly through the passage of time), or perfectionism (the Church grows more and more holy until there is no sin left, and no unbelievers, either) in order for postmillennialism to be true. Postmillennialism does not dictate the pattern of development of the Church in history intermediately, but it does indicate the long term implications of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the world up to the end. This first order principle corresponds to the philosophical category of metaphysics**, or what concerns existence.

I've self-consciously limited myself to three "first-order" principles that I think are necessary for consistent Christianity and a thriving Church. If understood properly and consistently related, second order principles that might register high on various denominational lists would fall into their proper place. For example, I would argue that covenant theology is central to the proper interpretation of Scripture. Indeed, I would argue that covenant theology is what Scripture itself reveals as its basic structure for God's relationship with man. Therefore, if I accept Scriptural Presuppositionalism, it follows by logical implication that I will arrive at covenant theology. Some may wonder whether my attention to logical implication is warranted, or even supported by the principles I've outlined as "first order." Again, I think Scriptural Presuppositionalism accounts for the priority of logic in accounting for or judging what the Scriptures principally teach. What the Bible reveals about the Godhead, its use of logic in revealing God's thoughts to man, and the assertion of the priority of truth (which, though not strictly discovered by logic, is nevertheless evaluated logically for firm understanding) all make logic a necessity. I recognize that admitting as much does not guaranty that any of us will use logic properly, but I also affirm that those who take logic seriously will come to more logical conclusions than those who disdain logic, or find it largely uninteresting or irrelevant.

____

*Certainly some people will refrain from fornication, or at least pursue it less vigorously if the potential consequences of it were not otherwise prevented.

**Some may grow curious as to the categorization of postmillennialism as a metaphysic. Strictly speaking postmillennialism is a matter of history, which has to do with the progress of events in the world, and not the nature of the world in terms of its being. Fair enough. However, since the Bible itself rarely speaks in metaphysical terms (at least in terms of the "isness" of things), the import of considering "what the being of the world is," ought to be conceived differently. God's chief concern for man's understanding of the world seems to be its teleological purpose and the means by which God is working the world out toward that end. In other words, God doesn't tell man the "isness" of a tree, but He does tell man that he is responsible to tend and keep the tree in order to please God*** and thereby manifest His glory. Figuring out how to "tend and keep" the tree is the "physics" and knowing the nature of man's relation to the tree ("tend and keep") and his purpose in that relation ("to please God") is the "metaphysics." Teleologically speaking, postmillennialism is the doctrine of God's cosmological purpose, and cosmology is a fundamental branch of metaphysics.

***The phrase "to please God" here is kept simple for the sake of brevity and ease of understanding. There are manifest distinctions and intermediary means that lead up to this overarching end, which deserve to be contemplated thoroughly. The main point is that all of the many, many ways in which God desires us to live before Him in the world are all tied up in the purpose to bring Himself pleasure, or glory.

Crisp and Gathercole on Jenson

I've been reading Oliver Crisp's God Incarnate and just finished his chapter on the pre-existence of Christ. He takes up a critique of Robert Jenson's view on the issue and takes aim at a few other issues along the way. Crisp's criticisms are predominantly logical or analytical in nature, thought he does make use of an article by Simon Gathercole. I also decided to read Gathercole's article, and his criticisms are predominantly exegetical in nature, but with a few logical criticisms as well. I'll try to provide the briefest of summaries.

First, Jenson accepts a pre-existent Christ, but denies the concept of logos asarkos, that is, that there was a time when the Logos, or Son of God, was without a body. In this he is mainly following Karl Barth, but for Jenson, the precise reason that logos asarkos is problematic is because he identifies the pre-incarnate Son with Israel of the Old Testament. Normally this would be non-controversial, since the NT witness speaks of Christ's presence with Israel explicitly. However, Jenson's definition of Christ's identification with Israel takes a strong sense of identity, that is, Christ isn't simply identified by Israel as His body, but with Israel as His body, i.e. Israel is Christ's body. Crisp uses the analogy of an author being known by a reference to his writing ("The Systematic Theology I, by which I mean the book authored by Robert Jenson") and an author being known with (that is, identical to) a reference ("The author who wrote the book Systematic Theology I, which is Robert Jenson). Under this strong definition of Christ's identification with Israel, Christ would have a body (Israel) prior to having a body (the incarnation). It should be noted that Crisp provides a much more nuanced explication of Jenson's view than I am here giving.

Second, and in order to extend Jenson's rejection of logos asarkos beyond Creation, Jenson's view of time and of God's divinity must be accounted for. Jenson wishes to reject the metaphysic that he believes is inherited from the ancient Greeks ("Olympian-Parminidean"), which dichotomizes and opposes time and eternity. He neither favors Aristotle's view of God within an infinite linear succession, nor Plato's extra temporal reality for God outside of time. Rather, in Jenson's view, God is neither outside of time, nor existent across time in a linear succession of moments. God is, rather, eschatologically determined. He exists as His own future, without being "past" or "present," but is rather like a narrative, where we can speak of before and after.

One of the most frustrating and puzzling aspects of reading Jenson's Systematic Theology I, for me personally, was his refusal to offer an adequate definition of time. He could gesture, he could say what time is not, but he could not present what I considered a coherent viewpoint. I say this because I wish for you readers to know that I am sympathetic to Crisp's account of Jenson, for he finds the same incoherence, though for slightly different reasons. For Jenson, God's life is akin to narrative, where we may use past, present, and future as descriptions, and these descriptions are identifiable with the persons of the Godhead--Father is past, Spirit is future, and Son is present. This is precisely where Gathercole takes issue with Jenson's account of God the Son, since Gathercole argues that Jenson's treatment NT passages concerning Christ's activity in the creation of the world does not do justice to the Biblical data under Jenson's formulation of the persons of the Godhead. Certainly we might say that Jenson's account is interesting as a characterological treatment of the Biblical data, which does speak often of God as the one "before," the Spirit as the testament of "what is to come," and the Son as the one who "now is," with everything weighted toward the eschatological consummation of the narrative. However, I think Gathercole is right that Jenson's emphasis is an overemphasis, and I also agree with Crisp that however artfully styled Jenson's formulations are, they don't clarify anything given to us from the previous witnesses within Christendom. In producing a "pure" metaphysic, Jenson has emptied our conception of time, the divine nature, and Christ's pre-existence of much needed perspicuity.

I haven't done justice to any of the parties in the debate here, other than to give a bit of the lay of the land, along with my own impressions. I'll just leave you with two reasons why my sympathies lay with Jenson's "correctors" than with Jenson.

First, there is Jenson's wholesale rejection of "Greek metaphysics." There has been plenty of ink spilled over the question first raised by Tertullian, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens," that is, what does the Biblical God and His revelation have to do with pagan learning? Tertullian's answer was similar to Jenson's--nothing at all! Others were more inclined to say with Origen--"they are essentially the same!" But I side with Augustine, who says that God has frequently given knowledge to those who fail to see Him or seek Him by it, and as Christians we can "plunder from the Egyptians" what is rightfully ours as God's people. The most basic illustration of this, to my mind, are the basic laws of logic (identity, excluded middle, contradiction). Aristotle codified them for the Western world, but surely these things are not Aristotle's possession, for they obtain before and beyond Aristotle's articulation of them. His recognition of the laws of logic do not entail wholesale adoption of his pagan metaphysics anymore than our agreement with Aristotle on any particular point of history or biology would. In this way, I think, Jenson errs in seeking to construct a new metaphysics from scratch.

Second, there is Jenson's description of time. I agree with him that Aristotle and Plato are both lacking. Gordon Clark made the same point in his lecture Time & Eternity. Plato only really offered a description ("Time is the moving image of eternity") that made for a clever aphorism, but not a philosophically defensible definition. Aristotle, according to Clark, wound up in a vicious circle, whereby time and motion were mutually defining without either being properly distinguished. Clark's solution, which he took from Augustine, was that time is a characteristic of created minds. Perceptive readers may sense a problem with respect to created objects that are not minds, but the objection presupposes a certain metaphysic of time and creation, which is not necessarily entailed by Augustine's definition of time. For example, one might propose an Edwardsian metaphysic, wherein creation is ideal, and our apprehension of it (given our finitude) is both derivative and successive and therefore characterized by "time," that is, our minds were not aware of object x, then became aware of object x, and then hold a memory of object x and apprehension 1, while continuing to gather new apprehensions at intervals 2, 3, 4, and so on. But the successive nature of our apprehension of creation does not itself define what is the nature of the objects of creation. I'm not committing myself to such a view, but only trying to show that Augustine's restriction of time to a characteristic of minds can be shown sensible and, therefore, defensible.

Edit: In glancing over this post again, it seems to give the impression that I think Jenson's efforts to be largely disappointing. I don't think that would be a fair expression of my view of Jenson's Systematic Theology. I don't agree with his metaphysics, his conception of time, his expression of the Trinity, and the details listed above, but I found a great deal of agreement and gained some insights I would not have in reading his work. It is easy to only deal with the "big things" with an individual like Jenson, who is attempting a lot. For that I respect his efforts and am thankful for his thoughts, even where we part ways.

Heavenly minded; no earthly good?

Third, they are those who, from the love that is in them, are, in heart and life, in principle and practice, struggling after holiness. Holy love makes them long for holiness. It is a principle that thirsts after growth. It is in imperfection, and in a state of infancy, in this world, and it desires growth. It has much to struggle with. In the heart in this world there are many opposite principles and influences; and it struggles after greater oneness, and more liberty, and more free exercise, and better fruit. The great strife and struggle of the new man is after holiness. His heart struggles after it, for he has an interest in heaven, and therefore he struggles with that sin that would keep him from it. He is full of ardent desires, and breathings, and longings, and strivings to be holy. And his hands struggle as well as his heart. He strives in his practice. His life is a life of sincere and earnest endeavor to be universally and increasingly holy. He feels that he is not holy enough, but far from it; and he desires to be nearer perfection, and more like those who are in heaven. And this is one reason why he longs to be in heaven, that he may be perfectly holy. And the great principle which leads him thus to struggle, is love. It is not only fear; but it is love to God, and love to Christ, and love to holiness. Love is a holy fire within him, and, like any other flame which is in a degree pent up, it will and does struggle for liberty; and this its struggling is the struggle for holiness.

Fifth, If you would be in the way to the world of love, see that you live a life of love-of love to God, and love to men. All of us hope to have part in the world of love hereafter, and therefore we should cherish the spirit of love, and live a life of holy love here on earth. This is the way to be like the inhabitants of heaven, who are now confirmed in love forever. Only in this way can you be like them in excellence and loveliness, and like them, too, in happiness, and rest, and joy. By living in love in this world you may be like them, too, in sweet and holy peace, and thus have, on earth, the foretastes of heavenly pleasures and delights. Thus, also, you may have a sense of the glory of heavenly things, as of God, and Christ, and holiness; and your heart be disposed and opened by holy love to God, and by the spirit of peace and love to men, to a sense of the excellence and sweetness of all that is to be found in heaven. Thus shall the windows of heaven be as it weere opened, so that its glorious light shall shine in upon your soul. Thus you may have the evidence of your fitness for that blessed world, and that you are actually on the way to its possession. And being this made meet, through grace, for the inheritance of the saints in light, when a few more days shall have passed away, you shall be with them in their blessedness forever. Happy, thrice happy those, who shall thus be found faithful to the end, and then shall be welcomed to the joy of their Lord! There "they shall hunger no more, neither thrist anymore; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and lead them to living fountains of waters, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

Jonathan Edwards, Heaven, a World of Love

 Edwards in these passages expresses how it is that true heavenly-mindedness does not lead to escapism and dereliction of  duty in the present life, but rather invigorates and enhances the Christian's ability to be of great good in the present life. For in longing for heaven, the heart it drawn to its fruits, the desire for which causes within the heart a pursuit of holiness and charity, which are the fruits of heaven. The greater lack of these constitutes the greater lack of heaven, but the greater pursuit of these brings heaven the closer to the experience of the Christian. If the Christian should wish to experience the joys of heaven--wherein no lack of love and no striving against others is found--he must pursue selfless love and beneficent service to his neighbor, and thus to God. The love of God compels us to live as He lives, full of grace and truth. How could a greater measure of such fruits lead to a lesser effort for good in the present life? The contrary is the case, and it is both a shame upon the Church in her failures to conceive of heaven rightly, and condemnation upon her enemies, whose slander is based upon the errors they see rather than the truth that stares them in the face.

Cross posting: The End of a Thing Determines its Beginning

The following is a combination of two posts I did for another blog, which is where I do most of my musings and book logs.

The phrase that heads this current post seems counter-intuitive in our present age. How can something's end determine its beginning, see as how the beginning precedes it in time? It is such temporally determined thinking that prevents us from considering how it is that God works in the world, how it is that He makes good what is evil, how it is that we must see all things now are, though they have not yet been brought to pass in history.

From all eternity, in order to glorify Himself to the uttermost, God did determine to choose unto Himself an elect people to give unto His Son, with whom the mutual agreement was made to unite this people unto the Son, in an immaculate display of God's perfection. As God is both merciful and just, as He is both gracious and wrathful, He decided it most pleasing to choose some upon whom His love He would place and some upon whom His wrath He would place, not according to any condition foreseen in these objects, but because of His own desire to magnify Himself did the God of Heaven make unto Himself objects of mercy and objects of wrath. Here is the first decree, the last to be revealed in history--for we do not yet see all who it shall be that God has confirmed as His people, or denied as rebellious.

Given that God did choose to elect unto Himself a people to Love by His grace and mercy and a people to Hate by His justice and wrath, God did determine to apply the benefits of His Son, by the Holy Spirit's power, upon those who He would make unto Himself in love. The righteousness, holiness, goodness, long-suffering, peacefulness, and all the other communicable attributes of God He did decree to apply to the elect in Christ according to His electing love for them. To those whom He had determined to reprobate God withheld the merits of Christ by union with Him, instead passing them over in their unloved state. Here we see in history the calling out of God's people through regeneration, whereby they are delivered from the curse of sin and raised unto life, which they now live for God until He shall bring history to its end.

Given that God did decree to apply the benefits of Christ to the elect, and to deny them unto the reprobate, it was necessary to determine how it would come about that Christ's benefits would be applied to the elect. This salvation was to be according to the Law, which God decreed should be that standard according to which all men should be subject, and according to which they would be reconciled to God through the incarnation, obedient life, substitutionary death, and life-giving resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ. The apparatus of God's salvation is seen in history in the life and work of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the elect, prophesied from the earliest ages and revealed at the appointed time.

Given that God did decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through the incarnation and work of the Son in history, it was necessary for Him to determine how it would be that men should come under the penalty of wrath and the need for redemption. Therefore God decreed that all men should fall under the penalty of lawbreaking in their federal representative, Adam. By this Fall the whole of Creation would be separated from the love of God and be subject to the effects of God's wrath, including the curse upon the earth, and upon the subsequent generations of men propagated by natural generation. The means of bringing all men under the need of redemption was accomplished in history in the disobedience of Adam in the Garden of Eden, wherein he did take the forbidden fruit to the dishonor of God's commandment to him.

Given that God did decree to bring about the Fall of men in order that the means of salvation in Christ might be provided, and the merits of Christ be applied to those whom God had chosen to elect in Him for His own glory, God did decree to create the world and all that is it in, including the federal head Adam in whom all humanity consists under the law and according to natural generation. The Creation of the world was the first act of history, and the last intention of God necessary to bring about His utmost glory.

The consistency of logical progression of God's thought is the perfect reverse reflection of their temporal accomplishment. Understanding the character of God's thought as such, we are called to consider our own lives and every event in them as determined by the ends for which God is doing all things--His own glory, and the brining to maturation all those elect who are the image of Christ, Who is the image of God, who has manifest His glory in just this way, and no other.

When, therefore, there is evil, let us praise the name of the Lord and work according to His express commands. When, therefore, there is good, let us praise the name of the Lord and work according to His express commands. When, therefore, there is doubt concerning what is our destiny upon this earth, let us praise the name of the Lord and look into His perfect Law and find all that we are in Christ, and all that we shall do in His name and by His power for the restoration of all things to the great glory of our God, Father, Savior, King.

I'm going to add a followup to the last post. There, I concluded that:

"The consistency of logical progression of God's thought is the perfect reverse reflection of their temporal accomplishment. Understanding the character of God's thought as such, we are called to consider our own lives and every event in them as determined by the ends for which God is doing all things--His own glory, and the bringing to maturation all those elect who are the image of Christ, Who is the image of God, who has manifest His glory in just this way, and no other."

I'm sure a few of you read the previous post, blanched at its abstract character, and pulled away thinking, "but what has such considerations of 'logical' order have to do with how I live in the world?"

A perfectly valid question. Consider the fact that if you are one of God's elect, there is no moment in the history of your life, beginning to end, when God has not considered you in light of His loving purposes. That means that every circumstance, every sin, every success or failure: every single aspect of your existence is characterized by the love of God. Each sin, for example, brings not condemnation, but the opportunity for greater illumination and subsequent obedience. "Are we not then to lament our sins?" May it never be! That all things work to our good does not entail that all things we experience are praiseworthy! The breaking of God's law is indeed a lamentable offense, yet because the elect has been accepted in Christ from eternity, his standing before God is as a son, and not as an enemy. What father would give a snake when the son asked for an egg? God conditions us by degrees into His very likeness, the express image of God that is Christ Jesus. Thus, every destination has its journey, and every step of that journey is characterized by the direction determined by that destination. God is the governor, guide, and goad--how could we, his sons and daughters, come out otherwise than He desires, if we are indeed His children?

I often hear Christians complaining of how great is their sin, how manifestly difficult it is for them to master, and how wonderful it will be when we are free from sin in heaven. While all of these considerations are true in one sense, they are profoundly misleading in another. Has not our sin been placed upon an even greater Savior? Has not our flesh been crucified, and our life that we now live, lived in the power of God Himself, the Holy Spirit? Has not the power of sin and death been buried with Christ in His death, in order that we may walk unencumbered by the sins that so easily beset us? We children of God, every one of us, struggle in our sin to the extent that we fail to understand our identity--we are not our own individual self, but we are the complex identity of Christ-in-us-and-we-in-Him. The commandments to be of one mind so often given in relation to our brothers and sisters in Christ is because we are first of all made of one mind with Christ Himself. We have the mind of Christ - 1 Cor. 2:16.

A further corollary consideration to our being identified completely with Christ is that we must know what it means to be Christ upon the earth. If Christ is our Head, and we His Body, then the sense of the analogy would indicate that the Head will use the Body to accomplish His will in the earth. But what standard has been given, or what orders been issued, that we may know not only who we are, but what we are to be about? Jesus Christ came to be about the will of His Father, and while we are not privy to the same tasks in every respect (which of us would profess to propitiate the wrath of God for the elect!?!?), we nonetheless are given in Christ a model of our true humanity. Christ fulfilled the Law by following the Law in every respect. Love God. Love your neighbor. Two very simple commands within which are contained the limitless directives for Christians in every age and in every circumstance. Yet there are those who claim that the Bible does not speak to every consideration. God has indeed been silent on a great many truths, but those are expressly concerning Himself and His particular reasons for what He does. What we must choose in each choice is profoundly determined by Scripture in every aspect. Even legitimate matters of Christian liberty are characterized by the requirements of the first word: they must be Christian; they must glorify God as Christ glorified God in every way.

But further, who can be so foolish as to think that the Eternal God of Heaven would leave us groping for direction in those affairs that bear the most direct impact upon what we shall learn and how we shall live!? I am speaking of our decisions about how to educate our children. I am speaking about our decisions about how to use our money. I am speaking about our decisions about how best to use our "free time." The modern Church has so circumscribed the Law of God, if it has not thrown it out entire, that it cannot be said to be about much of anything concerning the Kingdom of God Almighty. We not only fail in knowing who we are, but in knowing how who we are impacts how we live, and not by some generalized platitudinous clichés tossed from our pulpits and in our parishes (where they still exist!). What use is the "power" of the "Gospel" when we know not what or how such "power" is to be used or what "good news" is to be spoken? What does it mean to "press the Kingdom" into our lives, really? How exactly is it that "seeing and savoring the beauty of Christ," works itself out, day to day?

The most basic implication is that we must know God's Law, Christ's Law, and find out how to apply it where we are now. For example, it is not enough that one should avoid lying to one's neighbor in order to fulfill the commandment against bearing false witness. One must also do all in one's power to protect the good name of one's neighbor. Do you gossip? Do you criticize on the basis of preference rather than principle? Do you not only wish no ill, but also wish the best for those around you? And no, the best doesn't always entail avoiding confrontation and being polite, for the best is to be free from sin and to honor God. If you see a brother sinning, we are to point him to God's Word for encouragement to repent, even as we must be prepared, with soft hearts, to accept the rebuke of a brother when confronted upon our sin - Hebrews 3:12-13.

But you will fail if you forsake the fact that your righteousness is not accomplished by your obedience to the Law, but rather, your obedience to the Law is accomplished because Christ's righteousness has been applied to your account! The end of the thing determines its beginning. You obey because you have been bought, you were not bought because you obey. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "Dogs bark because they are dogs, not because they bark." It is in the nature of the Christian to grow in obedience, because his life is Christ's life within, living out God's particular purpose for that individual life in the grand drama of His glory. If you aren't doing Christianity well, go think about what it means to be in Christ. Perhaps God will illuminate your mind to the knowledge of His Son, and thereby call you forth as son or daughter of the living God.

Hermeneutics and the Possibilities (and limits) of Language

Well I don't know if it ironic that the first actual posting about something I've read is from something not on one of my lists. I'm going to comment on one of the sections of a book published in 1957 by Lorraine Boettner entitled The Millennium, which discusses the three major viewpoints on the thousand year reign of Christ discussed in the book of Revelation in the New Testament.

I spent a few hours the other day reading the section on Postmillennialism which has been reproduced online: http://www.mbrem.com/eschatology/post13.htm

Boettner, aside from having a unique first name, is a proponent of Postmillennialism, but I think he fairly represents the alternative viewpoints (insofar as he treats them in the articles I read via the website link). The three views are: Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Premillennialism.

Postmillennialism
The first view believes that the thousand year reign of Christ began at the ascension of Christ to His heavenly throne at the right hand of God where He presently reigns and is working through the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit and the spread of the Gospel to redeem the world from its sinfulness. The view is often wrongly conflated with Progressivism and Modernism, which hold that the world is getting better and better because of the natural process of human enlightenment and the growth of knowledge. Postmillennialism does believe that the world is getting "better" in the sense that the Gospel has spread to a wider audience than it has even spread, that the principles and values of Christianity are accepted around the world in more places and to a greater degree than ever in history, and that this trend will continue (but not without ebbs and flows) as history progresses. The accomplishment of this is due not to natural processes or human willing, but by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the saints of Christ's Body, the Church in their faithful efforts to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations.

The thousand years is interpreted as a figurative number rather than a literal one in this view, and the accomplishment of the "golden age" where Christianity will be widely accepted and followed (but not universally or without sinfulness) will be ushered in gradually over a course of time that no human can determine.

Amillennialism
The second view is only briefly discussed by Boettner in the sections I read. Like Postmillennialism it does not take the number of a thousand to mean exactly one thousand years. Indeed, Amillennialism does not think that an actual reign of a thousand years refers to a specified or unspecified period of Christ's reign. They believe that Christ's reign has already been inaugurated, but unlike the Postmillennial proponents, they do not hold to a "golden age" where Christianity will be widely accepted and faithfully followed. The Church will experience periods of growth and decline, but the proportion of believers to unbelievers will remain balanced toward unbelief (typically) because of the promises of suffering spoken of in the New Testament and a couple of passages in particular (Matt. 7:14; the parables of Matt. 13; Matt. 22:14; Luke 13:24).

Premillennialism
The third view is split into two: Historic Premillennialsim and Dispensational Premillennialism. The former is the older viewpoint, while the latter is loosely related (Boettner refers to it as "radical" premillennialism). Both hold that the thousand years is preceded by the second coming of Christ. Dispensationalism generally holds that the period of tribulation that is referred to in Revelation occurs after the Church has been raptured, but before the second coming of Christ in full. Boettner critique Dispensationalism moreso than Amillennialism, primarily because the hermeneutic employed by Dispensationalism is different from the one employed by Post and Amils. In regard to the thousand year reign, Dispensationalists hold that it is a literal 1000 year period. This is not remarkable in itself, but the consistent application of their hermeneutic is that all of the prophecies regarding the Day of the Lord (Apocalypse) and the Second Coming are to be understood in a "literal" way, that is, upon a "plain" reading that does not "spiritualize" or "allegorize" the words of Scripture.

This last point is what brings me to the title of this post. Hermeneutics is the method by which one interprets Scripture. Everyone who reads has a hermeneutic, even the child reading Dr. Seuss is employing principles of interpretation. Does the child understand the story to have actually happened? If so, the principle of historical validity is in effect. Does the child believe that the story is completely imaginary? If so, the principle of fictionalization is in effect. Hermeneutics becomes difficult when figurative language is used in a work that does not indicate whether or not it is intended to be read as actual history (or prophecy) or whether the words are referring to actual events or ideas but in analogous ways ("my love for you is deeper than the ocean") or allegorical ways (Aslan's sacrifice in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is allegorical of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross) or whether the events or ideas are simply imaginary (like Spiderman).

Evangelical Christians, of course, believe that the Bible is not imaginary, and they believe that few, if any, portions of the Bible are allegorical (some believe Job and Jonah are parables, and of course, all believe that Jesus's parables are allegorical). However, the big difference in the focus of this post is whether the prophecies of Scripture ought to be understood as fulfilled in history "by the letter" or "by the spirit" of the words they are spoken/written with. For example, is the beast of Revelation really to have the body parts of animals and multiple heads? Will there be a real dragon? Or, are these descriptions merely symbolic of other material things (like a person, place, or nation for example)?

I have met very few Dispensationalists that believe that all of the language of prophecy is meant to be understood "by the letter." They understand that figurative language can be analogous. Indeed, a great many doctrines are expressed in figurative language. When the Bible speaks of believing with your "heart" it certainly does not mean that the organ that pumps blood to your body is what a person uses to believe in Jesus. Nor do Dispensationalists understand that the Bible's anthropomorphisms for God are literal. For example, God, as a spirit, cannot have hands or a mouth, though the Bible uses these descriptions to express qualities of God's nature and relationship to humanity and the created world.

Thus, both sides recognize that not every word of prophecy requires the reader to take a "woodenly literal" approach to it. I think Boettner fails to make this concession in some of his critiques of Dispensationalism, but equally so, Dispensationalists often accuse Post and Amils of using "spiritualizing" methods of interpretation, which is really another way of saying that they are reading figures of speech as analogous that Dispensationalists are reading as literal. The question then is not, automatically, whether the prophecies are "literal" or "figurative" for these terms are misleading. All viewpoints, if they are Evangelical, believe that the prophecies will be fulfilled in history as they are intended to be fulfilled. The italicized phrase is where the hang-ups begin.

There is a more fundamental issue of hermeneutics that under girds the entire discussion of prophecy, but I will refrain from going into too much detail. Every theologian develops an overall understand of what the Bible is saying and this has been broken down into two complementary categories: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. The former seeks to understand the Bible as it has developed over the course of history, that is, from Genesis to Revelation. The latter seeks to understand the logical relationship of all the propositions of Scripture on various topics, the most important of which being "Who God is" and "What are God's purposes." Systematic theology is secondary to Biblical theology, but for both of these efforts there is an assumption that the Bible is one Word, one message of God.

Biblical theology under the Post and Amil (and most historic Premils I think) view God's primary revelatory relationship to humanity coming through the Covenants of Scripture. Dispensationalists also give weight to God's Covenants with humanity, but they put precedence upon God's choice of Israel as benefactors of the Covenants of what has come to be known as the Old Testament. The New Testament is understood to be primarily for the Church, which is distinct from Israel. The first view (Covenantal) sees no fundamental distinction between the "Old" Testament and the "New" Testament in terms of its audience. The "Church" of the New Testament are the people of God in the same way (His eternal Covenant) and by the same means (God's electing grace by the gift of faith) as "Israel" of the Old Testament.

Systematic theologies built upon either of these viewpoints will differ in their understandings of certain things, but certainly not all things.

I leave it to my readers to investigate these topics more thoroughly upon their own desire and opportunities. For myself, I am fascinated on many levels by theological positions and the systems of understanding that support their conclusions. I have changed in my views over the years, but I will always enjoy striving to understand what the message of God to His people is as it is revealed in the words of Scripture.