Best Bible Commentaries Interview on My First Corinthians Commentary

I was recently interviewed by Daniel Christensen, who owns and operates the website Best Bible Commentaries, regarding my First Corinthians Commentary in the Lectio Continua Series of expositional commentaries, now published by Reformation Heritage Books.

Here's the link to the interview:  Best Commentaries -- Interview with Kim Riddlebarger

Best Commentaries is an invaluable resource with reviews and publisher information for pretty much every commentary in print. 

Bookmark this one and check it out if you are looking for a commentary on any book of the Bible:  Best Bible Commentaries

What's Wrong in America and How to Fix It

This is well worth your time.  Arthur Brooks and Ben Sasse tackle a host of important issues raised in Ben's new book, Them

Rasputin -- When Truth Really Is Stranger than Fiction

I have heard many of the same legendary tales about the Russian mystic, Grigory Rasputin, you may have heard. 

Rasputin had unexplained healing powers.  He could seduce (and apparently did) virtually any woman he wanted.  His inexplicable ties to the Romanov family (especially whispers about his relationship to the Czarina) helped lead to the downfall of the Russian royals in Lenin's brutal revolution.

But the most bizarre of these legends have to do with Rasputin's death--and how he was nearly impossible to kill, adding a "Frankenstein" quality enhancing all the other legends.  Rasputin, we are told, was poisoned, then shot several times, tied-up, and pushed off a bridge into a frozen river.  But somehow he managed to sit up (apparently still alive), when his corpse arrived at the mortician.

Much of the proceeding is true, although much less bizarre, and actually far more consequential when seen in light of the historical narrative spelled out in Douglas Smith's new book, Rasputin: Faith, Power, and the Twilight of the Romanovs.

Lets start with the death legends.  Rasputin actually didn't ingest the poison intended for him.  He died from several gunshots--one as he was running away after being shot previously.  Those who plotted his death did indeed throw his corpse into the river, to hide their handiwork.  And when his remains were being cremated, his body bent in two from heat.  All the elements of the legend are there--just far less macabre.

In Smith's well-written narrative, the historical realities reveal the legends to be, in many cases, exaggerations and fabrications.  But sometimes there is enough smoke that there must be fire--and fire there is.  Rasputin was a lecherous man, who sinned to prove his own depravity and then seek forgiveness for it--a sort of mystic antinomian.  The grim reality of the havoc Rasputin brought upon the royal family was also painfully real--nothing less than disastrous for the royals and the Russian people. 

As Smith tells the Rasputin tale, a number of haunting questions arise.  How was this man--a peasant laborer in his early life--able to transform himself into a religious mystic who simultaneously was, and was not, in the good graces of the orthodox church? 

How did this peasant (with a loyal wife and children) become a mass-seducer, including many of the "ladies" in the leading circles of St. Petersburg?  How did he gain the Czarina's ear, if not her bed? 

Although Nicholas II had little use for Rasputin's political advice, or tips on military strategy, why did he allow this evil man access to his family?  Why did the Czar listen to this man's spiritual counsel?

One answer to these question is found in Rasputin's amazing power to "heal" the young Czar-apparent, Alexi, who suffered from hemophilia.  When Rasputin visited Alexi and prayed with him, the lad got better.  Repeatedly.  Because he could heal their son, the Romanovs welcomed him. 

The other answer is that the Romanovs, while loyal to their church, were also mystics who saw in Rasputin spiritual powers they could not explain, except as coming from the hand of God.  Even when the Great War become a national debacle, and even while insurrection was fomenting in the streets--which would lead to eventual regicide by the Leninists--the Romanovs did little to distance themselves from the very man who raised so many questions.  Rumors were everywhere about Rasputin's relationship to Alexandria while Nicholas was away fighting the war.  And why was the Czar--as rumor had it--listening to the "Holy" man who supposedly seduced his wife and much of her inner circle.

Douglas Smith tackles all of these questions.  Grigory Rasputin did not bring about the Russian Revolution.  But he gave many a Russian good reason to question to Czar's judgment and his royal authority--which did lead to their downfall.  The Czar seemed indifferent to the people's plight, and Rasputin's presence among the royals magnified that perception.

When it comes to Rasputin, truth is much stranger than fiction.  Smith's book is a good summer read, if you are looking for one.   

Too bad Daniel Day Lewis has retired from acting--Rasputin would make a great subject for a film, and Lewis would be the perfect actor to play him.

Have You Taken a DNA Test to Find Your Roots/Ethnicity? -- If You Have European Ancestry, This Is Must Reading

Jean Manco's revised and updated book Ancestral Journeys is one of the most interesting books I've read in a long time.   

The author is a "building historian," but is well equipped to combine archaeology,  climate history, and DNA research.  She capably turns a complicated and potentially boring subject into a well-written narrative, even though you had better read it with easy access to Wikipedia in order to look up all the ancient place names and regions lost to us moderns and now unfamiliar to most of us.

Climate Change?

While going though her book, it immediately becomes apparent that much of where early Europeans lived and why they moved has to do with climate change.  Rising seas, long periods of rain/cold weather, and extended periods of draught caused our ancestors to migrate, at times even from one end of the European continent to the other.  The old notion that the ancestors of many modern Europeans were peoples driven West by Eurasian invaders (i.e., Huns, etc.,) does not tell the whole story and has been greatly revised in light of DNA evidence.

At one point people could walk from Denmark (Jutland) across marshland to that future island we now identify as "England."  Climate change is obviously cyclical.  In fact, all of this occurred before the possibility that our contemporaries would disrupt sea levels and population centers by raising the earth's temperature through the use of fossil fuels and unfriendly environmental practices.  Either early humans did the same damage to the environment we are doing, or else there must be some other cause for global warming--perhaps natural causes such as solar influences?

Into Africa, Not Out of Africa?

While not a Christian, virtually everything Manco states about the culture and migratory patterns of early humans is closely tied to that region we identify as Mesopotamia (the Fertile Crescent).  Manco points out along the way that many of the long-standing theories of the peopling of Europe have been recently overturned, which makes me wonder how long will it be before the evidence pushes folk to conclude that just because Louis Leakey found ancient bipedal hominids in the Olduvai Gorge, that it is just as likely that modern humans migrated into Africa, rather than out of Africa.   But then this would tend to confirm the biblical account, and we can't have that, can we?

Dating?  Too Early?

Manco addresses one of the main issues I've had with DNA test companies--the assignment of very ancient dates for human origins.  I'm not a scientist nor a statistician, but it always bugged me that archaeologists boldly inform us of "certain dating" using what they call the "evolutionary effective rate" to determine the rate of mutations of the various human haplogroups (your inherited DNA type).  But isn't a genetic mutation, by definition, a random event, and can occur repeatedly within a few generations?  Must we assume that mutations occur at a fixed rate so as to push human origins back far enough to allow for some sort of human evolutionary model?  Manco concludes that using this evolutionary effective rate "overestimates ages dramatically" (231).  I'm glad to see someone in the DNA/archaeology community admit as much.  There is nothing in any of this to prove an ancient origin (50,000 BC or often much earlier) for the human race.  Much of the dating process is nothing more than sophisticated guesswork.  Manco even implies that modern humans are much more recent in origin than previously thought.

Race

The growing interest in DNA testing changes everything when it comes to race--or it should.  I grew up being taught in public school that there were three races (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid), and that modern humans evolved from apes.  This theory was always taught with the accompanying and despicable chart implying that African-Americans were somehow closer to primitive human ancestors than white Europeans.  One thing the proliferation of DNA testing has done is effectively put an end to such nonsense.  We all have common ancestors, and we are all, genetically speaking, a combination of many DNA haplogroups (in terms of our autosomal DNA--which the DNA companies use to determine your "ethnicity").  There is one Adamic race, and each of us are not only divine image-bearers, but we share a common ancestry and origin--an ancestral Adam and Eve.  We also share in Adam's Fall, which is the root cause of all race division and conflict.

Interesting Stuff I Never Knew . . .

I knew that slavery was the fate of weaker humans and losers in battle from the time of the earliest human civilizations.  But Manco contends that given the overwhelming number of slaves held in Europe and Middle East by the Romans and many others before and after, virtually all white Europeans have a high mathmatical probability of genetic ancestors who were slaves.  Yes, there may be a king or noble in your line, but there is almost a certainty that there is slavery too.

DNA tests have shown that reindeer originally came from Spain before migrating to Lapland, and that one group of ancient peoples (the Saami) have been closely tied to them ever since.  DNA proves that apples came from the Lli Valley in Kazakhstan, before the tree was "domesticated."

The movement of the Celts and Goths is a very complicated affair, but can be traced by language and the DNA they left behind.  "England" derives from the designation Angle-Land.  Britain is, of course, the Roman designation.  The Slavs have a very recent origin (500 A.D.) and expanded very rapidly into places like the Balkans and Eastern Europe.  This expansion also can be traced by using DNA testing and the rise of a distinctly Slavic language.

The book is filled with fascinating information like this.

As for Me

It would figure that I am not just the typical R1B white guy.  My DNA was recently reclassified by Family Tree DNA (the best DNA testing company, IMHO, if you wish to pursue this further).  My y-DNA was originally classified as G2A, one of the first y-DNA haplogroups to enter Europe, not very common (about 5% of the male population) but widely spread, originating in Eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq (remember modern countries and "ethnic groups" did not yet exist).  There is a cluster in Switzerland.

But an additional test determined I am H2-P96--very, very rare in modern Europe (a fraction of a percent, with a cluster in France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland), and now counted as among the very first peoples to enter Europe after the Ice Age (92-93).  The mainstream y-haplogroup "H" is found in large numbers in India and Pakistan.  So at some point way back when, one brother went West into Europe.  His DNA survived in a few European folk like me.  But his brothers went East and filled an entire subcontinent!  The Romani (H1), left India a thousand years ago and went West to Romania.  We know them today as "Gypsies." 

Apparently, my ancestors have been in Switzerland for a long, long time.  I've always had this weird desire to paint pictures of animals on my walls.  Now I know where that comes from.  My mtDNA (my mother's mother's mother's  . . . line) is U5B, a very common and ancient DNA, found throughout Europe, with much of it occuring before the Ice Age (50).  Many of you with European ancestry reading this probably have the same mtDNA. 

Rarely Does a Book Make Me Angry -- This One Did

By nature, I am not one to be easily swayed.  Nor am I given to embrace conspiracy theories--I am convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK acting alone.  I am not impressed by sensational or tabloid journalism, typical of our day.  I am pretty much set in my political opinions, as well as how I see and understand America's role in the modern world.

Therefore, it is rare when an author provokes me to anger, and causes me to re-think opinions I've long held, and in which I was once fairly settled.  David A. Andelman's book A Shattered Peace:  Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today made me mad.  I can honestly say this book forced me to think long and hard about America's role in forming the modern world--a role which led to a very flawed and failed treaty (Versailles), which set in motion a series of tragic events which brought about the death of millions (in a second World War, and a host of cataclysmic events including the Bolshevik revolution, the unending Arab-Israeli conflict), the re-ordering of the lives of millions more, and all with a callous indifference which will (and should) shock readers not previously aware that such a thing actually took place.

Thankfully, I am not as impressionable as I might have been back in my college days.  Had I read this book then--instead of protesting Jane Fonda's visit to my college campus--I might have joined with those burning the American flag and cheering her on.  There is much here which is disillusioning.

A Shattered Peace recounts the world-changing events which transpired during the days of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and which culminated in the disastrous Treaty of Versailles.  Many of our nation's actions and motives during the months when the modern world was formed in the Quai d`Orsay in Paris are troubling.  In a very compelling manner, David Andelman describes the jaded "we know better" attitudes and patterns in American and Western European diplomacy which produced the Treaty of Versailles--attributes which persist down to the present day, and which can still found throughout the diplomatic/strategic visions of each of the last four American presidential administrations (Republican and Democrat). 

The story Andelman tells is not pretty.  A Shattered Peace is not the typical left-wing attack upon American foreign policy under Republican Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes.  In fact, the book is endorsed by two of America's most capable diplomats, Henry Kissinger and Richard Holbrooke, who acknowledge that the very-flawed Treaty of Versailles "cast a long shadow."  Andelman aims at the father of American progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, whom Andelman describes as the epitome of virtue and naivete.  Andelman exposes Wilson's stubborn arrogance as the critical factor in the "America knows best" mindset with which the peace conference opened.  But Wilson was not alone in creating the disaster of Versailles.  Wilson was simply in over his head when dealing with the long-standing diplomatic culture of Europe--Realpolitik.  Woodrow Wilson was like the rich but clueless guy folks invite to their poker parties--knowing they can shake him down and he'll be none the wiser, despite his losses.

Great Britain and France initially saw Wilson as the sole bright light in a very dark place--Wilson was thought to have a genuine solution to ending the years of war, with horrific casualties and the undoing of the previous order of things.  But then Britain's David Lloyd-George and France's George Clemenceau manipulated and outmaneuvered Wilson repeatedly--forcing Wilson into compromise after compromise of the very principles Wilson claimed were inviolate.  According to Andelman, Wilson's "Fourteen Points–under whose banner American boys had gone to war, and often to their deaths on the battlefields and France and Belgium–were eviscerated by America’s own allies, all of whom had come to Paris with their own particular priorities.  None of these involved self-determination, territorial integrity, or the various freedoms on which the Points were based.”  (David Andelman, A Shattered Peace, 318). 

In fact, says Andelman,

“the document [Wilson] took home with him from Paris was profoundly flawed in almost every respect.  It failed to embrace any of the elevating moral vision that he had brought over with him.  In his efforts to win acceptance by the allies of his beloved league of nations [Article Fourteen], he compromised at virtually every turn with respect to the world he and his fellow peacemakers were creating.  Then, after returning to Washington with this perverted vision, he compounded the felony with a categorical refusal to entertain a single amendment or reservation to the treaty from the Republican-controlled Senate.  Many of these amendments, ironically, would have restored some of the goals that Wilson had surrendered in Paris.”  Andelman, A Shattered Peace, 318).

Not only was Wilson blissfully unaware of how badly he played the game, the game itself was beyond the pale--European imperialists dividing up the world as though they were playing a game of Risk.  The haphazard nature of the process of settling national boundaries after the Great War, especially in the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was cynically described by Harold Nicolson, a young British diplomat at Versailles, in his diary (cited by Andelman).

A heavily furnished study with my huge map on the carpet.  Bending over it (bubble, bubble, toil and trouble) are Clemenceau, Lloyd George and PW.  They have pulled up armchairs and crouch low over the map . . . . They are cutting the Baghdad railway.  Clemenceau says nothing during all of this.  He sits at the edge of his chair and leans his two blue-gloved hands down upon the map.  More than ever does he look like a gorilla of yellow ivory . . . . It is appalling that these ignorant and irresponsible men should be cutting Asia Minor to bits as if they were dividing a cake . . . . Isn’t it terrible, the happiness of millions being discarded in that way?  Their decisions are immoral and impracticable . . . . These three ignorant men with a child to lead them . . . . The child I suppose is me.  Anyhow, it is an anxious child.  ( A Shattered Peace, 1-2)

It is hard to imagine the leader of the free world (Woodrow Wilson) and the representatives of the two victorious great powers (Lloyd-George and Clemenceau) down on their hands and knees, looking at a huge map, dividing up the world, and creating artificial nations and spheres of influence, which had never before existed (i.e., Iraq) and which have greatly troubled the world since.

Among the consequences of the Versailles treaty, Andelman describes the following:

• Arbitrarily determining the boundaries of Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, which led to great strife and conflict among these nations in the years to follow 
• Versailles recognized the new nations of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, yet left scores of ethnic minorities in new countries, cut-off from their former nations.  This included millions of ethnic Germans in Poland and the Sudetenland, virtually guaranteeing Der Fuhrer's occupying them by peace or by force
• China sought self-government, but Wilson sold them out due to his concern that Japan would not endorse the League of Nations
  
• The Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish homeland (not a state) in Palestine.  This issue has not been settled since
• Redrawing the map of the entire Middle East--producing endless conflict and a resurgence of militant Islam
  
• And then, of course, there were the economic reparations required of Germany, which ensured that Germany would go to war against Britain and France again because of the injustice of it all

I could go on and on, but am getting angry again just thinking about how three men (Italy was there too, but not nearly as active) and their staffs of ill-informed and aggressive political wannabes carved up the world, without a clue as to what they were doing, and how many millions of lives their decisions would impact.

You get the point--the Treaty of Versailles was an unmitigated disaster.  David Andelman's A Shattered Peace recounts the whole gory process and the consequences of it all--all the way down to the formation of ISIS.

What makes me angriest perhaps, is that much of American foreign policy since continues to demonstrate that our politicians and diplomats have not learned these lessons, and far too often we read of our foreign policy folks continuing with the arrogant "we know better" attitude which create and fuel many of the conflicts they are now attempting to resolve!  If we don't know our own history, we are doomed to fail.

I began this review with my own experience of protesting Jane Fonda during my college days, precisely because Andelman recounts the story of a young man (a waiter and sous-chef) from French Indo-China.  The young man witnessed first-hand the behind the scenes events at Versailles, and was glibly turned away by staffers, when he tried to get a hearing with the participants about how his own people ought to be delivered from French Colonial rule.  Disillusioned by what he saw and thoroughly exasperated, the young man made the journey to St. Petersburg to learn what he thought might be a better way.  He would sit at the feet of Lenin and Trotsky.  That young man was Nguyen Ai Quoc.  We know him today as Ho Chi Minh.  Versailles' long shadow extends all the way to the Vietnam War.

Sadly, A Shattered Peace is marred by typos, the presence of computer code, and editor's symbols.

Read it, and weep.  It is a sad and tragic story, but of vital importance.

Explaining the Book of Revelation by Treating It as Fiction

It used to be the case that dispensational prophecy writers attempted to justify their unique interpretation of the prophetic portions of the Bible, by correlating current events with relevant biblical passages.  Dispensational prophecy experts possess an uncanny ability to deftly explain the most consequential events in the evening news or morning headline on Drudge, as enabled by their distinctive system of biblical interpretation.  Every natural disaster, war, or plague, can be used to prove the Rapture is near.  This gives the Bible relevance, we are told, and it also proves that the dispensational understanding of the Bible is the correct one.  The Bible predicts and explains current events.

Admittedly, the Book of Revelation is difficult to understand.  The book is full of symbols, numbers, and references to both obscure and well-known prophecies from the Old Testament.  Yet, dispensationalists have been quite eager to introduce, interpret, and explain this mysterious Book of Revelation to those interested in politics and world affairs, by claiming John's Apocalypse is "history written in advance." 

According to the dispensational understanding of Revelation, the Apostle John is foretelling the terrible things to be unleashed upon the earth after the church is supposedly removed from the scene, at or near the beginning of the seven year tribulation period.  Dispensationalists tell us that in Revelation 4:1, when John hears a voice saying "come up here," he is referring to the Rapture.  Therefore, everything which follows in the Book of Revelation is an account of what will happen after the Antichrist makes a peace treaty with Israel, as the Gentile church (now raptured) awaits with the Lord his return from heaven.

Dispensationalists claim that they find all of this in the Book of Revelation, because they interpret the book "literally," while the dreaded amillennarians (like me) "spiritualize" Bible prophecy, enabling us to explain away the otherwise obvious dispensational interpretation of the Book of Revelation. 

Over the course of my adult life, this was a debate both sides (dispenationalists and amillennarians) thought worth having.  In fact, I'm still engaged in it.

So, you can imagine my surprise when I ran across a recent interview with Dr. David Jeremiah, the well-known dispensational writer and pastoral successor to Tim LaHaye (Interview with Dr. David Jeremiah).  In discussing his newest book, Agents of the Apocalypse, Dr. Jeremiah offers a very surprising justification for introducing fictional characters into a book explaining the meaning of Revelation to the American masses.

Dr. Jeremiah tells the interviewer,

"We took 10 characters from the Book of Revelation and told the story of that book built around those individual characters or groups of characters and we introduced every chapter with a fictional element that drives this down into the hearts of people," the California megachurch pastor explained. "It's really been fun to see how it's opened up this book (Revelation) to so many people."

The characters and groups that begin each chapter of Agents of the Apocalypse, published in October, include "The Exile," "The Martyrs," "The Two Witnesses," "The Dragon," "The King," and several others, including the two "beasts," one from the sea and another from the earth.

Dr. Jeremiah contends that the best way to explain the Book of Revelation is by introducing fictional characters so as to "drive the message down into the hearts of people," and to open this book (Revelation) "to so many people."  I'm surprised at Dr. Jeremiah's justification for doing this because I always thought that the heart of the defense for reading Revelation through a dispensational lens, is that biblical prophecy only makes sense when interpreted "literally."

Why would Dr. Jeremiah move from a popular-styled verse by verse exposition of the text, as dispensationalists have done for years, to introducing fictional characters to help us understand it better and drive its message home?  I'm having trouble seeing the logic in this.

No doubt, the main reason is that the LaHaye/Jenkins Left Behind series paved the way for successive waves of Christian fiction focusing upon end times.  Even the self-professed "Bible Answer Man," Hank Hanegraaff, jumped into the lucrative Christian fiction market with an anti-dispensational series of novels tied to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (The Last Disciple).  The Left Behind novels were unashamedly marketed as Christian fiction, and although they were overtly dispensational in their theology, they were not offering commentary on a specific book of the Bible.

I get that Dr. Jeremiah is using fictional characters as a literary device to explain and articulate the dispensational reading of the Apocalypse.  Yet does not this approach fly in the face of the long-standing dispensational presupposition that we must read the Book of Revelation literally to ensure that we do not spiritualize its meaning?  How is the introduction of fictional characters not spiritualizing biblical prophecy?  How is this not a serious undermining of the very reason why Dr. Jeremiah interprets Revelation as he does in the first place?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Tim LaHaye's successor, of all people, would be so unapologetic for using fictional characters to explain his "literal" understanding of biblical prophecy.  Jeremiah adds,

"these are really cool characters that we created. Judas Christopher is the name we gave to the anti-Christ, the one who's going to come and take over control of the world. Damon Detherow is the false prophet who is his religious and economic czar."

When I think about it, giving the Antichrist and false prophet fictional names and seeing them as "cool characters" is but another way of doing what dispensationalists have always done--attempting to interpret the Bible in light of current events.  But when there are not obvious candidates for the Antichrist and False Prophets in the evening news, why not just make up substitutes who do the same thing dispensationalists expect to happen at the time of the end?

I hope my dispensational friends can see the irony that we spiritualizing amillennarians strive to resist such efforts to explain Revelation through any means other than interpreting Scripture by Scripture (Harold Camping aside).  We work from clear passages to harder texts.  Striving to read the Book of Revelation through the broader lens of redemptive history, amillennarians believe the Book of Revelation is a divine commentary on those Old Testament prophecies which find their fulfillment in Christ at both his first and second advents.  The key to interpreting the symbols in the Book of Revelation is to determine how they are used in the Old Testament.  The apocalypse clearly reflects the already-not yet tension found throughout New Testament eschatology. 

Fictional characters cannot help us understand this book--but real biblical characters (like those in the Old Testament) can.  Shouldn't we turn to them first?  Granted, some amillennarians have tied the Antichrist to current events and historical personages, such as the papacy during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods.  Yet in most cases, Reformed writers avoid identifying a particular Pope as "the" Antichrist.

Many more have embraced the wise counsel of Geerhardus Vos, who warned Christians that there will be a number of end-times prophecies we simply cannot fully understand until they are fulfilled--but this will be at that time when the Lord returns, when all prophetic speculation is no longer an issue.

Using fictional characters to "explain" the Book of Revelation is the last thing I would expect a dispensationalist prophecy expert to do.  I guess the times have changed.  Fiction sells.

My Review of Sam Storm's "Kingdom Come"

I recently reviewed Sam Storm's important new book on amillennialism, Kingdom Come:  The Amillennial Alternative for Modern Reformation magazine (Nov./Dec. 2013
Volume: 22 Issue: 6).

The editors of Modern Reformation have given me permission to link to that review in its entirety

_______________________________

There are a number of books currently in print that make the case for an amillennial understanding of biblical eschatology. Sam Storms's Kingdom Come is an important addition to a list that includes O. T. Allis's Prophecy & the Church (P&R, 1945); Anthony Hoekema's The Bible & the Future (Eerdmans, 1979); Cornel Venema's The Promise of the Future (Banner, 2000); as well as my own, A Case for Amillennialism (Baker, 2003/2013). But Sam Storms's Kingdom Come does not merely replicate the arguments of those writing before him. As he recounts in his introduction, Storms was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS)—the bastion of dispensationalism—and studied under dispensationalism's most capable advocates: John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost (10). By 1985, Storms had given up dispensationalism, and subsequently premillennialism, which he recounted in a manuscript that he developed—after much honing and reflection—some twenty-eight years later into this current volume (12).

As a DTS insider, Sam Storms knows well the problems with dispensationalism and premillennialism. His unique perspective on the topic, I submit, explains why Kingdom Come is more of a refutation of dispensationalism and premillennialism, than it is a statement and defense of amillennialism (characteristic of the previously mentioned books on the subject).

This is precisely why Storms's book is such a welcome addition to the field. Although dispensationalism has serious flaws, it stills survives as a system of interpretation largely because the previous volumes are not comprehensive in terms of fleshing out and exposing the particular exegetical details and problems underlying the dispensational premillennial system. As long as dispensationalists can argue that the details of the system remain intact, they are not likely to give it up—despite the "big picture" criticisms raised against the entire system. Storms's invaluable contribution does precisely this as he painstakingly fleshes out those details, explaining why both dispensationalism and premillennialism fail to properly explain the meaning of a number of biblical passages. In the process, Storms accumulates an impressive amount of evidence as to why amillennialism provides a better way to make sense of the eschatology of the Bible.

To read the rest of this review, Click Here

Engines of Change

The thesis of Paul Ingrassia's recent book Engines of Change (2012) is the symbiotic relationship between American culture and sucessful automobile design. 

Ingrassia selects fifteen automobiles as representative subjects of his study.  As he describes the origins and histories of the auto manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and design engineers behind these fifteen automobiles, Ingrassia takes us from Henry Ford (and his Model T) to Hiroshi Okuda of Toyota (who pushed for the development of a revolutionary gas-electric hybrid which we now know as the Prius).

Among the fifteen automobiles Ingrassia selects are the Ford Mustang, the Pontiac GTO, the 1959 Caddie (with its massive tail fins), the WV Beetle, the Honda Accord (and Civic), the Ford F-150, the Jeep, the Dodge Caravan, and the Chevrolet Corvair.  The latter Ingrassia ranks as the second most important car in American history after the Model-T--precisely because the Corvair was as innovative as it was terribly flawed.  The Corvair not only greatly influenced Detroit's philosophy of auto design (in the early 1960's), but ironically gave birth to the contemporary consumer right's movement which has provided jobs for a entire generation of liability attorneys.

As a repeat Ford Mustang owner (I've owned the 1979 TRX Fox body, and now the 06 GT), I did not know that the 1964 1/2 Mustang was built on the 1963 Ford Falcon chassis almost as an afterthought.  I'm glad the 2005 model reintroduction started from scratch.  I'd hate to think my GT was a glorified Taurus.

I also did not know the story behind Honda building its large factories in Ohio (a point of great interest to me since one of my sons now works in advanced product planning at Honda in So Cal).

Ingrassia includes the story of the tail-fins war in the late 50s, the history of the discombobulated mess of a German motor company which is now BMW, as well as an interesting historical connection drawn by Ingrassia from the Corvair, to Ralph Nader, to the election of George W. Bush in 2000.  Along the way, Ingassia describes the innovative genius and the flaws of men like John Delorean, Henry Ford, Harley Earl, Hiroyuki Yoshino (of Honda), and Lee Iacocca.

Nothing terribly profound or earth-shattering here.  But this is a well-written, entertaining, and informative book.  If you love cars, or are simply interested in American culture, and if you want an enjoyable and engaging read, you'll enjoy Engines of Change

The Classical "Liberal" Who Was the First "Conservative"

Jesse Norman's fine biography of Edmund Burke (2013) is well-worth reading.  I never thought I would recommend a book about a working politician; but Burke is not your ordinary working politician.  The book's cover blurb is quite correct when it identifies Burke as "the greatest and the most underrated political thinker of the last three hundred years."

Born in Ireland in 1729, Burke served many terms in Parliament, and became a key figure in the Whig Party (pro-Parliament and pro-aristocracy).  A compelling orator and brilliant political theorist, Burke is best known for his sympathies for (but not support of) the American Revolution.  This stands in sharp contrast to Burke's militant opposition to the French Revolution. 

The former, Burke thought, was brought about by the failure of King George III to treat the American colonials as true Englishmen, with the full rights and privileges thereof.  The latter, Burke argued, was grounded in a romantic utopian dream which entailed the overthrow of traditional standards of morality and government.  "The [French] had fallen under the malign influence of Rousseau" (145), which inevitably led to the horrors of regicide and political anarchy. 

The American Revolution arose--Burke thought--because of genuine grievances which were not properly addressed by the English king nor Parliament.  It was the king who arbitrarily asserted his power over the colonies.  The revolutionaries simply wanted redress and repeatedly did not get it.  The American Revolution did not lead to "the destruction of America's society and institutions."  But the French Revolution was completely different, seeking not to address specific and just grievances, and which therefore, led to the wholesale destruction of existing French institutions (252).

Norman's biography is divided into two parts.  In the first part, Norman sets out a well-crafted biography covering the ground from Burke's humble Irish origins, to his death in July of 1797.  Burke became a member of Parliament in 1765, and quickly demonstrated his great skills as an orator and political thinker.  Burke was an opponent of slavery, a defender of human rights (including rights for Catholics in Ireland) and a champion of the free market.  Burke participated in the debate over Irish self-governance, he was there for the debate over the American war for independence, as well as the French Revolution.  Burke was also present during the Parliamentary debate over the increase of English rule and authority in India.  These were very important moments in modern English history.  Throughout this entire time, Burke opined on the importance of tradition, the great value of existing political and cultural institutions, and steadfastly argued that societal change (which is inevitable) must be slow, incremental, and avoid all use of arbitrary political power.

The second half of Norman's biography addresses Burke's political thought and endorses Winston's Churchill's assessment of Burke as "a foremost apostle of liberty" (281).  Yet, as Norman points out, even though Burke was the first conservative, he would not fit well in contemporary "conservative" political parties (in both America and the UK), who often claim his legacy as their own (283).  This lack of fit would stem from Burke's stress on moderation in all things political, and his worries about religious absolutism (i.e., the Christian right). 

Yet, Burke is no fan of romantic idealism (the utopian society), nor would he be anything but critical of the rank individualism which dominates modern liberalism.  As a classic liberal (a champion of freedom), ironically, Burke is regarded as the "first conservative," because of his near total opposition to arbitrary government power or the tyranny of the majority (in a democracy).  Since Burke would argue that the state should be very reluctant to wield its power, it is safe to say that he would not be a fan of those "conservatives" today who think American exceptionalism is itself ample justification for war and military action.

Norman's Edmund Burke: The First Conservative is an enjoyable read.  You can find it here:  Edmund Burke 

Gettysburg

Another book on Gettysburg?

Yup, another book on Gettysburg, which is the largest battle ever fought on North American soil, and one which, no doubt, changed the course of American history.  But this is a book well-worth tackling regardless of how much, or how little, you've read on the subject before.

Allen Guelzo is a capable historian and an interesting writer.  He has a knack for laying out established facts, which he then fleshes out in light of the opinions and observations of the participants (Guelzo makes extensive use of personal correspondence from the period).  Guelzo also has a knack for making very sane judgments (judgments which won't please revisionists) about the events he's just discussed.  And where applicable, he teases out the ramifications of these events for subsequent American history.

If you've read Michael Shaara's Killer Angels or have seen the glue-on beard marred epic movie "Gettysburg" (which actually isn't bad, except for Martin Sheen's horrible portrayal of Robert E. Lee as some sort of Eastern mystic), then you probably believe that the South's failure to capture Little Round Top toward the end of the second day (July 2) was the turning point of the three-day battle.  Not true. 

Guelzo makes a compelling case that while a serious Confederate effort to turn the Union flank at Little Round Top nearly succeeded, and was indeed thwarted by the heroics of the 20th Maine (led by Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain), the real turning point of the second day was the failure of Longstreet's men to break through the Union line just south of Cemetery Ridge at dusk--largely due to the long forgotten suicide charge of the Union's 1st Minnesota (who don't appear in Shaara's novel or the film). 

The near-success of Longstreet's corps (which ultimately was staved-off by the Union because of fatigue, loss of daylight, and due to communication issues among Confederate reserve units--if only someone had a cellphone!) was precisely why Lee attempted to do the same thing again on the third day with the infamous Pickett's Charge.  This is the very moment, perhaps, when the South lost all chance to defeat the Union army and end the war in victory (a negotiated surrender).  Lee was not making a "chips all in" move of desperation.  Rather, in light of the Napoleonic tactics of the day, he was attempting to exploit a weakness in the Union line which gave way the day previous.  The South had come very close to victory and following up was the obvious thing to do.  As for the manner in which the orders for the third day were executed, well, that is a different matter.

Guelzo also contends that it was Union general John Reynolds (a capable Pennsylvanian, who did not want to see foraging Confederate Army rob the people of Pennsylvania blind), who advanced on his own initiative to Gettysburg to engage Lee, which, in turn, forced the newly appointed and cautious Union commander George Meade to likewise advance with the entire Union army from his defensive position along Pipe Creek in Maryland.  Meade, reluctantly at first, marched the Army of the Potomac more than thirty miles up the now well-known roads from the south to north to prevent Lee from overwhelming Reynold's First Corps at Gettysburg, along with the two corps following him (Howard's and Slocumb's). 

Reynolds, as you may know, was killed early on the first day (a major loss to any army when a corps commander is killed).  Lee very nearly defeated the discombobulated Union Army seriatim as the three Union corps advanced one by one, trying in vain to get into position to prevent the Rebels from occupying the town.  Since Meade had seven corps, however, it was only a matter of time before the Union armies occupied Cemetery Ridge and took up defensive positions, which meant it was Lee who would be forced to attack, not Meade.

Guelzo's treatment of the famous Lee-Longstreet spat over battle tactics (on days two and three) is also insightful.  What amounted to a difference of opinion on the day of battle, became a full-fledged feud after the war only because of the wounded pride and fierce loyalty of those who served together under these two generals--even though there was no major dust-up between Lee and Longstreet on the day of battle as claimed.  The blame game often distorts the historical record, as it has here.

Guelzo's discussion of the plight of the civilians of Gettysburg, who were so terribly impacted by the battle which landed on top of them, reveals much about an important though overlooked element of the battle.  Can you imagine having 80,000 men land in your small town, killing each other, stealing your food and property, and then leaving their dead and wounded men and animals behind?  Barns and fences, field crops and orchards, were completely destroyed.  The citizens of Gettysburg suffered as much as the armies did--perhaps more. 

I had no idea Union scouts could identify and track the Confederate Army from distance simply by smell.  The point is gross enough, but speaks to the fighting readiness and condition of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in July of 1863.  It is utterly remarkable the Confederates fought as well, and relentlessly as they did, when they were so ill-equipped for an invasion.

Simply put, Allen Guelzo's Gettysburg a great read, and I highly recommend it.  I'm thankful we have another book on Gettysburg--especially this one.

Order it here:  Gettysburg