Answering Reformed Objections to Evangelical Support of Israel

I ran across the link to this document on a Reformed Christian website, and besides its being provocative because my political persuasions about Israel are so much the opposite, it also looked like it would make a useful vehicle for exploring some of my objections to the theological position it represents.

An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties:

The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel

Recently a number of leaders in the Protestant community of the United States have urged the endorsement of far-reaching and unilateral political commitments to the people and land of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, citing Holy Scripture as the basis for those commitments. To strengthen their endorsement, several of these leaders have also insisted that they speak on behalf of the seventy million people who constitute the American evangelical community.

It is good and necessary for evangelical leaders to speak out on the great moral issues of our day in obedience to Christ's call for his disciples to be salt and light in the world. It is quite another thing, however, when leaders call for commitments that are based upon a serious misreading of Holy Scripture. In such instances, it is good and necessary for other evangelical leaders to speak out as well. We do so here in the hope that we may contribute to the cause of the Lord Christ, apart from whom there can never be true and lasting peace in the world.

At the heart of the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God's alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel.

Has this been stated somewhere in these terms? Perhaps in a document of this sort they can't specifically quote the position they're answering?

I haven't carefully followed this issue but this sounds like an extrapolation and not a fair representation of the position in question Perhaps there are some who see it as described. I suspect there are many different shades of theology involved among Protestants who support Israel with at least some degree of Biblical perspective on it. In a sense I don't support Israel because of my Biblical beliefs at all; I simply think they have a right to be where they are and they are the victims in the whole scenario.

But in terms of the Biblical framework, it is true that present-day Israelis think in terms of their ethnic claims to the reestablishment of Israel, which they see as given to them by God, while I see it as a different historical route to the grace of Christ for the Jews that picks up some unfinished Old Testament threads, not as a denial of the grace of Christ. When the prophecies are understood in the messianic context, this removes all the ethnic assumptions, but I believe they are nevertheless to have a literal earthly fulfillment as well. God's promises to bring them back to the land and cause the land to flower may certainly have a messianic fulfillment in Christ and His Church and the Kingdom of God, but that doesn't mean they won't also have a literal earthly fulfillment as well.

I have to admit, however, that much of my reasoning is based on the fact that Israel is there, that the wilderness has been flowering under their care, that against extreme odds they won some wars that were initiated against them by others, and that their neighbors and the world hate them with a passionate unjust hatred -- all signs that this is God's work.

God began His revelation of Himself on this dusty material planet, and it makes perfect sense that He would bring His final revelation of His glory -- to the entire human family as well as the heavenly creatures -- from the same geographic place He chose to set His name in the first place.

The Reformed or Amillennialist position insists that there are no unfinished Old Testament threads, that all have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. I'm not sure that ALL the prophecies have been fulfilled. Certainly in Christ there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but we are all one in Christ; certainly the Church IS the true Israel of God -- and yet there does seem to be some unfinished business left for the physical land of Israel. OR, put it this way: Even if all the OT prophecies have been completely fulfilled in Christ, that doesn't prevent there being another level, if you will, to those same prophecies that is yet to have a literal physical temporal fulfillment.

And again, this would be quite in keeping with the fact that the whole Old Testament plays out in this real world after all, even if Israel and the temple and the land are all now fulfilled in Christ and His Church. That is, God may still have dealings with Israel on a temporal earthly level, with the ultimate goal of both judging this world AND bringing the last generation of Jews into His Church.

The angels told the disciples that Jesus is going to come back exactly the same way He left, in real time to a real physical planet, and I don't see a way to spiritualize the passage that describes His literal physical return to the Mount of Olives, which will then split from the impact. Since to the Reformed mindset Israel does not rightly belong where it is, it seems they have to imagine an uninhabitable wilderness with a few scattered farms and nomads, as Mark Twain witnessed Palestine in the 19th century, as the proper place for Christ's return.

Second, others are teaching that the Bible's promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or "Holy Land," perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible's teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.

There is probably something to this criticism as I've heard this idea expressed by supporters of Israel, even to the denial of the need for Jews to be saved through Christ, but I think it's a minority view. If it's not, if much of how this document characterizes the supporters of Israel IS true, then I have to say I don't agree with THEM either.

However, again on the earthly physical level, the repopulation and revitalization of the land of Israel, PLUS their being surrounded by implacable enemies, certainly looks like fulfilled prophecy, at the very very least certainly HAS to be God's own work. I think these Reformed theologians are falling for a false either/or -- and perhaps there is some reason for this if their opponents are doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

In what follows, we make our convictions public. We do so acknowledging the genuine evangelical faith of many who will not agree with us. Knowing that we may incur their disfavor, we are nevertheless constrained by scripture and by conscience to publish the following propositions for the cause of Christ and truth.

1. The Gospel offers eternal life in heaven to Jews and Gentiles alike as a free gift in Jesus Christ. Eternal life in heaven is not earned or deserved, nor is it based upon ethnic descent or natural birth.

I must say I feel like saying to this, "So what else is new?" because it seems to be erecting a straw man of the evangelical defense of Israel. Again, MAYBE there are some (I've seen some who appear to tilt in that direction) who deny this fundamental gospel truth, but I doubt that's more than a slim minority, while everyone else would say "Of course, we know that."

2. All human beings, Jews and Gentiles alike, are sinners, and, as such, they are under God's judgment of death. Because God's standard is perfect obedience and all are sinners, it is impossible for anyone to gain temporal peace or eternal life by his own efforts. Moreover, apart from Christ, there is no special divine favor upon any member of any ethnic group; nor, apart from Christ, is there any divine promise of an earthly land or a heavenly inheritance to anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. To teach or imply otherwise is nothing less than to compromise the Gospel itself.

Perhaps they are answering a fringe segment, such as John Hagee and others who believe like him? I think they are a small minority among those who strongly support Israel's existence as fulfillment of prophecy.

Again, I don't know if my view of this is shared by many others or not, but I think this is a function of the two levels of prophetic fulfillment I suggest above. They don't contradict each other, they are parallel aspects of God's revelation. God's people ARE Christ's people, He is the way and no-one comes to the Father but by Him, so the Jews have to become Christ's people to be saved, but on the way there God is also dealing with all the peoples of earth.

Besides saving out a people for Himself He also has the objective of declaring His glory and His possession of the land -- the land is the whole earth as well as the spiritual or heavenly Canaan. His Israelites were His chosen instrument for that purpose and after all the promises have been fulfilled in Christ He might yet resume those dealings in the 70th week of Daniel, both to bring His rebellious people to Christ and to judge the world. Sure, I guess He could do this without temporal Israel, but it looks to many like He's chosen to do it with them. He'll probably teach some Christians a lesson in the process too.

Biblical logic is on our side. For instance, the Seventieth Week of Daniel is a major major sign that the Reformed camp seems to want to play down. The first 69 weeks of Daniel's prophecy were fulfilled EXACTLY, so why would we expect the 70th to be fulfilled any less exactly? And since it remains unfinished to this day it must be yet future, and since the first 69 week marked off the last years of the Old Testament up to the revelation of Christ as King, it makes perfect sense that the last week could very well occur within a resumed Old Testament context and be marked by the revelation of the Antichrist, and this does seem to require a restoration of Old Testament trappings, Israel itself, the temple and so on, even if ultimately these things will have to be abandoned as the Reality of Christ and the heavenly Jerusalem is completed. It's beautiful, it's almost symphonic in its arrangement, I do think it takes a spiritual tin ear to hold to the one-dimensional Reformed argument.

3. God, the Creator of all mankind, is merciful and takes no pleasure in punishing sinners. Yet God is also holy and just and must punish sin. Therefore, to satisfy both his justice and his mercy, God has appointed one way of salvation for all, whether Jew or Gentile, in Jesus Christ alone.

No argument here, folks. I'll try to be sparing now about repeating what I've said above.

4. Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, came into the world to save sinners. In his death upon the cross, Jesus was the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, of Jew and of Gentile alike. The death of Jesus forever fulfilled and eternally ended the sacrifices of the Jewish temple. All who would worship God, whether Jew or Gentile, must now come to him in spirit and truth through Jesus Christ alone. The worship of God is no longer identified with any specific earthly sanctuary. He receives worship only through Jesus Christ, the eternal and heavenly Temple.

No argument here either. As for the project to rebuild the Temple, I really don't see that Christians regard this as a legitimate alternative to Christianity -- do some? Sad if so, but that hasn't been my impression from the discussions and studies I've been in on about this. As many objectors to this idea point out, its reestablishment would be blasphemy in itself. But it seems to me that's a major theme of the last days, the coming to fruition of the "mystery of inquity."

The blinded Jews want the Temple back, of course, it's part of their heritage as they understand it, and it IS possible to argue from scripture that it must be rebuilt to fulfill certain prophecies of the last days. It's just a type, and in the Christian age it's blasphemy, but may nevertheless very possibly be packed with implications for God's plans for planet earth and indeed the entire cosmos: to glorify Himself in the eyes of the world in the full redemption of the Jews, the root of the tree into which the Gentiles were grafted, and in the judgment of the world. To glorify Himself. The ethnic factor is error, but they aren't Christians -- yet.

5. To as many as receive and rest upon Christ alone through faith alone, to Jews and Gentiles alike, God gives eternal life in his heavenly inheritance.

6. The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham were made effective through Christ, Abraham's True Seed. These promises were not and cannot be made effective through sinful man's keeping of God's law.

Very true and I don't know any Christian who thinks otherwise.

Continued next post.

A Literal Historical and Future Day of the Lord

Now I'm remembering why I never got very far into studying eschatalogical/end times systems. I pay attention for a while, listen to sermons and lectures from different points of view, read a few books, take some notes, ponder various diagrams and charts, learn some scripture, in fact I learn quite a bit, but eventually I nevertheless get confused, mystified, overwhelmed and give up.

Of course I absorb some of the ideas, I do read the scripture -- I've even read Revelation a number of times -- so it's far from a total loss; in fact I'm much the better off for the studying I've done. It's just that I never felt any of the different systems was completely trustworthy, which means I always end up with objections I can't resolve and that the answer from any particular system just doesn't dispel.

Although there's always been quite a bit of fringey excess in the Pre-trib Rapture camp (mostly interpreting every eruption of violence in the Middle East as a major sign of the End) I never completely gave up on them because much of their thinking makes sense to me, and maybe more important, their critics just never do a fair job on them.

At the same time I pretty much rejected the pre-trib Rapture itself in favor of a post-tribulation rapture because I never could see how the last generation should be allowed to escape tribulation that the rest of the church has gone through for millennia. That's a conclusion based more on reason than on any specific scripture, of course, but most of the scriptures used to buttress the pre-trib Rapture are also never fully convincing, usually seem open to alternate interpretations. NONE of the arguments from ANY camp are FULLY convincing, so although I was predominantly post-trib I had to keep all lines open, and I never settled on any particular system.

So I've been getting discouraged again -- largely a result of spending too much time recently listening to amillennialist arguments perhaps --, but if I step back and assess my current understanding objectively I have to acknowledge that I am a step ahead of the stalemate I've usually fallen into. I did pick up some support for the Pre-trib Rapture after all -- really a pretty big boost for it if I think about it: That is, I HAVE become convinced that the Lord promised to protect His church from His wrath and that the "great tribulation" of Revelation is God's wrath (or most of it is -- there's little I can state with certainty in all this).

The Book of Revelation is about The Day of the Lord, after all, that is prophesied throughout the Old Testament and discussed as well in other books of the New Testament.

The Day of the Lord is undeniably God's wrath against rebellious humanity, or the "heathen" and "sinners" in the King James, and there are at least two clear statements that this certainly doesn't include His own faithful people:

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

If His church is "not appointed" to wrath, the implication is that He will protect us from it one way or another. This COULD be by removing us from the scene altogether before the wrath begins, as the Pre-trib people argue, or it could be by other means, such as miraculous sustenance and protection during the period of wrath (as He provided for Elijah during the period of the famine). The passage in Revelation does convey a somewhat alarming note of conditionality -- that is, those who have "kept the word of [His] patience" will be kept from it, but SOME of the church will nevertheless not escape it. That's one way to read it anyway.

So I am now this much closer to the Pre-Trib Rapture position. It's a lot closer than I was before I embarked on this exploration a couple weeks ago. So that has to be acknowledged.

I also have to add that this includes the recognition that the Day of the Lord is a specific event in history. God's wrath has certainly come against this world in many ways over the millennia, and scripture tells us that God's wrath "abides on" those who reject Him, that all human beings are "children of wrath" in our fallen nature, until we repent and submit to Him, but the Day of the Lord is something quite above and beyond this "normal" wrath.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Clearly this doesn't just imply that in our fallen condition we are destined for the final wrath of Hell, as I've sometimes read these verses, but also experience wrath in this world, as we inherit all kinds of suffering for sin through our fallen nature.

The Day of the Lord is presented as an intensification of extreme suffering beyond most of what is normally encountered in this world. And it is indisputably WITHIN this world that it is to be encountered, indisputably within history, and indisputably therefore MUST be yet future.*

=============================================
*I don't know how this is explained by the post-tribulationists and post-millennialists (who say the church is going through the events of God's wrath as laid out in Revelation), and the amillennialists (I'm trying to grapple off and on these days with the amillennialists' peculiarly mystifying ways of thinking and haven't yet come across any systematic treatment of the Day of the Lord) but it seems to me that if they recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day they would also have to reckon with God's promises to protect His church from it and therefore recognize a major claim for the pre-trib Rapture. Let me guess: They DON'T recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day of the Lord -- they manage to spread it out over the last 2000 years or spiritualize it in some way.

FOR REFERENCE: SCRIPTURE pertaining to the "DAY OF THE LORD"

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Jeremiah 46:10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.

Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.

[What does this say? That it will be possible for some of the "house of Israel" to stand IN the Day of the Lord -- and that more might if they were supported rightly. The point is that the Day of the Lord is going to be survivable by some. Those who repent. Want to include here the commentary from Jamieson Fausset and Brown as it shows clearly the reason why God's own people may come under judgment]: 5. not gone up into . . . gaps--metaphor from breaches made in a wall, to which the defenders ought to betake themselves in order to repel the entrance of the foe. The breach is that made in the theocracy through the nation's sin; and, unless it be made up, the vengeance of God will break in through it. Those who would advise the people to repentance are the restorers of the breach (Eze 22:30; Ps 106:23,30).

hedge--the law of God (Ps 80:12; Isa 5:2,5); by violating it, the people stripped themselves of the fence of God's protection and lay exposed to the foe. The false prophets did not try to repair the evil by bringing back the people to the law with good counsels, or by checking the bad with reproofs. These two duties answer to the double office of defenders in case of a breach made in a wall: (1) To repair the breach from within; (2) To oppose the foe from without.

to stand--that is, that the city may "stand."

in . . . day of . . . Lord--In the day of the battle which God wages against Israel for their sins, ye do not try to stay God's vengeance by prayers, and by leading the nation to repentance.

Ezekiel 30:3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

Joel 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Joel 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.

Zephaniah 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

1Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2Corinthians 1:14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

NOTE: The Day of the Lord is closely associated with the coming of Christ, both first and second coming, and sometimes the characteristics of the two events get confused because of their close association. I haven't yet sorted all this out myself, but I want to note it here that they need to be kept conceptually separated.

Chuck Missler as I'm discovering him

I'm right now mostly engaged in listening to Chuck Missler on various end times topics at Google Videos. Years ago I read some of his pamphlets but was never very interested in them. I think that's because he has a tendency to get off into applying the Bible to news headlines and current affairs, which is just too iffy for me, and because he enjoys speculating about things like quantum mechanics and the science of walking through walls and that sort of thing, which bores me to distraction.

But when he's talking pretty strictly Biblically, as he (mostly) is in the talks I've been listening to, then I can really appreciate him. I don't mind at all if he gets off into speculations that are Bible-based, as he does when he proposes that "the Assyrian" is a better candidate for the final Man of Sin than others, because in the Bible that term does appear at times to refer to a specific but unidentified individual, unlike the similar phrases "the Egyptian" or "the Chaldean" which either refer to known individuals or stand for Egyptians or Chaldeans in general. I ran these through the Concordance and it is interesting that "the Assyrian" definitely has this specific connotation. (And the most famous Assyrian was Nimrod, and Nimrod is considered to be the prototype for all the false gods that have been worshiped by one civilization after another down to the Roman Empire, and then taken up into the Roman Catholic apostasy, as exposed particularly by Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons. Nimrod is an Antichrist and the Antichrist will have to be in the spirit of Nimrod in any case.)

So I find observations like that to be stimulating possibilities to juggle along with others, and Missler is particularly good at noting such distinctions and patterns in the Bible.

But when he gets off into insisting that "the Lord's day" as used by John in Revelation 1:10 does not refer to John's being in the spirit on a Sunday but to the "Day of the Lord" -- which is where he says John was when "in the Spirit" -- he loses me:

Jamieson Fausset and Brown (JFB) Commentary on Rev 1:10:

on the Lord's day--Though forcibly detained from Church communion with the brethren in the sanctuary on the Lord's day, the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was holding spiritual communion with them. This is the earliest mention of the term, "the Lord's day." But the consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's Supper, is implied in Ac 20:7; 1Co 16:2; compare Joh 20:19-26. The name corresponds to "the Lord's Supper," 1Co 11:20.

IGNATIUS seems to allude to "the Lord's day" [Epistle to the Magnesians, 9], and IRENÆUS [Quæst ad Orthod., 115] (in JUSTIN MARTYR). JUSTIN MARTYR [Apology, 2.98], &c., "On Sunday we all hold our joint meeting; for the first day is that on which God, having removed darkness and chaos, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him; and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught these things." To the Lord's day PLINY doubtless refers [Epistles, Book X., p. 97], "The Christians on a fixed day before dawn meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God," &c. TERTULLIAN [The Chaplet, 3], "On the Lord's day we deem it wrong to fast." MELITO, bishop of Sardis (second century), wrote a book on the Lord's day [EUSEBIUS 4.26]. Also, DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH, in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 4.23,8]. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 5. and 7.12]; ORIGEN [Against Celsus, 8. 22]. The theory that the day of Christ's second coming is meant, is untenable. "The day of the Lord" is different in the Greek from "the Lord's (an adjective) day," which latter in the ancient Church always designates our Sunday, though it is not impossible that the two shall coincide (at least in some parts of the earth), whence a tradition is mentioned in JEROME [Commentary on Matthew, 25], that the Lord's coming was expected especially on the Paschal Lord's day. The visions of the Apocalypse, the seals, trumpets, and vials, &c., are grouped in sevens, and naturally begin on the first day of the seven, the birthday of the Church, whose future they set forth [WORDSWORTH].

It also doesn't seem to me that John would say it that way if he meant he had been transported in vision to the final Day of the Lord, since he would know that the reader would need a great deal of orientation to grasp such an experience. Other prophets, such as Daniel and Ezekiel, very clearly designate where their visions take them, and are careful to describe even the experience of being taken there; they don't leave us with merely an ambiguous phrase to figure out.

So I reject that idea and would rather not even spend so much time on it, but since it's the sort of thing that is likely to come up again and again it's probably best to get my own answer put down as definitely as possible as soon as possible. (It turns out that Missler's objection to the phrase in Revelation has to do with his strong ideas about the Saturday Sabbath, which he calls by the Jewish word "Shabbat." That's a whole complicated discussion I'm not going to get into here -- except to say I disagree with his view of it, and with his use of Jewish terminology for this and other things).

Otherwise I have to say that Missler is a GREAT Bible expositor on topics related to the end times. His argument for the Rapture is Biblically impressive, and he is as Biblically well grounded on the Antichrist and the Book of Revelation as on the Rapture. His solid Biblical perspective contrasts with some discussions of other eschatalogical positions such as amillennialism, where you can get lost in abstractions and rhetorical or poetic Biblical allusions without finding much of an attempt to prove the system from specific Bible verses. If I have the patience I want to try to deal with some of those discussions too.

Missler is masterful at identifying the interrelationships of elements in the entire Bible, patterns that tie it all together. Even if one ends up with a different understanding of, say, the Book of Revelation, than his understanding, it can only be a huge benefit to have heard his discussion of it. He gives such a coherent and thoroughly Bible-referenced overview you can't help but come away feeling you FINALLY understand at least the STRUCTURE of that book and its place in the context of the rest of the Bible.