Returning to the Biblical Bema: 2 Cor. 5:10

[AnotherBaptist]

I hope that you will see that my posts are not from obsession or bitterness (and how does one even go about clearing oneself from that?) but from Scriptural grounds. Yes, in tackling this topic I have to necessarily confront the views that I feel are erroneous. And quoting those views - if I am going to be accurate - require bringing up actual expounders of those views. But I do all that to get back to the Bible and to what I believe is a return to Scriptural footing.

With all due respect I don't think you understand my "bitterness" or you would have seen it is not bitterness but, rather, relief and exasperation.

"Relief" because, after years of thinking one way, teaching and preaching it, I had now found the framework that makes for a much better biblical fit. It accounts for a whole bunch of passages that, under my old dispensational years, remained disturbing unsolvable puzzles.

"Exasperation" because, desiring to share these things with other Christians, we very often see a knee-jerk defensiveness rather than a serious examination of the arguments.

I didn't get to the other parts of your post, because this part seemed even more important. Feel free to repeat or rephrase.

Thanks for writing.

In retrospect I can now see that I may have not approached you correctly about this. I don't see either dispensationalism or your viewpoint as being 'in error". They are positions derived from distinctly different hermeneutics. They are both expected outcomes of those hermeneutics and should not surprise or dismay anyone. You listed men who hold the dispensational position and quoted them as seeing the Church rewarded at the Bema Seat. Would not anyone who sees a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church hold this view? If so, then why does that make it in error? If you want to call something in error, it should be the foundational hermeneutic which causes these particular distinctions, not the distinctions themselves, as they are but expected outcomes of that hermeneutic.

That was my point.

 

[asterisktom]

In retrospect I can now see that I may have not approached you correctly about this. I don't see either dispensationalism or your viewpoint as being 'in error". They are positions derived from distinctly different hermeneutics. They are both expected outcomes of those hermeneutics and should not surprise or dismay anyone. You listed men who hold the dispensational position and quoted them as seeing the Church rewarded at the Bema Seat. Would not anyone who sees a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church hold this view? If so, then why does that make it in error? If you want to call something in error, it should be the foundational hermeneutic which causes these particular distinctions, not the distinctions themselves, as they are but expected outcomes of that hermeneutic.

That was my point.

When I joined this group I expected a certain amount of core agreement on terms. My understanding on hermeneutics - and I doubt that it has changed that much since my preaching classes in the 70s - is that it is one's method of interpreting the text. Yes, I realize that here are different methodologies of hermeneutics, depending on how one considers textual criticism (or whether there should even be TC), process theology, views on inspiration, etc. But these are all actually beside the real point.

We can interpret the text rightly or wrongly (in error). So, yes, either dispensationalism or "my viewpoint" (on the issue in view, contrary to disp.) is a wrong one. Logically, one or both have to be in error. They cannot both be in accordance with the mind of God as revealed in Scripture.

If one were to read what you wrote above one couldn't be faulted for thinking that you believe that truth is relative. Whether or not a person is consistent with one's hermeneutic is totally irrelevant to whether they are true or not. When I read an article or hear a sermon I don't give a carp what flavor their hermeneutic is. I am rather thinking along the lines of Isaiah 8:20 and Acts 17:11. I ask myself, "Is this piece I am considering according to the Word of God?"

This is the very same test to which I put this teaching on the bema as an award ceremony. It failed the test.

My apology for using the word "carp". Everyone knows that carp is a "trash fish". So I guess this would be trash-talking. [humor]

 

[asterisktom]

By all means, take your time brother.

Wow. The more I study the more interesting it becomes. I find that I am in disagreement with both Matthews (Henry, Poole), Hendriksen, J. Stuart Russell and, well, just about everyone else I have read on this.

And those rare times when that happens it makes me very uncomfortable and not too confident in my conclusions. Yet I have to go with what I see in Scripture. Yet I would love to bounce this around for any meaningful feedback.

One of the first avenues of discovery - after just reading the passage again several times and, especially, some of the previous chapters in Matthew - was a cross-reference brought up by Matthew Henry - Ezek. 34:17. Now he just referred to that verse in isolation but I found that the entire passage seems to help in the interpretation of the Matt. passage.

My computer has been freezing up so I will send this now, rather than lose all of it. More in a little bit.

 

[asterisktom]

This passage of the judgment of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25) has been an interesting and challenging study. I think that two of the best clues as to how to interpret it are:
1. Old Testament passages alluded to. Ezekiel 34:17 seems to be a valid cross-reference.
2. Other Matthew & NT passages - especially similar parables or related phrases.

For now I just want to tackle the other Matthew passages and phrases. Consider the following:
1. The first part of this same chapter 25, as well as much of 24, has similar themes of division of righteous from evil, as well as reward given to those righteous.
2. There are also recurring phrases and concepts that suggest a comparison between passages: The King coming to His glory, with angels, giving award and retribution (Matt. 25:31; 19:28; 16:27).
3. That last passage however, Matt. 16:27, is connected with the one following it - v. 28, describing the Transfiguration in the following verses (See also the supplementing accounts of Mark and Luke).

The interesting thing about the Transfiguration is the fact that it is connected with Christ coming into His Kingdom. Christ had just promised that there were some right there with Him who would not die till they see the Son of Man coming into His kingdom. Hopefully I don't need to argue that neither an immediate fulfilment (6 days later) nor a 1000s of years postponement (as taught by some futurists) would fit the prophecy. The former would be silly, the second impugns Christ's veracity. But a very good fit, IMO, would be in AD 70, when the kingdom is taken from the Jews and given to a nation that will bring forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9).

Likewise this passage of the sheep and goats seems to fit in the same place, or to be an ongoing consequence of the growth of this new kingdom, spreading worldwide, starting with Jerusalem, then outward to all nations.

Reading the passage in Ezek. 34 you see many similar themes.

 

[kyredneck]

Tom, commenting 'off the cuff', I believe you're dead on spot with the statement:

"But a very good fit, IMO, would be in AD 70, when the kingdom is taken from the Jews and given to a nation that will bring forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9).

Likewise this passage of the sheep and goats seems to fit in the same place, or to be an ongoing consequence of the growth of this new kingdom, spreading worldwide, starting with Jerusalem, then outward to all nations.

If I can make time for it I want to give more thought and comment and questions.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom, commenting 'off the cuff', I believe you're dead on spot with the statement:



If I can make time for it I want to give more thought and comment and questions.

I resisted these conclusions for a while because - Gulp! - I was drifting into Preterist territory! But we have to follow where our studies lead us.

BTW, I am once again going through Russell's Parousia. I find that I am agreeing much more than I used to - except in few areas, like in his interpretation on Luke's parable of the noblemen who went to a far country to receive a kingdom. I do agree with him that there is much of AD 70, but not all.

 

[Zenas]

Thanks, Zenas. I was looking for that post of yours but couldn't find it. Was it the purgatory one?

Yes, Post #159 on that thread.

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, Post #159 on that thread.

OK, thanks. I will read it when I get home from work.

 

[HankD]

Hi brother Tom,

There are many things which you and I would be in disagreement as in this case, but none of these are of the essentials in my estimation.

Also, be not dismayed by our often harsh mannerisms here at the BB.
By now you know exactly what I mean, after all this is a "debate" forum.

Yes, sometimes we overreach and enter into the City of AdHominem.
And we do have those (trolls, hit-and-runs, drive-by-shooters) who lie in wait to cause mischief.

Actually whether "right" or "wrong", in my book (as well as the Bible) there are, in the sense of the Scriptures, many "noble" persons here at the BB.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

In that vein, I would like to take note of a Scripture already mentioned in passing:

1 Corinthians 3

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​

First, it would appear that this speaks of the saved since it clearly indicates such in verse 12 as speaking of the person who has built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ which Paul in verse 10 states that through the grace of God made know to the Corinthians.

Verse 14 then clearly indicates that those whose post-gospel work of which has been built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ whose work passes through the fire without destruction "he shall receive a reward"

Verse 15 on the other hand indicates that for those whose works are burned up "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire".

This passage cannot be a determination between saved and lost lest one's position is Universalism (of any kind, e.g. Unitarian, Trinitarian, cultic, etc...).

Therefore the conclusion that I come to would be that there is indeed a reward for the post-salvation works of which God approves and rewards. What is the meaning of the allegorical sense of "fire"? Intutively, it would be the divine discernment of God concerning motive.

Our pastor gave one passage a while back:

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;​

Another:

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.​

That combined with (presumably rightly divided):​

1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.​

It may be as simple as a state of shame or joy as to the "reward". Whatever it is, ultimately the "shame" that John mentions cannot be eternally enduring:

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​

Personally FWIW, I have no problem with anyone holding to singular judgement by God for all of humanity:​

Revelation 20
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

There appears to be two classes of people here 1) Those judged by their works and 2) those whose names are written in the book of life (Although the phrase "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life" may not be part of the judgment criteria but a simple statement of fact).​

I realize that this singular White Throne judgment causes a difficulty from a dispensational point of view but there is no view that is without problems for those this side of heaven.​

Nevertheless, I am not convinced of a singular White Throne judgment.​

HankD​

 

[asterisktom]

Hi brother Tom,

There are many things which you and I would be in disagreement as in this case, but none of these are of the essentials in my estimation.

Also, be not dismayed by our often harsh mannerisms here at the BB.
By now you know exactly what I mean, after all this is a "debate" forum.

Yes, sometimes we overreach and enter into the City of AdHominem.
And we do have those (trolls, hit-and-runs, drive-by-shooters) who lie in wait to cause mischief.

Actually whether "right" or "wrong", in my book (as well as the Bible) there are, in the sense of the Scriptures, many "noble" persons here at the BB.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

In that vein, I would like to take note of a Scripture already mentioned in passing:

1 Corinthians 3

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​

First, it would appear that this speaks of the saved since it clearly indicates such in verse 12 as speaking of the person who has built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ which Paul in verse 10 states that through the grace of God made know to the Corinthians.

Verse 14 then clearly indicates that those whose post-gospel work of which has been built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ whose work passes through the fire without destruction "he shall receive a reward"

Verse 15 on the other hand indicates that for those whose works are burned up "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire".

This passage cannot be a determination between saved and lost lest one's position is Universalism (of any kind, e.g. Unitarian, Trinitarian, cultic, etc...).

Therefore the conclusion that I come to would be that there is indeed a reward for the post-salvation works of which God approves and rewards. What is the meaning of the allegorical sense of "fire"? Intutively, it would be the divine discernment of God concerning motive.

Our pastor gave one passage a while back:

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;​

Another:

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.​

That combined with (presumably rightly divided):​

1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.​

It may be as simple as a state of shame or joy as to the "reward". Whatever it is, ultimately the "shame" that John mentions cannot be eternally enduring:

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​

Personally FWIW, I have no problem with anyone holding to singular judgement by God for all of humanity:​

Revelation 20
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

There appears to be two classes of people here 1) Those judged by their works and 2) those whose names are written in the book of life (Although the phrase "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life" may not be part of the judgment criteria but a simple statement of fact).​

I realize that this singular White Throne judgment causes a difficulty from a dispensational point of view but there is no view that is without problems for those this side of heaven.​

Nevertheless, I am not convinced of a singular White Throne judgment.​

HankD​

Thank you for writing, Hank. Shortly after my last posts the other day I had a number of time-consuming emergencies that kept me from having much time at the computer. Things are starting to settle down. Hopefully tomorrow I will answer more on your post. Take care.

But, yes, I know all about the ins and outs of discussion groups. I started one in 1999 (ABC_Bible at yahoo) and we've had some real doozies.

 

[asterisktom]

In that vein, I would like to take note of a Scripture already mentioned in passing:

1 Corinthians 3

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​

First, it would appear that this speaks of the saved since it clearly indicates such in verse 12 as speaking of the person who has built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ which Paul in verse 10 states that through the grace of God made know to the Corinthians.

Verse 14 then clearly indicates that those whose post-gospel work of which has been built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ whose work passes through the fire without destruction "he shall receive a reward"

Verse 15 on the other hand indicates that for those whose works are burned up "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire".

This passage cannot be a determination between saved and lost lest one's position is Universalism (of any kind, e.g. Unitarian, Trinitarian, cultic, etc...).

Therefore the conclusion that I come to would be that there is indeed a reward for the post-salvation works of which God approves and rewards. What is the meaning of the allegorical sense of "fire"? Intutively, it would be the divine discernment of God concerning motive.

Our pastor gave one passage a while back:

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;​

Another:

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.​

That combined with (presumably rightly divided):​

1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.​

It may be as simple as a state of shame or joy as to the "reward". Whatever it is, ultimately the "shame" that John mentions cannot be eternally enduring:

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​

Personally FWIW, I have no problem with anyone holding to singular judgement by God for all of humanity:​

Revelation 20
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

There appears to be two classes of people here 1) Those judged by their works and 2) those whose names are written in the book of life (Although the phrase "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life" may not be part of the judgment criteria but a simple statement of fact).​

I realize that this singular White Throne judgment causes a difficulty from a dispensational point of view but there is no view that is without problems for those this side of heaven.​

Nevertheless, I am not convinced of a singular White Throne judgment.​

HankD​

I appreciate that you went to several of the pertinent verses on this topic. But I do not think that 1 Cor. 3 is pertinent to the topic of Bema, at least not directly. When I wrote my article on the Bema I tried to carefully deal first with those verses that mention the word. The article was supposed to be, among other things, a word study of all the uses of that Greek word "bema".

At first I was surprised that 1 Cor 3:10-15 did not have the word. I even thought of just adding it since the concept (I thought at the time) was clearly here. But then, upon further study, it seemed that this Cor. passage should, instead of going with the Bema verses, rather be cross-referenced to verses like 1 Peter 1:6-7:

"In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved [distressed] by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, much more precious than the gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

The questions for us to consider are:
1. What is this fire?
2. When is this fire?

Although I used to, I no longer see this fire as being part of God's final judgment, but rather God's ongoing judgment as the Gospel spreads worldwide. I will certainly elaborate on this, if interested. There are several passages, both OT and NT, that bear this out, IMO. Thus I also believe that this fire is now. It was forewarned in the fiery preaching of John the Baptist. It was unleashed - and is being unleashed (for want of a better word) - wherever the Gospel is clearly presented.

There is so much more that needs to be written here - and a wonderful theme, too - but I'm afraid I wasted my time on other things. This will have to do for now.

 

[HankD]

I appreciate that you went to several of the pertinent verses on this topic. But I do not think that 1 Cor. 3 is pertinent to the topic of Bema, at least not directly. When I wrote my article on the Bema I tried to carefully deal first with those verses that mention the word. The article was supposed to be, among other things, a word study of all the uses of that Greek word "bema".

At first I was surprised that 1 Cor 3:10-15 did not have the word. I even thought of just adding it since the concept (I thought at the time) was clearly here. But then, upon further study, it seemed that this Cor. passage should, instead of going with the Bema verses, rather be cross-referenced to verses like 1 Peter 1:6-7:

"In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved [distressed] by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, much more precious than the gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

The questions for us to consider are:
1. What is this fire?
2. When is this fire?

Although I used to, I no longer see this fire as being part of God's final judgment, but rather God's ongoing judgment as the Gospel spreads worldwide. I will certainly elaborate on this, if interested. There are several passages, both OT and NT, that bear this out, IMO. Thus I also believe that this fire is now. It was forewarned in the fiery preaching of John the Baptist. It was unleashed - and is being unleashed (for want of a better word) - wherever the Gospel is clearly presented.

There is so much more that needs to be written here - and a wonderful theme, too - but I'm afraid I wasted my time on other things. This will have to do for now.

The 1 Peter passage: Excellent point and food for thought.

But my thoughts concerning the 1 Corinthians passage are a testing of the post salvation works of the believer over the course of his/her life and a kind of general examination of all believers because of the following verse:

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it,

The 1 Peter passage, in my estimation, is speaking of the same evaluation as it also declares this fire to be "at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

But your point is well taken and I'll be thinking about it some more.

The fire as I had indicated before would be the infallable discernment of the Lord at some time before we enter the eternal state.

NKJ Hebrews 4:12 For the word (logos) of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

Thanks​

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

The 1 Peter passage: Excellent point and food for thought.

But my thoughts concerning the 1 Corinthians passage are a testing of the post salvation works of the believer over the course of his/her life and a kind of general examination of all believers because of the following verse:

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it,

The 1 Peter passage, in my estimation, is speaking of the same evaluation as it also declares this fire to be "at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

But your point is well taken and I'll be thinking about it some more.

The fire as I had indicated before would be the infallable discernment of the Lord at some time before we enter the eternal state.

NKJ Hebrews 4:12 For the word (logos) of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

Thanks​

HankD

Much of what you write above I would agree with. But I would like to focus on some differences. "The day will reveal it". One of the hinges of this topic (to me at least) is just what is meant as that "day". I believed at one time - as I assume you do now (?) - as the end of this Gospel age. But i now believe that "the day" is actually synonymous and synchronous with the gospel age. And I was surprised to find out how many used to believe this - not all Calvinists by any means. Of course, consensus doesn't give us theological certainty, yet it did show me that it was worth looking closer into.

Likewise, the "parousia" (appearance) passages I have come to see in a different light.

 

[HankD]

Much of what you write above I would agree with. But I would like to focus on some differences. "The day will reveal it". One of the hinges of this topic (to me at least) is just what is meant as that "day". I believed at one time - as I assume you do now (?) - as the end of this Gospel age. But i now believe that "the day" is actually synonymous and synchronous with the gospel age. And I was surprised to find out how many used to believe this - not all Calvinists by any means. Of course, consensus doesn't give us theological certainty, yet it did show me that it was worth looking closer into.

Likewise, the "parousia" (appearance) passages I have come to see in a different light.

Thanks Tom.

Yes, I see the reference to "The day will reveal it" as the end and not as sychronous with the gospel age, however this is an interesting inerpretation to be considered.

Tom here is an FYI: Looking at the koine of the 1 Peter passage, the word here for "appearance" is of the root apokalupsis rather than the usual epipheneia or "parousia".

I'm not sure whether this (apokalupsis) makes a difference in your thinking but thought you might like to know.

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Thanks Tom.

Yes, I see the reference to "The day will reveal it" as the end and not as sychronous with the gospel age, however this is an interesting inerpretation to be considered.

Tom here is an FYI: Looking at the koine of the 1 Peter passage, the word here for "appearance" is of the root apokalupsis rather than the usual epipheneia or "parousia".

I'm not sure whether this (apokalupsis) makes a difference in your thinking but thought you might like to know.

HankD

Yes, thank you. I had noticed that. In fact I had done a study of the main words used for coming back in the 90s when I had a discussion group called ABCProphecy at yahoo groups. There were three main words, the three above as well as some forms of erchomai.

I plan to dig this study up and post it again on my Xanga. Some of my conclusions at the time, I think now, were clouded by an antipathy toward anything that disagreed with my dispensationalism at the time.