Biblical Commentaries

My friend Jason Schubert just pointed out to me this website, which has some great commentary sets online for free.

I just got my first commentary set on the whole Bible in the mail yesterday, the Expositer's Bible Commentary. They are selling it for $130 at Christianbook.com, so it was a bargain buy. I still really want to get the Tyndale series, and possibly NICNT.

The Narnian

I am reading, and immensely enjoying, Alan Jacob's The Narnian, an intellectual biography of C.S. Lewis that has come out within the last few years. Among many other passages and themes that could be commented on, I was particularly struck by his description of the changes in Lewis's personality and capacity for delight brought about by his conversion. Its a very moving passage (from p. 131, italics his):

"I first read a book by C.S. Lewis twenty-five years ago, and I have been reading his work consistently since then. I know his writerly voice quite well, as well as I know anyone's; it is utterly distinctive. And the most dominant feeling I get when I read his early letters - that is, those written in his first thirty years of life - is that in none of them does he sound like himself. The pre-conversion Lewis is, though obviously highly intelligent, neither a particularly likable nor a particularly interesting person - at least in his letters. He may have been delightful to know, though I doubt it. But once he 'admitted that God was God,' it is as though the key to his own hidden and locked-away personality was given to him. What appears almost immediately is a kind of gusto (sheer, bold enthusiasm for what he loves) that is characteristic of him ever after."

This last sentence corresponds to Jacob's thesis at the beginning of the book that what held all of Lewis' writings together was "willingness to be enchanted" and an "openness to delight" (xxi). What a beautiful quality! I want to to be someone who is "open to delight."

In the pages immediately following the quote above, Jacobs uses Eustace Scrubb's experience as a dragon in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to describe Lewis' miserable experience of increasing consciousness of sin between his conversion to theism in 1929 and his conversion to Christianity in 1931. As I read this section I was impressed anew with what is among my main benefits from reading C.S. Lewis: the sense he gives of the drudgery of self-admiration/self-preoccupation and the sheer joy of repentance. An awareness that real life and real joy - finding one's own God-given personality, learning to delight in the world around - begins with the painful but liberating stripping away of the dragon scales of sin. That, paradoxically, life is found through death.

I am deeply reminded of my continual need for the kind of release from self in view here, and how only God can give this (priceless) gift. Even just to see one's deplorable situation and utter need is itself a happy recognition: how much more to be healed of it! Seeing the depths of one's sin is difficult and bracing, but it is also the gateway to a whole world of joy and delight.

My View

I have been working on the fourth floor of the church lately, where I can look out my window to a great view of the Library of Congress, Capital Building, Washington Monument, and Supreme Court Building. D.C. is such a beautiful city.

The Voyage of Life

One of my first days here in D.C. I walked down to the National Art Gallery and spent a few hours looking at paintings. The painting that stood out to me the most was The Voyage of Life by Thomas Cole. It is a series of four paintings, each allegorizing one season of life: childhood, youth, manhood, and old age. Each painting depicts a voyager in a boat sailing down a river, with the scenery characterizing that season of life. In the first painting, an infant glides safely down a rich, green landscape. In the second, a boy takes charge of the boat and sails toward a castle in the sky - without seeing the sudden turn the river takes just down the bend (which you can see barely in the far right of the painting). Here it is:


The third picture - the one depicting manhood - has meant a great deal to me this semester. In this painting, the scenery has completely changed. The lush surrounding is gone. Everything is black and rocky. Rapids appear ahead. The man has his hands clasped in prayer and is looking up to heaven in desperation. Here it is:


At various points this fall that have been particularly difficult, when I have cried out to God for guidance about our future and not heard a response, I have thought about this painting, and been comforted. It reminds me of the efficacy of simple faith. When the storms of life rise up around you, put your trust in God. He will see you through all trouble and speed you safely along.

I find very meaningful the caption that Thomas Cole wrote under it:

"Trouble is characteristic of the period of Manhood. In childhood, there is no cankering care: in youth, no despairing thought. It is only when experience has taught us the realities of the world, that we lift from our eyes the golden veil of early life; that we feel deep and abiding sorrow; and in the Picture, the gloomy, eclipse-like tone, the conflicting elements, the trees riven by tempest, are the allegory; and the Ocean, dimly seen, figures the end of life, which the Voyager is now approaching. The demon forms are Suicide, Intemperance and Murder, which are the temptations that beset men in their direst trouble. The upward and imploring look of the Voyager shows his dependence on a Superior Power; and that faith saves him from the destruction that seems inevitable."

My Fellow Interns

One of the greatest blessings of this internship program has been the chance to walk through it with the other interns. This is a picture of us recently after a dinner at an elder's home in Northern Virginia.


I would not have learned nearly as much this semester if I had not been regularly dialoguing with these brothers along the way. Its been very sharpening to part of a group that is so diverse - 3 married, 3 single; 3 pre-seminary, 3 post-seminary; 3 American, 3 international (Britain, Australia, Romania) - and yet united in the gospel and in our calling to the pastorate.

These brothers challenge me in my thinking through stimulating conversations, and in my Christian walk through their character and friendship. I am lucky to be going through this program with them, and I am definitely among my betters.

Disagreements with Barth

I thought it might be helpful to flesh out what I referred to in my last post on Barth but did not discuss, namely, areas in Barth's theology which I find troubling. Ironically, I part ways with Barth in many of the very areas I have been most helped by him, and many of the problems I see in Barth's thought are the very things he himself railed against so often. Rather than provide a list of specific doctrines I disagree with, I'll discuss some of Barth's general ways of thinking that are underneath (and often driving) what I see as his errors.

To begin with, I think Barth has an over-wrought view of divine trancendence. This is somewhat understandable insofar as Barth is reacting against the extreme emphasis on divine immanence of his modernist upbringing; and in some ways his emphasis on trancendence helpfully highlights the immensity, freedom, and Lordship of God, over and against human aspirations and culture. Yet Barth stresses trancendence so much that he seems to absolve the possibility of a robust doctrine of creation (manifested in his utter rejection of natural theology) or history (manifested by his idealism and failure to recognize the significance of historical transition). In my opinion, Barth fails to acknowledge the ways God can be (not exhaustively, but truly) known through finite mediums in the world he has made, as well as the ways temporal sequence (e.g., creation-fall-redemption) affects our theological categories (like creation in God's image, sin, and salvation).

Even after Barth recognizes that the "wholly other" language for God in his earlier writings is a philosophical category, his later writings on revelation and epistemology seem to emphasize our finitude more than our sinfulness as the ultimate problem. But in the Bible, God's immensity is not unknowability. Barth's concerns on this point often feel more like those of the 19th century rather than the concerns of the "strange new world" of the Bible he sought to follow. And in general - as Barth scholars Bruce McCormack and John Webster have recently shown - Barth seems to be basically operating in 19th century modernist categories, despite the ferocity of his attack on this tradition. Though he is revolting against 19th century modern theology, he is still somewhat enmeshed in it.

In addition, I think Barth, despite all his warnings against free speculation, has a marked tendency toward his own certain kind of speculation, abstraction, and innovation. For example, in his doctrine of election, Barth - the same Barth who has warned us a thousand times of our need to stay rigorously tied to the Divine Word in all our thought of God - seems to drift away from the biblical view of election as something that divides humanity into two groups into one that unites all humanity in Christ, who is himself the elect and reprobate one. Barth wants to avoid speculation, but his argument that because Jesus Christ (significantly, not the logos asarkos!) is both the subject and object of revelation, therefore election must embrace all of humanity - this itself is highly speculative. How could a creature know such a thing about an eternal reality (election)? The movement from "Christ the electing God" to "all men are elect in Christ" depends on the (speculative) assumption that Christ the electing God does not reprobate, and this flies in the face of the Scriptural witness regarding the elect and reprobate, the sheep and the goats, those who names are written in the Book of Life and those whose are not, etc. Don Macleod has a powerful critique of Barth on this whole issue on pp. 336-339 of Engaging with Barth, especially footnote 52 on p. 337.

Evangelicals often (rightly) question Barth's doctrines of Scripture and election, but it is not as often recognized how both these points are the manifestations of a deeper philosophical commitment - namely, a particular ontology (i.e., view of being) known as actualism. Actualism is, generally speaking, a tendency to view reality in terms of events and relationships, rather than in more static terms (as in essentialism). In Barth's theology, everything comes back to actualism. His attack on philosophical systems notwithstanding, Barth's relentless love for symmetry seems to drive him to impose his own systems and categories of thought onto theology. One can feel Barth struggling throughout his career to locate theology solely in the Deus dixit of theology, but at crucial junctures it feels like his actualism is really driving the boat.

Barth's concern in his revision of traditinal understandings of election is to avoid speculation, to steer clear of all abstract thinking about God. He wants to locate all proper knowledge only in God's self-unveiling in Jesus Christ. But as Hans Urs von Balthasar puts it, "if revelation is centered in Jesus Christ, there must be by definition a periphery to this center. Thus, as we [Roman Catholics] say, the order of the incarnation presupposes the order of creation, which is not identical with it" (quoted in the Cambridge Companion to Barth, p. 108). It is this false view of divine trancendance in which God is hidden everywhere except in the humanity of Christ that leads Barth to his Christocentrism/Christomonism and his hesitancy in speaking about the logos asarkos and his strictures on the extra-Calvinisticum; and it is his Christocentrism/Christomonism which in turn leads him to his doctrine of election with its incipient universalism. Hence I say Barth's greatest strengths and his greatest weaknesses are interwoven: both are bound up with his attempt to preserve the Godness of God in theology.

All these critiques come from someone who genuinely enjoys and profits from reading Barth, and who honestly still feels like a beginner at trying to understand him. At this stage in my theological development, I resonate deeply with Carl Trueman's statement in his intro to Engaging with Barth that "interacting with Barth as a great mind wrestling with serious issues is surely of tremendous value . . . great theologians are most helpful at precisely those points where I disagree with them, for it is there I am forced to wrestle most passionately, and there that my own thought is clarified and strengthened."

Bach - Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major BWV1007 - Mov. 1-3/6

This is beautiful.

Books

I just got this book in the mail, looks really interesting. Its a collection of essays exploring the relation of Scripture to theology in the Epistle to the Hebrews. I've been getting spoiled with good books lately, because my pastor Mark Dever very generously bought the staff some books at the bookstores of Southeastern, Covenant, and Concordia seminaries during our two recent trips to Wake Forest and St. Louis. Between this and some recent Amazon purchases, I am facing the wonderful dilemma of not knowing which good book I want to start next.

First, I finally got A Reader's Hebrew Bible . I use my Reader's Greek New Testament all the time, and find it so helpful for keeping up my Greek, while my Hebrew has suffered neglect. I think this will help. Among other features, it footnotes all rarer vocabulary words and screens rare proper nouns in grey. Its amazing how much this helps reading the text in the original language.

I also got several good commentaries:
Robertson on Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (NICOT)
Kidner on Genesis (Tyndale)
Beale on Revelation (NIGCT)
A book by Richard Bauckam on Revelation's theology

Finally, I got some interesting theological books:
Gerald Bray's Doctrine of God
A book called Theology after Wittgenstein by Fergus Kerr which is not well-known but looks worthy of a skim
Engaging the Doctrine of God, ed. by McCormack
The Cambridge Companion to Barth - already read the chapters by McCormack, Webster, and Heron, very helpful

I love getting new books!

Science and Scripture

From Derek Kidner's commentary on Genesis (Tyndale), p. 31: "the accounts of the world [of science and Scripture] are as distinct (and each as legitimate) as an artist's portrait and an anatomist's diagram, of which no composite picture will be satisfactory, for their common ground is only in the total reality to which they both attend.... [Scripture's] bold selectiveness, like that of a great painting, is its power."

Why Study Barth?

People often ask me why I am interested in spending some time studying Barth. This morning in a meeting I jotted out an answer to this question, as best as I am currently able to articulate. Here it is:

Barth is a helpful dialogue partner for thinking through how to do theology after the rise of modernity. Since Barth is very conversant with Scripture and historical theology, studying him forces you to interact with the broader Christian tradition. So he is a good person to focus on to learn theology in general. But Barth is also trying to understand the Christian tradition in light of the rise of modernity, and studying him is therefore also an entry point into the massive theological question of the modern era, namely, how to do Christian theology after modernity, after the breakdown of classical metaphysics and epistemology. If we don't agree with every particular of Barth's answer to this question, we can at least appreciate the depth and ingenuity of his attempt to grapple with it, which far exceeds that of many of our theologically "closer to home" conservative friends, whose writings could be read and understood without ever knowing that a man named Kant lived.

In my assessment, Barth is a basically orthodox theologian engaged in a thunderous revolt against the unorthodox tradition in which he was raised, trying to figure out how to maintain this revolt towards orthodoxy without discarding the categories of thought and legitimate insights of his unorthodox, liberal tradition. While I am perplexed and unsettled by some of Barth's specific moves, I find the central thrust of his theology, which I interpret to be the attempt to start theology with God, rather than human thoughts, to have much that is beautiful and compelling. I think the central theological question driving all of Barth's post-1915 theology is the problem of revelation, namely, how can God reveal himself to humans without ceasing to be God? Barth's (Christological) answer to this question is worthy of careful reflection - though at the end of the day, I must part with him exactly here.

Studying someone from a different theological tradition is a lot like interacting with someone from a different culture. Its often difficult to understand what they are saying (not least because of language differences), and it can be an uncomfortable experience because it calls into question many of your assumptions and habits and general way of looking at the world. But in the end, it is always a broadening, widening experience. In my opinion, refusing to sympathetically hear thinkers of different traditions tends toward a kind of narrowness of thought, just as an unwillingness to interact with people from different cultures tends toward a certain cultural narrowness. On the other hand, spending a few years grappling with someone like Barth can be a lot like spending several living abroad. Eventually, you come home and reacclimate to your original setting to some extent, but you don't ever look at the world in the same way again. You can't.

Light Posting Ahead

We have a weekender coming up, and then two trips (God Exposed Conference at Southeastern Seminary in the Raleigh-Durham area, and then the Preaching Lectures at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis), so I will be too busy to post much until October.

Bruce Gordon's biography of Calvin

I just picked this up at Barnes and Noble and read the preface and last chapter yestereday - so far looks very interesting.

Update: read Sean Lucas' helpful review.

Charles Bridges on Study

I am reading The Christian Ministry by Charles Bridges (19th century pastor in England) and found his comments on how and why pastors should study very helpful. He emphasizes both that study is important, and that the way we study is important. For example, if we spend all our time studying, and very little time putting our knowledge into action by serving people, we won't be learning in the way that God intends for us to learn. Naked knowledge, cut off from service, love, and prayer, is sickly and deformed. A very helpful reminder for me as I study. Here is a quote:

"Not to read or study at all is to tempt God: to do nothing but study, is to forget the Ministry: to study, only to glory in one's knowledge, is a shameful vanity: to study, in search of the means to flatter sinners, a deplorable prevarication: but to store one's mind with the knoweldge proper to the saints by study and by prayer, and to diffuse that knowledge in solid instructions and practical exhortations - this is to be a prudent, zealous, and laborious Minister" (p. 50).

Courage

"But where shall I find courage?" asked Frodo. "That is what I chiefly need."
"Courage is found in unlikely places," said Gildor. "Be of good hope! Sleep now!"

Faith and Adventure

I am continually grateful for the uncertainty of this season of life, as God is using it to expose idols in my heart and refine my faith in His provision and guidance for Esther and me and our future. During a sermon this morning on the parable of the talents in Matthew 24:14-30, I was reminded how our ultimate calling is simply to be faithful with what God entrusts to us. My prayer life so often is focused on future circumstances, not my need to walk in faithfulness before God in the present, and I often fail to be content with what he has called me to. But why should God let me see down the road until I have consecrated myself to him here at this juncture? Why should he entrust me with much until I focus on being faithful with little? Uncertainty is an opportunity for consecration. God is a patient communicator, and sometimes He seems to keep saying the same thing over and over till we get it. Right now for me its: trust me - stop trying to figure your life out and plan everything. Just trust me and be faithful where you currently are.

On an unrelated note, I am getting into The Lord of the Rings right now for the first time and finding it un-put-down-able. It is so delightful to get swept up into an adventure. I believe it must be a theologically correct statement to say that God likes adventures. After all, think about the world He has made!

Comments on Hebrews (1:5-14)

Hebrews 1:5-14 consists of a series of quotes from the Old Testament serving to establish the superiority of Christ over angels. My initial thought in tackling this section was, why so many OT quotations? Wouldn’t one or two have sufficed to prove his point, instead of seven (Psalm 2, I Samuel 7:14, Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 104, Psalm 45, Psalm 102, Psalm 84)? I don’t know the answer to this, and Ellingworth (my primary commentator) did not address it. Some cautious but vague suggestions would be (1) for greater emphasis on Christ’s supremacy and (2) to show how his presentation is thoroughly grounded in the Old Testament (especially relevant if writing to Jewish Christians). Beyond this I am uncertain and will continue to think about it.

Another question that arises is, what is the author’s logical flow of thought throughout this section? Lane (35) summaries it in four groupings:

1) Christ's name is greater than that of angels, since he is acclaimed as Son (v. 5)
2) Christ's dignity is greater than that of angels, since He is worthy of worship (v. 6)
3) Christ's status is greater than that of angels, since He remains unchanged (vv. 7-12)
4) Christ's function is greater than that of angels, since He reigns at God's hand (vv. 13-14).

While this might be overly schematic, I do think the different quotes highlight different aspects of Christ's supremacy, and distinct nuances can be noted. The two most interesting quotes, in my opinion, are the quote of Psalm 45 in 8-9 and the quote of Psalm 102 in 10-12. The emphasis in 8-9 is on Christ's royalty, His Kingly rule (hence words like throne, scepter, kingdom, and annointed), while the emphasis in 10-12 is on Christ's eternality and unchanged nature in relation to ever-changing creation. What strikes me most is that, of all OT texts he could have chosen to stress the latter point, he chose Psalm 102. While Psalm 45 may be a messianic text, it is very difficult to read Psalm 102 as such. It is amazing (and perplexing) that the author applies to Christ a non-Messianic text speaking of YHWH!

Side note: Hebrews 1:11-12 is one passage that makes me think that the original concluding verse of Newton's hymn Amazing Grace ("the earth shall soon dissolve like snow...") is not too dispensational, and more generally that it is not unbiblical for Christians to speak of the universe fading away or being consumed (in some sense). Biblically, we can say the heavens "will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed." Its beautiful to think of Christ shedding the universe like a garment while He endures unchanged eternally! Ellingworth, 128: "the Son will change one order of creation for another as easily as a human being changes one cloak for another, while remaining himself unchanged." My overall benefit from Hebrews chapter 1 is a deeper sense of the worth, weight, and magnitude of Christ.

After finishing 2:1-4, I am going to pause in Hebrews for a while, primarily because I want to order a new commentary. Ellingworth is masterful on analyzing the Greek syntax and grammar, but he is not as helpful on theological construction and application, and therefore I don't think I am getting as much out of my study as I could. I will continue to consult him as a supplement, but I think I will order F.F. Bruce (NICNT) or Lane (WBC) as my primary commentary for 2:5ff.

Favorite Narnia Moments (9): Lucy's Story

In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader Lucy discovers a magic book and reads a story which she cannot remember after she finishes it, but she always longs to hear again. Its so interesting to think of story as a category of thought for heavenly longings.

"Oh, what a shame!" said Lucy. "I did so want to read it again. Well, at least I must remember it. Let's see . . . it was about . . . about . . . oh dear, it's all fading away again. And even this last page is going blank. ...It was about a cup and a sword and a tree and a green hill, I know that much. But I can't remember and what shall I do?"

And she never could remember; and ever since that day what Lucy means by a good story is a story which reminds her of the forgotten story in the Magician's Book.

[Then later during her conversation with Aslan:]

"Child," said Aslan, "did I not explain to you once before that no one is ever told what would have happened?"
"Yes, Aslan, you did," said Lucy. "I'm sorry. But please-"
"Speak on, dear heart."
"Shall I ever be able to read that story again; the one I couldn't remember? Will you tell it to me, Aslan? Oh do, do, do."
"Indeed, yes, I will tell it to you for years and years. But now, come. We must meet the master of this house."

Sibbes' The Bruised Reed

I just finished reading Richard Sibbes' The Bruised Reed, which is his lengthy exposition of Isaiah 42:3, "a bruised reed He will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice." It is one of most clarifying, moving, and edifying books I have ever read. What I mainly learned from this book, if I had to try to condense it into one sentence, is that Christ does not merely tolerate weak believers, but He is drawn to them, showing them special tenderness and compassion in order to further them in sanctification. (That last part "in order to further them in sanctification" is important, corresponding to the last clause of Isaiah 42:3 and showing how Sibbes' extravagent emphasis on grace does not cross the line into libertinism.) I very much recommend it!

"None are fitter for comfort than those that think themselves furthest off" (14).

Reflections on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

Picking up on my last post, one thing I have enjoyed about our walks to the Lincoln Memorial is that it has given me the opportunity to meditate more closely on the text of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. I think this may be my favorite political speech in history. Three features I have noticed:

1) Lincoln connects the Civil War with both America's past and America's future: at the beginning of the speech he clams the Civil War is the testing point of the democratic ideals of 1776, and then at the end of his speech he sees the war as the opportunity for "a new birth of freedom" in America. Essentially, the speech is an interpretation of America: from its birth as a nation "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the propositon that all men are created equal," to its hope of establishing "government of the people, by the people, for the people." The speech sees the Civil War in the context of American identity.

2) The speech connects the Civil War not only with the identity and fate of America, but also with the identity and fate of democracy in general. The speech emphasizes that what is at stake in the war is whether "any nation so conceived and so dedicated [to liberty and equality]" can long endure. In other words, the Gettysburg Address sees the Civil War as the test of the workability of democracy. If the Union splits, democracy will not only have failed in America, but it will "perish from the earth." One gets an overwhelming sense of the transcendent importance of the cause. Could the stakes be higher?

3) The subtle contrasts throughout the speech are ingenious. After noting their purpose in gathering at Gettysburg is to dedicate a portion of the field as a resting place for dead soldiers, Lincoln claims that they cannot dedicate it, because the "brave men living and dead who struggled here" have already dedicated it. Then in the next breath he claims that it is not the field that needs dedication, but his listeners. In other words, he skillfully transitions from a contrast of who is dedicating (his listeners or the soldiers) to what is being dedicated (the field or his listeners). We have come here to dedicate this field, but the soldiers beat us to it. What we really need is to dedicate, then, is ourselves. It is an effective and powerful rhetorical strategy.

How cool would it have been to have heard him give a speech like this!!!

Scattered Thoughts on Lincoln, Ellis, Racism, and the Cross

Several times since moving to D.C. Esther and I have walked down to the Lincoln Memorial. Each time I take the time to read the speeches that are etched in the walls, the Gettysburg Address and his second inaugural address. Its a very moving exprerience, and reminds me of the third chapter of Ellis' Founding Brothers, "The Silence," which I read shortly before moving here. The silence he is referring to is the failure of any Northern or moderate Southern delegates to speak up against the pro-slavery arguments of delegates from the Deep South in Congressional debate in 1790. Benjamin Franklin, just weeks before his death, had made one final effort to appeal for the termination of the slave trade and abolition of slavery, but Madison and others from the South were arguing that it was impractical and would dissolve the union they had fought so hard to create.

Ellis see slavery as the ultimate failure of the Revolutionary legacy as slavery. I agree with him for two reasons. First, not only was slavery a heinous evil, but it was the very kind of evil which was most blatantly at odds with the Revolution ideals, namely freedom and equality. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he owned over 200 slaves. He did not free them when he died. As Ellis puts it, "what was politically essential for the survival of the infant nation was ideologically at odds with what it claimed to stand for" (128). Of all people, they should have known better.

Second, the founders' inability to uproot slavery in their own generation caused the institution to grow more entrenched and thus contributed to much greater upheaval when it was finally removed. Ellis: "we know full well what they could perceive dimly, if at all - namely, that slavery would become the central defining problem for the next seventy years of American history; that the inability to take decisive action against slavery in the decades immediately following the Revolution permitted the size of the enslaved population to grow exponentially and the legal and political institutions of the developing U.S. government to become entwined in compromises with slavery's persistence; and that eventually over 600,000 Americans would die in the nation's bloodiest war to resolve the crisis, a trauma generating social shock waves that would reverberate for at least another century." (88).

Many have suggested that slavery could not have been dealt with without tearing asunder the Union the founders had fought so hard for. Ellis points out, however, that success in the Revolutionary War and the binding together of the contentious states under one law were probably equally improbable. If 1776 and 1787 could be achieved, why not the abolition of slavery? Besides which, would it not have been better to tear the union apart then retain such an evil practice?

During an intern discussion here this past week (I am an intern at Capital Hill Baptist Church) we discussed Francis Grimke's famous sermon, "Christianity and Race Prejudice." I came to see in a new way how our final hope for overcoming the lingering ugliness of racism in our country is the cross of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:13-16 says that the blood of Christ has broken down the "dividing wall of hostility" that existed between Jews and Gentiles, "that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so creating peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility" (15-16). If it is by the cross that Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled and united into a new people, how much more should the cross be at the center of reconciling various estranged Gentile groups! Race reconciliation begins with God reconciliation.