JOB: VICTOM OF GOD'S PRIDE?
I do not believe it is possible to understand how Job felt during his time of suffering. Almost everyone at some point in their life experiences times of trials and very well intentioned people tell us to “remember the suffering of Job” as if remembering other people’s suffering should bring us some sort of comfort. But is it even possible to be able to relate to Job? When we read the book of Job, we understand what took place before his suffering, or rather we understand exactly why he is suffering. We watch as Job time and time again wonders why this is happening to him or wishing in vain that he had died when he was born. It is as if we are standing above him attempting to comfort him. It is as if we are saying; “It is going to be O.K., Job. It was Satan that brought this into your life to test you or rather to test God. Wait until the end; you will get double what you had before”. We forget that Job cannot hear us and is being driven crazy trying to figure out why this is happening to him.
So how much comfort can we take from remembering the suffering of Job? We understand the reason why he is suffering—or at least we think we do—but we do not understand the reason why we are suffering. The fact of the matter is that it is possible for people who are suffering to be comforted by the reading of Job. But how? The comfort that we receive from the book of Job as we suffer is from the knowledge that Job is restored in the end. Like a movie where the main character has just been caught by the bad guys, we know it will be O.K. because the main character is Indian Jones (and we have already seen this movie).
I would like to explore some questions: what actually took place in the throne room scene, was God unjust in allowing Job to suffer when he had done seemingly nothing to deserve it and what can this book teach us about suffering—how it affects us and God’s role in it?
The book opens by introducing us to the main character. We read in Job 1:1 “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” (ESV) The characteristic of ‘blameless’ that is ascribed to Job indicates that he was not a hypocrite. Job lived according to the truth that he taught; in other words he practiced what he preached. The problem that Job’s three friends will have later is the idea that people suffer because they sin and not just little every day sins but actual cause-you-to-gasp kind of sins. They thought that was the reason why suffering enters into a person’s life. The author wants to make it clear right at the beginning that this is not the case with Job. He was a blameless man, and yet as we will see he suffers more than most ever will.
Job was both Godly and rich, very rich. The description of his wealth is lost on us today with our first world supermarkets, Wall Street, and money market accounts. Now if we were told that he had a few billion in a Swiss bank, a private Jet, and season tickets to an NFL team (I would suggest the Bears), then we could understand. When we read of his wealth (valued here in animals) we need to understand that the amount of wealth described here is at the Bill Gates level. He was blessed with sons and daughters whom he loved and cared for not just in physical, material needs but in every need. Job was diligent in his spiritual care for his family. Acting as their mediatorial priest, he would offer sacrifices for his children just in case one of them had sinned in the night. He did not wait for a scandal. He understood that sin was an ongoing characteristic of humans, and he cared for his children, body and soul.
The setting for the beginning of the book is impressive to say the least: the very throne room of God. Commentators disagree as to where this is referring to. Hywel R. Jones says that it is not to be seen as in Heaven because Satan would not be able to have access to Heaven. Driver and Gray in the International Critical Commentary say that it is Heaven. Derek Thomas, agreeing with Jones, sees a problem with the location being Heaven. “That Satan should be present among the holy angels of heaven’s court presents obvious problems. It is true that the text does not refer to ‘heaven’, but it does indicate that God is present in this location and it is difficult to imagine where else it might be.” It is always hard to talk about ‘location’ when referring to God, and I do not believe that it matters to the story. The author is trying to emphasis God’s sovereign rule over the universe. We are given the depiction of a military scene where the general gathers his troops to give out orders. God’s subjects are required to give an account for their activity.
Verse six tells us, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD and Satan also came among them.” The phrase “the sons of God” is intriguing. Who are the sons of God? Are they angels? Are they good angels or evil angels or both? The listing of Satan as “came among them” is interesting as well, because if all of the angels were there would not an additional listing of Satan be redundant? It could be that Satan is out of place at this gathering, or it could also be a way for the author to introduce the character. Hywel R. Jones says; “It is therefore the duty of all the angelic hosts to attend. And Satan comes too, not as a gatecrasher but out of necessity, because he too is one of them!”
In any case we are told that Satan was there. There is a question whether or not this is actually the Satan or if this is a literary device attempting to portray the antagonist in the story. Driver and Gray refer to the Satan character as “The Satan.” David Thomas agrees,

The word ‘Satan’ means ‘adversary.’ Some translate it the ‘accusing angel,’ and suppose that the being represented here is not that great arch-enemy of souls, the prince of the power of the air, so often spoken of in the New Testament; but some high officer in God’s spiritual kingdom, whose mission it is to inspect and test the moral characters of God’s children in this world, and to report the same to his Great Master—a recording angel.
It is true that the interpretation from the Hebrew would be “the Satan.” It seems very odd that there would be an angel in the heavenly realm whose task it is to bring into question the dealings between God and His people. It makes better literary and spiritual sense that this angel would be a fallen angel who would seek to destroy someone who is obedient to the Lord. Derek Thomas, quoting J.I. Packer, believes that it is Satan himself. “The mentality of Satan is a mystery whose depths we can never plumb: not just because Satan is an angel, while we are men, but also because Satan is purely evil.”
The conversation between Satan and God is very interesting. As Satan presents himself before God, he is asked where he has been. Satan answers, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.” (v.8) The LORD immediately inquires concerning whether or not Satan has noticed the LORD’s servant Job, adding that there is no one like him on earth and that he is a blameless and upright a man who fears the Lord and avoids evil.
This raises a question, why would the Lord ask this? It is almost random. It would be easier to say that God is guiltless of any provocation against Job if Satan had come to the LORD and started to criticize the LORD concerning Job which then would have prompted the LORD to defend His and Job’s honor. But this is not the way it is written. The LORD is the one who brought up Job in the first place. Matthew Henry in his commentary on Job says, “The question God puts to him concerning Job: Hast thou considered my servant Job? As when we meet with one that has been in a distant place, where we have a friend we dearly love, we are ready to ask, ‘You have been in such a place; pray did you see my friend there?’” This may have been the tone that the LORD was using. This is also a story and the author would have needed some way to introduce the conflict. If however, we were able to blame God for dealing with Job unjustly, this would be evidence for that. Satan here has answered the inquiry from the Lord and has not sought to attach any of the LORD’s subjects. It is God who puts Job front and center before the one whose very name is accuser.
Another area of study for this book is whether or not this was a parable or an actual account of a real story. Both sides have argued for many years and the argument continues. The reality of this story can have some bearing on how we interpret it. If the story is an allegory our focus would be shaped much more symbolically, focusing on the nature of God. If this is a historic account, we would need to read it focusing on the interaction between Job and God. Both views end up touching on the same themes; however, I believe that if this is merely a story it would dull the message regarding our understanding of who God is and how he deals with His people.
True to his name the accuser accuses God of blessing Job in such a way that his blamelessness is called into question. “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land”(v. 9-10) God has protected Job and blessed him abundantly. It is like politics in Chicago, as if the LORD has bought Job off so that Job might be a mighty example of an obedient servant for Him—a religious “you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours.” This is Driver and Gray’s assessment as well. “Yahweh has given a good price to the man for the life which pleases Him so much; and the man has had the sense not to imperil a good bargain by failing in his part of it.”
In verse 12 the LORD answers, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” The use of the term “very well” indicates that there is more going on here than we have a recording of. There seems to be an unspoken understanding in the question/answer dialogue that the reader is not privileged to understand. Satan is calling into question the very integrity of God. He is implying that the only reason why someone would be a follower of the LORD is because of blessing. The friends of Job would follow the same logic but from their perspective. They held that only those that are followers of the LORD will be blessed. Those that disobey God will be cursed.
If both Satan and the friends are correct in their understanding, the best way to test this theory is to remove all of the blessings that the Lord has given Job. By bringing devastation quickly and in one day, you would leave little doubt that the hedge of protection surrounding Job had been removed. The severity of the removal is incredible—everything that Job possesses including his children are taken from him in one day. There can be no doubt to Job that this was an act of God.
What was the motivation of Satan? Was it to prove that God’s people would be faithful through adversity, or was it to discredit God? I believe that it was to discredit God, and not just that but to make God a mockery. Hywel Jones makes an interesting point. “If all that Job had were to be taken from him, he would not just put Jehovah out of his mind temporarily, but renounce him openly and permanently”
It is hard not to see Job as a pawn in this game. Satan is seeking to humiliate the LORD, and the LORD is seeking to prove that the devotion that Job gives is much more than out of gratitude for riches. But what about Job? Was there something that he had done to bring this on himself? The fact of the matter is that he did not do anything to bring this anguish about. In verse twenty, Job did not see this as the result of some great evil that he had done. The LORD was the one who gave, and He has every right to take it away. Often our initial reaction is the right reaction. As time goes by, our sinful heart can turn our true understanding into false reason. The question remains, was Job just a pawn? In one day, all that he had had been wiped out. His riches were stolen, his children were killed, and he was left with a wife, his health and a few very lucky servants.
Chapter two opens up with a repeat of chapter one. Once again, the sons of God are coming before Him and Satan is among them. The same question is given and the same answer is given. The LORD adds to His boast concerning Job. “He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.”(v.3) Job is still faithful to the LORD even though all that he had had been taken away from him. It is unclear how much time has passed between that fateful day and this second throne room scene—a month, a year, two years? There must have been enough time for Job to have proved that he would not denounce God. He had remained His faithful servant and though now poor still worshiped.
The LORD brings out an interesting aspect regarding the former confrontation. He states that it was Satan who had incited God to afflict Job. The premise of this paper is to examine if God was unjust in afflicting Job. If the LORD’s intentions were for some spiritual teaching of His own, why would He have needed to be incited by Satan? If God had no intention whatsoever of testing Job or of using Job so that some spiritual principles could be taught to his people, why did He allow Satan to insight Him? Was Satan the one who was really in control?
The LORD’s boasting over Job’s faithfulness is almost too much for Satan to handle. You can almost see Satan’s fists clinched and his shoulders drooping as he yells, “Skin for Skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh and he will curse you to your face.” (v. 4-5) Satan refuses to acknowledge that Job could possibly be a genuine follower of the LORD. To Satan, no one can be that devoted. Sometimes it is impossible to see in others what is vacant in our own lives.
Once again the Lord allows Satan to afflict Job. Satan is allowed to harm him physically, but he is not allowed to kill him (something that Satan no doubt would have liked to have done). Matthew Henry in his commentary believes that the reason why the LORD tells Satan to be the one who actually afflicts Job is because the LORD would have had no delight in the task. Satan on the other hand enjoys this type of work so it was best to let him do it.
Job is stricken with boils from head to foot. He stank, he hurt and he was humiliated sitting in a garbage pile scrapping the puss off of his body. Formally Job had been a highly respected person who would bring a room to silence merely by entering it. Now he was barely recognizable and the butt of people’s jokes. At least he still had his wife.
David Thomas in his commentary believes that Satan corrupted Job’s wife instigating her against him. Derek Thomas and Augustine agree. “Job’s suffering was not confined to physical illness. He was also to know the pain of an unfeeling, malcontent wife … Augustine refers to job’s wife as diabolic adjutrix—the devil’s advocate” I have heard sermons that sought to exonerate Job’s wife ranging from “she got it half right, half wrong” to “she was a virtuous woman. “ I do not believe that she is without blame, although I think that calling her the advocate of the Devil might be a bit harsh. It would be wrong for us to forget that she too is suffering; she has lost her children, her livelihood, and for the most part her husband.
She had been the wife of a highly respected man and a mother of many children, a sign of great pride in that part of the world at that time. She may have even had pity of her husband—seeing as he was already as good as dead, she merely was giving him a suggestion that would help him into the grave. Cursing God would have brought about swift, deadly judgment from the Almighty. Along with the tragedy of losing her children and all of her wealth, she also may very well have had doubts about her husband. She may have thought Job guilty of some great evil. Why should her understanding be any different than Job’s three friends? Lest I exonerate Mrs. Job too easily, I have to point out that her husband’s estimation of her advice was that it was foolish.
The throne room scenes are over, and Satan disappears from the story. Job is left to be “comforted” by his friends, and as the days pass he begins to long for the end to his suffering. His friends show him kindness by sitting and waiting with him for a week before launching into their speeches. I suppose they meant well, but meaning well and getting it wrong is not without its consequences. Job chapter 42 tells us that unless Job prayed for the three friends the Lord was going to kill them. This judgment was based on their incorrect assessment of the situation that Job was in and by a misrepresentation of the truth of God.
They believed that God blesses the righteous and God curses the unrighteous, a very easy doctrine to believe when you are rich. Throughout the book Job desires two things: one is that God would hurry up and kill him or that he would have died the day he was born. The second is that the Lord would come and meet with him so that he might plead his case. He wanted to have this audience with God so that he could ask what he had done to deserve this. It seems that to a degree Job was under the same impression as his friends that the LORD blesses those that do good and afflicts those that do evil. His first reaction to the affliction was that “the Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord,” (Job 1:21) but in Job 13: 2-3 Job says, “What you know, I also know; But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God.”
I said it was to a degree that Job was under the same impression as his friends because Job goes on to chastise his friends for misrepresenting God. “Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses are defenses of clay.” (13:12) His friends have absolutized the truth that God blesses those that are good and punishes the wicked. So if Job is being punished, he must have been wicked. Job pointed out to them that there are many wicked people that are rich and live a life of ease; the reverse is also true that the righteous often are poor. He longs for someone to come and mediate between him and God.
What Job is basically saying is that God works different ways with different people so that it is the LORD that decides who will be blessed and who will suffer. Satan’s accusation was not calling into question the faithfulness of Job, he was calling into question the goodness and character of God. Satan was accusing God of exactly what Job’s three friends believed. That God enters into a relationship with man along the lines of a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” relationship. So in defense of Himself, God allowed Satan to bring judgment on Job. The question then is does God have or does He not have the right to do what He will and still remain righteous?
Job has been asking for two outcomes to his distress: his death or a chance to put God on trial. In chapter 38, Job is given that chance, and in a great example of “be careful what you wish for” the presence of the Lord is overwhelming. After three cycles of speeches where Job’s friends seek to convince Job that he must have sinned and Job defending his innocence, the group of men are left sitting in silence on a trash heap having made no progress. A great whirl-wind breaks onto this earthly stage and calls those assembled to attention. This is quite a contrast to the assembly of angelic beings at the beginning of the book. According to The New Bible Commentary, the use of the whirl-wind by God was “an old symbol of divine revelation” There is no doubt about who is speaking to them.
“Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’” (38:1-3) A problem that Job has had since this all started was limited knowledge. He was attempting to figure out what the LORD was doing, and his conclusion was that God was wrong in punishing him when he was innocent of any wrong doing. Job like all of us wanted a reason for his suffering; sometimes the not knowing why is the worst part of any affliction. So the Lord comes to enlighten Job regarding who God is and why He does what He does.
The LORD accuses Job (as well as his friends) of “darkening the counsel by words without knowledge.”(38:2) The many words that have been spoken in regards to trying to figure out why this has happened to Job has done nothing more than to make the matter harder to understand. Like trying to find a lost quarter at the bottom of a pond, the more you move your feet looking for it the muddier the water becomes. God’s call for Job to listen is much more then getting his attention. Hywel R. Jones points out, “Here is a call to arms, or to a wrestling bout, but the combat is to take place in a court of law.” This was much more than Job waiting for an answer; the LORD was going to enter into the debate that Job had been having since chapter four.
The question that I have been exploring is whether or not God was just in His dealings with Job. It is here in chapters 38-42 that we are given the answer-- yes. It would have been helpful to Job for God to simply explain to him what happened at the beginning. Job was a devoted follower of the LORD and would have been honored to know that he was being used by God. He would have understood that God was demonstrating to the great accuser that Job was a faithful servant based only on his love for God.
This is not what the Lord does for him, He was under no obligation to do so. Instead the Lord demonstrates to Job that God is the sovereign ruler of all of creation, over the heavens and planets, over the birds and the beasts. In chapters 38-39, the LORD asks a series of rhetorical questions concerning the mysteries of this universe. Can Job tell Him how the eagles know it is time to fly south or how horses can run so fast and jump so well? Was Job around at the very creation of the planets? Was Job privy to why the mighty waves only go so far up the shore? The point in all of these questions is to show Job that he is limited in his knowledge and understanding. The Lord has created and determined wonderful mysteries that Job will never be able to figure out. The point is that because Job only has partial knowledge of the way the Lord works, he should be still and trust in the Lord.
Job’s reaction in chapter forty demonstrates that he gets the point. In verse two God asks Job a very crucial question, “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?” Job answers in verse four, “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth.” A more accusing and to the point question from the Lord is in verse 8, “Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?” The best understanding that Job had was contained in his assessment of losing everything back in 1:20-22. “Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And said, Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” Job understands this now and covers his mouth and is silent in the presence of God. He realizes that he is devoid of understanding and should trust in the Lord’s power and wisdom.
In chapter 42, Job speaks with greater knowledge and wisdom, “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” (v. 3) Job is humbled and repents for his mistrust of the Lord’s intentions. He understands that the Lord has purpose for everything He does and He is under no obligation to explain Himself to anyone.
This same truth is put forth in Romans nine by the Apostle Paul. Paul was discussing God being sovereign in election. He chose Jacob and not Esau before they were born, not based on anything that they had done but for His own reason and purpose—reasons that are only known to Him. Paul anticipates the question, “How can God be just if He does this based on nothing but Himself?” Paul answers this,

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (vv. 14-18)
Again Paul anticipates the question,

You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (19-21)
Our understanding is limited. We can try to understand why the Lord brings different types of circumstances into our lives, and I believe we can even ask for knowledge and understanding. But there are times when we will struggle through affliction with very little understanding as to why it has happened to us. I ask again—Was the Lord unjust to Job, can the Lord be unjust to us? No. Psalms 145:17 tells us, “The LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works.” When we doubt this we need to remember, “the Lord gives and the Lord takes away blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:21)

The structure of the psalms leads an ever-increasing emphasis on praise. Psalm one gives us the choice of two paths; one that leads to life and one that leads to death. Often there is drudgery in life, you go to work or the grocery store and are inundated with the philosophy of this world. The values that the world holds dear are superficial goals--consume, look good, feel good. This is self-centered and empty but they are also easy. A Christian is called to devote themselves to the Lord walking in His paths, this often calls for sacrifice and work, it is looking at life outside of yourself instead of focusing selfishly inside. When we look at the world we can be seduced and even depressed by the way the people of this world seem to be at ease. But that is only a mask. Psalm two tells us that those that follow the path of the world are only fooling themselves into believing that that path leads to anything good. God laughs at them and though they in their hearts would love to overthrow God in the end they will be destroyed.
Everyone can look back on their life and remember times of trouble. This may have been caused by sin or it may be because we are being persecuted for the name of Christ. Whatever the reason the laments that are in the Psalms can help us cry out to our Lord for forgiveness, comfort and love. They help us know that we are not alone that others have experienced these troubles before us. David prayed the laments during times of trouble, he also sang Psalms of praise. This can help us to understand that the Lord will deliver us where at the end of the Psalms we learn that to praise God for eternity is why we were created.

For Tolkien fans

If you like the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit you will love these lectures


http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-tolkien-professor/id320513707

Revelation 20 part 3

The third area needing to be addressed in determining the interpretation of the 1000 years in Revelation 20 is understanding the ‘First Resurrection’ and the ‘Second Death.’ In Revelation 20:4b-6 we read, “…They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

These questions must be answered. What does it mean for the people to ‘come to life’? What is the first resurrection? What is the second death? We have already discussed the condition of those who are reigning with Christ in this passage. They are martyrs who are seen standing in the throne room of God. A Premillennialist believes that the phrase coming to life indicates a physical resurrection of the believers that are then brought into the 1000 year kingdom. Walvoord says,

At the end of the church age, the rapture of the church will take place and the dead in Christ will be raised. At the end of the great tribulation, the tribulation saints will also be raised from the dead. It would seem clear from these facts that the term “the first resurrection” is not an event but an order of resurrection including all the righteous who are raised from the dead before the millennial kingdom begins. They are first in contrast to those who are raised last, after the millennium, when the wicked dead are raised and judged. Just as there are two kinds of physical death, namely, the first death which results in burial, and the second death which is described as being cast into the lake of fire (20:14).¹⁰

Walvoord’s interpretation does not leave us with a resurrection of type but of number. Both are physical. He sees the difference being in whom is being resurrected not what character (type) of resurrection is being described. First is a resurrection of the saints and second a resurrection of the ungodly. But what of those who live through the millennial kingdom as saints but have yet to receive their physical bodies? If the resurrection at the end of the millennium is distinctive because it is for the ungodly, then how will those saints experience physical resurrection? The resurrection for the Godly would have already happened. Another problem for the Premillennialist is that there is a seven year gap between the Rapture and the Second Coming. This is distinctive to Dispensationalism (including Walvoord) not Historic Premillennialism. According to Dispensationalism, all Christians who would be considered part of the church age or the Dispensation of Grace will be raptured secretly by Christ and brought to Heaven. All of the Christians who fit into this category will be resurrected and given their eternal, glorified bodies. So for Dispensational Premillennialism, the resurrection at the time of Revelation 20 is actually the second resurrection of believers.

While Ladd, a Historic Premillennialist, doesn’t agree with the Dispensational doctrine of the Rapture, he does agree with Walvoord on Revelation 20.

In Revelation 20:4-6, there is no such contextual clue for a similar variation of interpretation. The language of the passage is quite clear and unambiguous. There is no necessity to interpret either word spiritually in order to introduce meaning to the passage. At the beginning of the millennial period, part of the dead come to life [the martyrs], at its conclusion, the rest of the dead come to life. There is no evident play on words. The passage makes perfectly clear sense when interpreted literally.¹¹

The Amillennialist would say that the two resurrections in Revelation 20 are of contrasting types. The first is a spiritual resurrection while the second is a physical resurrection. Hendriksen says, “The first resurrection is the translation of the soul from this sinful earth to God’s holy heaven. It is followed at Christ’s second coming by the second resurrection when the body, too, will be glorified.”¹²

Many Amillennialists/Postmillenialists would agree with Hendriksen, although a more accurate interpretation would be the interpretation put forward by Kim Riddlebarger in a lecture. Pastor Riddlebarger argues that spiritual resurrection occurs earlier, at the time of regeneration.¹³ At death, the believer will be freed from his or her sin nature and will experience their spiritual resurrection in full. Just as we are reigning with Christ now, we have also been raised spiritually now. We have been united to Christ so that all that is Christ’s is ours. In this age, we experience in part what we will have in full in the age-to-come. Elsewhere in the New Testament, this doctrine of spiritual resurrection is seen occurring at the time of salvation. Biblical evidence for this would be: “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:3) “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (II Cor. 5:17) “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ, by grace you have been saved, and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:4-6)

Before we are saved, our spiritual condition is dead so that it takes the regeneration of the Holy Spirit to bring us to spiritual life. This is the first resurrection. We do not experience this in full until we experience our first death and go to be with our Lord. In order to understand what the first resurrection is, it would be helpful to determine the meaning of the second death.

Verse six tells us that the second death has no power over those who experience the first resurrection. Verses fourteen and fifteen tell us that the second death is experiencing the Lake of Fire. It seems reasonable that if the second death is spiritual and it is being compared to the first resurrection then the first resurrection is also spiritual. Greg Beale says,

The ongoing suffering must be considered a figurative ‘second death.’ A figurative understanding of the ‘second death’ is supported not only by the obviously non-literal ‘lake of fire’ but also by the above analysis of 20:4-6, where there was found both physical and spiritual resurrection and both physical and spiritual death. That the first and second deaths are qualitatively different is supported also by 21:4, 9. There, physical death is part of the ‘first things’ that ‘have passed away.’ Which are contrasted with ‘the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.’ The reference to ‘fire and brimstone’ in 21:8 identifies the ‘second death’ with the eternal, conscious torment by ‘fire and brimstone’ in 14:10-11 and 20:10.¹⁴

The final area that we need to examine is how other Scriptures use the term 1000. If it is always used literally in other passages, then an argument could be made for a literal interpretation here. Psalm 50:10 tells us, “For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.” II Peter 3:8 likewise states, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”

It is obvious in these two passages that the term 1000 is not being used literally, but figuratively. God owns all the hills and all the cattle, in fact He owns all the everything; that is what the Psalmist is trying to convey. Peter’s purpose is to show that time is of no consequence to God. The passage is specifically talking about the saving of the elect, the punishing of the wicked and the destruction of the old Heavens and Earth and the creation of the new. Martin Luther says, “Since now in God’s sight there is no reckoning of time, a thousand years must be with him, as it were, a day.”¹⁵

In conclusion, the term 1000 years in Revelation 20 should be taken figuratively. It is being used by the author to denote an undetermined period of time when Christ’s Kingdom will be spreading throughout the earth breaking down the gates of Hell. Satan is bound by the Gospel during this time until shortly before the end when he will be released to once again deceive the nations. Satan will lead a revolt against Christ Who will with one word defeat him casting him into the Lake of Fire with death and Hades and all those who are not found in the Lambs book of life; this is the second death. We are given a picture of the throne room of God where we see souls of those who have been martyred for the name of Christ standing in Heaven waiting for the day of vindication. The first resurrection is best described as spiritual since it is contrasted with the second death that is a spiritual death.

Time does not permit me to discuss the clear teaching in Scripture regarding the Two-Age model nor the parables of Jesus or the doctrine of the Second Coming as taught throughout the New Testament. Suffice it to say that before the Second coming, we are told that we live in an evil age surrounded by things that are temporary: homes, marriage, etc. In the Age-to-Come, we are surrounded by things that are eternal: righteousness, life, no pain, no sorrow, etc. The dividing line between the two ages is at the Second Coming of Christ when He will raise both the wicked and the righteous. He will separate the wheat from the tares and the sheep from the goats, casting the unrighteous into everlasting punishment and giving the righteous the new universe forever in the presence of their Lord.

Notes

1. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Findlay: Dunham, 1958), 477.

2. Simon Kistemaker, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 534.

3. John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: N.T. (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 979.

4. Leon Morris, Revelation TNTC (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 225.

5. Simon Kistemaker, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 538.

6. John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay: Dunham, 1959), 271.

7. John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: N.T. (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 978.

8. C.I. Scofield, Addresses in Prophecy (Greenville: Gospel Hour, 1975), 110.

9. Leon Morris, Revelation TNTC (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 225.

10. John Walvoord, Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 298-299.

11. George Ladd, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 265-66.

12. William Hendriksen, More than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940), 192.

13. Kim Riddlebarger, “Christ the true Israel”, Amillennialism 101, (Anaheim: Christ Reformed Church, 10/17/08).

14. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1036.

15. Martin Luther, Commentary on Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1982), 298.

Revelation 20 part 2

Let us now look at the rule of the saints with Christ. Verse 4a says, “Then I saw thrones and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the world of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands…” We will examine two details of this verse: the condition of souls and the position of the thrones.

John Walvoord says, “The fact that John could see them implies that they had received intermediate bodies in heaven and were awaiting their resurrections.”³

Leon Morris says, “In that he speaks of souls only and not of bodies (contrast 1 Cor. 15) it may be that he is thinking of a temporary state.”⁴

Simon Kistemaker says, “Next, let us consider the topic of souls of martyrs. John is descriptive and precise in his wording, for he is not writing the expression souls as a synonym for persons; he refers to souls without bodies. He describes martyrs beheaded by Roman executioners.”⁵

Often it is the Premillennialist that accuses the Amillennialist/Postmillennialist for not taking the Bible literally. However, here it is the Premillennialist who is using the literal language as figurative. In verse four, John clearly states that he saw souls. Nowhere are we told that he sees bodies. Yet, Walvoord interprets this verse not according to what John literally says but according to what Walvoord believes John must have meant. There are other times in Scripture when we see the spirits of dead believers like the prophet Samuel in I Kings 28 and at the transfiguration with Moses and Elijah in Matthew 17. Walvoord is developing a new doctrine here: intermediate bodies from death till our new resurrected bodies.

I believe Morris and Kistemaker are correct by taking John at face value, John saw souls before the throne of God. There is absolutely no supporting Scriptural evidence for the people of God being given temporary “intermediate” bodies before the resurrection. The original readers were facing a horrible time of persecution. Almost every Christian knew someone who had been jailed, beaten and/or killed for the name of Christ. Our Lord, in His graciousness, is pulling back the curtain so they (and we) can understand the fate of those who have gone on before us. They stand with our Lord reigning with Him. Encouragement indeed!

According to Premillennialism, the events in chapter 20 are a chronological continuation from the events in chapter 19. The Amillennial/Postmillennial interpretation is that chapter 20 begins a new vision and, therefore, is a separate unit from chapter 19. It is for this reason that the Premillennialist believes that the thrones described in this vision are on earth.

In his book The Millennial Kingdom, Walvoord, talking about Revelation 19:11-21 and the second coming of Christ says, “Further confirmation of the geographical return of Christ is found in the book of Revelation where He comes to judge the armies gathered in Palestine in rebellion against Him (Rev. 19:11-21). The geographical nature of Christ’s return serves to confirm His coming as a specific future prophetic event.”⁶ In The Bible Knowledge Commentary, he says, “The approach taken in this commentary is that the events in Chapter 20 follow chronologically the events in chapter 19.”⁷

When talking about the reign of Christ, C. I. Scofield says,

Not in Heaven. It is not a question of the reigning of God in heaven. His throne is in the heavens, and it has never been shaken and never can be; but here we have the promise that in David’s great Son there shall be one who will reign and execute judgment and justice in the earth….Was there any fulfillment of this promise then? Do you not see that the fulfillment of this prediction imperatively requires the return of David’s Son to this earth?⁸

The Amillennial/Postmillennialist believes that the thrones are in Heaven because throughout the book we are told the thrones of God and those that rule with Him are in Heaven. In his commentary on Revelation, Leon Morris says, “John saw thrones (cf. Dan. 7:9). He does not say where they were. Those who see a literal millennium usually place them on earth (cf.v.I). But John does not say this. He uses ‘throne’ forty-seven times in all, and except for Satan’s throne (2:13) and that of the beast (13:2; 16:10) all appear to be in heaven.”⁹

John is giving us a picture of Heaven. In a book where the throne room of God is always seen in Heaven and with the additional description of the “souls” of the martyrs standing before it, the clearest interpretation is that we are being given a picture of Heaven.

Revelation 20 part 1

The Meaning of 1000 Years in Revelation 20

I find it interesting that the book of the Bible that has been the most neglected in church history is also the most controversial. Perhaps the reasons are not all that disconnected. Such is the case with the book of Revelation, an apocalyptic writing with strange symbols and metaphors. Many have swayed from never reading it while others make it the focal point of their ministry.
There are four hermeneutical approaches used when interpreting Revelation. They are the preterist, the historical, the futurist and the idealist views. The preterist believes that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled by AD 70. The book was written for the encouragement of the original readers and edification for future believers. Conservative advocates of this interpretation have a high view of Scripture and believe that all that is left to be fulfilled is the second coming, judgment and a new heavens and new earth. Those of liberal persuasion see this as any other apocalyptic writing from that time period.
Proponents of the historical view believe that the book of Revelation corresponds with historical events throughout history until the second coming of Christ. Using this view allows the reader to interpret the symbolic meaning of the prophecy to correspond to the current events of his own time. For example, ‘the beast’ is seen as the current manifestation of the worldly power that is persecuting the people of God at that time.
The futurist believes that the book of Revelation speaks of future events starting with Revelation 4:1 till the end of the book. They believe that these events will be literally fulfilled just before the return of Christ, so that the book will have the greatest meaning to that generation of Christians. They seek to incorporate a consistently literal hermeneutic throughout the book.
The final view of interpretation is the idealist. The idealist believes that the book of Revelation is a symbolic illustration to the work of God in the world from the first advent of Christ to the second. They see the structure of the book as seven concurrent visions. This book is God pulling back the curtain so that Christians might see beyond their suffering and be encouraged by the King that rules all.
Two of these views, the futurist and the idealist are the most commonly used today and have lead to four primary systems of Eschatology. They are: Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. Since the Amillennial and Postmillennial positions agree with each other regarding the interpretation of the thousand years in Revelation 20, we will treat them as one system for our purposes here. The same will hold true for the two premillennial positions.
If it is true that the book of Revelation has been neglected, it is also true that Revelation 20 has been the least neglected. From an Amillennial/Postmillennial perspective, the 20th chapter of Revelation begins the seventh and final vision of the book and describes the time period between the first advent of Christ and His second coming in judgment. The Premillennial position is that this is the beginning of a literal 1000 year kingdom where Christ will rule from David’s throne on earth after which is the final judgment.
The question between these positions hinges on the interpretation of the use of the term 1000 years. Is it a literal 1000 years, or is it a figurative term referring to a long period of time? We will look at four key areas so as to ascertain the interpretation of the term. The four key areas are, the binding and loosing of Satan (verses 1-3, 7-10), the rule of the saints with Christ, (verse 4a), the comparison of death and resurrection (verses 4b-6, 11-15) and finally, how the term 1000 is used elsewhere in Scripture.
The passage begins like this: “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.” (Rev. 20:1-3) In order to interpret this passage, we must ask ourselves some questions. Who is the dragon? How is he bound? For how long will this binding last?
The passage itself tells us that the dragon is “that ancient serpent,” Satan. The reference to “that ancient serpent” and reminds us of the Garden of Eden when Satan possessed a snake to deceive Eve. In this passage, the Angel that was sent by God grabs hold of Satan and binds him with a great chain. A crucial question to ask would be if this is a literal binding or a metaphorical binding. A Premillennialist would say this is a literal binding and will last for 1000 years. An Amillennial/Postmillennialist would say that the binding is real but is not with a literal chain and that it will last for a long period of time. How can a spiritual being be bound with a literal physical chain? Is the chain made from iron or bronze? You cannot bind a spiritual being with a physical chain. It is impossible. The answer to this can be found in Matthew 12:25-29,
‘Knowing their thoughts,’ he said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.’
According to Jesus, the binding of Satan is the power of the Gospel in His kingdom as it assails the gates of Hell. It is the result of the fulfillment of Genesis 3:5 where we are told that the Seed of the woman would crush the head of the seed of the serpent. Support for this can be found in Luke 10 where Jesus sends his disciples out to tell all who would listen to the message of the kingdom. In verses seventeen and eighteen, the disciples come back to Jesus to tell Him of their experience in preaching. “The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord even the demons are subject to us in your name!’ and he said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’” In Revelation 20, Satan is thrown out of Heaven. Satan, the strong man, is said to be bound by Christ and thrown out of Heaven. This happened at the first advent of Christ not at the second. More importantly, it happened as a result of the Gospel being preached.
Earlier in Revelation 12:7-12, this event is spoken of.
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, he was thrown down to the earth and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, ‘Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death, therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them but woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!’
Dwight Pentecost gives us the Premillennial Dispensational interpretation of these verses.
Satan as the god of this age (II Cor. 4:4), has carried on his work to defeat the purpose and program of God. The millennial age is to be the age in which divine righteousness is to be displayed (Isa. 11:5; 32:1; Jer. 23:6; Dan. 9:24). It is also to be God’s final test of fallen humanity under the most ideal circumstances. All outward sources of temptation must be removed so that man will demonstrate what he is apart from satanic influence. So that there can be the full manifestation of righteousness and test of humanity apart from external temptation, Satan must be removed from the sphere. Therefore, at the second advent he will be bound and removed from the scene for the entirety of that millennial period.1
What the passage tells us, is that Satan is no longer allowed to deceive the nations. It does not say that he has been removed entirely. He is limited; he is not eliminated. Look at the great world powers before Christ’s coming: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece. When Satan is given free rein to deceive the nations these are the types of nations that you get. Look at the world power at the time of Christ, Rome. The standard operating procedure for Rome was to conquer a land, incorporate the people into the empire and assimilate the conquered country’s gods into the Pantheon. Rome was the collective storehouse of the world’s false religions. This is what you get when Satan is free to deceive the nations. Within three hundred years after Christ, the Emperor is a self-proclaimed Christian and the gospel has gone to every corner of the Empire. That is what you get when Satan is restrained from deceiving the nations. It is true that this world is filled with Satan’s activities, but even our sin-filled world of today is nothing compared to Rome or Babylon. Simon Kistemaker says, “Satan and his fallen angels are ‘bound as to a rope, which can be more or less lengthened.’ They can try to free themselves, but it is impossible for them to be released. John intended not a literal binding but a figurative restraint whereby Satan is unable to perform his wickedness as he did prior to his restriction.” 2 All believe that this restraining must come to an end. For the Amillennialist/Postmillennialist, the loosing will happen just before the end of the age. For the Premillennialist, it will happen at the end of the earthly kingdom rule of Christ.

Recent trends in emerging/emergent churches

In a little over a week I will be attending (in disguise) the Together for the Gospel conference at Southern Seminary. Having been a product and observer of the New Calvinistic movement I think we are at a turning point.

Running alongside the New Calvinistic movement has been the Emerging/Emergent movement. Some within the New Calvinistic movement have also been part of the Emerging movement often fighting against the Emergent movement. Point being that there has always been some crossover that has effected both movements. Let’s take a quick look at the good and the bad of where we are today. Remember these are only my observations.

The good is that there is greater separation from the emerging and emergent sides of this movement. It seems that those that used to be categorized as emerging have jettisoned the name. Which I believe is a good thing. The emerging/emergent movement for good or for bad began by fighting against dead orthodoxy, (a good thing to fight against), the danger was always to distance them from anything that resembled a N.T. church to the point that they would cease to be a N.T. church. Thankfully for the Emerging people this didn’t happen and now that they are no longer referring to themselves as Emerging we can see the evidence that they are trying to be seen (as they should be) as part of the N.T. church along with other branches of the N.T. Protestant church.

The other paradigm shift that has recently occurred is in the vehicle; “A New Kind of Christianity”, by Brian McLaren, which has been accurately described as being no kind of Christianity at all. In this book Brian leaves no doubt that he is not a Christian and is at ‘best’ a deist, even ‘Liberal’ would be a gracious description at this point. This already should have been apparent to Christiandom in his book; “A Generous Orthodoxy”, so I am thankful for Brian’s further clarification.

The accusations that the Emergent church was nothing more than repackaged liberalism was usually laughed at with wrinkled noses. It is always better when movements define themselves and given enough time they often do.

So where does this leave us? I am glad to see the Emerging church is trying not to be labeled as Emerging anymore. May I suggest something that I think more accurately describes what they have been (thankfully) trying to do all these years? Instead of ‘Emergeing they can cling to the slogan semper reformanda or Always Reforming. As for the Emergent church it is my hope that those that had been classifying themselves as Emergent will finally see that the movement has emerged itself right out of Christianity.

So where do we go from here? The idea of always reforming is supposed to lead us back to the Scriptures, constantly asking ourselves the questions; “Is what I believe Scriptural? Is my worship Christ centered and Biblically mandated?”, every church whether Old School Presbyterianism or New Calvinism should be asking these questions on a regular basis.

The dangers I see in the New Calvinism movement seems to be a straying from the Biblical model of trained Pastor led congregation. I am concerned at the campus model of a church. A pastor is supposed to be a shepherd to his people and this can only be done if the pastor actually knows his people. It is one thing to be a church plant from a larger more established church. Paul and Barnabus were sent out from Antioch to plant churches but part of that was also establishing Pastors, Elders and Deacons in each of these churches. How can a man shepherd a people when he is beamed in every Sunday on a screen? If this was a third world country and there weren’t enough pastors to go around then I wouldn’t complain but that doesn’t describe America.

The Gospel is supposed to be the driving force each Sunday, preached by a frail man of God. Should we simply find the best preacher we can get and beam his message to every church in the nation? I would say no. How would that Pastor know the individual needs of each individual congregation? Why then are churches modeling their Sunday services in this manner? I am not talking about new churches that are being planted. I am talking about churches that have been planted that are ready to be on their own.

The second area of concern for me is a seemingly downplaying of training pastors. I have heard from both Baptist and Presbyterian circles in the last few months of men who have not been to school that are pastoring churches. This baffles me. Would you go to a doctor that hasn’t been to medical school? On one hand we have churches that are not even getting a pastor going with a virtual one and on the other hand we are rushing people into the pastorate that haven’t been trained.

The conservative members of the protestant church made the same kind of mistakes in the early part of the 20^th century. In the fight against liberalism conservatives pulled out of the established schools and started their own and in many cases stopped training their pastors altogether. The mistakes that they made were the lack of training for their pastors as well as establishing many schools that were sub-par in academic standards. But what is the reason to do this today? Some of the schools that were started at that time were started in the right way leaving us with some excellent seminaries throughout this nation, Southern seminary, a few Westminsters, a few RTS’s, Mars etc. So why is the non-schooling of pastors starting to become a trend?

I have given you some observations that I have made and please feel free to comment on them. Overall I am pleased with the recent developments within the Emerging/Emergent movements. I am a strong believer in clear definitions. No movement is perfect and we always should be careful when we start to think that we can get rid of one or two things or change this or that, thus making ourselves perfect. In the end we will always be reforming.

A review of the movie; "The Book of Eli"

If you haven’t seen the movie “The Book of Eli” and you were planning on it, then don’t read this review, pull the car over and get out until I’m finished. I hate hearing about movies before I see them, I never read reviews, try not to see trailers and never ask anyone what a movie is about. A few weeks ago my friends decided to take me to see a movie for my birthday. This of course was very nice of them and the fact that they had already picked the movie without asking me was to say the least, unexpected.

I could have vetoed the choice I suppose but having seen a preview of “The Book of Eli” my attention had been caught. Oddly enough no matter how many times I tell people that I will maim them for telling me about a movie, telling me is all they seem to do. Something that I was told right at the beginning of not wanting to be told anything intrigued me so much that I actually found myself asking for further information. Rumor had it that this movie was being called by Christians the type of movie that Hollywood should be making for Christians; it seemed that here was a movie that was actually pro-Christian.

Could it be true? Could the Kingdom of Man have slipped and allowed something that might actually reflect positively on the Kingdom of God. Now I was very interested. I had thought that this movie was a post apocalyptic modern day Mad Max, (I love Virginia Hey in that). But now I was being told that this was a vehicle for the furthering of the Gospel and then…I saw the movie.

The movie itself was very well done. The fight scenes were choreographed nicely, crisp cinematography, good script and for the most part quality acting. Although Jackie (Mlia Kunis) from ‘That 70’s show’ was not the right choice for Solara, I blamed the casting agent more than the actress.

What left me scratching my head was the pre-movie jubilation by some in the Christian world that this was a pro-Christian movie. The New York Posts Kyle Smith called it a “Christian Blockbuster”. I will admit that I may be over analyzing this film so I am prepared for that accusation. I even waited two weeks to write this review in order to give myself a chance to really consider what I believed the message of the movie was. My original opinion has remained unchanged.

Throughout the movie the messenger of God (Eli) is fighting his way through mobs of ruffians, dodging cannibals and walking by faith to a place that he hasn’t seen. He isn’t sure where it is but he knows that he will know it when he ‘sees’ it.

The thing is that Eli has the last Bible on the face of the earth and for the last thirty years he has been trying to take it to a place where it can be used for good. What we start to understand is that the reason why this is the last Bible on earth is because its teachings were the catalyst for what caused the devastating war in the first place and also the reason why Carnegie (Gary Oldman {movie bad guy}) wants it. After the devastating war people recognized that it was teachings from this book that caused the war so they burned every copy they could get their hands on. After thirty years of reading the Bible Eli has learned two things, one; that the people were wrong about the Bible and two; the true message of the book (uttered by Eli three quarters of the way through the movie), is; “What it tells me is that we should treat others like we want to be treated”.

I don’t believe the Hughes brothers were trying to misrepresent the Bible, I believe that they believe that that is the true message of the Bible. I think their main purpose for this movie was to promote tolerance of all religion. At the end of the movie the Bible is tidally placed on the shelf next to the Torah and the Koran.

Throughout the movie Eli is wandering through a dirty, dusty, dry and barren land. The film itself is muted color with grey scale; even the clean water from the pump is filmy. But, as Eli moves closer to the place that he is being led the grey scale is slowly lifted and the color bleeds back into frame, suddenly green trees appear. Eli and Solara row a boat across blue water, under blue sky to the place where the book will finally be understood for what it is. Inside this solid structure everything is bathed in deep red and chocolate brown. And as we step into the courtyard we are greeted with lush green grass.

The parallel that I took away from this movie was one of religious tolerance. Outside in the wasteland is narrow-minded intolerance that wants to take religion and use it to control others and gain power. But in the fortress set high above the grey is open-mindedness, a place where all thought is collected and set on the same foundation, where every ideology is cherished so that future generations can overcome those who believe that all philosophies have a place and must be understood as an achievement of thought. Anyone who thinks differently is just a cannibal.