Games

A friend of mine recently asked me what my favorite sports movies were. So I decided to include them here.

As a matter of preface, I generally don't like sports movies. To much inspiration.

I refuse to sacrifice a good story to see the team win in the end. (i.e. Remember the titans, Radio etc.) Conveniently enough, most of the time they do. Except for Rocky. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone, however if you haven't seen Rocky, you're are seriously missing out. So my goal here is to show the movies that are great stories that happen to have sports elements to them.

This is also the order I would watch them in:

1.Rocky

2.Field of Dreams

3. Raging Bull

4. The Pride of the Yankees

5. Million Dollar Baby

6. A League of their Own

7. The Natural

8. Chariots of Fire

9. Eight men out

10.The Hurricane

** Rudy gets an honorable mention, because let's face it, it's Rudy. When he walks on that field at the end and his dad cries...Oh boy, I'm crying. My keyboard is all wet. This is embarrassing.

On on they send, on without end, their joyful tone to every home.

I don't know what's happening. I'm sorry. I seem to be in some strange sort of mood. I'm sorry - it's very rude of me. I seem to be unravelling.

Clarissa Vaughan, played by Meryl Streep, in The Hours (2002).

The first thing I think of when I think of Christmas is ‘X-mas’. I’m reassured by the fact that ‘X’ is a symbol for Christ. The next thing I think of is ‘Happy Holidays’, the politically correct substitute for ‘Merry Christmas’. Then I think of how I think of Santa before Christ. I think of presents. Saying that giving is better than receiving is not necessarily true. Sometimes I enjoy one more than the other and the other way around. I remember being a child on the lap of a mall-Santa pulling a fake beard away from a middle-aged and startled face. I remember being dismayed, but thinking, not that there was no Santa, but that this impostor wasn’t the right Santa. I remember the wonder I felt when I tugged on a real beard. This is him. The real deal.

I remember waking up as a child and seeing that the cookies really were eaten! It’s true! He exists! And I know my parents were sleeping; I saw them go to bed! Then, poof! Presents. There’s a Santa. I loved the smells. That Christmas tree smell. It seemed to pervade my house. I remember how my mom made me read either the Luke or the Matthew passage and faking that I was interested because all I wanted to do is tear open my presents with all the frenzy of a crazed maniac. I remember not being able to sleep the night before. It was so magical. I remember trying to stay awake so I could hear the reindeer hooves hit the roof. I’d run to my window to catch one quick glimpse. Maybe I could sneak outside and get a sneak peak of his back, or hear snorting. I’d run back to my bed under my covers. I couldn’t be caught; that would mean ‘no presents’, I’d reason. Why couldn’t I ever hear the presents being wrapped?



I remember the cold. It was a poignant frost. Filled with bitter-sweetness. I remember really getting angry at my classmates who said they swore Santa didn’t exist. They’d insist they caught their parents in the act. So what?, I’d think. That proves what exactly? Maybe you were bad and you’re parents were making up for it. Maybe you caught your parents wrapping only a certain portion of the presents you got. I remember when my mom sat me down to tell me the news. I feigned indifference. But even as I type this, I remember feeling a level of despair I hadn’t known up to that point. I remember my dad not wanting the news to be broken to me this way. My feelings of romanticism had been abruptly snuffed. But then the years went by.

I remember being a little more mature and stumbling across the story of St. Nick, a Greek bishop, with a reputation for secret gift-giving. I always remember The Christmas Carol, The Grinch, Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, The Christmas Story, Scrooged, and let’s not forget Die Hard. I remember all these memories with a melancholy I haven’t truly felt until now. I miss my childhood very much. I miss the mystery and the innocence, when you really discover things for the first time. This next Christmas is really reminding me that I need to cherish all the blessings God has given me, and do it now in the present, and stop being so self-absorbed and worrying about tomorrow. I remember a time when I was more myself, before I wasn't diluted with all these other invading personalities that morphed my true self whichever way they did. That’s the word. I feel diluted. A child is so its true self because it doesn’t know enough to deceive itself. Once you start growing up, you start wanting to be other things besides what God made you to be, and you actually start changing yourself, bit by bit, little by little.

As another Christmas begins to go by, like a caboose on a train, I’m reminded of my mortality, but I’m also reminded that I need to not take anything God puts into my life for granted, to love my family and friends while they’re still here, while I’m still here. I need Christ so bad. So very bad. I can’t say it enough. We’re all Scrooges and we all need those ghosts sometimes to remind us of what was really important. No movie does this better than It’s a Wonderful Life. I watch it every Christmas. On that note, each one of us is George Bailey, settling for a life we didn’t plan for, sorting out our own despair, dealing with our own demons, our Mr. Potters, and hoping for that time when God sends some angel (whatever form that’ll take) to give us some deep insight into what’s really meaningful in life, and we come full circle to realize that we’re NOT islands.

We are members of a community. We need to help each other, since we’re all one in Him.

Taking the Long Way

Every once in awhile an album comes out that aligns perfectly with the moon and the stars, the sun and the Venus. An album that brings kings to their knees and oceans to a boil. A collection of songs that shakes the very ground we walk on. This type of occurrence is rare, but does happen. Such examples are limited but include the following: Ratt, 'Out of the Cellar', Lynyrd Skynyrd, 'Gimme Back My Bullets', Marilyn Manson 'The Golden Age of Grotesque' and Dixie Chicks, 'Taking the Long Way.'

'Taking the Long Way' is, as of 2010, the Dixie Chicks most recent studio release. After a four year break from 2002's 'Home' and a four year constant bombardment of harassments, death threats and over all media damnation the Dixie Chicks broke the silence with 'Taking the Long Way' in 2006.

Now for those of you that weren't alive or consciously aware of the turmoil and heartache that took place in the lives of these sweet southern girls in the post 9/11 world, let me refresh you...
In March of 2003 at a concert in London, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks said, and I quote; "We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
Not a huge deal right, I mean who really likes war? Just making a statement whilst having a microphone in front of you at a country music concert shouldn't be that big of a deal. right?

WRONG.

After this remark the Dixie Chicks were virtually blacklisted from everything and made out to be communist Nazis worthy of being stoned to death on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I'm not making this up people, you can research if you want or just think back to just a few short years ago when Dixie Chicks albums were being burned in church parking lots. (I guess there was a shortage on Beatles Memorabilia at that time.)

If this seems ridiculous it's because it is. I think Dave Chappelle summed it up best when he said, "Why would anyone care about what the Dixie Chicks have to say about politics? They're just three bitches that can sing good." Exactly. Why does anyone care about musicians and movie stars stand points on religion or politics or anything? They're entertainers not life coaches! Their views on anything, whether you agree or disagree shouldn't interfere with your opinions or how you judge their art!

I'm getting side tracked..

Never the less the Dixie Chicks were able to rise out of this sea of ignorance and deliver, in all seriousness, one of the best albums I've ever heard. Maybe the main reason why they haven't released anything since 'Taking the Long Way' is because they know it would be a ridiculously hard act to follow...? It's a possibility. In the career of musicians there are albums that define you, and then there are albums that RE-define you. Redefining albums take the best qualities of what you became known for in the first place and then add to that a new and invigorating sense of style, determination, quality and in this case, sassyness.

If the Dixie Chicks were renaissance painters 'Taking the long way' would be their Sistine Chapel. Put it on heavy rotation.

The Animal Within: Black Swan

But I was still cursed with my duality of purpose; and as the first edge of my penitence wore off, the lower side of me, so long indulged, so recently chained down, began to growl for licence. Not that I dreamed of resuscitating Hyde; . . . no, it was in my own person that I was once more tempted to trifle with my conscience. However, this brief condescension to my evil finally destroyed the balance of my soul.

- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde



I am very excited about the new movie from Darren Aronofsky called Black Swan, starring Natalie Portman playing Nina Sayers (The Swan Queen), and Mila Kunis, playing Lily (The Black Swan). You might remember Mila Kunis as Mona Sax in Max Payne (2008), a mediocre revenge pic. Black Swan, as far as I can gather from the trailer, looks to be a very deep movie about the human condition. We talk flippantly about the dark side of our natures, a theme touched on often enough in the humanities, but what we tend to gloss over in casual conversation the arts need to emphasize, so in our times of leisure at the cinema, we can come to see the full dimensions of what God comes to save us from; and to those who have dipped their fingers into the icy, chilling water of spiritual death, they can feel that numbing sensation they felt when once they so dabbled.

Nina Sayers is a professional ballerina for the New York City ballet. Her entire life is consumed with the art of the dance; her drive and ambition deliver her to the upper echelons of competition within her profession. When Thomas Leroy (Cassel), the artistic director, needs to choose the best ballerina for the production 'Swan Lake', his eyes land ineluctably on Sayers. But the smooth transition of Sayers into the lead part presents some problems. The part demands of the character a duality of personality, with the White Swan exemplifying all the traits of purity, spotlessness, and innocence, and the Black Swan the polar opposite, representing sensuality, a sort of twistedness, a bent-ness. Things are further complicated when Leroy's attention is fixed on Lily, who exudes these qualities effortlessly. Nina, in her drive to win the part, and pushed along abusively and obsessively by Erica (Hershey), her mother, begins her slow descent into the darker, and so spiritually perilous, regions of the more sinister and foul part of her nature.

I have high expectations from Aronofsky, who has Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and The Wrestler under his belt. The trailer for the film is very affective, with Natalie Portman looking like she'll deliver the performance of her career. Along with P.T. Anderson, Aronofsky gets me very excited about whatever movie output they'll eventually have. This movie will be sure to illuminate the whole universal motif of the duality of human nature and what happens when someone is lead irrevocably toward the path of spiritual destruction. As soon as the movie hits theaters in Biloxi, I'll be sure to buy a ticket, and get more than my money's worth.

Jean-Claude Van Damned

Jean-Claude Van Damme. Part of the 80's Rat Pack of muscle-bound action stars in cheesy, fun action movies with company such as Stallone, Schwartzenegger, Seagel, Norris, and Willis. My earliest memories are watching Kickboxer, where Van Damme is training in some tropical wilderness, his shirt off, tan, muscles exposed, with lots and lots of karate. I wanted to be like him. Bloodsport got his career into high gear and he was soon one of the most sought after action stars of the 80's and early 90's. His signature spinning, round-house kick delivered as the end-all knock-out hit near the end of his fights was enough to make me clench my fists with adrenaline. But something happened.

Somewhere around the mid-90's, his career started hitting some snags. His movies began to make less and less money. At least his movies were still hitting the theater. But as movie producers started noticing the trends, they realized Van Damme wasn't a good investment anymore. Suddenly a barrage of straight-to-video films swept through Blockbuster. He became a joke. Anytime you saw him in one of these later films, you could never take him seriously. Not only was there every action movie cliche, but there was every Van Damme cliche. Overblown plots, terrible scripts, long stretches of boring scene development, and an inability to take his acting any more seriously than a Hulk Hogan or an Ernest movie. How could such a titan of action-movie superstardom become a dive, almost a comic figure in a tragedy, becoming the butt of any joke having to do with ruined careers and trainwrecks?

Now I don't know much about Van Damme's personal life, but this downward spiral in movie output is almost entirely a reflection of it. He had everything. He was a modern day Solomon, having many wives, had sex with countless women, became entangled in a destructive drug habit, struggling with his financies, losing custody of his children, all with full cognizance if his career's momentum as becoming a joke. He was unraveling. He tried everything the world had to offer and saw that it was nothing but a chasing after the wind. Out of nowhere, he had somewhat of a spiritual reawakening. I don't know the details, but somewhere, somehow, he came to see the futility of living out an existence based on mere pleasure. It is so strange to realize that the hammiest actor you know, from the lead to the background characters, to the guy responsible for the lighting that Christian Bale exploded on, are real, rich, full, beautiful, drama-filled lives that, if thier lives were a movie, would all be worthy of an Academy Award.



Enter a very strange movie called JCVD (2008), which stands for Jean-Claude Van Damme. It is a foreign film and the characters speak in French. He plays himself and consciously puts emphasis on real aspects of his life: his financial struggles, his family issues, his personal demons. The plot is mundane and more a vehicle for Van Damme to play a Hamlet than be delightful in its own right. After we see him in his struggles, he is at a bank where he realizes he has no money. Just then, a robber knocks him out, but due to some communication problem, the police think Van Damme robbed the bank and is now holding everyone who was present hostage. He uses this time to tell those present about his real life apart from his celebrity status.



Against all odds, he gives a very powerful peformance, with critics agreeing. The foreign-film status gives it a more realistic feel and you don't have to hear Van Damme trip over the English language. And since he is playing himself and not a character, his performance has an effortlessness about it that is refreshing. In all his other films, I almost feel my stomach tie in knots because all I can think about is some foreign actor playing a cheesy action role and it distracts from the character and the story. JCVD solves both these problems. There are pathos-filled scenes, like a court scene in which Van Damme is losing custody of his daughter mainly because his daughter is teased at school when one of his films is on at her school. Touches like those are perfect because they touch on something everyone is feeling. He becomes his own worst critic and his criticisms are noteworthy. He takes aim at not just his movies but his self. Give it a view.

1994

1994, the year my life revolves around.

I think everyone would agree 1994 wasn't a bad year, we had the 25th anniversary of Woodstock, some lovely winter Olympic games in Norway, "Schindler's List" won 7 Oscars, Brazil won the world cup and O.J. Simpson got away with murder. Now these things are all great and wonderful but let's talk about the things that changed my life and made me the man I am today.

First off '94 was the year the greatest motion picture of all time was released..."Forrest Gump." If you ever want to witness a grown man weeping like a 7 year old orphan, watch "Forrest Gump" with me. When Forrest meets his son for the first time and when Forrest visits Jenny's grave, both scenes make me cry like a woman watching "Casablanca" or "The Wedding Planner" or whatever the hell makes women cry. Damn that Tom Hanks and his beautiful acting. Point is, that movie has deeply impacted me. It makes me feel good about life and myself and comforts me in the same way a grilled cheese sandwich prepared by my mother does.

Also in April of 1994 Kurt Cobain was found dead in a room above his garage at his home in Lake Washington, Seattle. At the time I was only 6 years old but even then I was still aware of how big of a deal that was. Granted at 6 I didn't fully understand just how tragic and detrimental this loss was to the world of music but as I have grown up few bands and few individuals have affected me as much as Nirvana and Kurt have. A couple months later MTV and Geffen records released Nirvana's 'Unplugged in New York' album which is one of my favorite albums of all time, if you have never heard it or seen the live performance on tv or dvd you are missing out.

Here is a little four minute taste...



Okay, let's continue.

Now, the movie "Jurassic Park" was actually released in '93 but I was not privileged enough to see it until the next year so I still count it as one of the wonders of 1994. If you were a kid who grew up in the 90s and you didn't love "Jurassic Park" I didn't want to be your friend. If you're an adult living in 2010 and you don't love "Jurassic Park" I still probably don't want to be your friend. Besides all the obvious fantastic things about JP; Jeff Goldblum, velociraptors, John Williams musical score, Jeff Goldblum, JP also released an absolutely amazing line of toys after the success of the film. I spent a good two years of my life sending Doctor Alan Grant, Ian Malcolm and a giant T-Rex on all sorts of crime fighting missions with Batman, the X-Men and what ever else assortment of odd ball toys I had acquired.

I could honestly keep going on and on. "The Shawshank Redemption", "Dumb and Dumber", and "The Lion King" all came out in '94, 2pac recorded the album 'Me Against the World', Beavis & Butthead and Ren & Stimpy ruled the television airwaves and Ben Affleck started on his journey to the top of the world. All of the things I just listed are very near and dear to my heart. The only thing that could have made this year any more epic and more vital to my existence would have been if Jordan and the Bulls could have won the championship for a fourth year in a row.

Music: A Confession

I am not ashamed to admit that my musical taste was initially formed by my father. I remember when I would ride with him from soccer practice, youth group, whenever...He would always have 107.1 THE FOX playing. It was here that I was introduced to such juggernauts as Led Zepplin, Deep Purple and AC/DC. It was also in these moments that I learned that KISS is a terrible band (Absolutely terrible, who legitimately likes this band?).

There was a time I wanted to have the exact same taste in music as my Dad. If he liked it, I did. If he hated it, as far as I was concerned it was crap.

It was a dark day in the Johnson home, the day I began to develop my own taste in music, especially when these tastes diverged. For example, Archie Johnson is not a fan of the Rolling Stones. He cannot stand Mick Jagger and not until college did I finally develop an appreciation for one of the single most significant rock bands of all time.

My dad started me on a road that has not ended yet. I have developed an appetite for music that is not easily satiated. This desire to seek out the classics as well as the underground sensations have introduced me to some gems. Some, like Bob Dylan took a bit longer than others. Some, I just cannot get on board with. Some of these bands I am ashamed to admit that when people talk about them or when they are played on the radio (does anyone listen to the radio anymore?) I quickly change the channel.

So, here is my confession. I have secretly kept to myself when people talk about certain key bands. Bands like The Cure or The Smiths. Or more modern versions like Vampire Weekend, Beach House or Yeasayer. This is not to say that these bands do not have a song or two that tickles my fancy, but I am just not interested in their wider catalogue.

When I love a band, truly love a band I seek after their music. I want to everything they've done. I scour the internet for interviews, b-sides and rarities so that I can have a holistic experience with the band. (I have almost 2 days worth of the Beatles for example)

This has been a extremely vulnerable time. I hope that this does not taint the good Matt Johnson name or the untouchable reputation of The Heretical Review.

(This blog does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of other contributors)

Below I have provided a short list of bands I really could care less about (Keep in mind all of these bands have at least a song or two I do like):

The Cure

Elvis Costello in any formation (This pains me. I've tried, I really have)

The Pretenders

Beach House

Vampire Weekend

Depeche Mode

The Smiths

Talking Heads

This is not an exhaustive list, I'm sure there are plenty of other bands I could do without. These are the ones that come to mind initially. Also, these aren't the bands I hate. That list would include KISS and early non-cheesy Aerosmith.

My heart is an open Nook

I recently started using my Nook. It is an amazing piece of technology. But it invites a question. It is really a sufficient substitute? Aesthetically, almost nothing beats a room with a bookcase, with rows and rows of beautiful spines shining out. Even if left unread, they're great looking furniture. But lets consider them as read. If you read a book, you have to have the right lighting, you have to be lucky enough to be aquainted with the right font, and the size of the font has to be just right to meet your eye's expectations. You also have to be armed with a bookmark because the last thing you want to do is dog-ear a page, unless it's a book you don't really care about. And even if you leave the book for a matter of minutes, there's always the slightly annoying interval where you're trying to find out exactly where you left off, and if you were off by just a little, you're stuck wading through a part you don't really pay attention to because you've already read it; you're just waiting to bump into the unfamiliar so that the pleasure of your reading can continue on unabated.

I find that the Nook takes care of all these inconveniences. I just remembered. A huge inconvenience with owning a mound of books is that if you move, they have to go with you, which means you have to start collecting boxes or buying plastic containers to store them in, and then you have all the labor that goes into loading them and unloading them, and then unloading the books themselves and reshelving them into some kind of order. Up to 2,500 volumes can be stored on a Nook, and it comes equipped with bookmarks. It is easy to navigate and you have access to and are able to buy newpapers and magazines too! But what is it about a book that makes it irreplacable? I have the convenience of having quick access to 'what is read'. But what is it that I miss about the real book? Do I miss the smell? Do I miss the feel of the pages in my fingers? Do I miss the fact that I love the little work it takes to make it through a book? Do I miss the fact that the book itself becomes a sort of friend, that you can personalize it, mark it, underline, make notes? But you can do this with a Nook.

Is it the digital medium that makes it less personal? But what's personal about physical pages compared to digital prose? I'm enjoying my Nook, but I feel like I'm missing something.

Devils tearing your life away: Jacob's Ladder

The demons in Jacob's Ladder look like the demonic paintings of William Blake. This is an original, terrifying movie. I picked it up by accident because the plot interested me. But I didn't know what I was in for. I was struck by the same feeling I had when I watched The Descent for the first time. It was a sleeper and barely made a blip on the radar in terms of gross. It's looks like it's the same with Jacob's Ladder.



Tim Robbins is Jacob Singer, a Vietnam war veteran, a mentally unstable one at that. A bayonet pierces his side during the war, but his consciousness soldiered on in some unfamiliar mode. Has he died? We don't know for sure. Horned creatures begin to terrorize him. Interesting territory is explored. Just how is our consciousness going to adjust after death? Do we have any idea? Are we going to notice? Assuming we don't have a good clue because we're really old. How long will it take for our consciousness to catch up, to realize it's dead, assuming there is a hereafter, and if there is, there's a limbo, a no man's land, not quite Heaven, but not quite Hell. It's almost like the long, swift sucking sensation you get when you go down a steep water slide, or maybe the feeling you get when you just clear the edge of a gigantic waterfall: you're no longer on the river; but you're not where the waterfall meets the water down below.

That's sort of where Jocob might be. Little things begin to break through. He swears he sees a lizard-like tail squirm beneath a homeless man. Hideous faces that look like melting wax roam slowly just behind passing car windows. During a scene, Jacob's chiropractor quotes the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart:

Eckhart saw Hell too; he said: 'the only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of life, your memories, your attachments. They burn them all away. But they're not punishing you,' he said. 'They're freeing your soul. So, if you're frightened of dying and... you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.'

Jacob's Ladder is what Jacob is supposed to be on, the ladder being a meeting place between Heaven and Hell. But 'the Ladder' also has another meaning: it was an experimental drug given to American soldiers during Vietnam, and without their knowing. The drug made a short-cut to a person's urge for primal rage. It's a ladder leading down to that part of the psyche. New revelations about the drug shed light on the mystery of Jacob's alleged death!

All Hallow's Eve

'Tis now the very witching time of night, when churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out contagion to this world." -William Shakespeare

What are some of the first things that come to mind when you think about Halloween? Go ahead, start shouting them out....jack o' lanterns, haunted houses, Vincent Price, razor blade apples, Michael Myers, hayrides, that one Olsen twins movie, dressing up like a ninja turtle, 'It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown', eating Reese's cups and pixie sticks until you go into a sugar induced coma....just a few things off the top of my head.
For most, Halloween is synonymous with candy and trick or treating, but for others Halloween goes hand in hand with evil spirits, and practices of the occult.

"This day anything goes, burning bodies hanging from poles. I remember Halloween." -Glenn Danzig

The thing that I don't understand about it, is why does everyone care so much about the so called "evil" aspects of the holiday? Sure certain things about Halloween have dark overtones...okay, a lot of things about Halloween have dark overtones but why does that prevent parents from letting their kids gather copious amounts of candy or attend harmless costume parties? Just to put it into prospective, Christmas, is all about the celebration of the birth of Christ but that doesn't stop non christian families from giving gifts to one another or putting a dead pine tree in their living room on December 25th. Why should Halloween be a different scenario, just because certain people or groups have taken their views on the holiday to an extreme?

"The first ten years of my life the only clear thought I ever had was 'get candy'. Family, friends, school, they're just obstacles in the way of candy. So the first time I heard the concept of Halloween my brain couldn't even process the information." -Jerry Seinfeld

The origin of what has become modern day Halloween stems from the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain and the Catholic observation of All Saints' Day. The Celts believed that the hours between sunset on October 31st to sunset on November 1st was a time when the dead could return to earth. The Celtic people would dress up in costumes and light huge bonfires in an attempt to keep away the looming ghosts. While the Roman Catholics took this time of the year to celebrate and honor the lives of the saints, both known and unknown. Some how over the years the two holidays gradually mixed into one conglomeration. On the surface it might not seem like the two observances have very much in common but if you cut it down to the bare essentials, both celebrations are all about paying homage to the deceased and I guess that is how they eventually bled into one entity.

"Most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches, I do not buy candy during the Halloween season." -Pat Robertson

If you noticed in my brief little history lesson above there was no mention of casting spells or burning witches at the stake or carving swastikas into foreheads. These images and fantasies that we tend to think up in our minds and associate with Halloween have little to no actual relation, they are merely embellishments that have attached themselves over the years. In the same way a father might embellish or dramatize stories he tells his kids and then even further dramatize them for his grand kids. It is the same concept, what started out with bonfires and the warding off of unwanted dead relatives has gradually snow balled into a night of witches and goblins and demons and ax murderers. So in a way, Halloween is like a universal ghost story that keeps getting better with each passing year as the story continues to uncoil.

"Halloween is my kind of holiday. It's not like those other stupid holidays. I don't get pine needles in my paws. There's no dumb bunny, no fireworks, no relatives." -Garfield the Cat

Everyone likes to be scared and mischievous and let their imaginations get the best of them, so what's the big deal? Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Halloween is just a demonic birthday party for devil. It is a celebration of fall and a tradition I will always gladly participate in.

Lords of Salem

Musician/filmmaker Rob Zombie recently announced that he has begun work on his next full length film, to be entitled 'Lords of Salem'. Few details have been released about the script or the over all pre-production but Zombie did state that he will have "total control over the script, casting and final cut." Something that he didn't have while working on his big budget studio remakes of Halloween 1 and 2. For these reasons Zombie turned down the proposition to do a re-envisioning of Halloween 3 and a remake of the 1958 classic 'The Blob'.

Stating:
"The remake train is getting pretty tired now and when I made 'Halloween' everybody complained, either that it was too much like the original or too different. I like that people either love or hate what I do because it’s better than being in the middle, which means forgettable. But when you do an original premise, they take it on face value and after three years of not being able to win on 'Halloween', I just couldn't go through that again.”

I am assuming that this new project will take it back to the nitty gritty, to his 'House of 1000 Corpses' basics of innovative, low budget, film making. After the latest two pictures Rob released in 2009, 'Halloween 2' and 'The Haunted World of El Superbeasto' (an animated feature starring Paul Giamatti) both went relatively under the radar and became the scorn of many an angry Michael Myers fan and on-line bloggers, that apparently have nothing better to do then to bash the hard works of others in very humorous and obscene ways. I am guilty of both charges, for being a far too overzealous Myers fan and for wasting away a good portion of my life ridiculing and belittling others via the world wide web, the only difference is I happened to love 'Halloween 2'.

As I said above, little is known about the story line of the film so far, except that it is to take place in modern day Salem Massachusetts where inhabitants of the town come under attack by 300 year old demonic witches. If that doesn't spark your interest I don't know what will, it's like Rob Zombie's version of 'Hocus Pocus'! Hopefully Sarah Jessica Parker will play the hot witch in this one too. Filming is to begin in 2011, I'll keep you posted as I learn more.

Juliet, Naked: A Review

Today the Nobel Prize for Literature was given to Mario Vargas Llosa. He is the author of some plays and some other books, apparently. I was and still am unfamiliar with him. If my apathy towards this individual is not easily grasped in the virtual world than let me put it to you this way. I could easily wikipedia this guy, give you some facts and impress all of you. I am so uninterested in this guy that my vanity, my desire to impress you, the Heretical review reader is zilch, nada, nothing.

So instead, I thought I would list out some of the books I have read this year and tell you which ones I liked the best. I will also bestow the first ever HERETICAL REVIEW PRIZE FOR WORDS ON A PAGE.

This is exciting.

Here we go:

1. John Steinbeck- To a God Unknown

2. Kurt Vonnegut- Fates Worse than Death

3. Nick Hornby- Juliet, Naked

4. Raymond Carver- Cathedrals

5. Ernest Hemingway- The Sun Also Rises

And the winner is....

Ok, all of that was really a long way to get to a book I have been meaning to write about for a while. Nick Hornby has/is become one of my favorite modern writers. He is the author of the books High Fidelity, About a Boy and Fever Pitch. I'm pretty sure he taught me how to appreciate fiction and literature. This happened one day while sitting in Barnes and Noble when I casually picked up his A Long Way Down. I sat and read 200 pages in one sitting. It felt like minutes. But, it was really hours and I was late to pick up one of my siblings from soccer practice. That was the first time that had ever happened to me. The idea of getting lost in a good book was foreign to me. But, his wit and insight into humanity floored me. It was there, in that chair, that my love affair with the novel began.

From there I found myself gobbling up his novels. I read the books listed above inside of a month and found myself venturing out to other men and women writers. Something that attracts me to Hornby's writing is his male protagonists. They are incredibly likable but extremely flawed. I found myself in these characters, wondering how they were going to get themselves out of the situations they had created for themselves.

Juliet, Naked is nothing new in the canon of Nick Hornby. It is the story of a couple, Annie and Duncan. Both in the world of the Arts/Humanities. Duncan is obsessed with a singer-songwriter named Tucker Crowe. Crowe released a monumental album named, Juliet. After the release of this album he disappeared. Two decades later, a stripped down release of the same album is released called, Juliet, Naked. The story follows these three individuals as they end up in a bizarre triangle (which conveniently enough is my favorite shape).

This book for any music fan, is immediately accessible. We can all relate with becoming overly obsessed with an album artist or some piece of art. We desire to have everything they have ever done, we spend hours discussing the meanings to some mysterious lyrics. In this modern world, we follow their blog, twitter and ask to be their friends on facebook. We assume that this musician, novelist or artist in general would love us if they met us.

I mean why wouldn't they? We are interesting, with things plenty of things to say!

This book explores themes of love, future, family, career, trust, concern and a myriad of other things. Also, it is absolutely hilarious. I recommend that you pick it up and read the first chapter, if you are not laughing by the end of the chapter, than maybe you should go and read this weeks issue of Tiger Beat.

If summer had not already passed us by I would call this a "Perfect Summer Sun Book" but since it is fall I will call it, "Perfect Cuddle/Fireplace Book".

Do yourself a favor, take a break from those school books, daily routine, and that mediocre relationship and crack open this book. You won't regret it.

Stand By Me-A Brief Overview of the Quintessentail Film About Youth and Growing Up

The movie "Stand By Me" was released in theaters on august 22th 1986, it was directed by Rob Reiner, written by Stephen King, narrated by Richard Dreyfuss and starred Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Jerry O'Connell. The film is set in a small Oregon town called 'Castle Rock' in the late summer of 1959. It follows the lifes of 4 young men as they search to find the body of the missing 12 year old boy Ray Brower.

The four boys involved in this quest; Gordie, Chris, Teddy and Vern each come from different walks of life and each have their own individual struggles and complications that come along with growing up. Whether it be in '59, '95 or 2010 the experience of adolescence is still very much the same for everyone. Which is the main reason why this classic film connects with viewers on such an intimate level.

After Vern over hears that the body of the missing boy Ray Brower is supposedly a few miles from town somewhere tucked in the woods along the train tracks, he goes and tells the rest of the gang about the exciting and gruesome news. The boys talk about the prospect of going on this journey into the unknown to find the body. With school starting back in just a few short days and with visions of being welcomed home as local heroes for discovering the missing boy they ultimately decide it's an adventure they can't pass up.
The story mainly revolves around Gordie Lachance, who is coping with the recent loss of his older brother, Denny, who spent more time and interest in Gordie's life then their parents did. Denny was a high school football star and the apple of his fathers eye, after his passing the parents, especially the father, took to neglecting Gordie even more then they had before. Chris Chambers, Gordie's best friend, comes from a family of criminals and alcoholics and was branded a "thief" at an early age for stealing lunch money. Mainly due to stereotypes and prejudices Chris is growing up to be a rebel and an outsider. Vern Tessio , the nerd of the bunch, is a shy, slightly overweight and easily frightened kid, which often makes him the butt of ridicule. Finally there's Teddy Duchamp, the son of an abusive, unstable father who once put Teddy's ear to a stove, leaving him permanently disfigured. Teddy is kind of a goofball, looking to always make jokes or find humor in situations. A trait that I'm sure he picked up as means to deal with his horrible home life.

The next 80 minutes of film is a bonding, and emotional experience for the four friends. From dodging trains and swimming through a leech infested swamp to laughing around a camp fire and crying on each others shoulders. They end up finally coming across the body and quickly realize that this trek of theirs isn't going to have such a glamorous conclusion like they initially thought.
Shortly after finding ray the boys are surprised to see that Ace (played by Kiefer Sutherland) and his gang, of much older guys, have driven down to the same spot to show up and take the body and get all the recognition for finding the missing boy. In an intense stand out between the two groups Gordie and his gang hold their own and eventually Ace and his hooligans concede and head back to town. In a change of heart the boys decide to leave the body of young Ray Brower where they found him and return home to make an anonymous phone call to the police informing them of the whereabouts. Over the course of the past few days the boys have proven to themselves and to each other that they have what it takes, to stand their ground, to survive on their own and to make it in this crazy and unfair world.

I think the original tag line for the film sums it up best, "For some, it's the last real taste of innocence, and the first real taste of life. But for everyone, it's the time that memories are made of."

I have a sadness shield that keeps out all the sadness

Very random thoughts . . .

Is Walker Percy on to something? Can a cure for depression be found or at least mitigated by his idea?: a depressed person being affected by the depression of others in and through the medium of art. Affected for the better. What happens in the psychology there? It’s in an essay called The Man on the Train. He’s aliened, not depressed. He’s reading a Kafka book about an aliened man: in the book, the alienated man is ‘re-presented’ to the alienated reader. Now, think of alienation in terms of a category. It’s a category of human existence. The alienated reader, therefore, falls into it. But when he reads the Kafka book, this same category is ‘represented’; and because it’s ‘represented’ to an already alienated reader, the category undergoes a transformation: it is reversed! The reader has a label for what he feels. He’s happy because Kafka knew enough about what he’s going through to write about it rightly. So, you have a triple alliance: the reader, the character, and the author! It’s another question what alienation itself is.

Kierkegaard was also on to something. He wrote - under the pseudonym ‘A‘ - about what art does to us. Or, what it shows us about who we are, or who we may be. Really quick: I’m just reminded about what Schelling said about art: that the morning-gate of beauty leads to the land of knowledge. If the art is beautiful, we can know things about whatever the art is trying to tell us, even if it’s about ourselves. Anyway, back to Kierkegaard. Art is supposed to develop our personality. Why is it that - for the most part - when we’re young, we’re ‘enthralled by the theater’? Yes, there’s still theater, but the modern counterpart for us would be the movies. There’s a correlation there. If we’re adults and we still love movies, it started when we were kids. There’s a magic about it. One of the main things we have to do when we ‘grow up‘ is find out who we are. We have so many possibilities to pick from. But the movies were for us where the possibilities came from. In the movies, we see a whole bunch of personalities: a Daniel Plainview here, a John Milton (Devil’s Advocate) there. And we don’t have to pick the whole personality; we can pick parts or aspects we like. We even do it with the friends we meet. But in the movies, we aren’t burdened with having to have a relationship with the personalities. Where is it in us that the movies affect us? Where is that Archimedean point where the movie ends and I begin? The spark that the movies ignite is the imagination. That’s where it all happens. It’s an inter-mingling of me, the movie, and my imagination, where ‘me’ includes all the other stuff that makes me ‘me’: reason, emotions, affections, desires, etc. So, let me ask you to do something. Personify ‘imagination’ for a minute. In watching a movie, the imagination ‘dreams’ about ‘the personality’ (who we are) and how all the ‘possibilities’ are open to it. The personality doesn’t have a set shape; it’s shifting and unstable and indistinct. So, it casts all sorts of shadows. Each shadow - just for a second - is just like the personality and you can look at the shadow - for just that second - and see ‘in a twinkling of an eye’ who you are, your self. But then it’s immediately gone and the shadow isn’t who you are anymore. All this happens really quickly in your consciousness; but what the movies allow you to do is set out all this stuff before us using images. The images can concretely represent the shadows; and when a part of the movie emotionally affects you, you see and feel on the screen and in your heart your personality, your self, your identity. The movies are a visual representation - those parts that you relate to, that make you laugh or cry, that affect you, that make you feel anything - of the personality, which is the dream of your imagination.

More correlations: Again, Walker Percy describes the alienated man. It’s strange. We’d all think a nuclear bomb going off in the middle of a major city would be something we wouldn’t want to happen. And we don’t want it to happen. What’s good about tens of thousands of deaths? But what about the authentic thrill that it could happen? The alienated man’s anxiety gets worse if he wonders what his life is going to be like if the bomb doesn’t fall. So, Percy says: “ . . . the heart’s desire of the alienated man is vines sprouting through the masonry.” But Tyler Durden in Fight Club says something eerily similar: “"Imagine stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower.  Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles." Tyler Durden: the personification of alienation. Look at the correlation! Vines sprouting through the masonry: you’ll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Very interesting.

Jacob's Response

Hey gotta question in your theological framework where does the chaining of satan and take place? Revelation speaks of it during the millenial reign and then his release again to disceive the nations at the end of the millenium. Is Satan chained and unable to tempt now? How does your view interpret these scriptures?

Also this view (partial preterism) takes the times of the tribulation literal in time and history in 70 AD but then takes the millenium not literal but rather symbolic of an era of time. Why do they interpret it this way?

Also how does Partial Pret interpret the miracles of Jesus and the prophecies concerning Jesus first coming? Symbolic or literal?

See the book of daniel on the years prophetically decreed on the rejection of Jesus on the cross
Old T prophets released prophetic words from God who stands outside of time and releases applicable words that are then specific and future specific ( see OT prophecies on the destruction of Babylon- the specific destruction did not take place on the scale depicted by the prophet instead there was a seamless cou de ta by the medes and the persians- when then will that destruction take place?)

The prophetic word given to abraham and joseph on the slavery in egypt was clear and exact to the year, why then does the interpretation change to the time at the end of this age I.E. the millenium?

Have you studied into the perspective the hebrew scholars say on the millenial kingdom? To gain a jewish perpective is vital. It must be pointed out that the interpretation of more symbolic look into the end of this age is due to an influence of origen who greek philosophy that downplayed the role of the physical and lifted more the spiritual. Chrisitian theology brings a marriage to both throughout an individual and even in redemptive history now and future.

Our tie to jewish perspective see paul in romans.

-I pray that I was clear and concise!

His Name Is Robert Paulson

In Rollingstone's list of the top albums of all time 3 out of the top 5 are Beatles albums. Number 5 being "Rubber Soul," number 3 "Revolver," and finally the number 1 album of all time, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band."

Does anyone else find that to be completely ridiculous and mildly insulting?

Now before you start gathering your pitch forks and the proper utensils needed to burn me at the stake, just hear me out! I have a great deal of respect for the Beatles as artists, as musicians, as revolutionaries and as individuals but to pretty much say to the average person, "hey if you own 5 records you better make damn sure 3 of them were made by the Beatles" is ludicrous. In my opinion, I think people tend to just believe they have to love the Beatles because they were so ground breaking at the time and because they generally think its the cool thing to do and the opinion you have to have if you want to seem 'hip'.
You know, the same type of belief that makes every idiot that wants to talk about movies between the ages of 15 and 27 say, "'Fightclub' and 'Donnie Darko' are the best movies ever made!"
I'm certainly not saying every Beatles fan out there is just a mind warped jerk on a never ending quest to seem cool but how else do you explain the apparent favoritism the Beatles receive in almost every count down or list of greatest musicians, artist or albums of all time?

The Beatles were amazing at what they did and undoubtedly pioneers of rock and roll music and just music in general but were they any more ground breaking then say, Led Zeppelin? In my humble opinion, no. And on Rollingstone's same list Led Zeppelin isn't even in the top 10, they barely crack the top 30, coming in at number 29. While other extremely note worthy artists such as Nirvana, Johnny Cash, The Who, Michael Jackson or Pink Floyd are also nowhere to be found even in the top 15! But guess what did happen to be in the top 15....2 more Beatles albums, "Abby Road" and "The White album."

Listen, I think John, Paul, Ringo and George were pretty rad dudes too but how high of a pedestal are we going to put them on?

A Caveat

We might have to go through the email line-by-line, because sometimes I get lost. For example, it says:

Psalm 50: Millennial Jerusalem is described as shining forth. God’s judgment of the wicked is also revealed.

I agree Psalm 50 (at least the beginning) is talking about the second coming and foreshadows the Great White Throne Judgment. But I don't see how this chapter proves a Millennial Jerusalem. I know it says:

2 From Zion, perfect in beauty,
God shines forth.

3 Our God comes and will not be silent;
a fire devours before him,
and around him a tempest rages.

But why can't this equally describe the New Jerusalem on the New Earth after the second coming, after 'the end of the age', after the 'Millennial Kingdom'? The chapter can fit either paradigm.

So, while this email is really helpful, I'm running into snags like this one. If you want more examples, just let me know. But it's basically a case of 'fitting into both paradigms' that's keeping me from getting the email's point.

The world, the tribulation, the mark of the beast, the abomination, and the rapture

Many details in these four chapters make it clear, that Jesus’ words go far beyond the events of 70 AD to describe the events at the end of the age. 

Based on the points I made in the previous blog on 'language', I don't see how. But I'll wait for you to unpack that. For example, your email says:

For example, Jesus describes the time of the Great Tribulation as the worst time in history (Mt. 24:21).

'Worst time in history'? It's based on:

Matthew 24:21

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

But by this logic, we'd have to say the same thing about:

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

But Daniel is talking about the crisis of Antiochus (Dan. 11). Is that crisis really - literally - 'a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.'? There were probably worse crises in the history of Israel, or other nations generally. So, it's got to be hyperbole. It's the same with Joel and Ezekiel.

In his book "Last Days Madness", Gary DeMar makes the same point: that the language is "proverbial and hyperbolic".

It's the same with this point:

God shortens this time frame to three and a half years in order to keep the entire human race from being physically killed (Mt. 24:22).

This is based on Matthew 24:22:

If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

But look at Jeremiah 22:22, which Matthew is alluding to -

The spoilers are come upon all high places through the wilderness: for the sword of the LORD shall devour from the one end of the land even to the other end of the land: no flesh shall have peace.

But Jeremiah is talking about the Chaldeon army wiping out 'Judah only'. Thus, the Olivet Discourse is talking about 'Judah only'.

And who are 'the elect'? The elect are the Christian Jews/Gentiles during the 'present age'.

But your email uses Luke 21:35 to prove it's not 'Judah only', but the 'whole world'.

For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth.

The 'whole earth'? No: 'oikoumene' is used again, meaning the 'Roman Empire'. So, so far, I don't see a good reason to think the Jewish War wasn't all that was intended in the Olivet Discourse.

I addressed this part of the email in the last couple of blogs:

Jesus said this time of tribulation would not happen until after we see the abomination of desolation (Mt. 24:15), which includes a worldwide Antichrist worship system centered upon the image of the Antichrist, and the mark of the beast (Rev. 13:13-18).

* The abomination of desolation: consider what Luke says here:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Based on this, the 'abomination' has something to do with Jerusalem being 'compassed with armies'. The Jewish War fits the bill here. Consider this:

it happened when the Jewish Zealots, those ancient terrorists, occupied the Temple and committed various acts of sacrilege, including using sacred materials for war and crowning a "high priest" in a farcical ceremony. The retired priest Ananus himself used the word "abominations" to describe what happened. They committed bloodshed in the temple sanctuary, thereby profaning it by killing the innocent [Keener, ibid. -- and it was exactly three and a half years after this "desecration" that the Temple was destroyed

Also, Josephus thought the 'abomination' was 'the shedding of priestly blood' in the sanctuary/temple, which caused the 'desolation', which was the destruction of the sanctuary/temple in 70 AD.

*'Worldwide anti-Christ worship'? Well, that's based on 'world' being 'kosmos', and not 'oikoumene', the Roman Empire.
*The mark of the beast: 666 is just the numerical value of the name 'Nero' in Hebrew (in terms of the Roman practice of gematria).

It then gives a description of Jesus judging the nations immediately following the Second Coming (Mt. 25:31-46).

This is the Final Judgment, something I agree still needs to be fulfilled 'after' the Millennial Kingdom.

Finally in verses 50-55, Paul speaks of the mystery pertaining to the generation of believers that will not die, but instead, will be conveyed from mortality to immortality, instantaneously at the return of Christ.

And this is the 'other' thing that still needs to be fulfilled: The Final Resurrection of the Saints.

1 Thessalonians 4-5: Paul describes the rapture of the church and the resurrection of the dead at the Second Coming (1 Thes. 4:15-18).

I see these events as essentially the same thing. The 'rapture' is just those who are called 'up into the clouds' who are still 'alive' at the same time the dead are raised. But all of this includes the resurrection of 'a body'; when we're 'caught up in the clouds', those who were still alive aren't going to have the same body they had prior to being 'caught up'.

I'll stop here.

Opposition is true friendship: a talk on the End Times

I'm going to take a break from writing straight-up blogs and respond to criticism. This will make my position more clear and maybe bring out the reasons a little better. You'll also be able to see other views and their reasons better. One of my best friends, Jacob, disagrees with nearly everything I've said so far, which is awesome. Hence, the title of the blog. He sent me a couple emails and, so, in this blog I'll respond to the emails. If you remember, I believe that nearly all the prophecies about the End Times have already been fulfilled when the Romans destroyed the Jews in the Jewish War, with the Jewish Temple being destroyed sometime in the middle, 70 AD. Jacob, though, thinks - and I'm summarizing here - that all these prophecies are still future: that the Jewish War didn't fulfill anything Revelation is talking about, or anything Jesus or Paul talked about, or anything Daniel and the other major prophets talked about. I touched on - but didn't finish - Jesus, neglected Paul (which I'll get to sooner or later), neglected Daniel (which I want to get into really bad!), and touched on the major (and minor!) prophets. Hopefully, responding to the emails will help me be more clear and bring out our differences to see which is really the correct view. So, this is exciting. I hope this will be a fruitful discussion.

Some end-time prophecies have a dual fulfillment. This is called the law of the double  reference. It means that a partial fulfillment of what was prophesied occurred in the past, while the complete fulfillment of the prophecy is yet in the future.

We talked about this on the phone. I don't think I had this understanding in mind, though. It was this: sure, the Jewish War fulfilled nearly all the prophecy 'once'; but, it could be fulfilled again in 'our future'. I say 'our future', because the Jewish War was still 'future' to Paul, Jesus, and the prophets. So, if 'in the past' means 'Paul's/Jesus'/the prophet's future', I agree. But if 'in the past' means 'Paul's/Jesus'/the prophet's future', that's different from what I had in mind. But I DO agree with the law of double reference. The partial-preterist, I think, just says the 'double fulfillment' isn't necessary, that the positive evidence fits in with the partial-preterist paradigm quite nicely. If there is a 'double fulfillment', the positive evidence doesn't indicate this (I would argue), so to say that there is a 'double fulfillment' is an argument from silence.

Most often the future fullness of a negative prophecy will be fulfilled in the Great Tribulation and the fullness of the positive prophecies will mostly be seen in the Millennial Kingdom.

The partial-preterist agrees! But . . .

1. The Great Tribulation = the rough 7-year period of the Jewish War (which was future to John, Paul, Jesus, and the prophets).
2. The Millenial Kingdom = the still 'future' (future to John and co.) 'age to come' Paul talks about, which is the age after 'the present age', which is the age just after Christ's Ascension and just before the end of The Great Tribulation, 73 AD. And, yes, I think the Millennium is figurative, just for the record.

So, we'll mean different things here. So, we'll agree on the whole 'double fulfillment' idea; but when you go to prove your point, you'll be using 'terms' (like the Great Tribulation) that have a totally different meaning to me. It'll probably boil down to 'who is right about the terms', in this case.

They will be fulfilled after He returns and establishes the fullness of His reign on the earth in the Millennial Kingdom.

Without getting into the details of Isaiah 61, there's not much to say here. The only worry here is that we (again) probably mean two totally different things by 'the Millennial Kingdom'. The reign is a reign from Heaven, so far. The kingdom on Earth will come after the second coming, after the Millennial Kingdom. This will happen after the 'age to come' Paul talks about, after all the enemies are put under Jesus' feet.

Many of the Old Testament prophecies have a partial fulfillment at some point in the past, with a complete fulfillment in the generation in which the Lord returns.

The debate here would be what 'the generation' refers to. If 'the generation' was just the people Jesus was talking to when He said it, then there wasn't a 'complete fulfillment' with the Jewish War, which just fulfilled up until Rev. 20.

Sometimes, the partial fulfillment can also serve as a prophetic picture of what the fullness will look like at the end of the age.

And the debate here is what age 'the end of the age' is referring to. In the Great Commission, Jesus tells His disciples that He will be with them up until the 'end of the age'. I think this is the 'present age', lasting up until 73 AD. And the 'world' they were being sent into wasn't the entire Earth, but the extent of the Roman Empire: the Greek word for 'world' that was used was 'oikoumene', meaning 'the Roman Empire'. If the entire globe were meant, the Greek word would have been 'kosmos'.

One underlying theme in these parables is that the full manifestation of the kingdom will happen after the Second Coming.  

I do think the kingdom will happen after the Second Coming. But by 'Second Coming', I mean - again - after The Millennium, after the 'age to come'. I know I'm getting repetitive, but I think that's good in the long run. I guess I make a distinction between how the Jewish War fulfilled all the events up to Rev. 20 and the 'official' Second Coming.

Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 17; Luke 21: Jesus’ main emphasis in these four parallel chapters is to describe the Great Tribulation just before His Second Coming. He predicted the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple (Mt. 24:2) by the Roman armies in 70 AD. This tragedy foreshadows the siege of Jerusalem at the end of the age (Joel 3:2, 12; Zeph. 3:8; Zech. 12:2-3; 14:2; Rev. 16:14). Many details in these four chapters make it clear, that Jesus’ words go far beyond the events of 70 AD to describe the events at the end of the age. 

I actually went over Matthew 24 (and the parallels in Luke/Mark) a couple blogs back: it's the Olivet Discourse one. The key point is this: what is meant by the 'Great Tribulation', and is Matthew talking about the official 'Second Coming'? The author says the Jewish War 'foreshadows' the 'siege of Jerusalem' and 'the end of the age'. A couple of things: first, the end of which age? The present age? The age to come? If it's the age to come, I disagree. If it's the present age, that's partial-preterism. But if it's the present age, there isn't any 'foreshadowing', because 'the destruction of the temple' is just what Matthew 24 seems to be talking about.

Second, I'd have to get those prophets that are supposed to prove a 'foreshadowing'. Let's look at Joel 3:2 first:

I will gather all nations
and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.
There I will enter into judgment against them
concerning my inheritance, my people Israel,
for they scattered my people among the nations
and divided up my land.

So, here, 'all nations' 'will enter into judgment' on Israel. My first reaction to 'all nations' is that it's hyperbolic. And in the context, it's to be expected. If it's Gog and Magog (The Turks), then it'd be them and many alliances. If it's the Roman Empire, it fits, for the Romans had some help from other nations in 'the siege'. Also, the 'all nations' term is used in Matthew 24:14 too:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

But the problem is that 'world' here isn't 'kosmos'; it's 'oikoumene' again: the Roman Empire. So, in context, it seems 'all nations' include those in and around the Roman Empire only. In light of that, I'd interpret Joel in the same way. If I do, all the nations involved in the Jewish War fit into the preterist paradigm perfectly. Even John Gill, a futurist, sees Joel as talking about 'a multitude of nations'.

If you want to pin-point any of the other citations, that would be cool. I just thought I'd pick Joel by himself before this got too long.

Before I go on, though, I want to look at Luke 21:24

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

There's 'all nations' again. This is Luke's counterpart to Matthew 24. But Luke's verse hearkens back to:

Ezekiel 5:9 And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.

Ezekiel is talking about the Babylonians. But didn't God say 'I will not do any more the like'? Isn't this the same language Matthew is using to say:

Matthew 24:21

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

You can also see the language used here:

Joel 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

'Hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations'? But God is talking about Israel being judged by Assyria or Babylon. Surely, the Holocaust was worse than this! So, back to the main point. It's hyperbolic language. And I don't think there's a good reason to think Matthew wasn't being any different here.

Before it gets too long, I'll stop here and continue on to your email in more, individual blogs, so we're not drinking from fire hydrants.

Love ya!

The book of Revelation

That’s all for the Olivet Discourse for now. I want to jump into the book of Revelation. I’ll jump right to Revelation chapter 6, with the four horseman of the Apocalypse. It seems like we should see four literal horseback riders that gallop by and wreak all kind of havoc. Futurists (those who think all this stuff is going to happen some time in the future) think the horseman come during the Tribulation, which is in the future.

However, before 70 AD, we had conquest, war, famine, and death. Josephus was pretty adamant. But, you might object, not on a world-wide scale! Be careful, though. The greek word for world in these verses (in chapter 6) is ‘ge’, which means ‘smaller land’. What about the ‘souls of the martyrs’? Are these the ‘tribulation saints’? They don’t have to be. They’re probably the martyrs scattered throughout Jerusalem at the time, like James the Just and Stephen in the Book of Acts. What about ‘war, famine, pestilence, and wild animals’? These four curses actually match up quite neatly with the four curses in Ezekiel as the ‘sore acts of judgment’, which matches up just as neatly with the punishments against the covenant people in Deuteronomy. So, Revelation is just lining itself up with this precedent here.

What about the rider on the white horse? Some think it is the anti-Christ. I actually think it’s Jesus Christ Himself. First, in Revelation 19:1, Jesus goes out on a white horse to make war. Also, Satan wouldn’t wear a crown given only to victors. Satan isn’t victorious. And crowns are only given to Kings, which is Christ, not Satan. Second, the rider has a bow. But the bow is an allusion from Habakkuk 3:9-11: "Thy bow was made quite naked, according to the oaths of the tribes, even thy word. Selah. Thou didst cleave the earth with rivers. The mountains saw thee, and they trembled: the overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands on high. The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear." Third, the greek word used here for ‘conquer’ is only ever used of Christ’s conquering. So, it’d be out of place to use that same word for Satan conquering.

The rest of Revelation 6 uses the same Apocalyptic language. If we take it literally here, we’d have to take it literally in the major prophets when they describe the judgments of Edom or Babylon or Assyria or Egypt. The same language is used, but no one thinks the moon literally turned blood red, or that the sun was black as sackcloth, etc in those cases. It’s the same in this case, since both use the same kind of language.

What are the 144,000? These are the Jews in the Roman Empire that ‘convert’ prior to 70 AD.

What is the ‘great multitude’ that’ll be saved in Revelation 7:9-17? It’s all those who’ll be saved after 70 AD, during the Messianic age, during the Millennium, including Jews and Gentiles. The ‘great tribulation’ is this birth of the Messianic age.

Rev. 8:7-12 use the same apocalyptic language found in the major prophets to talk about the judgment of a nation. We have metaphors of divine judgment. The precedent in the major prophets justifies us here.

The stinging scorpions could be a metaphor for two things. First, when Gessius Florus (Roman Procurator) terrorized the Jews just to get them to rebel: he incited them to rebellions (circa. 66 AD). Second, in 70 AD, when Titus actually invaded Jerusalem. These two events were awful. Horrific. Barbarous. Bloody. Josephus thought it was so bad that at any minute, God would make another flood, or have another Sodom and Gomorrah judgment.

What about the locusts? This is a metaphor for the Roman legions. John says the ‘locust’s’ heads were like gold crowns. Right. Roman warriors had gold helmets. They also had iron breastplates (hmmm). They had faces like men: also had by Roman warriors. Their hair was like a woman’s. Like Samson? Teeth like a lions: more symbols for strength. Tails like a scorpion’s: in line with pagan imagery (the ‘man-scorpion’), which indicated a pagan army: the Romans.

Revelation 11: 1-2: here, the Gentiles ‘tread the temple underfoot’: for 40 and two months (a.k.a. 3 1/2 years, the latter half of the 7-year tribulation. This is the Jewish War, from 70 to 73 AD, when Rome trampled Jerusalem underfoot.

What about the 2 witnesses, Elijah and Moses? Will they literally come down and wreak literal havoc with a fire and brimstone? No. There’s no reason to think the fire literal, especially in this ‘apocalyptic-imagery’ context. Otherwise, you’d have to take the parts in the major prophets that use the same exact language literally too, which no one believes to be correct. Like Jeremiah 5:14 - “Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.” Real fire? And the people: real wood? And literal fire literally devours literal wood? Of course, not. This apocalyptic-language finds a counterpart in the language in Revelation.

Who is the ‘beast’ in Revelations 11:7-10? The Roman Empire. Titus - the Roman Emperor during the Jewish War - wanted to wipe Christianity off the face of the map. Even before the Jewish War, Nero tried to end Christianity by terrible persecution. And ‘they shall suffer not to be put in graves’? Yep. It’s documented that the Romans purposively chose not to bury the Christians they killed. This was supposed to bring shame on the Christians: indeed, the Romans wanted to use shame to defeat them. But they were wrong. John then uses apocalyptic-language to say that Christianity wasn’t destroyed, despite Rome’s best efforts.

What about the ‘beast’ that is ‘wounded to death’, but is then ‘revived’? Believe it or not, it’s a point of history that there was such a thing as the ‘Nero-myth’. A number of people in Rome believed, after Nero died, that Nero came back to life, a myth many believed, even though he was really dead. John here employs this myth for his purposes. When Nero was still alive - and still sane - so-called prophets predicted that he would be rich beyond measure and that his rule was extend to the East. But when he lost his marbles and eventually died, the Nero-myth was conjured. So, this beast has a ‘double-representation’: both Rome and Nero. And so what is the ‘wound in the head’? Consider Acts 17:6 “And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also...” The Greek word for ‘world’ here is ‘oikoumene’, which is just the Roman Empire, turned upside down, on its ‘head’. In a sense, the Church was fighting a war of its own against Rome, a culture war of values and beliefs. Or, we can look at it another way. Remember the ‘woman’s seed’ (Jesus) ‘wounding’ the ‘serpent’s head’ in Genesis 3:15? So, John could be giving us an allusion here to compliment the earlier point.

And: Rev. 13:5-8: “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

What’s all this? From November 64 AD to June 68 AD, Nero heavily persecuted the Jews. Nero was then the big boss, the emperor. ‘Worship’ doesn’t here mean the ‘religious kind’: just to fawn or crouch - but if it does, it’s ‘emperor worship’, not unusual for the time, when emperors thought of themselves as deities.

Rev. 13:11-12 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

What’s this ‘other beast’? Is it a future false-prophet sent to speak on behalf of some future anti-Christ? Probably not. The ‘two-horned lamb’ is that part of Jewish leadership which joined to Romans to persecute the Christians, prior to 70 AD. So, the lamb (treacherous Jews) joined the beast (Rome) to persecute the Church.

Rev. 13:15-17 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

The mark of the beast!! Is it a barcode implanted in our wrists? Or a computer chip implanted in our brains? Nah. First of all, what is this ‘image of the beast’? The greek word for ‘image’ means a ‘contact point’ at and through which ‘some authority’ is expressed. In this case, Jewish leadership gave Rome a ‘contact point’ at and through which ‘Roman authority’ could be expressed. Remember, the Romans didn’t force the Jews to worship the Emperor. When the Jews sided with the Romans, they basically cut the Christians out of that deal: the Christians still had to worship the Emperor. But they didn’t: so they broke the law, which lost them the privilege of buying or selling. The ‘mark’ isn’t a literal mark, just like the seal on the 144,000 isn’t a literal seal. The whole passage alludes to Deut. 6:8, "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes."

Rev. 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

What is 666? It’s Nero. Ever heard of gematria? It calculates the numerical values of words. John knew the Romans played this game. In Greek, the numerical value of Nero is 1005. In Latin, it’s 616. But in Hebrew, it’s 666.

And I’ll get to more later.

Let's talk about The End Times

I believe that much of the 'End Times' was already fulfilled in 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. There, I said it. I'm a 'partial' preterist. I think it's time I take all my weird views and start justifying them before they atrophy from lack of use. Jerusalem was destroyed. Gone. Poof. Extirpated, to use a fun word. The main, huge, cornerstone, foundational pillar is this: Jesus said He would return in 'this generation', the-generation-He-was-talking-to-when-He-made-the-'return statement'. I'll get into this more. This would have been around early-30ish AD. So, that would put the time of His return about 40 years from then. 30+40 is 70! 70 AD.: The fall of Jerusalem to the Romans.

And don't worry: I'll get to the book of Revelation some time down the road.

Quick implications: the 'rapture', 7-year tribulation, and the Anti-Christ have already come and gone. If they happen again, it'll be a 'double-fulfillment'. But it doesn't have to.

So, what's left?

1. The final resurrection
2. The final judgment.

Basically, from Revelation 20 onwards. Everything else is a done deal.

Careful! Remember, I said I was a 'partial' preterist. There's a heresy out there called 'full' preterism that I don't believe: it says ALL prophecy has been fulfilled, including the final resurrection and judgment.

Translations:

1. Verses about 'the rapture' -> the final resurrection.
2. 7-year tribulation -> the Jewish war (66-73 AD).
3. The Anti-Christ -> Nero. Partially: Titus and Vespasian.
4. The Olivet Discourse, Daniel 9, Revelation 1-19 -> the Jewish war.
5. The "Millennium" -> Where WE are now: Revelation 20.

It's reassuring to know that weirdos don't hold this view. R.C. Sproul holds it. Gary DeMar, Hank Hanegraaff: they hold it. It's a view worthy of Biblical scholarship. They all agree that 'partial' preterism is probably the view held by the guys who actually wrote the New Testament.

Have you ever heard people talk about 'the plain reading of the text'? The 'Left Behind' people like this and in certain contexts it's called for. But I'd like to kind of focus on an inconsistency. They're literal about the images, but not about the times. Hear me out.

Jesus said He would return soon, quickly, that some standing here would not taste death, that this generation will not pass away, that the time is near. Don't worry. I'll dissect all this in due time. I'm painting in broad strokes just for the sake of an introduction. Remember the Deuteronomy 18 test for prophets? Jesus was putting Himself on the line here. Throughout the Old Testments, 'true' prophets would put themselves on the line by giving their prophecies time limitations. I think Jesus was doing the same thing here. Let's look at some examples.

Matthew 24:34 - Most assuredly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

What's the plain reading of the text here? It's pretty clear. Jesus was talking to a certain group of people when He said this. So, the 'End Times' are going to happen before they 'pass away', before they die. That's what it seems to be saying. It's interesting to look at other versions.

The New Century Version: I tell you the truth, all these things will happen while the people of this time are still living.

The Amplified Version: Truly I tell you, this generation – that, the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period – will not pass away till all these things take place.

Pretty clear. There's 4 ways out.

1. Generation means 'race'.
2 Generation means 'some future generation'.
3. Generation means 'all the wicked people ever'.
4. The prophecy is delayed.

I'll get to this soon. But here are some other verses for now.

Matt 10:23 - When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matt 16:28 - Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

James 5:8 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand…..Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour.

Rev 1:1,3 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place…..Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near…

Revelation 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.” Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Shortly. Near. Shall not taste death. The last hour. At hand. Shortly take place. Coming quickly. Is it sinking in? Here's a question. If my view is true, how else could God have told us? The Greek vocabulary is exhausted here.

Another key issue is the order that things happen. I've dealt with the 'when' or the 'timing'. But the order is also important.

Remember Matthew 24:3 - As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

The end of the age. What age?

Or, consider Ephesians 1:19-22: That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church . . .

So, there's a PRESENT AGE and an AGE TO COME.

1. Matthew's 'end of the age'.
2. Present age.
3. Age to come.

Let's organize this. Paul wrote Ephesians. Good so far. But Paul wrote the above verses 'during an age'! Which age? It was the age when everything was being put under Jesus' feet. Which age is that? The present age. But put on the brakes for a second. Yes, Paul wrote Ephesians in 'the present age'. It was during the age when everything was put under Jesus' feet. BUT that doesn't mean that everything was put under Jesus' feet ONLY DURING THE PRESENT AGE. Paul says this will still be happening in the 'age to come'.

1. Paul's writing - the present age.
2. Paul's writing - when everything is put under Jesus' feet.
3. Everything put under Jesus' feet - present age and age to come.

This might seem nit-picky but 'order' is crucial. What about 1 Corinthians 15:20-28?

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 (it's a mouth full, but READ IT anyway, and slowly): But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

1. Christ rose from the dead (past event).
2. When Christ comes back (officially), the final resurrection of Christians happens (future event, even to us): warning! warning! This 'coming' isn't the same as the 'coming' in Matthew 24.
3. At the end of His reign, He's going to come.
4. His reign will end when all power, authority, and rule are destroyed.
5. The LAST enemy is death.
6. When death is gone, the Messianic kingdom is over. God will be all in all.

Amazing. This is why eschatology is so cool. We're in the Messianic kingdom right now: the Millennium. This kingdom runs through 'the present age' to 'the age to come'. Paul was in 'the present age', which ended in 70 AD. And we're in 'the age to come', which was 'to come' (future) only to Paul, not to us. The final resurrection and judgment happen at the END of 'the age to come'. At the END of 'the age to come', all power, authority, rule, might (Gog and Magog), and (finally) death are destroyed. In the Millennium (the Messianic kingdom) we share in Christ's resurrection. After Gog and Magog are destroyed, death is destroyed, the just and the damned are 'raised to life' for the final judgment, which begins 'the eternal state', the last and final age.

So, again, there are 3 ages.

1. The present age.
2. The age to come.
3. The eternal state.

One more point and I'll quit for now, since this is getting sort of long. Keep in mind this is all introductory. I'll get to the nitty-gritty soon. The funnest part is when we dissect Revelation. Consider this verse.

Matthew 24:29 - Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Scary sounding stuff. But remember - this language has been used before. Remember Isaiah 13:9-10 - Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.

Same language, but the universe didn't literally unravel. Stars didn't just literally turn into supernovas and refuse to give their light. This is just the normal, apocalyptic way this kind of literature uses to describe - in this case - a 'judgment' on Babylon.

I'll get into more later. But hopefully you see where all this is headed. The 'Left Behind' interpretations aren't right, I don't think. But I hope to make my view more clear as the blogs go on. Feel free to comment. If you bring up something that I'll hit on later in more detail, I'll let you know; I'll leave a summary-answer for the time-being, just until the more detailed answer comes along.

The Many Faces of Jesus

Review: The Many Faces of Jesus

Frequently, I have heard the study of Jesus Christ referred to as a painting. This painting contains a Jesus that makes sense in the minds of men and women in the U.S. and Western Europe. I believe this carries over into the study of Christology. Often times a similar picture is painted regardless of where the communication is taking place. The same colors are used with a similar brushstroke creating the same image, time and time again. When the picture is completed it is placed in a visible manner as the official rendering of Jesus and the study of him. Volker Kuster’s book introduces the reader to a larger global perspective on Jesus Christ and his saving work. Kuster introduces key men and women who are involved in taking the Jesus Christ we are introduced to within the Gospels and translating it to their context and society. These individuals use new language to process Jesus Christ’s role in the world and what it means for the kingdom of God here and now.

Kuster in his introduction makes a statement that is helpful when reading the rest of his book, “Moreover, at the end of the day it is the Christology that decides whether or not for the person concerned, faith in Jesus Christ finds a home in its context or not.” This becomes a pseudo-thesis statement for the next section of his book. In this chapter we are shown the intersection of Christology and the context that the Preacher finds himself in. Kuster in his book introduces the reader to many different contexts, many different “Faces of Jesus”, but I would like to spend time reflecting on two in particular. The face of Jesus in Latin American Theology as well as the Black Messiah of James Cone.

Kuster begins in Latin America within the context of the poor. According to Kuster it is important to understand how these individuals frame Jesus Christ under the terms of suffering and poverty. The major voices in the theology of Latin America are Leonardo Boff and Jon Sobrino. Leonardo Boff is a major voice in this movement and attempts to offer an orthopraxis of Christology within his context of Brazil and this carries over into the larger context of Latin America. Within their understanding of the kingdom of God, it is not sufficient to have only a future view of the work of God. Jesus Christ must have a plan during the here and now, offering a relief to the pain and struggles of today, whether they be political or societal.

This praxis finds itself within the context of relationship, specifically the relationality of Jesus Christ. This relationality can be drawn from the teachings of Jesus, his teaching of the kingdom of God and his focus on the poor is not only an eschatological event but something present. This is affirmed by their reading of the Exodus event, God who was particularly involved with his people, hearing their complaints and creating an alternative. Finally, the Liberation Theology that Boff and Sobrino are putting together is also an incarnational theology. Kuster explains, “The resurrection is an impulse for the hope of liberation; however, often this has only an implicit effect, mediated through the span of the incarnation.” It is important that Christ was as much human as he was divine. Because he experienced the ultimate suffering for his people, that is what becomes real and tangible for these Latin American liberation theologians.

Next, we have the Black Messiah Christology in the context of Racism. About the same time as Boff and Sobrino in their Latin American contexts, in America men name Martin Luther King jr., and Malcolm X were fighting for civil rights. The major theologian of this movement was a man named James Cone. He like Boff was trained in traditional seminaries, but found the content to be lacking to his personal struggle and and situation. He did not see the connection that other european men could have for the, “young black girls and boys coming from the cotton fields of Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi seeking to make a new future for themselves.” Cone asked an important question, in terms of method, for the plight of the African Americans, “What has the gospel of Jesus Christ to do with the black struggle for justice in the United States?”

Through Cone’s growth in the movement and theological growth, he came to one powerful conviction, “the transcendent affirmation that God has not ever, no not ever, left the oppressed alone in struggle.” The overarching conclusion Cone espouses that because Jesus Christ identified with the poor and oppressed, the “blacks” can identify with him.

Volker Kuster ends his book with a discussion titled, “Conversation of models of Christology with focus’ on ecumenical learning”. Here he discusses the differences in how churches and institutions differ from one another. Their dominant literary form is pamphlets, manifestos, meditations, lecture manuscripts and short articles. There is a direct correlation between hermeneutical construction and the current context.

In conclusion, I found this book to be enlightening and helpful when considering a larger context of Christology. It introduces a wide variety of cultures and introduces key individuals that allow for further study. Kuster handles each society with care, weary of the plight and goal of each individual face of Jesus. While reading this book a single theme jumps at the reader, Jesus Christ is immanent among different cultures and emerges in a myriad of ways, but when all is said and done, He desires a relationship from the men and women surrounding.

This book, I believe, would be beneficial to be read within a church, especially an American church, to introduce the different Faces of Jesus to people who all to often operate under a limited perspective. This book is a wonderful reminder of the broader world stage and the perspectives offered give us a more complete view of Jesus Christ and his saving work.