A Dispensational View of Christ and Culture: Opportunities and Limitations to Christian Cultural Transformation

Mr. Charles Clough

Manycommentators have noted the loss of American evangelical social concern by1920. Premillennialism, and moreparticularly, dispensational premillennialism has been widely blamed for thiscultural retreat. Early criticismcame from both the older conservatives like Charles Hodge ("[premillennialism]disparages the gospel")[1]and liberals like Social Gospel advocate Walter Rauschenbusch ("[pessimisticbelief in supernatural forces of cultural evil] will be confined to narrowcircles, mostly of premillennialists").[2] Of course readers of Biblical Perspectives are aware of the more recentdiatribes that blame dispensational premillennialism for everything fromtelevangelist scandals to the federal deficit.

Sucha century-old barrage of continuing criticism raises interestingquestions. Does dispensationalismhave a distinct view of culture and of how Christians are to relate to it? (By "culture" I mean the collectiveachievement of all institutions of a nation in the arts, sciences, andpractical technologies.) Ifso, did American evangelicalism self-consciously adopt this view in the earlytwentieth century? Answering thefirst question is the purpose of this article.

Christiancultural views held over the centuries can be divided into five basic positionsas H. Richard Niebuhr showed in 1951.[3] After excluding the Roman Catholic andLiberal positions, Bible-believing Protestants seem to be left with threepossibilities. First, there is theposition often followed by Anabaptists of shunning cultural life altogetherbecause it is hopelessly contaminated by sin ("Christ against culture"). Second, there is the position favoredin Lutheran circles of intruding redemptively into the culture only toevangelize and disciple converts while letting God providentially retard thespread of evil through civil government ("Christ and culture in paradox"). And finally, there is the Reformedposition of restructuring culture by biblical standards ("Christ thetransformer of culture").

Bythe nineteenth century, however, the most aggressive position, the Reformed,had time to reflect upon two apparently irreversible defeats-the overthrow ofPuritanism, first in Restoration England and then in "Unitarianized" NewEngland. Moreover, the sheer sizeof the cultural problem had mushroomed. Discoveries of thousands of culturally-diverse peoples throughout thecontinents all without the gospel, growing uneasiness over the seemingly highantiquity of both man and his world, and shock over the cultural cataclysm inFrance as well as the Civil War in "Christian" America-all these eventsseverely eroded earlier hope of significant cultural dominion. How Christ was to transform surroundingnon-Christian culture was becoming less important than the more basic questionof how Christians themselves could retain any real sense of thoughtful intimacywith Christ.

Asthey had in past crises of Church history, Christians found themselves againpressed back to the Word of God for authoritative guidance. (How often we sheep move toward ourShepherd only when the wolves attack our flanks!) Early Christological heresies had forced clarification ofthe Personof Christ. Late Medieval andRenaissance conditions had worked to clarify the Saving Work of Christ. Now the Church had to look morecarefully at Scripture in yet another area.

Theparticular conditions of the 19th and 20th century heightened the age-oldcontrast between God's transcendence (His unfathomable exaltation over all Hiscreation) and His immanence (His equally mysterious involvement in every detail of Hiscreation). Whenever the creationappears bigger and more complex, our sense of transcendence must enlarge withit. Without Scriptural control,however, transcendence balloons into a remote, "unknowableness" about God. The dilemma of this era has been how to"absorb" the new events and discoveries without loosing a real sense of God'swork in the universe throughout all the ages and how His Church fits intoit. It seems that He designed the19th and 20th centuries to drive His people into a deeper understanding of His SanctifyingWork-Christ'smysterious, intimate union with His Body and its relation with the rest ofcreation.

Asit had in previous doctrinal crises, vigorous controversy erupted withinChristendom when men sought to grasp the new situation spiritually. Just like the past controversies, therecent one has hinged on both specific Scriptural texts and basic organizing"models" (or "presuppositions" or "preunderstanding"). And, just as it had earlier with faultyChristological models like Monarchianism and Arianism, orthodoxy began to ejectsub-and antibiblical syntheses. This time around liberalism and various cults were the rejectedheresies.

Liberalismhad tried to cope with 19th century by avoiding Scriptural presuppositions andarrived in the 20th century with a Christianity in name only. A whole raft of fundamentalist-like19th century cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) did try to useScripture but did so "from scratch"-arrogantly rejecting previous Spirit-taughtorthodoxy-and veered off into bizarre errors.

Reformedtheology, on the other hand, remained anchored to historical orthodoxy but hashad difficulties trying to relate diverse elements to its one-covenantmodel. What did the gospel looklike in Gentile cultures prior to Israel and in Israel itself? How was it understood by those whoheard it? What becomes of thehistorical testimony to God's faithfulness if Israel's covenants are fulfilledby the Church? What is thesignificance of the New Testament "mystery" passages (e.g., Rom. 11:25; 16:25; I Cor15:51; Eph 1:9; 3:3,9; 5:3, etc.)? Are there differences in the cultural roles of Israel and this "mystery"Church?

SinceDarby accelerated dispensational development,[4]another organizing model or presupposition has begun to compete with the olderone-covenant model. It has arisenfrom the way dispensationalists view God's transcendence and immanence. Dispensationalists speak of God's transcendenceover His manifold works in the heavenlies, on earth, and with Jews, Gentiles, andangels throughout the ages as something "knowable" (in a creature sense, atleast). They also describe as a"knowable" His immanence, especially within the Body of Christ in this era. Instead of trying to relate thisnewly-clarified transcendency and immanency through a single covenant model,dispensationalists use a looser, "network" model that preserves discrete, andsometimes parallel, programs of God (e.g., Israel and the Church). The network has a collective unity among its parts (e.g.,all grace through the Cross; redemptive and non-redemptive parts bothdoxological) but a "looser" one than the older single-covenant model.

Dispensationalismtakes great pains in trying to avoid conflicts within this network that wouldconfuse the believer's obedient walk with the Lord (e.g., does He want me to followIsrael's cultural priorities or that of Paul's epistles?). This network tries to encompass allcanonically-revealed activities of God throughout earth and heaven. We're not left with Carl Sagan whokeeps on insisting upon personal meaning and value in a universe that, in his20th century view, has neither. The desperate dream of modern science fiction writers since pioneerArthur Clark (Childhood's End), that homo sapiens' destiny to have any meaning must be linked toother astral creatures, is unnecessary. It's not a dream; it's close to the truth! The Church has a network link to the heavenlies and insome way is already interacting with this higher realm. The dispensational synthesis is orthodoxy's successfulresponse to unique 19th and 20th century challenges.

Howcan we see the cultural implications of dispensationalism? For the purposes at hand, I will ignoremost of the differences among dispensationalist writers and focus instead onelements common to all, a "generic" dispensationalism. (They're all blamed together forcultural impotency!) My methodwill be to move from dispensation to dispensation, picking up cultural factorsas I go. As discrete economies inGod's rule, dispensations lend themselves to this sort of analysis. Dispensations have long been recognizedas "experimental domains" that display unique "sets" of rules and policies. We will look at what changes in theserules and policies imply about human culture and Christ's present work.

Thereare nine ages to look at (I take the Tribulation and the Eternal State asseparate ages for purposes of this analysis). I classify them in terms of the presence or absence in eachof the finalized New Creation-resurrected man and/or the re-createduniverse. Those without any partof the New Creation are "mortal"; those with only the New Creation are"immortal"; those with parts of both are "mixed". On this basis we arrive at three classes of dispensations ashas been illustrated in the following chart.

Allfive mortal dispensations carry forward features of the original creationmandate to subdue the earth and bring forth culture (Gen 1:26-28). Man is set into a creation hierarchy of"God-angel-man-nature" with a command to explore, name, manage, and populatethe earth. In Innocence, as well as after the Fall, manfaced evil temptation, learned through special and general revelation, andlived in cultural institutions of family and marriage. The culturally-important uniqueness of Innocence consisted in its "rural"utopianism and lack of sin and death (and, therefore, lack of any need totransform the culture produced).

Withthe Fall, man was barred from the Tree of Life so he could not be prematurely"immortalized". The following ageof Consciencewas characterized by a unique geophysical ecosystem that demonstrated thephysiological possibility of millennial lifespans. Its testimony vindicates dispensational hermeneutics thattake Kingdom prophecies of similar high ages (Isa 65:20) at face value. No metaphorical transfer of Kingdomprophecies to the New Creation and Eternal State are required.

Thedispensation of Human Government with its exponentially-decaying longevity[5]in the days of the human race's dispersion from Ararat provides an ampleframework for cultural interpretation of "primitive" peoples.[6] The most significant cultural featureof this dispensation is the origin of civil government-God's delegation of somejudgment functions, including capital punishment, to human society (note in Psa82 how rulers are called "gods"). Writes Dr. Pilkey:

The Sumerian king listattests to this same fact, claiming that "kingship descended from heaven" afterthe Flood. This descent of powerwas far more like the Christian Pentecost than we imagine. Its universal gentile symbol was the"Ka" sign, the pictographic image of a man with arms upraised at the elbows.[7]

Each tribe of mankind has its own prophetically-outlinedpathways as Moses and Paul noted (Gen 10-11; Acts 17:26-27).

Withthe next age, the dispensation of Promise, we have the biblical "covenant of redemption" madewith Abraham. Gentiles and Jewsare separated and the oracles of God henceforth are limited to Israel (Rom3:2). A missionary, horizontaltransfer of special revelation is now required across cultural boundaries.

Thelast purely mortal age is the dispensation of the Law. Here we see a historical"counter-culture" ruled by God in a special way unlike His general indirectprovidential rule over other nations. Pagan nations were immediately ruled by other "gods" (Deut 4:19; I Sam26:19; Dan 10:13; cf. Matt 4:8-9); but Israel was qualitatively different. A direct cause-effect relationshipbetween obedience to Him and physical blessing occurred. McClain notes:

What is ordinarily calledmisfortune and calamity could come to Israel in the days of the historicalkingdom only as a direct judgment of God for rebellion against Him. . . .Nowthis is quite an astonishing thing, utterly unknown in the experience ofordinary nations in history, and it has not received the attention it deserves.[8]

This age ended in Israel's discipline with the transfer ofkingdom power to the Gentiles (Dan 2). Gentile hegemony continued over the Jews after they rejected the King ofthe Kingdom.

Conclusions About Mortal Culture

First,the corollary of mortality is the existence of temptation to evil and thepossibility of repentance. Mortalculture, therefore, can never be a true utopia; its upward transformation isnever irreversible. It can'tescape Solomon's devastating critique in Ecclesiastes. Mortal man remains under the background working of theprincipalities and powers of heaven, both good and evil.

Asecond feature of mortal culture is the existence of a general, though oftenterribly suppressed, God-consciousness. All cultures, therefore, as they have been since the age of Conscience are accountable for formulatingrighteous laws whether or not they have contact with Jewish-mediated specialrevelation (cf. Rom 1:16-2:16). Culver points out:

Though not holding pagannations responsible to Mosaic Law, when addressing the neighboring nations andtheir rulers, the prophets assume that all these peoples know and acceptcertain valid concepts of right and wrong.[9]

Mortal culture, then, always possesses some valid ethicalawareness.

Athird useful implication of dispensationalism for culture is that civilgovernment, though absolutely necessary, is not per se an instrument ofredemption. Utopian dreams basedupon anarchism (e.g., Rousseau, Marx) are vain myths that recapitulate thefailure of the age of Conscience. It's also truethat utopian myths based upon totalitarian government recapitulate the failureof the age of Law. The age of Law demonstrated how dependentculture is upon ideal leaders and ideal citizens. Corrupt kings of the Davidic dynasty accentuated the needfor an Ideal King. Corrupt societyexposed the need for a citizenry with the law "in their hearts." Redemption must occur to people firstbefore government can work properly even with a highly just law-code.

Theonly purely immortal culture is that of the New Jerusalem in the EternalState. With the re-creation of theheavens and earth, the hierarchy becomes "God-man-angel-nature." Now man reigns above angels (I Cor 6:3;15:24; Eph 1:10; Heb 2:14; 4:14, etc.). Threat of ethical defeat has passed away from the righteous (Rom 6:9; Rev.21:4; 22:3) as well as opportunity for repentance and salvation from theunrighteous (Matt 25:41; Luke 16:26; Rev 22:11). Man is now "immortalized" so that righteousness andunrighteousness have become "fixed". An "urban" civilization with an implied dense population replaces theold "rural" under-populated Garden of Eden. Physical illumination limited to only daylight hours isreplaced with a constant theoophanic radiance (Rev. 21:23-25; 22:5).

Conclusions About Immortal Culture

Thereis an obvious continuity of form between the mortal creation and the New. The New Creation has matter andspirit. Jesus' resurrection bodyhad flesh and bones as Dr. Luke records (Luke 24:39). Food can be eaten (Luke 24:43). Racial and cultural distinctions persist (21:24; 22:2). There are a New Heavens and a New Earth(Rev 21:1), which, if names mean anything, bare a resemblance to our planet andphysical universe. Even botanicaland zoological forms such as trees and animal-like angels are spoken of in Revelation. The familiar forms of mortal creation, therefore, are notaccidental, evolutionary by-products; they are structures rooted in God'seternal plan!

Thediscontinuity between the mortal creation and the Eternal State, however,absolutely separates the two cultures of each. With the complete removal of evil, with a completed personaljudgment resulting in a true self-evaluation before God (I Cor 3:12-15; Rev.2:17), there is unhindered intimacy with the Lamb and the Father. With the damage from evil gone fromeach person, "defense mechanisms" are no longer needed. Cultural life in a densely populatedarea can at last be peaceful and enjoyable. The true potential of collective Adam can now be realized. The institutions of marriage, andpresumably, family disappear (Matt. 22:30) because blood ties that had beennecessary in mortality to produce all men seminally from Adam are no longerneeded. The population is fixed.

Amost important feature of immortal culture is the shift in priority of concernfrom that of mortal life. No one Iknow has put it so well as Dr. Pilkey:

As mortals, we remain invarious kinds of trouble; and salvation strikes us as an all-consuming,universal concern. Yet the angelsof heaven have never been saved; the demons cannot be saved; and the redeemedin heaven have nothing from which to be saved. If life in the resurrected state has a purpose, goals mustexist beyond salvation. . . .Mortals have spirits; but mortality, in the spirit,is a flickering flame. The newnature of the resurrection body will consolidate and fix motives through aneternal stamina essential to explain both the worship of the redeemed and thecondition of the lost in hell.[10]

Dispensationalism's presupposition and unifying emphasis,therefore, goes beyond the older Reformed single-redemptive-covenant idea thatconcerned itself solely with mortal salvific issues. Inclusion of immortal doxological issues requires a higherlevel of unity.

Eachof the three mixed dispensations is characterized by the actual co-existence ofmortality and immortality. Both ofthe two hierarchies ("God-angels-man-nature" and "God-man-angels-nature") arein force. This mixed element iswhat causes such difficulty, for example, in trying to understand our presentChurch age of Gracewithin the older Reformed model.

First,let's look at the Kingdom age (the Millennium). Its mortal component includes the (renovated) earth with an ecosystemsimilar to that of the antediluvian age of Conscience. The administrative distinction between mortal Jews and Gentiles resemblesthat of the Old Testament: mankind's central religious cultus re-established on Mt. Zion, and theMessianic King ruling over all nations with absolute authority ("rod of iron").All demonic energization of theflesh will cease with their incarceration (Rev 20:1-3). Yet true to mortality's centralfeature, this Kingdom is not fixed; it ends in rebellion (Rev 20:7-9). The Kingdom's immortal component consists ofChrist and all co-ruling resurrected saints as well as the New Jerusalem(apparently not yet on earth). Atlast civil government is run by immortal incumbents who cannot be corrupted.

Next,let's back up in time to the period of the Tribulation that leads into the Kingdom age. Mortal life in the Tribulation will be an unprecedented timeof globaltrouble. Besides angelic-mediated,geophysical catastrophes (that apparently prepare the planet for the Kingdom renovation), mortal culturewill experience great spiritual deception (Matt 24). The mysterious Man of Sin attempts a cultural revolutionunfettered by the Church age "restrainer" (II Thess 2:7-9). Jews are separated from the Gentilesand prepared, as mankind's priestly nation, to end the Tribulation by imploring the Messiah'sreturn to the planet (Matt 23:39; Rom 11:12,25-26). The immortal component of the Tribulation remains in heavenas Christ judges the Church (preparing the Church to rule with Christ in the Kingdom).

Nowwe come to the mixed dispensation of Grace, the Church age. The mortal component seems much like that of the purelymortal dispensations: presence oftrials, social institutions, civil government, and God-conscious among allmen. Israel continues in a"suppressed" mode under the hegemony of the Gentiles (present-day Israel cameinto existence by UN mandate). Themajor uniqueness is that special revelation now addresses Jews and Gentiles asequals, ignoring Law-age partitioning (Acts 15; 17:30-31; Rom 1:16; Eph 2). The immortal component is the risen,ascended Lord Jesus Christ Who is the direct Object of all special revelationcommunicated in this age. For thefirst time in history a man stands perfect in the presence of God, and we havethe hierarchy "God-man-angel-nature". Moreover, the Holy Spirit through His Baptizing work somehow linksbelievers with this immortal man, providing power over the sin-dominatedflesh(Rom 6-8). Angels arelearning doxological lessons (Eph 3:10).

What,then, is the dispensational view of culture? Which of Niebuhr's positions apply? Because dispensationalism's model ismore like a network than a single covenant, the question has to be rephrased intwo sub-questions: (1) what is thedestiny of culture over the ages? and (2) what are the prospects for culturaltransformation in the Church age?

Christ and Culture For All Time

Viewedoverall, culture is obviously a redemptive target. Niebuhr's "Christ against culture" view doesn't fitdispensationalism.[11] Ages like Law and Kingdom clearly are restructured fromprior paganism by biblical standards. Yet as cultures erected upon mortality, the transformations are notirreversibly permanent. Theydepend upon a continuing presence of leaders and people who are well-sanctified(as the Puritans failed to remember). Permanent transformation must await the permanent presence of perfectpeople in the Eternal State. Nevertheless,culture is obviously not left unaltered by God's plan of the ages. Dispensationalism continues theReformed view of "Christ as transformer of culture" but with two qualifyingprinciples.

The "Mandate Carry-over" Principle

Welearned in our analysis of the Eternal State that many familiar forms ofmortal creation continue into immortality. The original mandate to subdue the earth given to the firstAdam continues and is expanded with the second Adam to include "all things"(cf. Gen 1:26-28; I Cor 15:24-28; Heb 2:6-9). Though each dispensation begins with a discontinuity inGod's policies, it takes over the cultural heritage of the one before. Israel used pre-Israelite literarymotifs, pottery, etc. Undoubtedly,Bach's music, for example, will be known in the Kingdom. It therefore follows that when we produce culturalachievements of true value, they join in the original mandate fruit for thefuture ages, ultimately carrying over into the Eternal State where they will be properlyappreciated.[12]

The "Indirect Strategy" Principle

Christdoes not transform by a naive, direct strategy. His armies do not always march forward after the manner ofarm-chair strategists. TheScriptures contain numerous evidences of highly sophisticated deception andapparent retreat which, in the end, produce surprising victory (e.g., holy war strategy from Mosesto David, the crucifixion strategy noted in I Cor 2:7-8). The clear superiority in warfare ofindirect strategy has been known to military science for years. After surveying every major conflictfor the past 2500 years, the famous British strategist, B. H. Liddell Hartwrote:

Effective results in warhave rarely been attained unless the approach has had such indirectness as toensure the opponent's unreadiness to meet it. The indirectness has usually been physical, and always psychological. In strategy, the longest way round isoften the shortest way home.[13]

Dispensationalism's network of interwoven distinct activitiesof God with Gentiles, Jews, the Church, and angels provides reason enough forthe indirect strategy that at times seems "impotent".

Christ and Culture For This Time

Withultimate cultural transformation assured, how does dispensationalism seecultural transformation in the present age of Grace? Here are the implications I see:

1. As a mixeddispensation, the Church on earth lives out "normal" mortality. Christians follow the familiar patternof learning obedience in humility seen so often in the saints (e.g., Job, David) and in the LordHimself ("Cross before the Crown") (cf. Rom 8:18ff; II Cor 4:7-12; Phil3:10). For those who recognize it,this pattern is part of the same clever indirect strategy that undid Satan atthe Cross. For those who don'tsee, it's "cultural impotence". Dispensationalists think this pattern is critically related to ourfuture role in the Kingdom as well as to God's other (non-redemptive,doxological) work in the spirit world (cf. Job 1-2; I Cor 2:8; Eph 3:10).[14]

2. The Churchalso has a link to immortality through spiritual union with the resurrectedChrist. Her victory against evilis thus assured as Paul argues in Romans 6-8. Her knowledge of God in Christ has arrived at a "final"stage (post-Christian religions are reversals, not advances) (John 17:3). The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit makesHer partake in some sense of the coming New Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; cf. Phil3:20). Nothing stands between herand the Rapture. (This immediateintimacy with the resurrected Christ is what precipitates talk of "realizedeschatology" and "the presence of the Kingdom".)

3. Transformation of present mortal culture by the Church has upper andlower limits. That she always has some transforming effect is impliedby the Restrainer in II Thess 2:7. The Man of Sin cannot take over while the Church remains. Severe persecution and defeat may comelocally, but it will never be global. There will always be room to migrate and regroup for another day as Pauldid in Thessalonica. There is noexcuse for lack of some cultural effects other than deception andlaziness. Dispensationalism thusprotects premillennialism from undue pessimism by the pretribulationalrapture. On the other hand, theChurch cannot transform mortal culture into true millennial conditions because of geophysical andspiritual background constraints on mortal culture in this age. The demonic powers must be suddenlydeposed, and the entire ecosystem catastrophically renovated-both beyond mortalman's capacity. Dispensationalismthus protects the Church from all versions of utopianism from "prosperitygospels" to "triumphalism."

4. Whattransformation that does occur, results directly from the lives of sanctifiedbelievers. No missions, noevangelism, no discipleship-no transformation. After these basic actions occur, then the strong believers canseek to restructure the culture around them according to wisdom from the whole canon of Scripture. In most instances they will have toappeal pragmatically to the unbelieving culture around them as Daniel did ("mymethod works betterthan yours"; cf. Dan 1:3-16).

Ihope that I have been able to demonstrate, in a way that is logicallyconsistent with the theology of dispensationalism, that a dispensational viewof Christ and culture can be developed. A dispensational view of culture is one that should recognize theLordship of Christ over all creatures while encompassing every area oflife. It is derived directly fromthe scriptures without a need for synthesizing help from nonchristianthought. However, a dispensationalview of culture knows and works within the limitations of God's plan forhistory and is sensitive to the timing of His progressive unfolding. A dispensational view of culture doesprovide for cultural impact, mainly through indirect means as individualsdevelop and display the character of Christ. Finally, a dispensational view of culture believes invictory inside history, but not in the present church age. While limited progress is currentlypossible, final victory awaits Christ's return, the resurrection, and His cursereversing decree.

[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (3 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891):III,864.

[2] Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the SocialGospel (New York: The Macmillan Company,1922):86f

[3]H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture(New York: Harper &Brothers,1951).

[4] See the brief synopsis of dispensational history bythe Biblical Perspectives editorin Dispensational Distinctives,Vol. I., Nos. 1, 2, 3 (Jan-Jun 1991).

[5] T he striking mathematical character of the Genesis11 longevity decline is potent evidence for its literal factuality and for acatastrophic, sudden change from one ecosystem to another. Supposedly similar Ancient Near Easterntexts carry no such trait.

[6] One example of a radical dispensationalreconstruction of postdiluvian history is John Pilkey, Origin of the Nations (San Diego: Master Books, 1984).

[7] Ibid.:6.

[8] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959):88

[9] Robert D. Culver, Toward A Biblical View of CivilGovernment (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974):86. Dr. Culver also notes that even theMosaic Law is not a complete code and was supplemented by previous common-lawwisdom (116-125). Withoutendorsing all his identifications, we can learn much from the startlingevidences of surviving primitive monotheism narrated by Don Richardson in EternityIn Their Hearts (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1981).

[10] Pilkey:279-81.

[11] In spite of the contrary assertion ofex-dispensationalist Bruce K. Waltke in "Theonomy in Relation to Dispensationaland Covenant Theologies," Theonomy: A Reformed Critique ed.William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,1990):61-62, 66.

[12] Years ago this neglected point was made by Dr.McClain:531.

[13] B.H. Liddell Hart, Strategy (2nd ed.; New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967):25.

[14] This has been set forward very well in R.B. Thieme,Jr., The Divine Outline of History(Houston: R.B. Thieme, Jr. BibleMinistries, 1989).