Convergence

I've been thinking about the issue of "God's Sovereignty" and "Human Responsibility". And the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that these two incongruous-seeming principles unite in a single Person.

The Lord Jesus came out from God to man: He stands before us as God's provision for a sick and sinful world. He represents to us God's sovereignty.

and the life has been manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us (1 John 1:2, Darby)

Christ is the summation of all men can possibly want in God

Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me. (John 14:6, Darby)

Christ Jesus, who has been made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and holiness, and redemption; that according as it is written, He that boasts, let him boast in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:30 & 31, Darby)

But there's the other side too: Christ stands before God as a Man, as the Man. He is all God could ever look for in a Man, and He stands as the Responsible Man

I have glorified *thee* on the earth, I have completed the work which thou gavest me that I should do it (John 17:4, Darby)

While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying, *This* is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him. (Matthew 17:5, Darby)

I tried to speak about this in the assembly a couple weeks ago, and I think everyone thought I was babbling incoherently. Maybe I was.

Job longed for Someone who could stand as a mediator between God and himself,

For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him; that we should come together in judgment. There is not an umpire between us, who should lay his hand upon us both... Oh that there were arbitration for a man with +God, as a son of man for his friend! (Job 9:33, 34; 16:21, Darby)

What Job longed for---what we all need---is Someone who can relate to us and at the same time relate to God. Paul gives us the answer,

For God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be rendered in its own times; (1 Timothy 2:5 & 6, Darby)

There is one Person---exactly one---who can stand for man with God, and stand for God with men.

The Lord Jesus, we are told, is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1). He is the brightness of God's glory (Hebrews 1). We cannot see God, but God has pointed to Christ and said, "If you want to know what I am like, look at Him!" He is the complete revelation of God, the God who used to speak through the prophets but has now spoken in the Son.

And at the same time, He is the One who can stand before God and say, "There is nothing you can look for in man that I am not. No demand, however exacting, can be made that I have not already fulfilled."

And this one Person is right now sitting at God's right hand, representing my interests in Heaven. It boggles the mind, but it ought to encourage the heart.

Ezekiel

I'm still soldiering through Ezekiel, trying to get a handle on this book. I've nothing spectacular to report, but I wanted to give an update in case anyone else cares.

I've been pretty meticulous about not consulting any sort of commentary; I figure the time for that is later. I did glance at one paragraph in JND's Synopsis, but I can't remember why. I've spent a lot of time reading and re-reading the book and mulling over what I've read.

I can't help but notice the opening scene is somewhat repeated three times (chapters 3, 8--10, and 43). The appearance of the glory of the Lord "as at Chebar" seems to mark out sections in the book:

1. after the first vision at Chebar (chapters 1--3), the rules of the watchman are given (chapter 3)


2. after the second vision (chapter 3), prophecies are given against Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem


3. the third vision (chapters 8--11) is while the glory of the Lord leaves the Temple in Jerusalem; after that comes the bulk of the book, chapters 12--42


4. the fourth and final vision (chapter 43) takes Ezekiel into the new Temple

My amillenialist and postmillenialist friends will note I'm confident a great deal of the prophecies in Ezekiel refer to the return under Zerubbabel. My premillenialist friends will be glad to hear that there are significant chunks of Ezekiel that clearly refer to a future kingdom with Ephraim and Judah once more united in the land.

I've noticed that Ezekiel's prophecies to the Gentiles (Ammon, Edom, Egypt, Moab, Tyre, etc.) all occur between the third and fourth visions of the glory: after it leaves the Temple and before it returns. Prior to the glory of the Lord abandoning the temple in Jerusalem (chapters 8--11), all of Ezekiel's prophecies are to Israel (i.e. Israel, Judah, Jerusalem and the exiles in Babylon). Once the glory returns in chapter 43, his attention returns to Israel. But in the middle of the book, where the glory is gone, he prophecies to Gentiles as well as Israel.

I've written a lot of notes on my computer, and the first 15 or so chapters are heavily underlined in my main study Bible. There's a lot in this book, and I'm really still scratching at the surface, trying to make the smallest dent in it.

Strength of God

I've been wrestling with Ezekiel for the last couple weeks. I really want to get a grasp on Ezekiel: it's one book I've always found interesting and exceedingly puzzling.

En fin

I'm cautiously optimistic the quest has come to an end. Now for the hard work.

The Tabernacle at Gibeon

And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn; but, inasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; but the genealogy is not registered according to the birthright, for Judah prevailed among his brethren, and of him was the prince, but the birthright was Joseph’s)
(1 Chronicles 5:1--2)

There is some significance to the inter-relationships between the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament. The first couple verses of 1 Chronicles 5 give us a glimpse into these relationships. We're told that Reuben forfeited his birthright to Joseph by dishonouring his father; but that the Prince is to come from Judah. And we recall that Joseph's younger son, Ephraim, actually received the inheritance in preference to Manasseh, according to Jacob's blessing in Genesis 48:18--20.

We see Ephraim and Judah begin to distinguish themselves in the Exodus: it was Caleb (from Judah) and Joshua (from Ephraim) who brought back the good report from the land at Kadesh-Barnea. And as a result, those two were allowed to enter the land after 40 years.

As an aside, it's noteworthy that the Levites were apparently exempted from that ban. Eleazar was certainly of age at Kadesh-Barnea: he had been ordained as a priest at Horeb. But Eleazar entered the land as high priest, in place of his father Aaron. It is significant that Levi sent no spy into the land at Kadesh-Barnea, and were in fact excluded from the numbering of the Israelites at Horeb. Ada Habershon sees their exemption at Horeb as being the reason they're not under the ban on entering the land. I think Numbers 14:29 lends credence to this notion:

In this wilderness shall your carcases fall; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number from twenty years old and upwards, who have murmured against me

When the people came into the land, they came in under Joshua (the spy from Ephraim). Initially the Tabernacle was set up in Gilgal, but once the land was divided it was settled in Shiloh, which is in Ephraim (Joshua 18:1). Shiloh was the location of the Tabernacle until Eli, when the Ark was taken by the Philistines.

Here it gets a little murky. The Ark was taken under Eli, and when the Philistines returned it, it ended up in the house of Abinadab. 1 Samuel says it was there 20 years, and David went to Abinadab to get it. So it must have been during Saul's time that it went to Kirjath-jearim.

The Scripture asserts several times that the Tabernacle was in Gibeon in David's time, and it was still there when Solomon ascended the throne.

And the tabernacle of Jehovah, which Moses had made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering, were at that time in the high place at Gibeon.
(1 Chronicles 21:29--30)

So David brought the Ark from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem while the Tabernacle was in Gibeon.

The Scripture tells us a few things about Gibeon:

• Joshua made peace with the Gibeonites when they deceived him about their origin. As a result, Gibeon wasn't conquered by the Israelites (Joshua 9).


• Gibeon was one of the "great cities" in Canaan (Joshua 10:2).


• Gibeon was one of the priests' cities in Benjamin (Joshua 21:17)


• In David's time, the Gibeonites were still identifiably Amorites (2 Samuel 21:2).


• Gibeon was where "the great high place" was (1 Kings 3:4).

So the Tabernacle went from Gilgal to Shiloh, (to Nob?), to Gibeon; and the Ark went from Gilgal to Shiloh, to Kirjath-jearim, to Jerusalem.

Psalm 78 gives us the Divine commentary on this:

And he forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh, the tent where he had dwelt among men...
And he rejected the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim,
But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved;
And he built his sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which he hath founded for ever.
(Psalm 78:60, 67--69)

According to Psalm 78, the Lord "forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh". The Ark then leaves Ephraim and goes to Kirjath-jearim, in Judah. But the Tabernacle takes a different route: it goes to Gibeon in Benjamin and stays there.

We notice too that the leadership of Israel transitions from Ephraim to Judah, by way of Saul, a Benjamite. So where the Ark is moved from Shiloh to Kirjath-jearim, the Tabernacle follows the king and goes to Gibeon.

And in Gibeon, the Tabernacle (without the Ark) is apparently set up in the "great high place," and the priests continue the ceremonial order there, without the Ark:

And Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of Jehovah in the high place that was at Gibeon, to offer up burnt-offerings to Jehovah on the altar of burnt-offering continually, morning and evening, and according to all that is written in the law of Jehovah, which he commanded Israel;
(1 Chronicles 16:39--40)

And, in fact, when Solomon took the throne, he went to Gibeon to sacrifice at the high place in Gibeon:

and Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place at Gibeon; for there was God’s tent of meeting which Moses the servant of Jehovah had made in the wilderness. But the ark of God had David brought up from Kirjath-jearim to the place that David had prepared for it; for he had spread a tent for it at Jerusalem. And the brazen altar that Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, was there before the tabernacle of Jehovah; and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it. And Solomon offered there upon the brazen altar before Jehovah which was at the tent of meeting; and he offered up a thousand burnt-offerings upon it.
(2 Chronicles 1:3--6)

The account in 1 Kings is a little different: it seems to indicate Solomon was actually practicing idolatry when he went to Gibeon:

Only, the people sacrificed on the high places; for there was no house built to the name of Jehovah, until those days. And Solomon loved Jehovah, walking in the statutes of David his father; only, he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place: a thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer up upon that altar.
(1 Kings 3:2--4)

So what can we learn from all this history? I suppose we can start by noticing that there is a difference between where the Ark is, and where the Tabernacle is. The Ark was where God's presence was: it was at the Ark that the blood was presented on the Day of Atonement; it was at the Ark that God promised to meet the people (Exodus 25:22). But when the Ark was in Jerusalem, the people went to Gibeon to meet God.

And we might notice that the priests continued to preform the religious ceremonies the Law prescribed when the Tabernacle was in Gibeon, and the Ark was in Jerusalem. So the priests were apparently quite content to continue in their ceremonial duties, even when God's presence was actually gone.

And if we carry this notion of the Ark representing God's presence while the Tabernacle represented the outward observances of religion, we notice that the outward religion followed the political power and settled in Benjamin when a Benjamite was on the throne. But the Ark wasn't there. The Ark was already in Judah, in Kirjath-jearim.

According to Psalm 78, it was actually the Tabernacle that God forsook when the Ark left Shiloh. There was still a religion connected with that Tabernacle, but the Ark itself had left. The Ark and the religious ceremonies weren't reunited until Solomon dedicated the new Temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the most chilling feature of the separation of the Ark and the Tabernacle was, that the Tabernacle became mixed up with pagan worship. Without the Ark, the Tabernacle was moved to Gibeon, one of the great Amorite cities; and not only was it a great city of the Amorites, it was the one city with which the Israelites had formed a treaty. Gibeon hadn't ever been conquered: it was the one city which had made peace with Joshua. And in Gibeon, the Tabernacle was set up in "the great high place". And 2 Kings explicitly tells us that the people worshipped the Lord in the high places.

But the Law explicitly forbade sacrificing in the high places:

Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall dispossess have served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree; and ye shall break down their altars, and shatter their statues, and burn their Asherahs with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and ye shall destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto Jehovah your God; but unto the place which Jehovah your God will choose out of all your tribes to set his name there, his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come; and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand, and your vows, and your voluntary-offerings, and the firstlings of your kine and of your sheep; and ye shall eat there before Jehovah your God, and ye shall rejoice, ye and your households, in all the business of your hand, wherein Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee.
(Deuteronomy 12:2--7)

The Israelites were to have destroyed the high places when they came into the land. They weren't to offer sacrifices whereever they thought was a good place: there was one place where they were to gather to worship. But what they actually did was, to allow some of the pagan practices of the Amorites survive. And then they took the Tabernacle (sans God's actual presence) and set it up right alongside those pagan shrines.

I think the most telling statement about this in the whole Scripture is Rabshakeh's statements to Hezekiah's men:

And if ye say to me, We rely upon Jehovah our God: is it not he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?
(2 Kings 18:22)

Rabshakeh, a pagan, saw what Hezekiah had done in destroying the high places (which ought to have been done hundreds of years before under Joshua) and interpreted it as defiling the Lord's holy places. Jewish worship must have been quite a mess, if even the pagans watching them couldn't distinguish Jewish worship from what they themselves had done. Imagine what it must have been like, if an observer could see Hezekiah ending paganism and think he was stamping out Judaism. It makes me wonder just how many paganisms the Israelites had adopted.

I've probably mentioned this before, but one of the most alarming lessons of idolatry I see in Scripture is, that it gets so mixed into true worship that the people seem to actually think they're worshipping the Lord when they're bowing to their idols.

Romans 6 & 7

I've started reading Darby again in the last few months. I'm on Collected Writings, Vol. 26. The volume starts with several articles on Romans, which has been good reading.

So naturally my thoughts have been on Romans in the last couple weeks. Hence my post about Newell on Romans 6.

I wanted to make a quick note about Romans 6 & 7 too. I remember the question coming up many years ago, of why Romans 7 comes after Romans 6. I never had a good answer, but I felt like there was something there, if only I could see it. While I've not had any sort of epiphany, I think I have a slightly better understanding of it now.

The progression of Romans starts in chapter 1, around verse 18. The first 17 verses (give or take) are more or less introductory. Starting in Romans 1:18 are a series of arguments that go pretty much to the last chapter. So the first few chapters go something like this:

1. v. 1:18--1:32 the moral history of the Gentiles is traced from knowledge of God to complete depravity.


2. v. 2:1--2:16 the condition of the moralist is considered. This is the person who recognizes heathen darkness, and eschews it: whether a Jew, or an enlightened Gentile.


3. v. 2:17--3:20 demonstrate that the Jews are just as wicked as the Gentiles. While the Jews have God's law, they fail to live up to it. v. 2:12 is really the key to the first three chapters: Gentiles had no law and were lawless; Jews had the Law and were transgressors. So v. 3:19 declares "those under the Law" as wicked as the heathen at the end of chapter 1. Thus, "every mouth might be stopped".


4. v. 3:21--4:25 introduce "righteousness by faith". The last 11 verses of chapter 3 introduce justification by faith alone through Christ alone; chapter 4 develops the concept from the life of Abraham in Genesis.


5. v. 5:1--5:11 give the consequences of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, and introduce two new words into the argument: "love" (vv. 5 & 6) and "salvation" ("saved" in v. 10).


6. v. 5:12--v. 5:21 begin a new discussion: the discussion of sin, rather than sins. Sin is demonstrated to have come into the world through Adam's disobedience, through which we have all become sinners. So while the first three chapters contain the complete picture of depravity, it's not until chapter 5 that the concept of man's sinfulness is really discussed. Chapters 1--3 tell us what man is, chapter 5 tells us what causes it. It's not just that [Gentiles and Jews alike] sin, but that they are actually sinners. The bad behaviour is actually the symptom of the bad heart.

So chapter 6 starts with asking the question that dangles at the end of chapter 5: If God has grace on sinners, and if His grace over-abounds where sin abounds, shouldn't we just go on sinning? And chapter 6 is an ontological argument against the line of reasoning. No you shouldn't, it goes, because you're no longer sinners. We were once sinners, but we've been crucified with Christ. We were once sinners, but now we're dead to sin so that we can walk in newness of life. We were once sinners, but now we're dead to sin and alive to God.

Then we read chapter 7, and we read the awful description of vv. 14--16, "for not what I will, this I do; but what I hate, this I practise." This really sounds like it belongs before chapter 6, doesn't it? Chapter 6 tells us we're dead to sin (v. 11) and "free from sin" (vv. 7 & 18). So what's the deal with Romans 7? Why the apparent step back?

I think there are two parts to the answer. The first is Newell's answer: Romans 7 introduces the idea of "Law as a rule of life" and demonstrates it doesn't work. Notice the introductory argument in vv. 4--6: we are "dead to the Law by the body of Christ". The Law was given to sinners to show them they're sinners (v. 3:20). To attempt to live up to it as one who is justified by faith is really pointless: you've already learned the lesson. And while we are crucified with Christ and are thus dead to sin, there is still certainly sin in our flesh (vv. 17--18) and the Law manages to ferret it out and get it to respond. This is what the Law was for: to reveal sin. "By the Law is the knowledge of sin". I'm justified by faith alone in Christ alone: I am not liable for sin in God's sight. But there is still sin in my flesh, and the Law draws it out. That's what vv. 9--11 teach.

So Newell says, the whole Romans 7 experience can just be avoided by not trying to keep the Law:

Therefore this conflict of Paul’s, instead of being an example to you, is a warning to you to keep out of it by means of God’s plain words that you are not under law but under grace.

But now you will adopt one of two courses: either you will read of and avoid the great struggle Paul had, under law, to make the flesh obedient by law,—with its consequent discovery of no good in him, and no strength; with his despairing cry, “Who shall deliver me?” and the blessed discovery of deliverance through our Lord Jesus Christ and by the indwelling Spirit: and this is, of course, the true way,—for you are not under law. It is the God-honoring path, for it is the way of faith. It is the wisest, because in it you profit by the struggle and testimony of another, written out for your benefit.

The second course, (and alas, the one followed by most in their distress and longing after a holy life), is to go through practically the same struggle as Paul had,—until you discover for yourself experimentally what he found.
(Romans, Verse-by-verse, Chapter 8)

But Romans 7 teaches something else too, and it's very important to grasp it. Romans 6 teaches that we have died with Christ so that we're now dead to sin. This is a wonderful and freeing thing. I am dead to sin, I am alive to God. But Romans 7 introduces us to a new word "flesh". There is something in us that Romans calls the flesh: "in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell" (v. 7: 18). I am justified by faith alone in Christ alone. I am dead to sin. But I find when I look at myself, there is indwelling sin. And worse, I find I am utterly powerless over it. This is the lesson of Romans 7.

And how does the struggle with the flesh end? When he gives up in vv. 23--25 and realizes he can't fix it. When he realizes it's bigger than he is, and looks for a Deliverer.

Romans 8 fully develops the theme of indwelling sin and brings it to fruition in vv. 1--27. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone (chapter 5). We are dead to sin (chapter 6). But we find sin still lives in our flesh (chapter 7). But Romans 8:1--27 assures us, we're not done yet. Our sinful and mortal bodies will some day be resurrected, and then we'll be free from sin's presence. We are waiting for "the redemption of the body" (v. 23). That day's coming: we're waiting for it, because it hasn't happened yet (vv. 24--25).

And we might notice the word "body" in each chapter. Chapter 6 talks about the "body of sin", chapter 7 calls it the "body of death", and chapter 8 calls it our "mortal body". There is a progression: sin in the flesh will inevitably lead to death. We're waiting for our bodies to be redeemed, so that we can be as free from sin's presence as we are from sin's guilt and sin's power.

There's one more difference I see between Romans 6 and Romans 7. Romans 6 starts out with the question of willful sin, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?". The question there is, since grace over-abounds, why not get more grace by sinning more? Romans 7 introduces a new idea: involuntary sin. This is not the sin we set our minds to, this is the sin we find ourselves committing over and over. Even though we may hate it, and even though we hate ourselves for doing it, we find we just keep doing it. That's the struggle in vv. 19--21

19* For I do not practise the good that I will; but the evil I do not will, that I do.
20* But if what *I* do not will, this I practise, it is no longer *I* that do it, but the sin that dwells in me.
21* I find then the law upon *me* who will to practise what is right, that with *me* evil is there.

So I don't have many answers. But I think Romans 7 comes after Romans 6 because the discovery of sin in the flesh is really a very different thing from being dead to sin. When man sinned, he fell from the inside out. His spiritual death preceded his physical death by a long time. God saves us the same way. First He justifies, then He transforms us, inside-out. He fixes us inside, and some day He'll fix the outside too.

We can't really learn Romans 7 if we don't have Romans 6. There's no real way to understand indwelling sin when we haven't yet grasped our death to sin. We need to learn we've died with Christ so that we can say "it is no longer *I* that do it, but the sin that dwells in me" (Romans 7:17).

And I think that is why Romans 7 comes after Romans 6.

Newell on Romans 6

Romans 6 is an interesting chapter in what is probably the most theological book in the Bible. It's the chapter that deals with the believer's death with Christ. Over the past fifteen or so years, I've glanced at various commentaries and books to see how they deal with Romans 6. There seem to be a few main schools of thought on the chapter, and each has some good points. But eventually each one ends up contradicting Scripture on some point, big or small.

So when I read Newell's commentary on Romans 6 in Romans Verse-by-verse, I was overjoyed. He does an excellent job of explicating the chapter. In my opinion, he goes right through the passage, avoiding the traps that we all seem to fall into.

Most importantly, he correctly differentiates between the old man and the flesh:

The word our indicates that what is said, is said of and to all those who are in Christ. The expression “our old man,” of course is a federal one, as also is “the new man.” The “old man,” therefore, is not Adam personally, any more than the “new man” is Christ personally. Also, we must not confuse the “old man” with “the flesh.”

This is a point of tremendous importance, it lies at the root of a lot of misunderstanding of this passage. He goes on to list four differences between the old man and the flesh. I was pleased to see his mention of Galatians 5: there is a crucifixion of the flesh, but it's taught in very different terms than the crucifixion of the old man.

Not to get on one of my hobby horses, but this distinction is very carefully maintained in Scripture. If we're not careful to maintain it ourselves, we end up in a bad spot. Particularly in Romans, the old man isn't mentioned after chapter 6, the flesh isn't mentioned until chapter 7. They're quite distinct. I think it's obvious in Romans 6 that the old man is something we were while the flesh is something we have.

The problem with equating them is that we have to choose between eradicationism (i.e. the believer is free not only from sin's guilt and sin's power, but also from sin's presence) and the strict "two-naturism" (really positionalism) more common among "brethren" and mainstream evangelicals, where the old man is "kinda-sorta-but-not-really" dealt with. The former leads into real trouble once we get into Romans 7 and Galatians 5, the latter leads to trying to "die to self". There's nothing good down that path.

So I was delighted that Newell is careful with that distinction. Sadly, even Darby seemed to get those mixed up. F. W. Grant seems to have done a better job of maintaining the Scriptural distinction.

I think Newell gets the body of sin right too. I've heard all sorts of explanations where the body of sin is just the sum total of sin. Even Darby takes that interpretation. It seems obvious to me that the body of sin is the unredeemed body. We are justified, we are crucified with Christ, we are to walk in newness of life; but our bodies are yet unredeemed. When the Lord Jesus comes to get us, we will be changed. That is the "redemption of the body" in Romans 8. In fact, that is one of the main arguments of Romans 8.

So I've been delighted to read his comments on Romans 6. I'd started to wonder whether I was totally in left field... it seems no matter whose comments I read on that chapter, I kept shaking my head. And my understanding of the chapter has really increased with Newell's help.

Because I tend to see the chapter ontologically instead of positionally, I needed to be reminded that there is a definite positional aspect to it. The old man really is a federal thing. I've been far too personal in my understanding of that term. It's as a positional thing that it's mentioned in Ephesians 4. I'd really lost sight of that.

So I'm as enthusiastic as ever I was in endorsing Newell's book on Romans. And I'm kicking myself again for letting it sit on my bookshelf for twelve years. Imagine such an excellent book gathering dust for all that time...