Posted on 10/20/2009 8:00:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
My friends have often heard me say, “The more I read my Bible the less dispensational I become.”
This statement comes from someone who was spiritually nurtured in churches with dispensational theology, who graduated from a Christian university steeped in dispensational theology, who received his first graduate degree from a dispensational seminary, and who—for twelve years—preached sermons that reflected dispensational theology. For the first sixteen years of my Christian life, I rarely questioned the fundamental distinctions of dispensational theology. What are those distinctions? In his discussion of what he called the “sine qua non of dispensationalism,”
Ryrie asserted:
“A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct … . This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive” (Ryrie 44-45).
Later he concluded:
“the essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church” (Ryrie 47).
As a dispensationalist I studied my Bible with the understanding that God had dual and separate plans for Israel and the church. I understood this “church age” to be somewhat parenthetical until God resumed His plan with the nation of Israel. I believed that the Abrahamic covenant and all the other Old Testament covenants were essentially for national Israel, and that only the soteriological benefits of the covenants belonged to the church.
As I continued to pastor and preach, I realized that my training in the Old Testament was weak. I decided to pursue a Master of Theology in Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. My dispensational comrades in ministry assured me that Westminster would ruin my theology. I suppose many of them believe that has happened. Nevertheless, I was drawn to Westminster primarily because Bruce Waltke was teaching there. I had read books and articles by Dr. Waltke and had profited immensely from them.
While at Westminster I had the privilege of learning from Vern Poythress, Tremper Longman, and Raymond Dillard, along with Bruce Waltke. At first I listened as an antagonist, but I was soon won over by their personal graciousness and their commitment to Scripture. I began to experience discomfort as I realized that my commitment to dispensationalism was often unyielding, even when contradicted by the results of exegesis. These words from the introduction to my Th.M thesis summarize my response at that time:
Exegesis often eviscerates one’s theological presuppositions. When a theological bulwark withstands the penetration of biblical exegesis, its tenets remain secure. However, if its walls crumble beneath the weight of incisive and precise exegesis, then one must abandon the fortress and construct a better one (Davis, 1990, 1).
During the course of my study at Westminster, Bruce Waltke was my faculty advisor. I was privileged to have a number of personal discussions with him regarding the uneasiness I felt in questioning dispensationalism. As I considered what to research for my Th.M thesis, he suggested a topic that would be beneficial to me on my journey and helpful to others. I wrote “A Critical Evaluation of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” The writing of that thesis opened a door and gave me a gentle push toward my eventual departure from dispensationalism.
As I worked through the exegesis of the Abrahamic Covenant and the hermeneutical issues surrounding it, I came to this conclusion:
Through an inductive study, this paper has arrived at a position that approximates covenant theology, namely, that that covenants confirm and explicate the program by which God redeems a people for Himself. It has been established that Israel and the church need to be perceived as sub-categories of a larger concept, i.e. the people of God. The Abrahamic covenant is not the beginning of the people of God, but rather God’s redemptive means, after the rebellion at Babel and the dispersion, to reclaim a fallen world to Himself. The Abrahamic covenant needs to be viewed in its relation to God’s purposes for the entire world, not simply His purposes for a nation. The Abrahamic covenant needs to viewed in light of the inauguration of eschatological times with the first advent of Jesus Christ, as well as the consummation of eschatology at the second advent (Davis 109).
Since those years at Westminster, I have continued to think about these issues and have become more and more convinced that exegesis and biblical theology do not support the sine qua non of dispensationalism (i.e., the distinction between Israel and the church). Since Christ is the final and fullest revelation of God, I now see that the Old Testament anticipated Christ and finds its interpretation and fulfillment in Christ.
In the New Testament—apart from well-debated text in Romans 11:25-27—there is not even a hint of a future restoration of the nation of Israel to the land.
Of the seventy four references to Abraham in the New Testament, not one clearly focuses on the “earthly” elements of the covenant. Even the acceptance of a mass conversion of Israelites at some future time does not demand a return to a former order of things.
Take, for example, the Apostle Paul’s discussion of the relationship of the law to saving faith, in Galatians 3.
He introduces Abraham as a paradigm of saving faith and of inclusion in the promises of God. In the course of his discussion, the apostle makes interpretive statements based on his understanding of the Genesis passages. These reflect on the Abrahamic covenant. These statements are as follows:
1) – “Those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
2) -“The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ’All nations will be blessed through you’” (Gal. 3:8).
3) - “Those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham” (Gal. 3:9).
4) – “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:14).
5) – “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
6) - “But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).
Paramount in these verses is the redemptive significance of the Abrahamic covenant as it finds its consummation in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ, as the quintessential seed of Abraham, is both the guarantor and inheritor of the promises of the covenant.
Relationship with Christ, established by emulating the faith of Abraham, guarantees one’s participation in the promises of the covenant. It is not the keeping of the law or physical descent from Abraham that constitutes one as a child of Abraham, but rather faith in Jesus Christ.
These verses sanction the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They confirm that covenant as the unifying factor between Jews and Gentiles, and they substantiate the view that there is one people of God of all ages that share the covenants of Scripture which find their consummation in Christ.
Strikingly, Paul perceives redemption in Christ to be the dominant, though not exclusive, feature of the Abrahamic covenant. He finds the consummation of the covenant in Christ and participation in the covenant to be predicated on relationship to Christ. Though, admittedly, I argue from silence here, the “material” nature of the promises to Abraham appears to be somewhat idealized in Christ. Though not necessarily removing those “material” elements of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul’s treatment certainly places them in a new light.
Consequently, due to the advent of Christ as the seed of Abraham, the New Testament sees a semi-realized fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in New Testament believers and the church and an ultimate eternal fulfillment in the New Heavens and Earth for all those who are “seed” of Abraham by faith.
In Christ we have our “landedness” as we are “blessed in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ,” (Eph. 1:3) and are assured that we have “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade kept in heaven” (1 Pet. 1:3).
The New Testament texts that consider the question, “Who are the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant?” unequivocally answer, “All of those who are in Christ Jesus.”
In reference to the unity of believing Jews and Gentiles, George N. H. Peters cogently concludes:
Both elect are the seed, the children of Abraham; both sets of branches are on the same stock, on the same root, on the same olive tree; both constitute the same Israel of God, the members of the same body, fellow-citizens of the same commonwealth; both are Jews “inwardly” (Romans 2:29), and of the true “circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), forming the same “peculiar people,” “holy nation,” and “royal priesthood”; both are interested in the same promises, covenants, and kingdom; both inherit and realize the same blessings at the same time (Peters 404).
In conclusion, may we all continue to “do theology” rooted in humility, exegesis, biblical theology, and community. Though I do not agree with many of Clark Pinnock’s theological conclusions, I do appreciate his delightful approach to the theological enterprise. He said,
I approach theology in a spirit of adventure, being always curious about what I may find. For me theology is like a rich feast, with many dishes to enjoy and delicacies to taste. It is like a centuries-old conversation that I am privileged to take part in, a conversation replete with innumerable voices to listen to…. More like a pilgrim than a settler, I tread the path of discovery and do my theology en route (quoted in Grenz 134).
Works Cited
Davis, John P. “A Critical Examination of the Use of the Abrahamic Covenant in Dispensationalism.” Master of Theology Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990.
Grenz, Stanley J. Renewing the Center. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1952.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
But what I will object to to my dying day is the annulment of the Word of God. He commanded the Jewish people to keep these commands forever. To dismiss those commands of Scripture as mere tradition is to annul the Word of God.
What is your view of the application of the death penalty for all the various offenses in the OT? Do those commands differ from the ones you are speaking of above?
I think you mentioned earlier that it is an open question on to what degree a Christian should apply OT practices and commands of God. Do you think that determination is a personal matter with the Lord, or is there one correct answer that everyone should work toward? (I ask because you said it would be good if everyone observed the Passover as in the OT.) Does your church take a position?
In a theocratic state as set forth by the Torah, yes they would. In our current state of affairs, obviously there's no governing body with the authority to make such determinations.
Put it this way: Everyone agrees that the Torah's injunctions against all forms of occultism still stand. Does the fact that the current governmental structure of the United States means that the penalties for occultism (again, death) cannot be applied mean that we should break out the Ouija boards? Obviously not. In the same way, the lack of authority to enforce the penalties of the Torah does not excuse us from keeping its commands ourselves.
Anyway, God sees to the penalties. Jews who cease to keep the Sabbath still "die" and are "cut off" in the sense that they lose their identity within a generation or two. It almost happened to my wife's family. Obviously, that doesn't invalidate their salvation, but my daughter would have never known what it is to be Jewish had that process not been reversed.
And that's penalty enough.
Shalom.
Do you know why there were more proselyte women in Judiasm than men, and why there were more men “God-fearers” than women in Judiasm?
Buggman: Yep. You might think of it in terms of a fine: Once the fine is paid, you couldn't (in theory at least) be tried again on the same charge.
FK: I can see saying that this atonement is comparatively weak because it only covers a particular sin one time (as opposed to the work of Christ), but for that one time was it equally effectual as a propitiation in your view?
Buggman: It's a bit more complicated than that, but the simple answer is yes.
OK, it looks like these two answers match. It looks like you are comparing sin to committing some crime for which a ticket is issued. Once the fine is paid, the matter is over. That matches what I understand propitiation to involve. One is made favorable in God's eyes in terms of being made fit for Heaven, i.e. that particular sin will not be counted against you.
However, later in the post you discuss the difference between covering a sin and removing it. (This seems relevant to a discussion about expiate and propitiate.) So, I'm confused if I'm understanding you to say that OT atoning is like paying a fine once and for all (propitiate), but is insufficient for having the offense removed (also propitiate).
FK: What exactly is the difference between atoning for sin (or A sin) and removing it?
Atonement is a legal condition; removal of sin is the spiritual condition that men long for. If a man had been doing some work outside and had to get to a meeting in a hurry, he might quickly wash his face and hands, change his clothes, and put on some deodorant to make himself presentable (cover himself), but he would long for the shower that he will be able to take later to truly remove the dirt and sweat.
I think I'm with you that the removal of sin is the spiritual condition that men long for, but I don't understand that as opposed to the legal condition of atonement. Don't we say that justification is a legal condition? I don't think that justification would match your atonement analogy above.
FK: We can say that Christ's atonement was different in its scope, but was it different from animal sacrifice atonement in the micro sense, for a particular sin (or small group of sins)?
The major difference is this: God's Law requires that a kinsman is ultimately needed to redeem a person. The blood of lambs, goats, and bulls may atone for sin, and the Azazel even provides for the sin to be carried off on a yearly basis--but only a kinsman can buy back a man sold into slavery and make him free again; only a kinsman can buy back his land and restore to him what was lost. And therefore, only our Kinsman-Redeemer could do more than cover our sins or temporarily carry them off and truly buy us back by His own blood.
This appears to add a new, third element to the discussion. If the subject is being made fit for Heaven then it looks like you are saying here that neither OT atonement nor OT removal of sin was sufficient. We need Christ. I'm good with that, but I'm not sure how it fits in with everything else we've been discussing to this point. For example, here you appear to say that sin removal is not enough, but earlier you say that removal of sin is the spiritual condition men long for. The quick wash was the temporary (atonement) and the full shower was the permanent (removal of sin). I thought you were saying that Christ is like the full shower.
There may be confusion if we are assigning different meanings or levels of significance to terms like "atonement", "removal of sin", "propitiate", "once and for all", etc. I don't know. :)
Something to do with fear of flint, I think.
Interesting discussion. Let me introduce a different angle.
In the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere Jesus challenged the Pharisees on their concern for merely “deed” sins. He pointed out that sin encompasses the whole man and the pollution included thoughts, words, and deeds.
So if the OT sacrifices covered deed sins did they also cover thought and word sins? Were thought sins not carried out in word or deeds covered?
And perhaps Buggman is making the distinction that the sacrifices removed the guilt but did nothing for the actual pollution.
And if that is the case is Buggman suggesting that the kinsman-redeemer not only covers the guilt but removes the pollution?
I don't know where you've been, but I have never hidden the fact that I'm a Reformed confessional Christian. I have no problem acknowledging my traditions, and their solid Christian pedigree. The interpretation that gets us from the old covenant Sabbath day observance to the new is nothing hidden. I’ve repeated it often as have others, and you can trace the pedigree back in Church history to find the biblical justification. I don’t think I need to repeat it yet again. It is not, as you wish to maintain, merely tradition.
But I realize you are continuing to use that as an excuse to run away from the fact that there is not even a shred of biblical justification for the observance of old covenant feast days, etc in the new covenant. That is pure tradition.
As I pointed out earlier on the thread, the Sunday worship was unique to Rome and Alexandria as late as the 5th Century.
Sunday worship is a Roman Catholic tradition, it is NOT a Christian Tradition.
How many other Roman Catholic traditions are you clinging to?
Dr. E, since you are so adamantly opposed to all extra biblical Roman Catholic traditions, why do you cling to this one?
The only people who think the fifth century church was Roman Catholic are Roman Catholics. The fifth century Christian church was the fifth century Christian church.
Historically the fathers of the Christian church decided that the hope of the resurecction is better celebrated on the first day of the week, as the sunrise of a new day, rather than the last day of the week, like the sunset of the old day.
It is an extra biblical tradition and it is linked to Rome.
For that matter, where is the BIBLICAL sanction for abandoning the seventh day as the Sabbath?
"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." -- Acts 20:7
So it was apostolic teaching and not Rome which informed the early church that the day of Jesus Christ's resurrection was to be the day of worship.
Also, from Reformed Answers comes this...
Similarly, in Exodus 16 where God commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath in the wilderness, he indicated which day would be the Sabbath not by referring to days of the week, but by telling them to count the days on which they received manna (Exod. 16:4-5,22-23). The Bible does not say that they began to receive manna on the first day of the week, but marks the time from "the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from Egypt" (Exod. 16:1). We do not possess an ancient Hebrew calendar, and we do not know on which day the Sabbath fell in the wilderness. In fact, it is entirely possible that the Hebrews did not determine which day the Sabbath was by looking at the calendar to find the seventh day of the week, but instead determined the seventh day of the week by first determining when the Sabbath was. Assessing all the occurences of "seventh day" in the Old Testament, and looking at the institution of the Sabbath, it seems that the Old Testament does not clearly teach that the Sabbath is to be observed on the seventh day of the week -- or at least that the calendar week is not to be used to determine which day is the seventh. In the New Testament, the Jews celebrated the Sabbath on what was generally recognized as the seventh day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mark. 16:1-2; Luke 23:56-24:1), and Jesus recognized their choice of days (e.g. Matt. 12:1-13; Luke 13:14-16). However, neither Jesus nor any other New Testament writer indicated that the Sabbath day always had to fall on the seventh day of the week as determined by any regular calendar. Based on this thinking, the New Testament church, under the guidance of the Apostles, apparently felt the freedom to change the day of observance relative to the secular calendar. They still maintained the commanded six-day-plus-one pattern, but shifted their Sabbath observance to the first day of the week relative to the secular calendar. They chose this day most probably because it was the day on which Jesus had been raised from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 25:1; John 20:1). The risen Lord also chose the first day of the week on which to manifest himself to his disciples when they were gathered together (John 20:19,26). In any event, it seems that the first day of the week probably came to be known as the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10), and seems to have been the day on which the church gathered with the approval of the Apostles (Acts 20:7). There does not appear to be any evidence in the New Testament that the early church felt compelled to observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and there is some possible evidence that Paul taught that Christians were not obligated to observe that particular day (Col. 2:16). In conclusion, the practice of Sunday observance is based first on the understanding that the Bible does not command observance on the seventh day of the calendar week, and second on church tradition established under the approval of the Apostles. We begin with the premise that the Bible doesn't actually teach that we are to meet on the seventh day of the week. Rather, it teaches that we are to meet on the seventh day (without the qualification "of the week"). The Hebrew Old Testament normally uses the unqualified phrase "the seventh day" to refer to days which were not the seventh day of the month, and which could not possibly have fallen on the same day of the week from year to year (e.g. Exod. 12:15,16; 13:6; Lev. 23:6-8; 13:5,6,27,32,34,51; 14:9,39; Num. 6:9; 7:1-48; 19:12,19; 28:17-25; 31:19,24; Deut. 16:1-8; Josh. 6:4,15; Judg. 14:12-18; 2 Sam. 12:18; 1 Kgs. 20:29; Est. 1:10). These uses of the phrase (by far the majority of its uses in the Old Testament) appear simply to mean "seven days later." Moreover, there were some Sabbaths that were not on the seventh day (e.g. Lev. 23:27-32,39)
On what day do you attend church? Are you following the Romanists or a pattern set down from the time of the apostles?
That's a great question. I guess we'd have to figure out if they knew to even "offer up" thought sins for forgiveness. I suppose if we say that the righteous understood the foreshadowing nature of the physical sacrifices it wouldn't be a stretch to suppose they were informed of this as well. But I could be wrong. It is interesting to think about, though.
That's a great question. I guess we'd have to figure out if they knew to even "offer up" thought sins for forgiveness.
Ah, good question. The Torah is somewhat ambiguous about making sacrifices for "thought" sins, since all of the examples given of reasons to make sacrifices are for sins carried out in action. On the other hand, we know that Job made sacrifices for his children just in case one committed a "thought sin," so the idea was certainly not foreign to the Judaism of the 1st Century.
I've not done an in-depth study of this subject in the Mishnah and Talmud, but my impression based on what I've read so far is that only sins of action made one "liable" to make a sacrifice in Jewish law, but that the more righteous man might make additional sacrifices even for his thoughts as he was convicted. The rabbis certainly emphasize training one's thoughts to center on the Torah rather than on what a Christian might term "the lusts of the flesh," so there was certainly a cognizance of the idea of "thought sin."
The daily burnt offerings were thought to cover "sins of omission," missed opportunities to actively do good. I'm going to hypothesize that that would include missed opportunities to dwell on Torah instead of "fleshly" matters. I'll keep an eye out in my studies and see if I can confirm that.
Shalom.
A quick addendum to my earlier post: The Sermon on the Mount was directed to "the crowds," not to the Pharisees in particular. The Pharisees--which is to say, the precursors to Orthodox Judaism--were well aware of the existence of "thought sin" and hypocrisy among many claiming the title, and were trying to deal with it accordingly. Indeed, Yeshua's criticism in Matthew 23 reads very close to a similar criticism that the Pharisees leveled against their own membership in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sotah.
The idea that Judaism focuses or focused only on the external is based in an ignorance of Judaism's actual teachings.
Shalom.
It looks like Jesus’ “But I say” rule assumes that Torah, as interpreted by the Pharisees, covered acts and He was expanding the rule. However, since there was no “covering” for intentional acts some thought sin must have been intended.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Job 31:1-4, I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? For what portion of God [is there] from above? and [what] inheritance of the Almighty from on high? [Is] not destruction to the wicked? and a strange [punishment] to the workers of iniquity? Doth not he see my ways, and count all my steps?
Let's say, for example, that a man steals a sheep for whatever reason, then repents and wants to make things right. There's no way he "accidentally" stole the sheep, nor could he claim ignorance of the Ten Words, but neverthess the Torah provides a remedy: He must return the sheep and give another 20% of its value back to its owner; if the sheep was already slaughtered or sold, he had to pay back five times the value of the sheep. Only then, after making the matter right with his fellow man, could he go to to Jerusalem and make an offering to make things right with God.
The reason that the guy who gathered sticks on the Sabbath was killed was not simply for violating the Sabbath in a moment of weakness; it was because he did so in a situation where everyone was keeping the Sabbath together and right in front of the Sh'khinah, the Presence of God, which was visible as the pillar of cloud and fire over the camp. Just as you will punish your children more severely for open defiance to your face than for an error committed while out and about, so the Holy One dealt with him.
One of the reasons for joy among the disciples was the knowledge that though Israel as a whole had committed sin "with a high hand" over and over again to the point where the Sh'khinah twice departed the Temple, nevertheless the Holy One had provided a sacrifice that could and would restore Israel to full Covenant relationship with Him and allow her to inherit her promises.
Shalom.
“The Sermon on the Mount was directed to “the crowds,” not to the Pharisees in particular.”
When Jesus prefaced his arguments with, “You have heard it said”, from whom did the crowd hear such things?
“The idea that Judaism focuses or focused only on the external is based in an ignorance of Judaism’s actual teachings.”
Nearly all, if not all, of Jesus’ polemics against the Pharisees was because of their externalism.
Look, I realize that it's been fashinable for two millennia to blame everything on the Pharisees, but the fact is that they were not the only game in town until after the fall of the Second Temple. Their teachings were competing with those of the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, the Hellenists, and probably a few dozen small groups that we've never heard of. The situation was so confused that Stephen Wylen, author of Jews in the Time of Jesus has pointed out that one pretty much has to refer to 1st Century Judaism in the plural to be accurate.
If you want to know what the Pharisees actually taught, you might try consulting a Jewish source.
My own hypothesis is that "hate your enemy" came from the teachings of the Zealots, who were famous for, among other things, assassinating Jews whom they thought were getting too buddy-buddy with the Gentiles.
People need to stop assuming that the New Testament is intended to give one a crash-course on 1st Century Judaism. Rather, the NT assumes that its audience already has at least a passing familiarity with the synagogue, its services, its liturgy, and its theology.
Shalom.
The context makes it clear:
“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:20)
It is the perverted teaching of the scribes and Pharisees (the teaching class in Israel) that gets Jesus’ attention here, and in much of the NT. E.g., “Hate your enemy” was their inference from the silence in Lev. 19:18.
Making that kind of shocking statement by way of comparison does not mean that every "you have heard" that follows represents mainline Pharisaic Judaism. Pharisees often used such phrases to correct other Pharisees or popular misconceptions (read the article I linked in my previous post). Before making those pronouncements, I suggest you do a bit of homework. Brad Young's Meet the Rabbis is a good place to start, as is W.D. Davies' Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (if you can find a copy, it's priceless), or pretty much any of Rabbi Telushkin's books.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.