The Garden of Eden as a Temple

According to G.K. Beale, the first temple was in Eden. After studying both Beale and Wright on this, I agree with this assessment. Though there wasn't a literal constructed temple like what Israel had, I believe the typology is still clearly present. Derek Rishmawy summarizes Beale's line of reasoning stating,

1. In the later OT the Temple was the place of God’s special presence where he made himself known and felt to Israel. That is exactly how his walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden is depicted. (Gen. 3:8)

2. Adam is placed in the garden to “cultivate (abad)” and “keep (samar)” it (Gen 2:15). The same two words are translated elsewhere “serve” and “guard”, and when they appear together, they are either referring to Israelites serving or obeying God’s word, or more usually, to the job of the priest in guarding and keeping the Temple. (Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 1 Chron. 23:32) Elsewhere Adam is portrayed dressed in the clothes of the high priest, functioning as a high priest. (Ezek 28:11-19; see Beale, pg. 618 on this for more argumentation.)

3. The tree of life served as a model for the lampstand, which was clearly shaped as a tree, in the Temple.

4. Israel’s later Temple was made with wood carvings of flowers, palm trees, etc. meant to recall Eden’s garden brilliance  (1 Kings 6:18, 29, 32, 35); pomegranates were also placed at the bottom of the two stone pillars in the Temple. (7:18-20)

5. The entrance to the Temple was to the east, on a mountain facing Zion (Ex. 15:17), just as the end-time temple prophesied in Ezekiel is (40:2, 6; 43:12). Well, turns out the entrance to Eden was from the East (Gen. 3:24) and in some places pictured as being on a mountain. (Ezek. 28:14, 16)

6. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the ark of the covenant both were accessed or touched only on pain of death. Also, both were sources of wisdom.

7. Just as a river flowed out of Eden (Gen 2:10), so a river is supposed to flow out of the End-time Temple (Ezek 47:1-12; Rev. 21:1-2)

8. This one requires some serious argument so I suggest you consult Beale directly here (pg. 620-621), but just as there was a tripartite sacred structure to the Temple, Beale discerns a tripartite structure to creation with Eden standing at the center as a Holy of Holies.

9. Ezekiel 28:13-14 refers the Eden as “the holy mountain of God” which everywhere else in the OT is Temple and Tabernacle language.

Why is this significant? How should this affect our theology? Well, in short, (and I plan on teasing

this out later in more posts) this demonstrates that it was the intention of God in creation to inhabit and dwell amongst His people. The Temple was the place of God’s special presence. This also affects our eschatology, because at the consummation, we can look forward to and expect this fracture that now exists between heaven and earth to be healed. This is what is meant by the creation of a New Heavens and New Earth.

When we take note of this Temple Theology, we begin to better understand the work of Christ. Not only did he reconcile God's people on the cross, but as NT. Wright states, Jesus' resurrection is to be seen as the beginning of the new world, the unveiling of what God is now going to accomplish in the rest of the world. He points out, Mary supposed Jesus was the gardener after his resurrection; thats the right mistake to make because, like Adam, he is charged with bringing God's new world to order. He has come to uproot the thorns and thistles and to plant myrtle and cypress instead, as Isaiah promised in his great picture of the new creation that would result from the Word of God coming like rain and snow into the world. 

This also has implications on the purpose of humanity. If the Garden was a Temple, then Adam was a priest who was responsible for cultivating and keeping it. As Christians, we are called a Royal Priesthood. God never repeals His dominion mandate that was given to Adam. It is recapitulated in the Great Commission, thus we are a set apart people of God who take up Adam’s original commission, which was to have dominion and subdue the earth and spread God’s image throughout the world, spreading the boundaries of the temple. Wright says in Surprised By Hope, "What we do in the Lord is not in vain, and that is the mandate we need for every act of justice and mercy, every program of ecology, every effort to reflect God's wise stewardly image into his creation. In the new creation, the ancient mandate to look after the garden is dramatically reaffirmed."

Review: The Liturgy Trap by James B. Jordan

"We hear all to often that someone has decided to leave the Evangelical Christian faith and to join the Church of Rome, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or High Anglicanism. The lure is liturgy and tradition, and since the Evangelical and Reformed churches so often have such poor worship, it is not hard to understand the pull exercised by those churches that have a heritage of formality, sobriety and beauty. This cure, however, is far worse than the disease. The answer to the weaknesses of Evangelicalism is not a turn toward the fallacies and errors of Rome, Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism, but a return to Biblical patterns of worship. Just as there is true and false doctrine, so there are true and false worship patterns. In this book, James B. Jordan sorts out the true and the false in the area of worship practice, discussing the cult of the saints, the veneration of icons, apostolic succession, virginity and celibacy, the presence of Christ at His Supper, and the doctrine of tradition." - The Liturgy Trap 

Recently I took a couple of days and read the Kindle version of James B. Jordan's book The Liturgy Trap: The Bible Versus Mere Tradition in Worship. The book is an apologetic pleading to those Christians who have been enchanted by the liturgies of Rome, Constantinople, and the Anglo-Catholics. Jordan premise basically is that though he understands that liturgy is a real need in the life of the Christian, we should not leave our sure theological foundation for it, and if we do - we actually fall under the judgment of God.

After making this clear at the beginning, Jordan then dismantles some of the main theological underpinnings of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholic systems.

Praying to Mary and the Saints Violates God's Law

In regards to praying to Mary and the saints, Jordan states that "the bottom line is this: The Bible forbids speaking to the dead. Any kind of liturgical piety that authorizes conversations with Mary and the saints must be rejected." To sum up his point, Jordan states, "lets stop abusing Mary. She was and is a wonderful person. She does not want to be worshipped or adored. She does not engage in necromancy, making appearances to people and leading them to break God's law against communing with the dead."

This is a very strong point that I wish Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics would consider more. Should we expect Mary, and the saints who love God and his commandments to openly break them and commit a sin and crime that was worthy of death under the Law (Lev. 20:27)? Those who did such things were abominations to the Lord (Deut. 18:9-12). Those who love God are said to "keep my (Jesus') commandments", not break them (John 14:15). As Jordan says, the Bible is clear on speaking to the dead. We must reject any kind of liturgical system that authorizes such practices. If we partake in such a practice, we will surely fall under God's judgment.

Tradition, Smadition 

Jordan doesn't just stop there. He also takes on the doctrine of Holy Tradition which is cleaved to tightly by Catholics and Orthodox. He states that "Tradition is far, far less clear than the Bible. After all, where can anyone go to find a clear statement of the 'Tradition'? Moreover, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, and the Anglo-Catholics have very serious differences over what the 'Tradition' contains. The Orthodox say that the 'Tradition' means the only two-dimensional paintings may be put in the church; statues are forbidden. Rome says that 'Tradition' includes the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, two points rejected in Orthodoxy. The Orthodox say that the West left the 'Tradition' when it put the Filioque clause in the Creed while the Armenian Church says that Orthodoxy left the 'Tradition' by writing the Nicene Creed in the first place.

Jordan goes on to state, "tradition has value and theological importance, but it is not on the same level as the Bible. The Bible is the self-attesting Word of God; tradition is not self-attesting. . . Moreover, finally, it should be obvious that the 'Tradition' of the Fathers is only what we say it is. We take what we like and call the Authentic Tradition, and we discard the rest as unfortunate chaff. This is what the Rome, Anglo-Catholic, and Orthodox do as well. The Fathers do not say what the 'Tradition' is; we do."

This is a valid point, and appears to be a real problem for these systems. If Tradition is authoritative, then what does that include? How can it be authoritative if the content within the tradition is often times in disagreement with itself? Depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer. However, regardless of the answer, this destroys the doctrine entirely, because at the very bottom of it, as Jordan points out, Holy Tradition is never anything more than what men say it is. Nobody denies that the Fathers erred on all kinds of points. As Jordan points out, Irenaeus held that Jesus was fifty years old when he was crucified. Does anyone really want to defend this? The fact is that everyone picks and chooses when it comes to church history. As Biblical Christians, we must used the Bible as our guide as to what Tradition is true and what is not.

Gnostic Mary 

Jordan also takes down Apostolic Succession, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and Iconology.

The argument against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is very intriguing. Jordan states that this doctrine is founded within a Greek ascetic mindset rather than a Hebraic, Biblical mindset. He states, "Somehow, sex and the enjoyment of it seems 'dirty', and Mary has been freed from this. Maybe more modern Catholic and Orthodox theologians don't think this way, but those who developed the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary did think this way." He then goes on to say, "The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is a sad distortion of what the Bible teaches about virginity, and expresses the powerful influence of the anti-body mindset of Greek philosophy."

Jordan states that this doctrine finds its roots in Greek Gnosticism, which teaches a Dualism that the spirit is good, and the physical is evil. When applied to Mary, one can immediately see the influence - perpetual virginity is good, sex is evil.

Overall Thoughts 

In conclusion, I agree with Jordan's premise. The answer isn't leaving behind our Reformed bonafides behind because we have been enchanted by the liturgies of these systems. If we do, we will surely find ourselves under the judgment of God for partaking in necromancy, idolatry, and rejecting the authority of Scripture for tradition and Greek philosophy. Instead, we must recover a Biblical concept of worship. Liturgy is a real need, but not at the expense of truth. We don't just need one or the other. We need both. 

The only thing that I didn't like about this book was that the Kindle version that I bought had many spelling and formatting errors. Sometimes this left me guessing at what Jordan was actually saying at some points, but I thankfully I was able to figure it out.

This book is light reading and can be knocked out in a day or two easily. This will be a handy little book I'll keep back for reference when conversing with Catholics and Orthodox.

Overall, I would recommend this book. It providentially came into my life at a time when I began studying many of the doctrines of Rome and the East. So with all of this in mind, the only thing I would recommend to those who are interested in this short book get the paperback version instead of the Kindle version.

My 2016 Goals and How I'm Accomplishing Them

This year, I have eleven goals. They consist of spiritual, productivity, health, and professional goals.

Now, why am I setting goals and talking about scheduling? Shouldn't I just rely upon God and let whatever happens happen? Well, in short, no. God calls and expects us to take dominion in our lives, and to glorify him in those tasks. He expects us to be good stewards of the time he has by grace given to us, and expects us to bring creation into submission for his glory. If you have the chance, sit down and read the Book of Proverbs and notice how much the writer talks about planning and not being a sluggard.

So this year, my goals are on paper, and they're reviewed everyday, so that I may better glorify God in my day-to-day by taking dominion.

Here are my 2016 goals:

1. Write and publish a short commentary on a book, letter, or section of the New Testament consisting of 50-100 pages. (By July 1st, 2016) 
2. Publish 36 blog posts on Federal Man by posting at least three articles per week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. (By December 31st, 2016)
3. Read the Bible in 365 Days by finding a plan on the YouVersion app and set daily reminders. (By December 31st, 2016)
4. Achieve 10-12% body fat percentage and achieve a normal BMI by running 10 miles per week, and only taking in 2,000 calories per day. (By July 27th, 2016)
5. Read 12 books per year month by reading one book per month. Do not start another until the first is finished. (Read one book by the end of every month, 12 books by December 31st, 2016) 
6. Book and take two vacations - One in-state vacation per year and take one out-of-state vacation per year. (Book by January 31st, 2016)  
7. Save $3,000 per year - $30,000 per decade - by saving $250 per month and placing it in savings before any other payments come out. (Place in bank account at the end of each month, and by December 31st, 2016) 
8. Increase the value of my home by beautifying the land by installing a Koi ponds, flower beds, and planting a garden. (By August 31st, 2016) 
9. Become a COII at work by attending work faithfully. (By April 30th, 2016)
10. Join the DJS Honor Guard by contacting Lieutenant and conveying interest. (By April 30th, 2016)
11. Join one Martial Arts discipline, and obtain a rank by the end of year. (Join by January 31st, 2016, and rank by December 31st, 2016)

Now, these aren't extravagant goals. They're do-able, and that's a good thing. They're SMART goals. I find the more specific I am, the more likely I am to accomplish what's on the to-do list. Though not extravagant, they're relevant to the season in my life, and they're easily broken down into daily tasks that chip away at the goal. 

For example, at the beginning of the month, I examine the book that I'll be reading, and calculate how many chapters I must read per day to meet my goal of reading the book in the month. So, my to-do list at the beginning of the day looks something like:

• Read one chapter of such and such book before bed. 

To accomplish my goal of writing a commentary, I set aside time everyday to read, take notes, and read other commentaries on a portion of Scripture everyday. At some point (to which I need to set a date), I will start putting those notes on a Pages document and start editing what will become a commentary. On my to-do list, this practically works out to look like:

• Read one chapter of the Gospel of Matthew and take notes before bed. 

There are some things that I didn't put in here. Thats just because they're already a part of my regular week. For example, my wife and I have a date night every Friday night. That may be going out to the movies, going out to dinner at a nice restaurant, or it could just mean watching a movie and eating at the house without the distraction of cell phones and computers. I don't need to put that in my goal list, because it's already a part of my weekly to-do list. 

I'm putting all these daily tasks in a Bullet Journal system. For me, it works the best. I've used apps on my iPhone. I've used reminders. None of that works for me. I have to physically write it down on paper into a Moleskine, and use the Bullet Journal system. I keep that Moleskine with me all day long, and in the back pocket I carry a copy of my goal list so that I can revisit it at anytime and refresh my memory. 

If you're interested in learning more about my daily system, consider watching this short overview of the Bullet Journal system. 

2016 Reading List

This coming year, one of my goals in my reading is to read outside of my circle slightly more than what I have in previous years. The main reason for this is that I feel that I have grown enough in my convictions and understanding of Reformed Theology that I can now confidently read works of other authors who do not share my same beliefs, and accurately critique those views from a Reformed standpoint. I want to take some time to better study the arguments for Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism in particular, so that I will be more able to critique them in a more accurate manner. I would also like to read some Eastern Orthodox works as well, but I'm not currently aware of any (Recommendations?). This year, I plan on writing many more book reviews and critiques than in previous years.

My goal for this year is to read one book per month, which will end up at twelve books for the year. Hopefully I can knock out some smaller books early so I can either start on some larger books that I will be reading, or sneak in some books that I hadn't planned on reading.

My list for this year is as so:

1. The Liturgy Trap - James B. Jordan 
2. The Baptized Body - Peter Leithart 
3. Rules For Reformers - Douglas Wilson 
4. Expository Apologetics - Voddie Baucham 
5. Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief - John Frame 
6. Rome Sweet Home - Scott Hahn 
7. The Anglican Way - Thomas McKenzie 
8. The Confessions of St. Augustine - Augustine 
9. The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology - Jordan Cooper 
10. National Covenanting - Brian Schwertley 
11. Christianity and Capitalism - R.J. Rushdoony 
12. By What Standard - R.J. Rushdoony 

This year, my goals are deepen my understanding of liturgical worship, while further developing my understanding of Covenant Theology. I want to becoming even more well versed in Apologetics, which in turn will help me to be better equipped for critiquing views opposing my own in a more accurate manner. I want to look to the past in reading Augustine, and better understand where Presbyterians came from by reading Schwertley, and where they went by reading Rushdoony. In doing so, I feel that I will be better equipped to understand where we're going in the future. 

What are you reading this year? What are your reading goals? What books would you recommend? 

The Gospel is for West Virginia

The other night, I attended a "good old-fashioned barn-burning revival" at a local Baptist church with my father-in-law. It's been a while since I've attended one since I became Presbyterian a while ago.

It was your typical run of the mill Baptist revivals, if you've ever been to one. Not much has changed:

Still lots of southern gospel music, lots of shouting testimonies, lots of "hacking" preaching, lots of hellfire and brimstone, and lots of altar calls.

 To be honest, as I reflect back on the evening and the actual content of the "revival", I find myself sorely disappointed.

 Why? You may ask. Isn't revival something that the church needs?

To be frank, I am disappointed when I reflect on the state of the church in West Virginia, especially in regards to preaching. There is a certain lack of theological depth and clarity missing, and unfortunately it is the norm in most churches in West Virginia.

Let me explain. Revivalism flooded through West Virginia coal-camps in the late 1800's - early 1900's, and it never left. West Virginia churches by and large are still Revivalistic and Arminian in their theology. Elements of Finney-style Revivalism are still present and center-piece in a majority of West Virginia churches, along with the "gospel" of easy-believism.

The revival I attended was no exception. As I sat in the pew with my father-in-law, I found myself aghast at the "gospel" preaching that those around me were cheering and ecstatic to hear. As I followed this preachers message, he said one thing that stuck with me.

His concluding words were: "I like that good old-fashioned 1611 King James Bible."

And, then the crowd went wild and applauded the preacher. There was no mention of Jesus, His cross, the shedding of blood, believing in the death, burial, and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, repentance. Nothing. Na-da.

Not once in the entire sermon. Sure, he said the name of Jesus a few times here and there, but the precious content of the gospel was absent, and unfortunately, this is a reflection of the state of the church in West Virginia for the most part (Just ask PCA Pastor Dennis Bills). Our state is too busy being concerned about the King James Bible, altar calls, free-will theology, hellfire and brimstone hacking preaching, and red back hymnals to be concerned about the precious gospel being present in her sermons.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are some faithful, Reformed churches beginning to sprout up throughout the state, and I by no means want to undercut what God is doing in our state by any means. The Lord is in the process of making His known known throughout the mountains of West Virginia so that His people will not only worship Him in spirit, but also in truth. But, we still have a long way to go. There are years worth of revivalism and free-will theology to overcome, but the Lord is faithful.

Before we can ever have actual, true "revival" in the state of West Virginia, and before "Mountaineers" can ever truly become free, as our state motto implies, we must have the actual Gospel here in the Mountain State. The Gospel is for West Virginia.

Interpreting Revelation: The Maximalist Approach - An Alternative To The Four Interpretive Methods

A while back, I came across an interesting article written by Peter Leithart at First Things on interpreting Revelation. As most are aware, Leithart is a fairly controversial figure who is a part of the Federal Vision conversation. That aside, I found his article to be very intriguing, because in the article Leithart puts forth a position that harmonizes the futurist, historicist, idealist, and preterist interpretations of Revelation. In his article, he refers to this position as typological preterism. I prefer to refer to it as maximalism, because it seeks to make the best use of each of the four interpretive positions.

Before we look further into the maximalist position (as I am calling it), we must lay a groundwork for those who are unfamiliar with the differing schools of interpretation of Revelation. Leithart puts forth a pretty good summary of each by stating:

For futurists, the book of Revelation describes the events leading up to the end of the space-time universe, the final coming of Jesus. Futurist interpretations need not be pre-millennial, but they often are.

Historicists read Revelation as an allegory of the history of the church. This was popular among Reformers, who identified the Catholic Church with the false bride, the whore Babylon.

Idealists claim that the book is not predicting any specific series of events, but giving a symbolic portrait of perennial spiritual battles.

Highlighting the “soon” passages at the beginning and end of Revelation, Preterists claim that Revelation is about events of the late first century or shortly after. This takes various forms. It can take the form of a focus on the Jewish war; it can focus on the church’s early history; or it might extend somewhat further to predict the fall of Rome.

Quoting from Steve Gregg's Parallel Commentary on Revelation, Leithart goes on to demonstrate how each of these schools interpret Revelation 14:8-9:

For historicists, “the first four trumpets represent the four great blows that fell upon the Western Empire from the beginning of the fifth century to its fall in 476.” Some suggest that the images of hail, fire, and blood “symbolize war and the bloodshed and destruction of vegetation that accompany it.” Specifically, “Most interpreters identify this first trumpet with the military conflicts between the Western Roman Empire and hordes of Goths and Vandals under Alaric. . . . The Goths attacked Gaul, Spain, and Italy from the north, burning or destroying everything in their path.” In the first decade of the fifth century, they besieged Rome itself three times.

Preterists often connect the trumpets with events leading up to the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 AD. Gregg quotes one writer’s view that the first four trumpets “probably predict the several years of ravage and pillage prior to the destruction of Jerusalem itself. In this period, the land suffered terribly. The plagues are reminiscent of those in Egypt, at the birth of the Hebrew nation. Here they mark both the latter’s cessation, and the birth of a new nation, the kingdom of God.”

Many futurists take the judgments described in the trumpets literally. Others, while viewing the judgments as future judgments that anticipate the end of the world, interpret the specifics symbolically. One “interprets the third part of the world to be the western confederation of nations, the trees to be great men and leaders, and the crass to be ordinary people.”

For idealist or spiritualist interpreters, the trumpets are interpreted in the light of Old Testament uses of trumpets – to call Israel to worship, to announce a triumph, at the coronation of a new king, as a summons to battle. For one, the judgments “indicate series of happenings, that is, calamities that will occur again and again throughout this dispensation. They do not symbolize single and separate events, but refer to woes that may be seen any day of the year in any part of the globe.”

As Leithart points out in his article, these varied readings can seem so divergent that one begins to even wonder if different interpreters are even reading the same book! But, with a Maximalist reading of the texts, sanity is restored, and the beauty of God's story begins to emerge instead of fragmented pieces. Leithart gives a demonstration of the Maximalist reading of Revelation 14:8-9, stating:

"Literally, the book predicts a specific set of historical events that took place soon after the book was written. Because God is consistent in His work, these historical events are patterned by, and pattern other historical sequences. Just as Revelation depicts a replay of exodus, so later events can follow an exodus sequence. As allegories and tropologies arise from the literal sense, so historicist and idealist readings arise from a preterist interpretation. The trumpet visions were fulfilled in the first century; but similar series of events are repeated at other times in other places. If we learn the melody of the text, we can begin to hear variations of that melody. So, something like the trumpet sequence took place during the collapse of the Western empire, or in the later middle ages. Those events are not the fulfillment of the literal sense, but they are allegorical applications. Futurist approaches are not as easy to fit into a preterist framework, but we can tease out some anagogies from a preterist interpretation. Thus: Revelation is not predicting the end of the physical universe; it uses the imagery of cosmic collapse to unveil the end of the old creation. But it's plausible to assume that the events of the end of the old world foreshadow events at the end of the new. Besides, part of Revelation are literally about final, post-millennial judgment (the end of chapter 20)."

The Maximalist position interprets this passage beautifully. As we can see, there are multiple layers in our interpretation, but the literal meaning is still intact. The trumpet visions were fulfilled in the first century (Preterist), but since God is consistent in His work, we should expect similar events repeated at other times in other places (Futurist). Something similar to the trumpet sequence took place during the collapse of the Western empire, or in the later middle ages (Historicist). Those events are not the fulfillment of the literal sense, but they are allegorical applications (Idealist).

For example, lets apply the Maximalist approach to the Seven Churches found in Revelation 2-3:

The Preterist position sees Jesus commanding John to write the letters to actual churches in the first century; the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.

The Historicist position (and some Futurists, but not all) understands each of these churches as ages. The age of Ephesus is the apostolic age. The age of Smyrna is the persecution of the Church through AD 313. The age of Pergamus is the compromised Church lasting until AD 500. The age of Thyatira is the rise of the papacy to the Reformation. The age of Sardis is the age of the Reformation. The age of Philadelphia is the age of evangelism. The age of Laodicea represents liberal churches in a "present day" context. 

From this also flows the Futurist and Idealist positions, which states that the seven churches are representative of the universal church and that the contents of the letters and visions are applicable to the church through the ages on into the future.

The Maximalist method allows for us to recognize the multiple layers of application. We understand that this passage had immediate and literal fulfillment in the first century. The letters that Jesus commanded John to write were written to real churches (Preterist). 

However, since God does not change, we can expect the things he commanded to be written in these letters to still be relevant to the church today, so there is allegorical application (Idealist). 

Not only are they still releveant, but things written in the letters were always relevant. They were relevant for the churches of the Apostolic era, all the way to the Reformation (Historicist), and we can also expect the things written in these letters to continue to be relevant to all churches in the future (Futurist).

This Maximalist approach can be applied to the entire book of Revelation, as well as other parts of Scripture which share similar genres. This position is faithful to Scripture, allowing us to read Scripture literally, acknowledging immediate fulfillment in the past while still allowing us to be flexible to acknowledge historical, future, and even allegorical/idealized applications.