Periodical Reviews -- By: Anonymous
BSac 130:520 (Oct 73) p. 352
“The Premillennialist and Cultural Concern,” Forrest W. Schultz, Tenth, Spring, 1973, pp. 3-8.
The reader of this article would not know that the author is a premillennialist until he states at the top of the last page, “This paper is an attempt to work toward a premillennial view of cultural concern” (p. 8). From his caricature of premillennialists and his complaints against them the author would be judged an opponent of premillennialism. He gives support to the saying, “With friends like him, who needs enemies?”
The substance of the author’s viewpoint is the following statement: “Christ the present transformer of the believer’s cultural life and the future transformer of the world’s culture in His millennial kingdom” (p. 8). He continues, “In our present Christian lives, the unbeliever should get a glimpse of what the future transformation will be like after Christ’s second advent” (p. 8). With this position any premillennialist should agree.
Most of the article is devoted to proclaiming the fact and explaining the reason why few premillennialists “have seriously wrestled with the matter of developing a biblical cultural outlook” (p. 6). As a result according to the author “many bright Christian minds have spurned premillennialism because in their minds it is associated with cultural unconcern and anti-intellectualism” (p. 6). Neither the fact nor the explanation nor the result can be adequately supported.
“From the Patriarchs to Moses: I. From Abraham to Joseph,” William F. Albright, The Biblical Archaeologist, XXXVI (February. 1973), 5–33.
“From the Patriarchs to Moses: II. Moses out of Egypt,” William F. Albright, The Biblical Archaeologist, XXXVI (May, 1973), 48–76.
In an editorial preface to this posthumously published summary by Albright of his current thinking shortly before his death he is
BSac 130:520 (Oct 73) p. 353
called “perhaps the greatest giant that the field of biblical archaeology has ever known.” This is a valid judgment. This article (divided into two parts for editorial reasons) is substantiating evidence.
Albright was no fundamentalist. This article makes that clear. He openly accepts the documentary composition of the Pentateuch (e.g. p.59). But he has faced honestly the evidence from archaeology that supports the historicity of the Bible. For example he writes, “The idea that Israel was at that time”—the time of Moses—”an ignorant nomadic people is nonsense” (p. 55). Later he warns, “In estimating the contribution of Moses we must, accordingly, beware of ...
Click here to subscribe