Part 4

John G Reisinger

"Covenantal Nomism"

The heart of the New Perspective on Justification is summed up in the phrase covenantal nomism. It is based on the combined ideas of (1) covenant, hence 'covenantal' and (2) obeying the covenant law, hence 'nomism' which would literally mean 'lawism'. The term originated with E. P. Sanders in 1977 with his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders was interested in understanding and defining what is called 'Second-Temple Judaism', or the Judaism at the time of Christ and Paul. He claimed there were clearly established 'patterns of religion' in Second-Temple Judaism that clearly demonstrated that the Jews of that time period had been greatly misrepresented by Luther and his followers. If Sanders was right then either Paul was wrong about the Judaism of his day, or Luther did not clearly understand Paul. Either of these scenarios would necessitate a total re-evaluation of Paul's entire doctrine of justification, and that is exactly what has happened. Luther is accused of reading his own struggles with Romanism into the books of Galatians and Romans and thereby misunderstanding what Paul was really teaching.

Sanders defined his idea of covenantal nomism this way. "A pattern of religion, defined positively, is the description of how a religion is perceived by its adherents to function : how getting in and staying in are understood" (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, by Ed. P Sanders. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, p.16). The phrases 'getting in' and 'staying in' are at the heart of Sander's thesis of 'covenantal nomism' and the whole new approach to justification. Getting in refers to how a person gets into the covenant and staying in refers to how a person stays in the covenant.

Sanders claimed that he had found a clear pattern that proved that Second-Temple Judaism did not, as Paul had been understood by Luther to teach, believe in salvation by works but rather in salvation by grace. He called this common pattern 'covenantal nomism' which he summarized as follows:

The 'pattern' or 'structure' of covenantal nomism is this (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God's promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirements to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintained or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained by covenant obedience, atonement and God's mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God's mercy rather than human achievement (ibid, 422).

In a statement loaded with nuances of New Perspective theology, Don Garlington says the following:

In sum, Lev. 18:5 is the Old Testament's classic statement of 'covenantal nomism'. The verse is 'a typical expression of what Israel saw as its obligation and promise under the covenant'; it is an expression of how first century Jews would have understood righteousness, that is, 'life within the covenant,' 'covenantal nomism,' the pattern of religion and life marked out the righteous, the people of the covenant. Therefore, one continues to live within the covenant relationship by compliance with its terms, that is, by 'doing the law' or perseverance. (From: Garlington quoting Dunn in Role Reversal and Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:10-13, [in JSNT 65 (1997) 85-121] p. 104.)

For our purposes, we must understand that Sanders is saying that an Israelite entered this covenant relationship with God by God's electing grace purely by birth, but he then would have to maintain that covenant status by obedience. The covenant does not demand perfection (see last issue of Sound of Grace) but it does require loyalty to basic covenant requirements. There is atonement and forgiveness for sins that are not 'great sins against the covenant terms' such as apostasy. So by basic obedience to 'boundary markers' that set the Jew apart from the Gentile and also by offering atoning sacrifices for minor sins, those people born, by grace, into the covenant will ultimately be saved. At first glance we are tempted to say, "Apart from skipping personal regeneration, all that Sanders and his followers are doing is insisting on classical Reformed theology's view of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints." In fact this is precisely what the men in our circles who hold this view claim. They insist they are merely fighting an antinomian generation and teaching the need of perseverance.

We believe that the New Perspective has so redefined perseverance that it is a totally different doctrine than the classical Reformed view. We agree there is a problem with antinomianism that needs to be confronted and refuted; however, we feel the New Perspective's cure for the problem is worse than the disease. Turning perseverance into a 'work' that is rewarded in 'final justification' is not the biblical cure for antinomianism. The bottom line for Sanders and his New Perspective followers is that 'getting into the covenant' is by pure grace, actually by birth, but 'staying in the covenant' is based on the individual's obedience. Final justification will be given to the faithful who persevere. The old view that perseverance was both essential and guaranteed as evidence of true faith is not what Sanders and his followers mean by 'staying in'. The difference hinges on exactly what 'perseverance as the essential means of staying in' really means. These men insist that perseverance is more than Reformed theology's teaching that good works are 'evidential' of true faith. Sanders and the New Perspective insist that obedience to the covenant commandments was "expected as the condition for remaining in the covenant community" (ibid, 236). We have no trouble at all with the idea that "obedience to the covenant commandments was expected," it is the connotation of that word 'condition' with which we take issue. We have no problem with insisting that a faith that does not produce good works is a dead faith that will land you in hell. We preach this as strongly as the New Perspective people. However, we believe it is difficult, if not actually impossible, to emphasize the idea of a 'condition' based on personal works that is 'more than evidential' without ultimately also teaching that perseverance is the sinner's necessary work that contributes his part to his final salvation. The problem is not solved by insisting that the 'goods works we do in perseverance' are produced in us by the power of God infusing grace into us. Such an idea cannot equal "salvation by pure grace." That idea is another form of the Roman Catholic synergism of faith and works. We must, as the Reformers did, see it as backhanded 'salvation by works'.

You may read page after page of Sander's book that promotes the idea of 'getting into the covenant' by election, which means being born into the Jewish nation; but you will not read about (1) the total depravity of the individual, and (2) the need for the individual to repent and believe the gospel in order to be saved in the first place. Suppose we ask questions such as: "Were these people who were 'elected' and 'given life' by being born into the covenant also totally depraved sinners who needed to be personally and individually regenerated? Did they have to personally come to repentance and faith before they could participate in one single spiritual blessing of the covenant?" I do not know for sure what people like Dunn and Sanders would say. I assume they would say something like this: "Paul was not primarily concerned with the idea of personal salvation." Moises Silva has correctly understood Dunn on this point.

Dunn himself, for instance (again alluding to Stendahl's thesis) tells us that "Paul's doctrine of justification by faith should not be understood primarily as an exposition of the individual's relationship to God, but primarily in the context of Paul the Jew wrestling with the question of how Jews and Gentiles stand in relationship to each other…" The problem is that the question of "the individual's relation to God" plays no substantive role at all in Dunn's description of Paul's theology…his summary chapter on The Theology of Galatians says nothing whatever about Paul's concern for individual salvation. (From: The Law and Christianity, by Moises Silva, WTJ, 1999, p. 11)

Even the modern adherents of the New Perspective who would not hesitate to answer yes to both of the above questions do not volunteer the fact of their agreement unless they are indeed asked these very questions. The only time we hear these things asserted is when these men are defending themselves.

Such questions as the following immediately come to mind:

1. Was every Israelite that was in the covenant by birth also automatically justified? Or could he be 'in the covenant' and be unsaved?

2. What does 'given life' as a result of being one of the elect or being born an Israelite really mean? What kind of life was it? Is 'given life' the same things as regeneration? If not, then where does regeneration come into the picture?

3. Could one be in the covenant and given life but finally fail to preserve and thus lose one's salvation?

As we can see, it is essential to be clear with regard to the meaning of 'in the covenant'. The moment we start discussing the spiritual state of every single Jew, in spite of his birth in the nation and his circumcision, and insist he was a lost sinner on his way to hell apart from faith in the gospel, the picture starts to get murky.

Don Garlington speaks of 'getting in' by birth as if it were equal to 'being saved'. I doubt that is what he means but it sounds exactly like what he is saying. All of the following quotes are taken from an address he gave to the incoming students at Toronto Baptist Seminary where he was a teacher at the time. It was put into writing and distributed as Don's position on justification.

Israel has been redeemed, because they were given life at the time of the Exodus. They didn't have to earn a thing, but they were expected to persevere in the life that had been given them. p.4

Throughout the Book of Deuteronomy you have the recurring theme, 'this do and live.' Not to keep those statutes in order to earn your salvation [JGR: Since you already had salvation?], but so that you may continue to enjoy God's blessing as you are within the covenant [JGR: Stay saved?]. p.4

So Dunn agrees with Sanders that first of all, you get into the covenant, and then you stay in it. In the case of the Jew, he is born into the covenant [JGR: Made a child of God?] and he stays in it by perseverance. p.6

These three quotations show us, to some degree, what the New Perspective means by 'getting in'. In the first quote we see that Israel was 'redeemed' and 'given life' at the Exodus. It was now their duty to "persevere in the life that had been given them." What kind of 'life' was given to Israel at the Exodus? It sounds like spiritual life. It sounds like Israel was converted. But we know from both the OT Scriptures and the NT Scriptures that most of them were as lost as the pagans. Numbers 14:26-35 records where everyone in Israel over twenty years old perished in unbelief in spite of their redemption from Egypt. As we shall see in a moment, treating redemptive words like 'chosen' and 'redeemed' as if they meant the same things when used in the OT Scriptures as they do in the NT Scriptures is one of the root errors of any form of 'covenant theology' that does not see the church as a New Covenant creation.

The second quote also clearly implies that perseverance was necessary to maintain the 'salvation' that was given at the Exodus or you were put out of the covenant. Israel did not do a single thing to 'get in' since that was by birth, but they had to maintain their salvation status by works. In other words, they were saved by election, being born into Israel, and were kept saved by their works. Peter Enns has said it well:

To put it most succinctly, according to Sanders, "salvation is not earned by obedience, although it may be forfeited by disobedience." Obedience… is the condition of salvation…, but not its cause," "Obedience preserves salvation." … It seems that the whole thrust of Sander's argument is that the "basis of salvation" is only "membership in the covenant" (i.e., election) and not "loyalty to it," which is obedience. I will not venture to suggest that Sanders is contradicting himself. He is, after all attempting to bring clarity to a difficult issue by means of a somewhat unaccommodating text. Nevertheless, his choice of words at this point serves to augment that lack of clarity. From: Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1, p. 95.

Garlington's third quote makes it quite clear that physical birth put the Jew into the covenant and works keep him there, hence 'covenantal'—getting in—and 'nomism'—staying in. Garlington insists his work is not "cast in terms of whether one can 'lose' his salvation;" however, his concept of being in the covenant by birth and then losing that covenant relationship equals 'saved and lost'. Garlington approvingly quotes Sanders as follows: "As Sanders more than once affirms, 'All Israelites have a share in the world to come unless they renounce it by transgression' (i.e. apostasy)." (From: Statement on Justification, by Don Garlington, p. 9.) That statement certainly seems to equal 'saved by birth' and 'kept saved by works'. The New Perspective clearly equates electing grace with birth into the nation of Israel. They never explicitly state, "The Israelite was automatically justified because of his birth," but they constantly treat him that way. 'Being given life' in the sense Sanders, Dunn, and Garlington use that phrase equals justification or salvation. Covenantal nomism is shorthand for 'saved by grace and sanctified by works'.

It is imperative that we understand that identical redemptive words do not mean the same thing when they are used of Israel that they mean when they refer to the church as the body of Christ. We dare not use Old Testament typology as if it were New Testament reality. Let me illustrate this with a specific passage of Scripture.

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deut 7:6-8 KJV)

The words that are used in the above passage to describe an Israelite are also the exact words used to describe a Christian as part of the body of Christ. We must realize that every single one of those redemptive words means something entirely different when used of Israel than when used of the church.

(1) Israel, the entire nation, was a 'holy people', but still most of those 'holy people' were lost rebels that perished in hell. Hebrews 3:17-4:2 gives us a clear description of the true spiritual state of the people who were described as "holy, loved, chosen, and redeemed."

17. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness?

18. And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

20. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

21. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

The body of Christ is also a holy nation, but not one person in that holy nation will ever perish. It is important to remember that every single Israelite was an equal part of the holy nation regardless of whether he was a believer or an unbeliever. This is not possible in the true holy nation. I am aware that the paedo-baptist's view of the church allows for both saved and lost to be legitimate 'church members', but we reject that view.

(2) Israel, the entire nation, was 'loved by God' as no other nation before or after, but most of those people 'loved by God' perished in hell in unbelief. Again, it is important to remember that every single Israelite was loved by God regardless of whether he was a believer or an unbeliever. An unsaved Israelite could say, "God loves me in a way he did not love the Egyptian."

(3) Israel, the entire nation, was sovereignly 'chosen by God' to be his special people, but nearly all the 'chosen' nation was left in their sin and perished in hell. Again, it is important to remember that every single Israelite was 'chosen by God'. Whether he was a believer or an unbeliever he could say, "God chose me and by passed the Egyptians."

(4) Israel, the entire nation, was redeemed by blood out of Egypt, but nearly all those 'redeemed people' died under the wrath of God. Again, it is important to remember that every single Israelite was equally redeemed. A lost Israelite was just as much redeemed by blood as was the saved Israelite.

(5) Israel, the entire nation, was sovereignly and powerfully 'called out of bondage,' but most of those 'called' people died in bondage to sin without having been given eyes to see the truth. Again, it is important to remember that every single Israelite was equally 'called out of Egypt' whether he was lost or saved.

(6) Israel, the entire nation, was called God's son in Hosea 11:1, but the nation was totally disowned by God. God can never disown a new covenant son of God.

Israel, the 'holy, loved, chosen, redeemed, and called' people of God were almost all lost and died and went to hell! All those words apply to Israel as a physical nation and not to God's true people. Israel was indeed God's son as a nation among nations, but he was still cast off and rejected by God! The following can be noted from these facts:

First, Israel was not 'holy' in the same sense that the body of Christ is 'holy in Christ'. The word holy means 'separate' as well as morally pure. Israel, as a nation, was indeed separate from all other nations, but they were nonetheless just as spiritually lost as the other nations. All the special privileges God gave to Israel did not make her morally pure. God could never say and do to the Body of Christ the things he said and did to Israel. Likewise, God could never have said and done to Israel the things he said and did to the body of Christ. We will compare two verses to illustrate this point.

The nation of Israel was a rebellious nation that never really knew the Lord. They were loved, chosen, called, redeemed, and were God's son: "Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day" (Deut. 29:4 KJV). Amazing! Those words could never be spoken to the loved, chosen, called, redeemed sons of God in the body of Christ, the New Covenant community, since all of them "know the Lord." All 'covenant children' are regenerated under the New Covenant. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Heb. 8:11 KJV).

It is vital that we understand that the very same nation that was not given eyes to see is the same nation that was 'holy, chosen, loved, called, and redeemed'. Also, each member of the nation was 'holy, loved, chosen, redeemed, and called' just by virtue of the fact he was part of the nation. This was true whether the individual was lost or saved, whether he was a believer or unbeliever.

Second, Israel was loved by God as no other nation. Amos 3:2 says of Israel, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth…" The word 'know' means loved or chosen, but in this case it was not a redemptive love that assured salvation.

Third, Israel was chosen by God to be his special nation. Amos 3:2 applies here also. However, the very same nation that was loved and chosen was also rejected and cast off. This could never happen to the true people of God.

Fourth, Israel was redeemed by blood out Egypt. Most of that first generation of redeemed people perished in unbelief in the wilderness, but nonetheless every single one of them was part of the 'redeemed people of God'. That is not the same as "being redeemed with the precious blood of Christ," 1 Peter 1:18-20.

Fifth, Israel was sovereignly and powerfully called of out bondage to the Egyptians and experienced genuine freedom. But this physical freedom is not freedom from sin and the calling is not effectual calling into Christ. Again, the same words but not the same spiritual experience.

Six, God calls the nation of Israel "my son." "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hos. 11:1). This is one of God's sons that He totally disowned and cast out.

It should be clear that all six of these redemptive words do not have the same redemptive meaning when they refer to Israel as a nation that they have when they refer to the church as the body of Christ. The New Perspective builds its case by using these redemptive words to describe Israel's 'election and given life' as if those words denote spiritual reality and experience. They build their doctrine of 'the redeemed people of God' who are 'given life' on Israel's physical redemption from Egypt. They mix apples and oranges by treating types as if they were realities.

An Israelite could be 'holy' and accepted within the camp just by virtue of his birth. Birth into the camp was not spiritual birth into Christ; and staying 'ceremonially clean' so as to remain in the camp was not, as the New Perspective insists, the same as 'perseverance of the saints'. An unregenerate Israelite could be ceremonially clean and could correctly insist he was one of the 'chosen of God'. But that did not mean the same thing that these words mean: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph. 1:4). A lost Israelite could persevere in maintaining his ceremonial cleanness and not be put out of the camp, but that did not mean he would be 'justified' in the end. It was the mistake of making these things to be the same that was the great problem of the Jews. It is also the great mistake of the New Perspective.

An Israelite could testify that he was loved and chosen, but it did not mean what John 13:1 says, "…having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." Nor was an Israelite "chosen… to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit" as it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. The electing love of God that chose us unto salvation is not the same electing love that chose Israel to be a special nation among all the nations.

The redemption by blood on Passover night is not the same as redemption by the blood of Christ shed on the cross. One was physical; its application was based on physical birth, and the means was animal blood. The other is spiritual; its application is based on God's personal election alone, and its means is the 'precious blood of Christ.' Again, I remind you that every Israelite was redeemed regardless of his spiritual state.

The calling by God that brought Israel out of Egypt is not the same as Romans 1:7. Israel was never "the called of Christ Jesus." Being delivered from the bondage of Egypt is not deliverance from death and sin.

The sonship referred to in Hosea is national and not at all the same as John 1:12 and I John 3:1-2.

I trust you recognize the importance of realizing that every one of these redemptive words mean something entirely different when used of Israel as a nation and when used of a Christian as a member of the body of Christ. All of these words, when used of an Israelite, are indeed a type of the realities we have in Christ, but they are only types. When any doctrine uses the typology of Israel's 'redemption by blood' to build a theology of salvation for the New Covenant people of God it should automatically be suspect.

You may show that all six of these words are clearly applied to an Israelite; but not once will the word 'justified' automatically follow because any or all of those things are true. The exact opposite is true in the NT Scriptures. God's electing love will always, without a single exception lead to effectual calling, and calling will always lead to sure justification. That is the truth of Romans 8:28-32. These things are certain wherever there is a true atonement. Most of the Old Covenant people of God were lost in spite of the fact that they were loved, chosen, redeemed, called. Every single covenant child in the new nation, the church, is sure of salvation because those wonderful words mean something entirely different.

It is appropriate to point out that there were some Israelites that truly believed and were truly redeemed. But they were very few. However, that is not the point. Every Israelite was loved, chosen, redeemed, and called, regardless of whether he believed the gospel or not. The vital truth to grasp is that those words in no way meant the same thing to him as they do to us under the New Covenant.

The failure to see this clear truth is one of the glaring self-contradictions in the New Perspective. Words like "God will be their God" can not be applied in a redemptive sense to any nation or individual that is cast off by God. Israel, as a nation was cast off in respect to special national status (Matt. 21:33-46), and likewise many baptized children of godly parents have perished in hell. When the above words are taken in the spiritual sense of the New Testament, they mean absolute eternal security for every child born into the New Covenant, or body of Christ.

I know I am repeating myself but it is vital that these basic facts be grasped and applied to our theological thinking. Israel was indeed 'called' out of Egypt by God's grace and power, but the word 'called' does not mean the same thing as it does in Romans 1:7. Every single Israelite was 'redeemed' by blood out of bondage in Egypt, but most of them perished in unbelief. The 'redemption by blood' in Exodus 12 is not the same 'redemption by blood' as that in Ephesians 1:7. One is a type and the other is the reality, even as physical Israel is a type and the body of Christ is the reality.

The New Perspective proponents disregard the above truth by mixing apples and oranges. They are not alone in doing this. Both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism also use typology as if it were the reality of the thing typified. Dispensationalism builds a doctrine of 'carnal Christians' on the fact (?) that Israel in the wilderness was a 'redeemed people'. Since they applied the blood to the door posts 'in faith', they were truly 'saved'. There is not much difference in the New Perspective saying, "Israel was redeemed, was given life," and Dispensationalism saying, "they had enough faith to be 'redeemed,' but not enough faith to enjoy a 'victorious life.'" Here is the Dispensational view, noted from Numbers 14:23, as set forth in the first edition Scofield Bible :

Kadesh-barnea is, by the unbelief of Israel there, and the divine comment on that unbelief (Numbers 14:22-38; Deut 1:19-40; I Cor 10:1-5), invested with immense spiritual significance. The people had faith to sprinkle the blood of atonement (Ex 12:28) and to come out of Egypt (the world), but they had not faith to enter into their Canaan rest. Therefore, though redeemed, they were a forty-year grief to Jehovah.

Covenant Theology and the New Perspective do exactly the same thing. Teachers of both of these systems will vehemently reject the clear truth that Sinai was a legal covenant of works simply because it is impossible for God "to put a redeemed people" under a legal covenant, and Israel was truly redeemed—and by "redeemed," they both mean, or imply, saved. One group is just as bad as the other in their misuse of typology. The following quotation is from a widely used commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 43, which is dealing with the preface to the Ten Commandments. It was written by G.I Williamson. It amazes me that brilliant and godly men cannot see the implications of their theological system.

When God delivered His people out of slavery in Egypt, it was not because they had kept the Ten Commandments. No, He first delivered them, and then gave them the Ten Commandments. So they were not expected to try to keep the law in order to be saved. Rather they were expected to do this because they already had been SAVED. And this is exactly the way it is in the life of a Christian.

I doubt that any Covenant Theologian, including Mr. Williamson, would say, "I believe that every single Israelite that left Egypt in the Exodus was a justified believer in Christ" even though that is exactly what he has written! Williamson's system of theology forces him to treat the nation of Israel as if those people were all saved. His statement argues a key theological point and he treats typology as absolute fact. In his argument he totally equates Israel's physical salvation with the spiritual salvation of the church. I doubt Williamson would ever say, "The Exodus experience of redemption was equal to true justification by faith for every single Israelite that was involved." However, he must actually treat them that way in his theological system. This is his primary argument for rejecting the Mosaic Covenant as a legal covenant of works.

The New Geneva Study Bible (1995 edition) does the same thing:

"Although the covenant at Sinai required obedience to God's laws under the threat of His curse, it was a continuation of the covenant of grace (Ex. 3:15; Deut. 7:7, 8; 9:5, 6). God gave the commandments to a people He had already redeemed and claimed (Ex.19:4; 20:2)." p. 30.

The last line of that quote could have come right out of the pages of the New Perspective. We have already referred to quotes where they have, in effect, said, "Israel was redeemed, given life, but they were then instructed to obey the covenant commandments." It is always the same in any form of Covenant Theology-'saved by grace and kept by obedience'.

To Be Continued

Note from the Editor: It was not my original intention to spend so much time on this subject. However, the more I have really looked into what is being taught, the more convinced I have become that the New Perspective on justification is a major departure from both Scripture and historic Reformed theology. For any who want to study the work of scholars, I would especially recommend two books:

Paul and the New Perspective, by Seyoon Kim; William Eerdman's Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, (2002).

Justification and Variegated Nomism, Edited by D.A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid,; Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, (2001).

Both of these books are very expensive and both are heavy reading, but they clearly understand and present both the historic view and the New Perspective's view of justification.

Copyright 2004 John G. Reisinger