The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 7 - Sabbath Extracts

In part six, we concluded the main argument that Ross makes in his lecture and his book for why the threefold division of the should be continue to be the church's ongoing testimony of understanding the law of God.

Ross ended that part by looking at Ephesians 6:1 - 3 in light of some commentators who try to argue that Paul is not issuing an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment, but issuing a call from some other source for children to obey their parents. Ross ended the lecture by reaffirming that the moral law shapes our understanding of Christ's penal substitution on the cross, and by exhorting his listeners and readers that we must hold on to this doctrine to understand the Gospel.

However, I left out Ross' main two defenses of understanding Sabbath as still being the moral law, and I want to now include those sections of Ross' argument separate from the other six posts for a few reasons. The main reason being that I view Ross' examples of Christians arguing for or against the abiding validity of the Sabbath as a demonstration of the confusion that exists within the Reformed churches and the broader Christian church about how to understand all the laws that God gave in light of Christ's finished work on the cross. For me, the biggest contribution of Ross' research is about explaining that the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws are the only possible way to understand the whole of Scripture without having to sacrifice the parts of Scripture that don't fit. Therefore, defenses of any one particular commandment, while helpful, are in my opinion raising flags to get people to pay attention.

A number of Christians, however, today have trouble with how to understand the Sabbath, and furthermore, because of that problem will not consider Ross' book in the first place because of Ross' defense of the Sabbath throughout the book and in the lecture. Phil Johnson, who pastors with John MacArthur, while reviewing Ross' book cannot get past Ross' defense throughout his book of the Sabbath because of his dispensationalism and as a result the review becomes very difficult to follow and largely unhelpful. More generally, while Tom Shreiner believes that the threefold division is biblical, the presence of a commandment about the Sabbath raises questions in his mind about how to understand the division; Justin Taylor, while commending the threefold division, nevertheless does not think it "fully works" because of the commandment about the Sabbath. My point in separating the substance (problem) from the demonstration of the problem is that the argument for the division needs to be considered before some people will consider rather or not the Sabbath applies to belevers today or it does not.

There are other books which defend the Reformed position on the Sabbath, but none of them currently include much of a defense of the threefold division, but Ross' book does both because Ross believes, and I agree, that the rejection of the Sabbath and the threefold division are linked together. Just because, however, the link exists does not mean there is only one way to defend both truths. Ross chooses to lead out his defense of the threefold division by showing where the most heat against the doctrine is currently being generated. I, however, think it might be more helpful to lay out the doctrine then show how it practically affects other doctrines. I think it is more helpful because, as has been shown, the threefold division has had many different attacks from other angles in the past, that do not only originate with a rejection or acceptance of the Sabbath.

Despite whatever differences I might have with Ross about the structure of his presentation, I do agree with Ross about the abiding validity of the Sabbath for the Christian.

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

I will break this up into two parts in my one post and note where in the lecture the two different sections the extracts are from in the lecture. The first part is from the Introduction in the lecture.

----------------

According to Tim Keller, nearly all presbyters in the PCA subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 'with only the most minor exceptions (the only common one being with regard to the Sabbath).' (pg. 5)

If, however, such an exception amounts to a wholesale rejection of the Confession's approach to the Sabbath, then Ross suspects the Westminster Divines might have thought that to call it minor was probably understatement. (pg. 5)

If the WCF were a garment, you would not want to pull this thread, unless you wanted to be altogether defrocked. (pg, 5)

Ross wonders if the reason why some people pull at this thread is because they regard the Confession as more of a straightjacket than a garment. (pg. 5)

Unbuckle the Sabbath, and as far as Reformed Theology is concerned you are well on the way to mastering theological escapology. (pg. 5)

If this sounds like overstatement to rival Keller's understatement, Ross wants to remind his listeners that biblical law, with its Sabbath, is not an easily dispensable part of our doctrinal infrastructure. (pgs. 5, 6)

You cannot perform a precision strike on the Sabbath without producing an embarrassing amount of collateral damage. (pg. 6)

You cannot strike out the Sabbath without shattering the entire category of moral law and all that depends on it. (pg. 6)

If the Shorter Catechism represents Westminster theology in its most practical form, it would seem that any expurgation of biblical law from the theological framework it expounds, should lead to its complete unraveling. (pg. 6)

----------------

The next part is from the section titled Jesus and the Gospels

----------------

One thing that does not appear in Matthew 5 is anything about Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath.

It's often assumed that Jesus disregarded the Sabbath and that the Gospel writers conveyed that.

But Ross thinks Géza Vermes is right, if the evangelists were seeking to do that 'they did a pitiful job'. (pg. 173)

Even the authors of From Sabbath to Lord's Day have to agree that Jesus did not brake the Sabbath. (pg. 167)

Ross think there is little point in going into detail with the book because of their conclusion in a summary written by Andrew Lincoln for the book (pgs. 171 - 172):

The veiled nature of Jesus' ministry accounts for the slight ambiguity in regard to His relation to the Sabbath and for the fact that for a time in the early church there were those who continued Sabbath observance while the full implications of the entry to the new age accomplished by Christ were being worked out.

Ross contends that Lincoln's conclusion makes little sense. In fact, it is inexplicable considering the dates for the Gospels range from A.D. 50 - 150. How much tome did they need to work things out? (pg. 172)

If Mark clearly understood that Jesus had declared all foods clean, why did He choose to leave his readers in the dark over so fundamental an issue as the Sabbath? (pg. 172)

Until someone does better than raise the anti-Sabbatarian case from the Gospels from the 'pitifil' to the ambiguous there is little to gain be engaging in this discussion.

The evangelists represent Jesus as a Sabbath-keeper, who does not undermine the ordnance by word, action, or yet-to-be-understood personal claims. (pg. 173)

----------------

While in this section Ross does not specifically deal with the Colossians 2:14 - 15 passage which both are the given reason for Taylor and Dr. Schreiner's caveat about the threefold division Ross did address the Colossian text in part five. Since I don't want to make in seem like I'm only picking on the Gospel Coalition or Baptists, I need to also include the Lutherans' Dr. John Theodore Mueller and Dr. Francis Pieper. Both men wrote very popular and still used works on Christian Dogmatics. Near the bottom of page 213, Dr. Mueller rests his entire case on the Ten Commandments not being identified with the moral law on the sole argument of the Sabbath commandment being the ceremonial feature of the Ten Commandments. Since Dr. Mueller's one-volume work is based on Dr. Pieper's four-volume work I assume that both men agree on this argument, but have not yet verified Dr. Pieper's position in print.

Now I'm really done with the whole lecture, but I do want to ofter a bit more coverage of Ross' book in relation to some other controversies in the Reformed world. One of, which, is about a claim made by a few Westminster California professors about the application of the first four commandments to the other nations than Israel in the time of the Old Testament.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 6 - Conclusion

In part five, we finished looking at the changes that took place to the law after the temple veil was torn in two pieces when Jesus died by surveying the letters that the Apostles wrote to the churches about how to understand and apply the Old Testament (OT) writings to their new situation of living in between the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ.

We saw, where in the New Testament (NT) the category of ceremonial law is demonstrated, and we saw why the Westminster Divines conclude that this part of God's law is abrogated. Furthermore, we saw that the civil laws entail the laws that God gave are neither ceremonial or moral; these laws had a temporal standing for the Jewish nation that still speak even though they and their penalties have expired with the nation of Israel being the exclusive theater of God's redemptive work. Lastly, we saw, that in spite of some older and more recent attempts to explain the Ten Commandments as not being an ever binding rule in this present age that the moral law is ineffably inscribed on human hearts and binding on all people everywhere regardless of time or place.

The following notes are from a March 2010 address delivered by Philip S. Ross. He also published a book on the same topic.

As with my other posts, here's the bird's eye view on all the posts in this series:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

----------------

Ross wants to conclude by considering the most prominent example of a single commandment cited in the context of a ethical exhortation: Ephesians 6:1 - 3. (pg. 341)

Ephesians 6:1 - 3, in Ross' opinion which he seeks to prove, is difficult to interpret in any other way than as an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment. (pg, 341)

It is interesting to how two contributors to From Sabbath to Lord's Day deal with Ephesians 6:1 - 3 because From Sabbath to Lord's Day is an anti-Sabbatarian manifesto. (pg, 341)

De Lacey, for example, is at pains to distance the call for children to obey their parents as coming from the Decalogue. (pg. 341)

His fellow contributor, Andrew Lincoln, is equally keen to disentangle Paul from the ten words claiming that the Apostles appeal is to a 'general sense of what was fitting and right.' (pg. 341)

When it comes to the promise in the commandment 'it is more likely to have been penned by a Jewish Christian follower.' (pg.342)

What choice does he (Lincoln) have? If the Sabbath is dismissed on the basis that Christ has fulfilled the concept of rites tied up with the Sabbath, if the Sabbath is more already than not yet then the promise in Ephesians 6 should not by there. (pg.344)

Even assuming a high degree of typology in the fourth commandment it is the same basic theme that is explicit in the fifth [commandment]. (pg. 344)

This promise (of the fifth commandment) is there (in Ephesians), because Paul sees its fulfillment as sufficiently not yet. That the promise and the moral law that accompanies it is still binding. (pg. 345)

In an article on penal substitution, Don Carson says that recent works on the subject have shown 'that historic Christian confessionalism will not roll over and play dead.' [Apparently, the Gospel Coalition's web site no longer hosts Carson's original post; however, there are number of blogs that do, so I have chosen to link to one of those blogs] (pg. 353)

If Hugh Martin's link between a person's view of the distinctiveness of the moral law and the view of how to understand the Atonement is correct then the threefold division of the law does not, and should not, roll over and die either if the source of Christian confessionalism is Scripture. (pgs. 352 - 353)

----------------

That's it, the end of Ross' case for the Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law. Many members of the Westminster Assembly around the 1630s and 40s made similar defenses of the Threefold Division in there day, here's a list of some of the ones that I thought were the most helpful in understanding the proof texts and the wording of the Confession of Faith. However, I am not entirely done with Ross' book, or the lecture. I have purposefully left out Ross' two specific defenses in his speech about the the doctrine of the Sabbath and chosen to put those in the next post in this series. I'll explain my reasoning in that post. Ross also has a few comments in his book that are very interesting in light of the controversy around the doctrine of the Two Kingdom's that I want to share and comment upon.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 5 - The Epistles of the Apostles

In part four we began looking at what, if anything, changes after the rending of the veil once Jesus died on the cross with a focus on God's Law? We considered on that post the Book of Acts, paying attention to Luke's quoting of the Decalogue and the Apostolic decree of Acts 15. We found out that Luke's references to the Decalogue were in harmony with the Ten Commandments still being valid, and that the Apostolic decree does not give of new way of understanding the Decalogue but it does give us a example of Christian behavior.

The current post is about how the Apostles in their writings to various churches understood and applied God's Law to those particular saints. Of course, even though the Apostles were addressing particular concerns at a particular time we must remember that "[a]ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that that man of God my be competent, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17). In addition, we must remember that we are living in the same age as the saints who Paul, Peter, James, Jude, the author of Hebrews, and John were addressing. The issues are still relevant for today's church, because their writings were primarily addressing the spiritual issues of their day in light of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. In this part of Ross' address we will see the threads of the previous four parts come together to clearly demonstrate that the Threefold Division is the Apostolic teaching of the entire Bible.

As a general reminder, these notes that I took are based on Philip S. Ross' March 2010 address to a Presbytery. Later on that same year, Christian Focus Publications published a book length treatment of Ross' research into the Threefold Division of the Law. This is part five of a seven part series.

Here's how I have broken down Ross' address into seven parts:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

----------------

Some passages that are relevant to the three categories of the threefold division. (pg. 266)

The study of Paul the law is an area of interminable debate, but much of those debates aren't directly relevant to this precise issue. (pg. 265)

The New Perspectives on Paul challenges the centrality of moral law in confessional soteriology more than it challenges the details of the threefold division. (pg. 266)

Beginning with ceremonial law, which the confession speaks of as 'typical ordinances' and 'moral duties', there are solid grounds to say that Hebrews 9 makes a purposeful and unavoidable demarcation of cultic laws. (pgs. 266 - 267)

This is not a demarcation, as certain scholars claim, that Hebrews imposes on the law but one that's derived from the law. (pgs. 266 - 267)

From the ceremonial law's first deliverance to Moses, they were intended to be shadows that proclaimed the existence of heavenly things and good things to come; the reality of Christ. (pgs. 267 - 275)

The same vocabulary emerges in Colossians 2:16 - 17, where Ross rejects the view arising from the hypothetical Colossian heresy that this passage refers to extra-Mosaic practices. The use of cult prostitutes, for example, can hardly be a shadow of things to come. (pgs. 273 - 275)

Rather the food and drink in view envisages all the dietary laws of the Old Testament (OT) and the OT usage itself suggests that 'Sabbaths' in that context serves as shorthand for the activities of those days and not the day itself. (pgs. 276 - 278)

The verses in Colossians 2:14 - 15 and Ephesians 2:14 - 18 speak of a wall of separation and of the breaking down of ordinances. (pgs. 279 - 280)

Commentators will argue that these two passages either refer to expansions of the law or to the law as a whole. (pgs. 280 - 284)

However, the law as a whole did not divide and why would God need to abolish man made laws at all?

Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 may emphasize different things, but both deal with the laws of separation, which have gone with the rent veil. (pg. 284)

The veil was rent because of what Peter tells us about in 1 Peter 1:19 'the sacrifice of the lamb without blemish'. (pgs. 290 - 292)

Many theologians, following German theologians, dismiss the idea of vicarious suffering, rejecting any link between Peter and Leviticus, or arguing that in the Leviticus passage there is no idea of the transference of guilt to the goat. (pgs. 287 - 288)

Place taking is, however, central to Leviticus and to Isaiah 53, the lens through which Peter reads Leviticus, and if Jesus is a lamb without blemish his fulfillment of ceremonial law must depend on moral fulfillment. (pgs. 288 - 291)

For Peter, as for Matthew, Christ's fulfillment is moral, soteriological, and eschatological. (pg. 286)

As said earlier, the confessional approach to ceremonial law was not so crude that they failed to recognize that it also spoke of moral duties. (pg. 292)

These, 'moral duties', are the implied moral demands of ceremonial law that we see, for example, in 1 Corinthians 5 which calls on Christians to be what they are: the unleavened bread symbolizing discontinuity and a break with the past. (pgs. 292 - 293)

In such cases, Paul preserves inviolate the core significance of the ritual law while maintaining it is not binding. (pg. 295)

What the threefold division calls judicial, or civil, laws exist almost by default in the Epistles. (pg. 296)

But do they (the Epistles) support the idea that God always intended those laws (judicial) to have temporal standing? (pgs. 296 -298)

The mere fact that the Apostles called for Christians to submit themselves to secular authorities suggests as much, although that does not mean they (judicial laws) are irrelevant. (pgs. 298 - 299)

Hebrews shows us that although the penalties may have expired, they still speak. (pg. 299)

Paul's reference to oxen, 1 Corinthians 9:8 - 10, shows that the general equity of the law still applies. (pg. 300)

For God does not care about oxen, which is why Paul's point depends ultimately on the Decalogue substructure that undergirds the quotation Deuteronomy. (pgs. 304 - 306)

In that context, in Deuteronomy, the themes of integrity and contentment unite the ninth and the tenth commandments. (pg. 303) [As an aside from Ross, for a moment,  this would be numbered the eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments in both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. Both Lutherans and Roman Catholics along with others Christians throughout the centuries have separated the tenth commandment into two commandments numbered nine and ten. The Reformed tradition along with other Christians throughout the centuries have maintained a slightly different numbering of the Ten Commandment which means that Ross is talking about the commandment to not lie and to not covet.]

We would also think of the two witness rule quoted in 2 Corinthians 13 and 1 Timothy 5. (pgs. 304 - 306)

It is a straightforward application of Mosaic equity, but it does not demand literal application of the law since it (the two witness rule) too depends on the substructure of Deuteronomy. (pgs. 305 - 306)

Deuteronomy at the point of being quoted is concerned with the preservation of life. (pg. 305)

Such examples indicate that the Westminster Confession's 35 words on judicial law do not comprise an imposition upon Scripture, but reflection of biblical teaching. (pg. 308)

For many Christians the threefold division's most controversial claim is that the moral law, the Decalogue, is an ever binding perfect rule of righteousness and an obligation, which for Christians, is strengthened by Christ in the Gospels. (pg. 308)

When you think of Epistolary passages that support this (the Decalogue as an ever binding rule of righteousness) you might mention 1 Timothy 1:8 - 11; Romans 13:8 - 10; or James 2:8 - 11, and you would be right to do so. (pg. 341)

Despite the reluctance of someone like Douglas Moo to see royal law as a specific reference to the Mosaic law. (pg. 336)

Perhaps all that such reluctance shows is that by the time we come to the Epistles, whatever our position, the interpretive frameworks that we have developed play a decisive part in our exegetical conclusions.

In the Apostolic illusions to the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8 or James 2:19; in the call to love our neighbor in Romans 13 or Galatians 5 we hear an echo of Christ's voice, we hear Apostolic agreement with the principal that the two greatest commandments are a précis (meaning: 'a type of summary of abridgment) of the Decalogue. (pgs. 334 - 341)

For some interpreters, any notion of Apostolic agreement with the law is unthinkable - Paul was schizophrenic at best, about as constant in his affections for Moses as was Saul for David. (pgs. 308 - 318)

According to Heikki Räisänen, Paul's view of the law is 'full of difficulties and inconsistencies'. (pg. 309)

Ironically, Räisänen is so convinced that the Mosaic law consists of different elements that he thinks the threefold division handles the material better than Paul (pgs. 309 - 310)

A Dutch Reformed minster, T.E. Van Spanje, has produced a lengthy answer to Räisänen's charge of theological schizophrenia, but we should not be afraid to see tension in Paul's attitude to the law. (pg. 310)

If his (Paul's) view of divine revelation is rooted in the Old Testament we should expect tension, but that's not the same as inconsistency.

The idea that divine revelation may bring blessing or curse, brokenness or hardness, life or death, weaves its way from the Pentateuch through the Psalms and Prophets into the Gospels where the same word that cuts off every dead branch and prunes every live branch and weaves its way into the Epistles. (pgs. 311 - 313)

In 2 Corinthians 3, the law brings a deadly holocaust to the Jewish people that cannot be ended unless the life giving Spirit intervenes (pg. 313)

It is no negative commentary on the law, but recognition of the law's impotence to bring life and lasting glory.

The tension continues in the new order, the law will still kill you if you read it with a veil and new covenant ministry that may be the fragrance of life to some is the odor of death to others - it produces its own holocaust. (pg. 314)

Paul is not the only one to be charged with hostility to the law. (pg. 314)

In the eyes of Michael Morrison, the author of Hebrews has no place for the law at all since law in Hebrews quotation of Jeremiah 31:33 found in Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 should be understood in the widest possible sense as instruction. (pgs. 314 - 315)

Jeremiah, however, will not let Morrison off with the charge (of the law having no place in the book of Hebrews) so easily. (pg. 315)

When the prophet speaks of 'My law' the context is suggestive of Sinai and Jeremiah 31:33 is, Ross believes, addressing the same commandments as at Sinai. (pgs. 315 - 316)

These 'ten words' are the only laws that God inscribes. (pg. 316)

Hebrews is not talking about a redrafted morality. That is not what makes the New Covenant 'New'. (pg. 316)

It is not 'new' because the New Covenant believers' obedience is qualitatively superior to Abrams'; it is all about Jesus Christ. (pg. 317)

This covenant is better because it is enacted upon better promises, not necessarily those promises) contained within it (new covenant), but those promises made to Christ, 'You are a priest forever', God will not change His mind, Christ's priesthood will not fail. (pg. 317)

All the circumcised hearts in the cloud of witnesses, every law inscribed heart in which the Father makes His home is only so because of our Mediator. (pg. 318)

Far from rendering obsolete the laws inscribed in stone His all eclipsing priesthood makes them a lively script that will never pass away. (pg. 318)

Part of the argument in the WCF for ever-binding moral law is that this law is ineffably inscribed on human hearts. (pg. 318)

Romans 2:15, which speaks of Gentiles who have the work of the law written on their hearts, is a key passage. (pg. 318)

But what Gentile hearts?

'Not any Gentile hears,' says N.T. Wright, Jewett, and Gathercole, 'Paul is talking about Gentile Christians'. (pg. 318)

Gathercole's defense of this view is the most comprehensive, but Ross believes is seems inconceivable that there could have been Gentile Christians who were, as Gathercole says, 'actually not hearers of Torah at all'. (pgs. 319 - 320)

Just how did these Christians manage to avoid the Psalms, the Prophets, the Sermon on the Mount, and debates about the law? (pg. 320)

Why should the idea that all people, in some sense, do what the law requires have been foreign to Paul?

Surely, in view of the Pentateuch's assumptions about the law, that the laws of Sinai were self-understood from the beginning, it would have been natural for him (Paul) to think like that.

In fact, the suggestion from Akio Ito that Paul may have been alluding to Deuteronomy 30:14 may support that point, especially if Matthew Henry was right to see in the text of Deuteronomy a reference to 'the law of nature, which would have been found in every man's heart, and every man's mouth, if he would but have attended to it.' (pg. 322)

So Paul, then is reflecting Scripture-wide presuppositions about the Decalogue. (pg. 323)

Paul is, as John Murray says, answering 'the question arising from verse 12, namely: If the Gentiles are without the law, how can they be regarded as having sinned?' (pg. 323)

How else can we make sense of verses 15 - 16 of Romans 2? (pgs. 323 - 324)

It is not Gentile Christians who will be in turmoil on that day, but unbelievers, who having suppressed the truth find exposed upon their hearts an inscription of the law that reason could not erase and darkness could not hide. (pg. 324)

On this understanding of Romans, the opening section of chapter 19 of the WCF provides a coherent expression of Apostolic teaching. (pg. 324)

When that day comes when God judges the secrets of men's hearts by what standard will He judge? On what basis will men be convicted of their sin? What is sin?

Strangely enough, you might get a more conservative definition of 'sin' from a lexicographer than a theologian.

While the Oxford English Dictionary happily defines 'sin' as 'transgression of the divine law' some NT scholars prefer the generality of 'evil' or 'iniquity'. (pg. 325)

Even when the passage involved is 1 John 3:4. which defines 'sin' as transgression of the law, or lawlessness, Stephen Smalley wants to argue that the connection between sin and lawbreaking in the OT is not strong. (pgs. 325, 327)

None of the attempts to separate lawlessness from law are convincing. Especially when the alternative definition of sin that these writers generally propose, such as, 'opposing God' describe things that are transgressions of the law anyway. (pgs. 328 - 329)

Not only does John define sin as lawbreaking; James 2:8 - 12 indirectly defines sin as transgression of law from the Decalogue, or the summarizing great commandments. (pg. 329)

Sin is not a roughly defined problem.

Righteousness is not a fluctuating ideal.

The great Day of judgement will be according to the self-understood norms of the Decalogue, and that is an implicit assumption in Romans 2 and elsewhere.

When Romans 1 meets a litany of iniquities with unvarying response of judgement none of those death-deserving deeds go beyond established or plausible applications of the Decalogue. (pg. 332)

The only lawgiver and judge employs no double standard.

----------------

So, there you have it. The threefold division is biblical and comes to full expression in the Epistles. However, it is important to note all the threads that begun in Genesis up through Acts in the previous four parts that lead to the full revelation of how we need to understand God's law. The next post, on this topic, will be a much shorter conclusion of the entire address. This part covered chapter seven in Ross' book, which is 85 pages.