Items tagged amillennialism

A Present or Future Millennium?

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:45:08 GMT

From the electronic archives . . .

"A Present or Future Millennium?"

(Mod Ref) May/June 1994

Most American Evangelicals are firmly committed to the idea that an earthly millennial age will begin immediately after our Lord Jesus Christ's Second Advent. Since premillennialism is so dominant in American church circles, many who encounter historic Protestantism for the first time are quite surprised when they discover that all of the Protestant Reformers and the entire Reformed and Lutheran traditions are amillennial. Amillennialism is that understanding of eschatology which sees the millennium not as a future golden age as does premillennialism (the age of the church triumphant), but instead as the present course of history between the First and Second Advents of our Lord (the age of the church militant). Indeed, there are many readers who will express shock and disappointment upon learning of my own amillennial convictions. But I am convinced, however, that many readers simply do not understand the basic end-times scenario found in the New Testament.

Part of the problem is that dispensational premillennial writers have completely dominated Christian media and publishing. There are literally hundreds of books, churches, and parachurch ministries all devoted to taking premillennialism and the “pretribulation” rapture idea to the masses. And so, I can only lament the fact that my own tradition has done so little to produce popular books introducing and defending amillennialism. It is my guess that many who read this article will have never heard the case for the classical position held by the church regarding the return of Christ and the millennial age.

Another problem encountered when examining this subject is that discussions of it often generate a great deal of heat but not very much light. One local prophecy pundit has quipped that the people in heaven with the lowest IQs will be amillennial. Hal Lindsey goes so far as to label amillennialism as anti-Semitic, demonic and heretical. It is not uncommon to hear prophecy teachers label amillennial Christians as “liberal” or to accuse them of not taking the Bible literally. The result of such diatribes is that American Christians cannot help but be prejudiced by such unfortunate comments, and many simply reject outright (without due consideration of the other side) the eschatology of the Reformers and classical Protestantism–an eschatology that is amazingly simple, biblical, and Christ centered. And so, if you should be in that camp, instead of simply turning me off at this point, please bear with me, hear my case, and then decide for yourself on the basis of Scripture.

To read the rest of this article, click here

Riddlebarger's Amil Conference

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:45:05 GMT

Last night at Dr. Riddlebarger's Amil Conference I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Beale give an overview of that which he has written about in The Temple and the Church's Mission. In this comprehensive study, G.K. Beale argues that the Old Testament tabernacle and temples were symbolically designed to point to the end-time reality that God's presence, formerly limited to the Holy of Holies, would be extended throughout the cosmos. He proved from Scripture how that the Garden was the first Temple and Adam the first priest. If you have never heard of such I suggest you read this book before you react negatively. He then equated the Noah's ark with such temple imagery and continued through the Bible. Beal's stimulating exposition traces the theme of the tabernacle and temple across the Bible's story line, illuminating many texts and closely related themes along the way. Ultimately, Christ's incarnated body became the temple of God and "what? know ye not that your body" is now the temple of God? Yes, this lecture was not only incredible informative from a theological and Scriptural sense, but also the applications of this lecture were some of the most humbling and convicting truths that I have heard in years. Finally, Dr. Beale demonstrated how John's vision in Revelation 21 is best understood as picturing the new heavens and earth as the eschatological temple.

Storms on Rev. 20, Part 2

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:26:53 GMT

Here's the second chapter regarding Rev. 20:

Amillennialism and the Millennial Kingdom of Revelation 20 (2)

Storms: Amillennialism and the Millennial Kingdom of Revelation 20 (1)

Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:01:45 GMT

When I posted Sam Storms's chapter on Problems with Premillennialism, a number of folks asked about Revelation 20. So I've now posted online a PDF of his chapter on Amillennialism and the Millennial Kingdom of Revelation 20 (1). He devotes two chapters to Rev. 20; this is the first. Please note that it's a rough draft, not the final form as it will appear in the book.

The Recapitulation of Revelation 19 and 20

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:43:23 GMT

by Fowler White

Revelation 20 and Amillennialism

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:46:51 GMT

This is not going to be an exhaustive post on Revelation 20, about which several forests have been demolished in trying to explain. I am merely going to argue for the amil position in Revelation 20. The key issue turns on whether Revelation 20:1-10 follows chronologically after 19:11-2, or whether it follows non-chronologically (following a sequence of visions). Here are the two best arguments that 20:1-10 follows a visionary sequence, and not a chronological sequence: 1. The battle in 19:11-21 destroys all the enemies of God. The beast (vs 20), the false prophet (vs 20), and all the rest (vv. 18 and 21) are thrown into the lake of fire. This battle is certainly the final climactic battle, the result of which is that all the enemies of God are destroyed. Well, if they are all destroyed, then who is left for Satan to deceive in 20:3? The terms of 19:11-21 are so final (especially the lake of fire imagery) that nothing is really left after that. Poythress explains how it is that anything follows literarily in the book:�

“In view of the structure of the whole book, it makes more sense to see 20:1-15 as the seventh and last cycle of judgments, each of which leads up to the Second Coming…Thus, 20:1-15 is to be seen as the seventh cycle leading to the Second Coming. It parallels all the other cycles, rather than representing a unique period chronologically later than any of the others” (The Returning King, pg. 179).�

In short, the premil position needs to explain why there are any people left for Satan to deceive in Revelation 20, if that chapter follows chronologically from chapter 19.

Secondly, 20:7-10 is clearly describing the same battle as 19:11-21. The quotations from Ezekiel 38-39 point clearly in the direction of Armaggedon in 20:7-10. But most commentators refer 19:11-21 also to Armageddon, in which case we have recapitulation (for a more extended defense of this position, see Beale’s excellent excursus on the relationship of 20:1-10 with 19:11-21, found on pp. 972-983 of his commentary). For an excellent article exhaustively dealing with the evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-15, see Fowler White in the Westminster Theological Journal 51.2 (1989), pp. 319-344.

What is Amillennialism?

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:46:56 GMT

Some folk are wondering what in the world is amillennialism, in view of recent comments by John MacArthur consigning all amillennialists to hell.

Amillennialism is the belief that the�1,000 year reign mentioned in Revelation 20 is a true reign of Christ, but that the�1,000 years is symbolic of the entire period in-between Christ’s first and second coming.Many people misunderstand this belief when they say that amillennialists don’t believe in a literal reign. The reign is literal, though the 1,000 years are not. The exegetical question revolves around whether Satan is already bound (Revelation 20:2) or not. Amillennialists point to Revelation 12:7-11, where the blood of the Lamb is what conquers Satan. Furthermore, Matthew 12:29 is an exceedingly strong passage in favor of amillennialism, since the verse describes Christ’s mission while on earth. John 12:31 describes something that happens “now” in reference to the time of Jesus’ statement. Colossians 2:15 makes a similar point. 2 Thessalonians 1 plays havoc with the detailed timelines of premillennialism, not allowing years in-between events, but stating that all happens on one day.

Some objections levelled against amillennialism include the following: 1. The interpretation is not literal. Answer: symbolism is all over the book of Revelation. Numbers in particular are symbolic. Just look at 666, for instance. Debate still rages over what that number really means. Furthermore, in the Bible 1,000 is a symbol of completeness (cattle on a 1,000 hills; 1,000 years is as a day, etc.). We must distinguish between the Bible being literally true versus being true literally. The former means that we interpret each genre of Scripture according to the way in which it should be interpreted. There is much symbolic imagery in Revelation which should therefore be interpreted symbolically. The latter runs one into insuperable difficulties. If every statement in the Bible has to be true in a literal fashion, then Christ is a piece of wood (”I am the door”), or a�space of road (”I am the way”), or a piece of bread (”This is my body”). These statements of Christ (as is everything in scripture) are all true. But not all statements in Scripture are true in a literal fashion. “Your eyes are doves” does not mean that one’s�oculi consist of�a couple of aviary�critters from the family Columbidae. That won’t fly in any hermeneutics class in any seminary worth its salt. One would get a failing, dropping, mournful, cooing grade in the class.

Second objection: the events in Revelation 20 seem to follow a certain timeline. This is a much more defensible position exegetically. However, there are several points to note: firstly, Revelation 20 is the only place in Scripture where a 1,000 year reign is mentioned. Secondly, there is evidence of literary recapitulation (rehashing the same events from several different angles in order to come up with a more complete picture) in Revelation (see Beale’s magnificent commentary on Revelation), such that making timelines is quite risky exegetically. In fact, it is quite tenuous. Making doctrinal orthodoxy stand or fall with premillennialism is certainly out of court.

Third objection: Satan really does not seem to be bound right now. He seems to be alive and well in the world. Answer: Satan is bound in the sense that the Gospel has free reign to cover the earth with its message, and try as he might, Satan cannot hinder its progress. Furthermore, Satan, death, and sin were dealt their death blow at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are still thrashing around. But they are thrashing around in their death throws, knowing that they are defeated already.

There are a couple of really good books to read if one wants to delve further: Kim Riddlebarger’s book is certainly the most thorough modern treatment in defense of amillennialism, and is well worth picking up. Second, for those who love debate, the counterpoints book is a must. All the positions receive their due weight from proponents of those views. On�a more popular level (but still with a great deal of research behind the work) is Poythress’s great book, as well as Dennis Johnson’s book.

Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism

Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:20:10 GMT

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote space at the beginning of each week to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. This excerpt is from a sermon titled "The Man with the Measuring Line," preached Sunday morning, 11 December 1864. Spurgeon's words resonate wonderfully with John MacArthur's much-discussed opening message from last week's Shepherds' Conference.

am not given to prophesying, and I fear that the fixing of dates and periods has been exceedingly injurious to the whole system of premillennial teaching; but I think I clearly see in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ will come—so far I go, and take my stand—that he will come personally to reign upon this earth.

At his coming it appears clear to me that he will gather together the Jewish people, that Jerusalem shall become the metropolis of the new empire which shall then extend from pole to pole, from the river even to the ends of the earth. If this be a correct interpretation of prophecy, you may read the whole of Zechariah 2 through and understand it; you have the key to every sentence: without such a belief; I see not how to interpret the prophet�s meaning.

Dear friends, we may sometimes refresh our minds with a prospect of the kingdom which is soon to cover all lands, and make the sun and moon ashamed by its superior glory. We are not to indulge in prophesyings as some do, making them our spiritual food, our meat and drink; but still we may take them as choice morsels, and special delicacies set upon the table; they are condiments which may often give a sweeter taste, or, if you will, a greater pungency and savor to other doctrines; prophetic views light up the crown of Jesus with a superior splendor; they make his manhood appear illustrious as we see him still in connection with the earth: to have a kingdom here as well as there; to sit upon a throne here as well as in yonder skies; to subdue his adversaries even upon this Aceldama, as in the realm of spirits; to make even this poor earth upon which the trail of the serpent is so manifest, a place where the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

If our view of prophecy be the correct one, it seems to be in perfect harmony with all the doctrines of the gospel. God certainly did elect his people the Jews; he made a covenant with his servant Abraham, and albeit you will remind us that this was only a temporal covenant, I would remind you that it was the type of the spiritual one, and it would be an unhappy reflection for us if the typical covenant should prove to be only temporary as well as temporal; if that came to an end, and if God cast away, in any sense, the people whom he did foreknow, it might augur to us the ill foreboding that mayhap he might cast away his spiritual seed also, and that those who were chosen as the spiritual seed of Abraham, might yet be cut off from the olive into which they had been grafted. If the natural branches are cast away for ever, why not the grafted branches too?

But here is our joy, the God who sware unto his servant Abraham that to him and to his seed would he give the land for ever, hath not gone back from his word; they shall possess the land; their feet shall joyously tread its fruitful acres yet again; they shall sit every man under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and none shall make them afraid; and so the spiritual seed to whom the spiritual heritage is given as by a covenant of salt, they also shall possess their heritage for ever, and of their rightful portion no robber shall despoil them.

Note: Debates over eschatological charts and end-times fine points are virtually always off-topic here at PyroManiacs. For the comment-thread under this post, however, we'll make a brief exception to our usual rule, especially since this subject has already been batted around so enthusiastically for several days by our friends and our adversaries alike. Feel free to post your personal observations or arguments about the above remarks by Spurgeon.

If you're looking for a discussion of John MacArthur's opening Shepherds' Conference message, that's not actually the point of this post or the discussion thread below. If that's what you want to talk about—especially if you mainly want to fulminate, please head over to Challies or to the Pulpit Live blog, where that discussion is already taking place.

MacArthur comments further on his ‘controversial’ message

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:38:52 GMT

This morning John MacArthur answered some questions during the Q&A Session, specifically relative to his message on eschatology.

MacArthur reiterated his desire to bring eschatology out of the periphery of the Reformed circle and help aid faithful cross-boasters to likewise anticipate the coming Savior. He admitted that his goal yesterday was not so much to answer questions but to raise them. He wanted to hear people talking about the eschatological issues.

One point that I did not note yesterday but wanted to relate to those who are not attending this conference is the issue of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. If the meaning of the OT prophetic texts were not known until the NT was written then we have a serious problem with the perspicuity of the Scripture. MacArthur quoted Kaiser who said that at that point �we would have a cannon within a cannon.� I believe this is a key point. There is little dispute that the OT writers and people were not A-mil, so what has changed? How did Jesus change the biblical understanding of the kingdom? The Jews were looking forward to a literal kingdom with a literal nation and a literal king. This is why Jesus was asked the question in Acts 1:

Acts 1:6-7 “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;

As MacArthur noted, these guys had just spent forty days getting the best seminary education available, and then at the end they ask if the Kingdom was coming at that moment. And as MacArthur said, this would have been the perfect time for the Savior to let everyone know that this was no longer the plan or that they had misunderstood the plan all along.

One point that has ignited a significant amount of chatter is the application or the dot-connecting that MacArthur has done. As I noted yesterday he said that we are intolerant of anyone tampering with (spiritualizing) the beginning of the story but it when it comes to the end of the story it is suddenly permissible. Here MacArthur identifies the hermeneutic and practice of the A-Mil camp as that which is consistent with liberalism.

I do not think that John MacArthur thinks that A-Mil guys are liberals, but he is connecting the dots that the hermeneutic is similar, and when consistently applied, would bring you to dwell together not under the trees of the Reformation but rather those of Arminians.

Finally, MacArthur did indicate today that the identification with the dispensational camp brings a lot of unnecessary confusion. He gave his dispensational position as one who believes in a future for the nation of Israel, a literal kingdom where Jesus will reign, and the literal and ultimate fulfillment of all prophecy. He went on to discuss matters of how he is not identified with those in the dispensationalist camp.

I commend the audio of the 1^st Session and the Q&A to you. I would also encourage you to not overreact to what bloggers may or may not be posting. John MacArthur invited everyone to his house and stuck the premillenial flag right in the center of the field. He wants an eschatological discussion. Remember, MacArthur�s stated goal is to see the regrettably marginalized topic of eschatology back into the hearts and minds of those who are so passionately committed to the glory of God in Christ. I hope that his charge does not drive Calvinists back to their favorite teachers for advice or rebuttal, but rather to the Scriptures for clarity, understanding, and confidence.

In addition to Tim Challies there is some additional thoughts on this over Pulpit.

With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur . . .

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:24:02 GMT

All of a sudden I started getting emails . . . Lots of emails . . .

"Did you hear what John MacArthur said about amillennialism at the Shepherd's Conference?" "He said Amillennialism was intrinsically Arminian, and that every self-respecting Calvinist should be premillennial!" "He even said that Calvin would be premillennial were he alive today!" On and on it goes.

This barrage of email was precipitated by Tim Challies "live-blogging" report on Dr. MacArthur's lecture (Click here: Challies Dot Com: Shepherd's Conference (I). You might want to take a look at this if you haven't.

All I can say is, "calm down." OK, MacArthur fired a shot across the bow. But until I've read the transcript of his talk, I won't respond to any specific points, other than to say, if (and that's a big "if") he's been accurately quoted, then it really is too bad that someone of his stature would say the ill-informed things that he did.

From what Tim Challies reports, I don't recognize my own position in MacArthur's critique. I am certainly self-respecting (to a fault), and I am a Calvinist, who is well-known for my advocacy and defense of the Reformed faith. I am also amillennial and think dispensational premillennialism defaults at a number of points.

If you wish to be "fair and balanced" about these things, then I'd plead with you to first read Horton's God of Promise (Click here: Amazon.com: God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology: Books: Michael Horton), Hoekema's Bible and the Future (Click here: Amazon.com: The Bible and the Future: Books: Anthony A. Hoekema), and my A Case for Amillennialism (Click here: Amazon.com: A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Books: Kim Riddlebarger), and then see if MacArthur's arguments still hold water. It would be a shame if he gave such a talk and yet was not at all conversant with the major (Calvinistic) writers who set forth and defend the other side! Sounds like he is not.

Currents within Amillennialism

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:24:56 GMT

by Vern Poythress

The Binding of Satan

Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:28:56 GMT

Eschatology Q & A:

Erancal asks (November 16, 2006):

"This goes to the question of the meaning of the `binding’ of Satan in Revelation 20. Does Jude 6, in which fallen angels are said to be in everlasting chains in darkness awaiting the final judgment, have any relevance to Rev. 20 (see also 2 Peter 2:4)? If so, how?"

Dr. Riddlebarger’s answer:

Erancal, the simple answer to your question is "probably not." The reference in 2 Peter 2:4-6 to angels being kept in chains in Tartarus (ESV, "hell") until the judgment, also has a time reference: "when they sinned." This would place the binding of such angels at the time of Satan’s fall, or else as Peter indicates in verse 5, at the time of Noah. More than likely, this refers to the time of the fall of Satan in ages past. Jude likewise speaks of these angels being bound until the day of judgment. This is possibly the subject of Isaiah 24:21-22. Other than this scant mention, there are no others texts which speak to this (that I know of). So, at the time of Satan’s fall, or at the time of Noah and the flood, a number of fallen angels were bound, and are presently awaiting the time of final judgment. Anything more is pure speculation.

Does this binding of fallen angels relate to Revelation 20 and to John’s reference to the binding of Satan? Probably not directly, although the same kind of thing might be in view (by comparison). According to Revelation 20:3, the purpose of Satan being bound is "so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended" (ESV). The timing of the binding of Satan, it seems to me, is directly tied to Christ’ victory over death and the grave in his resurrection. Jesus has already told us in Revelation 1:18 that "I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." Whether or not Christ is the angel who is said to bind Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, the fact of the matter is that it is the resurrection which gives him the keys (authority) over Death and Hades, which is the abode of the dragon (Satan). Thus Christ’s authority (through the preaching of the gospel) is that which binds Satan during the course of this present age. I refer you to the outstanding discussion of this in G. K. Beale’s commentary, Revelation, New International Greek Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 984-991.

David Betz asks (January 11, 2007):

"I've considered myself an Amillennialist for some time now, but the other day I had a random realization: if Satan is bound for a specific purpose, he is still bound. What I'm picturing here is this: if a man goes to prison for burglary, he is prevented from burglary, but also from murder, rape, and many other things. I know this is one of the many forms of the `If Satan is bound, why is there 'evil'?’ problem, but this is one that's been confusing me for a little while now. The best explanation I can come up with is that even though the man is in prison for burglary, he can still blaspheme and affect the outside world in some way (and even rape INSIDE prison), but that doesn't seem to answer it completely because what Satan seems to be doing is very close to what he is prevented from doing. That is, his actions seem to be of the same 'form', unlike how different burglary (physical action) differs from blasphemy (verbal action). I'm sure one explanation would be what I had just stated, but it really makes me doubt my Amillennial position, because I'm not reading the text to mean `bound Satan to keep him from deceiving the nations, though he really does anyhow.’ It seems to be a binding of degrees, but *successful* binding doesn't really seem to have degrees in my mind."

Dr. Riddlebarger’s Answer:

David, this is a great question! Let me paraphrase the essence of it. "If Satan is presently bound and prevented from deceiving the nations, why is it that the nations are presently deceived?" Either Satan is bound or he isn’t. It is not a matter of degrees.

A couple of things need to be said here. First, the answer is not to use analogies like you have done above. The situation described in Revelation 20 only makes sense in light of biblical imagery (especially that from the Old Testament). Instead, simply trace out the course of redemptive history and you’ll see what John means.

Recall that Satan was instrumental in the Fall, and then according to the early chapters of Genesis, rapidly deceived the entire world. Remember Enochville (cf. Genesis 4:17)? How about Babel and Ninevah? What about Babylon? Egypt? The Assyrians? The Moabites? These are nations who fell under Satan’s sway and marshaled their resources against the people of God. Then, there’s the mass apostasy among the Israelites, both in the wilderness and in the promised land. The Jews never fulfilled the commission given them in Isaiah 49:6, "I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." Because of unbelief Israel was repeatedly subject to godless Gentile nations and hauled off into captivity. You get the point. We could go on and on.

Fast-forward to the New Testament. When Jesus appeared on the scene, his public ministry did not begin until he had first bested Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). As we all know, Jesus messianic mission appeared completely thwarted on Good Friday, but by Easter Sunday, it was clear the Satan’s "victory" was instead a total defeat. Jesus now becomes the light to the nations and the true Israel. He fulfills that mission which both Adam and Israel failed to accomplish. Indeed, the gospel message "binds" the Devil and all his works. God’s people are commanded to make disciples of "all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and told that this gospel must be preached as a witness to "all nations" (Matthew 24:14). Not only will Jesus be with his people until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20), but the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ’s church (Matthew 16:18). This is how we must understand the consequences of Satan’s being presently bound. It is a reference to the success of the gospel.

Therefore, the presence evil and unbelief in the present age does not mean that Satan is not yet bound (the standard premillennial objection). It is the inevitable success of the missionary enterprise which is the proof. Under the present circumstances Satan cannot use empires and nations to completely thwart the mission of church. He will try, certainly. But how long did Hitler’s thousand year Reich last? Contemporary situations, (i.e. the People’s Republic of China which seeks do this), serve as a great illustration. A recent news article pointed out that many thousands become Christians every day in China, despite the efforts of the government to stamp out Christianity! Remember, the biblical writers are not millennarians. The kingdom can grow and thrive all the while things appear to be getting worse (cf. Revelation 11 and the account of the two witnesses). Kingdom success does not necessarily translate into economic, cultural, and religious progress as our postmillennial friends contend. Kingdom success does mean the spread of the gospel and the effectual call of all of God’s elect--a multitude so vast they cannot be counted. In some cases, there is a corresponding effect upon the culture. In some cases there is not.

Remember too that according to John, Satan will be released for a short time before the end, when he will be allowed to deceive the nations for one brief last period in an organized political, economic, and military sense against the church (Revelation 20:7-10). But until then, he is bound and cannot deceive the nations. The gospel will go to the ends of the earth! While Satan rages like a wounded animal, he does so because he knows his time is short (1 Peter 5:8 with Revelation 12:12).

Therefore, the answer to your conundrum is to be found in what is meant by "deceive the nations." When viewed against the backdrop of redemptive history, it is clear that this is tied to the missionary enterprise, and the success of that mission is clearly what is in view (not the absence of all evil and unbelief).

I hope that helps!

A Nice Review of A Case for Amillennialism

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:14:31 GMT

My friend, Roger Overton (over at the A-Team blog), has posted a nice review of A Case for Amillennialism.

The review can be found here: Click here: The A-Team Blog :: Main Page

You can check the book out on Amazon and read some of the reviews: Click here: Amazon.com: A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Books: Kim Riddlebarger