The in Between

There lies not a thin line but a great open plain between remembering and forgetting. This open space is perhaps best called haunting. Recently I was driving my thirteen year old back from an orthodontist appointment. What could be more ordinary, more suburban? We waited in our average sedan for the light to turn green when I asked her a question I never would have anticipated when she had been born: When we are sitting here at this light, does it cross your mind that your mother and your sister are buried right over there?

This was, as my daughter well knew, a genuine question, and not in any way an accusation. I wasn’t scolding her for not noticing, or, if noticing, not saying anything. It just struck me that sometimes I go weeks without driving by the cemetery where my precious ladies’ bodies are planted. Sometimes I drive there, walk to where they are buried and pray, cry, and remember. But then there were these times, when the cemetery is not my destination but it is just there, right next to me.

There are no moments when I am not conscious of their absence. But there are moments when I am less conscious. Like the constant ringing in the ear that assaults some people my lonesomeness for them cannot be escaped. To enter into missing them is in many ways easier than living in the in between. When I remember, when I weep, I am entering in. When, however, the reminders come to me, it is entering in, nagging. Their absence is always announcing its presence.

It was three years ago, just a few days before Valentine’s Day. I was, I suspect, unloading some groceries on the shelf in our rec room. Beside me was our ping pong table. She stood at the entrance of the room, looking like she had seen a ghost. “They just called,” she told me, gingerly taking steps toward me, “It’s leukemia.” I held her there as we cried, in the same spot I pass through now everyday. Here, by the shelf, beside where the laundry gets folded, here is where I first knew that we were facing a problem I couldn’t fix, where I first heard her death sentence.

I sleep now, as I have done since the day she died, on her side of the bed. Not, strangely, that I might be close to her, but that I might be farther from where I used to sleep when she was with us. So each morning I wake where she is supposed to be.

While this reflection is more an exposition of the constant, nagging pain rather than a revelation of those moments of the blinding pain, while I am merely sad, not flirting with despair, I still have no answer. I will not scrub my life clean of these landmarks of our journey through the valley of the shadow of death. I will not pretend that my wife or my daughter were Enochs, who walked with God, and then were no more. Instead I will continue to be haunted. I will continue to walk where they walked. And He will continue to walk with me.

The Christian's Glorious Freedom

You may have been a Christian for some time and yet not grasped your new status in Christ. You may still be intimidated by the domineering character of the tyrant who once ruled over you.

Believers sometimes wrongly assume: “I have sinned; therefore, sin still has authority over me. I cannot possibly have ‘died’ to sin.”

Paul unambiguously contradicts this thinking. Sin has no authority over anyone who is in Christ. You are no longer under its dominion. You have received a new identity. You have died out of that old kingdom. You have been raised through Christ into the new kingdom where He—not sin—reigns. From this vantage point, you can look back to your former king and his kingdom, and say: “You once ruled over me, but no longer. I am a citizen of the kingdom of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He alone reigns over me now.” You may not yet be what one day you shall be; but thank God you are no longer what you once were (Rom. 6:17–18).

Paul asks the Roman Christians: “Don’t you know this? Was there a slip-up in the teaching you were given? Around the time you were baptized and came into the fellowship of Jesus Christ, did no one tell you that this is what it means to be a Christian?”

Perhaps that was true in some of the early churches. Believers did not always know these things. Perhaps no one told them. If so, it is all the more likely to be true in contemporary churches. Perhaps no one has explained to you that no matter what Tyrant Sin, in all his various guises, may say, we are no longer under his dominion. He no longer has grounds for blackmail. He has no right to paralyze us into thinking that we can never make any real advance in the Christian life because we will never be free from this prevailing sin.

I enjoy reading crime novels and have frequently relaxed on long journeys by reading the novels of Margaret Perry. Many of them are set in nineteenth-century London.

One of her central characters is a detective named William Monk (not to be confused with the American TV detective Adrian Monk). His life and adventures are made the more intriguing by an event in his past. While a police officer in London, he was thrown from a horse-drawn cab driven at high speed. Monk survived but lost his memory. As a result, he finds himself in situations where he is at a great disadvantage because he has no memory of what happened to him in the past. He does not know who he really was, so he does not clearly understand who he really is.

That is a basic problem for many Christians. We lose touch with the person Scripture says we really are. Perhaps we never really understood that becoming a Christian meant receiving a new identity in Christ.

Paul is saying: “Christians of Rome, you need to understand who you really are. You are people with a new citizenship. You are no longer under the dominion of sin. That makes a radical difference to the way you live the Christian life. It releases you from captivity.”

It is easy to read this passage, and say: “Paul, you are not talking about me. I certainly don’t think of myself as someone who has died to sin.”

If that is true, a serious accident has taken place. You are like William Monk, constantly in situations you cannot handle properly because you suffer from spiritual amnesia. You do not clearly understand your identity in Christ. You are always trying to piece things together, but never getting the picture clearly.

But when you begin to understand that in Christ you died to sin and have now been delivered from the dominion of sin; that you are no longer under its bondage; that you no longer need to be a victim of its subtle paralysis—then you find yourself saying not only “Isn’t this amazing grace?” but “What glorious freedom Jesus Christ has bought for me on the cross.”

What’s Your Gospel Response Plan (GRP)?

Growing up in North Alabama, I remember going through specific routines in the event of an emergency. I doubt there was a kid who did not know why or when you need to stop, drop, and roll. We were trained in protocols in the event of a tornado, calmly lining up in the hallway and securing our heads from potential debris. We knew how to exit the buildings in case of a fire in a single-file line to safe zones outside. All of these procedures were responses to various kinds of potential disasters we could encounter while in school.

Now what, do you think, are the possibilities that I as a kid in elementary school would actually need to follow through on those drills? How often would a tornado tear through our building? How often would a fire consume the classrooms? Hardly ever, it at all, right? But we were still trained in how to respond in the very unlikely event that they might occur.

What if I told you that on a daily basis you are going to be faced with potential crises or disasters that required a response from you? What if it was not a distant potentiality but an eminent reality? How would you prepare yourself for such situations? Would you be trained to know how to respond?

Let me break this down and make the case why every follower of Jesus must have a gospel response plan (GRP).

Have you ever been hurt by someone else?Have you ever been criticized?Have you ever been offended?Has someone ever sinned against you?Have you sinned against someone else?Has your day ever taken one unexpected turn after another?Have other people let you down or betrayed your trust?Have you faced days of disappointment and despair?Have you experienced frustration and anger at the failure of others or yourself?

These are just a few questions addressing realities you and I face on a daily basis, and with every question/situation, a response will manifest from your life. But what kind of response will it be? We have a choice to respond out of our sinful nature (Gen. 3) or out of our new identity in Christ. Will our response be driven by guilt and shame, hiding and pretending, blaming and fearing like Adam and Eve in Genesis 3? Or will our response arise from repentance and faith out of a heart resting in God’s acceptance of you in Christ?

You are a sinner living among sinners. You are a desperately needy person rubbing shoulders with desperately needy people. What weak, needy sinners need in every moment is to look to a strong, sufficient Savior. That’s what we do when we respond to the gospel–we turn from looking to ourselves (whether out of self-pity or self-righteousness) in repentance and we look to Christ in renewed faith and trust.

The problem we have today, I fear, is that most Christians do not have a developed gospel response plan and, therefore, there is no functional repentance and faith response when things happen (internally or externally) in their lives. The default, then, is to look somewhere other than Jesus in our response. And this, I find, is a massive discipleship breakdown for believers.

Someone is going to sin against you. Will you handle that situation with a response that honors the gospel? Will you pursue reconciliation through forgiveness and view that person through the lens of grace? Or will you come across self-righteous and force that person to make atonement for their sin by working their way back into a right relationship with you based on their efforts?

You are going to sing against someone else. Will you handle that situation with a response that honors the gospel? Will you make excuses for your sin? Rationalize it? Blame others for it? Or will you own it, humbly confessing it to God and those whom you sinned against, seeking forgiveness? Will you hide away playing the victim card in self-pity, sulking in your failure, or will you take your sin to the throne of grace to your merciful High Priest?

Paul said, “as you received Christ Jesus the Lord so walk in him…” (Col. 2:6). You receive Jesus by repentance and faith, and you walk in that same repentance and faith. That is to say, this is how we “learn Christ” (Eph. 5:20) and “put on our new self” (i.e., our new identity in Christ). I think the most practically and helpful tool that Christians have today is to be trained to know how to respond to various situations they will encounter in a way that commends the gospel and flows out of a heart fully resting and secure in Jesus. We are not talking about potential dangers here. We’re talking about actual, real-life situations happening every day where Christians will either act out the old man of Genesis 3 or the new man being renewed by the Holy Spirit.

Think back in your life where sin has impacted your relationship with God and others. Are there people that are no longer in your life because of the functional absence of a gospel-driven response? Sadly, I can say that is true for me, and I suspect that if we are cognizant enough, nearly everyone would consent to that reality. But we don’t have to continue that way!

So what is your Gospel Response Plan?

You are sinner living in a fallen world. You are going to be hurt, betrayed, frustrated, prideful, annoyed, judgmental, pitiful, and so much more. It’s going to happen. But are you going to be trained as a follower of Jesus Christ to know, almost instinctively, how to respond with the gospel through premeditated prescriptions of specific ways to walk in repentance and faith?

Perhaps what we need to do each morning is prepare ourselves with some “gospel drills”. Think about one possible situation a gospel response will be required of you. For example, you are at a restaurant and your server is extremely slow and the food is cold. The server asks you if there is anything else you need, and you are tempted to treat her like her actions deserve. But instead, you respond by saying, “Thank you for serving me today, and by the way, as I pray over my food I would like to know if there is anything I can pray for you about?” Who knows? The server may already be feeling guilty and embarrassed by their service and surprised by your gracious response. They could be going through a terrible crisis in their lives, and they open up to you and provide an opportunity for you to minister to them (and perhaps introduce them to Jesus).

Why that gospel drill? Because you will get bad service and cold food. You will be tempted to act out of the old Adam and not out of the risen Christ. And this is one of countless other ways we need to “learn Christ” and “put on the new self” with a strategy to approach whatever comes our way to walk in repentance and faith and show the transforming power of Christ’s abundant grace actively working in our lives.

They Do It Better Than We Do

Imagine with me a disciple-making culture that looked something like this.

Disciple-makers have decided to commit a minimum of 9-10 hours a week providing hands-on practical training. This commitment did not coming with compelling arguments. The disciple-makers love it. They want to invest their time in the work. There is a team of disciple-makers–seven in all–committed to making a total of 12 disciples together over the course of several months. The kind of teaching and training they provide is not a classroom lecture, though there certainly is an intellectual component to it. But it is more than that. It is hands-on with a high level of participation and practice where those being discipled have an immediate opportunity to work it out. Along with the practical instruction and increasing depth of knowledge, there is constant encouragement from the team of disciple-makers. Any opportunity to affirm change and progress is acknowledged, not only by the team of disciple-makers but also those being discipled. Corresponding to the high level of challenge is a high level of celebration as it becomes evident that there is a high level of change taking place in those being discipled. The heads (instruction), hearts (encouragement), and hands (practical application) of those being discipled are trained by those modeling the life and work before them in their own context.

Sounds like a pretty amazing disciple-making experience, right?

What I just shared with you is my 6-year-old’s city league baseball team.

One year ago, my son was playing tee ball with 4-year-olds, where toddlers would race to wherever the ball was hit (and then the gang pile). Now, he is learning game scenarios and fielding techniques from his coaches, and kids twice the age of those he played with last year modeling for him how to do everything from running bases to cheering on his fellow teammates. For the past 2-3 weeks, it has been an amazing sight to watch my son go from making “confetti” with grass in the outfield to learning how to react differently to fly balls and ground balls.

My son’s team practices three days a week, and each practice is approximately two hours long. Most of the seven coaches arrive 30 minutes early for kids who want to shag balls or get some extra one-on-one instruction. Each kid invests a minimum $200 for the season, which includes registration, batting helmet, glove, and bat. None of this is coerced or has to be explained. Both players and coaches just know these are the expectations, and the desire to play the game is greater than any of these expectations placed on them.

As I began to process what was taking place here, I could not help but notice the dynamic disciple-making culture of the team and wonder why the church does not take a similar approach to making disciples. If we took baseball out of the equation and placed it with gospel-centered living, would we find 7 disciple-makers committed to 12 disciples for 10 hours together each week over the course of 4 months? Would each disciple be willing to not only invest the time but hundreds of dollars to get the necessary resources and tools to be well-trained as a follower of Jesus Christ? Such a commitment seems ridiculous for Christians these days, but it is normative and expected for little league baseball run by the public recreation department! What gives?! And we wonder why disciples are not being made and lives are not seriously being impacted with the transforming power of the gospel?

The fact is: my son’s coaches make disciples better than us. They are more committed than we are. They are more excited and desirous to make disciples than we are. They don’t complain about it. They celebrate it. It’s a privilege and joy. They are not going through some pre-packaged “discipleship curriculum” for one hour a week with a few questions. They are on the field, not the classroom, and they are asking dozens and dozens of questions and helping kids answer them with application, not just information. They are doing it one-on-one, and they are doing it as a team of 7 dads serving as coaches to get the most out of these boys. And the boys are loving every minute of it because they are being challenged and changed in the process.

It’s a sad commentary and indictment when little league baseball coaches are more successful and committed to training and developing boys into baseball players than disciple-makers are to making and maturing disciples of Jesus. They have a sport; we have a Savior. They are given trophies; we are trophies of grace. They a game to win; we have a life to gain. At the very least, I have enjoyed going to school in learning how to make disciples of Jesus by being one of the seven coaches on the field training kids to play baseball. I’m going to be a better discple-maker for the sake of the gospel because of this. I just wish I had this kind of disciple-making training earlier.

Join Me for the 2014 Know More Orphans Conference!

There’s no shortage of conferences in the evangelical world today. Over the past couple of years, I forced myself to limit the number of conferences I attend to be more effective on the ground, and the decision-making process developed into a grid that filtered out the conferences that are fun (and enjoyable) but not necessary. Today, I want to share with you a conference I personally find necessary, and I hope you do too.

My good friend Johnny Grimes leads a great organization called Altar 84, which is dedicated to orphan care through the local church. On March 7th & 8th, they are hosting a conference at The Church at Brook Hills called “Know More Orphans.” Here is a summary of the conference theme:

The Church has always been God’s plan for building his kingdom, and this includes securing justice for the poor and most vulnerable. Altar 84 desires to work intimately with the Body of Christ to care for the least of these, the orphan. On Friday, March 7th and Saturday March 8th, 2014, Altar84’s kNOw More Orphans Conference will seek to unite the church community for the call to care for orphans and vulnerable children – right here and around the world. The conference will provide AWARENESS of God’s Word and his command to take ACTION.

If you are a church leader interested in leading your church to care for orphans and build a culture of adoption, I encourage you to take advantage of this conference. Perhaps some of you may be interested in local foster care or adopting orphans internationally, I believe you will be blessed by the main sessions and helped with the practicality of the breakout sessions. Speakers at this conference include David Platt, Russell Moore, Tony Merida, and more.

Early bird registration ends one week from today (Jan. 17th), so take advantage of the special rate and register soon! I will be going and representing The Haiti Collective, along with some of our team. It should be a great time channeling our resources and leverage our lives for the sake of orphans here and around the world. Hope to see you there!

View the original article here

What Gospel Communities Can Learn from The Transfiguration

I’ve been slowly working through the Gospel of Luke, reading, and rereading chapters and focusing on various sections at a time. This morning, I focused on Luke 9:28-36, the passage on the transfiguration of Jesus. As I reflected on this text, I realized that what was happening was a heavenly form of gospel community, with God the Father, God the Son, Moses, Elijah, and Peter, James, and John.

What I found particularly impacting to me in this text was the topic of the community discussion. Verse 30 says that Moses and Elijah were talking with Jesus, and the centerpiece of that discussion was “his departure” or exodus through the cross. Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) are figureheads of redemptive history up until the time of Jesus, and much like all of the Scriptures, they made the conversation about Jesus and His work on the cross.

Gospel communities can learn much from this conversation. We can learn from Moses and Elijah that all of Scripture testifies about Jesus (Luke 24:27). Moses and Elijah knew this. They were not interested in talking about types and shadows; they were interested in what those types and shadows pointed to–Jesus. This in no way diminishes Old Testament Scripture or the role Moses and Elijah played in redemptive history. In fact, it heightens it, knowing their stories are interwoven in the bigger story of God’s redemptive purposes in history culminating in Christ.

But not only does it culminate in Christ, it climaxes in Christ. When the cloud overtook the disciples, and God chose to speak, the Father declared that it is all about His beloved Son. And when God spoke, Jesus was all alone–alone because there is no one else like Him. Alone because Jesus has supremacy over all things and superior to all prophets, kings, and priests. Alone because Jesus is preeminent and holds a place in history that demands our unconditional loyalty and submission as Lord and King.

Moses spoke about Jesus. Elijah spoke about Jesus. The Father spoke about Jesus and gave a heavenly charge to everyone else to listen to Jesus. At no other point in the earthly life of Jesus was there a more heavenly moment, and it is evident to everyone that this community was all about Jesus. In fact, when Peter wanted to make tents for Elijah and Moses was when they disappeared, leaving them with no one but Jesus.

As simple as it may sound, what we can learn from the Transfiguration is this: Christian community that pleases the Father and honors His Word is all about Jesus–who He is, what He has done, and what that matters. Christian community is preoccupied with Jesus because heaven is preoccupied with Jesus. We don’t get over Jesus. We are never bored with Jesus. We don’t keep silent about Jesus. We don’t change the channel or turn it down. Instead, we rediscover again and again by the Spirit’s work in our lives more and more the beauty and brilliance of our Savior. To the degree that our conversations center on Jesus, we can say we functionally have a gospel community. To the degree that we adore and treasure Jesus, we can keep our community from lesser lovers and broken cisterns.

If we could have a conversation today with the greatest figures in the history of redemption, they would be talking about Jesus–His life, death, and resurrection. But if people could have a conversation today with you and me, what would we what we want to talk about?

On Calvinist Conundrums from Richmond, Virginia

Well, as I am stranded in Richmond now (prayers that I will eventually, someday, arrive in Kiev, Ukraine, to teach Church History, would be appreciated!) I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to Michael Brown’s “Calvinist Conundrums” that he posted on FaceBook today.  They will allow me to bring up some issues that we discussed in Charlotte a year ago, and to once again press my friend on his systematic theology (which he has, whether he realizes it or not!).

The value of responding to these alleged problems with the Reformed position can be found in just this: the synergist, who is not an open theist, has to answer the very same questions the Calvinist does! And I firmly assert that the synergist truly has no consistent response to the very objections he raises to the Reformed position, outside, that is, embracing open theism and thereby departing from classic, and I would argue, Christian, theism.  Open theism truly is the only consistent Arminianism.  Thankfully, my Arminian brothers are not consistent.

The first Calvinist Conundrum Michael posted (I never found it but he summarized it for me) was regarding “what a sinner could say to God on judgment day after being damned without having the possibility of salvation.”  Of course, the issue is not whether justice is defined by possibilities that were unknown to the creatures thusly being judged.  No man will be judged based upon what they did not, nor could not, know,  They will be judged upon the motivations of their hearts, and every single one thusly judged, justly, will be found to have violated, purposefully, repeatedly, and joyfully, God’s law.  The idea that there has to be some kind of “chance” given to condemned sinners is unbiblical and illogical.  God could have justly judged the entirety of Adam’s posterity based upon his representation of them without saving any; if one rejects this, one rejects the very basis upon which Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers.  In any case, the false assumption inserted into the question is that for justice to exist, God must treat all people in the same fashion, and while that is very popular in Western society today, it is not a biblical concept.  God treats one portion of mankind with demerited grace and mercy; and one portion with strict and proper justice, judging them on the basis of their suppression of the truth and their purposeful violation of God’s law.

But please note, Michael has to answer the same question, since he affirms God’s exhaustive knowledge of all future events. God created a world in which He knew exactly which of His creatures would be damned for eternity even before the creation came into existence.  And since that knowledge is infallible, it could not turn out any other way.  Those individuals had no chance to be saved (outside of violating God’s foreknowledge of their damnation).  We are left with the odd idea that God tries and tries and tries to save individuals that He well knows will not be saved, and they themselves have no chance to be saved.

Oh, I can hear the response: “But that is their choice!  If they would but turn, they would be saved.”  I can say the same thing.  Anyone who would turn would be saved, but I know that outside of the gracious act of regeneration, none will ever do so.  But in my case, the theoretical repentance of one of the non-elect, violating both the decree of God as well as the biblical teaching of man’s nature, flies in the face of positive biblical teaching.  For Michael, it raises the possibility of error in God’s own knowledge of His creation and events in time, thusly undermining the perfection of God and the basis of prophecy itself.  In any case, it shows that the argument cuts both ways.

For this conundrum to have validity not only would Michael have to have a basis for answering it himself, but it would have to define justice more clearly, and would have to establish that God could not choose to act both justly and graciously for His own purposes; that is, it would have to establish that if God acts in grace to creature X, He must likewise, and in all cases, act in grace toward Y, Z, A, B, etc.  It is painfully clear, just in basic biblical revelation, that God has shown unmerited favor to group X while showing justice to group Y in the same context: Israel and Egypt being a wonderful example.

The second alleged conundrum went as follows:

Calvinist Conundrum #2: Since God clearly defines justice for us in the Word, using Himself as the perfect model of justice, how is He acting justly by creating someone who had no option but to sin and then eternally condemning that person for sinning? How is that justice? How is that an example of the Judge of all the earth doing what is just” (Gen 18:25)? And one other question for the discussion. Did Adam sin by his own free will or, as Calvin stated, “because the Lord had judged it to be expedient”?

Let me answer the last first: both, of course.  Did Joseph’s brother’s sin by their own choice or by God’s predetermined plan?  Both.  Did the King of Assyria punish Israel by his own choice, or by God’s determination?  Both.  Did Pilate condemn Jesus by his own choice, or did God predestine it to occur?  Both.  Etc. and etc.  This is the very essence of compatibilism.

Now, when we speak of post-fall sin, we are in “our own world” and can understand how it works fairly directly.  But when it comes to Adam, well, we have very, very little biblical revelation regarding his nature, will, etc.  It is easy to project onto him from our post-fall position, but that would be dangerous.  But once again, Michael is in the very same boat we are in, only he lacks the one vital element that makes it all work, the divine decree.  That is, he can say Adam fell of his own free will, but he has to, at the same time, say that God knew Adam would fall, that it was a certainty when God created that Adam would fall, but that the fall, though certain, was not “because the Lord judged it to be expedient.”

This is the same problem Michael faces with his alleged conundrum.  In light of the infallible nature of God’s knowledge of all future events, He created, fully aware of the condemnation of those who are outside of Christ.  He brought them into existence, knowing that they would never be saved, knowing they would experience His wrath, knowing, infallibly, their end.  It is just that He did so without any particular purpose in their life, their interaction with those who would be saved, and their just condemnation.  They just “happened” to happen!  Nothing could be done about it, I guess!  God is eternally bummed about them, but, it’s not His fault!  Sure, He could have not created this universe, but He did, and there just isn’t any reason why He did so in such a way as to bring those people into existence.

This is really where I think Michael is at his weakest in rejecting Reformed theology.  This was a vital portion of our exchange a year ago at SES.  As noted above, the problem with the alleged conundrum is two-fold: it assumes that for God’s actions to be just that He must treat all men the same; that is, that if He extends grace to X, He must extend the same exact grace to Y.  But we know this is not true biblically, and we know it is not true experientially.  The grace shown to the inhabitants of, say, Antioch in the first century after Christ is completely different than the grace shown to the inhabitants of, say, the Olmec peoples of central America during the same time frame.  This is a given.  So the assumption of the conundrum is invalid.  But there is another error inherent in its statement.  It ignores the fact that men sin willingly, not under coercion.  It lacks a properly biblical anthropology, and hence does not seem to realize that God’s Spirit is actively restraining evil, not coercing evil, a major and important difference.  It is not that they had “no option but to sin” (confusing man’s actions based upon desire with a knowledge of God’s eternal decree, which none of us possess) but that they choose to sin, long to sin, love to sin.  The way the objection is stated communicates the idea that you have an innocent party that is put in a position of having to do something evil, with no “options.”  Such is a far cry from what Reformed theology is asserting, and more importantly, it is a far cry from what the Bible explains is man’s condition and nature after the Fall.

On the “Who is Reformed?” Question: Choosing a “What” Over a “Who”

With the growth of Reformed ideas comes a jockeying to define what “Reformed” is and is not; or more frequently, who is and who is not. One hot topic has been whether Baptists have a right to plant their flag on Reformed turf. Those who answer in the negative are typically under the mistaken impression that they own the title and deed to the bulk of Reformed real estate. Many well-known authors and speakers have fallen into the hands of self-appointed Reformed gatekeepers who frequently give a thumbs up or thumbs down on others’ Reformed status.

Counting myself squarely in the “Reformed” camp, I have wrestled with how to sort out this question of who is and isn’t Reformed, and I’ve recently realized that, in one sense, it’s kind of a stupid question. People in generally Reformed circles have a complex set of overlapping, intersecting, and systemically complex beliefs, so asking them to stand single file in one of only two lines does not reflect that complexity.

Instead of placing someone in the Reformed bin or in the non-Reformed bin after a clunky evaluation process, we better serve the person and his or her nuances by evaluating specific beliefs. That method of evaluation should involve a comparison of beliefs to Reformed confessions and creeds, as well as those works that have endured within the Reformed tradition. And for a reminder, all those Reformed confessions and books are only as true as the biblical passages and principles from which they are derived. Pondering whether someone is Reformed is like asking whether someone is “biblical.”

Consider a few benefits to evaluating (when necessary) the beliefs of a person rather than that person in his or her entirety:

Accuracy. The label “Reformed” is not able to bear the burden of accurately encompassing a person whose set of beliefs may include both Reformed beliefs and non-Reformed beliefs. Having to choose one label for such a set of beliefs sacrifices the accuracy of that label to some degree.Anti-aristocracy. Conversations surrounding this topic often implicitly devolve into who gets placed within the inner circle and who has to look in from the outside; who receives admission to the club and who gets bounced. Speaking of Reformed beliefs rather than Reformed people eliminates a measure of elitism.Accessibility. Because people often do not express every belief they hold, limiting the “Reformed” label to beliefs rather than people focuses the discussion on that which is public. If Chuck has expressed his appreciation for the practical benefits of predestination within his prayer life but hasn’t said much on the covenants, or baptism, or Old Testament typology, or complementarianism, is Chuck Reformed? Not a great question. Is Chuck’s belief about God’s sovereignty Reformed? That’s better.

I hold this general principle loosely, and at a basic level I’m simply seeking to make a linguistic, terminological point rather than a doctrinal one. I certainly call myself Reformed in ordinary language. I have said things like “B.B. Warfield is Reformed,” “many Reformed theologians…” and other obviously appropriate statements. I subscribe to the Westminster Standards. But when we observe significant swaths of churchgoers who are on their way to a more robust Reformed theology, a complexity that accompanies the current theological flux within Reformed circles should be reflected in our use of the “Reformed” label.

J. W. Alexander, 1804-1859

James Waddell Alexander was born to Archibald and Janetta Waddell Alexander in Louisa County, Virginia, on March 13, 1804. The infant had been named for Janetta’s father, James Waddell, D.D., who had ministered in the Shenandoah Valley many years and was known as “The Blind Preacher of Virginia.” Young Alexander graduated the College of New Jersey in 1820 and then studied divinity at Princeton Seminary. His first ministry following his ordination by Hanover Presbytery was in the Presbyterian Church, Charlotte Court House, Virginia, which began with him preaching as the stated supply and then he served briefly as the called pastor. He then moved to Trenton, New Jersey, where he served that congregation, 1829-1832. His longest single service was as the Professor of Rhetoric and Latin Language and Literature in the College of New Jersey, 1833-1844. Because of a renewed desire for pastoral ministry, he accepted a call in 1844 to the Duane Street Church in New York City where he continued until 1849. He returned to Princeton that year to serve briefly as the Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government in the seminary. However, he once again yearned to serve a congregation and took the opportunity to return to New York City to be the minister of Fifth Avenue and Nineteenth Street Church. Hoping to relieve an illness, Dr. Alexander took time from his church and visited Red Sweet Springs, Virginia, where he died, July 31, 1859, at the age of only fifty-four years. His body was returned to Princeton to be buried near his father. J. W. Alexander had been honored during his lifetime with the D.D. by both Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, 1843, and Harvard University, 1854.

Twenty-five years after J. W. Alexander’s death, the alumni of Princeton Seminary erected the Alexander Tablet in the campus chapel as a memorial to Archibald, James Waddell, and Joseph Addison Alexander and their ministries not only to the seminary but also to the church in general. J. W. Alexander was remembered at the service through a brief message presented by Theodore L. Cuyler, D.D., who had been a student of Alexander during his teaching years at the College of New Jersey. Cuyler commented that Dr. Alexander was a prolific writer but he personally rated most highly “his ‘Charles Quill’ letters to workingmen—which have the simplicity and pith of Benjamin Franklin” (p. 23). The Charles Quill letters had been published under the pseudonym as a series in the Newark Daily Advertiser. The series was then published in succession as a two volume set. The first was titled The American Mechanic, 1838, and the second part was published in 1839 under the title, The Working Man. The books were republished in a set in 1847 under the single title of The American Mechanic and Working Man. J. W. Alexander commented that he was motivated to write the articles because of his great concern for those Americans moving from the rural areas for jobs in the factories of the rapidly growing and densely populated cities (The Life of J. W. Alexander, 1:145-46, 246, 266). Alexander thought, like several of his contemporaries, that even though industrialization was bringing economic benefits and employment, it was also affecting the employees negatively with respect to their spiritual, family, and social lives.

These books might be useful tools for home schooling and Christian schools. Though many aspects of the books are dated, Dr. Alexander tells several personal stories to illustrate some of the principles he presented in the book that might be of interest to children. An advantage of this type of antiquarian book is that it not only provides wisdom for living, but also vocabulary, trades, and cultural aspects which could be incorporated in the teaching of history. Professions such as the cooper, tanner, and turner have for the most part changed as wooden barrels have become steel or plastic, leather is processed with newer and safer technology, and manufacturing lathes are often fully automated. Today’s children might enjoy learning how in some cases those who practiced the trades adopted the name of the trade as a surname; for example, John the cooper became John Cooper, William the tanner became William Tanner, and Andrew the turner became Andrew Turner.

Sources—The Alexander Memorial, 1879, includes the memorial presented by T. L. Cuyler for J. W. Alexander on pages 19-27; The Life of J. W. Alexander: Forty Years of Familiar Letters, 2 vols., New York: Charles Scribner, 1860; the picture of Dr. Alexander is the photograph in The Alexander Memorial, which is available on Internet Archive; there are several copies of Alexander’s American Mechanic and Working Man available on Internet Archive.

Andrew Wilson and David Gibson Exchange on Limited Atonement

Within the doctrine of “definite atonement” you’ll find a nest of theological topics: doctrine of salvation, doctrine of God, the history of redemption, Christology, ecclesiology…hardly a theological concept remains untouched. The recently released 700+ page volume From Heaven He Came and Sought Her attests to the doctrine’s systemic nature by the depth and breadth of its content and by its size (and its endorsements; check them out at the link). For anyone interested, we interviewed the editors, David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, and Carl Trueman (a contributor) on Reformed Forum here. The Gibson brothers were a pleasure to talk to.

Without rehashing the discussion currently going on at Andrew Wilson and company’s blog (the original review, Gibson’s response, and Wilson’s response; HT: JT), I’ll try to lay out just a few principles and ground rules that may help those who are following the discussion.

Two central questions emerge from the conversation between Wilson and Gibson:

What constitutes biblically warranted theological conclusions, andGiven the answer to (1), is the doctrine of “limited/definite atonement” a biblically warranted conclusion?

In counterintuitive fashion, I’ll take the second question first and use it as an example for answering the first.

Why do some Reformed historians put those words in quotes? The student of church history will feel torn on this topic. He feels the urge to avoid sounding curmudgeonly, but can’t help but situate the current discussion and terminology of limited atonement within its multi-century history (which From Heaven He Came accomplished in pages 55-224). Like a parent worn out by having constantly to repeat “What did I just say?,” repetition fatigue can set in. A little over a year ago I posted this section from Richard Muller’s book (again, you should read it because it’s very important, a significant contribution, yada yada) Calvin and the Reformed Tradition (now also available at Logos!). Rather than quoting large blocks I’ll summarize relevant parts below, which means some nuance will be lost, which also means you should read the relevant chapters if you’re looking for further details. Get the book, but you’ll find the chapter on “Calvin on Christ’s Satisfaction and Its Efficacy: The Issue of ‘Limited Atonement’” in PDF form here and the chapter on “A Tale of Two Wills? Calvin and Amyraut on Ezekiel 18:23” in PDF form here. These should function as necessary companions to From Heaven He Came.

Wilson’s desire to be biblical deserves applause, though like every other evangelical claim to be biblical, the question of what biblical means lies in the details. I’m not sure there exists even a small contingent of evangelicals who offer public defense for being unbiblical. Wilson asks multiple times, “Is definite atonement, the belief that Christ’s death was intended to win the salvation of God’s people alone, taught by any biblical writers?” Seems like a simple yes or no question, but on closer inspection it is packed with assumptions. It may reflect good assumptions or bad assumptions, but they should be acknowledged.

First, is Wilson expecting that all the essential aspects of a particular doctrine be taught by one biblical writer, presumably in one passage? Here we find a more specific example of our first question above.

Second, is the doctrine of limited atonement summarized by the statement, “Christ’s death was intended to win the salvation of God’s people alone?”

We’ll delay answering the first question, but the second question can quickly and emphatically be answered “no.” A few reasons:

1) Terminology matters. Muller reveals the anachronistic, vague, and therefore unhelpful status of the term “limited atonement” (not just because “limited” sounds exclusive; we’ll save the topic of marketing Reformed theology for another day). “Atonement” is an English word that was used after the doctrine was most pointedly debated and established in the period of high orthodoxy. “Satisfaction,” “propitiation,” “expiation,” “oblation,” “sufficiency,” “efficiency,” “impetration,” and “application” were included as key terms in the development of the doctrine. “Atonement” tends to flatten the nuances of those key terms.

2) From Muller:

Note that the statement “Christ died for the elect only,” if understood as referencing the efficacy of his satisfaction, could be confessed equally by Calvin, Beza, Amyraut, and Arminius, while the meaning of statement that his “death was not intended to atone for the sins of all mankind” depends entirely on whether atonement is understood in terms of its objective accomplishment (expiatio, impetratio) or its application (applicatio) and whether the “intention” references an effective divine willing or a revealed, preceptive divine willing. [Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 73n11.]

If Wilson believes that “Christ died for his people alone” is unbiblical, depending on the interpretation of this vague phrase, strictly speaking he not only puts himself beyond Reformed theology, but beyond Amyraldianism and Arminianism. You won’t find good theological company outside those camps. Boiling down the point of discussion to whether “Christ died for his people alone” betrays a lack of understanding of the issue, but also a commitment to a particular take on the doctrine that, to borrow Wilson’s phrase, “seems so clearly to be wagging the exegetical dog.” Wilson doesn’t come to the biblical text as a blank slate, but he reads the passages relevant to this discussion through a hermeneutical lens informed by his particular theological commitments, and those commitments are displayed in his original interaction with the book and his subsequent response to Gibson.

The quote above by Muller illustrates the basic, fundamental, and crucial nature of the categories redemption accomplished and redemption applied. Richard Gaffin insists on this point (one of the reasons I promote his work so heavily) and he stands on the shoulders of John Murray, Ridderbos, Vos, and the bulk of the Reformed tradition before them. The Reformed orthodox used the terms expiation/impetration and application to teach the same categories. You may have also heard the terms historia salutis (history of redemption) and ordo/applicatio salutis (order/application of salvation), also rough equivalents.

Muller’s quote helpfully uses the Reformed distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will. The debated issue in the 17th century centered around the ultimate cause of redemption applied—the individual’s free choice and God’s foreknowledge of it that follows (Molinism/Arminianism) or God’s decretive will (Reformed). All parties affirmed that it is God’s preceptive will (God’s will that we do what he commands—Ps. 143:10) that all come to Christ, but not his effective, decretive will (Rom. 9:19; Eph 1:11) This distinction would have helped Wilson when interpreting biblical passages that talk about God’s desire for the “world” and “all” to be saved (Ezekiel 18:23; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 19; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet 2:1; 3:9; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2). These are not the only passages in Scripture that talk about God’s intentions, his character, his will, Christ’s accomplished work, or the application of redemption (just to name a few theological overlays).

How does all this inform Wilson and Gibson’s discussion? We can rule out a few points that may be worth discussing elsewhere, but less relevant here.

1) Toss aside universal salvation. No orthodox theologian in this discussion believes that all humanity is saved. The most surface skimming of biblical history sufficiently eliminates the universalist option.

2) For the orthodox theologians, the question did not center on whether Christ’s accomplished redemption was applied only to the elect, but how. Was it ultimately because God foreknew what they would do under specific circumstances and then place the elect in those circumstances so they would actualize their freedom by choosing him (Molinism/Arminianism, with historical variations)? Or was it ultimately God’s electing decree that causes the individual’s salvation?

3) The Reformed have typically affirmed the free offer of the gospel. The gospel offer goes out freely to the world, to all men, all nations, to potentially every individual. Jesus did not preach his message only to the elect, and neither do we.

So the historical debates focused not on redemption applied, but on Christ’s accomplished redemption and whether this accomplished redemption was for every individual, elect and non-elect, or for the elect only. Put this way, we can ask more pointed questions:

1) Did Christ accomplish redemption for the non-elect?

2) If so, what is the status of Christ’s accomplished redemption that is not applied to the non-elect? In other words, if that redemption is accomplished but not applied, what kind of redemption is it and what is it redeeming?

Regarding Christ’s accomplished work, it has always struck me as a strange line of thinking to phrase the extent of sin in “amount” language and to do the same with Christ’s propitiation. If, in the whole course of human history, there exists 65 billion sin units, and as a subset in the course of the elect’s human history there exists 7 billion sin units, did Christ’s work cover 7 billion sin units? 65 billion? Some other number? “Amount” language seems wholly unhelpful, though we clearly want to affirm the infinite value of Christ’s accomplished work.

Note also that in this discussion we have not yet raised concerns about what to say to the unbeliever in evangelism or preaching, but are establishing principles from which our evangelism, preaching, and conversations can then be shaped and applied.

The distinctions above will not answer Wilson’s question, because he is asking the wrong question. Better, he’s asking a question phrased in a vague, non-specific way that expects “limited/definite atonement” or “unlimited atonement” to be taught by a biblical writer, when the best of Reformed theology does not expect that specific language from any biblical writer in the way Wilson wants. What one sees as biblical support for limited atonement depends quite a bit on what one means by limited atonement, and how it is connected to other linked doctrines.

I want to highlight again Wilson’s admirable, shared goal to be biblical. But the application of that desire through a uni-propositional, tunnel-vision hermeneutic that does not take into account the history of redemption seems less admirable. The Westminster Confession offers a helpful starting point for theological method and what constitutes a biblically warranted conclusion:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…

Unless we simply quote verses verbatim all day and stop there, we all phrase biblical truths in different ways. What makes all those different iterations “biblical” is whether they are taught from Scripture as a whole, from “the whole counsel of God.” Given Wilson’s concession that “unlimited atonement may not be taught in scripture either,” why all the effort exclusively poured into demonstrating how limited atonement is unbiblical? Surely Scripture says something about Christ’s death and who it involves, so why don’t we see a positive case put forth by Wilson?

At the risk of going down a rabbit trail, I’ll bring another 700+ page book to the discussion, Kingdom Through Covenant (KTC) by Gentry and Wellum. Stephen Wellum contributes a chapter in From Heaven He Came, and he also writes on the extent of the atonement starting on p. 670 of KTC. To Wellum’s credit, he speaks in terminology that reflects an understanding of the redemption accomplished/applied nuance regarding atonement language, referencing John Murray’s work on the topic in a footnote. Also to his credit, Wellum understands that this topic must be connected to an understanding of Christ’s priestly and mediatorial work, a point made by Carl Trueman in his historical chapter on John Owen and the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis). Wellum notes others in Reformed history who understood the intrinsic connection between Christ’s priestly office and the sufficiency/efficiency of his work—Owen, Turretin, Bavinck, and others.

But Wellum’s understanding of covenant stands in the way of his potential consistency on this topic. In his fervor for emphasizing the newness of the new covenant, Wellum argues not just for a new change in redemption accomplished with Christ’s coming, but a new change in how redemption is applied after Christ’s death and resurrection. In other words, he links the changes in covenant administration to changes in individual salvation. He does this as part of the book’s overall program to defend a “progressive covenantalism,” which for present purposes should be understood as a Baptist covenantalism. Jonathan Brack and I address this in an upcoming article for the Westminster Theological Journal. One question to ask Wellum is whether Christ was the mediator for the Old Testament covenants, or if Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others were exclusively and non-typologically the mediators for the salvation of Old Testament saints. In other words, did Christ not die for Old Testament saints? A consistent, worked-out OT soteriology seems to be missing in KTC. Implications will follow for new covenant soteriology and the extent of Christ’s accomplished work.

I bring this up only to demonstrate that one’s understanding of covenant also matters for this discussion. The topic functions systemically throughout theology and, as I hope to argue in my ThM thesis, one’s understanding of the covenant of redemption shapes every facet and topic within theology.

At some point I’d like to pick up two other doctrines relevant to this discussion that have recently surfaced. First, on the Unbelievable podcast (I’m sensing a UK theme in this post), Paul Helm and William Lane Craig discussed the differences between “Calvinism” and Molinism. Second, Derek Rishmawy wrote a thought-provoking piece that defended impassibility, a defense much-needed today. It brought up some thoughts on method within theology proper that I’d like to devote some time and thought to.

A Consistent Biblical-Theological Hermeneutic

In By Faith, Not By Sight Richard Gaffin summarizes a redemptive-historical (or covenant-historical, biblical-theological) hermeneutic, distinct from a purely grammatical-historical hermeneutic. For discussions regarding the doctrine of Scripture, and especially the New Testament use of the Old, this hermeneutical distinction is key. Gaffin makes the same case in other works, more explicitly in Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views and by way of Geerhardus Vos in the introduction to Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. This hermeneutical approach seeks to apply, in a biblically consistent way, answers to questions like,

“What if an Old Testament biblical writer would not have fully recognized the prophetic, messianic fulfillment of what he was writing?”

“What priority does Ancient Near Eastern texts, customs, cultures, and practices hold within biblical interpretation?”

“Do New Testament writers take Old Testament texts out of context and appropriate them for their own purposes?”

Gaffin does not address all those questions in the section below, but he does provide principles that help toward answering those specific questions involving a range of texts:

That Paul’s teaching is God’s word—it is hardly gratuitous for our times to add here—is true formally as well as materially, true not just in its content but also in its oral and written form. To deny that, to deny that the text as text is God’s word, to deny that equation by alleging some factor of discontinuity between the two, between the text and God’s word, or by finding a tension between them, between a message with an allegedly divine referent dialectically embedded in a text, which, as text, as a linguistic phenomena, is of purely human origin and so questionable and fallible—such denials are Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment, and, I would add, postmodern construals that Paul would simply find foreign. At least that is so if we are to take 2 Timothy 3:16 and other like passages at face value.

A couple of implications of the word-of-God character of Paul’s teaching may be noted here briefly. One important methodological consideration is that in interpreting his letters, with all due attention to various dimensions of his immediate historical context, including relevant extra-canonical texts and materials, the context not only primary but privileged is the canonical context. For any given passage in Paul, the ultimately controlling context is the expanding horizon of contexts provided by the rest of Scripture, beginning with his letters as a whole. This basic hermeneutical stance, it bears stressing, is not bound up with some “abstract Scripture principle,” as it is wont to be dismissed by some, but is anchored in a consideration already noted, the redemptive-historical factor. Paul’s letters have their origin, their integral place and their intended function within the organically unfolding history of revelation, and Scripture as a whole, the canon, with its own production being a part of that history, is our only normative access to it.

Richard Gaffin By Faith, Not By Sight (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2013), 9-10.

LeRoy Gresham, 1871-1955

In nineteenth-century Macon, Georgia, one of the most respected citizens was John Jones Gresham (1812-1891). He was at various points in his life an attorney, a judge, the mayor of Macon, a state senator, an investor in the Georgia textile industry, a farmer, a member of the county board of education, and for over forty years an elder in the First Presbyterian Church. John married Mary Edgeworth (Baxter) of Athens. In 1842 they built the Greek revival style home in which they raised their children and survives today as a bed and breakfast and a fine example of antebellum architecture in the Macon historic district.

John and Mary Gresham had five children. The three that survived beyond the age of two were LeRoy Wiley, who died at the age of seventeen; Mary Jones, who was known as “Minnie” and would live in Baltimore with her husband, Arthur W. Machen, where they would raise their son J. Gresham Machen and his two brothers; and Thomas Baxter Gresham, who married Tallulah “Lula” Billups. LeRoy, or “Loy” as he was known to friends and family, was born to Thomas and Lula on September 21, 1871 in Madison, Georgia, which is about sixty miles north of Macon. Later in life, Thomas moved the family to Baltimore where they lived within a mile of the Machens which facilitated Loy and J. G. Machen, despite an age difference of ten years, becoming more like brothers than cousins.

LeRoy Gresham attended Lawrenceville Academy in New Jersey before receiving both his B.A. and the M.A. from Princeton University. He went on to graduate studies for one year at Johns Hopkins University followed by course work at the University of Maryland where he earned the LL.B. Following in his father’s footsteps, LeRoy practiced law in Baltimore beginning in 1896, but then after half-a-dozen years of practice he realized God was calling him to the ministry. He attended Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, for his theological studies earning the Bachelor of Divinity in 1906. He was licensed that May by Potomac Presbytery of the P.C.U.S. followed with ordination by Orange Presbytery in November of the same year. Rev. Gresham’s first call was for about three years to a church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. His next call was to be his last because he served the church in Salem, Virginia, beginning in 1909 and continued there until his retirement in 1946, after a ministry of thirty-seven years. LeRoy was honored with the D.D. by two institutions in Virginia—King College in Bristol, 1914, and Washington and Lee University in Lexington, 1924.

Loy married Jessie Rhett of Baltimore in 1903. One of their two sons, Francis, who had moved to Minneapolis, died at the age of twenty-nine in a drowning accident in 1935. Another son, Thomas B. Gresham, was named for Loy’s father. Loy’s mother had died when Loy was but eight years old, on her thirty-first birthday, September 29, 1879; his father died in Baltimore in 1933.

At one point in LeRoy Gresham’s ministry at Salem, J. Gresham Machen knew of a soon-to-be available church in Norfolk, so he mentioned Loy as a possible candidate to the pastor who was leaving the church. Machen was writing to his former student Stuart “Bill” Hutchison, who was leaving the First Church (P.C.U.S.) to accept the call to the East Liberties Church, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (P.C.U.S.A.). Dr. Machen believed that the Norfolk pulpit would be a good fit for Loy, so he presented his case regarding his cousin’s qualifications to Bill.

I have come frequently into contact with his work at Salem, and every contact with it has been an inspiration and a benediction. Though on a smaller scale, it is more like your work at Norfolk than almost anything else I have seen. That is to say, it is the work of a genuine minister of the gospel, who is in full possession of the necessary intellectual and other gifts. I do not believe that a more absolutely unselfish, consecrated man ever entered the ministry than my cousin. To win one soul he will pour forth unstintedly all the treasures of mind and heart that God has given him. And that kind of painstaking work has produced a congregation which it is a joy to see. His position in the whole community, moreover, is a commanding one.…

Why then has he remained so long in a place which … is after all a small town? For two reasons:

First, he absolutely refuses to do anything like candidating. He takes the ground that his great duty is to his own congregation, and that, especially since his work there is so highly blessed of God, he has absolutely no time to spend upon any attempt to seek a larger field.

In the second place, the impression has gotten abroad that he is absolutely determined not to leave Salem. That impression is false. It is true, he has rejected opportunities to go elsewhere, but there were good and special reasons in every case.

Machen went on to point out that the Salem congregation understood “fully that Loy is far too big a man for his present church. But they think that for some reason he has absolutely determined to stay with them always.” However, at least in Machen’s thinking, there was a possibility of Loy leaving Salem for another call. He commented, “I am sure that Loy will not decline the real call when it comes” (underlining in the original). Dr. Machen taught New Testament in a theological seminary and was often sought for counsel regarding calling the right candidate to the right pulpit, but it appears his exuberance and love for his close-as- a-brother cousin may have gotten the best of him with respect to understanding Loy’s own sense of call and devotion to the Salem congregation. It would appear that Loy believed the “real call” was the one in which he was already ministering, and the efforts of pulpit committees, and even of his own cousin, were simply distractions from his sheep as he continued to shepherd his flock for nearly four decades.

 

Definite Atonement Is at the Heart of the Gospel

Definite atonement (also called particular redemption or unlimited atonement) is one of those perennial sticking points among evangelicals. Whenever Evangelicals who are inclined toward the doctrines of grace go through the perfunctory feeling-out process, they’ll often head toward the 4- or 5-point Calvinist identifier. This isn’t really an issue among those who subscribe to the historic Reformed confessions. Nor does it dominate much theological conversation. However, it’s a common point of discussion among evangelicals.

Yet, in my experience, the conversation often ends with a bit of cajoling and an implicit agreement to disagree. I’ve been a part of many of these conversations, still I question whether these passing exchanges have done justice to the matter. Definite atonement is not a secondary issue; it is essential to the gospel. For whom did Christ die? Moreover, what is the precise nature of the atonement?

Is it the case that Christ’s death merely made salvation possible? Or did Christ’s death actually purchase redemption? Was there a fundamental exchange on the cross or merely an opening of the door unto the forgiveness of sins? These fundamental questions must be answered rigorously in light of the whole counsel of God. So the next time you come to an impasse with a 4-point (or 5-point) Calvinist, consider that these views run much deeper than your taste in sports, musical styles, or even political parties. They extend to the essence of Christianity.

If you’d like to go deeper in your understanding of definite atonement, I highly recommend the book From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (Crossway) edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. We recently interviewed them along with Carl Trueman on Christ the Center episode 307. David Gibson recently had an exchange with Andrew Wilson on the subject. Read up on it. You should also look at John Murray’s important book Redemption Accomplished and Applied, wherein he skillfully treats the definite work of Christ to its ongoing application by the Holy Spirit.

James A. Lyon, 1814-1882

James Adair was born to Ezekiel L. and Mary Adair Lyon near Jonesboro in Washington County, Tennessee, April 19, 1814. He became a communing member of the Jonesboro Presbyterian Church when he professed his faith in Christ in 1831. His college education was completed in 1832 at Washington College in Tennessee; he then moved to the seminary in Princeton, New Jersey, where he received his divinity degree after four years of study. He was licensed by the Presbytery of New Brunswick in 1836. The year 1837 was a particularly eventful one for young ministerial candidate Lyon because after he married Adelaide E. Deadrick of Knoxville, Tennessee, on March 14, the Old and New Schools divided the Presbyterian Church at the General Assembly in May, after which he was ordained by the Old School’s Presbytery of Holston as an evangelist in September. His first ministry as evangelist was to the churches in Rogersville and New Providence, Tennessee.

Rev. Lyon’s next call would require him to leave his home state, move southwest across the Tennessee River and the state of Alabama, to settle in Mississippi at the Presbyterian Church in Columbus. Rev. Lyon ministered there as stated supply from October 1841 to May 1847; there is no reason given for his not having been duly installed as the called pastor. Following a year of foreign travel after he left the Columbus Church, he accepted a call to the Westminster Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, Missouri, where he was installed November 15, 1848. After a ministry of only two years, he left the church, and established a Select High School for Young Ladies in St. Louis where he taught for three years. In 1854 his Alma Mater, Washington College, honored him with the Doctor of Divinity, and then in October he returned to his former church in Columbus, Mississippi, where he was duly installed as the pastor on January 7, 1855. He continued his ministry at Columbus for sixteen years, which when added to his previous service to that congregation as stated supply gives a total of twenty-two years of ministry.

One aspect of James Lyon’s life that would have particular significance for the P.C.U.S. in later years was his influence in establishing the professorship of Natural Religion in Connection with Revealed Religion at Columbia Seminary in South Carolina in 1860. The new position was endowed with a large cash gift from Hon. John Perkins, Jr., who was a member of Rev. Lyon’s church in Mississippi. During a visit to Columbia to work out the details regarding the new professorship, Lyon stayed with J. H. Thornwell and enjoyed a ride with him in his carriage as they toured the city. Lyon also preached in the First Presbyterian Church on “The Ill Desert of Sin.” The next day Lyon attended the wedding of John B. Adger’s eldest daughter to First Church’s co-pastor with Thornwell, Rev. Francis Mullally. Mulally went on to became the sole pastor in November 1861 when Dr. Thornwell resigned due to continuing health problems. James Woodrow was selected as the first Perkins Professor and began teaching in 1861. Woodrow’s views on creation and evolution would become the subject of extended controversy in the 1880s in Columbia Seminary and the P.C.U.S.

In August 1870, Dr. Lyon was elected Professor of Mental and Moral Science in the University of Mississippi at Oxford, where he worked until he retired in June 1881 due to declining health. James A. Lyon, D.D., died on May 15, 1882, in Holly Springs, Mississippi, in the home of his son-in-law, Eagleton M. Smith, Esq., following four or five days of paralysis. He was survived by his wife, Adelaide, and six children.

Though Dr. Lyon may be an unfamiliar church historical personality today, he was an influential minister in his era. He was selected the moderator of the P.C.C.S.A. General Assembly that met in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1863. Lyon contributed several articles to the Southern Presbyterian Review, and his sermons and comments were published in Columbus newspapers and other periodicals including True Witness and Sentinel (Memphis and New Orleans). Though he enjoyed some prominence and accolades to some degree, he seems to have preferred accomplishing his ends as a behind-the-scenes influence.

The information used for the biography was harvested from standard nineteenth-century Presbyterian biographical sources. Regarding James Woodrow and the evolution controversy, see the Woodrow biography by A. H. Freundt in Dictionary of the Presbyterian and Reformed Tradition in America, eds. Hart and Noll, 1999. See D. Calhoun’s, The Glory of the Lord Risen Upon it, pages 88, 101, regarding Mulally and First Church.

Pitfalls of Parachurch

I want to be as clear as possible at the outset. I, in no way, want this post to be received as a vitriolic rant against parachurch ministries. Rather, it is my hope that it will be received with pastoral sensitivity and concern. I actually have great appreciation for many parachurch ministries, and am personally involved with several different parachurch ministries.1 When I was a boy, my parents had my sister and I involved in the Skilton House–one of the most wonderful parachurch mercy ministries in the Vietnamese section of Philadelphia. I have attended two seminaries, which, by their very nature (whether the seminary professors there would acknowledge it or not), are parachurch ministries. I fully believe that there is a place for parachurch ministries, and that many have been blessed by them. That being said, I do have a growing concern about the (often inadvertent) negative consequences of parachurch ministries; and, I believe that a higher priority on the individual’s commitment to a local church is the cure for this deficiency.

1) Parachurch ministries tend to make their thing the thing.  Sometime last year, I attended a parachurch fundraiser for a significant adoption agency. The keynote speaker stressed the importance of Christians either adopting or supporting adoption agencies in order to make the process easier for Christian families who are themselves eager adopt. While I am entirely supportive of this agency and their ministry, what I am not supportive of, is the way in which the keynote speaker made those present feel as though–if they were truly wanting to live obedient lives for Jesus–they should be either adopting or supporting agencies like the one he was representing. A deep sense of unjust guilt came crashing down on my conscience after the talk, because the speaker had crossed the line and entered the sphere of unbiblicaly binding our consciences. This, in turn, got me asking myself the question, “Why am I so bothered by the manner with which this was pressed upon us?”

The next day, I called a close friend to talk about my concerns about the obligatory language that was used at the event. My friend responded with what I deem one of the most profound thoughts on this subject. He said, “Nick, every parachurch ministry makes their thing the thing.” They are not there to talk about matters of salvation per se. They are not there to talk about how to live godly lives in the covenant community and in the world per se. Neither are they there to talk about the call of our Lord to carry out the evangelization of the world through the local church. Rather, they exist to make a niche (albeit good) cause the thing of Christian living. Herein lies the danger. Adoption is a good, right and beautiful thing. It is one of the best ways for us to battle the evil of abortion. It is something gloriously used by God to bring children to Himself–who might otherwise never hear the Gospel–by placing them in Christian homes where they are taught the Scriptures and the Gospel. But, it would be wrong to suggest that it is commanded by God. To bind the consciences of the people of God with a specific cause (no matter how good and lawful it might be), if it has not been commanded by God, can become a dangerous thing.

2) Parachurch ministries tend to fuel erroneous models of what God intends the Church to be - Another concern that I have with parachurch ministries is that they tend to give a false expectation about what the church is, and what the church should look like. I especially see this with college-focused parachurch ministries. Whether it is a highly concentrated one-on-one discipleship college ministry, or one in which an ordained pastor spends the majority of his waking hours hanging out with students, the benefits of such ministry is often met with unintended negative residual effects. I have noticed a pattern among young adults who have benefited from having a personal pastor at their disposal 24/7 to expect that sort of communal relationship (wonderful as it is during that stage of life) to continue in the local church. This is impractical, as ministers of local churches have many more responsibilities than college ministers. This is not to minimize the difficulties and time-restraints of college ministers. It is, however, to make the observation that the commitments of local church ministers and college ministers are of a different order, and, therefore, will look much different at points from the college ministry that they so valued. Additionally, this is true of the one-on-one discipleship ministries at college campuses. As important as one-on-one discipleship may be, it is not the model that we see in the pages of the New Testament. Rather, discipleship takes place largely within the context of the gathered Assembly of the saints in a local church. One of the significant features of a healthy local church is that there will be variegated ages and a diversity of stages of life among the congregants. Additionally, there is an expectation that the members of a local church, reflecting these different ages and stages will be living life in community with one another. This will take a different shape and form than that of a group of 18-21 year olds living communally.

3) Parachurch ministries often results in a self-appointed community without God-ordained authority. While many would not formally categorize the homeschooling movement as parachurch, it certainly fits the mold with regard to the approach and pitfalls. Over the past thirty years there has been a resurgence of interest in homeschooling. Over the past 10 years in the church in America it has become trendy–and, even in some cases an expectation. On the one hand, I welcome the homeschooling renaissance as something with great potential benefits. On the other hand, it is a movement fraught with dangers. One of those dangers is that in making homeschooling the thing in the Christian life, many inadvertently make their homeschooling community more important than the local church to which many of them belong. One of the greatest negative consequences of making a community outside of your local church community the most important community of which you are a part is that there is no God-ordained authority structure for the well-being of those involved in the community. Sure, the parents are the God-ordained authority figures over their children; but there is no governmental structure for the well-being of the community. In contrast, God has ordained elders and deacons for the well-being of the people of God–the covenant community. This is not simply for vision or guidance, it is for the care of the souls of the people of God and for the peace and purity of the church. One other negative consequence of the homeschooling movement is that it can become a temptation for families involved to give the best of their labors to the homeschooling community rather than to the local church in which they are called to use their gifts and serve the members of that manifestation of the body of Christ.

While nothing may seem more foreign to the homeschooling movement than the Christian hip-hop movement, there is actually a striking similarity of dangers highlighted above. I love what is happening in CHH; but, am concerned that what you functionally have in smaller communities of the Holy hip-hop movement is, what amounts to, functionally self-appointed ministers and a community of artists that allow their “ministries” and community to take the drivers seat to their place in the local church. I know of a situation where one artist had fallen into sexual sin and was submitting himself to the discipline of the elders of his local church. One of the brothers who had introduced him to the Holy hip-hop world, took it upon himself to publicly call this brother out online and to warn the others in the hip-hop community nearby to have nothing to do with him. This was a tragic example of what it looks like for parachurch ministry to trump local church ministry and cause great harm to the cause of the Gospel through the local church. This too is sometimes seen in other parachurch ministries and communities.

The solution to these dangers is not to stop supporting adoption agencies and seminaries, quit placing ministers on college campuses, stop homeschooling and discourage those engaged in Christian hip-hop or other communities of music ministries. The answer is, of course, found in embracing the wisdom of God in ordering local churches full of diverse people, in diverse ages and stages of life and with diverse commitments. Every New Testament epistle was written–not to individual Christians, but to a corporate body of believers making up a particular local church. When we put the local church first, our ministries outside of the local church will be given an adequate amount of our focus without jeopardizing our need to use our time, energy, money and gifts serving the body to which God has called us. We will seek to fulfill the one another passages in a way that will actually benefit the other members of the church. We will have a healthy assessment about the unique features of a local church, and will stop trying to make it look like a particular parachurch ministry that has made their thing the thing. We will encourage those who homeschool and will help foster gifts among the members of the body who are called to use those gifts outside the walls of the local church–yet all the while making sure that the “one another” passages which are placarded across the pages of the New Testament are first and foremost being fulfilled in the local church to which we belong. When we do so, I believe that parachurch ministries will be needed less–and that where they are needed they will do less damage. After all, Jesus didn’t die for a parachurch organization; he died for the church.

1. For instance, I help provide theological resources for Ligonier Ministries, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and the Reformed Forum.

Jonathan Edwards on David as a Type of Christ

From my earliest days as a believer I have had a fascination with the biblical and typological parallels between King David and Jesus. Much has been written on this subject, but recently I stumbled across Jonathan Edwards’ excellent exposition of David as a type of Christ in “Types of the Messiah” in his volume on Typology. Here are the historico-typological parallels from which he set out David, his life, offices and experiences as Covenantal and typological preparations for the Messiah:

“There is yet a more remarkable, manifest and manifold agreement between the things said of David in his history and the things said of the Messiah in the prophecies. His name, David, signifies beloved, as the prophecies do represent the Messiah as in a peculiar and transcendent manner the beloved of God. David was God’s elect in an eminent manner. Saul was the king whom the people chose (1 Samuel 8:18 and 1 Samuel 12:13). But David was the king whom God chose, one whom he found and pitched upon according to his own mind, without any concern of man in the affair and contrary to what men would have chosen. When Jesse caused all his elder sons to pass before Samuel, God said concerning one and another of them, “The Lord hath not chosen this, neither hath the Lord chosen this,” etc. [1 Samuel 16:8–10]. See 1 Chronicles 28:4: there David says, “The Lord God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel.” (See Psalms 78:67–70.) Psalms 89:3, “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant”; agreeable to Isaiah 42:1, “Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,” and Isaiah 49:7, “And he shall choose thee.” He was a king of God’s finding and providing, and [God] speaks of him as his king. 1 Samuel 16:1, “I will send thee to Jesse… for I have provided me a king among his sons.” 2 Samuel 22:51, “He is the tower of salvation for his king”; agreeable to Psalms 2:6, “I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion.” He is spoken of as a man after God’s own heart, and one in whom God delighted. 2 Samuel 22:20, “He delivered me, because he delighted in me”; agreeable to Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth.”

David was in a very eminent manner God’s anointed or messiah (as the word is), and is so spoken of. 2 Samuel 22:51, “He showeth mercy to his anointed, unto David.” And 2 Samuel 23:1, “David the son of Jesse… the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob.” Psalms 89:19–20, “I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him.” Samuel anointed him with peculiar solemnity (1 Samuel 16:13). (See how this agrees with the prophecies of the Messiah, “Prophecies of the Messiah” §91.)4

David’s anointing remarkably agrees with what the prophecies say of the anointing of the Messiah, who speak of it as a being anointed with the Spirit of God. So David was anointed with the Spirit of God at the same time that he was anointed with oil. 1 Samuel 16:13, “And Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward.” (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §32.)5

David is spoken of as being a poor man, of a low family and in mean circumstances. 1 Samuel 18:23, “I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed.” 2 Samuel 7:18, “Who am I? and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?” Agreeable to this, it is said of the Messiah in the prophecies that he was a root out of a dry ground, that he was a low tree [Isaiah 52:3, Ezekiel 17:24].

David is spoken of as an eminently holy person, a man after God’s own heart. He is spoken of in the history of the kings of Judah as one whose heart was perfect with the Lord his God (1 Kings 11:4); one that went fully after the Lord (1 Kings 11:6); one that did that that was right in the eyes of the Lord (1 Kings 15:11, 2 Kings 18:3, 2 Chronicles 28:1 and 2 Chronicles 29:2). He is spoken of as pure and upright [and] righteous; one that had clean hands; that kept the ways of the Lord and did not wickedly depart from God (2 Samuel 22:21–27). (See how this agrees with what is said in the prophecies of the Messiah, “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §27.)6

David was the youngest son of Jesse, as the Messiah in the prophecies is spoken of as coming in the latter days. He has frequently the appellation of “God’s servant.” It would be endless to mention all the places; see ‘em in the Concordance under the word Servant DAVID.”7 So has the Messiah often this appellation in the prophecies (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 42:19, and Isaiah 49:3, Isaiah 49:6, and Isaiah 52:13 and Isaiah 53:11; Zechariah 3:8).

David’s outward appearance was not such as would have recommended him to the esteem and choice of men as a person fit for rule and victory, but on the contrary such as tended to cause men to despise him as a candidate for such things. 1 Samuel 16:7, “Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature… for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Samuel 17:42, “And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth.” 1 Samuel 17:56, “Inquire whose son this stripling is.” Eliab, his elder brother, thought him fitter to [be] with the sheep than to come to the army (1 Samuel 17:28); agreeable to Isaiah 53:2, “He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.” David appeared unexpectedly. Samuel expected a man of great stature, and appearing outwardly like a man of valor; and therefore when he saw Eliab, David’s elder brother, that had such an appearance, he said, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him” [1 Samuel 16:6]. His appearance was astonishing to Goliath and to Saul. So the prophecies represent the Messiah’s appearance as unexpected and astonishing, being so mean. Isaiah 52:14, “Many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man.”

But yet David was ruddy and of a fair countenance, and goodly to look to (1 Samuel 16:12 and 1 Samuel 17:42); agreeable to Psalms 45:2, “Thou art fairer than the children of men.” Canticles 5:10, “My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousands.”

He was anointed king after offering sacrifice (1 Samuel 16). So the prophecies represent the Messiah’s exaltation to his kingdom, after he had by his sufferings offered up a sacrifice to atone for the sins of men. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §74–81 and §87–88.)8 David says of himself, 1 Chronicles 28:4, “The Lord God of Israel chose me to be king over Israel forever.” And God says to him, 2 Samuel 7:16, “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever.” (See how agreeable this is to the prophecies of the Messiah, “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §166).9

David by occupation was a shepherd, and afterwards was made a shepherd to God’s Israel. Psalms 78:70–71, “He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds: From following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance.” This is agreeable to many prophecies of the Messiah, who is often spoken of in them as the shepherd of God’s people, and therein is expressly compared to David. Isaiah 40:11, “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd.” Isaiah 49:9–10, “They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places. They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, by the springs of water shall he guide them.” Jeremiah 23:4–5, “And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them… I will raise up unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” Ezekiel 34:23, “And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and shall be their shepherd.” Ezekiel 37:24, “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd.” Canticles 1:7, “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon.”

David was of a humble, meek and merciful spirit (1 Samuel 18:23; 2 Samuel 6:21–22 and 2 Samuel 7:18; 1 Samuel 24, throughout, and 1 Samuel 26 throughout; 2 Samuel 2:5, 2 Samuel 2:21, 1 and 2 Samuel 4:9–12 and 2 Samuel 7:18; 2 Samuel 22:26; and many places in the Psalms show the same spirit, too many to be mentioned). This is agreeable to what is said of the Messiah, Zechariah 9:9, “He is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding on an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.” Isaiah 42:3, “A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.” Isaiah 40:11, “He shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.” Isaiah 53:7, “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, as a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.”

David was a person that was eminent for wisdom and prudence. 1 Samuel 16:18, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse… prudent in matters.” And 1 Samuel 18:5, “And David behaved himself wisely.” 1 Samuel 18:14, “And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways.” 1 Samuel 18:30, “David behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul.” Psalms 78:72, “He guided them by the skilfulness of his hands.” This is agreeable to what is said of the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 11:2–3 and Isaiah 41:28–29 with Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 52:13, Zechariah 3:7).

David is said to be “a mighty valiant man.” 1 Samuel 16:18, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse, a mighty valiant man.” This is agreeable to Psalms 45:3, “Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.” Isaiah 63:1, “Who is this travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.” And in this very thing the Messiah is compared to David. Psalms 89:19–20, “I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant.”

David was a sweet musician, [and] was preferred as such to all that were to be found in Israel to relieve Saul in his melancholy. He is called “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Samuel 23:1). He lead the whole church of Israel in their praises. He instituted the order of singers and musicians in the house of [God]. He delivered to the church the book of songs they were to use in their ordinary public worship. This is most agreeable to the prophecies of the Messiah, which do everywhere represent that he should introduce the most pleasant, joyful, glorious state of the church, wherein they should abound in the praises of God, and the world [be] filled with sweet and joyful songs after sorrow and weeping; wherein songs should be heard from the utmost ends of the earth, and all nations should sing, and the mountains and trees of the field, and all creatures, sun, moon and stars, heaven and earth, should break forth into singing; and even the dead should awake and sing, and the lower parts of the earth should shout, and the tongue of the dumb should sing, and the dragons and all deeps; the barren, the prisoners, the desolate and mourners should sing; and that all nations should come and sing in the height of Zion:2 they should sing aloud and sing a new song or in a new manner, with music and praises excelling all that ever [had] been before. The particular texts are too many to enumerate.

The patriarch from whom Christ descends, for this reason [is] called “Judah,” i.e. “praise,” and the Messiah is represented as leading the church of God in their sweet and joyful songs. Psalms 22:22, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.” Psalms 22:25, “My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation.” Psalms 69:30, Psalms 69:32, “I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.… The humble shall see this, and be glad.” Psalms 69:34, “Let the heaven and the earth praise him, the seas, and everything that moveth therein.” (See also Psalms 138:1–5.) We read in Psalms 89:15 of the joyful sound that shall be at that time, and the day of the Messiah’s kingdom is compared to the spring, the time of the singing of birds (Canticles 2).

David slew a lion and bear and delivered a lamb out of their mouths. So the enemies of the Messiah and his people are in the prophecies compared to a lion, as was observed before (p. 256).3 So the prophetical representations made of God’s people, that are delivered by the Messiah, well agree with the symbol of a lamb. The prophecies represent ‘em as feeble, poor and defenseless in them[selves], and as meek and harmless (Psalms 45:4, and Psalms 22:26, and Psalms 69:32, and Psalms 147:6 and Psalms 149:4; Isaiah 11:4 and Isaiah 29:19 and Isaiah 61:1).

David comes to the camp of Israel to save them from Goliath and the Philistines, just at a time when they were in special and immediate danger, when the host were going forth to the fight and shouted for the battle. So the Messiah in the prophecies is represented as appearing to save his people at the time of their extremity. So God appeared for the redemption of his people out of Egypt. But Balaam, prophesying of the redemption of the Messiah (Numbers 23:23), says, “According to this time shall it be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!” This also is agreeable to that prophecy of the deliverance of God’s people in the Messiah’s times, Deuteronomy 32:36, “The Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.” (See Psalms 14, and Psalms 53, and Psalms 21:11–12, and Psalms 46, and Psalms 58:7–11, and Psalms 60, and Psalms 118:10–29 and Psalms 138:7; Isaiah 8:9–22; Isaiah 9:1–7, and Isaiah 25:4–5, and Isaiah 26:16–21, and Isaiah 28:21–22, and Isaiah 29:5–8, and Isaiah 30:27–30, and Isaiah 31:4–5, and Isaiah 40:28–31, and Isaiah 41 throughout, and Isaiah 42:1–4, and Isaiah 51:7–23 and many other places.)

David was hated and envied by his brethren and misused by ‘em when he came to ‘em on a kind errand from his father, to bring them provision. Herein he resembled the Messiah, as Joseph did. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies,” concerning the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah.)4

David kills Goliath, who in his huge stature, great strength, with his mighty army and exceeding pride, much resembled the devil, according to the representations of the devil in the prophecies of the Messiah’s conquest and destruction of him, who is called “Leviathan” (Isaiah 27:1); which in the Old Testament is represented as an huge and terrible creature, of vast strength and impenetrable armor, disdaining the weapons and strength of his enemies, and the king over all the children of pride (Job 41).

David went against Goliath without carnal weapons. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §107.)5 David prevailed against Goliath with a sling and a stone, which is agreeable to Zechariah 9:15, “The Lord of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones.”

David, when going against Goliath, took strength out of the brook in the way; agreeable to that concerning the Messiah, Psalms 110:6–7, “He shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.”

David cut off the head of the Philistine with his own sword. So it may be clearly gathered from what the prophecies say of the Messiah’s suffering, and that from the cruelty of his enemies, and the consequence of them with respect to his exaltation and victory over his enemies, that the Messiah shall destroy Satan with his own weapons. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §97, and the context of the texts there referred to.)6 David carried the head of Goliath to Jerusalem, which is agreeable to what is foretold of the Messiah. Psalms 68:18, “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive,” together with the context.

David put Goliath’s armor in his tent, which is agreeable to Psalms 76:2–3, “In Salem is his tabernacle” (or “tent”), “and his dwelling place in Zion. There brake he the arrows of the bow, the shield, the sword, and the battle.”

When Saul saw David returning from his victory, [he] says over and over with great admiration concerning him, “Whose son is this youth?” (1 Samuel 17:55), “Inquire whose son this stripling is” (1 Samuel 17:56), “Whose son art thou?” (1 Samuel 17:58); agreeable to Psalms 24:8, “Who is this king of glory?” Again Psalms 24:10, and Isaiah 63:1, “Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bosrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength?” The daughters of Israel went forth to meet King David and sang praises to him when he returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, agreeable to Psalms 24, and Psalms 68 and many other places.

David obtained his wife by exposing his life in battle with the Philistines and in destroying them, agreeable to what is prophesied of the Messiah’s sufferings and death, his conflict with and victory over his enemies, and his redemption of his church by this means, and the consequent joy of espousals with the church.

David was a great savior. He saved Israel from Goliath and the Philistines, and from all their enemies round about. 2 Samuel 3:18, “The Lord hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of my servant David will I save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies,” agreeable to the prophecies of the Messiah. David was greatly persecuted and his life sought unjustly, agreeable to prophecies of the Messiah.

David’s marriage with Abigail, the wife of a son of Belial, a virtuous woman and of a beautiful countenance, is agreeable to innumerable prophecies that represent the church of the Messiah that the prophecies speak of as his spouse, as brought into that happy state from a state of guilt and bondage to sin. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies,” in very many sections.)7

David was resorted to by everyone that was in distress, and everyone that was in debt, and everyone that was bitter of soul, and he became their captain; which is agreeable to innumerable prophecies that represent the Messiah as the captain and savior of the poor, afflicted, distressed, sinners and prisoners, etc. David’s host is compared to the host of God (1 Chronicles 12:22), which is agreeable to what the prophecies represent of the divinity of the Messiah, and God’s people in his times, and under him becoming as an host of mighty valiant men that shall thresh the mountains and tread down their enemies, {and shall make the hills as chaff} [Isaiah 41:15]. David, as it were raised from the dead, was wonderfully delivered from death when in great danger, was brought back from the wilderness and from banishment and from caves of the earth that resembled the grave. (Psalms 30:3, “O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave.”) Which is agreeable to the prophecies of the Messiah’s restoration from his low and suffering state and resurrection from death.

David was made king over the strong city Hebron, that had been taken from the Anakims, the gigantic enemies of God’s people; which is agreeable to the prophecies of the Messiah’s conquering the strong city, and bringing low the lofty city, conquering the devil and taking possession of the mightiest and strongest kingdoms of this world. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §154.)8

David’s followers, that came to him to make him king, were men of understanding, mighty men of valor, and men of a perfect heart (1 Chronicles 12); which is agreeable to what the prophecies represent of the followers of the Messiah. David was made king by the act and choice both of God and his people (1 Chronicles 11:1–3 and 1 Chronicles 12; 2 Samuel 2:4, 2 Samuel 5:1–3). This is agreeable to the prophecies of the Messiah. Hosea 1:11, “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head.” David was made king with great feasting and rejoicing (1 Chronicles 12:39–40), which is agreeable to what the prophecies do abundantly represent of the joy of the introduction of the Messiah’s kingdom.

David was the first king of Jerusalem, that city so often spoken of in the prophecies as a type of the church of the Messiah. David insulted the idols as lame and blind and destroyed them (2 Samuel 5:21), agreeable to ["Fulfillment of Prophecies"] §132–35 and §153.9 David conquered the strongest hold of the Jebusites and reigned there. (See what was said before concerning his reigning in Hebron.)1 He rescued Zion from the strong possession of idols and the enemies of God’s people, and reigned in Mt. Zion, agreeable to innumerable prophecies of the Messiah. David’s kingdom gradually increased from small beginnings till he had subdued all his enemies. (See “[Fulfillment of] Prophecies of Messiah” §123–26 and §162–63.)2

It was first in David’s time that God chose Him a place to put His name there. Through him God made Jerusalem His holy city, and the place of His special, gracious residence, agreeable to the prophecies of the Messiah (Psalms 132:13–18, Zechariah 1:17 and Zechariah 2:12, and Isaiah 14:1). David provided a settled habitation for God, and God is represented as through his favor to David taking up a settled abode with them, no more walking in a moveable tent and tabernacle that might be taken down, and giving Israel a constant abode, that they might no more be afflicted and carried into captivity (2 Samuel 7:6, 2 Samuel 7:10, 2 Samuel 7:24), according to many prophecies of the Messiah. David provided a place for God’s habitation in Zion and in Mt. Moriah, agreeable to Zechariah 6:12, “He shall build the temple of the Lord.”

David brought up the ark to abide in the midst of God’s people after it had departed into the land of the Philistines and had long remained in the utmost confines of the land in Kirjathjearim, which is agreeable to what the prophecies represent of the benefit the people of God in the Messiah’s days shall receive in the return of the tokens of God’s presence to them after long absence, and his placing his tabernacle in the midst of them, and his soul’s no more abhorring them.

David ascended into the hill of the Lord with the ark at the head of all Israel, rejoicing, and gave gifts to men (2 Samuel 6); but this is agreeable to what is said of the ascension of the Messiah (Psalms 68). David ascended with the ark wherein was the Law of God, as the Messiah ascended with that human nature that was the cabinet of the Law. David, after he had ascended, returned to bless his household, as the Messiah especially blessed his church after his ascension. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies.”)3 But Michal, his first wife, despised him for his abasement and received no part in this blessing, but was as it were repudiated; as the prophecies do represent the Jews, the Messiah’s first wife, as despising the Messiah for his humiliation and so as not receiving the benefits and blessings that he should bestow after his ascension, but as being repudiated.

When David came to the crown, God broke forth on his enemies as the breach of water, and in a dreadful storm of thunder, fire and hail (2 Samuel 5:20, 1 Chronicles 14:11 and Psalms 18); which is agreeable to Isaiah 24:18–20, Daniel 9:26, Ezekiel 38:22, Isaiah 30:30 and Isaiah 32:19. Yea, the destruction of the enemies of God’s people in the days of the Messiah is expressly compared to that very breaking forth of God on the enemies of David. Isaiah 28:21, “For the Lord shall rise up as in Mt. Perazim.”

The king of Tyre (that was above all others in the world a city noted for merchandise and seafaring) built David an house (2 Samuel 5:11, 1 Chronicles 14:1). (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §154.)4

David was not only a king, but a great prophet (2 Samuel 23:2), and also was a priest. He officiated as such on occasion of the bringing up of the ark (2 Samuel 6:13–14, 2 Samuel 6:17–18; 1 Chronicles 15:27). Again, he officiated as such (review me and 1 Chronicles 16:21–36), and in some respects he officiated as chief in all sacerdotal matters, ordering all things in the house of God, directing and ordering the priests in things relating to their function and disposing them into courses, etc. So the prophecies do abundantly represent the Messiah as prophet, priest and king. (See “Prophecies of the Messiah” and “Fulfillment of Prophecies,” in many parts.)5

David is spoken of as the man that was “raised up on high” [2 Samuel 23:1], which is agreeable to what is said of the Messiah in Psalms 89:19, “I have exalted one chosen out of the people.” And Psalms 89:27, “I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.” Psalms 45:6, “Thy throne, O God, is forever.” And Psalms 110:1, “Sit thou on my right hand,” and innumerable other places. He is spoken of as eminently a just ruler, one that fed God’s people in the integrity of his heart and executed judgment and justice (2 Samuel 8:15, 1 Chronicles 18:14); which is agreeable to that which is abundantly spoken of the Messiah, as the just ruler over men; the king that shall reign in righteousness; he that shall sit on the throne of his father David, to order and establish it with judgment and justice; the righteous branch that shall grow up to David, etc.6 God made David a name like the name of the great men that are in the earth (2 Samuel 7:9; see also 2 Samuel 8:13), agreeable to Isaiah 53:12, “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great.” “The fame of David went out into all lands; and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations” (1 Chronicles 14:17), agreeable to Psalms 45:17, “I will make thy name to be remembered”; Psalms 72:11, “All nations shall serve him”; Psalms 72:17, “His name shall endure forever,” and innumerable other places.

David carried up the ark clothed with a robe of fine linen (1 Chronicles 15:27), agreeable to Isaiah 61:10, “He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with a robe of righteousness.” Zechariah 3:4, “Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.” (See also Daniel 10:5, compared with Daniel 10:13 and Daniel 10:21, and Daniel 12:1.)

God was with David whithersoever he went, and cut off all his enemies (2 Samuel 7:9 and 2 Samuel 8:6, 2 Samuel 8:14; 1 Chronicles 17:8, 1 Chronicles 17:10 and 1 Chronicles 18:6, 1 Chronicles 18:13; 2 Samuel 22:1–20), agreeable to Psalms 2, and Psalms 45, and Psalms 110, and Psalms 89 and innumerable other places.

David subdued all the remainders of the Canaanites and the ancient heathen inhabitants of the land, and so perfected what Joshua had begun in giving the people. (See what is said of Joshua as a type of the Messiah in this respect, pp. 244–45.)7 David brought it to pass that the Canaanites and enemies of Israel should no longer dwell with them, or [be] mixed among them in the same land. Joel 3:17, “No stranger shall pass through thee any more.” Zechariah 14:21, “In that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord.” Psalms 69:35–36, “For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession. The seed also of his servants shall inherit it: and they that love thy name shall dwell therein.” Isaiah 65:9–11, “And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me. But ye are they that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.” Isaiah 35:8, “An highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it.” Ezekiel 20:38, “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel.”

David subdued the Philistines, and the Moabites, and Ammonites and the Edomites, agreeable to Isaiah 11:14, Numbers 24:17, Psalms 60:8 and Psalms 108:9, Isaiah 25:10, chs. Isaiah 34 and Isaiah 63, and Ezekiel 35 and Ezekiel 36:5. David’s kingdom reached from the river to the ends of the earth (2 Samuel 8:3; 1 Chronicles 18:3), agreeable to Psalms 72:8, Zechariah 9:10.

David’s reign was a time of the destruction of giants. He slew all the remnant of the race of giants (1 Samuel 17, 2 Samuel 21:18–22 and 2 Samuel 23:20–21, 1 Chronicles 20:4–8 and 1 Chronicles 11:22–23), agreeable to Isaiah 10:33, “And the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled.” This seems (as I observed before)8 to be connected with the prophecy in the beginning of the next chapter, in the next verse but one. Isaiah 45:14, “The Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over to thee; in chains shall they come over.” Psalms 76:5, “The stouthearted are spoiled, they have slept their sleep.”

David destroyed the chariots and houghed the horses of the enemies of God’s people (2 Samuel 8:4 and 2 Samuel 10:18, 1 Chronicles 18:4 and 1 Chronicles 19:7), agreeable to Psalms 46:9, “He breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.” Psalms 76:3, “There brake he the arrows of the bow, the shield, and the sword, and the battle.” Psalms 76:6, “At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep.” (See also Ezekiel 39:9–10, Ezekiel 39:20 and Zechariah 12:3–4.)

What David says (Psalms 18 and 2 Samuel 22) of the manner in which God appeared for him against his enemies, to destroy them in a terrible tempest with thunder, lightning, earthquake, devouring fire, etc. is agreeable to many things in the prophecies of the Messiah. (See what has before been observed, when speaking of the Deluge, and destruction of Sodom, and the destruction of the Amorites in Joshua’s time.)9

Other kings brought presents unto David and bowed down unto him (2 Samuel 5:11, 1 Chronicles 14:1, 2 Samuel 8:2 and 2 Samuel 8:10, 1 Chronicles 18:10, 2 Samuel 10:19, 1 Chronicles 22:4), agreeable to Psalms 72:10–11 and Psalms 45:12, Psalms 68:29, Isaiah 49:7 and Isaiah 60:9. The honor, dominion and crown of David’s enemies was given unto him (2 Samuel 12:30 and 1 Chronicles 20:2). Ezekiel 21:26, “Thus saith the Lord; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. Perverted, perverted, perverted will I make it, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.”

David’s sons were princes (1 Chronicles 28:1–8). David’s sons were chief rulers or princes (as it is in the margin),1 agreeable to Psalms 45:16, “Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.”

David brought the wealth of the heathen into Jerusalem and dedicated it to God, and as it were built the temple with it (2 Samuel 8:11–12, 1 Chronicles 18:11 and 1 Chronicles 26:26–27, and 1 Chronicles 22, throughout, and 1 Chronicles 29); agreeable to Micah 4:13, “Arise, thresh, O daughters of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.” Isaiah 23:17–18, “The Lord will visit Tyre… And her merchandise and hire shall be holiness to the Lord: it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing.” (See also Isaiah 60:5–6, Isaiah 60:9, Isaiah 60:11, Isaiah 60:13, Isaiah 61:6, and Zechariah 14:14.)

David was a mediator to stand between God and the people, both to keep off judgments and the punishment of sin, and also to procure God’s favor towards them. For his sake God granted his gracious presence and favor with Israel (2 Samuel 7:10). Thus we read of favor which God showed to Israel, and witholding judgments from time to time for his servant David’s sake (1 Kings 11:12–13, 1 Kings 11:32, 1 Kings 11:34, 1 Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19, 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6). And he stood between God and the people of Jerusalem when he saw the sword of justice drawn against it to destroy it (2 Samuel 24:17–25). So the Messiah is spoken of, as in like manner, the mediator, being himself peculiarly God’s elect and beloved, is given for a covenant of the people (Isaiah 42:6 and Isaiah 49:8) and the messenger of the covenant, and a prophet like unto Moses, who was a mediator. And the prophecies speak of the forgiveness of sin, and the greatest mercy towards God’s people, and an everlasting covenant, and the sure mercies of David, as being through the Messiah. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §20–22; also §74–86, §94–96.)2

David as mediator saved the people of Jerusalem from destruction by offering himself to suffer and die by the sword of the destroying angel and by building [an] altar and offering sacrifice (2 Samuel 24:17–25), agreeable to the prophecies of the Messiah. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §74–86.)3

David not only made a tabernacle for God in Mt. Zion, and so provided an habitation for the Lord, but he in effect built the temple. He bought the ground on which it was built, built an altar upon it. He made provision for the building. It was in his heart to build an house to God’s name, and he directed and ordered precisely how it should be built and ordered all its services (1 Chronicles 22–26), agreeable to Zechariah 6:12–13. Herein David was as the Messiah, a prophet like unto Moses, who built the tabernacle and the altar according to the pattern God gave him (as he gave David the pattern of the tabernacle), and gave the ordinances of the house [and] ordered all things appertaining to the worship of the tabernacle.

God by David gave to Israel new ordinances, a new law of worship, appointed many things that were not in the law of Moses, and some things that superseded the ordinances of Moses. This is agreeable to the things said of the Messiah. (See “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §146–47.)4

David made all manner of preparation for the building of the temple, and that in vast abundance, an immense treasure (1 Chronicles 22:14 and 1 Chronicles 28:14–18, 1 Chronicles 29:2–9); agreeable to Isaiah 25:6, “And in this mountain shall the Lord make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.” Isaiah 55:1–9,

Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

(See also “Fulfillment of Prophecies” §20.)5 Haggai 2:7, “I will fill this house with glory.” Jeremiah 33:6, “I will reveal unto them the abundance of truth and peace.” Isaiah 64:4, eye has not seen, nor ear heard, {what God has prepared for him that waits on him}. Isaiah 66:12, “I will extend peace to her as a river.” Psalms 72:3, “The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness.” Psalms 72:7, there shall be “abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.” Amos 9:13, “The mountains shall drop sweet wine.” Joel 3:18, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with water, and a fountain shall come forth out of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim.” And Isaiah 60, throughout, besides the things which the prophecies say of the perfect satisfaction of God’s justice by the sacrifice of the Messiah and the abundance of his righteousness and excellency. David made such great provision for the building of the temple in his trouble by war and exposing his own life, which is agreeable to what the prophecies represent of Christ procuring the immense blessings of his church by his extreme sufferings and precious blood.

David was the head of God’s people, the prince of the congregation of Israel, not only in their civil affairs, but in ecclesiastical affairs also, and their leader in all things appertaining to religion and the worship of God. Herein he was as the Messiah is represented in the prophecies, which speak of Him as a prophet like unto Moses, and as the head of God’s people, as their great king, prophet and priest. And indeed, almost all that the prophecies say of the Messiah does [imply] that he shall be the great head of God’s people in their religious concerns.

David regulated the whole body of the people and brought ‘em into the most exact and beautiful order (1 Chronicles 27), which is agreeable to what is represented of the church in the Messiah’s days, as “beautiful for situation” (review me); “the perfection of beauty” (Psalms 50:2); “an eternal excellency, the joy of many generations” [Isaiah 60:15]; and what is represented in Ezekiel of the exact measures and order of all parts of the temple, the city and the whole land [Ezekiel 40–48].

David built the altar in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on Gentile ground, which is agreeable to what the prophecies represent of the church of the Messiah being erected in Gentile lands, and being made up of those that had been sinners.”

1. Ed. Wallace E. AndersonMason I. Lowance, Jr.David H. Watters, Jonathan Edwards “Types of the Messiah” in Typological Writings (WJE Online Vol. 11)  (Yale University Press).