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.

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).

Why the New Book by David Wells Is Different and How It Relates to His Earlier Works

    In a new interview with Crossway, David Wells talks about his new book, God in the Whirlwind: How the Holy-Love of God Reorients Our World. I recommend reading it to get a good feel for his book and what he’s seeking to accomplish.

It may help to put the book in context of his previous works.

Kevin Vanhoozer refers to David Wells’ magnum opus as “Courage Quintet.” By this he is referring to his four-volume work, plus a summary and update volume) published by Eerdmans from 1993-2008.

Although it is not widely recognized as such, Wells conceived of this series of volumes as an unconventional setting forth of theology:

1. Prolegomena to culture, so that our theology isn’t swallowed up by it: No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (1993)

2. The doctrine of God: God in the Wasteland: Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (1994)

3. The human being as created and fallen: Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (1998)

4. The person and work of Christ: Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World (2006)

This was summed up, then, in his last published book, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-Lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Post-Modern World (2008).

These books were widely read, by both fans and critics. No Place for Truth was named Book of the Year in Christianity Today‘s Theology and Biblical Studies category when it was published.

WORLD Magazine included it in their top 100 books of the Millennium.

Albert Mohler has described the book as “the bomb that exploded on the evangelical playground.”

Cornelius Plantinga Jr. says that “Like that of Solzhenitsyn, David Wells’s cultural criticism will be read a century from now.” What strikes Plantinga most about Wells’s books, he writes, “is their desperately deep sense of loss. David Wells’s books are a prophet’s keys of the heart.” This is why Vanhoozer calls him “the weeping prophet of contemporary evangelicalism.”

In this new book, Wells explains that “some critics have complained that [these earlier five books] contain no answers to the church’s current parlous state. The criticism has some merit. In my mind, I assumed an answer to the dilemmas unearthed and was not always as explicit in setting this out as I should have been.”

This book is his answer—not merely a lament of where we have gone wrong but his positive vision of how we should go forward.

Wells argued that the church must recover an understanding of and encounter with the holy-love of God: his holiness bound to his love. And yet we often struggle to hold the paradox together.

Some of us tend to emphasize his holiness attributes (justice, righteousness, wrath) and others his love attributes (patience, goodness, kindness).

Historically the Church has tended to emphasize holiness at the expense of love (leading to moralism, Pharisaism) or love at the expense of holiness (liberalism, universalism). But Wells argues:

The deepest truths about God’s character are not simply about his holiness, or his love, but about his holiness in its bond to his love, the one expressing the other, each deepening the paradox of their belonging to each other, of belonging together. Each in relation to the other leads us into the glory of who God is in his character.

May the Lord would use this book to encourage and edify God’s people as they seek to live before our holy and loving Lord.

(For more information on the book, go here.)

Copyright © 2013 by the author listed above. Used by permission.