Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2011.2

Puritan Reformed Journal
JULY 2011
q
Volume 3 • Number 2
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

2965 Leonard St. N.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525
Puritan Reformed Journal
Edited for Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
Joel R. Beeke, Editor

Jerry Bilkes, Associate Editor of New Testament
David Murray, Associate Editor of Old Testament, Pastoral Theology,
and Contemporary and Cultural Issues
William VanDoodewaard, Associate Editor of Historical Theology
Michael Haykin, Associate Editor
Jonathon Beeke, Book Review Editor
Ryan McGraw, Assistant Book Review Editor
Kate DeVries, Copy Editor
Gary and Linda den Hollander, Typesetter/Proofreader
We welcome two new men to our editorial staff, Jonathon Beeke and Ryan McGraw, both
of whom are presently working on their Ph.D. dissertations. They will serve as our book
review editors commencing with the next issue (Jan. 2012).
Puritan Reformed Journal is published semi-annually. The subscription price per
year for individuals and institutions is $20.00 in the United States, $30.00 in
Canada (payable in U.S. funds), $35.00 foreign countries (surface mail). Back
issues may be purchased at $10.00 per copy.
Please address all PRJ communication as follows:

Business, subscriptions: Mrs. Ann Dykema, PRJ Administrative Assistant,
2965 Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525; telephone 616-
977-0599, x135; e-mail: ann.dykema@puritanseminary.org
Editorial, manuscripts: Dr. Joel R. Beeke, 2965 Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49525; telephone 616-977-0599, x123; e-mail: jrbeeke@aol.com
Book reviews: Jonathon Beeke, 1438 Edith Ave. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan 49525; telephone 616-316-6766; e-mail: beekefamily@gmail.com
© Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. For a free seminary catalog and DVD,
write: Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Attn.: Mrs. Ann Dykema, 2965
Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525; ann.dykema@puritansemi-
nary.org; web: www.puritanseminary.org
ISSN #: 1946-8652
Cover artwork by Caffy Whitney and design by Amy Zevenbergen: John Calvin (1509–
1564)—the premier exegete and theologian of the Reformation, top right;
William Perkins (1558 –1602), “the father of English Puritanism,” bottom left.
POSTMASTER: SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO: Puritan Reformed Journal,

Attn.: Mrs. Ann Dykema, 2965 Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525
Table of Contents
q
From the Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Biblical Studies
Hosea: His Marriage and His Message — Michael P. V. Barrett. . . . 5
The Glory of the Cross (2) — Pieter DeVries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Masterful Parables: The Language of Supremacy
in Christ’s Parables — Gerald M. Bilkes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Paul and James: Are We Justified by Faith or by Faith and Works?
Steven J. Lawson and Joel R. Beeke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Our Glorious Adoption: Trinitarian Based and Transformed
Relationships (1 John 3:1–3) — Joel R. Beeke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
SYSTEMATIC AND Historical Theology

Justification, The Central Article of Faith:
A Biblical and Theological Analysis — Pieter DeVries . . . . . . 83
The Logic and Exegesis behind Calvin’s Doctrine of the
Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit to the Authority
of Scripture — David Wenkel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
A Synthesis and Critique of James Arminius’s Declaration
of Sentiments — John E. Skidmore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
John Bunyan: A Sectary or a Puritan or Both?
A Historical Exploration of His Religious Identity
Brian G. Najapfour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Jonathan Edwards’s Interpretation of the Major Prophets
Jeongmo Yoo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Reading the Puritans — Joel R. Beeke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
EXPERIENTIAL THEOLOGY
“Satisfied with the Lord’s All-Sufficiency”: Wilhelmus à Brakel
on Joy — Paul M. Smalley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Use of Doctrine in Calling Sinners to
Repentance and Faith — Jonathan Holdt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
“Where shall my wondering soul begin?”: A Historical and
Theological Analysis of Charles Wesley’s Hymn
Brian G. Najapfour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
iv Puritan Reformed Theological Journal
Pastoral theology and missions

Preaching from Lamentations — Gavin Beers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
An Introduction to Christian Leadership — David Murray . . . . . . . 318
CONTEMPORARY AND CULTURAL ISSUES

The Accuracy of the Authorized Version After 400 Years
M alcolm H. Watts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Delight in the Lord’s Day — A ndrew J. Barnes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Retaining Scripture in our Minds and Hearts
Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
The Church Community in Contemporary Culture:
Evangelism and Engagement — K ieran Beville. . . . . . . . . . . 361
Review article
The Reading of Scripture — Pieter DeVries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Book Reviews
John Carrick, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards
Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
William Greenhill, Stop Loving the World — Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . 393
Darrin Patrick, Church Planter — Nicholas T. Batzig . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Philip Sutherland Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and
Theological Basis for the Three-fold Division of the Law
Nicholas T. Batzig. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
George Swinnock, The Fading of the Flesh and the Flourishing of Faith
Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Carl Trueman, Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the
Writing of History — William VanDoodewaard. . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Diana West, Death of the Grown Up — Tim Challies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
From the Editors
q
What a privilege to have the Word of God: to know that God is not
silent and to know what He has spoken. In the whole realm of theol-
ogy, the study of Scripture must take pride of place. As such, it is a joy
to read reflections on the Word by students of the Word. In this is-
sue of the Puritan Reformed Journal, we have five such studies: Michael
Barrett on how best to interpret what God is saying through the mar-
riage of the minor prophet Hosea; Pieter DeVries’s continuation of his
study of the cross—in this article he sketches the way the biblical data
about the cross has been understood by the church; Gerald Bilkes on
the way in which the parables of Jesus serve His purpose of building
His kingdom; Steve Lawson and Joel Beeke on the ever-important
discussion of the relationship between Paul and James, especially as it
relates to faith and works; and finally a study of what it means to be a
child of God according to 1 John 3:1–3 by Joel Beeke.
Systematization of biblical teaching in the form of both systematic
and historical theology, however, is also important. Evangelicalism
went through a time in the past century when both systematic and
historical theology were regarded with much suspicion, but thank-
fully that approach appears to be passé. There is a new generation
who want to do the hard thinking about the systematic study of the
Scriptures and who have a concern for what previous theologians said
and taught about the Word of God. In the second and third sections
of this issue, which look at systematic, historical, and experiential
theology respectively, we have nine new papers to present: First are
Pieter DeVries’s exploration of the nature of justification; David Wen-
kel’s examination of one of Calvin’s great contributions to the history
of doctrine, namely, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit; and a
study of Arminius’s theology by John Skidmore —this sort of paper
is so needed as it is all too easy to lapse into caricature of theolo-
gies with which one does not agree. Then follows an examination
of Bunyan, whose theology is ever marked with certain unique fea-
tures, particularly with regard to the classification of his theology by
2 Puritan Reformed Theological Journal
Brian Najapfour; Jonathan Edwards’s exegesis of the prophets Isaiah,

Jeremiah, and Ezekiel is discussed by Jeongmo Yoo; and Joel Beeke
defends the need to read the Puritans and outlines ways in which
Puritan literature is being promoted. There are two studies of the
theology of Wilhemus à Brakel by Paul Smalley and Jonathan Holdt.
The recent translation of this Dutch author’s theology into English is
beginning to bear fruit, for which we ought to rejoice since the Dutch
theologians of the Nadere Reformatie are generally not well known to
English readers. Also included is Brian Najapfour’s analysis of the
earliest hymn in Charles Wesley’s enormous corpus of hymnody.
In the area of praxis, Gavin Beers gives us an overview of preach-
ing the book of Lamentations, certainly an overlooked section of the
Bible; and David Murray talks about a topic that has become a much-
written-about area in recent years, Christian leadership. This is vital
since much of what has been written basically takes worldly models
and coats them with a Christian veneer. Finally, we have four studies
that deal with controversial and cultural questions: the ongoing ac-
curacy of the AV/KJV despite the many new translations of the Bible
(Malcolm Watts); why we need to delight in the Lord’s Day (Andrew
Barnes); how to meditate on the Scriptures—a lost art among evan-
gelicals (Ryan McGraw); and how we are to engage contemporary
culture (Kieran Beville), an area in which evangelicals have been
guilty of extremes.
Perusing this list of studies in this new issue of the PRJ one is a
little overwhelmed with a surfeit of riches. So do not try to take in
all of these fine studies at one or two sittings. Take this issue on your
vacation and savor the pieces, and find afresh that in thinking about
God and His ways there is great reward.
Biblical Studies
q
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 5–14
Hosea: His Marriage

and His Message
Michael P. V. Barrett
q
God has made marriage the choice symbol of His own relationship
with His people. This spiritual parallel lifts family life to a high and
significant plane. The love of Christ for His people regulates and
defines the love the husband should show to his wife, and the loy-
alty of the church to Christ indicates the faithful loyalty the wife
should show to her husband. Christian husbands and wives owe to
Christ the purification of their relations and the sanctification of their
homes. God ordained marriage for the lifelong companionship, help,
and comfort a husband and wife ought to have for each other. In this
covenant of marriage, both husband and wife must commit them-
selves to each other completely in compassion and understanding. It
is a covenant of faith and trust between a man and a woman, a cov-
enant of hope that endures all things, a covenant of love in which both
husband and wife empty themselves of self and their own concerns
and esteem each other more highly than themselves. It is not surpris-
ing that God so often uses marriage to communicate spiritual truths
to His people. Indeed, a good marriage that fulfills all the require-
ments of love and loyalty becomes a never-ending living sermon of
the gospel itself. However, a marriage that fails is tragic, contrary
to expectation, but nonetheless spiritually instructive. One way or
another, there is always a message in marriage.
The message of marriage is an integral part of the prophecy of
Hosea. Whereas most prophecies begin with some command for the
prophet to prophesy, Hosea begins with the Lord’s instruction for
him to marry. God intended for Hosea’s family life to be a symbol— a
visible picture or object lesson— of the message he was to preach to
Israel. Hosea 3:1, the key verse of the prophecy, explicitly links Hosea’s
marriage to Gomer with God’s marriage to Israel: “love a woman...
6 Puritan Reformed Journal
according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel.” It

was not unusual for the Lord to instruct His prophets to use some
symbolic act to accompany a part of the message. Sometimes those
symbolic acts would cause embarrassment, such as Isaiah’s walking
around naked and barefoot or Jeremiah’s walking around with a yoke
around his neck. Sometimes the symbolic act would cause signifi-
cant inconvenience, such as Jeremiah’s traveling back and forth to the
Euphrates with the linen girdle. Sometimes the symbolic act might
even cause some temporary discomfort, such as Ezekiel’s lying on his
sides for prolonged periods. But Hosea was unique in that his whole
life was symbolic—an object lesson of his message. Any who saw or
knew about Hosea’s ordeal could only feel sorry for him.
The Lord was using his whole miserable, tragic experience of
personal sorrow and emotional distress to portray a vivid lesson to
Israel. Hosea’s constant love and loyalty to Gomer was a beautiful
picture of the Lord’s unfailing love and loyalty to Israel. Gomer’s
unfaithfulness to Hosea was a tragically clear picture of Israel’s treach-
erous unfaithfulness to the Lord. Therefore, properly understanding
Hosea’s marriage to Gomer is vital to understanding the message of
his prophecy, and, contrastingly, understanding the message gives
some insight for solving the problems of interpreting his marriage.
The Problem and Proposed Solutions

The crux of the problem of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer concerns
the initial command that God gave to the prophet: “Go, take unto
thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms” (1:2). On the
surface, this creates a moral and ethical dilemma because it seems
to counter the clear instructions for marriage that the Lord gave to
priests. Leviticus 21:7 prohibits priests from taking “a wife that is a
whore,” and verse 13 requires that they “take a wife in her virgin-
ity.” If it was a disgrace for a priest to marry a harlot, it would follow
that it would be a disgrace for a prophet as well. Not only that, but
Deuteronomy 22:20 and 21 sentences any woman who is proven to
be unchaste at the time of her marriage to death by stoning. The
dilemma, therefore, is twofold: would the Lord lower the standards of
marriage for His prophet, who stood as His representative before the
people, and would He arbitrarily overlook the impurity of this “wife
of whoredoms”?
Hosea: His Marriage and His Message 7
The proposed solutions to this interpretation problem have been

many. The solutions fall into two major categories: those who regard
the marriage as hypothetical and those who regard the marriage as lit-
eral. The hypothetical view denies a real historical marriage and interprets
Hosea’s marriage to be an allegorical or symbolic portrayal of God’s
relationship to Israel— a picture of Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness. Old
commentators such as Maimonides, Kimchi, and Calvin as well as
modern scholars such as E. J. Young have espoused this view, arguing
that an actual marriage would have reflected poorly on God’s holiness
and would have greatly hindered Hosea’s ministry. Calvin, for instance,
asked: “How could he expect to be received...after having brought on
himself such a disgrace?”1 The main objection to this interpretation
is that nothing in the text suggests symbolic language. It is historic
narrative that includes seemingly mundane data that would have no
symbolic significance unless by strained and fertile imagination.
There are several versions of the actual marriage interpretation.
First, the harlot view maintains that Gomer was in fact impure, per-
haps a temple prostitute, when Hosea married her. Those holding this
view recognize the moral difficulty but suggest that, for the sake of
the message, God overruled His previously stated standards. Hosea’s
marrying the harlot would emphasize God’s gracious love for an
undeserving people. Gomer’s continuing adultery was an affront to
Hosea’s kindness as Israel’s was to God’s.
Second, the idolatress view claims that Gomer was an idol wor-
shipper when she married Hosea. The word “whoredoms” would
then refer to spiritual rather than sexual fornication. Although this
eliminates the surface problem of the prophet’s marriage to a sexu-
ally unchaste woman, it creates a no-less-serious problem if the Lord
commanded the prophet to marry a blatant unbeliever. The principal
truth of the Lord’s prohibition for the people not to intermarry with
the Canaanites was not to maintain ethnic separation, but religious
separation (Deut. 7:3, 4; Ex. 34:15–16). It parallels the New Testament
demand that marriage be “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). In addition, if
Gomer’s harlotry was only spiritual, the details concerning the birth
of three children have no direct significance. Although it is not stated
unequivocally, there may be a tacit hint in the record that Hosea was
1. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. John Owen
(repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1:44.
not the father of two of the children; whereas concerning Jezreel the
text says Gomer “bare him” a son, the reference to “him” or Hosea is
missing from the statements concerning Gomer’s bearing Lo-ruhamah
and Lo-ammi. If the absence of that statement is significant, it would
certainly suggest that Gomer’s sin was more than idolatry.
Third, the proleptic view claims that Gomer was sexually pure at
the beginning of the marriage, but soon became unfaithful. Prolepsis
is the use of a descriptive word in anticipation of a later occurrence that
will make the term appropriate. Accordingly, though pure at the mar-
riage, Gomer was identified as a “wife of whoredoms” in anticipation
of what she would become. God, who knows the end from the begin-
ning, could certainly reveal to Hosea what his bride would do before
she actually committed acts of fornication. Proponents of this view
usually argue that Hosea wrote this prophecy toward the end of his
thirty-five-year career, after the events had transpired. Writing these
opening chapters as history, he naturally would use language reflect-
ing what he later discovered. God told him to marry this particular
woman; when she proved to be unfaithful, Hosea could say that God
told him to marry an immoral person. This maintains Gomer’s initial
purity and avoids contradiction with legislation from the Pentateuch.
Although this view has advantages, it does not do justice to the exact
wording of Hosea 1:2. As stated, the text is a direct quotation of what
the Lord commanded Hosea at the beginning of the ministry: what
Gomer was, not what she would be.2 Although each of these proposed
solutions attempts to address the problem, they seem either to ignore
part of the evidence or create a new set of difficulties. There may be
a simpler solution that avoids the obvious moral and ethical dilemma
(the advantage of the proleptic view) while maintaining the wording
of the text as the direct words of the Lord to Hosea at the beginning of
his prophetic career (avoiding the principal weakness of the proleptic
view). This simple solution is a hybrid view: a cross between the har-
lot view that takes the initial command at face value and the proleptic
view that postpones Gomer’s infidelity.
The answer may be in the significance of the word translated
“whoredoms.” This is not the normal word that designates a pros-
2. For other proposals to the difficulties of chapters 1 and 3, see C. Hassel

Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books (Chicago: Moody, 1986),
88 –93.
titute; it is an abstract plural that would more likely describe an

inner characteristic than an outward behavior. It most likely refers
to Gomer’s latent bent toward immorality that surfaced not long
after the marriage. God revealed to Hosea up front something about
Gomer’s inner self that would potentially jeopardize the sanctity of
the marriage. God allowed Hosea to see Gomer in a way that other-
wise only He could see: “For the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for
man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on
the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). At the beginning of the marriage she was
innocent of any physical fornication, but Hosea knew both what she
was capable of doing and what she most likely would do. It was just a
matter of time before propensity became practice.
In many ways, Gomer was a child of her times. Baal worship had
become widespread, along with its sexual promiscuity. Baal was a
fertility god; immorality and prostitution played an important part
in the cultic rituals. Such immorality, sponsored by the false priests
and prophets and practiced in the name of religion, contributed to
loose living throughout society. Everywhere Gomer would look there
were the evidences of sexual license, and, tragically, there was some-
thing in her that answered to what she saw. She had the world in her
and ultimately gave way to that propensity to immorality. That she is
described as an adulteress in 3:1 indicates that her inner propensity
indeed surfaced in outright fornication. She became what she thought
about. That the word translated “adulteress” is a piel participle sug-
gests that she was completely enslaved to the licentious behavior.
This “hybrid” interpretation has the marked advantage of viewing
Hosea 1:2 as a direct quotation of God’s initial command to Hosea.
Though in practice innocent at the time of marriage, Gomer was
inwardly biased toward promiscuity. Because she was outwardly pure
at the beginning of the marriage, she would not have been a hindrance
to Hosea’s acceptance or effectiveness as a prophet. That Hosea knew
from the Lord’s instruction her potential for hurting him highlighted
the unselfish nature of his love. This is a key link to the spiritual par-
allel: God loves us in spite of what He knows about us.
This definition of the word “whoredoms” also explains the
phrase “take...children of whoredoms.” This does not mean that
Gomer already had children when Hosea married her. It is a literary
device called zeugma. Zeugma occurs when a single verb grammati-
cally governs two nouns although it logically governs only one. An
implicit verb governs the other noun and must be supplied to give
the full sense. This simply means that Hosea was to take a wife and
have children. These children, like their mother, were characterized
by “whoredom.” The idea is that they had an inner bent to evil that
made them susceptible to contamination by their environment—just
as their mother was. Potentially wayward children only added to the
heartbreak of Hosea’s home life.
Parallels between Marriage and Message

To miss the connection between Hosea’s marriage to Gomer and the
Lord’s marriage to Israel is to miss the obvious. Hosea 3:1 explicitly
makes the parallel: “Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet
an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children
of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.” Indeed, at
the beginning, the Lord explained His command for Hosea to marry
a wife of whoredoms in terms of Israel’s departing from Him: “for the
land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD”
(1:2). Though many in the nation were deaf to Hosea’s preaching, even
the dullest of them could see Hosea’s grief, sympathize with his sorrow,
and wonder at his persistent love. Hosea’s marriage became a living ser-
mon: what Hosea did for Gomer, God did for Israel; what Gomer did
to Hosea, Israel did to God. Hosea’s love for Gomer did not make any
sense. But that is the very point of the message. God’s love for sinners
does not make any sense apart from His free and sovereign grace.
Hosea’s direct preaching to the nations focused on three basic
themes. First, God’s relationship to Israel was initiated by divine love.
Second, that relationship was spurned by Israel’s sin. Third, that rela-
tionship was maintained by divine loyalty. Each theme finds some
parallel in Hosea’s home life.
Initiated by Love
Hosea 2:19 –20 explicitly states that God proposed marriage between
Himself and Israel. Hosea 3:1, 14:4, and 11:1 (father/son image) all
draw attention to God’s love. The picture of marriage suggests strong
affection between the parties, but the primary focus of God’s love
for Israel is more on the inclination of His will and choice. The idea
of choice is not foreign to human relationships. A man may know
any number of women, but he chooses one to be his wife, the spe-
cial object of his love. This does not mean that he abhors all other
women or that he treats other women unfairly, but it does mean that
he rejects all others for the one he has chosen. Similarly, a woman
has the prerogative to accept or reject whatever proposals come her
way. Prospective husbands do not usually pick their brides by drawing
straws; there is usually something about their prospective bride that
attracts them and generates love.
Likewise, although God’s love for His elect specifically testifies
to His loving choice, the motive for the choice is not found in the
attractiveness or worthiness of the chosen. Moses said that God loved
Israel, in essence, because He loved them (Deut. 7:7–8). God’s love is
totally of grace. The reason and motive of God’s gracious electing love
is within Himself, not within the objects of His choice. That is what
makes grace amazing. God chose Israel in spite of what they were,
not because of what they were. He knew their sin, their weakness,
their bent to evil. This fits so well with the suggested interpretation
of Hosea’s marriage. God’s love for Israel was not “blind” and neither
was Hosea’s love for Gomer. He knew from the beginning her weak-
ness and inner propensity to sin, but nonetheless he loved her with
love according to that of the Lord’s.
Spurned by Sin
Israel’s response to God’s love should have been humble gratitude,
devotion, and loving obedience. There is some indication that, at least
in part, the beginning of Israel’s relationship to the Lord was accord-
ing to expectation. Jeremiah referred to the former condition of the
nation with these words: “Thus saith the LORD; I remember thee,
the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals.... Israel was
holiness unto the LORD” (2:2–3). Likewise, Hosea 2:15 anticipates
the future restoration of the people in a way that suggests previous
blessing: “She shall sing there, as in the days when she came up out of
the land of Egypt.” If the statement “bare him a son” (Hosea 1:3) does
indicate that Jezreel was Hosea’s son, this would suggest that Gomer
was faithful at the beginning of the relationship.
However, it did not take long for Israel to reveal its latent idol-
atrous heart. As soon as Moses was out of sight, they erected the
golden calf. Neither was it long before Gomer put Hosea out of sight
and revealed her immoral character. If the absence of reference to
Hosea is significant in the statements of 1:6 and 1:8, it would seem
that her next two children were born through fornication. Hosea 2,
using the imagery suggested by Gomer’s fornication, details how the

nation had played the harlot in departing from the Lord. Hosea 6:6–7
declares that Israel failed to give the Lord the covenant loyalty He
deserved and demanded and that they had overstepped the bounds of
the covenant agreement and behaved treacherously against the Lord.
The word “treacherous” is significant because it refers to deceitful
behavior and frequently designates the violation of marriage. Israel
was doing to God just what Gomer did to Hosea. A big part of Hosea’s
message to the nation exposed and condemned the sin of forsaking
the Lord (4:10–19; 5:2–7; 6:10; 7:4; 11:7).
Maintained by Loyalty
Whereas Israel was bent on backsliding (11:7), God purposed to
remain faithful (11:8; 14:4). Whereas Israel’s covenant loyalty was
like the passing cloud and dew (6:6), the Lord’s covenant loyalty was
central to the relationship He initiated and established (2:19–20). He
would not quit His love, and He told Hosea again to love a woman in
spite of her actual, not potential, unfaithfulness (3:1). By example and
precept, the prophecy of Hosea establishes three important principles
about loyalty.
First, discipline is an evidence of loyalty. Love does not overlook
sin. Those who have received great privilege from the Lord are in
jeopardy of greater punishment (cf. Amos 3:2). Hosea makes clear
that sin brings a day of recompense (9:7, 9) and that the consequences
of sin are inescapable (8:7; 10:13 —the sowing/reaping principle). This
chastening is not to destroy, but to restore: “I will go and return to
my place, till they acknowledge their offense, and seek my face; in
their affliction they will seek me early” (i.e., diligent, earnest seeking).
This theme of discipline is most clearly expressed by the obviously
symbolic names of the three children. They each speak of necessary
judgment: Jezreel, the irony of it (1:4); Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi,
the tragedy of it (1:6, 9).
The statement concerning Jezreel is somewhat difficult because it
seems to contradict 2 Kings 10:30. In the historic narrative, the Lord
directly commends Jehu for doing what was right in God’s eyes in
fulfilling the Lord’s heart in the execution of Ahab’s house in Jez-
reel. However, the idea expressed by the Authorized Version that the
Lord will “avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu” sug-
gests that now the Lord is punishing Jehu’s house for what in the
other text brought commendation. The solution is in the verb trans-

lated “avenge.” This word can mean nothing more than to inspect or
give attention to something. Although it frequently has the sense of
“punish” when it occurs with the preposition translated “upon,” it lit-
erally has the idea of seeing the direct object (the blood of Jezreel) on
the object of the preposition (the house of Jehu).3 As Ahab’s dynasty
ended in bloodshed, so will Jehu’s house end in bloodshed. The point
is that punishment will indeed come to Jehu’s dynasty, but there is no
direct blame being put on Jehu. Here is the irony of this judgment:
the act of obedience that initiated the dynasty of Jehu will destroy it
because of sins as heinous as those associated with Ahab’s house bring
the same judgment. The message of the other children is tragically
clear. Lo-ruhamah declares that God will not have pity or compassion
on the pitiable nation; Lo-ammi declares that God does not regard the
sinners of Israel to be His people.
Second, restoration is the goal of loyalty. Just as Hosea was to take
Gomer back, so the Lord would take back His people. Chapter 2
reveals the Lord’s threefold plan to bring the nation back to Himself:
isolation, impoverishment, and enticement. He would isolate them so
that they might learn to recognize His superiority (2:6–7). He would
bring them to poverty so that they might learn to depend utterly on
Him (2:9 –12). He would allure them, persuading them irresistibly
to return (2:14 –23). Achor, the place of judgment, would become a
place of hope. They would recognize God’s mercy and call him Ishi
(my husband) instead of Baali (my master). Likewise, Hosea isolated
Gomer from her former lovers and enticed her with bridal gifts; once
again she would be his. Hosea 2:22–23 also suggests the restoration
theme in terms of the children. There was a reversal. “Scattering”
( Jezreel) becomes a sowing; “no pity” will receive mercy; “not my
people” will become my people.
Third, repentance is the response to loyalty. Without it there could
be no enjoyment or experience of reunion. God made the terms of
the covenant clear. To repent means simply to return, to reverse direc-
tions. Israel had been backsliding, turning away from God (11:7); God
called them to turn around and come back to Him (6:1–3; 14:1–3).
3. For a similar explanation of the verb construction, see Thomas E. McComis-

key, “Hosea,” in vol. 1 of The Minor Prophets, ed. T. E. McComiskey (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1991), 20 –21.
He left the door open for the estranged wife to come home. Similarly,
Hosea, although keeping the door of their marriage open, placed cer-
tain demands on Gomer when he restored her. He demanded that she
no longer play the harlot and that she would not be for another man
(3:3). That was only reasonable.
Hosea, whose name means salvation, has earned well his repu-
tation for being the tenderest of the prophets, the prophet of grace
and love.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 15–30
The Glory of the Cross (2)

pieter devries
q
In the last issue, Dr. DeVries considered the doctrine of the atonement in the
Scriptures. In this article, he looks at the doctrine of atonement as developed in
church history.
The Early Church

Whenever the New Testament addresses the atonement, God is iden-
tified as its subject. The initiative for the atonement proceeded from
God; He reconciles men with Himself, and not vice-versa. He gave
His Son as a propitiation for sin. Thus humanity is confronted with
the imperative to embrace, by faith, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so
that we may truly enjoy the friendship of God. This does not mean,
however, that we bring about such atonement. The Bible teaches us
that this is neither possible nor required. It is precisely for that reason
that God, in His one-sided love, sent His Son.
What is the essential meaning of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus
Christ? What does it really mean for enemies to be reconciled with
God through Christ’s blood? What exactly necessitates atoning? To
answer these questions, we will first of all consider how Christ’s death
on the cross has been analyzed during the course of church history.
This does not mean that insights gleaned from church history ought
to be viewed as normative; such insights need to be evaluated in light
of Scripture. This is precisely what is meant by the Reformation prin-
ciple, Sola Scriptura, that is, Scripture alone. We need to recognize,
however, that we are not the first individuals to read and study the
Scriptures. We may benefit from the insights regarding Scripture that
have been formulated during the course of church history.
The Christian authors who date from the period immediately fol-
lowing the decease of the apostles are known as the apostolic fathers.
Clement of Rome was one of them, and around 96 A.D. he wrote

his first letter to the congregation of Corinth. Here we read, “Moved
by His love toward us, Jesus Christ shed His blood for us accord-
ing to the will of God, giving His flesh for our flesh and His life
for our life.”1 One generation later, the church father Irenaeus placed
Adam and Christ in opposition to each other. His thinking regarding
this is known as “recapitulation.” As the Head of the new humanity,
Christ gathers together all things unto Himself. Irenaeus posited that
Christ, as the Son of God, has become man in order to comprehend
the development of man within Himself and thereby provide salva-
tion for us, “so that what we have lost in Adam, namely the image and
likeness of God, may be received again in Christ Jesus.”2 It is the tes-
timony of Irenaeus that “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has reconciled
us to God by His death.”3
In the Nicene Creed, we read, “Who, for us men for our salva-
tion, came down from heaven...and was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried.” At the third ecumenical
council, held in 431 A.D. in Ephesus, Christ was referred to as “the
High Priest and Apostle of our profession” (Heb. 3:1) who has given
Himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God and the Father for
a sweet-smelling savor (Eph. 5:2). For Augustine, Christ is simultane-
ously Mediator, Propitiator, Savior, Healer, Shepherd, Sacrifice, and
Priest. Christ took upon Himself our guilt and thereby finished the
transgression (Dan. 9:24).
The early church unmistakably made the substitutionary nature
of Christ’s death her point of departure. When considering the
meaning of the atonement, man was viewed as a captive of the devil
and death who was set free and delivered. The emphasis was upon
redemption from the consequences of sin; the meaning of Christ’s
death in relation to God’s justice and to sin itself was not well thought
out. We may assume that, in the early church, the experience of the
atonement was much richer than the formulations whereby this expe-
rience was described. Be that as it may, the central meaning of the
atonement was repeatedly set before the church by way of the weekly
celebration of the Eucharist.
1. Clement, 49, 6.
2. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III, 18, 1.
3. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III, 18, 1.
The Glory of the Cross (2) 17
The Middle Ages: Anselm of Canterbury and Abaelard

Any study of the meaning of the atonement will focus on the medieval
theologian Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109). Anselm articu-
lated his thoughts in the book Cur Deus Homo (“Why God became
man”). The book is a dialogue between Anselm and his gifted pupil,
Boso. Anselm wished to establish the fundamental necessity of the
atonement. Starting with the testimony of Scripture regarding the
justice of God and the seriousness of sin, he demonstrates, apart from
Scripture (remoto Christo), that God can only forgive sin through the
sacrifice of Christ.
Anselm makes clear that it is unthinkable that God could overlook
the impugning of His justice by sin. Anselm responds to one of Boso’s
objections to the arguments he is developing, saying, “You have not
yet considered the gravity of sin.” God’s honor has been maligned by
sin. That leaves two options: either sin is punished, or God’s honor is
vindicated. The latter was accomplished by Christ’s sacrifice. Christ
became man in order that God’s justice could be magnified. In this
context, Anselm uses the word satisfaction. By His death on the cross,
Christ has satisfied what the honor of God requires.
For Anselm, the atonement does not bring about a change in
man; rather, God, who initially was wrathful toward man, looks
down in favor upon him by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ. Anselm
highlighted that God is not only the subject of the atonement, but
also its object. The atonement not only proceeds from God, but it also
focuses upon Him.
The doctrine of the atonement as articulated by Anselm reveals
a much deeper insight into the meaning of the crucifixion and blood
of Christ. Anselm not only confessed that Christ suffered vicariously,
but he also connects the sacrifice of Christ not only with the conse-
quences of sin, but also with sin itself, as well as with the honor of
God as it has been impugned by sin.
Peter Abaelard (1079–1142), a younger contemporary of Anselm,
handled the doctrine of the atonement in an entirely different fashion.
Abaelard was far less impressed by the gravity of sin than Anselm;
he defined sin as only evil committed voluntarily by man. The con-
cept of hereditary sin was not entirely denied, but it was seriously
weakened. Abaelard also spoke of the death of Christ as a sacrifice
for sin, but without any attempt to understand its meaning. The
subjective meaning of the atonement was of central importance for

him. He considered the essential meaning of the sacrifice of Christ
not to be the satisfaction of God’s impugned justice, but rather the
moral renewal of the sinner. The purpose of Christ’s sacrifice was
to incite love for God in man. Contrary to Anselm, Abaelard viewed
man rather than God as the object of the atonement. He viewed the
atonement as bringing about a change in man’s disposition and not as
having any connection to a change of God’s disposition toward man.
Thus, whereas Anselm’s teaching regarding the atonement is objec-
tive, Abaelard’s teaching is subjective.
The Reformers, Faustus Socinus, and John Owen

When considering the doctrine of the atonement, there are no
essential differences between Rome and the Reformation. The Refor-
mation did not wish to break with the Catholic Church, but instead
wanted to rid the church of its deficiencies. Initially, the Church of
the Reformation did not consider itself a new church, but a reformed
Catholic Church. In conformity to what the Catholic Church had
taught, the Reformation confessed the living God to be the triune
God, Jesus Christ to be God and man in one Person, and the death of
Christ to be vicarious.
In developing the doctrine of the atonement, the Reformers fol-
lowed in the footsteps of Anselm. Having said that, however, there are
several differences as we flesh out this doctrine. For Anselm, there was
the choice between sin being punished and the vindication of God’s
honor. The Reformers posited that Christ satisfied the claims of God’s
justice by bearing the punishment for sin vicariously. He took upon
Himself the curse of the law and, as the representative of His peo-
ple, was summoned before the justice of God so that they could be
acquitted. God does indeed punish sin, but He has done so in Christ.
Thus the claims of God’s holy justice have been fully satisfied. The
Reformers emphatically appealed to the Scriptures. In distinction
from Anselm, they did not speak of the atonement divorced from the
actual Person of Christ. This will become evident when we compare
Lord’s Days 5 and 6 of the Heidelberg Catechism with Cur Deus Homo.
The Reformers established an intimate connection between the
doctrine of the atonement and the doctrine of justification. They
taught that the blood of Christ is the only foundation for our salva-
tion, and that it is only by faith that we are partakers of this. Only
when we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, who vicariously

made satisfaction for us, can we stand before God. In his exposition
of Psalm 22, Luther states, “This is the mystery that is so rich in its
divine grace for sinners, whereby through a wonderful exchange our
sins are no longer ours but rather Christ’s, and the righteousness of
Christ is ours and no longer Christ’s. He has emptied Himself of
His righteousness so that He could clothe and fill us with it, and He
took our unrighteousnesses upon Himself so that He could deliver us
from them.... And in the same manner that He was sorrowful, suf-
fered, and was crushed because of our sins, in like manner we rejoice
and glory in His righteousness.”4
In a letter to George Spalatin (1484 –1545), Luther wrote, “Teach
Christ and Him crucified. Learn to pray to Him and say, despairing
of yourself, ‘Thou Lord Jesus art my righteousness, but I am Thy sin.
Thou hast taken upon Thyself what is mine, and hast given me what
is Thine. Thou hast taken upon Thyself that which was not Thine,
and given me what I was not.”5 Calvin testified, “Our acquittal is in
this that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was trans-
ferred to the head of the Son of God (Isa. 53:12). We must specially
remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in
trepidation and anxiety, as if the just vengeance which the Son of God
transferred to Himself, were still impending over us.”6
In the sixteenth century, the doctrine of the atonement, as it was
confessed by the Reformers in conformity with Anselm, was criti-
cized by Faustus Socinus (1539 –1604). Socinus held that a virtuous
walk of life and love for our neighbor constituted the meaning of the
Christian faith. The doctrine of faith had to be reduced to a mini-
mum. Christ was to be viewed as an example and teacher of a certain
lifestyle, not as the Savior who vicariously took upon Himself the
guilt of sinners. Socinus accused the Reformers of carelessly adopt-
ing the concepts of “satisfaction” and “merit” from Rome in order to
explain the significance of the work of Christ.
Socinus emphatically opposed the idea that guilt is transferrable.
He was of the opinion that the forgiveness of sins excludes the neces-
sity of the atonement. Whoever forgives relinquishes his righteous
4. Martin Luther, Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883), 5:608.

5. Martin Luther, Luther Deutsch, ref. K. Aland (Göttingen, 1983), 10:14.
6. John Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.5.
claims and will forego punishment. For Socinus, God’s love is evident
in the fact that this is precisely what He did. God pardons sin upon
the basis of our contrition and our intent to improve our lives. Soci-
nus referenced the parable of the prodigal son; his argument was that
we do not encounter a mediator in this parable.
The thinking of Abaelard resurfaced with Socinus in a more radi-
cal form. Socinus’s insights were incorporated into the rational forms
of theology centuries after him. For example, the view of the suffer-
ing and death of Christ as articulated by Socinus is commonplace in
modern theology. In the sixteenth century, Calvin opposed the views
of Socinus. During the seventeenth century, John Owen (1616–1683)
opposed Socinian theologians in England. Both Calvin and Owen
emphasized that God’s grace and love do indeed exclude our merits,
but this is not true for the merits of Christ. God’s love never functions
at the expense of His justice. In His love, God Himself has paved a way
of atonement in which His justice is fully vindicated. God was under
no obligation to do this, but He purposed this in His sovereign mercy.
Regarding the argument that there is no mediator in the parable
of the prodigal son, a few comments are in order. The parable teaches
us that there is mercy with God and does not directly address the basis
for the forgiveness of sin. It is, however, of paramount importance to
understand that the Lord Jesus Christ told this parable in response to
the criticism of the Pharisees that He received sinners and ate with
them. The Father displays His good pleasure toward sinners in His Son.
Not only did He make known the way of atonement and redemption
through His teaching, but He ultimately suffered and died Himself so
that He could remove sin and make atonement for man’s guilt.
Three Approaches in the History of the Christian Church

Upon scanning the entire history of the Christian church, we can
distinguish three approaches to interpreting the crucifixion of Christ.
Sometimes the entire focus is upon the effect of Christ’s crucifixion
upon mankind. The cross will then exclusively be designated as a
revelation of God’s love. From this vantage point, the cross shows
us how much God hates sin and spurs us on toward contrition and
returning to God. Secondly, the cross of Christ has been understood
as the victory over the powers of the devil and sin. The cross delivers
man from sinful and demonic forces. And finally, the death on the
cross is portrayed as the way whereby the wrath of God toward the
sins of mankind is quenched.
Only when we discuss the cross from this final vantage point will
we do justice to what the Bible tells us about the holiness of God and
the gravity of sin. Only then will it become completely clear why
Christ had to come to earth in order to redeem sinners. This is not to
suggest that the first two viewpoints do not contain elements of truth;
they certainly do. Their deficiencies lie not in what they teach, but
rather in what they fail to emphasize. The final view, however, prin-
cipally encompasses also the first two views. Whoever is reconciled to
God and delivered from the wrath to come is also delivered from the
power of the devil and will mourn his sins.
This is clearly stated in the Heidelberg Catechism. In response to
Question 1, “What is thy only comfort in life and death?” this answer
is given: “That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not
my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with
His precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered
me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without
the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea,
that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by
His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sin-
cerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto Him.”
God’s Wrath Has Been Quenched

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man. In
order to understand the significance of the work of the Lord Jesus, we
must grasp the relationship between God and man. The foundation
of this relationship is that God is the Creator and man is His crea-
ture. God is the King of His creation, and may justly require man’s
obedience. Being King, God is also Judge. He protects those who
are oppressed but also punishes the transgressors. The relationship
between God and man should be understood as a legal relationship.
Since the Fall, man is a transgressor of God’s laws. In the first
chapters of his epistle to the Romans, Paul explains that the wrath of
God therefore rests upon man. “For the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom.
1:18). The wrath of God is focused upon both Jews and Gentiles—
upon those who know the Word of God and also upon those who are
only confronted with God’s revelation in creation. The entire world is

subject to God’s judgment and is guilty before God (Rom. 3:19).
Against this background, the Apostle Paul writes about the Lord
Jesus Christ “whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:25). The focal point of the atonement is
the restoration of the legal relationship between God and man.
What precisely is the meaning of the word hilasterion, used in
Romans 3:25, and translated as propitiation? Must this word be under-
stood in terms of the Latin word expiation, or in the sense of propitiation?
Expiatio refers to complete erasure, and propitiation means the securing
of a favorable disposition. In light of Romans 1:18 and 3:20, we would
be understating the case if we were to view the atonement as merely
a removal of sin. This is underscored by the first epistle of John, in
which the word hilasmos is used. Christ, who is the propitiation for
our sins, is our Advocate with the Father. This is also an indication
that God is the focal point of the atonement. Further confirmation is
found in 1 Thessalonians 1:10, where we read that Jesus has delivered
us from the wrath to come. By virtue of the atoning passion and death
of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s wrath toward sin has been quenched.
God has taken away His wrath; He has turned Himself from the
fierceness of His anger (Ps. 85:3).
Whereas in Romans 3:25 the word hilasterion (derived from the
sacrificial service) is used, we find the word katallassoo in Romans 5.
This word means being brought into a friendship with each other. In
Romans 5:10, we read, “For if, when we were enemies, we were rec-
onciled to God by the death of his Son.” In light of the first chapters of
the letter to the Romans, the word enemies must be understood in the
context of God’s wrath on man. We can also reference the expression
“children of wrath,” found in Ephesians 2:3. That passage does not
speak of man being angry toward God, but rather God toward man.
When the atonement became a historical fact, God’s enmity
toward man was taken away. Rather than His wrath resting upon us,
He is now graciously inclined toward us. We are not denying that the
man upon whom the wrath of God rests is opposed to God and lives
in hostility toward Him; rather, we are emphasizing that when we are
reconciled to God, not only is the wrath of God quenched, but our
opposition is dismantled. In its place grows love for God. However,
before we say the latter, we must always confess the first.
As we focus on the biblical basis for the atonement, I also wish

to refer to Romans 8, which begins by declaring that there is no con-
demnation for them that are in Christ Jesus. At the end of the chapter,
the basis for acquittal and peace is stated: Christ has died and been
raised on our behalf, and He intercedes for us. By virtue of the death
of Christ, acquittal and love replace condemnation. This shows clearly
the vicarious nature of Christ’s suffering and death, and that by His
death He has quenched the wrath and anger of God. In 2 Corinthians
5:11, Paul speaks of “the terror of the Lord”; whoever refuses to be
persuaded to believe in Christ shall once be stricken by the wrath of
God. Over against the terror of the Lord, Paul displays God in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). The atoning passion
and death of Christ implies that God’s wrath has been satisfied. Both
Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5 speak of reconciliation with God in
the past tense, for this occurred at the death of Christ on the cross.
We may not say, however, that at that moment all hostility toward
God vanished in those who were reconciled with God. This does
not occur until people have personally been gifted with faith. God’s
wrath and hostility toward sinful man have been removed by virtue
of Christ’s death.
On the basis of the atoning passion and death of Christ, a message
goes forth to men—men upon whom the wrath of God abides—that
He offers His friendship to them. By faith, we become partakers of
what the Lord Jesus has accomplished on Golgotha, and we begin to
live as those who are friends of God. Christians live by faith, believing
in Him who has loved them and given Himself for them (Gal. 2:20).
In the epistle to the Hebrews, the meaning of Christ’s work is
unfolded by referring to the Mosaic sacrificial system, and in a very
special way by referring to the great Day of Atonement. By making
atonement for sin, Christ was a faithful and compassionate High
Priest in things pertaining to God (Heb. 2:17). This again makes it
clear that the focus of the atonement is first of all upon God Himself.
The epistle to the Hebrews offers serious warnings of the wrath to
come. There is only one way to escape: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
God, who is a consuming fire, is yet gracious, merciful, and full of
compassion. Upon death, judgment will await those who are outside
of Christ. However, he who looks to Christ as the sacrifice to take
away sin may look forward to eternal salvation (Heb. 9:28).
The Lord Jesus died on the cross to quench the wrath of God.
God, in His holiness, demanded satisfaction for sin. The same God
demands satisfaction and provides it. The Father sent His Son to be
the propitiation for sin; it is not only God-oriented, but it also proceeds
from God. We may not make a distinction between the Father and
the Son— and even less may we suggest a disparity between the two.
God’s love is not the consequence but the fountain of the atonement.
His love does not issue forth from the atonement; it precedes it. In
His eternal love, God did not spare His Son but surrendered Him so
that He could bear the punishment for sin vicariously. Christ gave His
life for His sheep, and it is ultimately the Holy Spirit who regenerates
them, bestowing the gift of faith and conforming them to Christ.
The great difference between genuine Christianity and other reli-
gions consists in this: that any pathway to reconciliation with God
originating in man is cut off. In all other religions, man must seek
to win God’s favor, or that of other gods. The Christian faith testi-
fies, however, that we have obtained the atonement (Rom. 5:11). “God
was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their
trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of rec-
onciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19).
Calvin’s Thoughts on the Atonement

Calvin reflected deeply about how it is possible for the God who
approaches us in His mercy to be hostile toward us until we are rec-
onciled with Him in Christ. For Calvin, this was only an apparent
contradiction. The Scriptures confront us with our hopelessness out-
side of Christ in order that we may be led to true faith and genuine
humility. Calvin writes, “In short, since our mind cannot lay hold of
life through the mercy of God with sufficient eagerness, or receive it
with becoming gratitude, unless previously impressed with fear of the
divine anger, and dismayed at the thought of eternal death, we are so
instructed by divine truth, as to perceive that without Christ God is in
a manner hostile to us, and has his arm raised for our destruction. Thus
taught, we look to Christ alone for divine favour and paternal love.”7
Calvin uses the expression “in a manner” multiple times in his Insti-
tutes. God’s wrath is an awe-inspiring reality, which also leaves abundant
room for the love of God. Calvin testifies that our reconciliation by the
7. Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.22.

blood of Christ may not be interpreted as if the Son reconciled us with

God and only then did God begin to love us, having hated us prior.
Rather, we were reconciled with Him because He already loved us—
even when, due to our sin, we were still in a hostile relationship with
Him. Calvin emphasizes that, on the one hand, reconciliation has been
accomplished upon Golgotha, and, on the other hand, we only truly
benefit from this atonement upon being united to Christ by faith. “But
because the iniquity, which deserves the indignation of God, remains
in us until the death of Christ comes to our aid, and that iniquity is
in his sight accursed and condemned, we are not admitted to full and
sure communion with God, unless in so far as Christ unites us. And,
therefore, if we would indulge the hope of having God placable and
propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and minds on Christ alone, as it
is to him alone it is owing that our sins, which necessarily provoked the
wrath of God, are not imputed to us.”8
Calvin was convinced that no reconciliation could come with-
out satisfaction. No peace can be had apart from the blood of the
cross, and there is no other means to bring peace to our hearts except
the gospel. The Holy Spirit applies this gospel to the heart, and it
thereby becomes “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth” (Rom. 1:16).
Karl Barth’s Thoughts Regarding the Atonement

It is characteristic for classic theology to distinguish between creation
and redemption. In the theology of Karl Barth, considered to be the
spiritual leader of numerous evangelicals, this distinction vanishes.
Barth believes that sin was already incorporated into creation, and that
the cross of Christ is God’s eternal “yes” toward creation and humanity.
This theology holds no room for the wrath of God as an independent
reality; from the beginning, God’s wrath has always functioned under
the umbrella of His love. The fact that Barth did not teach universal
atonement per se has to do with his belief that theology is of a tempo-
rary nature; therefore, absolute assertions must be avoided. However,
nowhere does Barth clearly articulate who will be eternally lost. The
only conclusion to be drawn from his theology is that he embraces
some form of universal atonement. In Barth’s theology, the necessity of
Christ’s incarnation, as well as the distinction between the divine per-

sons, fades away. It is his conviction that, in the person of Jesus Christ,
God Himself suffered at the cross. The incarnation was necessary since
God the Son could not have suffered in His divine nature. The early
church would have therefore confessed correctly that it was the mystery
of Christ’s crucifixion that He could not suffer (that is, in His divine
nature), and yet He did suffer (that is, in His human nature).
In classic Reformed theology, meriting and applying the atone-
ment are two separate matters. The atonement, accomplished once
and for all, must personally be applied to those for whom it was made.
The preaching of the gospel is used to achieve this through its mes-
sage of “Be ye reconciled to God.” The blood of Christ is the basis
of this atonement, which is secured through Spirit-worked faith. It
is Barth’s conviction, however, that the gospel is actually “You are
reconciled with God.” The only difference between a Christian and a
non-Christian is that the Christian knows this and the non-Christian
does not. It hardly needs to be argued that the gravity of the coming
judgment, as well as the necessity of a personal faith, are denied in
Barth’s theology.
The Suffering and Dying of the Lord Jesus as the

All-Sufficient Ground of Salvation
The New Testament presents the Lord Jesus Christ, who vicariously
made atonement for sin and was subjected to its punishment, as the
representative of all His people. As Adam represented all of humanity
in his covenant breach, and we have all sinned in Adam, so the Lord
Jesus Christ represented all those whom the Father had given Him.
Adam brought sin, death, and the curse into the world. The Lord
Jesus Christ, on the contrary, brought life and peace (Rom. 5:12–21;
1 Cor. 15:45– 49).
Because of the vicarious work of Christ, the Father views us as
if we had done what Christ did for us. Substitution and representa-
tion are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary to each other.
Representation shows the intimate nature of substitution. The idea of
recapitulation, which surfaced in church history with Irenaeus, gives
expression to the representative nature of the work of the Lord Jesus
Christ. In connection with the doctrine of atonement through satis-
faction, as articulated by Anselm and fleshed out by the Reformers,
it expresses the riches of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The fact that the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ consti-
tutes the perfect foundation of salvation is inseparably connected with
the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ represented His own vicariously
in His passion and death. To safeguard salvation and to guarantee
its outcome fully, nothing needs to be added to what the Lord Jesus
accomplished. This brings us to the relationship between reconcilia-
tion with God and justification by faith in Christ that is highlighted
throughout the New Testament (cf. Rom. 3:21–31, 8:28–39; 2 Cor.
5:11–21). The obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ is the only and com-
plete foundation of our justification. Since God did not spare His own
Son, all accusations that are leveled against us have been stripped of
their legal claims, and nothing can separate us from His love. Christ
has delivered us from the curse of the law, and there is therefore no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (cf. Rom. 8:1; Gal. 3:13).
It is impossible that one of those for whom the Lord Jesus Christ
has shed His blood will go lost. The Lord Jesus stated this very clearly
in John 10:28–29: “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My
Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to
pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” Christ’s work on the cross not
only made reconciliation possible, but also accomplished the reality of
it. The latter does not discount that we are only personally reconciled
with God when the Holy Spirit bestows the gift of faith upon us;
the New Testament never teaches that we are justified by the blood
of Christ, but rather that we are justified by faith. Our faith does
not complement the work of the Lord Jesus Christ; it is a fruit of it.
“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us” (1 John
4:10). “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
Whoever teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ has died for every
human being thereby denies the truths of the New Testament that
Christ has sacrificially given Himself for us. It is the language of
God’s church to confess that she may thus be completely certain of
her eternal salvation. Whoever claims that the efficacy of the crucifix-
ion of the Lord Jesus Christ is universal denies its efficacy. In times
of need and distress, the only anchor of the Christian is the sacri-
fice of Christ as the foundation of salvation; nothing more is needed.
This testimony of Scripture regarding the efficacy of Christ’s death
is confirmed in the experience of God’s children. August Montague

Toplady (1740 –1778) expressed it thus:
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.
Since according to God’s purpose Christ atoned our guilt, it
would be contradictory to God’s justice if one were to perish for
whom Christ has made payment. Payment does not have to be made
twice —first by Christ and then again by the one for whom He died.
That is the inherent comfort in reconciliation by way of satisfaction,
specifically in regard to the particular nature of the atonement.
That the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ is the perfect war-
ranty of eternal salvation for all whom the Father has given to Him
does not diminish the all-sufficiency of the atonement. The blood of
the Lord Jesus Christ is abundantly sufficient to atone for the sins of the
entire world. It is therefore not without significance that the Lord Jesus
is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world
and the Bread that gives life to the world (cf. John 1:29; 6:33). Whoever
hears the gospel does not need to wonder whether there is sufficient
latitude in the invitation of the gospel for him to return to the Lord
and be reconciled with Him. The Canons of Dort emphasize both the
particular nature as well as the all-sufficiency of the atonement. We
shortchange the witness of the Bible if we neglect one of these aspects.
The Death of the Lord Jesus Christ Is the Fountain

from Which Proceeds a Holy Walk with God
The Lord Jesus Christ came to this world to save sinners from their
sins. His death on the cross is not only the basis for the forgiveness
of sins, but also the fountain from which proceeds the renewal of
life; it empowers us to break with sin and live a holy life before God.
The connection between the crucifixion of Christ and a holy walk
before God is articulated in various passages of the New Testament.
For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:15, the Apostle Paul states, “The love
of Christ constraineth us.” He then proceeds to explain that if Christ
died as one on behalf of all, they have all died with Him. He died so
that they would no longer live unto themselves, but for Him who
“died for them, and rose again” (2 Cor. 5:15). The love of the Lord
Jesus Christ, who vicariously surrendered Himself to be nailed to the
cross, is the fountain from which proceeds our love toward Him. The
Apostle John wrote in his first letter, “We love him, because he first
loved us” (1 John 4:19).
Paul wrote to the Galatians that the world was crucified unto him
and he unto the world through the cross (Gal. 6:14). Since the cross
of Christ had become the governing principle of his life, the world
was no longer attractive to him, and he was no longer attractive to
the world. It is an essential component of the Christian life that we
serve God voluntarily and wholeheartedly. Such readiness to serve
proceeds from the fact that the love of Christ toward us, unveiled in
His passion and death, has renewed our lives.
The inseparable connection between the atoning work of Christ
and the holy walk of the Christian is also formulated in Colossians
1:21–22: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your
mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his
flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unre-
proveable in his sight.” The way Paul connects the cross of Christ
and the holy walk of the Christian is yet another confirmation of the
internal efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ.
It is inconceivable that those for whom Christ has died would not
also tangibly begin to live a holy life. His death is the sole and com-
plete foundation of both the forgiveness of sins and a holy walk with
God. The stripes that Christ received on the cross are the cure for our
sinful walk and existence. Christ has borne our sins so that we would
die to sin and learn to live righteously (1 Peter 2:24). He who knows
that his sins have been pardoned for Christ’s sake will desire to be
conformed to Christ.
We can only live a holy life before God if we have tasted the love
of Christ. Only he who is in Christ will be a new creature. Living
a holy life before God is a daily struggle; as we endeavor to do this,
we will be opposed by the world, the devil, and our own sinful exis-
tence. Meditating upon the passion and death of Christ and looking
to Him who is seated at the right hand of the Father are divinely
ordained means to mortify sin and live a holy life. It is how we can
be connected to the fountain of a truly holy life, Christ Himself. Not
only has He been given unto us to be our wisdom, righteousness, and

redemption, but also our sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30).
The Death of the Lord Jesus Christ Yields a

Victory over the Powers of Darkness
Since the Fall, Satan can be called the prince of this world. The world
is full of demons; this is often recognized and felt more in other cul-
tures than in our Western culture. But no one will be able to deny that
there are numerous powers who seek to influence our lives. However,
the Bible sets before us the Lord Jesus Christ as the conqueror of all
demonic powers. By His death, the Lord Jesus Christ has “spoiled
principalities and powers; he made a shew of them openly, triumph-
ing over them in it” (Col. 2:15).
The life of those who live without God is dominated by evil forces
and demons. The cross of Christ not only quenches the wrath of God
toward sin and gives us strength to live a holy life before God, but it
also makes possible the conquering of principalities and demons.
Through the cross, you will become a liberated person, delivered
from uncertainty, fear, and bondage. The same Lord Jesus Christ who
died on the cross is also the conqueror. Whoever belongs to Him need
not be fearful of any of the powers of this world. It is the privilege of a
Christian to know that in Christ he is more than a conqueror; nothing
can separate him from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:38–39). In contrast
to the fear, uncertainty, and bondage of man apart from Christ stands
the joy, certainty, and freedom of the Christian. Reconciled with God
through Christ, a Christian serves God with love, freedom, and joy.
In union with Christ, he knows he is truly free.
The fact that Jesus Christ is the Conqueror is also expressed in
His name of “Lord.” There is not a power in the world that either
could or can stand before Him. Knowing that we belong to the Lord
Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords, causes us to be of good cheer.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 31–37
Masterful Parables: The Language of

Supremacy in Christ’s Parables
GERALD M. BILKES
q
It is widely agreed that the parables proclaim the kingdom of God.1

This conclusion is difficult to avoid when Christ Himself said so
(Matt. 11:12; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10).2 However, few have pursued the
1. David Wenham speaks for many when he writes: “What are Jesus’ parables all
about? The simple answer to that question is that they are all describing some aspect
of ‘the kingdom of God’” (The Parables of Jesus, The Jesus Library [Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity, 1989], 20). Recent years have seen considerable fresh work on the
parables, including Klyne Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the
Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Terry Johnson, The Parables of Jesus
(Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007); Richard D. Phillips, Turning Your World Upside Down:
Kingdom Priorities in the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: P&R, 2003); Richard N. Lon-
genecker, The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Craig L.
Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2000). Some
older works that are still relevant today include: John Laidlaw, Studies in the Parables
of Our Lord (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1984); James Mont-
gomery Boice, The Parables of Jesus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983); Simon Kistemaker,
The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980); Herman C. Hanko, The Mysteries of
the Kingdom: An Exposition of the Parables (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing
Assoc., 1975); and Richard Chenevix Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Lon-
don: John W. Parker and Son, 1857).
2. When the biblical authors use this term it refers to the domain in which God
rules by His grace through His Holy Spirit. The kingdom of heaven is where God
manifests His gracious reign through the Spirit in bringing sinners into fellowship
with Himself through Christ. It has in view God’s mediatorial rule at the climax
of redemptive history, effected by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
Through Christ’s work, God overthrew all principalities and powers, triumphing
over them. Jesus manifested this kingdom in His preaching and parables, calling for
willing subjects of this reign, and He will consummate this reign when He returns
on the clouds. Herman Ridderbos helpfully writes, “The coming of the kingdom is
first of all the display of the divine glory, the re-assertion and maintenance of God’s
rights on earth in their full sense” (The Coming of the Kingdom [Philadelphia: P&R,
1962], 20–21). John Laidlaw says it like this: “That kingdom is just the Gospel of
question how Christ’s parables promote the kingdom of God. In other

words, exactly how did Christ extend the rule of God through the
parables? How did He master hearts by the parables?
One reason this angle of inquiry has not received its due is because
many blunt the force of Christ’s assertion in Mark 4:12: “That seeing
they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not
understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins
should be forgiven them.”3 The obvious meaning of this statement is
that the parables serve God’s sovereign work in graciously allowing
some to understand and causing others to reject Christ.4 Many, how-
ever, are unwilling to admit God’s sovereignty operates behind both
the revealing and the concealing of truth. They claim instead that
Jesus spoke in parables to make His teaching easy, simple, and allur-
ing for all people to embrace.5 This then is also how people generally
understand the parables. It can only be wondered, however, why then
so many failed to appreciate His parables, especially those in authority
(e.g., Matt. 21:45– 46).
It is striking that most sources on the parables fail to take account
of the datum of authority, supremacy, or power.6 In this brief arti-
Jesus, or Christianity considered as a power— a cause, an influence, a moment, the

power of God unto salvation. And that King is none other than Jesus the Lord”
(Studies in the Parables of Our Lord, 52).
3. Snodgrass (Stories with Intent, 157–63) traces how many have stumbled over
this passage and tried to soften its force. Snodgrass himself proposes that the passage
means that “parables enlighten and instruct, but often with a message that people
do not want to hear” (159). This certainly is true enough, but Snodgrass is missing
the real point when he says that these words are “irony, an attempt to shock into
repentance, or reverse psychology” and “not literalistic” (160).
4. See Johnson, The Parables of Jesus, 26.
5. For example, Heinrich Kahlefeld conveniently but inappropriately obscures
the whole matter by distinguishing within the gospels “two differing interpretations
of the parable discourse. There is apparently an older way of thinking that is closer
to the words of Jesus, and therefore takes precedence, which in principle sees in the
parable a means of understanding, spoken out of the desire to unlock the truth for
the hearers, to provide them an access to the meaning, to convince and win them.
Alongside, a later and secondary interpretation appears; it is probably determined
by the late Jewish exegetical method, which accepted a multiple meaning and was
inclined to see the real revelation in that very meaning which was not evident but
concealed behind the verbal statement” (Parables and Instructions in the Gospels, trans.
by Arlene Swidler [New York: Herder and Herder, 1966], 36–37).
6. One notable exception is Robert Farrar Capon, Kingdom, Grace, Judgment: Par-
adox, Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),
Masterful Parables 33
cle, I wish to offer a corrective. I contend that the parables are clear
instances of Christ subtly but decidedly reasserting the sovereignty of
God by, first, assuming the stance of a sovereign Revealer to ignorant
man; second, unveiling God’s sovereign salvation to fallen man; and
third, announcing to perishing man that he is the object of God’s
sovereign judgment.
Supremacy and Revelation

Christ was not the first to tell parables as a function of rule and
authority. It was the territory of kings to gather knowledge concern-
ing patterns in creation and deduce the moral and spiritual lessons
from this first book of divine revelation. Proverbs declares: “It is the
glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search
out a matter” (25:2). Scripture confirms that this applies to Solomon,
for “he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even
unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts
and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes” (1 Kings 4:33).
Patrick Fairbairn helpfully points out that, through the parabolic
method of instruction, Christ
drew the attention of His followers in every age to the profound
and intimate connexion that subsists between the realms of
nature and of grace, and taught them to look through the one
to the other.... By means especially of His inimitable parables,
He showed, that when nature was consulted aright, it spoke one
language with the Spirit of God; and that the more thoroughly
it is understood, the more complete and varied will be found the
harmony which subsists between the principles of its constitu-
tion and those of Christ’s spiritual kingdom.7
It is not too much to say that Christ displayed His royal authority
by speaking about natural things in ways that conveyed supernatural
truth. Christ harnessed the glory of His own creation and used it to
convey most splendidly the glory of His kingdom.
To natural man, the disturbing part of it all is that Christ needed
to reveal the kingdom. After all, this implies man’s fundamental
esp. pp. 13 – 44. However, his analysis suffers from a proclivity for neo-orthodox
and existentialist interpretations.
7. Hermeneutical Manual or Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the
New Testament (Philadelphia: Smith, English and Co., 1859), 176.
ignorance of it. It is humbling to man’s religious sensibilities that he

needs someone to teach him about the kingdom of heaven, especially
when we consider that he had been a subject of God once in the
kingdom of Paradise.
Moreover, man’s ideas of the kingdom stand opposite Christ’s
portrait of the kingdom. We by nature are not sympathetic to the idea
of the kingdom of heaven being like a sower, whose seed meets with
all sorts of bad soil.8 Instead, we might appreciate something more
like a steamroller with ourselves in the driver’s seat. It is offensive for
us to think of the kingdom as a treasure or pearl for which we would
need to sell all (Matt. 13:44 – 46). It is offensive to think that the king-
dom would suffer the mixture of wheat and tares, good fish and bad
fish, for awhile until the end (Matt. 13:24 –30, 36– 43; 47–50).
Despite man’s negative responses, Christ promoted the kingdom
of God through His parables by revealing infallibly what man by
nature fails to understand and, in fact, misunderstands. Those whose
hearts have been rendered teachable will submit to Christ’s teach-
ing and to His position as Teacher. The rest, however, offended at
the claim of sovereignty, will continue hardened and the truth of the
kingdom will be only further concealed to them.
Supremacy and Salvation

The second way Christ promoted the kingdom was through mani-
festing how it is a rule in which God sovereignly dispenses His
grace for salvation. Many of the parables that convey the message of
grace can be found in the Gospel of Luke, and appear to have been
annunciated when Christ traveled through Palestine from Galilee to
Jerusalem, a journey of about six months.9 This is where we find the
parables of the good Samaritan, the great supper, and the prodigal
son. Many of them demonstrate how God graciously draws people
into His kingdom. God’s people continue to live depending on grace
and in turn showing grace to others.
Quite a few of these parables from this time, interestingly, also
deal with money, showing how the love of money is a force opposed
8. See the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:3–23; Mark 4:3–20; Luke 8:5 –15).
9. Jakob Van Bruggen (Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History [Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1987], 194 –200) gives a good defense of the historicity and integrity
of the Lukan record of these chapters.
to the principle of the kingdom. The Pharisees, whose religion was

based on principles of works and rewards, showed themselves to be
covetous (Luke 16:14). Their religion and their lifestyle meshed per-
fectly. For that reason, Christ shows the error of both. In turn, He
coordinates the generosity of God’s grace with a life of faithful stew-
ardship under God. Both were concepts that would have been alien to
the Pharisees to whom Christ is speaking. The operating principle of
the kingdom is not money nor man’s works, but God’s gifts through
Christ. Simply put, the kingdom of heaven is a kingdom of grace.
Despite the fact that we might have expected natural man to
receive this as good news, some of the parables that were considered
most offensive by the Pharisees and others in authority highlight how
God’s kingdom operates by the principle of grace. Think, for instance,
of the parables of the lost son (Luke 15:11–32), the unforgiving ser-
vant (Matt. 18:23–35), the two debtors (Luke 7:41– 43), the Pharisee
and the publican (Luke 18:9–14), and the banquet (Luke 14:15–24).
The context of all of these parables clearly indicates that many in the
audience took great exception to the gospel of forgiving grace.
Moreover, the parables that explicitly set forth Christ as the way
whereby God could be gracious to lost sinners are particularly offen-
sive to natural man. Think, for instance, of the parable of the wicked
husbandmen (Matt. 21:33– 46; Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19), or the
parable of the sheepfold (John 10:1–18). It is offensive to man’s pride
to think he would need a sovereign Savior.
Clearly, natural man does not only stumble over the fact that he
needs revelation; he also stumbles over the content of that revelation,
even when that concerns how he could be delivered from his sin and
misery. This coordinates with what Paul says about the gospel of the
cross as “foolishness” to the natural man (1 Cor. 2:14). Not only is
man an adversary of God’s sovereignty; he is, additionally, an adver-
sary to God’s grace.
It is not surprising, then, that Christ announces this negative
reaction before He begins to tell any of the parables. Indeed, many
will hear but will not understand, “lest they should be converted, and
their sins forgiven” (Mark 4:12). Christ’s parables sovereignly render
them more hardened. But others find their hearts melted by the same
message of grace. They are mastered by the grace of Christ conveyed
in these parables among other things.
Supremacy and Judgment

As Christ approached Jerusalem, the focus of the parables shifted
again—this time toward Christ’s return, an event that would mark
a radical division in the kingdom. Think of the parable of the man
without the wedding garment (Matt. 22:1–14), the parable of the
ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), or the parable of the sheep and the goats
(Matt. 25:14 –30). Christ exhorts His disciples to be watchful. When
He returns, God’s supremacy will be in evidence, and all who falsely
claim to be part of the kingdom will be destroyed.
Like prophetic announcements of the day of the Lord (Amos 5;
Joel 2), these parables assume the equity and propriety of God’s
judgment. They urge readiness in light of the stark and sudden man-
ifestation of judgment. They stress the permanent and inescapable
character of divine judgment, pressing on the hearer the supremacy
of God and Christ, His Son.
Snodgrass correctly writes, “No message about the kingdom of
God could make sense that did not express at least the hope of the
fulfillment of God’s universal rule.”10 One could even go further,
however. Christ’s emphasis on judgment in His teaching corpus,
including the parables, was part of His aim to vindicate His Father’s
and His own supremacy. Those who rejected the message of grace
along with Christ as the King of the kingdom will one day face
the damning supremacy of Christ in judgment, when He will say:
“Depart from me” (Matt. 25:41).
Conclusion
The Old Testament prophets have properly been identified as repre-
sentatives and defenders of the supremacy of God.11 Christ’s teaching
ministry should be understood in this light, including His parables.12
Far from being simply beneficent and inspiring tales to illustrate His
message, the parables promote the supremacy of God. In fact, Christ
is more than a prophet speaking on behalf of the King; He is the
King come down to speak to His subjects. His parables are no excep-
tion to this posture of sovereign address. They assume authoritative
10. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 478.

11. E.g., O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (Phillipsburg: P&R,
2004), 46–65.
12. This accords with a point Snodgrass makes (Stories with Intent, 159).
revelation from the very first; they urge the message of sovereign
grace; and they hold out a sovereign judgment of every soul. In this
light, it is no wonder that the parables met with such rejection, espe-
cially from those who found their own authority challenged. Their
self-assumed supremacy collided with His proper supremacy, and
Christ’s words proved themselves infallibly legitimate: “That seeing
they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not
understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins
should be forgiven them” (Mark 4:12).
It is no wonder that these words were first uttered by the prophet
Isaiah when he was called to be a prophet (Isa. 6:9 –10). He “saw the
Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” (Isa. 6:1). From out of
this vision, he also promoted the supremacy of God by revelation, in
grace, and in judgment. But Christ did not only see the Lord, he was
the Lord. He not only sat on the throne, but was willing to leave His
throne in heaven in order to set up His throne in hearts, and among
the means to that end, there are those masterful parables.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 38–62
Paul and James: Are We Justified

by Faith or by Faith and Works?1
steven j. lawson and Joel r. beeke
q
Read Romans 3:21–28; James 2:14 –26
We’ve got to get the doctrine of justification right for several important
reasons. First, this doctrine not only lies at the heart of the gospel; it
is the gospel. Second, justification is the greatest antidote to heresy.
Nearly all heresies have stemmed from a misunderstanding of this doc-
trine. Third, justification is a great incentive to a revived church. Only
God can send revival, but true revival is never without a rediscovery of
such basic biblical truth as justification by faith alone. Fourth, justifica-
tion greatly impacts a vast array of pastoral problems, such as the lack
of assurance of faith and an inability to handle trials Christianly. Fifth,
the whole of the Christian life is little more than an ongoing discovery
of the glory and power of justification. The tragedy of our Christian
lives, and the reason there may be so little power in our ongoing sanc-
tification, is because we have ceased to wonder at our justification.
It is one thing, however, to acknowledge that it is crucial to get
justification right for many important reasons, and another thing to
practically and pastorally answer the question: who is justified? Assume
for a moment that you are a pastor and that your church requires for
membership a verbal testimony of credible profession of faith before
the pastor(s) and elders. Let me introduce you to two men, Mr. Jones
and Mr. Smith, two typical test cases, who are applying for member-
ship in your church and desire to partake of the Lord’s Supper. In the
presence of your elders, you ask Mr. Jones, “On what basis do you
believe you are a Christian and should be received into the fellowship
1. This article is a slightly expanded and collated version of an address the

authors gave at a seminar for the 2010 PCRT (Philadelphia Conference of Reformed
Theology) conferences.
Paul and James 39
of this church?” Mr. Jones responds, “Well, I believe that my entire

life shows that I am a solid Christian. I’ve grown up in the church and
have always been religious. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of
God and have soundly Reformed, biblical beliefs. I read the Bible and
pray every day, and never miss a church service. I give my money to
the church and I am very generous to Christian organizations and
charities. I attend as many Reformed conferences as I can. I am a
faithful husband, a good father, and a loyal worker. On these grounds,
I believe that I am a Christian and I trust you will receive me into
your church fellowship as a fellow believer and Christian.”
You then ask Mr. Jones to leave the room, and you ask yourselves
as an elder body, “Is this man a Christian?”
Mr. Smith then appears before you. You’re a bit concerned about
what he is going to say because he has not been attending church
faithfully. You ask him the same question you asked Mr. Jones, and
you are pleasantly surprised. Mr. Smith answers energetically and
succinctly: “My answer is simple: I’ve been born again. I have been
justified, I’m saved, I trust in the blood of Christ alone for salvation.
All praise be to the sovereign grace of God. Hallelujah!”
You then ask Mr. Smith to leave the room a moment as you dis-
cuss these two cases. You look around at your elders. You sense on
their faces that they are more impressed with Mr. Smith than Mr.
Jones. Sure enough, one elder says, “There certainly is no doubt about
Mr. Smith’s case. He’s got all the basics; he can tell us the right things
about being saved, being justified, and having Christ. We can be
grateful that this brother is an evangelical believer.”
You sigh to yourself, and then, regretfully, pull out of your pocket
a letter from Mr. Smith’s previous minister. “Brothers,” you say, “I’m
afraid that I have a letter here that I have to read.” You then read: “I
would counsel you that if you ever interview Mr. Smith for member-
ship, beware. He can talk like an angel, but I’m warning you, he is
very inconsistent in his walk of life. At times, he has verbally abused
his wife, such that she has lost every shred of respect for him. He is
very unkind to his own children. He often doesn’t do an honest day’s
work. He can’t accept any loving rebuke. On Sunday, he looks and
talks like a mature believer, but his life doesn’t match up to what he
professes during the week.”
Well then, who should you accept? Mr. Jones? Mr. Smith? Nei-
ther of them? Both of them?
Let us hold you at bay for a moment before we answer these ques-
tions. To get justification right and to understand it practically and
pastorally so that we can answer such questions correctly, we need
to get right the relationship of Paul and James on this critical subject.
The relationship between Romans 3:21–28 and James 2:14 –26 has
long been a source of controversy in the church. The apostle Paul
writes in unquestionable language that a man is justified by faith alone,
apart from any works. James seems to contradict him by writing, in
equally clear language, that a man is justified by faith and works. So,
which is it? Is a man justified by faith or is he justified by faith and
works? Is James in contradiction to Paul? Is Paul in controversy with
James? Who is right? This dilemma over the means of justification
has long puzzled many in the church.
A Gateway to Heaven
Nearly 500 years ago, a professor of Bible at the University of Wit-
tenberg named Martin Luther was teaching the book of Romans to
his students when he became increasingly convinced that the central
theme of the book of Romans is justification by faith alone. Luther
came under deep conviction of this truth and was brought to the great
crisis point of his life, when he put his faith in the person and work of
Jesus Christ. Sometime between 1514 and 1517, Luther was radically
converted to Christ in what is called his Tower experience. Luther
later wrote of this dramatic experience:
I greatly longed to understand Paul’s epistle to the Romans,
and nothing stood in the way but that one expression “the
righteousness of God,” because I took it to mean that righ-
teousness whereby God is righteous and deals righteously in
punishing the unrighteous. Night and day I pondered until I
grasped the truth that the righteousness of God is that righ-
teousness whereby through grace and sheer mercy He justifies
us by faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have
gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scrip-
ture took on a new meaning. Whereas before the righteousness
of God had filled me with hate, now it became to me inex-
pressibly sweet and [missing copy?] greater love. This passage
of Paul became to me a gateway to heaven.2
2. Quoted in F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and

Paul and James 41
Suddenly, Luther saw and understood from the book of Romans

that the justification of the sinner by God is on the basis of faith alone
in Christ alone. Justification by faith alone became the very corner-
stone doctrine of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, and it
continues to be the anchor point for every true church today. It is,
Luther wrote, the very article on which the church stands or falls.
This is as true now as it was in the sixteenth century, when Luther
fought for this doctrine, and in the first century, when Paul and James
wrote. There are some today, under the nomenclature of the New
Perspective on Paul, who are essentially arguing for a faith-and-works
basis for salvation, maintaining that salvation is based on faith and per-
severance in good works. Of course, as we shall see, true faith always
issues in works, but we are not saved by faith plus persevering works. It
is faith alone that God employs as the instrument of salvation.
A Right Strawy Epistle

A short time later Luther came to the book of James and sought to
make sense of what it says about justification by faith and works. In
the introduction to the first edition of his German New Testament,
written in 1522, Luther made the following often-quoted remark
about the book of James:
St. Paul’s epistles, especially those to Romans, Galatians, [and]
Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle, these are the books which
show Christ and teach everything that is needful and blessed
to know even though you never see or hear any other book or
doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ epistle is a right strawy epistle
in comparison with them; for there is no gospel character to it.3
Luther called the letter of James “a right strawy epistle,” meaning
it appeared to him to be weak, of little content or substance regarding
the gospel. Luther was confounded. He was not denying the inspi-
ration of James nor its canonicity. Rather, he was downplaying its
value to the church in comparison to Romans, because James, he esti-
mated, contains little teaching about the great doctrines of the gospel
of which Luther had become a staunch defender. The main source of
Luther’s discomfort with James was the Roman Catholic Church and
Commentary, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 57.

3. Cf. Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1958), 35:362.
its teaching on justification by faith and works. Luther was correct

that James is not a doctrinal treatise per se. Instead, it is an intensely
practical book, a manual not on justification but on sanctification.
The question is: How do we harmonize Romans and James in this
matter of justification? Paul clearly says it is by faith apart from works,
and James asserts it is by faith and works. It is helpful to note that
the Reformers rightly identified a key interpretive principle, which
is called the analogy of faith, or the analogy of Scripture. This her-
meneutical principle says that the entire Bible speaks with one voice.
Scripture can never contradict itself. The whole of Scripture is one
seamless tapestry of truth into which each thread of doctrine is per-
fectly woven, making one statement of truth. The Bible presents one
plan of salvation. So, we know that Paul and James cannot contradict
themselves. They speak with one voice, yet how so? We want to look
at these two passages separately and then seek to harmonize them.
I. The Root of Justification (Romans 3:21–28)

First, we want to look at Romans 3 and 4 under the heading “The
Root of Justification.” Let us begin in Romans 3:21, paying careful
attention to the prepositions. What we see is that justification is by
grace (v. 24), by and through faith (vv. 22, 25, 28, 30), in Jesus Christ
(vv. 24, 26), without the works of the law (vv. 21, 28). This is the root
of justification. Without this root there can be no justification, for we
“all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (v. 23). Justifica-
tion is by grace, through faith, in Christ, without the works of the law.
An Alien Righteousness
In Romans 3:21, Paul writes: “But now the righteousness of God
without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets.” Paul means that the righteousness that comes from God
is entirely apart from the works of the law. Attempts at keeping the
law of Moses cannot save. No one in the Old Testament, living
under the law or the prophets, was ever saved by obeying the law. No
amount of good works in keeping the law could ever bring a sinner
to a place of righteousness before God. In verse 22, Paul continues,
“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.”
In other words, God gives His righteousness to those who receive
it by faith alone in Christ alone. Luther called this righteousness an
Paul and James 43
“alien” righteousness, or a “foreign” righteousness. This means it

is a righteousness from outside of the person receiving it. This is a
righteousness that comes from God, given freely to the sinner who
believes in Jesus Christ. This alien righteousness does not originate
within the believer. The believer does not work it out from within.
Rather, it comes down from above, freely bestowed on that sinner
who believes in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
At the end of verse 22, Paul states: “Unto all and upon all them
that believe: for there is no difference.” Whether Jew or Gentile, this
righteousness is for all who believe. The words faith and believe are
from the same root in the Greek language (pistis, pisteuo), which dou-
bly affirms that justification is by faith alone. There is absolutely no
mention of any contribution of any human works toward justifica-
tion. In fact, at the beginning of verse 21, Paul emphatically says it is
apart from the works of the law. Nothing could be more clear.
Why do all need to be justified by faith? In Romans 3:23–24, Paul
explains: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;
being justified.” To be justified is for God to declare the guilty sin-
ner to be righteous, which grants a standing of full acceptance with
Him. Justification is the forensic declaration of God, who credits His
Son’s perfect keeping of the law and righteousness to the sinner who
believes. Lest there be any misunderstanding, Paul adds: “being jus-
tified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in
his blood” (vv. 24 –25a). Justification is by grace alone toward unde-
serving sinners. This righteousness is given as a free gift. There is
absolutely nothing that a fallen, sinful human being can do to deserve
it. It is received exclusively through faith, a fact clearly taught in verses
22 and 25. Further, it is in Christ alone, as verses 22 and 24 maintain,
apart from the law, according to verse 21.
Master teacher that he is, Paul teaches this with both a negative
denial and a positive assertion. Paul tells us how justification is not
received, as well as how it is received. There is no room for any mis-
understanding. Justification, Paul maintains, is not by the works of the
law, but by faith alone. It is from these very verses and surrounding
context that the great solas of the Reformation were born. Justification
is sola gratia, by grace alone; sola fide, by faith alone; solus Christus, in
Christ alone. This is the very essence of the gospel itself. In the middle
of verse 25, Paul says, “To declare his righteousness for the remission
of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I

say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the jus-
tifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” The apostle states that the
death of Christ is the sole ground of justification, and faith is its exclu-
sive means. It could not be any more lucid than this—justification
is by faith alone in Christ alone.
The Contrast between Works and Faith

Beginning in verse 27 of Romans 3, Paul now belabors the contrast
between works and faith lest there be any misunderstanding. He
sets it forth as an either/or situation, never as a both/and proposition.
Faith and works are mutually exclusive, never inclusive, as it relates
to the means of justification. In verse 27, Paul asks, “Where is boast-
ing then?” His whole argument is that if justification is by works, we
should boast in ourselves. But if justification is by faith alone, then
there is no self-boasting. “Where is boasting then? It is excluded.”
When Paul says this, he is referring to boasting in ourselves, as if our
works could achieve justification. The apostle continues: “By what
law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.” He is saying that God
does not justify on the basis—meaning the premise, principle, or
law— of works. Instead, it is by a law of faith. In fact, it is by a law of
faith alone. Verse 28 is emphatic and dogmatic: “Therefore we con-
clude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
When Luther translated this verse from Erasmus’s Greek New Testa-
ment into the German language, a work he began while hiding in the
Wartburg Castle, he added the word alone. Although it is not found
in the original text, the Reformer did this in order that there would
be no misunderstanding among the German people as to the means
of justification. The translation, though interpretive, is justifiable in
view of the only alternative —namely, justification by works—which
Paul expressly repudiated.
In verses 29 and 30, Paul asks, “Is he the God of Jews only? is
he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one
God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision
through faith.” Paul is saying that there is only one way of salvation
taught in the Bible. There is one way of salvation for the Jew, and it
is exactly the same way for the Gentile. There is one way of salvation
for those in the Old Testament, and it is exactly the same in the New
Testament, whether for a Jew or for a Gentile. There is only one way of
Paul and James 45
salvation, and it is by faith alone in Christ alone. Circumcision is noth-

ing. Uncircumcision is nothing. Faith in Christ alone is everything.
Abraham: The Primary Example

Paul carries the argument of sola fide forward in Romans 4 and turns
to the father of the entire nation of Israel, Abraham. How was Abra-
ham saved in the Old Testament? Was Abraham saved by works, or
by faith? Paul now shows that Abraham was justified by faith apart
from any human works. In actuality, Romans 4 illustrates the instruc-
tion of Romans 3. Paul demonstrates what he has taught in Romans
3 from the life of Abraham (vv. 1–5), as well as from David (vv. 6–8).
The apostle could not set forth any two people more highly esteemed
from the Old Testament than Abraham and David. He shows that
both men were saved by faith alone.
Beginning in verse 1, “What shall we say then that Abraham our
father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?” The question deals
with justification. What did Abraham discover about justification? In
verse 2, Paul answers the question: “For if Abraham were justified by
works, he hath whereof to glory.” If Abraham could be good enough
to find acceptance with God through his own works, he could brag
of his own human goodness. But Paul adds at the end of verse 2, “but
not before God.” That is, if he were boasting in his own works, it cer-
tainly would not be before God. The reason follows in verse 3: “For
what saith the scripture?”
Paul now appeals to the Old Testament and quotes Genesis 15:6,
affirming that justification has always been by faith alone. As an attor-
ney would enter evidence into the public record of the courtroom, so
Paul quotes this passage: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted
unto him for righteousness.” This verse teaches that justification is the
act by which God credits His perfect righteousness to the spiritually
bankrupt account of the guilty, condemned sinner who believes in
Christ. We are all spiritually bankrupt before a holy God (Rom. 3:23),
and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). We possess no spiritual
capital in our account that would merit a right standing before God.
In justification God takes the very righteousness of Jesus Christ and
imputes it to our account. This transaction takes place by faith. When
God looks into His books in heaven and looks next to our name, He
sees the perfect righteousness of Christ that has been reckoned to us
on the basis of faith.
Faith Alone: The Sole Means of Justification

The basis for the transfer of such vast riches to our account is not
simply faith, but faith alone. In Romans 4:3, Paul tells us: “Abraham
believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Justi-
fication is the legal imputation of God’s righteousness to Abraham’s
account, and it was done exclusively on the basis of saving faith.
Expounding this verse, Theodore Beza comments:
Abraham was not justified, and made the father of the faithful,
by any of his own works, either preceding or following his faith
in Christ, as promised to him; but merely by faith in Christ, or
the merit of Christ by faith imputed to him for righteousness.
Therefore all his children become his children and are justified,
not by their works, either preceding or following their faith; but
by faith alone in the same Christ.4
Paul goes on to say in verse 4, “Now to him that worketh”—
referring to all human efforts of self-righteousness in keeping the
law—“is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” In other
words, if a person could work perfectly enough to receive the righ-
teousness of God, it would not be a gift, but wages earned. Paul
concludes in verse 5, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
So, this negative denial and positive assertion state that justification is
by faith alone.
Justification by faith alone was the tipping point for the Refor-
mation in the sixteenth century. It was all about the recovery of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. How can sinful man be made right before a
holy God? How can sinners be received by a holy God? The hinge
on which all religion turns, John Calvin said, is this doctrine of jus-
tification by faith. Everything swung on this pivotal doctrine. The
battleground in the Reformation was: How is the righteousness of
God given to the guilty sinner. Is it by faith and works, or is it by
faith? The Roman Catholic Church maintained that it was by a com-
plex maze of faith and works. Rome asserted that it required believing
and keeping the works of the law. Justification required the sacrament
of baptism. It required church membership. It required the confession
4. Quoted by William S. Plumer, The Grace of Christ, or Sinners Saved by Unmer-

ited Kindness (1853; repr. Keyser, W.V.: Odom, n.d.), 244.
Paul and James 47
of sin to a priest. It required the buying of indulgences. It required

spending time in purgatory. It required attending Mass. It required
the entirety of all of that, and still there was not enough righteousness
given to the sinner.
The Works-Righteousness of Rome

If righteousness was to be realized, it required tapping into the sup-
posed treasury of merit in heaven. There are those who have already
gone to heaven, Rome claimed, who had enough extra righteousness
to put it into a treasury box in heaven. This surplus righteousness
was available to make up what was lacking in poor, stumbling sinners
like you and me. So if these other means of grace were not enough,
there was additional righteousness to be drawn from the treasury of
merit. But even all of that was not necessarily enough. Even to the sin-
ner’s last dying breath upon his death bed, the priest would rush in to
administer last rites in a last-ditch effort to get more righteousness into
the account of the guilty sinner. Few in this Roman system ever have
an assurance of their own salvation. The reason is that this view of
righteousness is based on performing works of righteousness to meet
God’s perfect standard. But who can ever do enough? That was the
position of the Roman Catholic Church defended at the Council of
Trent (1545–1563), and it has never changed to this very day.
In fact, Rome only continues to add the necessity of more works
to the whole foul system. They added praying to the Virgin Mary.
They added praying to saints in order to gain access to the Lord Jesus.
But there still is not enough righteousness available. Do you know
why? Because there is not one drop of righteousness to be given
through any of those means of justification. Isaiah 64:6 says, “All
of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” That is God’s estimate of
human self-righteousness. The word for filthy rags is what was used
for a woman’s menstrual cycle. Our works of self-righteousness are
like loathsome rags in the sight of a holy God.
What Luther found—what Martin Bucer found, what Ulrich
Zwingli found, what John Calvin found, and what all of the Reform-
ers found, including John Knox, as they looked into the Word of
God—is this primary truth: justification is by faith alone. They spoke
of the perspicuity of the Scripture, meaning that the Bible speaks with
unmistakable clarity in matters of salvation. Even a little child could
pick up the Scripture, read it, and understand what it says in matters
of salvation. The truth would be abundantly clear to anyone who

reads the Bible in dependency on the Spirit, and it is that justification
is by faith alone apart from any human works. That was the cannon
that was fired in the sixteenth century—the shot heard around the
world, and it continues to reverberate to this very day.
What Is Saving Faith?

R. C. Sproul writes in The Reformation Study Bible the following
statement regarding the importance of faith: “Faith is the means or
instrument by which a person is saved. Christians are justified before
God by faith.” Sproul clarifies what true saving faith is: “Faith can-
not be defined in subjective terms as a feeling or optimistic decision.
Neither is it a passive orthodoxy. Faith is a response directed toward
an object and defined by what is believed. Christian faith is trust in
the eternal God and His promises secured by Jesus Christ. It is called
forth by the gospel as the gospel is made understood through the gra-
cious work of the Holy Spirit.”5
When Sproul says, “Christian faith,” he means saving faith, or
a living faith—a true faith that saves. He adds: “Christian faith is a
personal act involving the mind, the heart, and the will. Just as it is
directed to a personal God and not an idol or an idea.”6
Sproul is saying that saving faith is a personal act directed to a per-
sonal God. He continues:
It is usual to analyze faith as involving three steps: knowledge,
agreement, and trust. First is knowledge or acquaintance with
the content of the gospel. That is to say we must first know the
truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a personal act directed
towards propositional truth that speaks to us concerning a per-
sonal Savior. Then second, it is agreement or recognition that
the gospel is true. So, not only must I know the truth, but sec-
ondly, I must agree that this is the truth; and there is assent
and consent in my heart. There is a persuasion that this is true.
Third, faith is trust, the essential step of committing the self to
God. So, it must go beyond the mind and beyond the emotions.
It must go all the way to affect the will, where there is a decisive
5. “Faith and Works,” in The Reformation Study Bible, ed. R. C. Sproul (Orlando:
Ligonier, 2005), 1804.
6. “Faith and Works,” in The Reformation Study Bible, 1804.
Paul and James 49
decision and choice that is made whereby I commit my life and

surrender my life to the Lord Jesus Christ. And I place my life
in His saving hands, and I trust Him and Him alone to save me
from my sins and to justify me before the Father in heaven.7
By the work of the Holy Spirit, this trusting in Christ is the nature
of saving faith, and it is the very faith that the apostle Paul requires.
Before we move to James’s epistle, let’s answer two questions you
might have. First, perhaps you would ask, why should salvation that
justifies us come to us only by faith? Here are two good reasons.
First, Paul repeatedly tells us that it is by faith that we get into
Christ (see Eph. 1). Faith brings us into Christ, so that all Christ has
done for us actually becomes ours. And as it becomes ours, we receive
from God everything that God has done for us in His Son. Through
faith, then, Christ comes to us clothed in the garments of justification.
Second, justification is only by faith because it is God’s plan in
saving us to engage us personally to Jesus Christ in such a way that
our bonding ourselves to Jesus contributes nothing to our salvation.
This is part of the inexpressible genius of the gospel. The gospel does
not bring us a salvation over our heads, but into our lives. And the
way it brings it into our lives without for a moment compromising
grace is that the means by which we receive Christ is by definition
a means that contributes nothing to Christ, but receives everything
from Christ. Faith is by definition refusing to rely on myself and rely-
ing entirely on Him.
Faith, then, is a holy command, a personal necessity, and a
pressing urgency (2 Kings 17:14; John 3:36). There is only faith or
damnation (Mark 16:16). Faith is indispensable. As John Flavel wrote,
“The soul is the life of the body; faith is the life of the soul; Christ is
the life of faith.”8
How Is Saving Faith Experienced?

Second, you may ask: How does faith experientially appropriate
Christ and His righteousness? By the Spirit and Word of God, justi-
fying faith is a saving grace that empties me of my own righteousness
7. “Faith and Works,” in The Reformation Study Bible, 1804.

8. John Flavel, “The Method of Grace,” in The Whole Works of the Mr. Rev. John
Flavel (London: W. Baynes, 1820), 2:104.
and moves me to receive, rest on, and live out of Christ and His righ-
teousness for pardon and salvation. Let me explain.
Faith is an experientially convicting, soul-emptying grace that
makes us conscious of the desperate situation we are in because of
sin and the tragic judgment we deserve; it empties us of all our righ-
teousness and drives us to the righteousness of Christ, so that we
wholeheartedly “assent to the truth of the gospel” (Westminster Larger
Catechism, Q. 73). Faith believes from the heart what the Scriptures
teach about ourselves, the holiness of God, and the saviorhood of
Christ. Faith surrenders to the evangel and falls into the outstretched
arms of God. Faith flees with all the soul’s poverty to Christ’s riches,
with all the soul’s guilt to Christ as reconciler, with all the soul’s bond-
age to Christ as liberator. Faith confesses with Augustus Toplady:
Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to thee for dress;
Helpless, look to thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.
Faith, then, enables us to lay hold of Christ and His righteousness
and experience pardon and peace that passes understanding (Phil. 4:7).
As John Calvin said, “It introduces us into a participation of the righ-
teousness of Christ.”9 It apprehends and “closes with” Christ in a warm,
believing embrace, surrendering all of self, clinging to His Word, rely-
ing on His promises. Faith reposes in the person of Christ— coming,
hearing, seeing, trusting, taking, embracing, knowing, rejoicing, lov-
ing, triumphing. Faith, Luther writes, clasps Christ as a ring clasps its
jewel.10 Faith appropriates with a believing heart the perfect righteous-
ness, satisfaction, and holiness of Christ. It weds the soul to Christ and
lives out of Christ. Christ is faith’s only object and only expectation.
Faith commits the total person to the total person of Christ.
This precious doctrine of justification by faith alone is the heart
of the evangel, the kernel of the glory of the gospel of the blessed tri-
une God, the key to the kingdom of heaven. “Justification by faith,”
9. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (Philadelphia:
Nicklin and Howe, 1816), 2:229 [3.11.20].
10. Luther’s Works, 26:132.
Paul and James 51
John Murray writes, “is the jubilee trumpet of the gospel because it
proclaims the gospel to the poor and destitute whose only door of
hope is to roll themselves in total helplessness upon the grace and
power and righteousness of the Redeemer of the lost.”11 In our deca-
dent day there is a crying need to reestablish and defend the scriptural
proclamation of this doctrine. Not only is justification by faith still, in
Luther’s words, “the article by which the church stands or falls,” but
by this doctrine each of us shall personally stand or fall before God.
Justification by faith alone must be confessed and experienced by you
and me; it is a matter of eternal life or eternal death—yes, and most
important, it is a matter of God’s glory.
Dear friend, have you exercised saving faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ? Do you know the truth? Are you persuaded of the truth? Have
you acted on the truth? By the Spirit’s grace, have you been emptied
of your own righteousness and been drawn to assent wholly to the
gospel? Have you truly repented of sin and believed in Christ alone
for salvation; have you entrusted your life to Him and His righteous-
ness? Have you clasped Christ as a ring clasps it jewel, and are you
now living out of Him as your all-in-all? If so, then all of the righ-
teousness of Jesus Christ has been transferred by God to your account
in heaven. If so, God looks on you and sees the perfect righteousness
of Christ Himself. It is on this basis alone that God’s righteousness
is given to us, and it is by faith alone. This is the root of justification.
II. The Fruit of Justification ( James 2:14 –26)

Let’s turn now to James 2; we want to move to the second and last
major heading: the fruit of justification. Wherever there is the root of
saving faith, there will always be its fruit. In James 2, the half-brother
of Christ argues for the necessity of fruit. Paul and James are in total
agreement, although at first reading, the two appear to be contradict-
ing each other. But their teaching is related, just as the fruits of a tree
( James) are related to its roots (Paul). The roots of a tree can only be
determined to be alive and healthy if the fruit is healthy. The Reform-
ers explained the apparent contradiction this way: “Faith alone saves,
but faith that is alone does not save.” That is, true saving faith will
11. John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1977), 2:217.
always be accompanied by good works that verify the validity of that

faith and prove that it is real.
Saving Faith vs. Nonsaving Faith

The Bible speaks of a faith that saves, and a faith that does not save.
The Bible speaks of a living faith, and the Bible speaks of a dead faith.
The Bible speaks of a true faith that connects us to Christ, and it
speaks of a counterfeit faith that leaves us separated from Christ.
James addresses the difference between true faith and a false faith,
between a saving faith and nonsaving faith. People often ask, “How
can I know if my faith is real?” That is what James is addressing here
and throughout his epistle. In fact, the whole of James’s letter is con-
cerned with “pure and undefiled religion” ( James 1:27).
Beginning in chapter 2, verse 14, James introduces the subject of
true saving faith. He asks: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a
man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” James
is acknowledging how easy it is merely to say you have faith. The
word that leaps off the page is “says”— someone says. How easy it is
to say, “Lord, Lord.” How easy it is to give a confession of faith. How
easy it is just to verbalize, “Oh yes, I have faith in the Lord.” James is
addressing the one who simply says he has faith, and yet there are no
good works in his life. Can that faith save him? Is that real faith? Is
faith without works a living faith? Does faith without works rightly
connect me to the Savior and His righteousness? That is the question
James raises. Could there be a more important issue to be raised?
Empty Words, Dead Faith

In verses 15–16, James gives an example: “If a brother or sister be
naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them”—
please note, the emphasis again is on says—“depart in peace, be ye
warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things
which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” This is under-
stood as a half-hearted, apathetic “depart in peace, be ye warmed
and filled.” These are empty words arising from a dead faith. Such a
dead faith has no good Samaritan-type works that reach out to help
a brother or sister who is in dire need. Such a person may talk about
faith, but if there is no walk, there is no real faith. What use is it to say
you have faith if it is not active? One may say the words, but if there
Paul and James 53
are no works to back it up, it is merely empty, religious chatter. A total

disconnection exists between the words and the walk.
Verse 17 says, “Even so faith, if it hath no works, is dead, being
alone.” Such nonworking faith is a dead faith—it is no faith. Now we
understand why the Reformers said, “Faith alone saves, but faith that
is alone does not save.” The last word of this verse, alone, is the key. If
faith is alone, it means no works are growing out of it. That faith is a
dead faith. Whatever confession of faith a person makes, it is a dead
confession. Whatever testimony that person gives, it is a dead testi-
mony. There is no living reality to his claim to have faith. Such faith
is a nonsaving faith.
Falling Short of True Faith

R. C. Sproul again elaborates on this in The Reformation Study Bible:
“When James says that faith without works is dead, he is describing a
faith that knows the gospel.” Dr. Sproul says that, first, the facts are in
the mind and, second, such a person “even agrees with it.” “There is
an inward persuasion of its veracity,” Sproul writes, “but it has fallen
short of trust in God.” As described in James 2:17, there is no activat-
ing of the will to commit one’s life to Christ. That person has never
entrusted his life to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no crossing the
line from darkness to life. There is no entering through the narrow
gate. There is no drinking of His blood and eating of His flesh. There
is no apprehending of Christ by faith. Sproul writes, “Failure to grow,
develop, and bear the fruits of righteousness shows that the free gift
of God in Christ has never been received.” The person in verse 17
whose faith has no works, possesses a dead faith, is someone who
professes Christ but does not possess Him. It is someone who says
he or she has faith in the Lord but, in reality, does not. Jesus warned,
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father” (Matt.
7:21). The evidence is in the active obedience. There must be doing
to back up the confessing. Good fruit must result from good roots.
In James 2:18a, James anticipates an imaginary objector and writes:
“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works.” This is where
the objector’s argument ends. Then James retorts brilliantly in the sec-
ond half of the verse: “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will
show thee my faith by my works” (v. 18b). The only way you could
ultimately know that your faith is a real, saving faith, James says, is by
the objective evidence of a truly transformed life, one that produces

the fruit of good works. Faith is the root; good works is the fruit. The
sinner is not saved by the fruit, but by the root. The axiom is true: A
good tree will produce good fruit (Matt. 7:17). Every good tree evi-
dences itself with good fruit, and every good tree has a good root—a
living faith. James is belaboring the difference between someone who
merely says he or she has faith and claims to be a Christian, but is not,
and another person who claims to be a Christian and, in fact, really
is. The real difference is below the surface, whether or not there is a
living faith down in the heart that produces the fruit of good works.
The Primary Example of Nonsaving Faith

James still anticipates someone who disagrees at this point and says,
“All you have to do is just walk the aisle and pray the prayer. All you
have to do is just say, ‘I believe,’ even if there is no outward evidence.”
What about that person? In verse 19, James says to such a person,
“Thou believest that there is one God.” James argues that this state-
ment—“thou believest that there is one God”—is synonymous with
someone’s making a good confession of Christian orthodoxy. Deu-
teronomy 6:4 is the shema: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one
LORD.” This was considered the ultimate statement of orthodoxy.
Since Israel was surrounded by pagan nations with their many pagan
idols, God demanded that their confession be monotheistic: that He
alone is God and there is no other. This is the confession that there
is only one God and every other god is a sham, an imposter, or an
empty idol. There is only one true living God. This basic confession
represents a fundamental orthodoxy in the core tenets of the truth.
In verse 19, James challenges his readers who might be saying,
“My beliefs are orthodox. Does not that get me into heaven?” James
answers abruptly with intentional shock: “Thou doest well: the dev-
ils also believe, and tremble.” Some of the most orthodox statements
in the Bible were made by devils. Consider the theologically cor-
rect testimonies that were made by demon-possessed people as the
demons spoke: “I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God”
(Mark 1:24). But do you want to argue that the demons are saved?
Do you want to say that the Devil himself is right with God? This
demonstrates that it is entirely possible to be theologically orthodox
and lost. Unquestionably, there are right-believing people with a non-
saving faith. They say, “I believe, I believe. God is one.” But the fact
Paul and James 55
is, even the demons agree with this. Hell is orthodox in its theology.
The demons cross their doctrinal t’s; they dot their theological i’s.
They have great intelligence, being endowed by their Creator with
extraordinary brilliance. The demons believe that God is one, yet
they absolutely tremble. The demons have it in the mind, and they
have it in the emotions. They know the truth of who Jesus is and the
gospel; they know their own judgment at the end of the age. They are
emotionally persuaded of the truth, so much so that they tremble in
absolute fear. But they have not exercised their will in submission to
the Lord Jesus Christ.
Full Head, Empty Heart

This example is set forth to be a sober warning to untold numbers
of people who have a nonsaving faith. They know and approve the
doctrinal statement. They have been baptized and are members of
the church. They are there every time the church doors are open,
and they serve. But they have never come to the point where they
have repented of their sin, where they have turned away from their
sin, where they have confessed their sin to God, where they have
acknowledged the guilt of their sin, and where they have called on
the name of the Lord to save them. They have never come to the
end of themselves that Christ might begin. They have never died
to self that they might live for Christ. Their faith is a bogus faith;
their confession is a sham confession; their hope is a counterfeit faith.
In John 2:23–25, John records that there were people who believed
on the Lord Jesus Christ, yet He did not commit Himself to them,
“because he knew all men...for he knew what was in man.” Jesus did
not believe in their belief.
James asks yet another question that separates the wheat from
the tares. James asks, “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead?” ( James 2:20). Faith without works is useless
for justifying. James is urging that such self-deceived persons should
give up their dead testimony. It is the ultimate taking of the Lord’s
name in vain. He is asking: Are you willing to cling no longer to
your nonsaving faith that has no good works? Faith without works
is useless to get you into the kingdom of God. It is useless to con-
nect you to the living God. It does not receive the righteousness that
comes from God.
Justified By Works?
James raises still another question in verse 21: “Was not Abraham our
father justified by works when he had offered up Isaac his son upon the
altar?” This is a key text, and, it initially seems to stand in stark contra-
diction to what Paul says in Romans 3 and 4. How can we be justified
by faith and be justified by works? How are we to untangle this knot?
There are two key observations that must be made here. First, this
reference to when Abraham offered up Isaac is found in Genesis 22.
But when Paul quoted from the Old Testament, “Abraham believed
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness,” he referenced
not Genesis 22, but Genesis 15. This is a critically important distinc-
tion, because Genesis 15:6 is when Abraham exercised saving faith in
God and was justified. Genesis 15 is when God transferred His own
perfect righteousness into the morally bankrupt account of Abraham.
But verse 21 references Genesis 22 and what happened thirty years
later in his sanctification. This refers to an incident three decades after
Abraham had been justified by faith. This is a different kind of justifi-
cation and is the second observation we want to make. In Genesis 22,
Abraham was already saved. This justification—“being justified by
works”—means that Abraham’s faith was being validated as genuine.
In Genesis 22, the faith of Abraham was confirmed as a true, living
faith. In verse 21, James references this critical point in Abraham’s life
when he was called by God to take his son—his only son, Isaac— and
climb to the top of Mount Moriah and offer him up to God on the
altar. That was a test of the genuineness of his faith. It was a validation
of the authenticity of his faith. Abraham had been justified by faith,
but now his faith was being justified by works. His good works were
authenticating the validity of his faith—a faith that was first exer-
cised thirty years earlier. Abraham is not being forensically justified
in Genesis 22. He is not being declared righteous by God. That legal
declaration occurred three decades earlier in Genesis 15. In Genesis
22, Abraham’s faith is being justified. That is, his faith is being vali-
dated as a true, living, saving faith through this test of his obedience.
There will be tests of faith in the lives of all believers. God will
bring all His justified ones to certain trials that serve as crisis points. As
justified believers, they are opportunities to demonstrate the genuine-
ness of our faith. True faith was initially exercised earlier at the time of
Paul and James 57
our initial conversion. A trial is not our point of entrance into the king-
dom. It becomes, simply, a confirmation and validation that faith is real.
A Faith That Works

James enlarges his argument in verse 22 when he writes: “Seest thou
how faith wrought with his works.” That is what real faith is—it is a
faith that works. Real faith is a living faith that has legs on it, that sits
up and walks, and moves out in obedience to God. That is what Abra-
ham had. He had a living faith that worked, that propelled him up the
mountain to sacrifice Isaac to God. Verse 22 continues, “and by works
was faith made perfect?” Abraham had a faith that works. A faith that
does not work is not true faith. The expression “made perfect” means
that faith must be brought to greater maturity. It needs to be ripened
to greater fullness. This very same word is used earlier in James 1:
“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let
patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire,
wanting nothing” ( James 1:2– 4). This sounds exactly like Abraham
offering up Isaac. James is saying that God brings trials into our lives
to develop and deepen our faith. The word perfect pictures fruit that is
brought to maturity or ripeness. So it is with faith. It does not mean
that our faith becomes absolutely perfect, but that it is growing and
developing and maturing through the trials we face.
By the Spirit’s grace, as we are stretched and developed by trials
in our life, faith is brought to a place of greater maturity. The testing
of faith means that it is being deepened and enlarged as we respond
properly. When we make choices to obey God in the midst of fiery
trials, this develops and matures our faith. But as long as we are sitting
on the sidelines, passively observing others, we suffer spiritual atro-
phy. The muscles of our faith grow weak. However, when we stand
up and move out and exercise our spiritual muscles, our faith is being
perfected. That is what James is saying in verse 22.
James Teaches Sola Fide

In verse 23, James writes: “And the scripture was fulfilled which
saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righ-
teousness.” James quotes the very same passage that Paul quotes in
Romans 4:3. This is another indication that Paul and James are not
contradicting each other, since they are even appealing to the same Old
Testament Scripture in Genesis 15. They are both teaching justifica-

tion by faith alone, but James is moving further. James is going beyond
the initial act of justification to the ongoing process of sanctification.
James is saying that faith alone saves, but faith will be tested in order
to give evidence that it is true faith. James is arguing that you can-
not merely say that you are a Christian without there being the clear
evidence of a growing faith that produces good works. If James were
teaching forensic justification by faith and works, he would have just
slit his own throat. Why would he quote Genesis 15:6, the supreme
proof text for justification by faith, unless he believed it? Instead, he is
making the very same point that Paul does in Romans. James is bold
to quote this verse. Let us be clear: verse 23 is referencing Genesis 15
when Abraham was justified by faith, while verses 21 and 22 reference
Genesis 22, thirty years later, when his faith was justified by works.
Verse 24 wraps up this entire argument. “You see that a man is
justified by works and not by faith alone.” We get a little nervous when
we hear this and begin to sweat. But James is saying exactly what Paul
is teaching. In fact, it is the very same thing that Moses wrote and that
Abraham experienced in Genesis 15:6. Sinners are justified by faith
alone, but true faith will never be alone. It will always have good works
following it. Let’s put it this way: good works will never lead anyone
into the kingdom of God. But once one is in the kingdom, good works
will always follow him every step of the way. Works will never justify
us. But once one is justified by faith, that faith will be accompanied by
good works. If not, such a person may claim to be in the kingdom, but
he or she really is not. That is the point that James is making.
If the root of justification does not produce fruit, the root is dead.
The fruit, then, justifies justification.
Rahab: No Works to Save Her

So who can be saved? James speaks a word of encouragement on this
very point in verse 25. It does not matter how sinful you are, or how far
away from God you are; if you, by grace, put all your faith in Christ,
regardless of your sinful past and present, God will justify you. He
will remove your sins apart from good works. This is the glory of the
doctrine of justification by faith. Verse 25 reads: “Likewise also was not
Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the mes-
sengers, and had sent them out another way?” ( James 2:25).
Paul and James 59
You recall the story of Rahab, recorded in the book of Joshua, in

which her good works accompanied her faith. Once saved, she took a
great risk and hid the spies at great danger to her own life. But she was
no longer a part of the world. Her good works gave evidence that she
had entered into God’s kingdom. She was willing to put her neck on
the line in order to hide the two spies in Jericho. This was compelling
evidence that she was already justified by faith. Here was the proof
that her faith was a living faith. Rahab —with great courage and bold-
ness, in the face of great danger to her own life —identified with the
two spies and hid them.
When verse 25 reads, “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot
justified by works,” it means that Rahab’s faith was being justified
by works. Rahab was justified by faith, and her faith was justified by
works. That is, Rahab’s faith was validated or proven to be true by her
works. This crisis point occurred when she received the messengers
and sent them out by another way, after she was already justified at this
point. Verse 26 concludes, “For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.” If you merely say that you have
faith—and there are no good works—James says, you are a spiritual
corpse. There is no spiritual life in you. That is what verse 26 is say-
ing, with the intent to provoke the reader to examine him or herself
to make certain that his or her faith is a true, living faith—that is, that
the roots of faith produce the fruits of faith.
By Faith Alone That Is Not Alone

John Gerstner helps us wrap up this discussion of how faith and works
fit together this way:
We can never say too often justification is by faith alone, but
not by faith that is alone. Justification is by a working faith. Let
me explain, therefore, once again what the Protestant biblical
doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works means.
Justification with God is apart from the merit of works. That
does not mean that justification is apart from the existence of
works. Christianity teaches justification apart from the merit
of works. Easy believe-ism teaches justification apart from the
existence of works. Faith without the existence of works is dead.
And so, the impact of what James is saying; why we need the
book of James in the New Testament is so that people who know
the truth of the Book of Romans, that we are justified by faith
alone, may be challenged that it’s more than just an intellectual

faith in the head, and that [salvation is] more than just an emo-
tional faith in the feelings. But that it is a true faith, a validous
faith whereby one has truly exercised their will and committed
their life to Jesus Christ. This is the value of James.12
Are we justified by faith, or by works? The answer is, we are justi-
fied by faith alone. But it is our works that justify our faith. Good
works validate that our faith is a living faith—a true, saving faith.
We are now in a position to return to our test cases. Should we accept
Mr. Jones or Smith, or perhaps both of them? This is painful, of course,
but I’m hoping you will agree with me: We can accept neither man.
After talking with the consistory or session, we call Mr. Jones back
into the room, and, as pastor, you say something like this to him: “Mr.
Jones, thank you for coming and for being so honest in what you said to
us, but I have to inform you that we don’t have liberty to accept you, as
it is not clear to us that you are a Christian. We hope to work with you
in the future, but it appears that as of this moment you don’t understand
what it means to be converted. In fact, sir, you speak a very different
language than the language of God’s people. If I am to be straight with
you, friend, we would have to say that it appears that you have the spirit
of a Pharisee and a legalist, though you may not realize it. You are imag-
ining that you have some goodness or merit of your own which will
commend you to God. You do not realize that even your best righteous-
nesses are as filthy rags before an all-seeing and holy God.”
The sort of teaching Mr. Jones needs to put him right is the teach-
ing of Paul—that man is justified by faith alone without works. Mr.
Jones needs to read and prayerfully ponder Romans, Galatians, Ephe-
sians, and Philippians, in which Paul tells us that the righteousness
we need is not our own. In Philippians Paul said how he once had the
righteousness of the law as a Jew and he boasted about his parents, his
ancestors, his circumcision, and all of his blamelessness, according
to the ceremonial law. And then he said he found Christ, and what
did he say next? “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for
the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom
I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung,
that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own
12. John H. Gerstner, “The Nature of Justifying Faith,” in Justification by Faith

Alone, ed. Don Kistler, rev. ed. (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 2003), 115.
Paul and James 61
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith
of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). That
is what he came to see —that justification is by faith alone. Tragically,
today, there are millions of people like Mr. Jones who don’t have an
inkling of what it means to be justified before God. It is a most ter-
rible spiritual state and condition to be in. The kindest thing you can
do is to tell such people that they have no faith, no knowledge of
God, that they are deceiving themselves, and are on the broad road
to destruction. They don’t understand even the basics of the gospel.
What about you, my friends? Do you mirror Mr. Jones? If so, you
have something to learn, and I pray God will teach you what you need
so desperately to know.
But what about Mr. Smith then? Sadly, there are too many Mr.
Smiths around. They remind us of John Bunyan’s Mr. Talkative.
Their problem is the opposite of Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones is a legalist,
and Mr. Smith is an antinomian. He has all the right words but there
is nothing to prove the reality of what he has to say. His tongue talks
plenty but there is no change of life. There is nothing holy about this
man. He simply has talk, nothing more. Mr. Smith needs to read
and prayerfully ponder over the epistle of James. In fact, James wrote
his epistle precisely for the kind of evangelical hypocrite that Mr.
Smith sadly represents. James says to such people, “Yea, a man may
say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy
works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works” ( James 2:18).
Allow us to ask you: Do you see fruit in your life being produced,
the fruit of good works flowing from the root of faith? Is there a
desire in your heart to live in obedience to God? Do you see a grow-
ing, habitual, increasing, practice of righteousness in your life? We do
not ask, are you perfect? We do not ask, do you never sin? None of
us meets that standard. But do you see within your heart a desire to
want to follow the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you
convicted when you sin? Do you feel genuinely sorry when you sin?
Do you sense that there is in you a decreasing love for the world? Do
you find within you an increasing love for the things of God? Do you
see in your life an increasing practice of righteousness?
In answering these questions, if there is a yes— even a small yes—
then there is a true faith rooted within you that is producing fruit.
It is not great faith in God that necessarily saves, but it is faith in a
great God that saves. It is the presence of good works that validates
your faith. As you see these things, it actually testifies that your faith
is a living faith—a true, saving faith. Your roots of faith are not dead
and artificial, but alive and genuine. If, on the other hand, you see a
dichotomy in your life—that is, you come to church on Sunday and
you hear the Word of God, but you go back out in the world and there
is no life change —then that would be cause for great concern. That
would be a cause to ask yourself: “Is my faith a true faith? Is it a living
faith? Is the root of gracious faith within me?”
Faith alone saves, but saving faith will never be alone. It will
always be accompanied by good works, even if they are but a small yet
growing reality. If you see these good works, you can know that God
is at work in your life, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
You can know that you have eternal life as you see such good works
arise from your heart. By grace, you may conclude, this must surely be
a supernatural work of grace within me. Only God could grow you
from the level of spiritual infancy through childhood and teenage
years to be a young man or a young woman in the faith, advancing
into the maturity of spiritual adulthood in the Lord. As you see this
growth in your life, it brings verification that your faith in Christ is
genuine. Faith is a gift of God, and it is not of ourselves. When God
gives the gift of faith, it is alive. It will always be alive, and it will give
evidence of itself through good works.
Paul and James speak with one voice as they teach justification by
faith. They just look at this faith from different perspectives. Paul is
exposing those who say they are saved because they perform the law’s
rituals, telling them that it is only by faith in Christ that they can be
saved. He’s burrowing down within us to examine the roots of our
justification. James is exposing the hypocrite who claims to have faith
but whose claim is contradicted by his actions; his fruits are artificial,
which, in turn, proves that his roots are artificial. Paul says that faith
alone saves, and James adds that saving faith is never alone. Saving
faith is a faith that works. If we are true Christians, the root of justifi-
cation must produce the fruit of justification.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 63–79
Our Glorious Adoption:

Trinitarian Based and
Transformed Relationships
Joel R. Beeke
q
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not,
because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it
doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall
appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every
man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
—1 John 3:1–31
The triune God delights in family planning. Unlike most modern

human family planning, which is restrictive and limiting, God’s plans
for His family are expansive and enlarging. Spiritual adoption—the
wonderful teaching that every genuine Christian is an adopted child
into God’s family—is a foundational and vital factor that God uses to
fulfill His family planning.
The glorious doctrine of spiritual adoption is addressed several
places in the New Testament. Romans 8:14 –16 and Galatians 4:4 –6
will be the most familiar to us, but adoption is also a frequent theme
in 1 John. Particularly in 1 John 3:1–3, the apostle John lays before us
the central and major New Testament themes of the fatherhood of
God and the corresponding sonship of the believer. We don’t have to
read far in the New Testament before we realize that this is of criti-
cal importance for the entirety of the Christian life. Where there is
1. Portions of this article are adapted from my The Epistles of John (Darlington,
U.K.: Evangelical Press, 2006), 111–20, and my Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on
Adoption (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 75 –102. Reprinted
with permission from Reformed Theological Journal 26 (Nov. 2010):94 –108.
some degree of spiritual maturity, some realization of our sonship

to the heavenly Father, this Father–son relationship will undergird
our prayer, indeed, control our entire outlook on life. Much of what
Christ taught us can be summarized in the precious doctrine of the
salvific fatherhood of God. The revelation of the fatherhood of God
to the believer is in a sense the climax of the Scriptures and one of the
greatest benefits of salvation.
In this article, I aim to first, show the wonder of our glorious
adoption; second, expound its Trinitarian foundation; third, and
most extensively, consider particularly in the context of 1 John 3
how a right appropriation of this doctrine will transform all our rela-
tionships in life; and finally, conclude with adoption’s blessings and
responsibilities.
The Wonder of Adoption

John begins the third chapter of 1 John with a call for believers to drop
everything and consider the great doctrine of adoption. “Behold!” is
John’s opening cry; “Look at this!” The apostle is so overwhelmed
with the wonder of God’s adoption of believers that he is determined
to direct everyone’s attention there. He asks us to gaze with him upon
this wonder: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed
upon us that we should be called the sons of God!” (v. 1). It is as if
John asks, do you know the wonder of this precious truth? Have you,
by faith, comprehended this magnificent doctrine of adoption?
John’s sense of astonishment is more evident in the original
Greek, which implies, “Behold, from what country or realm does
such love as this come?” Matthew 8:27 uses similar phraseology to
describe how astonished the disciples were when Jesus calmed the
winds and the sea: “What manner of man is this (literally, ‘from what
realm does this man come’) that even the winds and sea obey him!”
God’s adoption of believers is something unparalleled in this
world, John is saying. This fatherly love has come upon us from
another realm. The world does not understand such love, for it has
never seen anything like it. It is beyond the realm of human experience.
John is astonished because God showed such amazing love even
though we were outcasts, rebels, and enemies against Him and His
kingdom. God “calls” us sons of God; that is, He brings us into His
family, giving us the name, the privileges, and all the blessings of
His own children. He invites us to know Him as Father and to dwell
Our Glorious Adoption 65
under His protection and care, and to come to Him with all our cares
and needs. John is overwhelmed at the thought of being a full mem-
ber of God’s family.
Have you ever considered what a stupendous wonder adoption is?
Wilhelmus à Brakel put it this way: “From being a child of the devil
to becoming a child of God, from being a child of wrath to becoming
the object of God’s favor, from a child of condemnation to becoming
an heir of all the promises and a possessor of all blessings, and to be
exalted from the greatest misery to the highest felicity—this is some-
thing which exceeds all comprehension and all adoration.”2
Do you stand in awe at this wonderful love of the Father? Holy
wonder and amazement is an important part of Christian experience.
One of the devil’s tactics is to dull our sense of wonder, convincing
us that we only feel such wonder in the initial stages of becoming a
Christian. It is true that the sinner experiences a special sense of joy
and wonder when he first comes to know Christ. We often refer to
that time as one’s “first love.”
But John is writing here as an elderly man who has been a believer
for more than sixty years. Yet his heart is still filled with amazement
at being a son of God. He has never gotten over his initial sense of
wonder at God’s fatherly love. He is still asking the question: “From
what realm does this amazing love come that has broken in upon my
soul and made me a child of God?”
Has the wonder of your salvation and adoption in Christ Jesus
grasped your soul? Do you, too, cry out in amazement:
And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
The psalters, hymns, and poems of our forefathers, especially in
seasons of revival, were often filled with this glorious sense of won-
der. Such wonder is the heart’s response to the saving truths of the
gospel. It is evoked in us through the Spirit’s sanctifying grace as we
2. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout,

ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1999), 2:419.
meditate upon and embrace the glorious truths of sovereign grace (Ps.
104:34). Often God’s people experience too little wonder and awe
over the gospel because their lives are so rushed that they do not stop
long enough to wait upon the Spirit as they meditate on the glorious
truths of the gospel.
We must meditate on Scripture and all that accrues to us in Christ
Jesus—including our adoption—if we would have our hearts burn
within us. That is what the pilgrims on the way to Emmaus said
to each other after Christ had opened Scripture to them. “Did not
our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and
while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32) they asked in
astonishment.
The way to a burning heart is through diligent meditation upon
the Word of God. Scripture is the primary means of grace that God
blesses by His Spirit. Is it any wonder that some believers have lost
their sense of wonder and amazement over the gospel when they so
seldom study the Bible prayerfully and meditatively?
The Trinitarian Foundation of Adoption

Believers are not sons of God by nature because we have lost the sta-
tus and privileges of sonship in our tragic fall in Paradise. Adoption
is only made possible when God’s gracious choice calls us into all
the privileges and blessings of being His children. When we are born
again, God delivers us from Satan’s slavery, and by His astounding
grace, transfers us to the Father’s sonship. He calls us sons; we are
adopted into His family.
Adoption in the time of John usually took place in adolescence or
adulthood, not infancy. Under Roman law, adoption was a legal act
by which a man chose someone outside of the family to be an heir to
his inheritance. Likewise, believers become children of God through
the gracious act of God the Father, who chooses them to be His heirs.
Sometimes adoptive parents announce receiving their son with
the words, “chosen son.” God the Father, dear believer, set His heart
upon you while you were a stranger and rebel, no member of His
family. He called you, drew you to Himself, brought you into His
family, constituted you to be His child, and now reserves for you the
eternal inheritance of the kingdom of God.
The story is told of a king who finds a poor man’s child, takes him
out of the gutter, and makes him a prince in the royal household with
all its status and privilege. This gospel story is not fiction, however,
for like that king, the Almighty God and Father has set His heart
upon you, raised you up out of a horrible pit (Ps. 40:2), brought you
into His home, and given to you all the privileges and blessings of
being His child.
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God,” says John in verse 2. This
is not merely legal language. We believers are, indeed, God’s cho-
sen ones, as Ephesians 1:5–7 says. How astonishing that we as God’s
adopted children share the same privileges that belong to God’s only-
begotten Son! Have you grasped the incredible truth of what Christ
prays in John 17: “that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be
in them”? This love is the essence of God’s fatherhood. It shows us
how far God is willing to go to adopt us into His family.
Now we become children of God, i.e., God becomes our Father,
by substitution or as John calls it, propitiation: “Herein is love, not
that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10; cf. 1 John 2:2). Propitiation
may seem like a strange term to us, but it is a vital term, for it contains
the heart of the gospel.
Let me explain. We are not sons and daughters of God by nature.
Many live under this false idea. They think that everyone is a child of
God, coming from the same Father. It is true, of course, that we are all
creatures of the one Creator, but the Bible nowhere tells us that we are
all children of God by nature. Rather, it tells us that by nature we are
children of wrath. We are the objects of God’s wrath, anger, and judg-
ment by nature. As Thomas Watson writes, “We have enough in us to
move God to correct us, but nothing to move him to adopt us, there-
fore exalt free grace, begin the work of angels here; bless him with your
praises who hath blessed you in making you his sons and daughters.”3
God has only one Son by nature and that Son is the Lord Jesus
Christ. Now God’s amazing love to sinners lies in the way He makes
children of wrath to become the sons of His love. His only begot-
ten Son is the Son of His love. The Father loves the Son, but in the
astonishing substitution that God made in the atoning sacrifice of
Christ, the wrath of God which was directed to us, was now poured
upon His only begotten Son who thereby became the propitiation for
our sins. The way by which we who were sons of wrath became the
3. Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity (London: A. Fullarton, 1845), 160.

sons of love, is that the Son of God’s love and the Child of His glory
became the Bearer of His wrath on the cross. All the judgment of
God was poured out on Him in order that we, dear believers, might
be made the children of God and sons of His love.
This is the astonishing biblical doctrine of substitution. Jesus
Christ who deserved eternal heaven, bore my eternal hell as an
ungodly sinner (but now by grace a believer), so that the gates of hell
may be eternally closed for me and the gates of heaven be eternally
thrown open. Oh, what a price Christ had to pay to accomplish this
task! He had to hang in the naked flame of His Father’s wrath and
be cast into outer darkness, crying out, “My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?”—all so that God could take us, for Christ’s sake,
who are by nature estranged and rebellious sinners, and bring us into
the family of God and constitute us as His children.
This is the only way to become a child of God— only through
Christ being the propitiation, the sacrifice, the substitute, the atone-
ment of God, for our sins. Only for Christ’s sake does God become
the Father of His people. What country does this love come from— a
love that would cause the holy God of all eternity to make this trans-
action on behalf of poor, hopeless, hell-worthy sinners like we are?
How great is the love the Father has lavished on us that we
should be called children of God—we who deserve His judgment,
dethroned Him from our lives, spurned His love, and defied His
laws. We can never earn God’s love, yet He graciously lavishes love
upon us in Christ. Here, surely, is the great assurance of the child of
God, that he was not chosen for any good in him but that God the
Father loved him when he was bound for hell. God loved the sinner
who had no thought of God in his heart, and God adopted him to be
His. Oh, what wonder is the assurance of the Father’s words: “I have
loved thee with an everlasting love” ( Jer. 31:3)!
All the members of the Trinity are involved in our adoption.
Adoption is the gracious act of God the Father whereby He chooses us,
calls us to Himself, and gives us the privileges and blessings of being
His children. God the Son earned those blessings for us through His
propitiatory death and sacrifice, by which we become children of God
(1 John 4:10). And the Holy Spirit changes us from children of wrath,
which we are by nature, into children of God by means of regenera-
tion, or the new birth.
John refers to this new birth in 1 John 2:29, explaining the rela-
tionship between regeneration and adoption. If in adoption we would
only receive the privilege and status of being God’s children, some-
thing would still be missing. The adopted child retains the nature of
his natural parents, not the nature of the adoptive parents. God, in
His amazing grace, not only gives us the status and privileges of being
His children by adoption, but He also gives us the nature of God,
which abides within us by Spirit-worked regeneration. The Holy
Spirit implants God’s nature within us. As 1 John 3:9 says, “Whoso-
ever is born of God doth not commit sin (i.e., no one born of God
goes on committing sin); for his seed remaineth in him (i.e., for God’s
nature abides in him).”
Are you a child of God? Do you know what it means to have a new
nature that cries out for the living God and lives under His fatherly
love, fellowship, and protection? Have you been transferred from
Satan’s slavery to the Father’s sonship by God’s astounding grace?
Transformed Relationships Resulting from Adoption

Adoption brings blessings into every part of a believer’s life. It affects
his relationships to God, to the world, to his future, to himself, and
to brothers and sisters in God’s family. The biblical doctrine of adop-
tion is central to a proper understanding of every major area of the
Christian’s life. All relationships are put into proper context only when
believers are conscious of their sonship to the Father.
Christ Himself is the best proof of this truth. Jesus’ consciousness
of His unique sonship with the Father controlled all of Christ’s living
and thinking. As Jesus says in John 5:30, “I seek not mine own will,
but the will of my Father which hath sent me,” and in John 10:30, “I
and my Father are one.” “If I do not the works of my Father, believe
me not,” Jesus says in John 10:37, and “As my Father hath sent me,
even so send I you” ( John 20:21). More than thirty times in the Gos-
pel of John Jesus speaks of “my Father.”
Though the relationship of God the Father and God the Son
is an obvious truth in the gospels, what is not so obvious is how
Jesus urges His disciples to let their thoughts and lives be controlled
by the conviction that God is now their Father and they are His
children. Jesus repeatedly urges kinship with the Father as the foun-
dation of Christian discipleship. He tells His disciples that they are
to be examples of trusting their Father, asking them, “Why are you
anxious about what you should eat or drink or about your future —
your Father knows that you have need of all these things.” Because
their whole lives must be directed to do their Father’s glory and obey
His will, Jesus teaches His disciples to pray: “Our Father which art
in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will
be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The child of God is to live his
whole life in relation to his Father, remembering that the Father has
promised each child His kingdom.
Practically speaking, the significance of adoption has great impli-
cations. It transforms the following:
1. Our relationship to God. When the gospel breaks in upon us, we are
led by the Spirit to discover the amazing truth that God is our Father
in Christ Jesus. The heartbeat of daily Christian experience is to live
in fellowship with the Father and the Son. A true Christian lives
under God’s fatherly love, wisdom, care, guidance, and discipline.
People are hungry for security today. They look for it in all kinds
of places, but they often go about it the wrong way. The only place
in the universe where true security can be found is in the house-
hold of the heavenly Father, who is the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ. There is no security outside of fellowship with God the
Father through the Lord Jesus Christ.
So many people are discovering that the things that once gave
them security are now falling apart. They are facing failure in busi-
ness, jobs, or relationships with family members and friends. They are
beset with financial insolvency, terrorism, and war. So much in life is
uncertain; so much is crumbling away. The most powerful company
on earth may fold in the next recession. We learn that nothing in life
is secure except God. He alone does not change (Mal. 3:6).
Are you looking for security in the fatherhood of God? Are you
daily being led deeper into His faithfulness as your Father? Jesus taught
His disciples this truth in many ways. For example, He urged His fol-
lowers to think about God’s fatherly love by comparing it to the love of
a human father. He said in Matthew 7:11, “If ye then, being evil, know
how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your
Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”
The comparison is between the fatherhood of earthly fathers,
who are evil (i.e., they have fallen natures and show flaws and failures
and sins) and the fatherhood of God, who is steadfast in love that
never falters or changes, even when we sin. God’s fatherhood is flaw-

less. I will show you a love, says Jesus, which is expansive and glorious
beyond imagination. It is the love of your Father in heaven.
I don’t know what your experience of human fatherhood has been.
Some of us have had little relationship with our earthly fathers; some
have had good experiences, and others have had disappointing, even
bitter, experiences. Everything that fails in human fatherhood is cor-
rected in God’s fatherhood. Everything good we experience in human
fatherhood is a mere shadow of the full and perfect fatherhood of God.
If you are a father, you know how your heart sometimes aches
and cries out for your children in love. Imagine multiplying that love
by infinity. Then realize how even that falls short of the love of God
for His people. Do you succumb to the embrace of your heavenly
Father? Oh that you would allow yourself to partake of His unspeak-
able fatherly love!
To increase His people’s appreciation for God’s fatherhood, Jesus
urges His people to think of His own relationship to God the Father.
We need to ponder the wonder of this especially in the context of
daily afflictions, remembering that Jesus felt His Father’s love in the
afflictions He underwent. When you are under God’s discipline and
He is permitting trials to fall upon you, remember that these difficul-
ties are evidence of your Father’s love (Heb. 12:5–11). God has a plan,
a purpose, a vision for His people as a loving Father that embraces
every affliction and heartache.
As parents, we dream of what our children might become when
they grow up. Likewise, God also has a vision for His children. He
knows precisely what He wants them to be. He knows how He
will mold and train them according to His plan, and inevitably, that
involves discipline because God will not permit His believers to be
less than what He intends them to be. He uses His fatherly discipline
for their welfare (Lam. 3:31–33). If we are born-again believers, we
must ask for wisdom to see everything in our life as a blessing from
God our Father, who adopts us as His own.
2. Our relationship to the world. The believer’s adoption by God the
Father also affects his relationship to the world. First John 3:1b tells us
that this relationship is a troubled one: “Therefore the world knoweth
us not, because it knew him not.” On the one hand, the believer shares
with Jesus the unspeakable love of the Father, but on the other hand,
he shares with Jesus the hostility, estrangement, and even hatred of

the world. The reason the world does not know the children of God
is because it does not know Jesus.
The world is baffled by what happens to God’s people for it can-
not understand why they love what they love, and hate what they hate.
This reaction of the world is evidence of the believer’s adoption into
God’s family, for the world did not know Jesus either; He came unto
His own and His own received Him not. He was in the world, which
was created by Him, but the world knew Him not. The world did not
recognize Him as the Son of God. Ultimately, it crucified Him.
When a sinner is born again and brought into God’s family, he
comes to know the great blessings of deliverance in Christ. But the
believer also discovers that worldly people no longer understand him.
For example, when God converted me at age fourteen, I had to break
some of my closest friendships to remain faithful to God. One friend
was puzzled. “I thought I knew you, but I do not know what has
happened to you,” he said. “I cannot understand you. It is as if we are
living in two different worlds.”
Believers and unbelievers do live in different worlds, in different
kingdoms, in different families. That cannot help but bring con-
sequences. But adoption into God’s family means that we must be
willing for Christ’s sake to walk in the world even if we are mis-
understood, unwanted, despised, even hated, all the while giving no
unnecessary offense to the world.
3. Our relationship to the future. John goes on to say, “Beloved, now are
we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but
we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall
see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). The prospects for God’s adopted family
are great, for His children will receive a glorious inheritance. They
cannot even imagine the extent of that inheritance.
Here in this world, we are God’s children, even though the world
does not understand us. But we have something much greater in
store for us—the infinite glory that God the Father is laying up for
us in Christ Jesus. God’s child is like a poor peasant who has been
taken out of the mire and raised to the position of prince of the realm.
The adopted prince lives in the palace, has free access to the king,
and enjoys the king’s favor, love, and protection. The prince tells
the king he cannot comprehend the greatness of the king’s love. It is
unspeakably great to him. The king responds: “You have not begun
to see the extent of it. Your inheritance is still coming to you.”
If our present privileges as God’s adopted children are so great
that the world cannot grasp them, our future prospects are so glori-
ous that even we cannot grasp them. As 1 Corinthians 2:9 says, “Eye
hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of
man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
Because God is our Father and we are His adopted children, we have
a full inheritance awaiting us. The best is yet to be. Today we experi-
ence great blessings, despite our infirmities and sins, but one day we
shall be in glory, free from sin and in perfect communion with God.
Our heavenly Father keeps the best surprises for His children until
the end, when He shall turn all their sorrow into joy.
Likewise, today we look at Christ by faith. Though what we see
is shadowy and dim, we are being changed from glory to glory by the
Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18). One day all shadows will be removed.
We will see Christ as He is, in all His glory.
Moreover, God is shaping us to share in the glories of our Lord
Jesus Christ. As 1 John 3:2 says, “When he shall appear, we shall be
like him; for we shall see him as he is.” God is changing us now, but
then we shall be so changed that we will fully bear His image without
spot or wrinkle. Paul tells us in Romans 8:22–23 that the whole cre-
ation waits for the day when the inheritance of the children of God
will be given to them. What a future!
4. Our relationship to ourselves. The children of the heavenly Father
know His will and purpose for them. Every adopted child of God
also knows that holiness is an important part of God’s purpose for his
happiness in God’s family. As 1 John 3:3 says, “And every man that
hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”
In holiness, the child of God identifies himself with His Father’s
purposes. Sometimes children resent their father’s purposes, but the
true adopted son of God identifies with His Father’s purpose for him.
He does not try to find himself apart from his Father in heaven, but
in his Father’s will. Because seeking God’s purposes for the believer’s
life is inseparable from the pursuit of holiness, the believer gives him-
self to the purpose that his Father has for him.
John tells us, “Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth
himself” (3:3). So we are to purify ourselves daily. As Colossians 3 tells
us, holiness means putting off everything that is dishonoring to our

Father, who has loved us, and the Savior, who has died to save us. It
means putting on “mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness,
and longsuffering” (3:12). Purifying ourselves involves “the whole
man,” says John Cotton, including what we do with our minds, affec-
tions, will, thoughts, tongue, eyes, hands, disappointments, injuries,
and enemies.4 Purifying ourselves involves loving all that the Father
loves and hating all that the Father hates. From the moment of con-
version to the time we take our final breath, we have one pursuit: to
purify ourselves before our Father in order to be more like Christ.
The Greek word for purify refers to undivided allegiance, or hav-
ing one’s eyes on one thing. It implies wholeness and singleness of
purpose. It means having undivided motives in our living and our
service, being wholly dedicated to living to glorify Jesus Christ. The
way that Christians become known as sons of God is that they have
a new goal for themselves, a new relationship toward themselves. By
God’s grace, they purify themselves even as Christ is pure.
5. Our relationship to the family of God. If we rightly understand that we
are adopted into God’s family (note the usage of the plural throughout
1 John 3:1–2), our attitude toward our brothers and sisters in the fam-
ily will be affected (3:14–18). We have not been adopted to live apart
from that family but to live within that network of relationships. God’s
purpose in adopting children is to create a family, in which God reflects
His gracious purpose that will one day be fulfilled in heaven. He wants
the love that exists between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
to be extended through the love between brothers and sisters in Christ.
The communion of saints is so essential to the gospel. That is why
it is so grievous when people in the church do not show love to one
another. If we profess a Savior that laid down His life for us and we
are part of His family, we ought to be willing to lay down our lives for
other members of the family. We should uphold them, love them, and
sacrifice for them. We should not grieve each other, wound each other,
or gossip about each other. The way we behave toward other Chris-
tians proves whether or not we are adopted children of God (3:14–15).
If we show little love to other children of God, we prove that
we have tasted little of God’s love in our life, for those who have
4. John Cotton, An Exposition of First John (reprint, Evansville, Ind.: Sovereign

Grace Publishers, 1962), 331.
experienced much love from Him cannot help but love others. Those
who have not tasted the love of God will not love the brethren.
Privileges and Responsibilities

What about you? Have you become a child of God through the triune
God’s glorious adoption of you into His family? Do you live under
God’s fatherly grace of love, fellowship, and protection? Do you know
experientially the amazing transition from slavery to sonship so ably
expressed by a poet?
“Abba, Father,” we approach Thee
In our Saviour’s precious name;
We, Thy children, here assembling,
Now the promised blessing claim.
From our guilt His blood has washed us,
’Tis through Him our souls draw nigh;
And Thy Spirit too has taught us
“Abba, Father,” thus to cry.
Once as prodigals we wander’d
In our folly far from Thee;
But Thy grace, o’er sin abounding,
Rescued us from misery:
Clothed in garments of salvation,
At Thy table is our place;
We rejoice, and Thou rejoicest,
In the riches of Thy grace.
Thou the prodigal hast pardon’d,
“Kiss’d us” with a Father’s love;
“Kill’d the fatted calf,” and call’d us
E’er to dwell with Thee above.
“It is meet,” we hear Thee saying,
“We should merry be and glad;
I have found my once lost children,
Now they live who once were dead.”
“Abba, Father!” we adore Thee,
While the hosts in heaven above
E’en in us now learn the wonders
Of Thy wisdom, grace, and love.
Soon before Thy throne assembled,

All Thy children shall proclaim
Abba’s love as shown in Jesus,
And how full is Abba’s name!5
Pray that God will empower us to understand the transforming
blessings and implications of adoption in relation to the triune God, the
world, our future, ourselves, and the family of God. Then we will
understand better the greater privileges and benefits of adoption.
Privileges like these:
1. Our Father cuts us off from the family to which we naturally
belong in Adam as children of wrath and of the devil, and ingrafts
us into His own family to make us members of the covenant fam-
ily of God. “Adoption translates us out of a miserable estate, into a
happy estate,” writes Thomas Cole. “God is in covenant with us, and
we in him.”6
2. Our Father gives us freedom to call on Him by His Father-
name and gives us a new name, which serves as our guarantee of
admission to the house of God as sons and daughters of God (Rev.
2:17; 3:12).
3. Our Father gifts us with the Spirit of adoption. Believers are, by
grace, partakers of the Holy Spirit. This Spirit, Jeremiah Burroughs
tells us, enlightens our mind, sanctifies our heart, makes God’s wis-
dom and will known to us, guides us to eternal life, yes, works the
entire work of salvation in us and seals it to us unto the day of redemp-
tion (Eph. 4:30).7
4. Our Father grants us likeness to Himself and His Son. The
Father imparts to His children a filial heart and disposition that resem-
ble His own. Roger Drake writes, “All God’s adopted children bear
their Father’s image, as Gideon’s brethren did his ( Judg. 8:18). They
are like God, in holiness [and] in dignity” (Matt. 5:44–45; Rom. 8:29;
Heb. 2:7; 1 John 3:2–3).8
5. James G. Deck, “Abba, Father, we approach Thee,” in The Believers’ Hymn

Book (Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis, [1900]), 1.
6. Thomas Cole, A Discourse of Christian Religion, in Sundry Points...Christ the
Foundation of our Adoption, from Gal. 4. 5 (London: for Will. Marshall, 1698), 351.
7. Jeremiah Burroughs, The Saints’ Happiness, Delivered in Divers Lectures on the
Beatitudes (reprint, Beaver Falls, Penn.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1988), 196.
8. Roger Drake, “The Believer’s Dignity and Duty Laid Open, in the High
Birth wherewith he is Privileged, and the Honourable Employment to which he
5. Our Father especially strengthens our faith through His gifts

of promises and prayer. “If we are adopted,” writes Thomas Watson,
“then we have an interest in all the promises: the promises are chil-
dren’s bread.” They are like a garden, Watson goes on to say, in which
some herb is found to cure every ailment.9
6. Our Father corrects and chastens us for our sanctification. “He
chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Heb. 12:6).
All chastisement involves discipline that comes from our Father’s hand
and works together for our best welfare (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:32–33;
Rom. 8:28, 36–37; 2 Cor. 12:7). Our sufferings are “for our education
and instruction in his family,” writes John Owen.10
7. Our Father comforts us with His love and pity, and moves us
to rejoice in intimate communion with Him and His Son (Rom. 5:5).
He does that in several ways, as Samuel Willard notes: “He applies the
precious promises to their souls, he gives them cordials of comfort,
communicates unto them the sips and foretastes of glory, [and] fills
them with inward joys and refreshings.”11
8. Our Father offers us spiritual, Christian liberty as His sons and
daughters ( John 8:36). This liberty releases us from bondage (Gal.
4:7). It delivers us from the slavish subjection, the servile pedagogy,
the condemning power, the intolerable yoke, and the thundering
curses of the law as a covenant of works (Gal. 3:13), though not from
the law’s regulating power.12
9. Our Father preserves us and keeps us from falling (Ps. 91:11–
12; 1 Pet. 1:5). He restores us from every backsliding way, recovering
and humbling us, always preventing our hypocrisy.13 Samuel Willard
says, “God’s sons in this life are like little Children, always tripping,
and stumbling, and falling, and so weak that they could never get up
is Called,” in Puritan Sermons 1659 –1689: Being the Morning Exercises at Cripplegate,
St. Giles in the Fields, and in Southwark by Seventy-five Ministers of the Gospel in or near
London (reprint, Wheaton, Ill.: Richard Owen Roberts, 1981), 5:333.
9. Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity, 160.
10. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (reprint, Lon-
don: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 16:257.
11. Samuel Willard, The Child’s Portion (Boston: Samuel Green, 1684), 22.
12. The Complete Works of the Late Rev. Thomas Boston, Ettrick, ed. Samuel
M’Millan (reprint, Wheaton, Ill.: Richard Owen Roberts, 1980), 1:625; Cole, Christ
the Foundation of our Adoption, 352 –53.
13. Thomas Ridgley, Commentary on the Larger Catechism (reprint, Edmonton:
Still Waters Revival Books, 1993), 2:136.
again but for him: but by reasons of his hand that is upon them, his
everlasting Arm that is under them.”14
10. Our Father provides everything that we need as His children,
both physically and spiritually (Ps. 34:10; Matt. 6:31–33), and will
protect us from all harm. He will defend us from our enemies—
Satan, the world, and our own flesh—and right our wronged cause.
He will assist and strengthen us, always lending us a helping hand to
carry us through every difficulty and temptation (2 Tim. 4:17). We
may safely leave everything in His fatherly hands, knowing that He
will never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5–6).
Then, too, adoption involves responsibilities and duties. The Puritans
taught that every privilege of adoption had a corresponding responsi-
bility or duty, each of which transforms the way believers think and
live. These may be summarized as follows:
1. Show childlike reverence and love for your Father in every-
thing. Reflect habitually upon your Father’s great glory and majesty.
Stand in awe of Him; render Him praise and thanksgiving in all
things. Remember, your holy Father sees everything. Children some-
times commit dreadful acts in the absence of their parents, but your
Father is never absent.
2. Submit to your Father in every providence. When He visits you
with the rod, don’t resist or murmur. Don’t immediately respond by
saying, “‘I am not a child of God, God is not my Father, God deals
harshly with me; if He were my Father, He would have compassion
on me; He would then deliver me from this grievous and especially
this sinful cross—to speak thus does not befit the nature of an upright
child,” writes Brakel. Rather, “it is fitting for a child to be quiet, to
humbly submit, and to say, ‘I will bear the indignation of the LORD,
because I have sinned against him’” (Mic. 7:9).15
3. Obey and imitate your Father, and love His image-bearers.
Strive to be like Him, to be holy as He is holy, to be loving as He is
loving. We are to be “imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1) to show that we
bear the family likeness.
4. Rejoice in being in your Father’s presence. Delight in com-
muning with Him. Burgess writes, “A son delights to have letters
from his Father, to have discourse about him, especially to enjoy his
14. Willard, The Child’s Portion, 17.

15. Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:437.
presence.”16 Resist every hindrance, therefore, that keeps you from

relishing your Father’s adopting grace.
Concluding Applications
In heaven, this joy will be full; our adoption will then be perfected
(Rom. 8:23). Then we will enter into the Father’s “presence and pal-
ace,” where we will be “everlastingly enjoying, delighting, and praising
God.”17 Let us wait and long for that, as children who eagerly antici-
pate our full inheritance, where the triune God shall be our all in all.18
Meanwhile, let us seek grace to live as children of God in the
midst of this fallen world. Then we too will often confess with the
apostle John, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed
upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world
knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the
sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know
that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him
as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself,
even as he is pure” (1 John 3:1–3).
16. Anthony Burgess, Spiritual Refining: or A Treatise of Grace and Assurance (Lon-
don: A Miller for Thomas Underhill, 1652), 240.
17. Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, D.D. (London:
James Nisbet, 1870), 12:125.
18. Drake, Puritan Sermons, 5:342; cf. Willard, The Child’s Portion, 71.
Systematic and
Historical Theology
q
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 83–97
Justification, The Central Article of Faith:

A Biblical and Theological Analysis
PIETER DEVRIES
q
The doctrine of justification determines whether the church stands

or falls. The church stands when she proclaims this God-honoring
and liberating message, and she falls when she neglects to do so.
Our answer to the question, “How can we be just in the sight of
our Maker?” manifests the character of our religion. Do we trust in
our own righteousness or in the righteousness of God revealed in
the cross of Christ? We are only righteous when the righteousness of
Christ is imputed to us. We are justified by faith and not by works.
The doctrine of justification by faith is a biblical doctrine. In God’s
purpose, it was the task of the Apostle Paul to give a full exposition of
this doctrine. The letters he wrote to the Galatians and the Romans are
especially important in this connection. However, the kernel of the mes-
sage of justification by faith we already find in the Old Testament. Paul
himself argues from the Old Testament. The faith of Abraham teaches
us that a man is justified by faith alone and not by works. The prophet
Habakkuk testified, “but the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4).
Our Lord Jesus Christ made clear not only in His teachings, but
also through His actions, that He came not to call the righteous but
sinners to repentance. He received sinners and ate with them. The
message of our Lord Jesus Christ was a message of unconditional for-
giveness—forgiveness not based on man’s merits but only on God’s
free grace and sovereign mercy. Jesus gave a most striking example
of this message in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. The
publican pleaded in Luke 18:13: “God be merciful to me a sinner.”
And this man went down to his house justified.
1. Originally delivered as an address at the Ministers’ Conference of the Free

Reformed Churches of North America, autumn 2006.
Augustine
When we study the Bible, we can greatly profit from the insights of
former generations. We are not the first generation who has read the
Bible. Neglecting the rich sources of insight from former ages and
generations stands in contradiction to confessing that we “believe
an holy, catholic church, the communion of saints.” Spurgeon once
made the following remark: “People who pay very great attention to
what God revealed to them usually pay very little attention to what
God revealed to others.” We must try to understand the Scriptures in
communion with other saints. At the same time, we must caution that
the insights from other generations in the Scriptures must be tested
by the Scriptures themselves. Neither the church nor the Lord’s peo-
ple but only the Word of God is infallible.
Looking at church history with regard to the doctrine of justifica-
tion, the first person we need to consider is Augustine, the greatest
church father of the Western church. Augustine knew by experience
that he was saved by God’s grace alone. However, the first year after
his conversion, his doctrinal views regarding the place of God’s grace
in man’s salvation were somewhat confused. Augustine gained deeper
insight into the nature of God’s grace in his conflict with the British
monk Pelagius. Augustine stressed more and more that man is by
nature depraved and that he can be healed only by the grace of God.
The most important work Augustine wrote in this connection is De
spiritu en littera (The Spirit and the Letter), which is based on 2 Corin-
thians 3:6: “…for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” In this
work, Augustine stresses that the law cannot be fulfilled by natural
man. The law commands but, since Adam’s fall, it cannot give the
power to fulfill. Augustine denies the fact that when Paul said a man
cannot be justified by the works of the law, he had only the ceremo-
nial side of the law in view. Referring to Romans 7:7 (“What shall we
say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by
the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet.”), Augustine shows how Paul taught that this is also true
with regard to the moral commandments.
The law is given to us so that we may seek grace, and grace is
given that we may fulfill the law. A person saved by grace loves not
only God but also His commandments. It is his desire to glorify God.
It is not a matter of compulsion; the love of Christ constrains him.
Justification: The Central Article of Faith 85
Augustine emphasized that man is saved and justified by grace

alone. But, for him, justification as such is not the declaration that
we are right in the sight of God because Christ’s righteousness is
imputed to us. For Augustine, justification meant that we are made
righteous. He pointed to the Latin word facere in this connection. He
did not make the distinction between justification and sanctification.
Where Augustine used the word justification, we as Reformed Chris-
tians use words such as regeneration and sanctification. Nevertheless,
Augustine makes clear that man’s sins are forgiven not because of any
merits found in him but purely of grace alone. Man needs forgiveness
for his best works. So although there is a formal difference between
the theology of Augustine and that of the Reformers, in actual con-
tent they are very closely related to each other.
In the formal treatment of justification as making men righteous,
Roman Catholic theology could align itself with Augustine. But
when Augustine teaches that regeneration is purely grace and that
the forgiveness of our sins is wholly apart from a consideration of our
works, Roman Catholicism (with the exception of the Jansenists, an
Augustinian stream in the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church)
did not see eye to eye with Augustine. In line with Augustine, the
Jansenists denied every synergistic view of grace. They taught the
total depravity of man and the gracious election of God, for which
Jansenism was condemned in several papal bulls, the most famous
being Unigenitus (1714).
The Stance of the Reformation

The Reformation can be seen as an Augustinian revival. Because he
was an Augustinian friar, Luther had a special interest in Augustine’s
writings. The Reformers argued that Augustine’s understanding of the
doctrine of grace was correct, in opposition to Roman Catholicism.
B. B. Warfield taught that the Reformation was the final triumph of
Augustine’s doctrine of grace over his doctrine of the church. For the
first time, a clear distinction was made in theology between justifica-
tion and sanctification. In this respect, the doctrine of the Reformers
surpasses the doctrine of Augustine. The Reformation emphasized the
forensic nature of justification. The Westminster Larger Catechism
gives the following definition of justification: “Justification is an act
of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins,
accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for
anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect
obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,
and received by faith alone” (Q. 70).
Luther greatly benefited from the writings of Augustine but God
gave Luther a deeper insight into what it meant that the righteousness
of God is revealed in the gospel. This righteousness is not that we
are renewed in the image of Christ, but it is the alien righteousness
of Christ outside us. At the same time, a justified man is really a new
man because his sins are imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteous-
ness is granted to him. He is made one with Christ like a wife is
united to her husband. For Luther, justification is not only the decla-
ration that we are righteous in the sight of God, but also the creation
of a new relationship with God. We find the same teachings in Calvin
when he connects justification by faith with the mystical union with
Christ. Christ dwells in the believer and the believer dwells in Him.
John Murray said that justification is not only a declarative act, but
also a constitutive act. Justification by faith alone is not fiction; the
alien righteousness of Christ is the real possession of the believer who
is united to Christ by the Holy Spirit. This close relationship between
the forensic declaration of forgiveness of sin and being right with God
and the mystical union with Christ was not always retained in later
Reformed theology.
The New Perspective

The insight of the Reformation in Paul’s doctrine of justification
has come under scrutiny in recent decades. Three names must be
mentioned especially: E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T.
Wright. Sanders, in his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism, questions
the portrait of first-century Judaism given in many scholarly works.
He disagrees that first-century Judaism could be considered legalistic;
in his opinion, such a characterization is a Christian and especially a
Protestant prejudice. Sanders characterizes first-century Judaism as
covenantal nomism. Sanders states that first-century Judaism pro-
fessed that Israel was elected out of God’s sovereign good pleasure. It
was a matter of grace. Works were not necessary to enter into the cov-
enant but necessary to stay in the covenant. Therefore, the character
of Paul’s religion was not fundamentally different from other forms
of first-century Judaism. Where other forms of Judaism placed Israel’s
election as God’s gift, Paul placed faith in Jesus Christ as his gift of
God. Paul’s real difficulty with other forms of first-century Judaism

was that they were not Christian.
James Dunn agrees with Sanders to a great extent. He also thinks
that first-century Judaism cannot be characterized as legalistic, but
he questioned that Paul’s only point was that the other forms of first-
century Judaism were not Christianity. Dunn was the first to use the
expression “new perspective.” The new perspective on Paul is dif-
ferent from that of the Reformers but also from the Christian view
in general. It asserts that sixteenth-century Reformers and Catholics
alike missed the real point of Paul’s message regarding justification.
According to Dunn, Paul’s message on justification is not soterio
logical but ecclesiological. The message on justification was just a
corollary of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Paul did not want to retain
circumcision, the Jewish festival calendar, and the dietary laws as
boundary marks for the Christian church; the only boundary marks
were the confession of Christ as Lord and the possession of the Holy
Spirit. Paul was not battling legalism but nationalism.
In his work Climax of the Covenant, Wright reasons that the real
emphasis of Paul’s message regarding justification is the new stage in
salvation history that has arrived with the coming of Christ. First-
century Judaism considered itself, spiritually speaking, still in exile.
Paul proclaimed that with the work of Christ the exile has ended.
The difference between him and his opponents lies in the fact that
his opponents did not realize that a new stage in salvation history had
dawned. The position of the Dutch New Testament scholar Jacob van
Bruggen is quite close to that of Wright.
In connection with the new perspective, Paul’s call is usually not
seen as a conversion, but just a realization that he was not in step with
the ongoing development of salvation history.
A Short Appraisal of the New Perspective

We must admit that Paul’s doctrine of justification has implications
for the doctrine of the church. But we are wrong to assume that his
message on justification has only to do with the boundaries of the
church of the New Testament. Paul’s mission to the Gentiles was
a consequence of his teaching on justification by faith and not the
reverse. Since he was called, he knew that only through Jesus Christ
was there access to God, and not through the law. That was why he
preached justification by faith to Jews and Gentiles alike. He excluded
not only the so-called boundary markers for justification, but all the
works of the law—including works of a moral nature.
Justification has to do with forgiveness of sin. Paul says in
Romans 4:6–8: “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the
man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, say-
ing, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered.” Justification has to do with redemption from the wrath to
come. Antithetical to the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel
is the wrath of God “revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness”
(Rom. 1:18). “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom. 5:9).
Paul’s call was not just a call to missions and a realization of the
true state of development of salvation history; it was also his conver-
sion—not a conversion from Judaism to Christianity, but to a true
understanding what Judaism ought to be in the light of its own Scrip-
tures. According to Paul, the church consisting of Jews and Gentiles
was the real embodiment of the promises of God. Jews who rejected
Jesus as the Christ did not understand the real meaning of their own
Scriptures. When called by God, Paul received a new view of God, of
himself, of Christ, of the Scriptures, and of the history of Israel.
First-century Judaism certainly did hold to an awareness of God’s
grace, but that does not exclude it from being characterized as legal-
istic when we include more refined forms of legalism. According to
the rabbis, Israel was the only nation that accepted the Torah, which
was offered to all the nations of the world. God called Abraham from
Ur because of the merit He found in him. Obedience to the Torah
was a constitutive element for remaining in the covenant. The rabbis
showed us evidence of concern that the law demands perfect obedi-
ence. They denied the total depravity of man. The way they approach
God is fundamentally different from the way the Christian approaches
God through the Mediator Jesus Christ in holy self-condemnation
and holy confidence. Perhaps first-century Judaism can be character-
ized as covenantal nomism, but real Christianity cannot. Covenantal
nomism, as Sanders presents it, is clearly a refined form of legalism;
there is no personal entrance into the covenant or personal appropria-
tion of the covenant purely of grace. The message of effectual calling
and regeneration so essential in Christianity is lacking. Lacking also
is the awareness that we need forgiveness for even our best efforts.
The new perspective is not far removed from the medieval scho-
lastic position that Paul only rejected the keeping of the ceremonial
law in justification. Many biblical scholars today have little knowl-
edge of church history and the history of exegesis; they do not realize
that these “new” insights are not new at all, and were rejected earlier
in church history on solid grounds.
The position of Reformed theologians embracing the new per-
spective can be characterized as covenantal nomism. It is a form of
Reformed theology that does not give credence to regeneration and
effectual calling. Having grace is merely a matter of belonging to the
church; and being a living member of it is just a matter of showing
it in your works. When people reason this way, justification by faith
alone as a living and experiential reality does not function. Their the-
ology is tainted by the legalism Paul so ardently condemns.
The Nature of Justification

So what is justification? It is not making ourselves righteous. It is
not sanctification. It is not simply belonging to the Christian church
because you profess Christ as Lord. Justification has to do with God
as Judge. It is the declaration that you are free from guilt and condem-
nation in the sight of God. It is an anticipation of future judgment.
To your utter astonishment, you are declared “not guilty,” although
you know you are. This forensic nature of justification is very clearly
shown in Romans 8:33–34: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is
Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”
In essence, justification is the same under the Old and New Tes-
tament eras. Abraham was already justified by faith; David gloried
in the free forgiveness of his sins. The only real difference between
the Old and New Testament believers in this respect is that the New
Testament believers know that the ground of justification is actually
laid. That ground is the work and blood of Christ.
The Ground of Justification

Justification is not according to our works; it is all a matter of grace.
In Titus 3:7, we read, “That being justified by his grace, we should be
made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” The relation between
the justification of the ungodly and God’s grace is clear, but how can
we relate the justification of the ungodly with the righteousness of

God—with the wrath of God revealed against all unrighteousness?
Does God contradict Himself when He justifies the ungodly? After all,
Proverbs says, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth
the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD” (Prov. 17:15).
The answer to this mystery is found in Romans 3:24 –26: “Being
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in
his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that
are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time
his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus.” Christ was set forth as propitiation of our sins.
He bore the wrath of God in our place. The justice of God against
all our sins is revealed in the cross of Christ. He bore the penalty in
order that everyone who believes in him may have forgiveness of sins
and eternal life. So God is just and He is the justifier of those who
believe at the same time. Christ’s righteousness imputed to us is the
only ground of our justification. By His obedience, many are made
righteous (Rom. 5:19).
The Instrument and Time of Justification

The ground of justification is the obedience of Christ: that He died
in our place, and that He always prays for us. The instrument of jus-
tification is faith. True faith is a self-despairing trust in Christ. How
aptly Augustus Toplady said:
Rock of Ages, cleft for me;
Let me hide myself in thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure,
Cleanse me from its guilt and power.
Nothing in my hand I bring;
Simply to thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to thee for dress;
Helpless, look to thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die.
We are not justified some time before or after faith is first exercised.
There are no justified unbelievers or believers who are not yet justi-
fied. The very moment a sinner, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, flees
to Christ, he is justified. Calling, regeneration, justification, and sanc-
tification are different blessings, but they cannot be separated from
each other in time. The order of calling, justification, and sanctifica-
tion is only a logical order, not a chronological one. The very moment
you are called according to God’s purpose, the gospel becomes to
you “the power of God unto salvation,” in which the righteousness
of God is “revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall
live by faith” (Rom. 1:16–17). The sinner who believes in Christ is
also made a new creation. Justification is never without sanctification
and sanctification never without justification. Consider 1 Corinthians
6:11: “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
In his little booklet with questions and answers for catechism
classes, Abraham Hellenbroek, one of the most famous representa-
tives of the Dutch Further Reformation, emphasized that there are no
stages in justification. This is one of the essential differences between
justification and sanctification. Every believer is equally just in the
sight of God. Every believer has received complete forgiveness of sins.
Let me give a quotation of that good Protestant bishop J. C. Ryle: “I
hold firmly that the justification of a believer is a finished, perfect and
complete work; and the weakest saint though he may not know and
feel it, is as completely justified as the strongest.... I would go to the
stake, God helping me, for the glorious truth, that in the matter of
justification before God every believer is complete in Christ. Noth-
ing can be added to his justification from the moment he believes and
nothing taken away.”
Justification in the Court of God and in the

Court of Conscience
What is the relationship between justification and assurance of faith?
In the Canons of Dort, assurance of faith falls in the context of the
perseverance of the saints and declension in grace. In the fifth chap-
ter of the Canons of Dort we read: “But God, who is rich in mercy,
according to his unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly
withdraw the Holy Spirit from his own people even in their griev-
ous falls; nor suffers them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of
adoption and forfeit the state of justification, or to commit the sin

unto death or against the Holy Spirit; nor does he permit them to be
totally deserted, and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruc-
tion.” Every believer is in the state of justification and adoption; that
state can never change. But Ryle was certainly right when he said that
a believer may not know and feel that he is justified.
In various ways, God assures His children that they are in the
state of grace and justification. In the Canons of Dort, three are men-
tioned: “This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar
revelation contrary to or independent of the Word of God, but springs
from faith in God’s promises, which he has most abundantly revealed
in his Word for our comfort; from the testimony of the Holy Spirit,
witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God
(Rom. 8:16); and lastly, from a serious and holy desire to preserve a
good conscience and to perform good works. And if the elect of God
were deprived of this solid comfort that they shall finally obtain the
victory, and of this infallible pledge of eternal glory, they would be
of all men the most miserable.” So the promises of God, a good con-
science, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit are the means the Lord
uses to give assurance of justification, grace, and salvation.
With the testimony of the Holy Spirit, we come to the rich area
of Christian experience. The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are
children of God and that nothing will separate us from the love of
Christ by pointing us to the promises of the gospel, enlightening our
minds in the knowledge of Christ, and filling us with joy and peace in
believing. We must never separate the three ways in which the Lord
gives us assurance of faith. The Holy Spirit directs us to the promises
of God as the vehicles in which Christ comes to us. Directing us to
Christ, He conforms us into His image.
Assurance of faith is not static. It is stronger one time than at
other times. I again quote the Canons of Dort: “Of this preservation
of the elect to salvation and of their perseverance in the faith, true
believers themselves may and do obtain assurance according to the
measure of their faith, whereby they surely believe that they are and
ever will continue true and living members of the Church, and that
they have the forgiveness of sins and life eternal.” The strength of
assurance usually corresponds to the strength of our faith.
Paul says in Romans 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with
our spirit, that we are the children of God.” It is not without reason
that Paul uses the present tense. Again and again, we have to ask the
Holy Spirit to give us new assurance and fresh manifestations of the
glory of Christ. John Newton said it so well:
The manna, favoured Israel’s meat,
Was gathered day by day;
When all the host was served, the heat
Melted the rest away.
In vain to hoard it up they tried,
Against tomorrow came;
It then bred worms and putrefied;
And proved their sin and shame.
So truths by which the soul is fed
Must e’er be had afresh;
For notions resting in the head
Will only feed the flesh.
Nor can the best experience past
The life of faith maintain;
The brightest hope will faint at last,
Unless supplied again.
Dear Lord, while in thy house we’re found,
Do Thou the manna give;
O let it fall on us around,
That we may eat and live.
Classical Reformed theology distinguished between justification in
the court of God and in the court of conscience. Every believer is
declared just in the court of God, but not every believer has a clear
insight of it in the court of his conscience. Here we come to the area
of assurance of grace. Knowing in the court of conscience that you are
justified is the same as having assurance of faith. Classical Reformed
theology connected justification in the court of conscience with the
three ways of coming to assurance I mentioned, particularly the testi-
mony of the Holy Spirit.
In nineteenth-century Netherlands, this aspect of Reformed the-
ology was given an interpretation it originally did not have. Justification
in the court of conscience was equated to a very special, definable
crisis-experience. This idea came into existence, as far as I can see,
in the conventicles: gatherings of God-fearing people where religious

experiences were related and discussed. Those who defended this view
of justification in the court of conscience thought that without such a
crisis-experience you could not or ought not to have assurance of faith.
It was very confusing when sometimes this assurance of justification
seemed to be equated with justification itself. So people began to speak
not only of believers who lacked the assurance that they were justified,
but of believers who are not justified at all.
I do not wish to question the godliness of quite a number of people
who hold these views. I am sure of the genuineness of their religious
experiences, but, in the light of Scripture, we must seriously ques-
tion the way they frame their experiences in a theological scheme.
Justification is not the same as having assurance; assurance does not
necessitate a crisis-experience. Insisting that it does falls dangerously
close to Catholicism. Rome thinks that assurance of faith is only possi-
ble when you are given an extraordinary revelation, but the Canons of
Dort distanced themselves from this view: “This assurance, however,
is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary to or independent
of the Word of God, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which
he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort; from
the testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit that we are
children and heirs of God (Rom. 8:16); and lastly, from a serious and
holy desire to preserve a good conscience and to perform good works.
And if the elect of God were deprived of this solid comfort that they
shall finally obtain the victory, and of this infallible pledge of eternal
glory, they would be of all men the most miserable” (Head 5, Art. 10).
The Assurance of Justification and the Importance

of the Preaching of the Gospel
The Lord uses the preaching of the Word for a twofold purpose. I
quote question and answer 84 out of the Heidelberg Catechism on
the keys of the kingdom.
Q. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the
preaching of the holy gospel?
A. Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is
declared and publicly testified to all and every believer,
that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a
true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God for
the sake of Christ’s merits; and on the contrary, when it is

declared and testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not
sincerely repent, that they stand exposed to the wrath of
God and eternal condemnation, so long as they are uncon-
verted; according to which testimony of the gospel, God
will judge them both in this life and in the life to come.
Let me start with the second purpose. Unbelievers are warned
in order that they would realize that they are lost sinners who do not
have peace with God. They are warned in order that they would come
to themselves as the prodigal son did and flee with a broken heart to
the only Savior. The task of a preacher is to preach the law to con-
demn all flesh and to proclaim the Savior in order that sinners would
flee to Him for justification, life, and salvation. The sinner is saved
when faith is given to him. That faith is a saving and justifying faith.
The first purpose of the preaching of the gospel is, according to
the Heidelberg Catechism, to console believers. Believers have peace
with God, but they are often afflicted. When we use the distinction
between justification in the court of God and in the court of con-
science, we can say that the purpose of preaching for believers is that
the judgment of the court of conscience concurs with the judgment
of the court of God. A believer has peace with God and is righteous
in His sight, but often cannot see it or understand it. It is important
that the preaching is clear on this point. “Therefore being justified by
faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” An
unbeliever can never realize too clearly that he is a child of wrath, and
a believer can never realize too clearly that he has peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The preaching of the gospel is the instrument used by the Holy
Spirit to comfort believers. Believers may lack joy and assurance
because sermons fail to give a clear and distinct witness of the power
of justification by grace alone. Christian, in Pilgrim’s Progress, went
though the wicket gate and came into the House of Interpreter. That
is a symbol for the church wherever the gospel is faithfully preached.
It is remarkable that the distance from the House of Interpreter to the
Cross where Christian was relieved from his burden was very short.
Believers often lack peace and assurance because they do not
clearly see the distinction between justification and sanctification.
They think there is only ground to believe that they have peace with
God when they are more conformed to Christ than they are now. But
that is wrong. Although believers have only a small beginning of the
new obedience, they may believe that they have complete peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We have to learn again and again:
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.
The task of the preacher is to assure everyone who flees to Christ that
he has peace with God. A believer in darkness must first of all use the
promises of God. Using the promises of God and trusting in Christ,
we experience the power of the gospel of justification by faith alone.
Justification as a State and a Reality with

Ongoing Significance
Justification is first of all a state. We are either in the state of condem-
nation or in the state of justification. And when we are in the state of
justification, it is impossible that we will ever fall out of it. Through
our own fault, we may lack joy, peace, and assurance in believing, but
a believer has peace with God even when he does not feel it.
Justification is a state, but we can also say it is a reality with ongo-
ing significance. In his commentary on Romans 8:31, Calvin says:
“Justification may fitly be extended to the unremitted continuance of
God’s favour, from the time of our calling to the hour of death.” I can
also say it with the last stanza from M‘Cheyne’s hymn, The Watchword
of the Reformers:
Even treading the valley, the shadow of death,
This ‘watchword’ shall rally my faltering breath;
For while from life’s fever my God sets me free,
Jehovah Tsidkenu my death song will be.
We must not restrict the significance of justification to the begin-
ning of spiritual life. Again and again, a believer must confess with
the Heidelberg Catechism, answer 60, “Only by a true faith in Jesus
Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly
transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them,
and am still inclined to all evil.” In this life, a believer has to testify
with the psalmist: “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord,
who shall stand?” (Ps. 130:3), and “enter not into judgment with thy
servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps. 143:2).
Thus, every time anew, the power and joy of justification by
faith alone is experienced. Again I quote the Heidelberg Catechism:
“notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere
grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness
and holiness of Christ, even so, as if I never had had, nor committed
any sin; yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which
Christ has accomplished for me, inasmuch as I embrace such benefit
with a believing heart.” It is very significant that question 60 of the
Heidelberg Catechism asks: “How art thou righteous before God?”
and not “How did you become righteous before God?” In the hour of
death, a believer has no other ground of justification than he did the
first hour he believed.
The doctrine of justification by faith alone is a doctrine of con-
solation for poor sinners. We may and must preach it. Luther taught
that only in anguish of soul do we learn the value of the righteous-
ness of God revealed in Christ. Leaning on Christ, a sinner can live
and die. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but
Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live
by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for
me” (Gal. 2:20).
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 98–108
The Logic and Exegesis behind Calvin’s

Doctrine of the Internal Witness of the Holy
Spirit to the Authority of Scripture
david wenkel
q
One of John Calvin’s notable passages in his Institutes is his articulation

of the relationship between the Holy Spirit, the reader of Scripture,
and the Scripture itself.1 The relationship between these entities is
presented thus:
For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so
these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until
they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.2
This apologetically oriented selection from the Institutes is known
as Calvin’s doctrine of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to the
authority of Scripture. In Latin, it is referred to as the testimonium Spir-
itus Sancti interna and hereafter, the “testimonium.”3 Historically, this
doctrine represented a departure from Rome’s doctrine of testimonium
ecclesiae, which stressed the church’s role in defining Scripture and
giving it its authority.4
1. “The doctrine of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit is a gift of John Calvin
to the church. Other writers had seen it but none wrote about it so effectively as he.”
M. E. Osterhaven, The Faith of the Church: A Reformed Perspective on Its Historical Development
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 12–13. For a similar conclusion about the unique-
ness of Calvin’s contribution, see George S. Hendry, The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 72. A shorter version of this paper was presented at
the Society for the Study of Theology meeting at York University in England, 2011.
2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Bell-
ingham, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, 2010), 1.7.4.
3. For a critical interaction with contemporary philosophical objections to the
self-authenticating witness of Scripture, see William Lane Craig, “Classical Apolo-
getics,” in Five Views on Apologetics, eds. Steven B. Cowan and Stanley N. Gundry
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 29 n1.
4. For this reason, a statement similar to Calvin’s doctrine of testimonium appears
in the Belgic Confession (Art. 5). For a brief discussion of the historical significance,
The Logic and Exegesis Behind Calvin’s Doctrine 99
The testimonium represents the subjective side of the authority of

Scripture, whereas the indicia represent objective matters of authority
such as historicity, accuracy, etc. Louis Berkhof explains that Cal-
vin’s testimonium means that “[t]he final ground of faith is Scripture
only, or better still, the authority of God which is impressed upon
the believer in the testimony of Scripture.”5 For Calvin, the objec-
tive evidence is not simply the other side of the coin of subjectivity.
Rather, the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit stands above all other
evidence, powers, rationality, or institutions.6 This means that there is
an “asymmetric” relationship between external or objective evidence
and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.7
Contemporary Reformed theologians including Graham Cole
have probed the testimonium and found it confusing or perplexing.8
Henk Van Den Belt’s excellent study of the Reformed doctrine of the
self-authentication of Scripture also finds difficulties with the doc-
trine.9 In this study, I will examine Calvin’s testimonium with two lines
of argumentation. First, I want to bring additional nuance to this doc-
trine by framing the nature of its logic with respect to its circularity.
Second, I want to examine claims that Calvin’s testimonium does not
stand exegetical scrutiny.
Calvin’s testimonium and Logic

“The Christian Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because I
know it is the Authoritative Word of God.”10 To restate Calvin’s doc-
trine in this hypothetical way would be a gross misrepresentation of
see G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1975), 40–41.
5. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 185.
6. John H. Leith, John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Louisville, Ky.:
WJKP, 1989), 63.
7. Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 251.
8. Graham A. Cole, He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton,
Ill.: Crossway, 2007), 271–73; R. C. Sproul, Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine
(Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2005), 115.
9. Henk Van Den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and
Trust (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 320.
10. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Theology of Lordship
(Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1987), 131.
the testimonium. Yes, the testimonium utilizes circular logic;11 that is not
being disputed. However, it matters a great deal how tight or broad
the circularity is. In this first section, I wish to demonstrate that the
circular argument is broad and not vicious in its logic.
Some circular argumentation is vicious while some is not. Vicious
circularity is creating a narrow or small circular argument that is so tight
that it attacks itself and undermines itself. Rosalind M. Selby explains,
“This would surely be a viciously circular argument—through revela-
tion we believe in the incarnation and the (mediated) words of God in
scripture, so in order to preserve these we must accept revelation.”12
Vicious circularity, negatively stated, does not (1) set forth its conclu-
sion with its rationale, (2) provide a framework for interpretation of
data, or (3) clarify the meaning of its conclusion(s).13 There are three
aspects of the circularity of the testimonium that I want to highlight to
demonstrate that it is not viciously circular.
First, the circle moves through the person of the Holy Spirit. This
is the unique twist to the testimonium. There are actually two persons
at work in the subjective experience of the one who believes that the
Scripture is the Word of God. The person of the Holy Spirit is able to
inhabit or enter into a person to affect the faculties (the mind, spirit, or
soul). This is possible because the Holy Spirit is God. In addition, this
same Holy Spirit authored the Scriptures about which He is testifying.
The one testifying is both author and God. The person of the Holy
Spirit is not so much a criterion as He is a unique epistemic agent.14
This is closely related to, and interconnected with, the next point.
11. R. Ward Holder, John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin’s First
Commentaries (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 74.
12. Rosalind M. Selby, Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament
Hermeneutics (Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2006), 46. For the distinction
between vicious circularity and the circle of truth, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics:
The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, Part 1, trans. T. H. L. Parker, et al. (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1957), 243.
13. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 131–32.
14. Kevin Vanhoozer refers to Robert Johnson’s distinction between a “crite-
rion” and a “discrimen” in order to communicate the inseparable nature of Scripture
and the Holy Spirit. The word discrimen is Latin for space or interval. While there is
a space between Scripture and the Holy Spirit, this gap is theologically closed. See
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Chris-
tian Theology (Louisville: WJKP, 2005), 232 n77.
Second, the circle moves through Scripture. Calvin refers to this

as the autopistia of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the author of all Scrip-
ture because He inspired and moved men to write what they did.
When confirming the authority of Scripture, the Holy Spirit always
works through Scripture. Being God, He was able to write what is
sufficient for this purpose. The Holy Spirit works through His own
writings. Paul Helm explains, “[I]n Calvin’s view the work of the
Holy Spirit is not to energize the will to take a leap of faith, but to
open the eyes of the mind to see what is objectively there, present in
the data of Holy Scripture, and to incline the will to accept it.”15 The
meaning of the text of Scripture is a vital part of its self-authenticating
authority. Van Den Belt provides a helpful study of the autopistia of
Scripture as it relates to the testimonium of the Spirit.16 Calvin’s con-
cept of the testimonium of the Spirit (as subject) was intimately tied to
the autopistia of the Word (as object).
Third, the circle moves through faith, reason, the emotions, and
the will. Calvin avoided narrow philosophical divisions of the human
body and soul. Helm explains that Calvin’s anthropological model was
a “complex picture” but that Calvin thought “such complexity ought
to be passed over.”17 He explains further that, for Calvin, the Holy
Spirit works upon the “minds and consciences” of men and women as
they read Scripture.18 With respect to knowledge and reason, the use
of the scriptural text demands noetic tools for using language such as
vocabulary, syntax, and other related knowledge.19 Calvin states that
this enlightening from the Holy Spirit is “a way superior to human
Judgment.”20 Yet, Calvin immediately explains that this means:
“we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for
us to estimate.”21 This subjection or submission is intrinsic to faith.
15. Paul Helm, Calvin at the Centre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 68.
16. Van Den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology, 313.
17. Paul Helm references Calvin’s comments on anthropology in Institutes
1.15.6 in “Calvin and Philosophy,” in Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s
Legacy for Today, ed. Mark D. Thompson (Nottingham, U.K.: Apollos/InterVarsity
Press, 2009), 70 –71.
18. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 248.
Théo Preiss calls this the “secret testimony” of the Spirit.22 Andrew
McGowan cites Calvin on this matter and explains it this way: the
Holy Spirit “enables us to understand the meaning of the Scriptures,
through the enlightening of our minds.”23 Faith, understanding, and
reason are inseparable aspects of the work of the personal faculties as
he or she becomes subject to God, who speaks through the Scriptures.
Thus, the epistemic path is one of holistic personal evaluation that
submits to God and in this believing has a certainty about what God
is saying through the Scriptures. In sum, the epistemic circle moves
through and involves the whole faculty of the person.
The subjectivity of the testimonium continues to be a source of
debate. For example, Brucht Pranger claims that Calvin’s problem is
“not so much the relationship between a reading subject and the object
to be read as, rather the ‘objectivity’ of Scripture itself, that is, itself
self-revelatory and self-referential nature.”24 Pranger argues that the
“price Calvin pays for this infallibility, for this seamless and all-perva-
sive presence of the Word is its absence.”25 The claim that the Scripture
is absent from Calvin’s thought and from Calvinism in general is
strange indeed given the historical data. Pranger’s critical problem lies
in the assertion that “Word is exchanged for Spirit without any urge to
explain how one gets from one to the other, and how, if at all, the Word
survives being confirmed by the Spirit.”26 Here, Pranger misses the
role of faith, knowledge, and understanding in the personal interac-
tion with the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit. The “Word” survives
and is not merely a ghost that is absorbed into the Holy Spirit. Despite
its shortcomings, Pranger’s study is a helpful reminder that exclusive
attention to either the Scripture (as text) or the Holy Spirit (as experi-
ence) is a ditch that lies alongside the testimonium.
When it comes to foundational authoritative sources of epistemol-
ogy, circular argumentation cannot be avoided. Without considering
22. Théo Preiss, “The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit: The Doctrine of the
Holy Spirit and Scripture,” trans. Donald G. Miller, Interpretation 7 (1953): 261.
23. Andrew McGowan, “The Divine Spiration of Scripture,” Scottish Bulletin of
Evangelical Theology 21, 2 (2003): 216.
24. Burcht Pranger, “Calvin, Anselm and the Absent Bible,” in Christian
Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt, eds. A. A. MacDonald, et al. Studies in
Medieval and Reformation Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 458.
25. Pranger, “Calvin, Anselm and the Absent Bible,” 462.
26. Pranger, “Calvin, Anselm and the Absent Bible,” 461.
objective matters or indicia, we can see that the circularity of Calvin’s

logic is quite broad in scope. This contradicts Paul Helm’s view that
there is only “one step” needed in Calvin’s view of ascertaining the
authority of God in the Scriptures.27 Helm is correct to stress the self-
authenticating epistemology wherein God witnesses to God, but this
action involves means that defy simplification.28 This “step” must be
carefully articulated, and Calvin’s thought is careful to avoid a process
in which external evidences or indicia become elevated to the level of
Scripture itself.29 Because of the supernatural presence of the person
of Holy Spirit, it is not even clear that this logic is circular. Perhaps
the image of a circle could be replaced with an image that is more
dialogical such as a three-dimensional spiral. Whatever the case, the
circularity of Calvin’s logic cannot be charged with being vicious.
Calvin’s testimonium and Exegesis

The force of Calvin’s argumentation and the very argument itself
begs the question: what exegetical evidence in the “Word” of Scrip-
ture itself supports this doctrine? But this question does not seem
to receive much attention. Older literature on the testimonium dem-
onstrates that the matter of scriptural support for this doctrine was
not always critically assessed. 30 Today, this can be confirmed by John
Hesselink’s comment (1997) that the two most common criticisms
of Calvin’s doctrine of the testimonium have to do with subjectivity
and circularity—not its lack of exegetical support.31 Perhaps this lack
of concern has more to do with narrow academic specialization that
isolates historical theology from biblical exegesis. Whatever the case
may be, there is little discussion about this matter. In this section, we
27. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 247, also 252. Perhaps the problem with Helm’s
statement about a “one step” process is the metaphor: it is difficult to picture steps
with steps. I am supportive of using the metaphor of a large circle that encompasses
several movements as opposed to a small circle with one movement.
29. Van Den Belt states that, within Reformed orthodoxy, the autopistia of Scrip-
ture “became more and more independent because it was no longer intimately related
to the testimonium of the Spirit.” The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology, 312.
30. For examples, see Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacra-
ment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 102; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 185 – 86.
31. I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, Columbia Series
in Reformed Theology (Louisville, Ky.: WJKP, 1997), 179–80.
will focus on the biblical evidence that Calvin uses to marshal his
arguments for the testimonium.
The problem of Calvin’s testimonium can be framed, albeit anach-
ronistically, in terms of systematic theology versus biblical theology.
For the sake of simplicity, I generally follow John Feinberg’s defini-
tions where systematic theology is a step away from divine revelation
and consists of propositions that are descriptive and intentionally
prescriptive. 32 On the other hand, exegetical theology is an attempt
to describe the primary text. Both tasks involve what Feinberg calls
“human conceptual enterprise” or the use of human intellect. 33 But we
must qualify this by stating that exegetical theology is based directly
(as possible) on Scripture whereas systematic theology includes inten-
tional steps that synthesize exegetical theology. We do not want to
collapse exegesis into the text itself, and we want to recognize the
role of the intellect in all exegesis. This does not always work out
neatly, but these two categories are helpful and indeed necessary for
evaluating heresy and orthodoxy. These categories are also significant
because of the relative weight given to each one.
For our purposes, exegetical theology is binding and authoritative
because it simply reflects Scripture. It can carry the weight of the for-
mula, “Thus says the Lord!” On the other hand, systematic theology
is synthetic. Being synthetic, it may be used to support and integrate
with exegetical theology. However, synthetic theology cannot carry
the apologetic weight of being proclaimed in conjunction with the
formula, “Thus says the Lord!”
The theological category that the doctrine of Calvin’s testimonium
is placed in is debated. Both Cole and Sproul take the position that
Calvin’s testimonium is either inferentially related to, or alluded to in
Scripture.34 By using the two categories described above, both Cole
and Sproul view the testimonium as a systematic construct rather than
an exegetically defensible statement. Cole explains that the testimo-
nium is not “demanded by Scripture” even though it is “consistent
with Scripture.”35 But this is not possible, at least according to Cal-
vin’s doctrine. Because the testimonium relies upon the Spirit testifying
32. Cole, He Who Gives Life, xv.

33. Cole, He Who Gives Life, xv.
34. Cole, He Who Gives Life, 273; Sproul, Scripture Alone, 115.
35. Cole, He Who Gives Life, 273.
through the Scripture, it cannot be said that the Spirit testifies apart
from Scripture. John Leith points out that Calvin “vigorously refutes
any notion that the Christian ever receives a revelation by the Spirit
which is beyond or contradictory to the Bible.”36 Cole’s position is
that the testimonium is beyond the Bible in the sense that it is a system-
atic construction.
To argue that Scripture does not demand the testimonium is to
completely and utterly negate its validity. If the testimonium is not
demanded by Scripture, it does not stand at all. If the testimonium is
the product of human conceptual enterprise, how is it that we can be
sure it is the Holy Spirit who is testifying to us about the authority of
Scripture? The essence of the doctrine is a variation of the formula,
“Thus says the Lord.” Perhaps we might say it is “Thus says the Spirit”
or “Thus says the Spirit of the Lord.”
The whole question of exegetical support for the testimonium
rests on proving two points. First, Calvin must demonstrate that the
Scripture claims to speak for God or “write with divine authority.”37
Second, he must demonstrate that the Holy Spirit works experien-
tially inside people to provide them with certainty of the Scripture’s
authority. In other words, the Scripture must say that it is God’s
words and that God Himself will bear witness to them. Here I will
examine four passages that Calvin references in the seventh chapter
of the Institutes and draw some observations about his exegesis. There
are four biblical texts explicitly cited in this section (Eph. 2:20; Isa.
43:10; 54:13; 59:21). Calvin does not really exegete any passage; his
handling of them is more of an exposition than exegesis. He treats
them as clearly supporting his argumentation with little explanation.
The first biblical text is Ephesians 2:20 (“[The church is] built on
the foundation of the apostles and prophets”). This text is used in a
via negativa argument: the church cannot have possessed “certainty”
because the church appeared after the apostles and prophets. 38 This
is a defensive argument against the Roman Catholic doctrine that
established the church as the foundation for the authority of Scrip-
ture. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church argued that Scripture
36. Leith, John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, 63.

37. Richard A. Muller notes this argumentation was held by “Calvin and by the
later Protestant orthodox” in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Two: Holy
Scripture, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 50.
was authoritative because it gave it this authority, Calvin argued that

Ephesians 2:20 ruled this out. This is not merely about canonicity
because Calvin explicitly connects this issue to the question: “How
shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to
a decree of the Church?”39 The Roman Church, or any church, for
that matter, is not able to stand in judgment over the canonicity or
authority of Scripture. Calvin develops a more direct argument for
the testimonium now that he has preempted any objections based on
ecclesiastical authority. The Isaianic texts are more critical for Cal-
vin’s argument and they serve as the focal point for his logic.
Calvin demonstrates the first point: Scripture claims to speak for
God by referring to Isaiah 59:21. Calvin quotes the entire verse: “My
Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor
out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and
for ever.”40 Thus, Isaiah is claiming to write with the divine authority
of Yahweh. Calvin simply says of this passage: “Scripture [is] carrying
its own evidence along with it.”41 Calvin extrapolates Isaiah’s reference
to the “Spirit” of Yahweh working in Isaiah the prophet to all human
authors of Scripture. The words of the prophet were the words that
Holy Spirit gave (inspired) him to write. This is interpreted holistically
and applied theologically to all of Scripture: it fulfills the requirement
that the Scripture must explicitly state that it is from God.
Calvin demonstrates the second point: that Scripture identifies
the Holy Spirit as witnessing internally by referring to Isaiah 43:10
and 54:13. He quotes these passages, and he seems to rely upon their
clarity without detailed exegesis from original languages or lengthy
exposition. In Isaiah 43:10, Calvin points to God’s stated provision
of knowledge, belief, and understanding: “Ye are my witnesses, saith
the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and
believe me, and understand that I am he.”42 Next, by quoting Isaiah
54:13, Calvin argues, “the children of the renovated Church ‘shall be
taught of the Lord.’”43 This text is applied theologically and Chris-
tologically to the church so that all members of the church invisible

have the Spirit working internally to teach them about the Spirit’s
own words in Scripture.
Earlier, the problem of Calvin’s motivation was raised by Henk
Van Den Belt, who suggests that “Calvin’s main motive to emphasize
the self-convincing character of Scripture lies in his existential desire
for divine certainty.”44 This is a problem because in Calvin’s logic,
the testimonium only has authority if it is derived from Scripture. The
Scripture itself must be the main motive behind the doctrine if it is
to stand the test of logical coherence. Undoubtedly, there are many
motives at work in the mind of any writer; but it is highly speculative
to engage in a psychological analysis by attempting to go behind the
text. Even if Calvin himself were to have stated this as his main moti-
vation, I am not convinced that modern psychologists would accept
it. Van Den Belt’s speculation is a contemporary example of the tradi-
tion of reading Calvin in psychological and existential categories.45
It remains highly speculative and, given Calvin’s own writings, it is
not likely that he would accept it as his main motivation for articulat-
ing the doctrine of the testimonium. This is because it places himself,
rather than Scripture, as the main source for motivation. Van Den
Belt’s work is rigorous, and I believe that this may have been an over-
sight on his part. Nevertheless, the psychological analysis tradition is
strong enough to warrant some discussion.
If there is any difficulty with Calvin’s testimonium, it does not lie in
its logic or subjectivity but in his theological interpretation. Calvin’s
exegesis— or exposition, to be more accurate —makes three herme-
neutical moves that have not received much attention. This is not
surprising because they remain in the background and are not explic-
itly identified in the chapter on the testimonium. First, the move from
Israel to the church is based on the continuity within the covenant
of grace structure. The covenant of grace creates continuity between
Israel and the church as the people of God who have access to Yah-
weh. Second, the extrapolation from the Holy Spirit’s work in Isaiah
44. Van Den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology, 309.
45. Richard A. Muller is highly critical of psychological and existential interpre-
tations of Calvin in The Accommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological
Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 79–98, esp. 97. For another discussion of psycho-
logical analysis, see I. John Hesselink, “Reactions to Bouwsma’s Portrait of ‘John
Calvin,’” Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed.
Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 209–213.
as the author of Scripture to all authors of Scripture is complex. This

relationship assumes a fixed canon so that it is clear which Scriptures
are inspired by the Holy Spirit. In spite of lengthy discussion in this
commentary, it is surprising that Calvin does not refer to 2 Timothy
3:16 to support the theological position that all Scripture is inspired in
the same way as Isaiah. It is purely conjecture, but it may be that Cal-
vin was studying Isaiah at the same time he was writing this section of
the Institutes. Third, the testimonium is integrally related to the doctrine
of illumination. Grant Osborne explains that the testimonium relates
to one’s acceptance of the authority of Scripture whereas illumina-
tion relates to “understanding that Word.”46 Thus, God must provide
illumination in the person’s faculties to understand the very texts
that testify to its authority. In sum, the difficulty with the testimo-
nium is that there are several unstated assumptions at work in Calvin’s
theological interpretation of the book of Isaiah. These issues provide
potential areas for further scholarship and exploration.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Graham Cole succinctly summarizes the problem of
the testimonium when he states that it is not clear “how he [Calvin] jus-
tifies his move.”47 In this study, we see that Calvin justifies his move
through circular logic that is robust enough to cover the complexi-
ties of the personhood of the reader and the personhood of the Holy
Spirit. For Calvin, the testimonium is demanded by Scripture and is not
the product of a human conceptual enterprise.
46. Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Bib-

lical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 436.
47. Cole, He Who Gives Life, 273.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 109–141
A Synthesis and Critique of James Arminius’s

Declaration of Sentiments
John e. skidmore
q
Carl Bangs, a noted Arminius scholar, suggests that James Arminius

should rightly be regarded as one of the sixteenth-century Protes-
tant Reformers. He argues that Arminius’s teaching on salvation
falls within the bounds of sixteenth-century Protestant theology;
that Arminius’s view of “sin and grace are in general agreement with
the sola gratia— sola fide emphasis of the Reformers.”1 He argues that
Arminius’s view of depravity does not differ from the view expressed
by Calvin in his Institutes. Bangs states that it is Arminius’s view of
predestination that is his point of departure from strict Calvinism.
According to Bangs, Calvin’s view of predestination was not a uni-
versal teaching of the Reformed church, but was widely discounted
outside of Geneva, even in his own time. He concludes that Arminius
“articulates a position which he feels to be a valid Reformed theology
of grace in harmony with the earliest sentiments of the Reformed
churches in Switzerland and Holland, in harmony with the accepted
Dutch confessions, and only partly divergent from Calvin himself.”2
Bangs further argues that much of what theologians have his-
torically called Arminianism is foreign to the teachings of Arminius.
He admonishes those who call themselves Arminians to reconsider
the source of their own theology as something other than what the
Dutch theologian taught. He argues that many who call themselves
Arminians should engage in “theological reconstruction” if they
want to do justice to the man whose name they embrace as their
theological forebear.
1. Carl Bangs, Church History, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( June, 1961):155–70. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3161969.
2. Ibid.
This paper attempts to synthesize and critique Arminius’s

beliefs concerning predestination as they are expressed in his Decla
ration of Sentiments of 1608. This paper will be divided into three
parts. First, a brief biography of Arminius will place the theologian
in his historic context. The second part summarizes Arminius’s
presentation of the three schemes of predestination present in the
Reformed churches of the sixteenth century, followed by a sum-
mary of Arminius’s own understanding of the doctrine. The third
part presents and critiques Arminius’s objections to the prevailing
views and his defense of his own view.
A Short Biography of James Arminius

James Arminius was born near Utrecht in Holland, in the year 1560.
His father died when he was an infant, leaving his mother to care for
three children. A clergyman from Utrecht took it upon himself to
educate the young boy. Arminius resided with this clergyman until
the age of fifteen. As part of his studies, he was taught Latin and
Greek. Arminius was an exceptionally bright boy who excelled in
his studies. During this period of his life, he dedicated himself to the
service of God and had the reputation for being a pious young man.
In 1575, he entered the new University at Leyden, where he
studied for six years. Once again, he proved himself to be an excel-
lent student. Upon completion of his studies at Leyden, the city
government of Amsterdam agreed to fund Arminius’s graduate
studies in return for his promise to return to the city to become
one of its ministers. He went to Geneva to study under Theodore
Beza, the successor to John Calvin. From there, he proceeded to the
University of Basle, where he delivered lectures to undergraduate
students on various theological subjects. Upon completion of his
training at Basle, he received the degree of Doctor of Theology. He
returned to Geneva where he again undertook the study of theology
for a period of three years. In 1587, after a brief tour of Italy, Armin-
ius went to Amsterdam to become a pastor. After an examination
before the Amsterdam Classis, he was licensed to preach and began
his public ministry there.
In 1590, Arminius married the daughter of Laurence Jacobson
Real, a judge and senator of Amsterdam. His wife, Elizabeth, bore
him seven sons and two daughters. With the exception of two sons,
all the children died in their youth. As a pastor, Arminius enjoyed the
James Arminius’s Declaration of Sentiments 111
support of his congregation. In 1602, he was appointed to the theol-

ogy faculty of the University of Leyden. His career at the University
began with a cloud of suspicion regarding some aspects of his theol-
ogy, and the suspicions followed him through the remainder of his
life. It is not clear when Arminius reached his conclusions regarding
predestination. What is known is that suspicions about his theology
developed because of the answers many of his students were giving
at their ordination exams. After years of being attacked, Arminius
sought to vindicate himself from “false accusations” in his Declaration
of Sentiments, which was delivered to the States General of the Prov-
inces of the Netherlands in 1608. 3 Arminius states in the beginning
of his treatise that “the Predestination of God, that is, the Election
of men to salvation, and the Reprobation of them to destruction”
has occupied his attention for many years. The Declaration primar-
ily expresses his disagreement with the doctrine of predestination
as it was taught in most of the Reformed Churches of the Nether-
lands, especially the supralapsarian strain of it. In this treatise, he also
expresses his opinions on divine providence, free-will, grace, the per-
severance of the saints, assurance, perfection of believers, the deity of
Christ, justification, and his support for revisions to the Heidelberg
Catechism and Belgic Confession.
Schemes of Predestination
In his Declaration of Sentiments, Arminius presents three views of
predestination that were taught in the Netherlands churches and at
the University of Leyden in his day, all three of which he rejected.
The view which he is most concerned to refute places God’s abso-
lute decree to save and reprobate specific individuals prior to the Fall.
This view, which will come to be designated as supralapsarianism,
will be called the “primary” view to distinguish it from the other two
views, about which Arminius has much less to say. The two secondary
views, which are designated as infralapsarian or sublapsarian, are more
attractive to Arminius than the primary view, but he rejects them on
logical grounds. Arminius follows his analysis of the three Reformed
schemes of predestination with a presentation of his own view.
3. James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols (Vols. 1
& 2), and W. R. Bagnall (Vol. 3), 1:189; online edition, http://wesley.nnu.edu/armin-
ianism/arminius. [Hereafter, all pagination references refer to volume 1.]
Reformed Schemes of Predestination

Supralapsarian Predestination
Arminius first presents the supralapsarian view of predestination in
nine points.4 In the first of these nine points, Arminius characterizes
the supralapsarian position as follows:
God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated,
from among men, (whom he did not consider as being then
created, much less as being fallen,) certain individuals to ever-
lasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard
whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience,
but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory
of his justice and mercy; or, (as others assert,) to demonstrate
his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power.5
Arminius next states that those who advocate these nine points
consider them to be “the foundation of Christianity, salvation and of
its certainty.” According to Arminius, supralapsarians claimed that
on these points “is founded the sure and undoubted consolation of
all believers, which is capable of rendering their consciences tranquil;
and on them also depends the praise of the grace of God, so that if any
contradiction be offered to this doctrine, God is necessarily deprived
of the glory of his grace, and then the merit of salvation is attributed
to the free will of man and to his own powers and strength, which
ascription savors of Pelagianism.”6
In order to simplify the supralapsarian scheme, Arminius reduces
the doctrine to four principle points. The four points are as follows:
1. That God has absolutely and precisely decreed to save cer-
tain particular men by His mercy or grace, but to condemn
others by His justice: and to do all this without having any
regard in such decree to righteousness or sin, obedience
or disobedience, which could possibly exist on the part of
one class of men or of the other.
2. That, for the execution of the preceding decree, God de-
termined to create Adam, and all men in him, in an upright
4. Ibid., 190–93.
5. Ibid., 190.
6. Ibid., 193.
state of original righteousness; besides which He also or-

dained them to commit sin, that they might thus become
guilty of eternal condemnation and be deprived of original
righteousness.
3. That those persons whom God has thus positively willed
to save, He has decreed not only to salvation but also to
the means which pertain to it (that is, to conduct and bring
them to faith in Christ Jesus, and to perseverance in that
faith); and that He also in reality leads them to these re-
sults by a grace and power that are irresistible, so that it is
not possible for them to do otherwise than believe, perse-
vere in faith, and be saved.
4. That to those whom, by His absolute will, God has foreor-
dained to perdition, He has also decreed to deny that grace
which is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and does
not in reality confer it upon them; so that they are neither
placed in a possible condition nor in any capacity of believ-
ing or of being saved.7
Arminius wholeheartedly rejects the supralapsarian scheme of
predestination. He contends that “this doctrine of theirs contains
many things that are both false and impertinent, and at an utter dis-
agreement with each other.” Arminius finds so many faults with this
scheme that he claims he does not have enough time to address them
all. Therefore, he will limit his treatise to “those parts which are most
prominent and extensive.”8
Two Secondary Views

According to Arminius, some theologians within the Reformed
church described predestination as consisting of “God’s decree to
make a minority of mankind partakers of his grace and glory while
passing by the majority of mankind. From the latter God withheld
the supernatural grace by which they might be saved, leaving them to
be punished with eternal death. In these acts of saving and passing-
by, God demonstrates his own liberty and justice.”9 Those who hold
7. Ibid., 193–94.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., 217.
this position distinguish between “predestination” and “reprobation.”

Predestination, in this scheme, is only positive, referring to God’s
election unto salvation. Reprobation refers to God’s passing-by of
sinners, leaving them in their misery.
This scheme posits eight distinct steps with regard to the ends of
salvation or damnation. First is the prescience of God, by which He
foreknew those whom He had predestinated. Second is the divine
predetermination, by which He foreordained the salvation of those
persons whom He had foreknown. Third is the decree of predesti-
nation, which includes both election in eternity and preparation to
receive grace in this life and glory in the life to come. The fourth step
consists in executing this predestination by an efficacious call to faith
in Christ (from which justification takes its origin) and the gift of
perseverance unto the end. Fifth, the scheme of reprobation consists
of two acts, those of preterition and pre-damnation. These acts are
antecedent to anything within the person; that is, it has no regard for
any actual sin. Sixth, two means are fore-ordained for the execution
of the act of preterition: abandoning man to a state of nature, which
by itself is incapable of everything supernatural; and non-commu-
nication of supernatural grace, by which their nature (if in a state
of integrity) might be strengthened, and (if in a state of corruption)
might be restored. Seventh, predamnation is antecedent to all things,
yet it does by no means exist without a foreknowledge of the causes
of damnation. It views man as a sinner, obnoxious to damnation in
Adam, and on this account perishing through the necessity of divine
justice. Eighth, the means ordained for the execution of this pre-
damnation are just desertion and hardening.10
A second view of predestination that had some adherents in the
Reformed church in Arminius’s day was somewhat different from
the first view. Arminius summarizes this view as follows:
Because God willed within himself from all eternity to make
a decree by which he might elect certain men and reprobate
the rest, he viewed and considered the human race not only as
created but likewise as fallen or corrupt, and on that account
obnoxious to cursing and malediction. Out of this lapsed and
accursed state God determined to liberate certain individuals
and freely to save them by his grace, for a declaration of his
10. Ibid., 218.

mercy; but he resolved in his own just judgment to leave the

rest under the curse [or malediction] for a declaration of his
justice. In both these cases God acts without the least consid-
eration of repentance and faith in those whom he elects, or of
impenitence and unbelief in those whom he reprobates.11
Arminius states that this view “places the fall of man, not as a
means fore-ordained for the execution of the preceding decree of
Predestination, but as something that might furnish a fixed purpose
or occasion for making this decree of Predestination.”12 This rela-
tionship of predestination to the fall distinguishes the two secondary
views from the primary view.
Arminius states that the two secondary schemes of predestina-
tion are similar in that “neither of them lays down the creation or
the fall as a mediate cause, fore-ordained by God, for the execution
of the preceding decree of Predestination.” Although similar in this
way, the two minority positions are not identical. The first scheme
places election and preterition before the Fall. The second scheme
does not allow any part of election and reprobation to commence
until man has fallen. Arminius is critical of the two secondary opin-
ions because, given the other tenets of their scheme, it is impossible
to view the Fall of Adam in any other way than as a necessary means
for the execution of the decree of predestination. Arminius argues
that “the inventors” of the two schemes are united by a common
desire to avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which, he
believes, is the fundamental error of the primary view.13
Arminius finds two reasons why the first scheme fails to exon-
erate God from the charge of being the author of sin. First, by the
decree of reprobation, God determined to “deny to man that grace
which was necessary for the confirmation and strengthening of his
nature, that it might not be corrupted by sin.” For Arminius, this
denial is tantamount to God making it necessary for man to sin.
The second reason is that, according to the decree of reprobation,
all those and only those whom God bypassed are damned. Armin-
ius concludes from this that “sin must necessarily follow from the
decree of reprobation or preterition,” and thereby makes the Fall of
11. Ibid., 219.

12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., 220.
man a means of carrying out the decree of God.14 Arminius finds

this scheme inconsistent with itself and therefore should be rejected.
The second scheme, according to Arminius, is better than
the first at avoiding the conclusion that God is the author of sin
except that it retains certain explanatory expressions from which the
necessity of the Fall might be deduced. One of these explanatory
expressions is the “Divine permission” of sin. Arminius argues that
the way this permission is defined does not remove the necessity
of man’s sin. Some advocates of this type of predestination explain
that the glory of God is exhibited in “the demonstration of mercy
and of punitive justice.” Arminius argues that “such a demonstra-
tion could not have been made, unless sin, and misery through sin,
had entered into the world, to form at least some degree of misery
for the least sin.” Thus, according to their definition of God’s glory,
sin is a necessity. Creation itself is made subservient to the decree of
predestination and therefore cannot precede it, as the latter scheme
asserts. This scheme, according to Arminius, also fails the test of
internal consistency.15
Arminius’s Scheme of Predestination

After presenting the three views of predestination that were held
by theologians within the Reformed Church in his day, Arminius
expresses his own sentiments on predestination in twenty points. In
his first four points, Arminius posits four “absolute decrees” of God.
In the remaining sixteen points, he states why his scheme of predes-
tination is to be preferred.
According to Arminius, the first decree consists in appointing
Jesus Christ to be a mediator between Himself and sinful men.16 Sec-
ond, God decreed to save those penitents and believers who persevere
to the end. God also decreed to damn impenitent and unbelieving
persons. Third, God decreed to administer the means necessary for
repentance and faith. Fourth, God decreed “to save and damn cer-
tain particular persons.” According to Arminius, this fourth decree
is based on the foreknowledge of God, “by which he knew from all
14. Ibid., 220–21.

15. Ibid., 222.
16. Ibid.
eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace,

believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere.”17
Arminius’s Arguments Regarding Predestination

In his twenty-point critique of supralapsarian predestination, Armin-
ius provides three types of arguments to refute the supralapsarian
view and to support his own view: theological, practical, and his-
torical. First, he argues that the supralapsarian view is contrary to
numerous points of Christian theology as it is revealed in Scrip-
ture. Second, he argues that the supralapsarian doctrine cannot be
experienced or applied and actually leads to complacency on the
part of both ministers and congregants. Third, he argues that the
doctrine has not been accepted in the church historically, including
the Protestant churches. In contrast, he argues that his view is con-
sistent with Christian theology, can practically be applied and is a
spur to godliness, and is consistent with the historic teaching of the
church—including the Reformed confessions.
Theological Arguments
Arminius presents numerous theological points against the supra-
lapsarian position and in favor of his own. The points he considers
are: the nature of creation, the foundation of Christianity, the nature
of God, the nature of man, the nature of eternal life and punish-
ment, the nature of sin, the nature of divine grace, the honor of Jesus
Christ, the earnest pursuit of salvation, the gospel ministry, and the
foundation of true religion.
The Nature of Creation

Although not his first point, the foundation of Arminius’s arguments
regarding predestination is creation. He writes, “[Creation] is to be
viewed as that act of God, which necessarily precedes and is antece
dent to all other acts that he can possibly either decree or undertake.
Unless God had formed a previous conception of the work of cre-
ation, he could not have decreed actually to undertake any other
act; and until he had executed the work of creation, he could by no
means have completed any other operation.”18
17. Ibid., 223.

18. Ibid., 203.
Arminius defines creation as “a perfect act of God, by which he

has manifested his wisdom, goodness and omnipotence.” Arminius
argues that supralapsarian predestination is “diametrically opposed
to the Act of Creation.” A previously determined reprobation is not
a communication of good, but rather “a preparation for the greatest
evil”; it is “an act of hatred” on God’s part.19 Arminius asserts that his
definition “is in complete concert with the act of creation.” He claims
that his view affirms that the creation “had its origin in the goodness
of God.” All of God’s works of providence over His creation are moti-
vated by love for His creation and are consistent with God’s nature.20
Arminius’s chronological relationship of the creation before the
decree is fundamentally flawed. In John’s vision of the beast, he sees
those who follow the beast as being those whose names have not
been written in the Lamb’s book of life. Those who do not follow
the beast are those whose names were written in the book “before
the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). The Apostle Paul speaks
of God’s election to holiness, righteousness, and adoption as being
made “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4–5). These pas-
sages teach that God’s decree of election precedes God’s creative acts.
Elsewhere, Paul states that this plan of God to make known the mys-
tery of His will is in accordance with His “eternal purpose” (Eph.
3:11). Contrary to Arminius’s assertions, these passages affirm that
God’s predestination to salvation took place prior to the creation.
The Foundation of Christianity

Arminius rejects the claim by the supralapsarians that their view of
predestination is the foundation of true Christianity, of salvation, and
its certainty. He argues that the foundation of Christianity is “that
decree of God by which Christ is appointed by God to be the Savior,
the Head, and the Foundation of those who will be made heirs of
salvation.”21 Arminius deduces that supralapsarian predestination “is
not that doctrine by which, through faith, we as lively stones are built
up into Christ, the only corner stone, and are inserted into him as
the members of the body are joined to their head.”22
19. Ibid., 202.

20. Ibid., 224.
21. Ibid., 194.
22. Ibid.
Arminius summarizes the gospel as consisting of “an injunction

to repent and believe” and “a promise to bestow forgiveness of sins,
the grace of the Spirit, and life eternal.” He argues that the supra-
lapsarian doctrine of predestination “contains within it no part of
the gospel,” for the doctrine of predestination belongs to neither the
injunction to repent nor to the promise of eternal life. The doctrine
is surrounded by mysteries, known only to God, about who is cho-
sen and by what means he will be brought to faith. For these reasons,
Arminius concludes “that this doctrine of Predestination is not nec-
essary to salvation, either as an object of knowledge, belief, hope, or
performance.”23 He asserts that it is his position on predestination
that is the foundation of Christianity and salvation and is the “sum
and substance of the Gospel, laid down in the Scriptures, and univer-
sally accepted in the churches.”24
Arminius denies that predestination has anything to do with this
building up of the saints into a spiritual house, yet Peter informs his
readers that they are “a chosen generation,” called by God for the pur-
pose of showing “forth the praises of him who hath called you out
of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). This is a clear
reference to the choosing of Israel to be God’s own people. Israel
was not a special people because of their obedience but because God
chose them. As the psalmist affirms, “Blessed is the nation whose
God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own
inheritance” (Ps. 33:12).
In the Apostle Paul’s elaboration on predestination in his let-
ter to the Ephesians, he states that predestination includes adoption
as God’s children “according to the good pleasure of his will” and
that the riches of God’s grace are poured out generously “in all
wisdom and prudence” (Eph. 1:5–10). Furthermore, Paul refers to
all the blessings of redemption as an unfolding of the mystery of
God’s will, which he calls a “plan” to unite all things in Christ. In
Christ, believers obtain an inheritance because they have been called
out beforehand according to the purpose of God. Paul continues by
affirming that God works all things according to the counsel of His
will. Paul affirms that it is God’s singular will and pleasure that pre-
determines who will be called to salvation—those who will be the
23. Ibid., 195.

24. Ibid., 223.
beneficiaries of His grace and multi-faceted blessings. While not the

totality of the gospel, predestination is part of God’s eternal plan,
which is the foundation of Christianity and salvation.
The Nature of God

In another point, Arminius contends that the supralapsarian doctrine
“is repugnant to the Nature of God, but particularly to those Attributes
of his nature by which he performs and manages all things—his wis-
dom, justice, and goodness.”25 First, Arminius argues that the doctrine
teaches that God created something to be damned eternally in order to
magnify His justice. He argues that the damnation of a creature is not
a good end; therefore, it is contrary to God’s justice. Second, he argues
that the object of supralapsarian predestination is to demonstrate the
glory of God’s mercy and justice. Arminius asserts that, in the suprala-
psarian scheme, God’s glory is demonstrated “by an act that is contrary
at once to his mercy and his justice.” This act is that “decree of God in
which he determined that man should sin and be rendered miserable.”26
Third, Arminius argues that the doctrine inverts the order of the wis-
dom of God revealed in 1 Corinthians 1:21.27 Arminius believes this
passage leaves no room for a predetermined salvation.28
Second, Arminius argues that the doctrine “is repugnant to the
justice of God, not only in reference to that attribute denoting in God
a love of righteousness and a hatred of iniquity, but also in reference to
its being a perpetual and constant desire in him to render to every one
that which is his due.”29 He argues that the doctrine is inconsistent
with justice because it affirms that God has absolutely willed to save
certain individual men, and has decreed their salvation “without hav-
ing the least regard to righteousness or obedience.”30 Arminius infers
from this teaching that “God loves such men far more than his own
justice.”31 Arminius argues that the doctrine is also opposed to justice,
25. Ibid., 200.

26. Ibid.
27. The ESV translates this text as follows: “For since, in the wisdom of God,
the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of
what we preach to save those who believe.”
28. Arminius, Works, 200.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
because it teaches that God wishes to subject His creature to misery

without the creature committing any sin. The doctrine teaches that
“God has willed to give to the creature not only something which
does not belong to it, but which is connected with its greatest injury.”32
Arminius also argues that the doctrine is repugnant to the good-
ness of God. He defines goodness as “an affection [or disposition] in
God to communicate his own good so far as his justice considers and
admits to be fitting and proper.”33 He argues that the supralapsarian
doctrine teaches that “God, of himself, and induced to it by noth-
ing external, wills the greatest evil to his creatures; and that from all
eternity he has pre-ordained that evil for them, or pre-determined
to impart it to them, even before he resolved to bestow upon them
any portion of good.”34 Arminius finds this teaching inconsistent
with the goodness that Christ commands His followers to imitate.
In this point, Arminius is primarily expressing his opposition to the
doctrine of reprobation, which, he believes, is a violation of God’s
wisdom, justice, and goodness.
While his reaction to the doctrine is a natural reaction, it is not
one that is informed by Scripture. Paul addresses the issues of election
and reprobation extensively in the ninth chapter of Romans, where
he makes the case for Gentile adoption into the spiritual family of
Abraham. He argues that physical descent from Abraham does not
make one a child of God, for Abraham had more than one son, yet
only Isaac’s descendants were chosen. One becomes a child of God,
not by physical descent, but by God’s promise (vv. 6–8). Paul states
that the declaration of the promise was to choose Isaac in one gen-
eration and Jacob in the next (vv. 9–13). In the latter case, Paul states
that Jacob was called and Esau rejected while still in their mother’s
womb. He emphasizes that this choosing was before either had done
anything good or bad. He quotes the prophet Malachi, who revealed
God’s sentiments regarding the twins: “I loved Jacob, and I hated
Esau” (Mal. 1:2–3). Paul argues that their being chosen or rejected
prior to being born is so that “the purpose of God according to elec-
tion might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” Arminius’s
claim that the doctrine is opposed to the justice of God because it
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
teaches that God has decreed to save some without regard for their
righteousness or obedience is inconsistent with Paul’s teaching. By
this argument, Arminius betrays his bent toward salvation by works.
The Bible affirms that God considered righteousness and obedience
when He elected some for salvation. However, the righteousness and
obedience that are the bases of God’s election are Christ’s, not the sin-
ner’s. God’s children are “chosen in Him.” God did not suspend His
justice in order to save some; rather, the full force of His justice was
poured out on Jesus Christ so that some would be saved (1 Pet. 2:4).
In condemning the doctrine of predestination because it violates
God’s goodness, justice, and wisdom, Arminius is actually declar-
ing God to be unjust. The Apostle Paul anticipates this objection
to his teaching about God’s purpose in choosing one and rejecting
another (Rom. 9:14–24). He first asks the rhetorical question, “Is
God unjust?” He answers in the negative and then explains that it
is God’s prerogative to have mercy on whomever He wills and to
harden whomever He wills. He anticipates the next logical argu-
ment: “if God chooses, then how can anyone be found guilty, for
they are only doing what they were made to do?” The Apostle does
not provide a logical answer because the answer to this question takes
us beyond human understanding. He answers simply by affirming
that it is God’s prerogative to make one vessel for honorable use and
another for dishonorable use. In this passage, the Greek word timhn,
which is translated “honor,” expresses the worth or value of an
object. The word translated “dishonor” (atimian) is variously trans-
lated as shame, disrespect, vile, corruption (in the sense of decay),
and reproach. In the Septuagint, atimian is used in the prophets
to describe God’s punishment for sin. In 2 Timothy 2:20, Paul uses
both terms to describe the various vessels in a house; some are for
honorable uses and others for dishonorable uses. This example illus-
trates God’s purpose in creating both kinds of vessels—the potter
decides beforehand the type of vessel he is creating. Arminius’s defi-
nition of predestination, based on foreknowledge, is not consistent
with this illustration of predestination provided by the Apostle Paul.
The Nature of Man

Arminius argues that the supralapsarian doctrine is contrary to the
nature of man “in regard to his having been created after the Divine
image in the knowledge of God and in righteousness, in regard to his

having been created with freedom of will, and in regard to his having
been created with a disposition and aptitude for the enjoyment of life
eternal.”35 Arminius argues that, if man be deprived of any of these
qualifications, admonitions to obey are ineffective. Arminius believes
that the doctrine of predestination teaches that “God did undoubt-
edly create man after his own image, in righteousness and true
holiness; but, notwithstanding this, he fore-ordained and decreed,
that man should become impure and unrighteous, that is, should be
made conformable to the image of Satan.”36
Arminius argues that another way in which the doctrine of
supralapsarian predestination is contrary to the created nature of man
is that it is “inconsistent with the freedom of the will, in which and
with which man was created by God.”37 Predestination “prevents the
exercise of this liberty, by binding or determining the will absolutely
to one object, that is, to do this thing precisely, or to do that.”38 He
concludes that predestination does violence to man even before he
was created. He writes:
For, since by this Predestination it has been pre-determined,
that the greater part of mankind shall not be made partakers of
salvation, but shall fall into everlasting condemnation, and since
this predetermination took place even before the decree had
passed for creating man, such persons are deprived of some-
thing, for the desire of which they have been endowed by God
with a natural inclination. This great privation they suffer, not
in consequence of any preceding sin or demerit of their own,
but simply and solely through this sort of Predestination.39
The Scriptures affirm the unqualified sovereignty of God but
also affirm the responsibility of man for his own choices. This cre-
ates a tension in the human mind that cannot be resolved but must
be accepted by everyone who holds to the authority of Scripture.
One example of this tension is found in the circumstances of Joseph
who was mistreated by his brothers, by Pharaoh’s wife, and by other
35. Ibid., 201.

36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
servants in Pharaoh’s house. Joseph’s brothers acknowledge their

guilt in betraying their brother.40 Joseph also acknowledges their
guilt, yet saw in their actions the hand of God. A second example of
this tension is found in the hardening of Pharaoah’s heart during the
episode of the ten plagues.41 The Scripture expresses that, in some
cases, Pharaoh’s heart “was hardened” and in other cases that God
hardened his heart. The sovereignty of God over Pharaoh’s actions is
affirmed when God reveals that He raised Pharaoh to power in order
to show the world His own power.
God’s authority over all human kings is affirmed when he
inspires the proverb, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the L ord,
as the rivers of water: he turneth it withsoever he will” (Prov. 21:1).
This is affirmed by the prophet Ezra who reveals that Cyrus issued
his edict to send the Israelites back to Jerusalem because the Lord
stirred up his heart to do what had been prophesied by Jeremiah.
The prophet Isaiah reveals that it was God who roused the Assyr-
ians to plunder her neighbors in an act of judgment upon them, yet
Assyria has a plan and a purpose to do evil, for which she will be
judged by God (Isa. 10:5–7).
Perhaps the best example of this tension is found in the crucifix-
ion of Christ. In his sermon to the multitude after healing the lame
beggar, Peter states, “But those things, which God before had showed
by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so
fulfilled” (Acts 3:18). After Peter and John were arrested for preach-
ing and released from prison, the apostles gathered together to pray
for boldness to preach the gospel. In their prayer they acknowledge
that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the peoples of Israel
were gathered together “to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel
determined before to be done” (Acts 4:27–28). The Scriptures affirm
that the death of Christ was planned “before the foundation of the
world” (Rev. 13:8).
These examples affirm that God accomplishes His predetermined
plans and purposes through the actions of individuals whom He holds
responsible for the actions. As Louis Berkhof notes, God Himself does
not always effectuate by His own direct action what He has decreed.
40. Genesis 42:21; 45:4–5; 50:20.

41. Exodus 7–13; esp. 9:16.
To decree is not to act.42 Arminius rejects the tension that Scripture

creates between the decree and the action that fulfills the decree.
The Nature of Eternal Life and Eternal Punishment

Arminius continues his attack on the supralapsarian doctrine, insist-
ing that it is hostile to the nature of eternal life as described in the
Scriptures. He argues that eternal life is called “the inheritance of the
sons of God” and only those who believe in the name of Jesus Christ
are the sons of God.43 Arminius argues that eternal life is described
as “the recompense of those who fight the good fight and who run
well, as “a crown of righteousness,” “the reward of obedience,” and “a
labor of love.”44 Arminius concludes from these passages that “God
therefore has not, from his own absolute decree, without any consid-
eration or regard whatever to faith and obedience, appointed to any
man, or determined to appoint to him, life eternal.”45 For Arminius,
faith alone does not save; faith plus obedience saves.
Arminius argues that “this predestination is also opposed to the
Nature of Eternal Death, and to those appellations by which it is
described in Scripture.”46 Eternal death is called “the wages of sin”;
“the punishment of everlasting destruction, which shall be recom-
pensed to them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ.”47 It is also described as “the everlasting
fire prepared for the devil and his angels” and “a fire which shall
devour the enemies and adversaries of God.”48 From these passages,
Arminius concludes that “God, therefore, has not, by any absolute
decree without respect to sin and disobedience, prepared eternal
death for any person.”49 Arminius asserts that his definition agrees
with the scriptural presentations of eternal life and eternal death. He
argues that his definition makes sin to be real disobedience and the
meritorious cause of condemnation. Furthermore, he argues that his
position “harmonizes with the nature of grace” by “reconciling it
42. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 105.

43. Titus 3:7; John 1:12.
44. Matthew 5:12; Hebrews 6:10; Revelation 2:10; 2 Timothy 4:7, 8.
46. Ibid.
47. Romans 6:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9.
48. Matthew 25:41; Hebrews 10:27.
most completely to the righteousness of God and to the nature and

liberty of the human will.”50
The Bible affirms that every man will be judged on the last day
and receive either eternal life or eternal punishment. It is not the fact
that there is eternal reward and punishment that separates the Calvin-
ist from Arminius; the difference lies in the basis for the reward and
punishment. Arminius arranges the passages of Scripture that address
eternal life or death in a manner that supports his contention that every
man receives a reward of life or death based on his own works, with-
out any reference to the decree of God. He deduces from John 1:12
that a man’s faith earns him the right to be a child of God and receive
an eternal inheritance. He fails to present that John 1:13 teaches that
children of God are born of God, not of human will. He also fails to
present fully the teaching of Titus 3:7, which speaks of Christians as
God’s heirs because they have been “justified by his grace.” The con-
text of the passage does not teach that God rewards those who do good
as Arminius asserts. The Apostle Paul emphasizes that “not by works
of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he
saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Arminius also fails to consider Paul’s words to the
believers that at one time they were dead, but God made them alive
(Eph. 2:4 –9). They have been saved by grace through faith, not as a
result of works. Paul adds that God saves in this manner so that no one
may boast. Eternal life is not a reward for those who do good but a gift
from God. Clearly, Arminius is an advocate of works righteousness
and betrays one of the key emphases of the Reformers.
Arminius’s emphasis that eternal punishment is the reward for
evil-doers is correct; the Bible affirms that hell is deserved and is
the reward of unrighteousness. However, Arminius deduces from
passages like Matthew 25:41 that eternal punishment was not pre-
determined by God but is the result of evil deeds. In this passage,
Christ is pictured sitting on His throne on the last day, separating
the sheep from the goats. To the sheep He says, “Come...inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”
(v. 34). Jesus states that the kingdom has been prepared specifically
for this group of people. Moreover, it has been prepared for this
group “before the foundation of the world.” They are specifically
50. Ibid, 225.

known before anything was created. On the other hand, the eternal
fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels, is the destiny
of the goats. By implication, this place was also prepared for them
before the foundation of the world.
The Nature of Sin

Arminius argues that supralapsarian predestination “is inconsistent
with the Nature and Properties of Sin.”51 First, he argues, sin is called
“disobedience” and “rebellion,” neither of which can possibly apply
to any person who sins of necessity because of a preceding divine
decree. Second, Arminius argues, sin is the meritorious cause of
damnation. God reprobates according to justice and wills reproba-
tion in response to sin. Arminius concludes that, because sin is the
cause of reprobation, it cannot be the means by which God executes
the decree or will of reprobation.52
According to Arminius, predestination makes God to be the
author of sin. First, the declaration that “God has absolutely decreed
to demonstrate his glory by punitive justice and mercy, in the salva-
tion of some men, and in the damnation of others” requires that sin
had already entered into the world prior to the decree. Second, in
order to obtain this objective, God had to insure the fall of man.
Third, in order to insure that man would fall, God had to with-
draw His sustaining grace prior to the first sin. Fourth, the doctrine
ascribes to God actions that make sin a necessity. This implies that
God’s primary and chief intention is to plunge man into sin, irrespec-
tive of man’s own inclination, will, or action. Arminius concludes
from these arguments that supralapsarianism teaches that “it is God
who sins and who, indeed, is the only sinner.”53 Arminius argues
that God’s justice and mercy are magnified by his conception of pre-
destination because God is declared to be the cause of all good and
salvation and man is the cause of sin and his own damnation.54
Arminius argues that predestination makes God the author of sin.
By making God’s decree to judge a response to man’s sin, Arminius
thinks he avoids that charge. As Loraine Boettner has observed, the
51. Ibid., 204.

52. Ibid.
53. Ibid., 205–206.
54. Ibid., 225.
existence of sin in the world is not something that can be explained

logically or rationally. This problem is not unique to the Calvinist; it
exists for all theists.55 Arminius also argues that God’s decree binds
someone to sin “irrespective of his own inclination, will, or action.”
Arminius errs in equating a decree with an action. Passages already
considered show that God decrees an end but man carries out what
he devises in his own mind. God permits sin in order to accomplish
His purposes; sin is completely under His control. Boettner explains
that this was the teaching of the Reformers who accepted the Bible’s
teaching regarding God’s sovereignty. He writes:
The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance
into the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was
involved in the divine plan; that the explanation of its existence,
so far as any explanation could be given, was to be found in the
fact that sin was completely under the control of God; and that
it would be overruled for a higher manifestation of his glory.
We may rest assured that God would never have permitted sin
to have entered at all unless, through his secret and over-ruling
providence, he was able to exert a directing influence on the
minds of wicked men so that good is made to result from their
intended evil. He works not only all the good and holy affec-
tions which are found in the hearts of his people, but he also
perfectly controls all the depraved and impious affections of
the wicked, and turns them as he pleases, so that they have a
desire to accomplish that which he has planned to accomplish
by their means.56
Since the crucifixion of Christ was foreknown “before the
foundation of the world,” and God purposed eternally to save “in
Christ” through the blood of the eternal covenant, it is clear that
God decreed to allow man to fall into sin even before He created
him.57 Sin is part of God’s plan for the world, yet its existence in the
world is man’s responsibility.
55. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, N.J.:

Presbyterian and Reformed, 1932), 228.
56. Ibid., 230.
57. 1 Peter 1:20; Ephesians 3:11; Hebrews 13:20.
The Nature of Divine Grace

Arminius argues that the doctrine of supralapsarian predestination
is repugnant to the nature of divine grace and is destructive to it.
First, he argues that predestination takes away free will. According
to Arminius, grace gives man’s nature a right direction and corrects
its depravity, allowing man to “possess his own proper notions.”58
Second, the Scriptures describe grace as something which can be
resisted, in contrast to the irresistibility taught by proponents of
supralapsarianism.59 Third, grace is intended for the good of those
to whom it is offered and by whom it is received. Supralapsarianism,
on the other hand, offers grace to reprobates only for the purpose of
plunging them deeper into the abyss of hell.60
Arminius places the emphasis for salvation upon man’s free
will. He advocates his position in spite of the fact that the Scriptures
emphasize that salvation is a free gift of God. Arminius states that
grace allows man to “possess his own proper notions.” He ignores
passages such as Acts 16:14, where it is said that the Lord opened
Lydia’s heart “that she attended unto the things which were spoken
of Paul.” Lydia’s belief was dependent upon a work of God within
her. The emphasis of the Bible is that sinners are “renewed” by the
Holy Spirit; they are new creatures.61 They do not re-create them-
selves but are made new by the Holy Spirit.
The Honor of Jesus Christ

Arminius argues that his concept of predestination honors Jesus
Christ as “the foundation of predestination” and “the meritorious
as well as communicative cause of salvation.”62 In contrast, he con-
cludes, the supralapsarian doctrine “is highly dishonorable to Jesus
Christ our Savior.”63 Arminius quotes an unnamed supralapsarian as
teaching “that God has absolutely willed the salvation of certain men,
by the first and supreme decree which he passed, and on which all his

59. Ibid., 205. Arminius cites Acts 7:51; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Hebrews 12:15; Mat-
thew 23:37; and Luke 7:30 to support his position.
61. Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:17.
63. Ibid., 205.
other decrees depend and are consequent.”64 Arminius declares that

Christ is not made the foundation of election in this scheme because
men were predestined to be saved prior to Christ being predestined
to save them. He also argues that it denies that Christ is the meritori-
ous cause of the preordained salvation and relegates Him to be the
mere minister and instrument that applies salvation to us. Indeed, he
argues that, if God absolutely decreed the salvation of some, then it is
impossible for them to have lost salvation in the first place.65
The eternal covenant to save sinners was made between the per-
sons of the Trinity before the creation of man. It is inconceivable
how Arminius can argue that the priority of a decree made by the
Trinity can dishonor Christ. When salvation was pre-ordained, it
was pre-ordained with Christ’s sacrifice as the basis.
Practical Arguments
In addition to his numerous theological arguments, Arminius also
includes practical arguments in his attack on predestination. He
argues that the supralapsarian doctrine cannot be experienced or
applied and actually leads to complacency on the part of ministers
and sinners. He argues that his view of predestination leads to the
earnest pursuit of God and holiness.
The Earnest Pursuit of Salvation

Arminius argues that the supralapsarian doctrine is “hurtful to the
salvation of men.” The doctrine is hurtful because “it prevents that
saving and godly sorrow for sins that have been committed, which
cannot exist in those who have no consciousness of sin.”66 Arminius
argues that a man who has sinned “through the unavoidable necessity
of the decree of God, cannot possibly have this kind of consciousness
of sin.”67 A second reason that the doctrine undermines salvation is
“because it removes all pious solicitude about being converted from sin
unto God.”68 A third reason that the doctrine undermines salvation is
“because it restrains, in persons that are converted, all zeal and studious
64. Ibid., 206.

65. Ibid., 207.
66. Ibid., 206.
67. Ibid., 207. Arminius finds evidence for this statement in 2 Corinthians 7:10.
68. Ibid. Arminius finds evidence for this statement in Revelation 2:3; 3:2.
regard for good works.”69 Arminius also argues that the doctrine of
predestination undermines prayer because it makes prayer only an
instrument of worship.70 A fifth reason that the doctrine undermines
salvation is that it takes away the “fear and trembling with which we
are commanded to work out our own salvation.”71 A sixth reason that
the doctrine undermines salvation, is that it produces within men a
twofold despair. First, it produces despair because they are unable to
perform the duties God requires, and thus, they cease striving. Sec-
ond, it produces despair because they cannot obtain that which they
earnestly seek. When a person is taught that “God has determined
not to confer salvation on them but damnation,” he despairs of pur-
suing righteousness and salvation.72
Arminius argues that his scheme of predestination promotes
the salvation of men. It promotes salvation “by exciting and creating
within the mind of man sorrow on account of sin, a solicitude about
his conversion, faith in Jesus Christ, a studious desire to perform
good works, and zeal in prayer—and by causing men to work out
their salvation with fear and trembling.”73 He argues that it also pre-
vents despair from overtaking a Christian because it teaches that God
rewards those who seek Him.
Arminius characterizes the supralapsarian position as rendering
man entirely impassionate in the salvation process. The Scripture
teaches that man is dead in sin and incapable of understanding spiri-
tual truth.74 Without the prior working of the Holy Spirit, a person
cannot comprehend the gravity of his sin and his spiritual state.
When the Holy Spirit renews a sinner, he has a new heart and a new
mind for seeking God. His renewed state is the impetus for holy
living. When confronted with his inability to follow God perfectly,
the renewed person is forced to rest on Christ alone, not on his own
righteousness. In this argument, Arminius has shown himself to be
akin with the Galatians, who believed that they were being perfected
by works of the flesh (Gal. 3:1–3).
69. Ibid. See Titus 3:14.

70. Ibid., 208.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid., 209.
73. Ibid., 225.
74. Ephesians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 2:14.
The Gospel Ministry

Another practical argument Arminius employs is that supralapsar-
ian predestination “inverts the order of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”75
Arminius argues that supralapsarian predestination maintains that it
is God’s absolute will to save particular individuals; God willed to
give these certain individuals repentance and faith, and He does so
“by means of an irresistible force, because it was his will and pleasure
to save them.”76 On the other hand, Arminius argues that, in the
gospel, God pronounces eternal death on the impenitent and unbe-
lieving. These threats are intended to deter them from unbelief and
lead them to repentance.
The supralapsarian scheme teaches that God wills not to con-
fer on certain individual men that grace which is necessary for
conversion and faith because He has absolutely decreed their con-
demnation.77 Arminius argues that “this Predestination is in open
hostility to the ministry of the Gospel.” The doctrine is hostile to
the ministry because no man can be a minister and co-laborer with
God when God gives life to a dead man by an irresistible power.
Neither can the Word preached be the instrument of grace and
the Spirit. The second reason that the doctrine undermines the
ministry of the Word is because it makes the gospel ministry the
instrument of condemnation to the majority of those who hear it,
without any consideration of previous rebellion. Third, according to
this doctrine, when baptism is administered to reprobate children,
“it is a seal of nothing, and thus becomes entirely useless.” Fourth,
it hinders public prayers from being offered to God in faith when
there are many among them whom God is not only unwilling to
save but desires to damn. The doctrine thus discourages what the
Apostle commands to be done: that prayers and supplications be
made for all men. Arminius emphasizes that the reason for prayers
on behalf of all men is because God “will have all men to be saved,
and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 78 In the fifth place,
Arminius argues, the doctrine renders pastors and teachers “sloth-
ful and negligent in the exercise of their ministry” because their

76. Ibid., 209.
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid., 210; 1 Timothy 2:1–4.
diligence will not save the reprobate and neither will their sloth
condemn the elect.79
Arminius states that the proper order of gospel preaching is estab-
lished by his definition. First, that repentance and faith are required,
then the promise of forgiveness, the grace of the Spirit, and eter-
nal life. The ministry of the gospel is strengthened by his definition
because it motivates preaching, sacraments, and prayer. In contrast,
he asserts, predestination “completely subverts the foundation of reli-
gion in general, and of the Christian Religion in particular.”80 His
argument is that the New Testament teaching is summarized in
Hebrews 11:6, which reads, “for he that cometh to God must believe
that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
God loves His creation, but His love of justice is greater so that it is
His will and pleasure to bestow eternal life on those who seek Him
and not on those who do not seek Him.
Arminius maintains that men are brought to salvation through
the ministry of prayer, sacraments, and preaching. Men are capable of
responding to the means without first being irresistibly renewed by
the Holy Spirit. The Scripture teaches that man is saved through the
preaching of the Word and through prayer when his heart is opened by
the Holy Spirit to receive it. God has decreed to save sinners through
means, not usually without means. Supralapsarian predestinarians
believe in diligent study, persuasive preaching, and unceasing prayer
because these are the God-ordained means of bringing men to Christ.
The Foundation of True Religion

Arminius argues that the two-fold love of God (love of rightousness
and love of the creature), found in Hebrews 11:6, is the foundation of
all true religion. Arminius maintains that this text opposes the two
“fiery darts of Satan” that overturn true religion: security and despair.
According to Arminius, the Hebrews text does away with security, for,
if a man firmly believes “that God will bestow eternal life on those
alone who seek him, but that he will inflict on the rest death eternal,”
he cannot indulge himself in security. Likewise, if a person believes,
that “God is truly a rewarder of those who diligently seek him,” he
will not be in danger of falling into despair if he applies himself to
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid., 210.
the search. God’s love of justice is greater than His love for man; yet
God’s love for justice does not prevent Him from rewarding those who
diligently seek Him. According to Arminius, predestination denies this
twofold love of God and thereby undermines the foundation of true
religion.81 In this argument, Arminius first denies the doctrine of secu-
rity, then affirms it. After stating that security is one of the fiery darts
of Satan, Arminius affirms that “those persons, therefore, who seek
God, can by no means indulge in a single doubt concerning his readi-
ness to remunerate.”82 Here Arminius confuses the Reformed doctrine
of security with presumption. While properly opposed to a faith with-
out works, Arminius makes man’s efforts, rather than Christ’s, the
basis for security. The doctrine of security, properly taught, lifts the
redeemed sinner out of the pit of despair. While promoting assurance,
Calvin opposed false security; arguing that true faith is a persevering
faith that produces good works.83 Calvin refers to an assurance of sal-
vation that is unaccompanied by good works as a “stupid assurance.”84
Arminius also rejects the Reformed doctrine of predestination
because he perceives that it undermines the pursuit of holiness and
gospel preaching. Subsequent history has shown this argument to
be fallacious. Gospel preaching and the pursuit of holiness have
been hallmarks of the Reformed tradition. While that history is not
without lapses and imbalances, it is incorrect to say that the doctrine
produces laxity in the preaching or the behavior of the church.
Historical Arguments
Arminius intermingles three historical arguments with his theologi-
cal and practical arguments against the supralapsarian position and in
favor of his own position. He argues that the supralapsarian doctrine
was neither espoused by the early church, nor by the early Reform-
ers, nor by the Reformed creeds and catechisms.
The Early Church

Arminius argues that no church council in the first six centuries
after Christ ever “admitted, decreed, or approved” the supralapsarian
81. Ibid., 214–15.

82. Ibid.
83. John Calvin, Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, trans.
William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 10:12.
doctrine of predestination. Arminius argues that Augustine’s doc-

trine of predestination was not widely accepted in the councils that
dealt with the Pelagian error.85 Arminius further asserts that even
Augustine’s doctrine did not agree with the supralapsarian doctrine.86
Most of the theologians of the first six centuries probably
embraced a position similar to Arminius’s — that predestination is
based on divine foreknowledge. Then, as now, the idea of reproba-
tion was unpalatable to most people. The question for Augustine
and the Reformers was not “is it palatable?” but “is it what the Bible
teaches?” Augustine was a staunch advocate of predestination to
eternal life before creation and denied that man had the will to seek
God without divine intervention. On these points, he is united with
the supralapsarians. It is only regarding reprobation that Augustine
and the supralapsarians are not in agreement.87 It should be remem-
bered that Arminius dismissed the infralapsarian arguments on the
grounds of internal inconsistency. Using an argument that he con-
siders invalid to support his own position is disingenuous.
One of Arminius’s major assaults on the supralapsarian position
is its purported novelty in church history. A survey of all of church
history would be required to refute Arminius’s claim. While the
novelty of the doctrine is debatable, the tables could be turned on
Arminius at this point. His position regarding predestination is not
articulated clearly and fully by any church council. When Arminius’s
position is placed on a scale between those of Augustine and Pela-
gius, it is much closer to the latter than to the former. While no early
church council embraced supralapsarianism, it condemned a position
very close to Arminius’s own position.
The Reformed Confessions

Arminius makes the statement that he doubts whether the suprala-
psarian doctrine agrees with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg
Catechism.88 In contrast, he asserts that his definition “agrees most

86. Ibid., 197.
87. Augustine appears to base reprobation on divine foreknowledge; Nicene
and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, 170. See
also, Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 1:451.
88. Arminius, Works, 197–98.
excellently with the Dutch [i.e., Belgic] Confession and Catechism.”

Arminius provides several examples from the Belgic Confession and
Heidelberg Catechism in support of these bold assertions.
Arminius argues that the words “believers” and “unbelievers”
should be substituted for the expressions “those whom” and “oth-
ers” in the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession. Making these
substitutions, the article reads:
We believe that—all Adam’s descendants having thus fallen into
perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man—God showed
himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in with-
drawing and saving from this perdition [believers] whom he, in
his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in
Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any con-
sideration of their works. He is just in leaving [unbelievers] in
their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.
Arminius is correct in his assertion that the supralapsarian doc-
trine is not explicitly taught in the unaltered article, but neither is it
expressly denied. Supralapsarians do not deny that sinners plunged
themselves into ruin. By making the substitution, Arminius attempts
to make election dependent upon belief. Without the substitution,
the article does not teach what Arminius asserts. What Arminius fails
to consider is the implications of the clause “without any consider-
ation of their works.” As noted previously, Arminius argues that God
predestines to salvation those who diligently seek Him. If God chose
to save those who would diligently seek Him, then He is consider-
ing their works. Contrary to Arminius’s teaching, the Confession
explicitly denies that God considered man’s works when He chose
them for salvation.
Arminius argues that his view of predestination agrees with
Question 20 of the Heidelberg Catechism and the supralapsarian
doctrine does not.89 Arminius infers from the answer to this ques-
tion of the Catechism “that God has not absolutely Predestinated
any men to salvation; but that he has in his decree considered them
as believers.” Arminius fails to consider what the Catechism teaches
regarding faith. Answer 21 of the Catechism defines true faith as
89. Ibid., 198. Question 20 reads: “Are all men then, as they perished in Adam,
saved by Christ? Answer: No; only those who are ingrafted into him, and, receive
all his benefits, by a true faith.”
“an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel
in my heart.” The Catechism affirms that faith is the work of the
Holy Spirit, not something that resides in man naturally. Arminius
also fails to consider what Zacharias Ursinus, the author of the Cat-
echism, states with regard to Question 20. In his exposition of the
Catechism, Ursinus alludes to election and reprobation as the reason
why some believe and others do not when he writes, “But the reason
why all men do not believe, nor apply these benefits to themselves, is
a higher, and deeper question, one which does not properly belong to
this place; ‘God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom
he will, he hardeneth’ (Rom. 9:18). And he will so reveal his mercy,
that he will also exercise his justice.”90
Arminius also attacks the supralapsarian doctrine on the basis of
Question 54 of the Catechism.91 Arminius argues that the phrases
“election to eternal life” and “agreement in the faith” stand in mutual
juxtaposition so that “the latter is not rendered subordinate to the
former.” He argues that the supralapsarian doctrine requires the latter
to be subordinate to the former. In order to teach supralapsarianism,
he argues, the text should read “the Son of God calls and gathers to
himself, by his word and Spirit, a company chosen to eternal life, that
they may believe and agree together in the true faith.”92
In his exposition of Question 54, Ursinus explains that there are
three classes of men in the world: those who alienate themselves from
the church voluntarily, those who exist inside the church as unbeliev-
ers, and those within the church who are the elect of God. Ursinus
explains why these distinctions exist among mankind when he writes,
“What now is the cause of this difference? The efficient cause of this
difference is the election of God, who purposes to gather to himself
in this world a church. The Son of God is the mediate executor of
the will of the Father, whilst the Holy Ghost is the immediate execu-
tor. The word of God is the instrumental cause.”93 Ursinus clearly
90. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary of the Heidelberg Cathechism, trans. G. W.

Williard, 4th ed. (Cincinnati: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888), 34ff.
91. “Question 54. What believest thou concerning the ‘holy catholic church’ of
Christ? Answer: That the Son of God from the beginning to the end of the world,
gathers, defends, and preserves to himself by his Spirit and word, out of the whole
human race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith.”
93. Ursinus, Commentary, 292.
places God’s sovereign will, not man’s free will, in the forefront of
the discussion on the church. He follows the preceding comments
with a discussion on the eternal predestination of God. He considers
predestination to consist of election and reprobation.94 He defines the
two parts of predestination in this way:
The two parts of predestination are embraced in election and
reprobation. Election is the eternal and unchangeable decree of
God, by which he has graciously decreed to convert some to
Christ, to preserve them in faith, and repentance, and through
him to bestow upon them eternal life. Reprobation is the eter-
nal, and unchangeable purpose of God, whereby he has decreed
in his most just judgement to leave some in their sins, to punish
them with blindness, and to condemn them eternally, not being
made partakers of Christ, and his benefits.95
Ursinus declares that predestination, whether to election or

reprobation, is based solely on “the good pleasure of God” and is
unchangeable. This section of Ursinus’s commentary provides a
sound refutation of Arminius’s claims regarding predestination in
general and the Catechism’s teaching about it in particular. Armin-
ius also appeals to the fourteenth article of the Belgic Confession in
support of his contentions.96 From this statement of the Confession,
Arminius concludes that “man did not sin on account of any necessity
through a preceding decree of Predestination: which inference is dia-
metrically opposed to that doctrine of Predestination against which I
now contend.”97 Arminius focuses on the statement in the Confession
that explains man’s role in the Fall but fails to consider the sixteenth
article of the Confession, which addresses the eternal decree of God
in electing some to salvation while passing by the rest.98
94. Ibid., 293ff.

95. Ibid., 297.
96. The Confession reads: “Man knowingly and willingly subjected himself to
sin, and, consequently, to death and cursing, while he lent an ear to the deceiving
words and impostures of the devil.”
98. This article reads, “God shewed himself Merciful, by delivering from dam-
nation, and by saving, those persons whom, in his eternal and immutable counsel
and according to his gratuitous goodness, he chose in Christ Jesus our Lord, without
Article 16 of the Confession explicitly teaches the infralapsarian

position, but it does not exclude the supralapsarian position. The
Confession does not address, and thereby leaves open the possibil-
ity, of God’s eternal decree of reprobation. What the article clearly
teaches is that election to salvation proceeds from the eternal counsel
and goodness of God—a doctrine that Arminius emphatically rejects.
The Majority of Christians Reject Predestination

Arminius’s final point is that “this doctrine of Predestination has been
rejected both in former times and in our own days, by the greater
part of the professors of Christianity.”99 Arminius argues that his
scheme of predestination is the one that the majority of Christians
have approved. He argues that in his own day both the Lutheran
and Anabaptist churches, not to mention that of Rome, consider the
doctrine to be erroneous. Arminius argues that Luther and Melanc-
thon initially approved it but later deserted it. Arminius argues that
this doctrine of predestination is the source of endless controversy in
the Protestant churches and hinders the acceptance of the Reformed
faith more broadly. He writes:
There is likewise no point of doctrine which the Papists, Ana-
baptists, and Lutherans oppose with greater vehemence than
this, and through whose sides (sic) they create a worse opin-
ion of our Churches or procure for them a greater portion of
hatred, and thus bring into disrepute all the doctrines which
we profess. They likewise affirm “that of all the blasphemies
against God which the mind of man can conceive or his tongue
can express, there is none so foul as not to be deduced by fair
consequence from this opinion of our doctors.”100
Arminius’s assertion that Lutherans, Anabaptists, and even
Roman Catholics would be more willing to embrace the Reformed
faith were it not for the doctrine of predestination is naïve and
absurd. As Berkhof points out, Arminius’s view of predestination
has more affinity with the Lutheran view, which avoids discussion
any regard to their works. And he shewed himself just, in leaving others in that their
fall and perdition into which they had precipitated themselves.”
100. Ibid., 216.
of God’s decrees altogether.101 Lutherans had long rejected the hand

of brotherhood with the Reformed over consubstantiation; predes-
tination was not the major difference between the two groups. The
Anabaptists had separated from other Protestants over infant baptism
and a host of other doctrines. Roman Catholicism had branded the
Reformed as heretics over papal authority, sacraments, and justifica-
tion. Furthermore, Roman Catholicism had an Augustinian strain
within it prior to the Reformation, so predestination was not the pri-
mary reason Catholics rejected the Reformation.
Conclusion
In his theological arguments, Arminius asserts that the supralapsar-
ian position undermines other doctrines such as God’s love, His
goodness, His justice, and man’s free will. Arminius’s major problem
with Reformed predestination is that, in his mind, it makes God the
author of sin. His scheme of four decrees begins with God’s election
of Christ as mediator between God and sinful men. In this scheme,
God foresees that man would sin, yet continues to create man,
knowing that he would rebel and, of necessity, be damned for eter-
nity. Arminius’s scheme seems to leave God open to the charge of
recklessness. He is more willing to limit God’s freedom than man’s
freedom. He rejects what he cannot reconcile logically, even against
the testimony of Scripture.
Arminius is also guilty of inconsistency in his definition of pre-
destination. He argues that man only believes and perseveres because
of God’s assisting grace; to deny this would make him a Pelagian—
something he is very careful to avoid. To deny man the ability to
believe and persevere without assistance from God is to deny man the
freedom he so longs to preserve. Arminius dismisses the positions of
the sublapsarian Calvinists because he considered them inconsistent,
yet his position is inherently inconsistent.
It is clear in the Declaration of Sentiments that Arminius is not in
agreement with the mainstream Reformers’ sola gratia—sola fide teach-
ing. Salvation may be by grace, but it is not by grace alone in Arminius’s
scheme. Throughout the work, he emphasizes that it is unjust for
God not to consider works when determining a person’s eternal state.
101. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 100.
Nothing could be more inconsistent with the sola gratia—sola fide tradi-
tion of the Reformation. While properly recognizing the importance
of obedience, Arminius confuses the necessity of good works with
merit. All the Reformers denied that works were meritorious.
Another major departure from the spirit of the Reformation is
his denial of assurance to the believer. After attributing the doctrine
of assurance to Satan, he then states that a person who diligently
seeks God should not have any doubts about God’s willingness to
accept him. On this point, Arminius is grossly inconsistent.
Arminius addresses the Declaration of Sentiments to politicians, not
to theologians. Because his purpose is to exonerate himself before
politicians and preserve his position at the University of Leyden, it
is often short on exegesis of specific scriptural texts. He seeks revi-
sion of the Reformed standards so that the supralapsarian position
is explicitly excluded. It appears that Arminius’s intent is to divide
the Calvinists within the Dutch church in order to accomplish other
ends. Arminius’s commitment to Erastianism may also be a major
driving force behind this method.
The Declaration of Sentiments confirms Bang’s conclusion that
Arminius considered himself among the mainstream Reformers of
the sixteenth century. In fact, Arminius asserts that it is the supra-
lapsarians who have departed from the mainstream of Protestant
teaching. He attempts to use the Reformed catechisms and confes-
sions to refute supralapsarianism, while his position denies what
those documents clearly teach regarding free will, election, and grace.
In commending Arminius as a co-laborer in the mainstream of the
Reformation, Bangs shows himself to be in need of serious theologi-
cal reconstruction.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 142–159
John Bunyan: A Sectary or a Puritan or Both?

A Historical Exploration of His Religious Identity1
brian g. najapfour
q
Richard Greaves,1 a leading Bunyan scholar, proposed a thesis that

studies John Bunyan (1628 –1688) in the light of the sectarian tradi-
tion.2 This thesis, however, is not original with him. William York
Tindall, in his book John Bunyan: Mechanick Preacher (1934), had
already set Bunyan in a sectarian context.3 Twenty years later came
Roger Sharrock’s biography of Bunyan, which devotes a chapter to
Bunyan as a sectary.4 Then, in the late 1980s Christopher Hill’s vol-
ume appeared, A Turbulent, Seditious, and Factious People: John Bunyan
and his Church 1628–1688, which further places Bunyan in a radical
sectarian milieu.5 All these books have been supplanted by Greaves’s
biography of Bunyan, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dis-
sent (2002), which, from Greaves’s own mouth, is “the first to deal
with all of his [Bunyan’s] works in the context of his life and the
broader world of nonconformity.”6
1. This paper is a revised version of Chapter 1 of my “‘The Very Heart of Prayer’:

Reclaiming John Bunyan’s Spirituality” (Th.M. thesis, Puritan Reformed Theologi-
cal Seminary, 2009).
2. Richard L. Greaves, John Bunyan and English Nonconformity (London: Ham-
bledon Press, 1992), viii.
3. William York Tindall, John Bunyan: Mechanick Preacher (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1934; reprint, New York: Russell & Russell, 1964).
4. See Chapter 2 of Roger Sharrock, John Bunyan (London: Hutchinson’s Uni-
versity Library, 1954; reprint, London: Macmillan, 1968), 29–51.
5. Christopher Hill, A Turbulent, Seditious, and Factious People: John Bunyan and
his Church 1628–1688 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 19. Also published in the
U.S. as A Tinker and A Poor Man: John Bunyan and His Church, 1628–1988.
6. Richard Greaves, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford,
Cal.: Stanford University Press, 2002), viii.
John Bunyan: A Sectary or a Puritan 143
Usually scholars who situate Bunyan within a sectarian frame-

work question his identity as a Puritan, and consequently slight his
spiritual riches, a treasure found in other Puritans. This paper will
argue that Bunyan uniquely possessed the spirit of both sectarianism
and Puritanism.
Bunyan as a Sectary
Bunyan came from a conformist home; his parents both conformed
to the established Church of England. As a boy, he no doubt went
with them to their parish church to hear traditional sermons. It was
not until he joined the army as a teenager that he was first exposed
to sectarian preachers.7 “Among all the sectarian preachers there was
a strong feeling that their religion gave them a key to [be effectively
involved in] the great public events which were taking place. An
opportunity was being offered to establish the ideal Christian soci-
ety, but first Antichrist had to be fought.”8 At the time when Bunyan
was absorbing these sectarian ideas, he was not yet regenerated. Yet,
to some degree, his theological thinking was affected by them; very
probably his later millenarian beliefs were at least partially an out-
come of this impact.
Bunyan’s millenarian views already became obvious in his first
two writings: Some Gospel-Truths Opened (1656) and A Vindication of
Some Gospel Truths (1657). In this second discourse, Bunyan states:
Christ hath two severall times wherein Satan must be bound by
him, one is at the conversion of sinners, the other when he shall
come the second time, and personally appear, and reign, in the
world to come.9
That Bunyan believed in the imminent coming of Christ to
destroy the Devil and to “set up his glorious kingdom on earth was
not at all unusual in the 1650s. What was less usual,” says W. R.
Owens, “and indicates that Bunyan had been influenced by more
radical commentators, was his apparent belief at this time that Christ
7. Sharrock, John Bunyan, 11–13.

8. Ibid., 13.
9. John Bunyan, “A Vindication of Some Gospel Truths,” in The Miscellaneous
Works of John Bunyan, vol. 1, gen. ed. Roger Sharrock, ed. T. L. Underwood (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1976), 205.
would rule with the saints for the entire period of a thousand years.”10
Some of those who held this notion were the radical sectarian Fifth
Monarchists, “though,” as Owen states, “they were not unanimous
on this point.”11 Greaves associates Bunyan with these Fifth Mon-
archy Men, the radical millenarians. He claims that Bunyan’s early
millenarian views were influenced by them; thus, he “was at one time
an adherent of Fifth Monarchist ideology.”12 Although this may well
be true, it does not signify that Bunyan was a Fifth Monarchist; in
fact, Bunyan was against these radicals. The point here is that these
Fifth Monarchists influenced his early millenarianism.
Furthermore, unlike the more extreme millenarians, Bunyan did
not deem that the earthly millennial reign of Jesus would have to be
inaugurated by governmental force. That Bunyan was not in favor of
political insurrection is explicit in his reply to the interview about the
insurrection that had taken place in London in 1661:
That practice of theirs [insurrection by the more radical mille-
narians], I abhor, said I; yet it doth not follow, that because they
did so, therefore all others [sectaries as a whole which includes
Bunyan himself] will do so. I look upon it as my duty to behave
myself under the King’s government, both as becomes a man
and a christian; and if an occasion was offered me, I should will-
ingly manifest my loyalty to my Prince, both by word and deed.13
Some scholars have conjectured that Bunyan changed some
elements of his millenarian position in the latter part of his life.14
Other historians also link Bunyan to other radical groups such as the
10. W. R. Owens, “‘Antichrist must be Pulled Down’: Bunyan and the Mil-
lennium,” in John Bunyan and His England, eds. Anne Laurence, W. R. Owens, and
Stuart Sim (London: The Hambledon Press, 1990), 80.
11. Ibid.
12. Greaves, John Bunyan and English Nonconformity, 141– 42, 148. See also Ow-
ens, “‘Antichrist must be Pulled Down’: Bunyan and the Millennium,” 80.
13. John Bunyan, “A Relation of the Imprisonment of Mr. John Bunyan,” in
Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, ed. Roger Sharrock (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1962), 120. For Bunyan’s moderate millenarianism see Greaves, John Bunyan and
English Nonconformity, 144– 46, 152–53.
14. I. M. Green, “Bunyan in Context: the Changing Face of Protestantism in
Seventeenth-Century England,” in Bunyan in England and Abroad, eds. M. van Os
and G. J. Schutte (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1990), 4, 7. W. R. Owens,
“‘Antichrist must be Pulled Down’: Bunyan and the Millennium,” 81. Greaves,
John Bunyan and English Nonconformity, 146–47. For a good discussion of Bunyan’s
Ranters and the Quakers, but in reality these two sects are Bunyan’s
favorite polemical targets in his writings.15
It is also noteworthy that among those sectarian preachers
whom Bunyan heard when he was in the military service was Henry
Denne, a General Baptist.16 The Baptists, as part of the sectarian
world, were “a kind of common denominator of radicalism.”17 They
were, in general, Bunyan’s close friends.18 That is why historians
find it easy to attach the title Baptist to Bunyan. But one needs to
be careful in categorizing Bunyan as a Baptist, especially because
in his time there were various types of Baptists: (1) the Strict and
Particular Baptists, Calvinists who performed closed communion;
(2) the Open and Particular Baptists, open communion Calvinists;
(3) the Seventh-day and Particular Baptists, Calvinists who observed
the Sabbath on Saturday; and (4) the General Baptists, who were
not Calvinists.19 Bunyan belonged to the second group. He was a
Calvinistic Baptist, who practiced open communion; and, while he
taught believers’ baptism, he also received members baptized as chil-
dren. Yet, as Harry L. Poe clarifies:
One might easily tag him as a Calvinistic Baptist, if one were
prepared to qualify all specificity from the designation by add-
ing the phrase “in many respects”.... If one classifies Bunyan
a Baptist, one should not think in terms of a fully developed
denominational orientation. Though he practiced believers’
baptism, he distanced himself from the developing organization
millenarian view, see chapter 8 of Crawford Gribben’s The Puritan Millennium: Liter-
ary & Theology, 1550–1682 (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2000), 172–93.
15. Hill’s biography of Bunyan especially deals with this issue. See Hill, A Tur-
bulent, Seditious, and Factious People: John Bunyan and his Church 1628–1688, 61–89.
See also T. L. Underwood, Introduction to The Miscellaneous Works of John Bunyan,
vol. 1, xv–xxxv.
16. Sharrock, John Bunyan, 23.
17. Barry Reay, “Radicalism and Religion in the English Revolution: an Intro-
duction,” in Radical Religion in the English Revolution, eds. J. F. McGregor and Barry
Reay (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 20.
18. Barrie R. White suggests that Bunyan’s closest friends were actually not the
Baptists, but the Independents; and that he in fact belonged among the Indepen-
dents. See Barrie R. White, “The Fellowship of Believers: Bunyan and Puritanism,”
in John Bunyan Conventicle and Parnassus: Tercentenary Essays, ed. N. H. Keeble (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 19.
19. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edin-
burgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 399.
of Calvinistic Independent churches practicing believers’ bap-

tism that came to be called the Particular Baptists.20
Bunyan’s view on the communion table put him into quite a few
debates with the closed communion Baptists.21 On Bunyan’s side,
three treatises were published as a consequence of these disputes: A
Confession of My Faith, and a Reason of My Practice (1672), Differences
in Judgment about Water-Baptism, No Bar to Communion (1673), and
Peaceable Principles and True (1674). In the first piece, Bunyan vents: “I
count them [i.e. baptism and Lord’s Supper] not the fundamentals of
our Christianity, nor grounds or rule to communion with Saints.”22
This shows his attitude toward the issue—that he would not make
baptism a condition for church communion.23
In his The Heavenly Footman (1698), published posthumously,
Bunyan urged his readers not to “have too much Company with
some Anabaptists,” though he goes “under that name” himself. (It
should be noted that those who exercised adult believers’ baptism in
Bunyan’s time were also known as Anabaptists, but they were not
at all related to the Anabaptists of the Reformation in Germany.24)
While Bunyan did not hesitate to take the name Anabaptist (or simply
Baptist) for himself, when he received his license to preach under the
Royal Declaration of Indulgence (1672) of Charles II, he identified
himself as “a congregationall person.”25 Then when his Baptist oppo-
nents asked him his real identity, his answer was this:
20. Harry L. Poe, “John Bunyan,” in Baptist Theologians, eds. Timothy George
and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), 40–41.
21. For a discussion of this debate, see Harry L. Poe, “John Bunyan’s Contro-
versy with the Baptists,” Baptist History and Heritage 23 (1988): 25–35.
22. John Bunyan, “A Confession of My Faith, and a Reason of My Practice,” in
The Miscellaneous Works of John Bunyan, vol. 4, 160.
23. White, “The Fellowship of Believers: Bunyan and Puritanism,” 17–18.
25. Cited in John Brown, John Bunyan (1628–1688) His Life, Times, and Work,
rev. Frank Mott Harrison (London: The Hulbert Publishing Company, 1928), 235.
Hill comments that the title ‘congregationall’ or ‘Congregationalist’ indicates “no
theological exclusiveness: in the church of Christ there were many congregations.
In the mid-eighteenth century the Bedford church still called itself ‘Independent.’”
Christopher Hill, “Bunyan’s Contemporary Reputation,” in John Bunyan and His
England, eds. Anne Laurence, W. R. Owens, and Stuart Sim (London: The Hamble-
don Press, 1990), 3.
Since you would know by what Name I would be distin-

guished from others; I tell you, I would be, and hope I am, a
Christian; and chuse, if God shall count me worthy, to be called
a Christian, a Believer or other such Name which is approved by
the Holy Ghost. And as for those Factious Titles of Anabap-
tists, Independents, Presbyterians, or the like, I conclude, that they
came neither from Jerusalem, nor Antioch, but rather from Hell
and Babylon; for they naturally tend to divisions, you may know
them by their Fruits.26
In this quote Bunyan dislikes denominational labels, thinking
that they are but factious. The result is that it is difficult to confirm
his actual religious affiliation. Thus, Greaves sensibly concludes that
it is “pointless to attempt to identify him as either a thorough-going
Baptist or a staunch Congregationalist in the light of his liberal views
on the subject of baptism and church membership.”27 Hill likewise
comments: “Bunyan was no conventicler: he belonged to the Church
of Christ. He therefore disliked sectarian labels. It is anachronistic to
attempt to decide whether he was a Baptist or a Congregationalist.”28
Even Joseph D. Ban in his article “Was John Bunyan a Baptist?”
arrived at the same conclusion.29 What is important to mention here
is the fact that Bunyan was part of the sectarian world. To borrow the
words of Dewey D. Wallace, Jr.:
[Bunyan] belonged to the world of the sectarians, not of the
more establishment and university Puritans, although he had
contacts with such leaders among them as John Owen. This
was a world in which Baptist, Quaker, Fifth Monarchist, and
Ranter rubbed shoulders. Bunyan’s specific loyalty was to a con-
gregation on the borderline between Independent and Baptist
(it practiced believers’ baptism but accepted members baptized
as infants; Bunyan himself preferred believers’ baptism but did
not want to make it a badge of fellowship...he did not regard
baptism as all that important). 30
26. John Bunyan, “Peaceable Principles and True,” in The Miscellaneous Works
of John Bunyan, vol. 4, 270.
27. Greaves, John Bunyan, 22.
28. Hill, “Bunyan’s Contemporary Reputation,” 3.
29. Joseph D. Ban, “Was John Bunyan A Baptist?: A Case-Study in Historiog-
raphy,” Baptist Quarterly 30 (1984): 374–75.
30. Dewey D. Wallace, Jr., “John Bunyan: Tercentenary Publications and A Crit-
Nevertheless, this undeniable truth that Bunyan belonged to the sectar-

ian world does not imply that Bunyan cannot be considered a Puritan.
Bunyan as a Puritan
The normal tendency among those who take Bunyan as a sectary is not
to regard him as a Puritan at all. Greaves, for example, contends that
Bunyan “was, first of all, a sectary and not a Puritan.”31 He goes on to
aver that the sectaries “carried the religious revolution one step beyond
Puritanism.”32 This claim can be grouped under three arguments.
Traditional understanding of the term “Puritan”

“Traditionally,” says Greaves, “Puritans had preferred the possibility
of reforming the existing state church rather than separating from it,
as did the sectaries”33 —though, after the Restoration in 1660, some
Puritans like Richard Baxter were compelled to detach themselves
from the established church. 34 “Bunyan...was distinctly a Separatist
in his ecclesiological thought, and manifested no desire to remain
within the Anglican Church for its ‘purification.’”35
Sectarian theology versus Puritan theology

To some extent, sectarian theology was dissimilar from Puritan the-
ology.36 Greaves explains:
The Puritans were adherents of the Calvinist tradition, though
occasionally defectors to Arminianism have been included
within their ranks. Theologically the sectaries were not of one
mind, but variously embraced Antinomianism, mysticism, and
some Arminianism as well as Calvinism. Bunyan himself,
although not without certain Antinomian tendencies, custom-
arily agreed with the Calvinists on the issues most basic to their
theological system.37
ical Edition of His Miscellaneous Writings,” Religious Studies Review, 19 (1993): 22.
32. Ibid., 15.
33. Ibid., 23.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
In mid-seventeenth-century England there were two types of

Calvinists: the strict and the moderate. Greaves asserts that Bunyan
“adhered essentially to those positions advocated by the strict Cal-
vinists, though on occasion he demonstrated certain Antinomian
leanings. Unlike most English writers of the seventeenth century,
however, he was definitely indebted to the writings of Martin Luther
for various emphases in his thought.”38 “Such emphases,” Greaves
adds, “tended to give his own thought something of a hybrid char-
acter, combining Lutheran and Calvinist concepts with certain ideas
drawn from Antinomianism and the Separatist tradition.”39
Sectarian epistemology versus Puritan epistemology

For Greaves, it is in this area that the sectaries greatly differed from
the Puritans:
A major point of distinction between Puritan and sectaries
concerned their epistemological views. The Puritans differed
from the sectaries by retaining rationalism as a significant ele-
ment in their religious epistemology. That rationalism was,
however, subordinated to faith and empiricism, though Puri-
tans were generally agreed that Spirit and reason were to be
juxtaposed. The sectaries, on the other hand, could be distin-
guished from the Puritans by their religious anti-rationalism
and anti-intellectualism.40
According to Greaves, this particular sectarian character can be
detected in Bunyan himself who did not have a good formal educa-
tion, and yet “gloried in his relative ignorance because he believed
it permitted the Spirit to work unhindered.”41 Bunyan “specifically
explained that the revelatory work of the Spirit through Scripture
was sufficient for all religious knowledge.”42
38. Ibid., 25. Galen K. Johnson believes that of all that influenced Bunyan’s
writings, “none was stronger than his Luthero-Puritan religious beliefs.” See Galen
K. Johnson, “‘Be Not Extream’: The Limits of Theory in Reading John Bunyan,”
Christianity and Literature 49 (2000): 460. I owe this reference to David B. Calhoun,
Grace Abounding: The Life, Books & Influence of John Bunyan (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Christian Focus, 2005), 199.
40. Ibid., 23–24.
41. Ibid., 24.
42. Ibid.
Was Bunyan then a Puritan, and if he was, in what sense? Greaves

may be correct in asserting that Bunyan was not a Puritan in the tra-
ditional sense of the word;43 but, as Geoffrey Nuttall clearly explains:
The name [Puritan] in its narrower sense may be contrasted
with the name Separatist. Both parties desired greater purity in
the worship and government of the Church, and in the lives
of the Church’s members; but while the Puritans had hopes
of further reform within the Church as at present established,
and therefore stayed, often in some discomfort, within its fold,
the Separatists, in despair of any early or sufficient reform
within the confines of the Established Church, felt driven to
form entirely new congregations on an independent, extra-
parochial basis....
In this contradistinguishing sense, Separatists were not
Puritans; but their taking the final step of Separatism left unde-
stroyed the greater part of those ideas and ideals which still,
as hitherto, they had in common with the more conservative
Puritans from among whom they came. In this wider sense
Puritanism must be held to include Separatism. Similarly, the
ministers who held livings within the Established Church dur-
ing the Interregnum were by that very fact not Separatists;
when in 1662 some of these were ejected from their livings,
they became Nonconformists, but remained Puritans no less
than before. Some of the Episcopalians within the Established
Church, all the Presbyterians and Independents in it before
43. There is one occasion in which Bunyan himself seems to have not consid-
ered himself a Puritan in the traditional sense of the word. In his A Holy Life, written
in 1683, Bunyan, appealing to Christians to remain holy even though the majority
of people in the world live a wicked life, encourages them to look back to the Puri-
tans and especially to the Marian martyrs: “holiness is a rare thing now in the world.
I told thee before that it is foretold by the word, that in the last dayes, perilous times
shall come, and that men shall walk after their own lusts.... The iniquity of the last
times will infect and pollute the godly. I mean the generality of them. Were but our
times duly compared with those that went before, we should see that which now we
are ignorant of. Did we but look back to the Puritans, but specially to those that but
a little before them, suffered for the word of God, in the Marian days, we should see
another life than is now among men, another manner of conversation, than now is
among professors.” John Bunyan, “A Holy Life,” in The Miscellaneous Works of John
Bunyan, 9:345. From Bunyan’s words it appears that he does not see himself as be-
longing to these Puritans, probably referring to those who sought to purify the state
church but did not separate from it (whom Greaves regards as Puritans).
1662, most of the Separatist and sectarian leaders outside it, and
the founders of Nonconformity after 1662, are thus all spiritu-
ally nearer to one another than is any of them to the Roman
Catholic Church or to the Laudian party within the Church
of England. They have their own internal differences, some of
them sharp...but in a large sense they have much in common...
and for this faith and experience which they share...there is no
other name than Puritan.44
Nuttall’s point is this: sectarians such as Bunyan who shared
much in common with the Puritans both in doctrine and in prac-
tice can also be placed under the Puritan umbrella. This umbrella
covers more than those whose intention was merely to reform the
established church without separating from it. After all, as Sharrock
says, “Puritanism is a way of life rather than a rigid system of ideas.”45
Thus, to let Erroll Hulse speak: “As a separatist, Bunyan does not
qualify as a Puritan in the technical sense. Yet in spiritual experience,
in doctrine, in preaching style, and in life, he is the perfect exemplar
of the Puritans.”46 Further, as Charles G. Harper expresses: “we have
no evidence at all that Bunyan was a Puritan of this political cast.
44. Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992), 9–10.
46. Erroll Hulse, “The Story of the Puritans,” Reformation and Revival 5 (1996):
43. Horton Davies asserts: “While there is a radical difference between the Puritans
and the Separatists, constituted by their relation to the State Church, there are also
close resemblances. The Puritans remained within the State Church in the hope of
reforming it from within. The Separatists, on the other hand, desired ‘Reformation
without tarrying for any.’” Davies further avers “that the term ‘Separatists’ cannot
be legitimately applied to the Independents, but that it is more properly reserved for
the Barrowists, Brownists and Anabaptists.” He adds: “both American and English
Independents regarded themselves as Puritans and not Separatists.” Assuming Da-
vies’s terminology here, the fact that Bunyan did not stay in the Church of England
and was called “Anabaptist” would make him a Separatist. Davies, however, later
calls Bunyan a Puritan. He explains this by saying that, broadly speaking, all those
who clamored for further, Bible-based reformation in England are known as Puri-
tans. Strictly speaking, however, “Puritan” refers to that ecclesiastical party which
pushed for reformation in the days of Elizabeth and James I. Nevertheless, the term
can also be used to cover people like John Robinson, a clear Separatist, who still
nonetheless believed the Church of England to be a true church. Horton Davies,
The Worship of the English Puritans, (1948; reprint, Morgan, Penn.: Soli Deo Gloria
Publications, 1997), 11, 77–80, 257.
[Yet] [a]s one thirsting for the pure milk of the Gospel, he was a
Puritan indeed.”47
Certainly, Bunyan possessed the spirit of Puritanism, which
J. I. Packer simply defines as “at heart a spiritual movement, pas-
sionately concerned with God and godliness.”48 In his An Anglican to
Remember: William Perkins: Puritan Popularizer, Packer further elabo-
rates this understanding of Puritanism: “The real Puritanism was
an evangelical holiness movement seeking to implement its vision of
spiritual renewal, national and personal, in the church, the state, and
the home; in education, evangelism, and economics; in individual
discipleship and devotion, in pastoral care and competence.”49
Looking into Bunyan’s life in light of this definition and consid-
ering it from spiritual, historical, social, political, and even literary
angles, one cannot but call Bunyan a Puritan.
We should remember that Bunyan, even before his conversion,
had been exposed to Puritanism. In his spiritual autobiography, he
tells a story about his first wife, a poor but pious woman, who gave
him a dowry of two books both written by Puritan authors: The
Plaine Man’s Path-way to Heaven, by Arthur Dent, and The Practice of
Piety, by Lewis Bayly:
In these two Books I should sometimes read with her, wherein
I also found some things that were somewhat pleasing to me
(but all this while I met with no conviction)....
47. Charles G. Harper, The Bunyan Country (Oxford: Fox, Jones & Co., 1928), 19.
48. James I. Packer, A Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1990), 28.
49. James I. Packer, An Anglican to Remember: William Perkins: Puritan Popularizer
(London: St Antholin’s Lectureship Charity lecture, 1996), 1–2. I follow Packer’s def-
inition of Puritanism in this paper. In a word, “Puritanism” refers to those who held
the Reformed doctrines of grace and sought to reform and purify the state church
and whose ultimate end in all of life was personal piety. It seems that this definition is
the one widely accepted among conservative evangelical scholars. For a brief discus-
sion of how other authors understand the term Puritan, see Joel R. Beeke and Randall
J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006),
xv–xix. See also Patrick Collinson, “A Comment: Concerning the Name Puritan,”
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 31 (1980): 483–88; Horton Davies, “The Nature of Eng-
lish Puritanism,” in The Worship of the English Puritans, 1–12; Richard Greaves, “The
Puritan-Nonconformist Tradition in England, 1560–1700: Historical Reflections,”
Albion 17 (1985): 449–86; Basil Hall, “Puritanism: The Problem of Definition,” in
Humanists and Protestants: 1500–1900 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), 237–54; and
Leonard Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism,” Church History 20 (1951): 37–57.
These books, with this relation, though they did not reach
my heart to awaken it about my sad and sinful state, yet they did
beget within me some desires to Religion; so that, because I knew
no better, I fell in very eagerly with the Religion of the times, to
wit, to go to Church twice a day, that too with the foremost, and
there should very devoutly both say and sing as others did.50
These volumes did not bring inward change to Bunyan, but based
on his own testimony they created within him “some desires to Reli-
gion.” These books also influenced “his writing and his theology.”51
His wife, whose father “was certainly a Puritan of the old-fashioned
type,” had a puritanical impact on him, too:52 “She also would be
often telling of me what a godly man her Father was, and how he
would reprove and correct Vice, both in his house, and amongst his
neighbours; what a strict and holy life he lived in his day, both in
word and deed.”53
So, in his early adult life, Bunyan was already living in a Puritan
atmosphere. His description of his conversion in Grace Abounding to the
Chief of Sinners was likewise “a classic Puritan conversion.”54 Sharrock,
commenting on Bunyan’s conversion, writes:
The process of religious conversion in an individual must
always remain mysterious, whatever the psychological terms in
which its outward progress may be interpreted....
A peculiar feature of his [Bunyan’s] experience [of conver-
sion] is the blending of the slow, chequered progress usual in
the classic Puritan case-histories with a vehement emotional-
ism in his moments of justification which is Lutheran rather
than Calvinist.55
50. John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, ed. Roger Sharrock
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 8.
51. Gordon Wakefield, Bunyan the Christian (London: Harper Collins Reli-
gious, 1992), 13.
53. Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, 8.
55. Ibid., 33–34. Greaves later feels that Bunyan’s description of his spiritual
struggles in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners was more than spiritual in nature.
He believes that Bunyan was suffering from depression, which was also known in
Bunyan’s time as melancholy. He concludes: “The evidence strongly suggests that
Bunyan suffered from recurrent, chronic dysthymia [‘sometimes referred to as re-
active, mild, neurotic, or psychogenic depression’] on which a major depressive epi-
Besides this Puritan conversion, Bunyan’s preaching was typi-

cally Puritan in manner. Even Barrie R. White, who sides with
Greaves, recognizes this: “Bunyan’s preaching was grounded firmly
in the Puritan tradition: his chief themes were sin and grace and they
were shaped by the Bible as understood by the English Calvinists.”56
Like other Puritans, Bunyan preached with simplicity, appealing to
the conscience of his hearers. As such, he was truly a spiritual son
of the father of Puritanism, William Perkins, who, in his The Arte of
Prophecying, summons preachers to apply the sermon “‘to the life and
manners of men in a simple and plaine speech.’”57 Bunyan was what
Sharrock has described as “[t]he Puritan [who] advocated and prac-
tised the plain style, in contrast to the humanistic or metaphysical
elegance of some high Anglican preachers; he took the simplicity of
the Gospel as his model and aimed to reach the hearts of simple
men.”58 Bunyan was also Christ-centered in his focus— a vital mark
of Puritan preaching. The Puritan preacher Richard Sibbes (1577–
1635) once said, “To preach is to open the mystery of Christ, to open
whatsoever is in Christ; to break open the box that the savour may
be perceived of all. To open Christ’s natures and Person what it is; to
open the offices of Christ....”59
Those who are familiar with Bunyan’s sermons will agree that
his messages were never without Christ. However, Puritan preaching
sode was imposed about late 1653 or early 1654. The onset of the illness would have
occurred about early 1651 and terminated, by Bunyan’s reckoning, in approximately
late 1657 or early 1658. There would be at least one further apparent recurrence,
triggered by anxiety about late 1663 or 1664 during his imprisonment. During his
illness in the 1650s, he suffered from pronounced dysphoria, marked feelings of
worthlessness, impaired rational ability at times, apparent insomnia, and dimin-
ished pleasure in normal activities. He thought periodically about death, even to the
point that he was ‘a terror to myself,’ yet he was afraid to die because of the judg-
ment he expected in the afterlife. In the absence of any comments about his diet, it
is impossible to know if he underwent any significant weight changes in these years.
Anxiety, a recognized symptom of depression in the standard diagnostic instru-
ments, was pronounced, and probably triggered that onset of dysthymia.” Greaves,
Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent, 57–58.
56. White, “The Fellowship of Believers: Bunyan and Puritanism,” v.
57. Cited in Wakefield, Bunyan the Christian, 37.
58. Sharrock, John Bunyan, 21–22.
59. Cited in Peter Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism (Haywards Heath, Sussex:
Carey Publication, 1975), 50–51.
does not stop with preaching Christ. There has to be application of

that message, as Sibbes again said:
But it is not sufficient to preach Christ to lay open all this in
the view of others; but in the opening of them, there must
be application of them to the use of God’s people, that they
may see their interest [share] in them; and there must be an
alluring of them, for to preach is to woo. The preachers are
“paranymphi,” the friends of the bridegroom, that are to pro-
cure the marriage between Christ and his Church; therefore,
they are not only to lay open the riches of the husband, Christ,
but likewise to entreat for a marriage, and to use all the gifts
and parts that God hath given them, to bring Christ and his
Church together.60
In short, Bunyan was a champion of the Puritan preaching style:
applicatory and experiential. It is well known that even the so-called
prince of the Puritans, John Owen, was impressed by Bunyan’s
extraordinary charisma to move men’s hearts. Owen is even quoted
as saying that he would be willing to give up all his learning just to
preach like him.61
Bunyan’s writings are also essentially puritanical in nature, as
G. B. Harrison says: “Bunyan remains, in his writings and in his life,
as the essence and epitome of English Puritanism.”62 His Christian
Behaviour (1663) “deals with the proper relation between father and
family, master and servant; its scheme of values is typical of other
conduct books by Puritan...divines, and it illustrates the conserva-
tism of Bunyan’s social views.”63 Furthermore, Bunyan’s strong stress
on personal piety in his works, as explicitly seen in his A Holy Life
(1684), surely certifies him as a Puritan. To quote Packer: “Bunyan’s
mature view of godliness, as set forth in the sixty books he wrote
60. Cited in ibid., 51.

61. George Offor, “Memoir of John Bunyan,” in John Bunyan, The Works of
John Bunyan, vol. 1, ed. George Offor (Glasgow: W. G. Blackie and Son, 1854; re-
print, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), lxx.
62. G. B. Harrison, John Bunyan: A Study in Personality (London: J. M. Dent &
Sons Ltd, 1928), 11.
63. Roger Sharrock, Introduction to John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of
Sinners, ed. Roger Sharrock (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), xxv.
during his thirty years of ministry (twelve of them in prison for non-
conformity), is Puritan in every way.”64
Besides, Bunyan’s piety is not only seen in his pen, but more so
in his person. His piety is well expressed in the preface to one of his
works: “That he was a man of real religion and uncommon godliness,
no man of sense can possibly doubt or deny. If true piety consists in
the knowledge, the love, and the resemblance of the blessed God, John
Bunyan was a man of piety.”65
Bunyan practiced what he penned and preached. Peter Lewis
mentions that Puritanism for him “was not merely a set of rules or a
larger creed, but a life-force: a vision and a compulsion which saw the
beauty of a holy life and moved toward it, marveling at the possibili-
ties and thrilling to the satisfaction of a God-centered life.”66 Robert
Alan Richey, commenting on Lewis’s words, remarks that this “life
force was vital to [the] Puritan; to remove it would cause Puritanism
to cease to exist.”67 In the same manner, since piety was essential to
Bunyan, to detach it from him would cause him to cease to exist.
Bunyan’s special application of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in
connection to piety further distinguishes him as a Puritan. Unlike the
Quakers of the sectarian world, Bunyan’s spirituality was harmoniously
anchored both in the Spirit and the Scriptures.68 Roland H. Bainton,
speaking of the difference between Puritanism and Quakerism, says
that the latter “emphasized a personal renewal through the power of
the Spirit, which might speak apart from the Scripture and prompt
men to eccentricities but primarily would work in them a drastic moral
64. James I. Packer, “Pilgrims’ Progress by John Bunyan (1628–1688),” in The

Devoted Life: An Introduction to the Puritan Classics, eds. Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C.
Gleason (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 186.
65. Preface to The Works of that Eminent Servant of Christ, John Bunyan, Minis-
ter of the Gospel, and Formerly Pastor of a Congregation at Bedford (Philadelphia: James
Locken, 1832), vi.
66. Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism, 12.
67. Robert Alan Richey, “The Puritan Doctrine of Sanctification: Construction
of the Saints’ Final and Complete Perseverance As Mirrored in Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s
Progress” (Th.D. diss., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1990), 28–29.
68. For instance, Bunyan, in the context of prayer, says: “indeed, the holy Ghost
doth not immediately quicken and stir up the heart of the Christian without, but by,
with, and through the Word, by bringing that to the heart, and by opening of that
whereby the man is provoked to go to the Lord, and to tell him, how it is with him;
and also to argue, and supplicate, according to the Word.” John Bunyan, “I will pray
with the Spirit,” in The Miscellaneous Works of John Bunyan, 2:243.
transformation.”69 Puritanism, on the other hand, stressed both the role

of the Spirit and the Scripture in Christian living. Indeed, Puritanism
partly developed from “the need for biblical, personal piety that stresses
the work of the Holy Spirit in the faith and life of the believer.”70
This “experiential pneumatology,” says Roy Walter Williams, is a
“unique contribution of the Puritans.”71 It was the Reformers who recov-
ered “an understanding and experience of the role of the Holy Spirit in
the church and in the individual,”72 but it was the Puritans who devel-
oped it. Williams further claims that “the economy of the Holy Spirit
in prayer was a central concept for both [the] Puritan doctrine of the
Christian life and the worship of the church.”73 Bunyan himself wrote a
treatise on this very subject—I will Pray with the Spirit—in which he also
expressed his forceful dislike of the common use of set forms in prayer,
because of his understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
The Puritans were actually divided on this issue: conservative
Puritans, like Richard Baxter (1615–1691), allowed the use of both
written and extemporaneous prayers, “whereas more liberal Puritans
(‘proto-Independents’) and Separatists favoured extempore prayer.”74
In comparison with the more liberal Puritans, “Bunyan was more
extreme, expressing a position on extempore prayer akin to that of such
sectarian contemporaries as John Saltmarsh and William Eebury.”75
Michael Haykin notes that “Bunyan’s treatise on prayer [I will Pray
with the Spirit] helped to secure what has become the traditional Baptist
attitude to written and read prayers: an attitude of extreme wariness.”76
69. Roland H. Bainton, Foreword to Hugh Barbour, The Quakers in Puritan

England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), vii.
70. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, xviii.
71. Roy Walter Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer” (Ph.D.
diss., University of London, 1982), 81.
72. Sinclair Ferguson, “John Owen and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” in
John Owen—the man and his theology, ed. Robert W. Oliver (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R
Publishing Company, 2002), 103.
73. Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer,” 94.
74. Richard Greaves, Introduction to John Bunyan, “I will pray with the Spirit”
in The Miscellaneous Works of John Bunyan, vol. 2, gen. ed. Roger Sharrock, ed. Rich-
ard L. Greaves (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), xlii.
75. Greaves, Introduction to John Bunyan, “I will pray with the Spirit,” xlii.
76. Michael A. G. Haykin, “The Holy Spirit and Prayer in John Bunyan,” Ref-
ormation & Revival 3 (1994): 91–92.
Insofar then as the use of set forms in prayer is concerned, Bun-

yan certainly does not reflect the description of a Puritan that the
Oxonian Puritan John Geree sketches in his minute work The Char-
acter of An Old English Puritane, or Non-conformist:
The Old English Puritane was such an one that honoured
God above all, and under God gave every one his due.... He
was much in praier; with it he began and closed the day. In it
he was exercised in his closet, family and publike assembly. He
esteemed that manner of praier best, where by the gift of God,
expressions were varied according to present wants and occa-
sions. Yet he did not account set forms unlawful. Therefore in
that circumstance of the Church he did not wholly reject the
liturgy but the corruption of it.77
Hence, Ellyn Sanna is right to say: “Bunyan had much in com-
mon with other Puritan thinkers, but he also had his own unique
qualities, and these are what help make his writing timeless.”78 Bun-
yan’s radical view of the Spirit’s work in prayer reveals his unique
character as what can be termed a sectarian Puritan. Bunyan as such
would not hesitate to oppose even the general opinion of his Puri-
tan comrades, when he felt it was unbiblical, because his allegiance
was only to the Bible, not to any religious groups, whether they be
sectarian or Puritan. In his preface to “Light for Them that Sit in
Darkness” (1675), he informs his readers: “I have not writ at a ven-
ture, nor borrowed my Doctrine from Libraries. I depend upon the
sayings of no man: I found it in the Scriptures of Truth, among the
true sayings of God.”79
Harold Speight, who has portrayed Bunyan in the light of
seventeenth-century Puritanism, pointedly observes: “The other
distinctive feature of...Bunyan is found in the claim that he was in
advance of most of his contemporaries in the Puritan movement
because (contrary to common opinion) he was broad-minded enough
77. John Geree, The Character of An Old English Puritane, or Non-conformist (Lon-
don: Printed by W. Wilson for Christopher Meredith at the Crane in Pauls Church-
yard, 1646), 1, 2.
78. Ellyn Sanna, Introduction to John Bunyan, The Riches of Bunyan, ed. Elly
Sanna (Ohio: Barbour Publishing, 1998), 15, 16.
79. John Bunyan, “Light for Them that Sit in Darkness,” in The Miscellaneous
Works of John Bunyan, vol. 8, 51.
to recognize that the Christian life need not, and indeed does not,
conform to a single pattern.”80
Conclusion
Bunyan was an independent thinker. He did not confine himself to
a single system of belief. Therefore, if we accept him as a Puritan,
we must also be ready to receive him as a sectary (and conversely),
because he was uniquely both a sectary and a Puritan in nature. He
was a sectarian Puritan.
80. Harold E. B. Speight, The Life and Writings of John Bunyan (New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1928), xxi.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 160–192
Jonathan Edwards’s Interpretation

of the Major Prophets: The Books of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
Jeongmo yoo
q
The Bible was at the heart of Jonathan Edwards’s life and thought.1
Thus, it is not surprising that almost everything he wrote is full of
the interpretation and exposition of Scripture.2 Edwards’s exegetical
activity is one of the most important sides of his life and work. How-
ever, modern Edwardsean scholarship has paid little attention to his
biblical interpretation.3 Stephen J. Stein wrote:
1. Stephen J. Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” in The Cambridge Companion

to Jonathan Edwards, ed. Stephen J. Stein (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2007), 181– 82. Sweeney therefore states that “Jonathan Edwards was a biblicist—
one whose world revolved around the words of Scripture.” Douglas A. Sweeney,
“Longing for More and More of it? The Strange Career of Jonathan Edwards’s Exe-
getical Exertions,” in Jonathan Edwards at 300: Essays on the Tercentenary of His Birth, ed.
Harry S. Stout, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Caleb J. D. Maskell (Lanham, Md.: Uni-
versity Press of America, 2005), 25. Glenn R. Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation
of Revelation 4:1–8:1 (New York: University Press of America, 2004), 2–3. Concern-
ing the importance of the Bible in the life and thought of Edwards, Vincent Tomas
states, “How can anyone who has perused Edwards’ works fail to mention Scripture
as one of the dominating intellectual influences in his life?” Vincent Tomas, “The
Modernity of Jonathan Edwards,” New England Quarterly 25 (1952): 71.
2. Douglas A. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758),” in Historical Handbook
of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1998), 309.
3. Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 182. Sweeney, “Longing for More and
More of it?,” 26. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, vol.
1 (Powhatan, Va.: Berea Publications; Orlando, Fla.: Ligonier Ministries, 1991), 140.
He states that “Jonathan Edwards’ life—intellectual and moral—centered around
the Bible. Although virtually every aspect of his life has been put under the aca-
demic microscope, this area has been barely noticed.... Dozens of dissertations deal
with one detail or another aspect of the great American Puritan but none on that
which concerned him the most.” Nevertheless, Gerstner ironically devoted only a
small portion of his work to the issue of Edwards’s use of the Bible.
Edwards’s Interpretation of Prophets 161
The sheer volume of his biblical writings, however, makes all sim-
ple characterizations suspect until more research has been done on
this aspect of his thought. Despite the quantity of his writings on
the Bible, there is an amazing paucity of serious scholarship deal-
ing with it. The contemporary renaissance of interest in Edwards
has hardly touched this dimension of his work.4
Certainly, much interest has been shown for theological and
philosophical aspects of Edwards’s life and thought.5 Consequently,
Edwards’s contribution to the history of exegesis has been a forgotten
aspect of history.6
In the present day, we encounter increasing discussions of the
importance of Edwards’s exegetical activity.7 Nevertheless, most
4. Stephen J. Stein, “Spirit and the Word: Jonathan Edwards and Scriptural
Exegesis,” in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, ed. Nathan O. Hatch
and Harry S. Stout (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 123. He also states
that “[i]t is an irony and something of an enigma that the Bible, one of the shaping
forces in the theological development of Jonathan Edwards (1703 –1758), has been
largely ignored in the assessments of this colonial divine.” Stephen J. Stein, “Jona-
than Edwards and the Rainbow: Biblical Exegesis and Poetic Imagination,” New
England Quarterly 47 (1974): 441.
5. Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it?,” 26. For excellent annotated
bibliographies of works by and about Jonathan Edwards, see M. X. Lesser, Jona-
than Edwards: An Annotated Bibliography in Three Parts, 1729–2000 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008). This work is the expansion of his previous two works, Jonathan
Edwards: An Annotated Bibliography, 1979–1993 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press,
1994) and Jonathan Edwards: A Reference Guide (Boston: G. K. Hall and Co., 1981).
See also Nancy Manspeaker, Jonathan Edwards: Bibliographic Synopses (New York:
Edwin Mellen Press, 1981); Roland A. Delattre, “Recent Scholarship on Jonathan
Edwards,” Religious Studies Review 24 (1998): 369–75; Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’
Interpretation..., 2–6.
6. Sweeney states that “Edwards scholars have often treated this fact as an embar-
rassing family secret, one that would damage our reputations if widely known. And
truth be told, this concern has not been completely misdirected, for many have little
use at all for the Edwards of history” (Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it?,”
26). He also writes that “Surely this neglect has something to do with the fact that
the pioneers of the twentieth-century Edwards renaissance tended to denigrate his
Biblicism in tragic, not to say historionic, terms.... Much as such scholarly gymnas-
tics distorted our view of Puritanism, so the frequent denigrations of and excuses for
Edwards’s biblicism have kept us from understanding his chief occupation” (30–31).
7. One finds a few studies dealing with Edwards’s view of the Bible and his
exegetical methodology. See John A. Ayabe, “A Search for Meaning: Principles of
Literal and Spiritual Exegesis in Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Notes on Scripture’” (MA the-
sis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001); Robert E Brown, Jonathan Edwards
scholars do not discuss in detail Edwards’s hermeneutical method-

ology in the interpretation of Scripture.8 Even if they explain the
method Edwards uses in the interpretation, modern scholars have
often focused on more general principles of Edwards’s exegesis with-
out providing the actual and thorough account of it,9 as found in his
works such as Notes on Scripture10 and The Blank Bible.11 Moreover,
most of the modern scholarship on Edwards’s exegesis fails to exam-
ine Edwards’s exegesis in the context of traditional and contemporary
and the Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002); “The Bible,” in The
Princeton Companion to Jonathan Edwards (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2005), 87–102; Conrad Cherry, “Symbols of Spiritual Truth: Jonathan Edwards as
Biblical Interpreter,” Interpretation 39 (1985): 263 –71; John H. Gerstner, “Jonathan
Edwards and the Bible,” Tenth 9.4 (1979): 2–71; Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpre-
tation...; Samuel T. Logan, “The Hermeneutics of Jonathan Edwards,” Westminster
Theological Journal 43 (1980): 79–96; Stephen J. Stein, “Quest for the Spiritual Sense:
The Biblical Hermeneutics of Jonathan Edwards,” Harvard Theological Review 70
(1977): 99–113; “‘Like Apples of Gold in Pictures of Silver’: The Portrait of Wis-
dom in Jonathan Edwards’ Commentary on the Book of Proverbs,” Church History
54 (1985): 324 –37; “The Spirit and the Word: Jonathan Edwards and Scriptural
Exegesis,” in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1988), 118 –30; Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete”; D. A. Sweeney,
“Jonathan Edwards (1703 –1758)”; Sweeney, “‘Longing for More and More of It?’
The Strange Career of Jonathan Edwards’s Exegetical Exertions,” 25 –37; Ralph G.
Turnbull, “Jonathan Edwards: Bible Interpreter,” Interpretation 6 (1952): 422–35. For
a recent overview of modern scholarship on Edwards’s view of the Bible and his
hermeneutical method, see Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’s Interpretation..., 3– 4.
8. The articles of R. Turnbull, J. Gerstner, and S. Logan particularly so.
9. This resulted in the simplistic classification of Edwards’s hermeneutics
and rigidly categorized him as a literalist or typologist. For example, see Gerstner,
“Rational Biblical Theology”; Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards”; and Stein, “Quest for
Scriptural Sense.” However, Kreider’s Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., and Ayabe’s
“A Search for Meaning” are exceptions to this case. Even though Stein deals with an
actual example of Edwards’s interpretation of the book of Proverbs in his “The Por-
trait of Wisdom,” he does not deal with the method Edwards used in interpreting it.
10. Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jona-
than Edwards, vol. 15 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). This is a four-book
manuscript collection of miscellaneous exegetical writings which consists of more
than five hundred numbered entries.
11. Jonathan Edwards, The Blank Bible, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jona-
than Edwards, vol. 24 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). The original title
of this work is “Miscellaneous Observations on the Holy Scripture.” It is composed
of 5,500 notes and entries by Edwards relating to biblical texts. Stein says that this is
“striking documentary evidence of Edwards’ life-long exegetical preoccupation” (19).
biblical interpretation.12 Consequently, these problematic approaches

of modern scholarship result in an inaccurate, distorted, and insuf-
ficient understanding of Edwards’s methodology in his exegesis and
exposition of Scripture.
Therefore, we encounter the following needs in order to obtain a
more accurate understanding of Edwards’s exegetical methods: (1) a
thorough analysis of Edwards’s exegesis through actual examples of
his exposition of the Bible, and (2) an understanding of Edwards’s bib-
lical interpretation in the broader context of the history of exegesis.
This study will deal with Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jere-
miah, and Ezekiel as an illustration of the way in which he approached
the Bible and particularly his interpretation of it. Edwards never
wrote a formal commentary on the Bible. Nevertheless, his two pri-
vate notebooks, Notes on Scripture and The Blank Bible, provide a series
of his interpretation of the whole of Scripture and a clear understand-
ing of his exegetical methodology.13 The Major Prophets are one of
the ideal places to examine his methodology in his interpretation of
Scripture because both notebooks extensively contain his exposition
of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.14
This study seeks to move beyond the problematic approaches of
previous scholarship, performing an actual account of Edwards’s inter-
pretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in his works and examining
it in the context of the history of exegesis and, particularly, that of the
12. Kreider’s work is the only extant study dealing with Edwards’s actual exe-
getical practices and hermeneutics beyond generalization in the broader context of
the history of exegesis.
13. Besides those two works, Edwards’s other works such as Notes on the Apoca-
lypse, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 5 (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1977), Typological Writings, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jona-
than Edwards, vol. 11 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), and his numerous
sermons clearly show his hermeneutical principles. Thus, Stein states that “col-
lectively a massive body of Edwards’s exegetical writings remains. His biblical
reflections—located in notebooks and commentaries, sermons and treatises—beg
for closer examination than they have received to date. Much research remains to be
done” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 193).
14. In addition to his private notebooks, Edwards’s interpretations of the
Major Prophets are scattered around other works such as “The Miscellanies.” He
did not, however, interpret all the particulars of these texts; his selective treatment
of themes and the interpretation of the texts are representative of his handling of
the Bible in those works.
seventeenth century.15 The aim is to reveal Edwards’s exegetical meth-

odology on the books of the Major Prophets. In doing so, one thing
will be demonstrated in detail: Edwards’s exegetical principles for the
interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel follow more closely the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century pre-critical model in continu-
ity with the patristic and the medieval exegetical traditions than the
characteristics of modern critical exegesis.16 In other words, Edwards
was a man of his time in his interpretation of a specific passage of
Scripture.17 In order to prove this statement, this study will show that,
in his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards’s hermeneutical
methodology is quite consistent with that of his pre-critical tradition.18
Jonathan Edwards and Pre-Critical Interpretation

Pre-critical Hermeneutical Presuppositions
In his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards generally
employs exegetical techniques which operate within the bounds of his
pre-critical hermeneutic presuppositions and principles.19 First of all,
the analogy of faith (analogia fidei) and the analogy of Scripture (ana-
logia Scriptura) are basic hermeneutical presuppositions of Edwards’s
interpretation.20 His commitment to the Reformed understanding and
15. To date, the influence of others on Edwards’s hermeneutical method has

been largely ignored; this study will start to fill in that gap in Edwardsean scholarship.
16. No one has yet shown how traditional Edwards was in his use of a specific
passage of Scripture except Kreider’s work of Jonathan Edwards’s interpretation of
Revelation 4:1– 8:1.
17. A number of Edwardsean scholars such as Perry Miller have insisted that
Jonathan Edwards was a great modern thinker. However, the reading of Edwards’s
interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel shows that their classification of him
as a modern thinker cannot be warranted. This issue will be dealt with in more
detail in the later section of this study.
18. It is beyond the scope of this study to compare Edwards’s personal inter-
pretation with the commentaries of his predecessors and contemporaries. However,
this comparative study would also be helpful to understand Edwards as a biblical
interpreter. The present study will focus on comparing Edwards’s hermeneutical
methodology with that of his traditions and contemporaries.
19. Edwards is selective in the passages he discusses. It is clear that his intention
is not to write a formal commentary on the books of the Major Prophets. He rather
seems to comment on the details of the text that interest him. Nevertheless, the
study of Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets clearly reveals his exegetical
presuppositions and techniques.
20. The analogy of faith and the analogy of Scripture were essential hermeneuti-
cal principles in the history of pre-critical exegesis and they functioned as a foundation
employment of the analogy of faith is evident throughout his interpre-

tation. While the use of the analogy of faith is not explicitly found in
his interpretation of the Major Prophets, he manifests it in subtle ways.
The analogy of faith did not dictate the interpretation of any particular
text, but it did limit the options Edwards would consider as appropri-
ate explanations of a passage. That is, the analogy of faith restricted
the range of possible meanings which he would consider; other poten-
tial meanings of a passage were simply not mentioned since they were
excluded a priori by the analogy of faith assumption.
Like other orthodox writers, Edwards also frequently ignores or
briefly passes over alternative explanations of a text which do not cor-
respond to the analogy of faith. Therefore, in his interpretation of
the Major Prophets, even though his use of the analogy of faith is
not explicit, Edwards does not allow his interpretation to go beyond
or contrary to overall orthodox doctrines. This is testified by the fact
that Edwards’s exegetical conclusions are almost identical with those
of classical orthodox interpreters.21 This theological orthodoxy of his
own exegetical conclusions fully reflects Edwards’s commitment to
the analogy of faith in his exegetical process.
The analogy of Scripture also obviously dominates Edwards’s
interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel even though he does
not explicitly address this hermeneutical assumption in his exposi-
tion. Examples of his dedication to the analogy of Scripture are
overwhelmingly evident throughout his commentary; the correla-
tion of texts and the proliferation of supporting testimonies are one
of Edwards’s main exegetical strategies. More specifically, when
discussing any difficult interpretation or doctrine, he arrays a series
of Scripture passages, often addressing individual texts at length.
Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 53:2 is a good example of this kind
of all biblical interpretation, especially among the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century

orthodox biblical interpreters. Concerning this, see Henry Knapp, “Understanding
the Mind of God” (Ph.D. diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002), 63–80.
21. It is beyond the scope of this study to compare Edwards’s exegetical conclu-
sion in his interpretation of the Major Prophets with that of the traditional orthodox
interpretation. However, it is not difficult to conclude that his interpretation is quite
consistent with that of his orthodox predecessors. For example, compare Edwards’s
interpretation of Isaiah 1–39 with that of the traditional orthodox exposition. See
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Isaiah 1–39, ed. Steven A. Mckinion
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
of textual correlation. In order to demonstrate that the phrase “a ten-

der plant” signifies the humble outward appearance of Jesus Christ,
he lists a number of texts side by side, giving brief comments on some
and showing their interrelation with one another. Finally, by using
the evidences of other texts, Edwards demonstrates that the subject
with which Isaiah is dealing in this verse refers to Christ.22
Further examples of Edwards’s appeal to other passages in
Scripture to support his exegetical conclusions are too numerous to
mention; it is hardly an exaggeration to say that he brings in cor-
responding texts to expound and explain the passage’s meaning in
his exposition of each verse in his works. Thus, Kreider rightly states
that, for Edwards, “Scripture is its own best interpreter.”23 In sum, by
means of the analogy of Scripture, Edwards, like his Reformed pre-
decessors, used Scripture itself to reveal the meaning of difficult texts,
and thus was assured that his interpretations of the Major Prophets
were in accordance with the overall thrust of the Bible.24
Literal Historical Interpretation of the Text

Edwards’s study of original language and his consistent pursuit
of literal historical meaning of the text also clearly show that he is
in continuity with pre-critical tradition. Even a cursory analysis of
Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets reveals his indebt-
edness to the literal historical interpretation of pre-critical exegesis
which had particularly developed in the previous two centuries.25
First of all, the control exercised over interpretation by the exami-
nation of the original language in a text is widely evident in Edwards’s
22. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 686–87.

23. Kreider, Jonathan Edwards’ Interpretation..., 99.
24. Obviously, the analogy of faith and the analogy of Scripture are not the
hermeneutical strategy of the modern critical interpreters. Unlike pre-critical exe-
getes, they do not necessarily admit the organic unity of the Bible. Concerning this
modern hermeneutical tendency, see John Barton, “Historical-critical approaches,”
in Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, ed. John Barton (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1998), 9–20.
25. Seeking literal historical meaning of the Bible through the philological,
grammatical, and historical studies of the text was the main trend for the bibli-
cal exegetes in the Reformation and the Post-Reformation era (Richard A. Muller,
“Biblical Interpretation in the 16th & 17th Centuries,” In Historical Handbook of Major
Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald McKim [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
1999], 123–51).
interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.26 For example,

Edwards often retranslates the text according to his own understand-
ing of the original Hebrew text in order to reveal a clearer meaning
of the text. A couple of cases will demonstrate this. In his discussion
of the meaning of Isaiah 51:4, Edwards claims that “[a] law shall go
forth out of Zion” could be translated into “[a] law shall proceed from
me because the Hebrew original words contains the meaning of both
interpretations.” However, he prefers the latter because it provides a
clearer meaning of the verse.27
His interpretation of Jeremiah 12:9 is another example. Edwards
retranslates the phrase “a speckled bird” into “a bird that is tinged or
colored” according to his analysis of the original Hebrew text. He
also introduces an exegete’s translation of it as “a bird with talons.”
However, he prefers his own translation and, on the basis of his study
of the original Hebrew and careful examination of the context of the
verse, claims that this phrase refers to “a bird of prey,” which shows
the wickedness of the ungodly.28
Edwards also sometimes corrects the inaccurate English transla-
tion of the original Hebrew text. Another example of elaboration of
the meaning of a passage through careful examination of the original
language is found in Edwards’s exposition of Isaiah 27:12. Edwards
insists that the phrase “shall beat off” should have been translated into
“[t]he Lord shall strike off,” “smite away,” or “powerfully and sud-
denly remove both the channel of the river and the stream of Egypt.”
However, he does not provide his analysis of the etymology of the
words, or the grammar and syntax of the sentence. Without detailed
support, Edwards simply concludes that his translation is more suit-
able for this sentence. As his interpretation of Isaiah 27:12 suggests,
Edwards’s exposition of the Major Prophets shows that he leans on
details of grammar and syntax in seeking the exact literal meaning
of the text throughout his analysis of the original Hebrew text. Fur-
ther examples of this kind of study of original languages are found
nearly every time Edwards begins work on a new phrase or verse of
26. Concerning Edwards’s interest in the study of the original language in the
Bible, Stein states that “Edwards studied the text of the Bible very closely, some-
times turning initially to the Hebrew and Greek for a firsthand examination of the
ancient texts” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 184).
27. Edwards, The Blank Bible, 684.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. However, Edwards simply presents his

conclusions and rarely provides his detailed analysis of grammatical
concerns or text criticism in his notebooks. This may be a result of
the nature of these notebooks; they were not designed for publication
as formal commentaries, but for his personal study as a foundation for
further theological research.29
Another crucial feature of Edwards’s exegetical principles is to pur-
sue the literal historical meaning of the text by considering the intention
of the historical writers and the original historical context of the text.
First of all, as a humanistic exegetical method, Edwards makes efforts to
investigate and uncover the reasons and arguments which lay beneath
what were otherwise simple and abbreviated passages or expressions.
For example, in his exposition of Isaiah 40, he starts his interpreta-
tion by examining the reason why the scope and style of Isaiah 40–66
is different from Isaiah 1–39. According to Edwards, the prophecy of
Isaiah 1–39 mainly deals with the destruction of the people of God by
the Assyrians and their deliverance. In contrast, Isaiah 40–66 focuses
on the Babylonian captivity of Judah and the restoration. Concerning
the difference, Edwards insists that the scopes of Isaiah 1–39 and 40–66
are different because Isaiah might have received the revelation of Isaiah
40–66 when the prophecy of the former had already been fulfilled. He
guesses that Isaiah might have received the new prophecy some time
around the latter part of Hezekiah’s reign.30
He also states that Isaiah was in his old age at the latter part of
Hezekiah’s reign. Thus, he argues, the style of Isaiah 40–66 might
be different from Isaiah 1–39. Edwards insists that Isaiah was around
eighty or ninety years old when he prophesied Isaiah 40–66. Finally,
on the basis of these historical investigations, Edwards claims that,
even though there are some differences between the two parts of
Isaiah, the prophecy of Isaiah 40–66 should not be understood as a
separate book from the first part of Isaiah.31
Throughout his interpretation of the books of the Major Proph-
ets, Edwards also shows his deep interest in the original background
of the text. By revealing the historical situation behind the text, he
29. Stephen Stein, “Editor’s Interpretation,” in The Blank Bible, ed. Stephen
Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 24 (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2006), 19–23.
pursues the literal historical meaning of the text. For instance, in his
interpretation of Jeremiah 17:3, Edwards tries to explain the meaning
of “O my mountain in the field” by investigating the historical back-
ground behind this text. He states that the ancient Israelites kept their
possessions either in the city or in the field. Then, Edwards teaches
that “since the land of Canaan was a very mountainous country and
the mountains are the most distinguished places, the possessions or
inheritances of a person or one’s family in the field used to be called
by the mountains they included.” “Such an one’s mountain,” or “such
an one’s hill” generally refers to the inheritance or the possessions
of a person or his/her family that lay upon and about a mountain.
Therefore, Edwards claims that the meaning of the phrase, “O my
mountain in the field,” signifies the possessions, lot, or inheritance of
the ancient Israelites.
Edwards’s interpretation of Ezekiel 12:3–6 also reflects his interest
in the literal historical background of the text. In order to interpret this
passage, Edwards first reveals its historical context in detail. According
to Edwards, this passage refers to Zedekiah’s flight out of the city in
the middle of chaos because this specific historical event of Zedekiah’s
time is quite identical with the details of the passage: Zedekiah was not
able to escape the city because he was completely surrounded by the
Babylonians (v. 3). Thus, he chose to dig through the wall and secretly
carried his goods away (vv. 4 –5). When the princes of Babylon and
their army came inside the walls, Zedekiah fled first in the day time
to the king’s garden and escaped through the dug wall in the evening
(v. 6). Therefore, Edwards concludes that the passage is the prophecy
which describes the future event at the time of Zedekiah.32
Indeed, throughout the commentary, further examples of Edwards’s
study of the original context of the meaning are too numerous to men-
tion. Edwards’s concern for the historical meaning of the text clearly
reflects the substantial influence of humanistic approaches to the text.
Edwards’s Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in His

Interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
In his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards pursues not only
the historical meaning of the text, but also a spiritual meaning of the
text. Edwards arrived at the spiritual meaning of a passage through

two avenues. First, Edwards frequently relies on hermeneutics of

promise and fulfillment as the method for discerning the spiritual
meaning. Second, one can easily see that the majority of his spiritual
interpretation utilizes typology as a method for arriving at the spiri-
tual meaning of the text.33
First, even though Edwards consistently pursues literal historical
meaning of the text, his interpretation of the Major Prophets fre-
quently understands the literal grammatical meaning of a passage to
have a direct bearing upon the promise and fulfillment issue. In other
words, it is a rare case that Edwards has direct recourse to the Christo-
logical, ecclesiological, or eschatological interpretation of these texts.
Instead, he quite often refers these texts to God’s time in the ancient
Israel. However, when the text explicitly requires a Christological,
ecclesiological, or eschatological understanding, Edwards relies on a
pattern of promise and fulfillment. Edwards’s interpretation of Isa-
iah 32:14 is a good example of this. Isaiah prophesies the destruction
of ancient Israel. Interpreting the text, Edwards argues that the text
speaks here of (1) the destruction of many of the cities of Judah by
Sennacherib, (2) the destruction of all of the cities of Judah by Nebu-
chadnezzar, and (3) the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Therefore, the promise of Old Testament finds its fulfillment in the
history of ancient Israel in Old Testament times.
Nevertheless, Edwards does not lose his ultimate reference to the
end time. Even though Isaiah 32:14 primarily references the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, he also understands that the text refers to the end of
time. Edwards sees the prophecy of the devastation of Jerusalem as the
eternal destruction of “the wicked hypocritical city” or “false church,”
and the establishment of “a New Jerusalem,” which follows the second
coming of Christ. Therefore, for Edwards, the prophecy of Isaiah 32:14
is fulfilled ultimately at the time of Christ’s second coming.
In this way, the promise and fulfillment hermeneutic of Old Testa-
ment prophecy makes it possible for the meaning of the text to include
the entire kingdom of God. The promise and fulfillment hermeneutic
33. These two kinds fall into the same category in that both deal with the
spiritual meaning of the text. However, I have distinguished between those which
display a clear typological association through the use of terms like “typifies,” “rep-
resents,” “shadows,” “figures forth,” and “images,” and those which reflect symbolic
or metaphorical connections between the Old Testament, New Testament, and
present-day church.
enables Edwards to deal with not only historical interpretation of the

text, but also the contemporary and future application of the text at
the same time. This structure is apparent in Edwards’s interpretation
of the Major Prophets. His interpretation of Isaiah 7:3 is another good
example of this. Here, Edwards examines the meaning of the phrase
“Shear-jashub thy son” in Hebrew, and claims that this phrase con-
tains the prophecy that “the remnant shall return.” God will judge
Israel and Judea because of their sins. Assyria and Babylon will be
used as instruments of chastisement. However, God will ultimately
restore His chosen people and deliver them from the hands of their
enemies. Edwards insists that the prophecy was accomplished (1) more
immediately, in Hezekiah’s time, after the Assyrians had destroyed
the kingdom of Ephraim and Judah; (2) in Ahaz’s time, when Pekah
and Rezin had brought back 200,000 captives of Judah to Jerusalem
(2 Chron. 28:8–15); and (3) at the time of the return of the Israel-
ites from Babylonian captivity. In its main outlines, the fulfillment of
Micah’s prophecies occurs within the history of the Old Testament.34
However, Edwards also relates the historically interpreted meaning
of the text to the New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament proph-
ecy. For Edwards, this prophecy was ultimately fulfilled (1) when Jesus
Christ started to save the people from “the state of captivity to sin and
Satan in unbelief,” and (2) when some of the Israelites were saved from
“the last terrible destruction by the Romans.”35 In his interpretation
of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Edwards often relates the historically
interpreted text to the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament
and, as a result of that fulfillment, to the ongoing life of the church.
Edwards’s bearing upon promise and fulfillment interpretation of
texts such as Isaiah 32:14 and Isaiah 7:3 shows two pivotal points for
his analysis of the text: first, careful attention to the original context
to pursue the literal meaning of the text; and, second, the relation of
the logic or dynamic in the text to the fulfillment in the New Testa-
ment. The promise points beyond the history of the Old Testament,
such as the destruction of many of the cities of Judah by Sennacherib
or the return of Judah from Babylonian captivity, to the restoration
and consummation of the spiritual kingdom of God at the First and
Second Coming of Christ. Here, Edwards has seen a kerygmatic

analogy36 between the promise concerning historical events, such as

the destruction of Jerusalem and ancient Israel’s return from Baby-
lonian captivity, and the promise concerning the restoration of the
church at the time of Christ’s Coming. The present passages, which
prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the return of Jews from
foreign exile, are similar to the situation indicating the restoration and
consummation of the church at the time of Christ’s coming. That
is, there is similarity of the times or analogy of historical situation
between the time when God will punish Jerusalem for their iniquities
and gather captured Judah to bring them back to Israel, and the time
when God will judge the wicked and the false church and assemble
the faithful who are scattered to restore the church at the Second
Coming. This similarity of times enables Edwards to correlate a his-
torical situation between ancient Israel and a historical situation of the
church. Therefore, by means of kerygmatic analogy, Edwards draws
out the meaning of the text for the ongoing life of the kingdom.
At this point in his interpretation of the Major Prophets, Edwards’s
careful consideration of the original context and the literal meaning
of the text is different from that of the modern critical method. Like
the modern critical interpretation of the text, Edwards understands
the literal meaning of the text as given to ancient Israel by seeking
the literal historical meaning of the text. However, Edwards does not
lose the flexibility of reference available to the allegorical method. For
him, the text must be allowed to speak to the church: Edwards’s lit-
eral sense of the text presents a meaning directed toward the ongoing
believing community, the church. Therefore, by means of kerygmatic
analogy, Edwards relates the reference of the text beyond ancient Israel
36. This term, “kerygmatic analogy,” was used by Hans Joachim Kraus. In his
discussion of the Reformers’ exegesis of Scripture, Kraus asserts that their exegesis
of the Bible was not just academic research or scholarly interpretation of Scriptures.
Instead, he argues, “We can observe everywhere their direct participation in the life
and suffering of the church, the seriousness and urgency with which they comfort
and exhort, the way they debate and instruct.” According to him, this present appli-
cation was possible because the Reformers have seen a kerygmatic analogy between
the text and the situation of the ongoing church and between the Old Testament
and the New Testament. He therefore states, “It is rather the case that the contem-
porary applications to the life of the church arose out of the kerygmatic analogies
which made a direct impression on the exegete and were not artificially brought
in as ‘interpretation’ or ‘speculations’” (Hans Joachim Kraus, “Calvin’s exegetical
principles,” Interpretation 31 [1977], 12).
to the time of Christ, the life of the present-day church, and finally
to the last day when this prophecy will be completely fulfilled. This
shows that even though Edwards is firmly committed to the literal
sense of the text and to expounding the intention of the author, the
final implication of the Major Prophets in his commentary is deter-
mined by the broader context of promise and fulfillment, and the
ongoing history of God’s people.
Furthermore, even though Edwards maintains his exegetical
principle to pursue one literal meaning of the text, his exegetical
approach to this text by means of kerygmatic analogy shows that his
exegetical interest has not deviated far from allegory and trope. His
use of kerygmatic analogy manifests itself as a crucial exegetical prin-
ciple in his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
Therefore, the examination of Edwards’s hermeneutic of prom-
ise and fulfillment in the Major Prophets enables us to know that
his literal historical interpretation of the text is different from that
of modern criticism: his literal interpretation of the text is ultimately
determined by the broader context of the hermeneutic of promise
and fulfillment.37 Unlike modern historical interpretation, Edwards’s
exegetical scope is not limited to God’s time in ancient Israel. Instead,
it also includes contemporary and future events of the Christian
church in the New Testament period. In other words, by means of
kerygmatic analogy, Edwards does not lose the spiritual meaning of
the text. Thus, Edwards’s literal historical method is interconnected
with divergent exegetical tendencies such as the allegorical method,
the scope of the text, and the application to the present-day church.
Consequently, this exegetical principle indicates that, in the
interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Edwards follows more
closely the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century pre-critical model, in
37. In addition, the pursuit of the literal historical meaning of the text was
maintained even throughout the medieval period, and many early church fathers
approached the text literally. Therefore, the literal historical interpretation of the text
by pre-critical exegetes does not necessarily need to be linked to the modern critical
interpretation. Concerning this, see Brevard S. Childs, “The Sensus Literalis of Scrip-
ture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beitragezur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, ed.
Donner, Hanhart, and Smend (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1977), 80–93.
For the literal interpretation of the Bible in the medieval period, see Beryl Smalley,
The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press,
1964); James Samuel Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from
Augustine to the Young Luther (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969).
continuity with the medieval exegetical tradition, than the character-

istics of modern critical exegesis.
The Use of Typology in Edwards’s Interpretation of the Major Prophets

The use of typology was commonly employed by the Reformed exe-
getes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Through typological
interpretation, the Reformed biblical expositors were able to reveal
not only the historical meaning of the text, but also a mystical mean-
ing of the text, which would be fulfilled in the New Testament era.
Typology was a highly significant exegetical method.38
In addition to these earlier writers, typology is regarded as one of
the most characteristic hermeneutical methods of Jonathan Edwards.
Edwards felt that the Bible is replete with symbolic religious images
that “point to Christ, to Christian redemption or to the glory of the
kingdom of God.”39 These biblical types, which Edwards usually
found in the books of the Old Testament, found their fulfillment
in various antitypes represented in the New Testament. In order to
understand his use of typology in the Major Prophets, one should
know Edwards’s view of Old Testament typology. It is clearly found
in his “Types of the Messiah”:
We find by the Old Testament that it has ever been God’s man-
ner from the beginning of the world to exhibit and reveal future
things by symbolical representations, which were no other than
types of the future things revealed. Thus when future things
were made known in visions, the things that were seen were not
the future things themselves, but some other things that were
made use of as shadows, symbols or types of the things.... We
find it was God’s manner throughout the ages of the Old Tes-
tament to typify future things, not only as he signified them
by symbolical and typical representations in those visions and
prophecies in which they were revealed. But also as he made
use of those things that had an actual existence, to typify them
38. Typological interpretation has been used by the church fathers as well.
Concerning the use of typology in the early church, see David S. Dockery, Biblical
Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics In the Light of the Early Church
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 27, 33, 41–42, 63–64, 72, 81–83, 106, 110, 118, 127,
157. However, this exegetical device significantly developed in the sixteenth and
seventeenth century. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 261–82.
39. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards,” 311.
either by events that he brought to pass by his special providence

to that end, or by things that he appointed and commanded be
done for that end.40
According to Edwards, everything in the Old Testament “was
typical of the Messiah and things appertaining to him.”41 Thus, he
argues that the typology of Christ in the Old Testament is evidence
that Jesus is the Messiah.42
However, for Edwards, the life of Christ in the New Testament
also contains typological significance. Beyond the Old Testament, he
extends his idea of typology into the New Testament. “The things of
the ceremonial law are not the only things whereby God designedly
shadowed forth spiritual things, but with an eye to such a representation
were all the transactions of the life of Christ ordered.”43 Nevertheless,
Edwards’s application of typology is not confined within the scope
of Scripture. Rather, he views the whole world as full of “images”
or “shadows” of divine things.44 Indeed, for Edwards, everything in
the creation reflects divine things as a type.45 The degree to which
he applies this hermeneutic made Edwards outstanding in typology,
even though he was not the first to employ typological exegesis.
40. Edwards, Typological Writings, 193–94.

41. Edwards, “Types of the Messiah,” 321.
42. Edwards, “Types of the Messiah,” 321. For Edwards, the life of Christ in the
New Testament also contains typological significance. Edwards wrote: “The things
of the ceremonial law are not the only things whereby God designedly shadowed
forth spiritual things, but with an eye to such a representation were all the transac-
tions of the life of Christ ordered” (Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies (Entry Nos.
a-z, aa-zz, 1–500), ed. Thomas A. Schafer, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 13
[New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994], 284).
43. Edwards, Miscellanies (1–500), 284.
44. Edwards, Typological Writings, 152. He also states: “And very much of the
wisdom of God in the creation appears in his so ordering things natural, that they
livelily [sic] represent things divine and spiritual, [such as] sun, fountain, vine; as
also, much of the wisdom of God in his providence, in that the state of mankind is
so ordered, that there are innumerable things in human affairs that are lively pic-
tures of the things of the gospel, such as shield, tower, and marriage, family.” The
Miscellanies (1–500), 284.
45. On Edwards’s use of typology in the natural world, see Janice Knight,
“Learning the Language of God: Jonathan Edwards and the Typology of Nature,”
William and Mary Quarterly 48 (1991): 531–51. See also Diana Butler, “God’s Vis-
ible Glory: The Beauty of Nature in the Thought of John Edwards and Jonathan
Edwards,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 13–26.
However, Edwards’s pursuit of a spiritual or figurative meaning of

the text through the use of typology did not regress to the form of alle-
gory. In his typology, Edwards intends to “show how there is a medium
between those that cry down all types, and those that are for turning
all into nothing but allegory and not having it to be true history.”46 In
other words, he objects not only to those who reject the use of typology
completely, but also to those who pursue unbridled allegorical interpre-
tation that denies the historical significance of the text. Cherry claims
that Edwards’s approach was an alternative to “unimaginative literalism
and a fanciful allegorizing, for the typological method aimed first to
take a text for what it said and then, without abandoning its plain mean-
ing, sought to discern its prefiguring of a later historical meaning.”47
In particular, the historical nature of the type is important in
Edwards’s typological interpretation. Like other Reformed typologi-
cal exegetes of the seventeenth century, Edwards sought to ground
his spiritual conclusions in the historical types of the biblical revela-
tion.48 This emphasis of historicity was in no way diminished by the
understanding that the type foreshadowed the antitype and that the
antitype, in turn, gave further illumination to the type. Rather, the
literal historical meaning of the text functions as “the necessary foun-
dation” for Edwards’s typological interpretation.49 In his typological
exposition of the Bible, Edwards first pursues the literal historical
meaning of the text and then, by applying this category to the inter-
pretation of prophecy, goes beyond the literal sense to discover a
typological or spiritual meaning of the text.
Thus, typology, while providing a legitimate method for emphasiz-
ing the unity of Scripture, is grounded in the historical meaning of the
46. Edwards, Typological Writings, 151.

47. Conrad Cherry, “Symbols of Spiritual Truth,” Interpretation 39 (1985): 264.
48. Even though the Reformed exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centu-
ries pursued a spiritual or figurative meaning of the text through the use of typology,
the Reformed biblical expositors regarded a figurative or spiritual meaning as “an inte-
gral dimension of the literal text itself.” According to them, the literal sense of the text
could be expanded to symbolic meaning beyond itself. However, Reformed exegetes
held that the spiritual meaning of the text should “reside in and be controlled by” the
grammatical meaning of the text. (Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 266). Cf.
Donald Dickson, “The Complexities of Biblical Typology in the Seventeenth Century,”
Renaissance and Reformation 11 (1987):258; Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics
(hereafter: PRRD) II, 491; “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment,” 73.
text and does not deny a historical referent for the type in the Old Tes-
tament. By maintaining an emphasis upon the historical background
of a passage, Edwards attempts to avoid fanciful interpretation of the
types he expounds upon. In this sense, Edwards’s use of typology is
distinguished from the allegorical interpretation of medieval exegesis,
and it is in continuity with that of pre-critical interpreters, particularly
that of the seventeenth-century Reformed biblical exegetes.50
In his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Edwards
vigorously uses typology as an exegetical method in order to seek a
harmonious interpretation between the Old and New Testaments.
He applies typological interpretation when events, persons, and prac-
tices of the Major Prophets foreshadowed the coming Christ and the
ministry of Him and His church. Therefore, through typological
interpretation, Edwards reveals not only the historical meaning of the
text, but also a spiritual meaning of the text which would be fulfilled
in the New Testament era.
His use of typology in the interpretation of the Major Prophets is
too frequent to mention all instances. However, a few examples will
clearly illustrate his use of typology in the interpretation of the images
and symbols in the prophets’ visions. In his exposition of Isaiah 8:6,
Edwards uses typology to interpret the phrase “the waters of Shiloah.”
First, by pursuing the literal meaning of the text, he identifies it with
the pool of Siloam in John 9:7. However, for Edwards, “the water of
Shiloah” foreshadows Christ. He states, “’Tis manifest that the pool
of Siloam is there respected as a type of Christ, the fountain of living
waters, who by his blood and spirit washes away sin, and restores sight
to the blind. And ’tis manifest that the pool of Siloam is the same with
the waters of Siloam.” Then Edwards tries to interpret the meaning of
the entire verse by revealing the historical background of it. He ques-
tions why the Israelites forsook “the waters of Siloam,” which represent
the God of Judah; according to him, Israel refused the God of Israel
because “the water of Siloam” went “slowly.” It means that the Israelites
abandoned their God because the God of Israel did not prosper His
people as the gods of other people such as those of Syria and Ephraim
did. At the time of Isaiah, the people of Israel complained about their
50. Conrad Cherry correctly explains that Edwards’s use of typology was “an
elaboration upon the exegetical method preferred by his British and American Puri-
tan harbingers” (Cherry, “Symbols of Spiritual Truth,” 264).
low circumstances, their small territory, and their weak political and
military power. For Edwards, this refusal of God by the ancient Israel-
ites also typifies the Jews’ refusal of Jesus Christ; they forsook Him for
the same reason that the ancient Israelites abandoned the God of Israel.
This clearly shows Edwards’s typological interpretation of the text.51
Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 38:5–8 also reflects his charac-
teristic typological approach to the text. First, he interprets this text
literally and insists that the sun was actually brought back ten degrees.
He then claims that God probably brought the sun to the meridian.
However, Edwards also states that a coming back of the sun also typifies
“the resurrection of Christ” because He is “the Sun of righteousness.”52
Moreover, he argues that when God delivers the church at the time of
eschaton from the hands of the enemies, the light of Christ will arise in
the west, “fix in a meridian light,” and shall not go down.53
In addition to the cases of Isaiah, one can also find several exam-
ples of Edwards’s use of typology in the interpretation of Jeremiah
and Ezekiel. For instance, Edwards uses typology to interpret Jere-
miah 16:13. For him, this verse primarily describes the miserable state
of the Jewish church under Babylonian captivity. However, Edwards
claims that Babylon is a great type of the Church of Rome. There-
fore, Jeremiah 16:13 ultimately and clearly represents “the state of the
Christian church under the tyranny and oppression of the Church
of Rome.”54 To elucidate this typological idea, Edwards adds that the
church of Israel in Egypt also foreshadows “the spiritual Babylon,”
which refers to the Catholic Church.55

53. Edwards also states that the Assyrians in the Old Testament often typify the
enemies of the church (Edwards, The Blank Bible, 670).
54. This typological interpretation shows Edwards’s strong anti-Catholicism.
In his last years, Edwards clearly subscribed to the Puritan conviction of the pope
as antichrist. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the Major Prophets is the only
place where Edwards obviously expresses his anti-Catholicism. His anti-Catholic
interpretation is much more evident in his exposition of the book of Revelation.
Concerning Edwards’s anti-Catholicism, see Marsden’s chapter on Edwards’s last
years. “Anti-Catholicism was basic to popular expressions of cultural identity and
was often associated with millennial speculations,” and Edwards was not so unusual
in this respect. George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven and Lon-
don: Yale University Press, 2003), 528.
In short, for Edwards, typology is one of the main exegeti-

cal methods in his exposition of the Major Prophets. He frequently
associates the events and persons of the Old Testament with the per-
son and work of Christ in the New Testament. Especially, the literal
historical meaning of the text functions as the necessary foundation
for Edwards’s typological interpretation. Because of this feature, his
typology is clearly distinguished from the allegorical interpretation
of medieval exegesis, and is in continuity with the typology of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical exegetes.
The Use of Exegetical Tradition in the Interpretation of the Major Prophets

The reference of exegetical tradition in the exposition of the Bible is
one of the typical exegetical methodologies in the history of the pre-
critical exegesis. In particular, this method was significantly favored
by the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical interpreters. How-
ever, they warned against relying too heavily upon it because it might
lead them to focus more on tradition than on the Scripture itself.56
Nevertheless, in the exposition of the Bible, sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century biblical writers fully recognized the value of
the exegetical insights of previous church leaders. They frequently
appealed to the authority of their exegetical predecessors from the
early church fathers to contemporary Reformed, Lutheran, and Cath-
olic exegetes in order to support or illustrate their interpretation of the
text.57 This feature is found in the exegetical works of the numerous
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biblical exegetes, such as John
Calvin and John Owen. Interaction with earlier church authorities
was “an integral aspect of the seventeenth-century expositor’s task.”58
As with his orthodox exegetical predecessors, Jonathan Edwards
also frequently uses other writings in order to demonstrate the valid-
ity of his interpretation on the grounds of historical Christianity and
to complement his exegetical conclusions.59 His interpretation of
the Major Prophets is also full of his citations of other previous or
56. They refuted the scholastic manner of the interaction with previous author-
ities as done by medieval Roman Catholic theologians. Knapp, “Understanding the
Mind of God,” 99–100.
57. For this, see Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 99–107.
58. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 107.
59. Concerning Edwards’s use of church tradition, Stein states that “often his
own exegetical judgments were formed in conversation with opinions expressed in
contemporary writings. Thus, it is an important side of his herme-

neutical strategy, although this aspect of his hermeneutics has not
been properly dealt with by modern scholars.60
Edwards’s exegesis does not occur in a historical vacuum. He
constantly makes reference to other writings, ranging widely from the
church fathers, both Greek and Latin, to his contemporary exegetical
writers. In particular, Edwards frequently refers to the seventeenth
century biblical interpreters to support his interpretation of the text.
This reflects that, although unheralded today, he stands as one of the
great scholars of seventeenth-century biblical interpretation in the
first half of the eighteenth century. Among the galaxy of the seven-
teenth-century biblical expositors cited in his exposition of the Major
Prophets, none were more luminous than Matthew Henry, Matthew
Poole, and Humphrey Prideaux.61
Edwards’ exegesis of the Major Prophets is a good example of
his use of exegetical tradition in order to present the proper under-
standing of the text. For example, in his discussion of the Messianic
promise of Isaiah 7:14, he refers to the four seventeenth-century bibli-
cal exegetes: Thomas Ridgley, Richard Kidder, Matthew Poole, and
the works he was reading. Throughout his professional life he engaged this Christian
tradition of commentarial discourse” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 185).
60. No scholars have substantially discussed Edwards’s use of exegetical tradi-
tions or contemporary writings.
61. The works of Poole, Henry, and Prideaux that Edwards engaged the most
extensively were Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: wherein
each chapter is summed up in its contents: the sacred text inserted at large, in distinct paragraphs;
each paragraph reduced to its proper heads: the sense given, and largely illustrated; with practical
remarks and observations. New edition revised and corrected, 6 vols. (London, 1708–
10); Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible, 2 vols. (London, 1683–85)
(Edwards’s father Timothy owned 11 copies of this work); Matthew Poole, Synopsis
Criticorum aliorumque Sacrae Scripturae Interpretum, 5 vols. (London, 1669–76); and
Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews
and Neighbouring Nations, from the Declension of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to the
Time of Christ, 4 vols. (London, 1716 –1718 ) (Edwards’s copies of the ninth edition
of this work are listed in his “Account Book” at the Beinecke and may be seen at the
Forbes Library, Northampton, Mass.). Sweeney states, “Names such as Matthew
Poole, for example, or Arthur Bedford, or Hemphrey Prideaus, scarcely ring a bell
today among Edwards scholars. But these were his interlocutors—much more than
Locke, Berkeley and Newton. They may not have played as great a role in shaping
his intellectual agenda. But they played a much greater role in helping him prosecute
that agenda.” Sweeney, “Longing for More and More of it?,” 26.
Matthew Henry. He consults the expositions and arguments of these

writers in order to reveal what the prophecy of verse 14 means.62
The examples of his reference to other writings are too numerous
to discuss all instances. In particular, Edwards uses exegetical tradi-
tion and his contemporaries to pursue a literal historical meaning of
the text. For instance, in his interpretation of Isaiah 21:1, Edwards
uses Matthew Henry’s Exposition of All the Books of the Old and New
Testament to explain why Babylon is called the desert or plain of the
sea in this verse. Edwards quotes Henry’s argument that “Babylon
was a flat country, and full of lakes like little seas, and was abundantly
watered by the many streams of the river Euphrates.”63 By referring
to Henry, Edwards pursues the literal historical meaning of the text.64
Despite frequently referring to the seventeenth-century biblical
interpreters to support his interpretation of the text, such as Henry,
Poole, and Prideaux, Edwards does not refer to or mention other crit-
ical interpreters of his time. This exegetical feature evidently reflects
that his interpretation was deeply influenced by the seventeenth-cen-
tury pre-critical interpretation.
Jonathan Edwards and Modern Critical Interpretation

One of the most representative features of eighteenth-century biblical
interpretation is the appearance of modern critical methods.65 Under
the influence of the early British Enlightenment, many traditional
hermeneutical beliefs concerning the historicity, reliability, and reli-
gious integrity of the Bible were seriously challenged by the critical
interpreters. This approach started to threaten a traditional Chris-
tian faith and interpretation of the Bible. Edwards himself became
interested in this new exegetical trend and engaged actively in the dis-
course of the historical criticism of the Enlightenment.66 Thus, some

63. Matthew Henry, An Exposition of All the Books of the Old and New Testament,
vol. 4 (London, 1708–10), 55.
65. For the overview of biblical interpretation in the 18th century, see
G. T. Sheppard, “Biblical Interpretation in the 18th & 19th Centuries,” in Historical
Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1998), 257–80.
66. Brown, “The Bible,” 94. Stein also states that “[t]his is the context in which
Edwards came to know the rising tradition of innovative critical scholarship that
was gaining attention in Europe and raising new challenges to the authority and
of his biblical interpretation reflects a strong critical influence on his

hermeneutics.67 In this sense, Robert E. Brown claims that his bib-
lical interpretation includes elements of both traditional and critical
approaches.68 However, it does not mean that Edwards was in favor of
the critical approach of the Bible. Brown writes:
Despite his consuming interest in such interpretive problems,
Edwards himself was not a critic, in the sense of being skeptical
about the Bible’s historical or religious integrity, or in the sense
of employing a thorough going historical analysis in his resolu-
tion of interpretive problems. Rather, Edwards was interested in
critical issues primarily because of the conceptual and apologetic
difficulties they posed for the traditional understanding of the
Bible as a form of divine revelation.69
Indeed, Edwards did not allow its critical methods to “impov-
erish” his interpretation of Scripture.70 His interpretation of Isaiah
40 is a good example of this. In this exposition, his treatment of the
authorship and integrity of Isaiah—that is, whether the book of Isaiah
was written by one author—shows Edwards’s engagement with the
preeminent critical issue of his day. On the basis of critical analysis,
Edwards states that the style and scope of Isaiah 40–66 are different
from Isaiah 1–39. However, he does not accept the critical position of
the different authorship of Isaiah between 1–39 and 40–66. Instead,
according to other traditional views, he concludes that Isaiah is the
author of not only Isaiah 1–39 but also Isaiah 40–66. Moreover, except
in this case, Edwards hardly employs modern critical methods in his
exposition of the Major Prophets. Rather, as has already been exam-
ined, the interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel clearly shows
interpretation of the Bible” (Stein, “Edwards as Biblical Exegete,” 186). However,

modern scholars have largely neglected to study the modern critical influence on
Edwards’s hermeneutics.
67. For example, Brown states that “he adjusted biblical cosmology and escha-
tology to Newtonian astronomy and physics” (Brown, “The Bible,” 96). Concerning
the influence of modern criticism on Edwards’s hermeneutics, see Stephen J. Stein,
“Editor’s Introduction,” The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 15, “Notes on Scripture,” ed.
Stephen J. Stein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 12–21; Brown, Edwards
and the Bible, 89–99.
68. Brown, “The Bible,” 97.
69. Brown, “The Bible,” 97.
70. Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards,” 312.
that Edwards firmly retains pre-critical exegetical methodology, partic-

ularly that of the seventeenth-century biblical exegetes. So even though
Edwards vigorously participated in the discussion of modern exegetical
concerns and sometimes employed the critical methods in his inter-
pretation of the Bible, Edwards’s expositions show that his exegetical
assumptions, principles, and conclusions follow more closely with the
pre-critical model, which is more in continuity with the sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century exegetical traditions than the characteristics of
modern critical exegesis. Brown’s identification of Edwards more as
a pre-critical interpreter than as a critical interpreter is warranted in
Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.71
Critique of Previous Scholarship on Jonathan

Edwards’s Hermeneutics
The examination of Edwards’s exegetical methods in his interpretation
of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel enables us to point out some problems
with previous scholarship on Jonathan Edwards’s hermeneutical meth-
odology. First of all, oversimplified classification of Edwards’s exegetical
methods by previous scholarship cannot be warranted here. Some
classify Edwards as a literalist.72 Stein argues that Edwards pursued a
71. He insists that “[e]ighteenth-century interpretation is best characterized

as a spectrum of critical and historical view, from conservative to radical, on which
Edwards clearly occupies the more conservative end. As such he is representative of
the period and can be placed alongside early modern critics such as Johann Bengel
and John Lightfoot” (Brown, “The Bible,” 97).
72. For example, John Gerstner asserts, “Edwards was a ‘literalist’.... Accord-
ing to Edwards the Old Testament was a typological dispensation. He is a literalist
in his interpretation even here. This is the sense in which everyone is a literalist
and no one is a literalist. That is, literalism has to refer to the very letters or words
of a document” (John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards,
vol. 1 [Powhatan, Va.: Berea Publications; Orlando, Fla.: Ligonier Ministries, 1991],
182–3). However, when the text allows it, Edwards himself employs the allegory to
interpret the text. For example, in his exposition of Zechariah 13:5, he approaches
the text allegorically. “The words are, ‘I am no prophet; I am an husbandman: for
man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.’ The words, I apprehend, are to be
interpreted in a spiritual sense: ‘I am an husbandman’—the work of ministers is
very often in the New Testament compared to the business of the husbandmen,
that take care of God’s husbandary, to whom he lets out his vineyard, and sends
’em forth to labor in his field, where one plants and another waters, one sows and
another reaps; so ministers are called laborers in God’s harvest” ( Jonathan Edwards,
The Great Awakening, ed. C. C. Goen, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 4. [New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1972], 434).
“spiritual hermeneutic.”73 The majority, however, seem to categorize

him as a typologist.74 In sum, previous scholars tend to place Edwards
into broad categories such as literal, typological, or allegorical. How-
ever, these simple labels are inadequate as a description of the diversity
of his hermeneutical approaches. For example, his interpretation of Isa-
iah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel clearly shows that Edwards pursues not only
a literal historical interpretation but also a typological interpretation.
In particular, as we have already seen, his spiritual interpretation of the
text through the hermeneutic of promise and fulfillment and typology
that is inseparably connected with literal historical meaning of the text.
Moreover, Edwards relies on other pre-critical exegetical principles,
such as the use of exegetical traditions, as well. Thus, rather than cat-
egorize him as literal, typological, or allegorical, one should approach
his hermeneutics in a more comprehensive way.
Among some scholars who dealt with Edwards’s hermeneutics,
it is particularly worthwhile to examine the work of G. R. Kreider,
dealing with the exegetical characteristics of Edwards’s interpreta-
tion of Revelation, since it discusses the hermeneutics of Jonathan
Edwards in great length, and no one has dealt with his arguments
since its publication.75 In his book, Kreider successfully overcomes the
73. Stein, “Quest for Spiritual Sense,” 107. Later in the same essay, Stein con-
cludes, “Edwards simply assumed that every passage in the Bible held the possibility
of multiple interpretations” (113). These “multiple interpretations” include typology
and allegory. Stein notes that “for Edwards the gap between typology and alle-
gory was small and the step over easy. His hermeneutical category of the spiritual
sense makes it impossible to say when typology ends and allegory begins” (112).
See also Stein, “Jonathan Edwards and the Rainbow,” 440–56. In this discussion of
Edwards’s no. 348 in “Notes on Scripture,” Stein observes that Edwards was “imagi-
native” in his allegorical treatment of the text.
74. Cf. Sweeney, who emphasizes the use of typology in Edwards’s hermeneutics.
He says that “Edwards’ most significant contribution to the history of exegesis lay in his
typological interpretation of the Bible” (Sweeney, “Jonathan Edwards,” 311). However,
Ayabe challenges the view that Edwards’s exegetical priority was principally placed in
the spiritual sense. He argues that the exegetical entries in the “Notes on Scripture”
show that the literal-historical meaning of the biblical text is “a much more signifi-
cant component” in the exegetical process of Edwards than what has been argued by
previous scholarship. Ayabe even claims that “Notes on Scripture” is “dominated” by
the literal-historical meaning and “served a key role in the way Edwards arrived at the
spiritual interpretation of a passage” (Ayabe, “A Search for Meaning,” 17).
75. Even the latest publication concerning Edwards’s hermeneutics, Brown’s
“The Bible,” in The Princeton Companion to Jonathan Edwards, or his “Edwards as
Biblical Exegete” in The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards do not include
misunderstandings and methodological problems of previous scholar-

ship in many points, but his arguments are also problematic at several
points.76 First, he ignores eschatological and ecclesiological aspects
of his interpretation by overemphasizing the Christological charac-
ter of Edwards’s biblical interpretation (he overemphasizes Edwards’s
Christological interpretation as his exegetical key). He states:
When Edwards approaches any text of Scripture, his focus is
on how this text relates to Christ. In his preaching, he defends
his Christological interpretation by showing how so many other
texts also relate to Christ. Christ becomes the lens or prism
through which Edwards examines Scripture and the world
around him.77
It is beyond question that Edwards’s interpretation of Scripture
has a strong Christological focus. Nevertheless, in his exposition
of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, he often interprets the text in the
ecclesiological or eschatological perspectives as well. For example,
Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah 37:30 –31 clearly shows not only the
Christological but also the eschatological and ecclesiological aspects
of his exegesis. Edwards argues that verse 31 literally refers to the
Jews’ return from Babylonian captivity. However, for Edwards, this
is also a type of “the last resurrection” of Christians. Thus, he relates
the historically interpreted text to the future eschatological and eccle-
siological event at the time of “the last resurrection.” In other words,
this work in the bibliography. Kreider’s book was originally a Ph.D. dissertation
published at Dallas Theological Seminary. This is the only monograph ever pub-
lished which substantially deals with Edwards’s hermeneutics in detail. His work is
significant because it is the first strong attempt to understand Edwards’s hermeneu-
tic in the context of the history of exegesis.
76. There are also methodological problems in his discussion of Edwards’s
exegetical methods. (1) In his analysis of Edwards’s interpretation of Revelation
4:1–8:1, Kreider focuses almost only on Edwards’s use of typology; he does not
substantially deal with Edwards’s other exegetical methods employed in this inter-
pretation such as the pursuit of the literal historical interpretation. Thus, he fails to
fully understand Edwards’s hermeneutic in a comprehensive way. (2) Even though
he tries to examine Edwards’s use of typology in the context of the history of exe-
gesis, Kreider does not fully elucidate the features of typological interpretation in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Consequently, he could not properly dem-
onstrate the continuity between Edwards’s use of typology and that of the sixteenth
and seventeenth century.
Edwards claims that the text ultimately speaks here of the final resto-
ration and consummation of the church at the last time.78
For Edwards, the Bible was Christ’s story, but also a story which
encompassed the whole redemptive history from the creation and
fall, through redemption, and into the eschaton. Thus, the application
of typology in biblical hermeneutics enabled him to understand the
Scriptures primarily as Christological, yet also as ecclesiological and
eschatological. It is therefore more appropriate to see Edwards’s exegeti-
cal methodology in the broader theological perspectives and focuses.
Secondly, on the basis of his emphasis of Christology in Edwards’s
interpretation of the Bible, Kreider states that “it is this Christologi-
cal focus which protects his typological method from becoming
allegorical.”79 However, it is not the Christological focus, but his pur-
suit of the literal historical sense of the text in the practice of typology
that distinguishes Edwards’s typological interpretation from allegory.
For Edwards, like other Reformed exegetes of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries who want to protect their methodology from
fancy allegory, the literal sense of the text is expanded to spiritual
meaning beyond itself. That is, the spiritual meaning of the text is
resided in and controlled by the grammatical meaning of the text.80 In
this sense, Edwards’s typology is different from unbridled allegorical
interpretation.81 Instead of functioning as a means to protect Edwards’s
methodology from allegory, his Christological focus rather functions

80. Ayabe also points out the importance of the historical meaning of text in
Edwards’s use of typology as an important principle for Edwards’s typological engage-
ment. He states that “[t]he typological interpretation in ‘Notes on Scripture’ contains
historical references that anchor both the type and the antitype in time and space. As
a result we would expect Edwards to be more inclined to find types in passages that
reflect historical accounts, than passages which do not” (Ayabe, “A Search for Mean-
ing,” 100). However, Ayabe also fails to examine this feature of Edwards’s typology in
the context of history of biblical interpretation. In other words, he does not reveal how
this hermeneutical principle is related with that of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century biblical interpreters. Moreover, Ayabe’s thesis contains a methodological flaw
because he does not deal with Edwards’s other important exegetical work, The Blank
Bible. He explains that it was unavailable when he worked on his thesis.
81. Therefore, in both of his approaches to the spiritual meaning of the Major
Prophets (hermeneutics of promise and fulfillment and typology), Edwards’s spiri-
tual interpretation falls within the guidance of scriptural principles derived from a
literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual understanding of the text. The role of
only as a means to relate the events or persons of the Old Testament

to Christ and His work of redemption in the New Testament.
Besides Kreider, Stein’s arguments on Edwards’s exegetical meth-
odology, in his article “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,” also require
reevaluation. In this article, Stein claims:
[In his search for the spiritual sense of the Scripture] Edwards
shared certain assumptions with the Reformation tradition, but
in other ways he departed from prevailing patterns of Protestant
exegesis. In contrast to the Reformation accent upon the suf-
ficiency of the singular literal sense of the Bible, he underscored
the multiplicity of levels of meaning in the text and the primacy
of the spiritual.82
According to Stein, Edwards’s emphasis on the spiritual sense
shows a significant discontinuity between Edwards and the Ref-
ormation tradition. Stein’s analysis, however, is problematic on the
following points. First of all, his understanding of the literal sense of
the Bible in Reformation and Post-Reformation era is quite inaccu-
rate. By quoting Ames, who states that “there is only one meaning for
every place in Scripture,”83 Stein insists that “the Protestant Reforma-
tion rejected the idea that each passage of the Scripture was subject to
a variety of interpretations.”84 Unlike Stein’s argument, however, the
Reformed writers also underscored the multiplicity of levels of mean-
ing in the text.85 In order to understand this, one first needs to figure
out what the literal sense means by the Reformed writers. Their
understanding of literal sense is very different from that of modern
critical interpreters. Concerning the nature of the literal sense, Wil-
liam Whitaker writes:
literal, grammatical, and historical exegesis becomes a significant factor in uncovering

the spiritual meaning of the text in Edwards’s interpretation of the Major Prophets.
82. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,”100 –101.
83. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. & ed. John D. Eusden (Bos-
ton: Pilgrim, 1968), 188.
84. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,”106.
85. “Whereas the Reformers rejected the quadriga and many of the results of
medieval exegesis, they did not reject hermeneutical devices like the movement
from promise or shadow in the Old Testament to fulfillment or reality in the New
Testament, nor did they set aside a typological understanding of the relation of the
Old to the New covenant” (Muller, PRRD II, 469–70).
Such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropology in scripture;

but meanwhile we deny that there are many and various senses.
We affirm that there is but one true, proper, and genuine sense
of scripture, arising from the words rightly understood, which
we call the literal: and we contend that allegories, tropologies,
and anagoges are not various sense, but various collections
from one sense, or various applications and accommodations of
that one meaning.86
Turretin similarly argues that, even though the Bible “has only one
true and genuine sense,” this one sense can either be “simple” or “com-
posite.” According to him, the former refers to the historical sense of the
text “which contains the declaration of one thing only, whether a pre-
cept, a doctrine, or a historical event” and the latter indicates a “mixed
sense” such as is found in prophecy.87 Thus, for Turretin, although
there is one sense of the text which belongs to the single intention of
the Spirit, there can exist several levels of meaning in the text.88
Whitaker and Turretin’s statements clearly show that literal sense
refers to more than just the grammatical meaning or the meaning of
the words themselves in the era of Reformation and Post-Reformation.
For them, literal sense is one single sense which can have multiple ref-
erences.89 Therefore, it is evident that Stein misunderstood the usage
of the literal sense in Reformation and Post-Reformation periods.90
86. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, against the Papists, especially
Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. & ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1849), V.ii. 404. Note Charles K. Cannon, “William Whitaker’s
Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura: A Sixteenth-Century Theory of Allegory,” in Hunting-
ton Library Quarterly, 25 (1962): 129 –38; Victor Harris, “Allegory to Analogy in
the Interpretation of Scripture,” in Philological Quarterly, 45 (1966): 1–23.
87. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. II, trans. George Musgrave Giger,
ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 1992), xix.2.
88. Turretin, Institutes, xix.2 & 6. According to Turretin, even the simple sense
is twofold: either “proper and grammatical” or “figurative or tropical.” The former
refers to the literal sense which consists in the words themselves and the latter indi-
cates the literal sense which lies in what the words signify.
89. Muller, PRRD II, 473.
90. In particular, Stein’s analysis of the use of literal meaning of the text in the
Reformation era is based on very problematic works: Frederic W. Farrar’s History
of Interpretation (New York: Dutton, 1886), 307–54 and Hans W. Frei’s chapter on
pre-critical interpretation in The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University, 1974), 17–50. Stein,
“The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,” 106. It is beyond the boundary of this article
Certainly, the Reformed biblical interpreters rejected the medi-

eval quadriga. They argued that unless the Scriptures can have only
a single sense in any particular place, an ambiguity of meaning may
occur and it may finally cause errors in interpretation.91 For them,
nevertheless, “the elements of the medieval quadriga” had not com-
pletely been discarded.92 Instead, they were “repositioned by the
Reformed orthodox exegetes within the literal sense.”93 Unlike
Stein’s argument, the Reformed did not deny the multiple meaning
of the text. The importance of spiritual meaning of the text was only
more heightened.94
Stein also states that “the literal meaning Edwards pursued was
not singular in appearance. Rather it embraced a variety of aspects,
manifesting itself in numerous ways.”95 However, this is the exact her-
meneutical approach that the Reformed exegetes followed. For instance,
as already examined, diverse senses are identified in Edwards’s inter-
pretation of the Major Prophets, but they arise directly from the literal
grammatical meaning of the text. However, this exegetical pattern is
commonly found in many Reformed writers such as Calvin.96 Accord-
ing to orthodox Protestant hermeneutic, “there is one genuine sense
but there are various theological directions in which that sense points,
particularly those directions indicated by the fulfillment of prophecy
or by figures and types in the text.”97 Thus, Edwards’s interpretation of
the Major Prophets shows that his approach to the spiritual meaning is
not different from that of the Reformed exegetes.
Next, Stein claims that “[h]is hermeneutical category of the spiri-
tual sense makes it impossible to say when typology ends and allegory
to point out the problems of these two works. However, it is worthwhile at least to
note that Stein relies on works which have been severely criticized by other scholars.
94. Muller states, “Medieval exegesis was no longer possible nor desirable given
the state of hermeneutics and of Protestant doctrine—but the question of the spiri-
tual and churchly reading of the text of Scripture remained, indeed, as heightened
in importance in view of the increased distance between the text, now in Hebrew
and Greek rather than churchly Latin, and the complex doctrinal formulae of the
traditional theological system.” Muller, PRRD II, 469.
95. Stein, “The Quest for the Spiritual Sense,” 107.
96. For example, see Muller’s “The Hermeneutic of Promise of Fulfillment.”
begins.”98 However, this is an overstatement. In his interpretation

of the Major Prophets, Edwards’s use of typology is clearly distin-
guished because his typology is established on the literal historical
meaning of the text. Moreover, Edwards’s typology is distinguished
from allegory through his consistent use of terms such as “typifies,”
“represents,” “shadows,” “figures forth,” and “image.”
Consequently, Stein’s conclusion that “the Bible did not function
for him as a theological norm or source in any usual Protestant fashion
because the literal sense of the text did not restrict him”99 cannot be
warranted at all. Rather, in his interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel, Edwards’s understanding of the relation between the literal
meaning of the text and the spiritual one clearly shows that he firmly
stands in continuity with Reformation hermeneutical tradition.
Finally, in addition to the problems of previous scholarship on
Edwards’s hermeneutics, the present study challenges modern schol-
arship’s understanding of Edwards as a modern thinker. Since Perry
Miller argued this thesis,100 it was the dominant conception among
modern Edwardsean scholars. Concerning this, Donald Weber states:
Miller claimed that Edwards was the most modern man of his
age, one whose profound reading of Newton and Locke enabled
him to anticipate twentieth-century theories of history, reli-
gious psychology, and the self. In fact, this “modernity” thesis
has shaped the course of critical inquiry for a generation.101
However, Miller’s “modernity” thesis has been disproved by other
scholars. Weber also says that “thanks to the contributions of Conrad

100. For example, regarding the modernity in Edwards’s thinking, Miller states,
“That the psychology he accepted was an oversimplified sensationalism. And that
his science was unaware of evolution and relativity, should not obscure the fact that
in both quarters he dealt with the primary intellectual achievements of modernism,
with the assumptions upon which our psychology and physics still prosper: that man
is conditioned and that the universe is uniform law. The importance of Edwards—I
cannot insist too strongly—lies not in his answers, which are often pathetic testi-
monies to his lack of sophistication or to the meagerness of his resources, but in his
inspired definitions.” Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane
Associates, 1949; reprint, New York: Meridian Books, 1959), 72.
101. Donald Weber, “The Figure of Jonathan Edwards,” American Quarterly 35
(1983): 557.
Cherry, John F. Wilson and others, the question of Edwards’s moder-

nity is no longer an issue. We now place Edwards firmly within the
context of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century religious and philo-
sophical debate.”102 Along with Weber, Kenneth Minkema clearly
points out the problems of previous scholarship and summarizes the
majority view among Edwardsean scholars:
Jonathan Edwards is too often regarded as the isolated genius
who arose from humble, rustic, narrow-minded surroundings
and surmounted those obstacles by the force of his own intel-
ligence and inquisitiveness. The mistaken image of Jonathan as
a prodigy, first created by Sereno Dwight, has persisted despite
discoveries that his early efforts were actually written much later
than hitherto thought.... It is important to realize that Jonathan
Edwards was very much a product of the cultural milieu into
which he was born. There is no disputing that Jonathan took
what he was given and forged it into a singular vision, but the
tendency until recently has been to ignore just what he was
given. The romantic and obscured image of Edwards has been
amended by recent scholarship that investigates him in an intel-
lectual and social context.103
Nevertheless, some scholars still claim that Edwards should be
categorized as a modern man.104 For example, in his discussion of the
philosophical aspect of Edwards’s theology, Sang Hyun Lee strongly
insists, “My contention in this present volume is that Edwards was
actually more radically ‘modern’ than Miller himself might have
realized.”105 However, Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel clearly shows that he was a man of his time. As demonstrated
102. Weber, “The Figure of Jonathan Edwards,” 557

103. Kenneth Pieter Minkema, “The Edwardses: A Ministerial Family in Eigh-
teenth-Century New England” (Ph.D. diss., University of Connecticut, 1988), 148.
104. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide further evidence that Edwards was a
man of his time. In my opinion, his interpretation of a specific passage of Scripture
is one of the ideal places to show how traditional Edwards was.
105. Sang Hyun Lee, The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1988), 3. See also Robert W. Jensen, America’s Theologian:
A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988);
Stephen M. Clark, “Jonathan Edwards: The History of the Work of Redemption,”
Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 45–58. He argues that “Edwards anticipates the
biblical theological approach” of Geerhardus Vos, and “the student wishing to under-
stand the nature of Edwards’ methodology would do well to begin with Vos” (56).
in the present study, his hermeneutical presuppositions such as the

analogy of faith and the analogy of Scripture, exegetical methods such
as the pursuit of literal historical interpretation, the hermeneutics of
promise and fulfillment, the use of typology, and the employment of
the exegetical traditions are quite consistent with his tradition, par-
ticularly with those of the seventeenth century. One can hardly find
the elements of modern critical interpretation in his exposition of
the Major Prophets. Therefore, the modernity thesis cannot be war-
ranted by Edwards’s interpretation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
Conclusion
Examination of Jonathan Edwards’s interpretation of the Major
Prophets permits one significant conclusion concerning his herme-
neutical methodology: in his interpretation of the Major Prophets,
Edwards generally employs exegetical techniques which operate
within the bounds of his pre-critical hermeneutic presuppositions and
principles. In other words, Edwards’s hermeneutical methodology is
quite consistent with that of his pre-critical tradition. Therefore, this
exegetical feature clearly shows that, at least in Edwards’s interpreta-
tion of the Major Prophets, his hermeneutical methodology follows
more closely the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century pre-critical
model, more congruous with the patristic and the medieval exegetical
traditions than the characteristics of modern critical exegesis.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 193–231
Reading the Puritans

JOEL R. BEEKE
q
A medieval Talmudic scholar, R. Isaiah Di Trani (c. 1200–1260), once

asked, “Who can see farther, a giant or a dwarf?”
The answer was, “Surely the giant, because his eyes are higher
than those of the dwarf.”
“But if the giant carries the dwarf on his shoulders, who can see
farther?” Di Trani persisted.
“Surely the dwarf, whose eyes are now above the eyes of the
giant,” was the answer.
Di Trani then said, “We too are dwarfs riding on the shoulders of
giants.... [I]t is by virtue of the power of their wisdom that we have
learned all that we say, and not because we are greater than they were.”1
The point is: a dwarf must realize his place among giants. This
is true of all human achievement. When we survey church history,
we discover giants of the faith, such as Aurelius Augustine (354 –
430), Martin Luther (1483–1546), John Calvin (1509–1564), John
Owen (1616–1683), and Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). Amid those
giants the Puritans also rise as giants of exegetical ability, intellectual
achievement, and profound piety.
Upon this mountain our Reformed “city” is built. We are where
we are because of our history, though we are dwarves on the shoul-
ders of giants. Who would George Whitefield (1714–1770), Charles
Hodge (1797–1878), Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892), Herman
Bavinck (1854–1921), J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937), or D. Martyn
1. Cited in Hanina Ben-Menahem and Neil S. Hecht, eds., Authority, Process and
Method: Studies in Jewish Law (Amsterdam: Hardwood Academic Publishers, 1998),
119. For a shorter version of this article, see Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14, 4
(Winter 2010): 20–37. Several parts of this article have been adapted from other writ-
ings by the author who wishes to thank Kyle Borg for his assistance on its first sections.
Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981) be if not for their predecessors? Despite this,

Puritan studies were sorely neglected until the resurgence of Puritan
literature in the late 1950s. In many evangelical circles today, Puritan
theology is still marginalized. While the Puritans built palaces, we
are comfortable building shacks; where they planted fields, we plant
but a few flowers; while they turned over every stone in theological
reflection, we content ourselves with pebbles; where they aimed for
comprehensive depth, we aim for catchy sound bites.
The Latin phrase tolle lege, meaning “pick up and read,” offers a
remedy for this apathy toward spiritual truth. Our ancestors have left
us a rich theological and cultural heritage. We can say of the Puritans
what Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) said of his evening routine of
reading the ancients, “I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have
long since died. There I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only
food I find nourishing.”2
Returning to Puritan writings will also reward a diligent reader.
Whitefield said, “Though dead, by their writings they yet speak: a
peculiar unction attends them to this very hour.”3 Whitefield pre-
dicted that Puritan writings would be read until the end of time due
to their scriptural truth. Spurgeon agreed, saying, “In these [writings]
they do live forever. Modern interpreters have not superseded them,
nor will they altogether be superseded to the end of time.”4 Today
we are witnessing a revival of sorts in reading the Puritans. Initiated
largely by the Banner of Truth Trust, which has been systematically
and carefully publishing Puritan literature since the late 1950s,5 Puri-
tan reprints in the last fifty years now include 150 Puritan authors and
seven hundred Puritan titles printed by more than seventy-five pub-
lishers. Reformation Heritage Books (RHB) alone — of which the
Puritan line of Soli Deo Gloria is an imprint— carries approximately
2. Cited in Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche, ed.

David Wootton (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1996), 7.
3. George Whitefield, The Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, M.A....: con-
taining all his sermons and tracts which have been already published: with a select collection of
letters (London: printed for Edward and Charles Dilly, 1771–72), 4:307.
4. Cited in Steven C. Kettler, Biblical Counsel: Resources for Renewal (Newark,
Del.: Letterman Associates, 1993), 311.
5. Ligon Duncan, in Calvin for Today, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Refor-
mation Heritage Books, 2010), 231.
Reading the Puritans 195
150 Puritan titles and also sells at discount prices close to five hundred
Puritan titles that are currently in print.
We are grateful for this resurgence of interest in Puritan writ-
ings. However, this resurgence faces some challenges and poses some
questions which I will address in this article. I wish to address six
points. First, I will offer a brief overview of Puritan emphases, and
then, second, point out several ways of how to benefit by reading the
Puritans. Third, I will consider some ideas on how to begin reading
the Puritans, and then, fourth, look at a reading plan for the writings
of an individual Puritan, Thomas Goodwin. Fifth, I will look at some
of my favorite Puritans, and finally, I will consider some ideas for
printing more Puritan books in the future.
Definition and Emphases of Puritanism

Much ink has been spilled in defining who the Puritans were. The
difficulty is that Puritanism, which dates from the 1560s to the early
1700s, was never identified with a particular denomination or group.
As Edward Hindson noted, Puritanism included “those preachers
and laymen who held certain spiritual convictions that transcended
confessional boundaries. It was more a religious term than an eccle-
siastical label.”6
In this brief study, our use of the word Puritan includes not only
those people who were ejected from the Church of England by the Act
of Uniformity in 1662, but also those in Britain and North America
who, for several generations after the Reformation, worked to reform
and purify the church and to lead people toward biblical, godly living
consistent with the Reformed doctrines of grace.7 Puritanism grew
6. Edward Hindson, Introduction to Puritan Theology: A Reader (Grand Rapids:

Baker Books, 1976), 17.
7. Richard Mitchell Hawkes, “The Logic of Assurance in English Puritan
Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 247. For the difficulties in,
and attempts at, defining Puritanism, see Ralph Bronkema, The Essence of Puritan-
ism (Goes: Oosterbaan and LeCointre, 1929); Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins
of Puritanism,” Church History 20 (1951):37–57; Jerald C. Brauer, “Reflections on
the Nature of English Puritanism,” Church History 23 (1954):98–109; Basil Hall,
“Puritanism: The Problem of Definition,” in G. J. Cumming, ed., Studies in Church
History, vol. 2 (London: Nelson, 1965), 283–96; Charles H. George, “Puritanism as
History and Historiography,” Past and Present 41 (1968):77–104; William Lamont,
“Puritanism as History and Historiography: Some Further Thoughts,” Past and
Present 42 (1969):133–46; Richard Greaves, “The Nature of the Puritan Tradition,”
out of at least three needs: (1) the need for biblical preaching and
the teaching of sound, Reformed doctrine; (2) the need for biblical,
personal piety that stresses the work of the Holy Spirit in the faith
and life of the believer; and (3) the need for a restoration of bibli-
cal simplicity in liturgy, vestments, and church government, so that
a well-ordered church life would promote the worship of the triune
God as prescribed in His Word.8
Tom Webster suggests three elements of being a Puritan. First,
Puritans had a dynamic fellowship with God that shaped their
minds, affected their emotions, and penetrated their souls. They
were grounded in someone outside of themselves, namely, the triune
God of the Scriptures. Second, Puritans embraced a shared system
of beliefs grounded in the Scriptures. This system is today referred
to as Reformed orthodoxy. Third, out of this spiritually dynamic
worldview, the Puritans established a network of relationships among
believers and ministers.9
in R. Buick Knox, ed., Reformation, Conformity and Dissent: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey
Nuttall (London: Epworth Press, 1977), 255–73; D. M. Lloyd-Jones, “Puritanism
and Its Origins,” The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1987), 237–59; J. I. Packer, “Why We Need the Puritans,” in A Quest
for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1990),
21–36; Joel R. Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and His Succes-
sors (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999), 82ff.; Randall J. Pederson, “Puritan
Studies in the Twenty-First Century: Preambles and Projections,” Puritan Reformed
Journal 2, 2 (July 2010):108–122.
8. Peter Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2008), 11ff.
9. “It has proved possible to trace a network of godly divines in early Stuart
England, similar to William Haller’s ‘spiritual brotherhood,’ but going far beyond
the great names of Sibbes, Gouge, Preston, and Dod to draw in the humblest of
the painful preachers and the most junior of the aspirant ministers coming out of
Oxford and Cambridge.... It was rooted in what Peter Lake called a ‘certain evan-
gelical protestant world-view’ predicated upon the ‘potentially transforming effects
of the gospel on both individuals and on the social order as a whole.’ It is Lake’s con-
tention that if Puritanism is to be defined at all it must be in terms of this ‘spiritual
dynamic’...the nature of that spiritual dynamic [being] a sense of communion with
God, scripturally informed, deeply emotional, and yet aspiring to something beyond
the subjective” (Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puri-
tan Movement, c. 1620–1643 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], 333.
Webster cites William Haller, The Rise of Puritanism (New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press, 1938), chap. 1, and Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 279, 282–83.
Puritans were committed to search the Scriptures, organize their

findings, and then apply those to all areas of life. This created a con-
fessional, theological, and Trinitarian movement. It sought personal
conversion and communion with God, and the spiritual well-being of
the family, the church, and national life.10
Today it is almost an insult to be called a puritan. That is because
people have such a misguided opinion of the Puritans. Perry Miller
and Thomas Johnson said, “Confusion becomes more confounded
if we attempt to correlate modern usages with anything that can
be proved pertinent to the original Puritans themselves.”11 Today a
Puritan is often viewed through the lens of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s
(1804 –1864) The Scarlet Letter (1850) or the Salem witch trials; he is
seen as a stoic kill-joy more bent on fire, brimstone, and damnation
than the joys of salvation. However, this is a gross misrepresentation;
with rare exceptions, the Puritans were none of these.
Rather than defending the Puritan against false ideas, we will take
note of a former saying that “[Puritanism] is more easily described
than defined.”12 Scott Clark says Reformed theology has always had
its own particular theology, piety, and practice.13 This is also true of
Puritanism. So let us turn to a brief overview of the theology, piety,
and practice of this movement.
Theology
In doctrine, the Puritans were thoroughly Calvinistic. Miller and John-
son wrote of the Puritans, “They approved this doctrine not because he
[Calvin] taught it, but because it seemed inescapably indicated when
they studied scripture or observed the actions of men.”14 Calvinism, as
the Puritans understood it, was an entire worldview. That is quite dif-
ferent from the way contemporary people think of Calvinism. Often
Calvinism is viewed merely as a soteriological doctrine that emphasizes
the sovereignty of God. Many people define Calvinism simply as the
doctrines of grace summarized in the acronym, TULIP.
10. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, xvii.

11. Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson, eds., The Puritans, revised ed. (New
York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963), 1:1–2.
12. Ibid., 1:1.
13. R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R,
2008), 3. Peter Lewis emphasizes a similar structure in Genius of Puritanism, 11ff.
14. Miller and Johnson, The Puritans, 1:56.
But Calvinism is much more than that. Being rooted in the

sixteenth-century religious renewal in Europe that we refer to as
the Protestant Reformation, Calvinism was not exclusively soterio-
logical but was an entire system of theology developed by Protestant
Reformers. Calvinistic theology includes all the essential evangelical
doctrines, such as the deity of Christ, objective atonement, and the
person and work of the Holy Spirit. This system of theology has been
clarified in various confessions of the Reformed and Presbyterian
churches, such as the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), Heidelberg
Catechism (1563), Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Canons of
Dort (1618–1619), and the Westminster Standards (1640s).15
Puritan theology “was not a mere reduplication of the dogmas
of the Institutes,” however.16 Puritanism developed several Calvinistic
doctrines more thoroughly, such as covenant theology, spiritual adop-
tion, assurance of faith, and sanctification. Puritanism also sought
further reform in the Church of England.17 As Miller and Johnson
noted, “Puritan theorists worked out a substantial addition to the the-
ology of Calvinism.”18
Piety
While the Puritans were great exegetes, their intellectual rigor was
matched or even surpassed by their piety.19 The cultivation of spiri-
tuality or piety has been addressed in various ways by Christian
traditions. Reformed Christianity advocates a spiritual life shaped by
Scripture’s teachings and directives. It derives from the conviction
that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
(2 Tim. 3:16). Hindson wrote, “Their view of life was theocentric,
direct and controlled by God’s Word.”20
15. For an overview and parallel harmony of these seven confessions, see Joel
R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds., Reformed Confessions Harmonized (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1999). See also James Dennison, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and
17th Centuries, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009– ).
16. Miller and Johnson, The Puritans, 1:57.
17. Ibid., 1:5–6.
18. Ibid., 1:57.
19. For a discussion on Puritan piety, see Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spiri-
tuality (Darlington, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 2006).
20. Hindson, Puritan Theology, 24.
No movement promoted Reformed piety and spirituality more

than the Puritans. This Word-centered piety involved every facet of
life. The all-consuming passion of the Puritan was to live coram Deo—
before the face of God. This belief grew out of the conviction that
God has sovereignly saved us, so in response we live out of gratitude
in visible piety. As Kelly Kapic writes, “For the Puritan, intellectual
assent to Christian doctrine had to be balanced with the practical out-
working of God’s grace in life experiences.”21
This emphasis is evident in William Ames’s (1576–1633) defini-
tion of theology as “the doctrine of living to God.”22 It demonstrates
the common theme in Puritan piety of experimental or experiential
Christianity. The Puritans were convinced that theology must be
brought into the daily experience of the believer. Richard Sibbes
(1566–1635) wrote, “Experience is the life [of] a Christian. What is
all knowledge of Christ without experience, but a bare knowledge....
It is the experimental knowledge of Christ, and of the life of Christ,
that doth us good.”23 Thomas Manton (1620–1677) noted that it is by
experience the Holy Spirit establishes the Word in our hearts.24
The Puritans’ experiential faith is not the same as experiential-
ism, which makes experience the end-all, thereby losing its biblical
moorings. This is common in contemporary Pentecostalism. Rather,
experiential Reformed Christianity addresses how the Holy Spirit
brings the truth of God’s Word into the experience of the Christian,
both in terms of what he ought to be idealistically as a believer in Christ
(e.g., Rom. 6:10 and chap. 8) and what he finds himself to be realisti-
cally in his holy war against sin (e.g., Rom. 7:14 –25). All of this is
meant to be God-centered and not experience-centered—that is to
say, the goal of the believer’s examination of his own experience is
to trace the Spirit’s work in his own soul so as to give glory to God.
William Guthrie (1620–1655) rightly said, “The Spirit speaking in
21. Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason, The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puri-
tan Classics (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2004), 25.
22. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1968), 77.
23. Richard Sibbes, The Works of Richard Sibbes (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1983), 4:412.
24. Thomas Manton, The Works of Thomas Manton (Birmingham, Ala.: Solid
Ground, 2008), 6:403.
the Scripture is judge of all.”25 This includes the full scope of our
individual experiences in communion with God. Such experience is
necessary for a true and vital religion. William Gurnall (1616–1679)
said, “If gospel truths work not effectually on thee for thy renovation
and sanctification, thou art a lost man; they will undoubtedly be ‘a
savor of death’ to thee. O how can you then rest till you find them
transforming your hearts and assimilating your lives to their heavenly
nature!”26 This experiential emphasis was the heartbeat of Puritan
piety, for the Puritans believed that Christianity is a Spirit-worked,
vital, heartfelt faith that produces a genuine Christian walk.
Practice
The Puritans also practiced piety. Richard Steele (1629–1692) wrote,
“There are thousands of beams and rays, yet they all meet and center
in the sun. So an upright man, though...he has many subordinate
ends—to procure a livelihood, to preserve his credit, to provide for
his children—but he has no supreme end but God alone.”27 Within
the relationships a Puritan had with himself, others, and the world,
he was to practice godliness. Thomas Shepard (1605–1649), who said,
“God hath not lined the way to Christ with velvet,” spoke of four
narrow gates that are essential for a believer to pass through in daily
practice: humiliation, faith, repentance, and opposition to the world,
devils, and self.28 Consequently, the Puritans taught that believers
were to live circumspectly and moderately, understanding that their
pleasures and emotions “must not be liked for themselves, but so far
as God is enjoyed with them and in them.”29
The practice of Puritan piety was not limited to one’s personal
life. The Puritans also maintained a rigorous and devout ecclesiastical
life. Sabbath worship was the high point of the Puritan week, for in
25. William Guthrie, The Christian’s Great Interest (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 2002), 25.
26. William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armour (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth Trust, 2002), 2:569.
27. Richard Steele, The Character of an Upright Man (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Glo-
ria, 2004), 13.
28. Thomas Shepard, The Sincere Convert (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999),
64 – 65.
29. Nathanael Vincent, Attending Upon God Without Distraction (Grand Rapids:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 14–15.
the congregated assembly God works by the Spirit in the hearts of His
people. Puritan worship services were governed by the ordinances
God has explicitly laid down in Scripture, which are preaching the
Word, the sacraments, and prayer. These ordinances, wrote Thomas
Vincent, are the “ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to
us the benefits of redemption.”30
The Puritans did not seek approval from the world but diligently
fought the fight of faith to win their Master’s approbation. In their
pursuit of living soli Deo gloria (to the glory of God), they were true-
hearted, single-hearted, and whole-hearted.
In short, Puritanism was a kind of vigorous Calvinism. Experien-
tially, it was warm and contagious; evangelistically, it was aggressive,
yet tender; ecclesiastically, it was theocentric and worshipful; and
politically, it advocated right relations between king, Parliament, and
subjects. Puritan doctrine embraced all of personal, domestic, ecclesi-
astical, societal, and national life.31
How to Profit from Reading the Puritans

Here are nine ways you can grow spiritually by reading Puritan lit-
erature today:
1. Puritan writings help shape life by Scripture. The Puritans loved, lived,
and breathed Holy Scripture. They also relished the power of the Spirit
that accompanied the Word. Rarely can you open a Puritan book and
not find its pages filled with Scripture references; their books are all
Word-centered. More than 90 percent of their writings are repack-
aged sermons rich with scriptural exposition. The Puritan writers
truly believed in the sufficiency of Scripture for life and godliness.
If you read the Puritans regularly, their Bible-centeredness will
become contagious. These writings will teach you to yield whole-
hearted allegiance to the Bible’s message. Like the Puritans, you will
become a believer of the Living Book, echoing the truth of John
Flavel (1628–1691), who said, “The Scriptures teach us the best way
30. Thomas Vincent, The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture (Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth Trust, 2004), 234.
31. Sidney H. Rooy, The Theology of Missions in the Puritan Tradition (Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 1965), 310 –28.
of living, the noblest way of suffering, and the most comfortable

way of dying.”32
2. Puritan writings show how to integrate biblical doctrine into daily life.
Cornelis Pronk wrote, “The Puritan’s concern...was primarily ethi-
cal or moral rather than abstractly doctrinal.”33 The Puritan writings
express this emphasis in three ways:
First, they address your mind. In keeping with the Reformed tradi-
tion, the Puritans refused to set mind and heart against each other,
but viewed the mind as the palace of faith. William Greenhill (1591–
1671) stated, “Ignorance is the mother of all errors.”34 The Puritans
understood that a mindless Christianity fosters a spineless Christian-
ity. An anti-intellectual gospel quickly becomes an empty, formless
gospel that never gets beyond catering to felt needs. Puritan literature
is a great help for understanding the vital connection between what
we believe and how that affects the way we live.
Second, Puritan writings confront your conscience. Today many
preachers are masterful at avoiding convicting people of sin, whereas
the Puritans were masters at convicting us about the heinous nature
of our sin against an infinite God. This is amply displayed in Ralph
Venning’s (c. 1622–1674) The Sinfulness of Sin. For example, Venning
wrote: “Sin is the dare of God’s justice, the rape of his mercy, the jeer
of his patience, the slight of his power, the contempt of his love.”35
The Puritans excelled at exposing specific sins, then asked ques-
tions to press home conviction of those sins. As one Puritan wrote,
“We must go with the stick of divine truth and beat every bush behind
which a sinner hides, until like Adam who hid, he stands before God
in his nakedness.”
Devotional reading should be confrontational as well as comfort-
ing. We grow little if our consciences are not pricked daily and directed
to Christ. Since we are prone to run for the bushes when we feel
threatened, we need daily help to come before the living God, “naked
32. Cited in John Blanchard, The Complete Gathered Gold (Darlington, U.K.:
Evangelical Press, 2006), 49.
33. Cornelis Pronk, “Puritan Christianity,” The Messenger (March 1997): 5.
34. William Greenhill, Exposition on the Prophet of Ezekiel (London: Samuel
Holdsworth, 1839), 110.
35. Ralph Venning, The Sinfulness of Sin (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001),
32. Venning is citing Bunyan.
and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb.
4:13). In this, the Puritans excelled. Owen wrote: “Christ by his death
destroying the works of the devil, procuring the Spirit for us, hath
so killed sin, as to its reign in believers, that it shall not obtain its end
and dominion.... Look on him under the weight of your sins, praying,
bleeding, dying; bring him in that condition into thy heart of faith.”36
Third, Puritan writers engage your heart. They feed the mind with
solid biblical substance and they move the heart with affectionate
warmth. They wrote out of love for God’s Word, love for the glory
of God, and love for the souls of readers. They did this because their
hearts were touched by God and they, in turn, longed for others to feel
and experience salvation. As John Bunyan (1628–1688) exclaimed,
“O that they who have heard me speak this day did but see as I do
what sin, death, hell, and the curse of God is; and also what the grace,
and love, and mercy of God is, through Jesus Christ.”37
3. Puritan writings show how to exalt Christ and see His beauty. The Puritan
Thomas Adams (1583–1652) wrote: “Christ is the sum of the whole
Bible, prophesied, typified, prefigured, exhibited, demonstrated, to be
found in every leaf, almost in every line, the Scriptures being but as it
were the swaddling bands of the child Jesus.”38
The Puritans loved Christ and relished His beauty. The best
example of this is probably Samuel Rutherford’s (1600–1661) Letters,
which sing the sweetest canticles of the Savior. To an elder, Rutherford
wrote, “Christ, Christ, nothing but Christ, can cool our love’s burn-
ing languor. O thirsty love! Wilt thou set Christ, the well of life, to
thy head, and drink thy fill? Drink, and spare not; drink love, and be
drunken with Christ!”39 To another friend, he wrote, “I have a lover
Christ, and yet I want love for Him! I have a lovely and desirable Lord,
who is love-worthy, and who beggeth my love and heart, and I have
nothing to give Him! Dear brother, come further in on Christ, and
see a new wonder, and heaven and earth’s wonder of love, sweetness,
36. John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 6:85.
37. John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1991), 1:42.
38. Thomas Adams, The Works of Thomas Adams (Edinburgh: James Nichol,
1862), 3:224.
39. Samuel Rutherford, The Letters of Samuel Rutherford (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 2006), 173.
majesty, and excellency in Him.”40 If you would know Christ better

and love Him more fully, immerse yourself in Puritan literature.
4. Puritan writings highlight the Trinitarian character. The Puritans were

driven by a deep sense of the infinite glory of a Triune God. Edmund
Calamy (1600–1666) noted this doctrine should “be allowed to be
of as great importance in itself and its consequences, as any of our
most distinguishing Christian principles.”41 When the Puritans said
in the Shorter Catechism that man’s chief end was to glorify God,
they meant the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They took
Calvin’s glorious understanding of the unity of the Trinity in the
Godhead, and showed how that worked out in electing, redeeming,
and sanctifying love and grace in the lives of believers.
Owen wrote an entire book on the Christian believer’s distinct
communion with each Person in the Godhead—with God as Father,
Jesus as Savior, and the Holy Spirit as Comforter. Samuel Ruther-
ford echoed the conviction of many Puritans when he said that he
did not know which divine person he loved the most, but he knew
that he needed each of them and loved them all. The Puritans teach
us how to remain God-centered while being vitally concerned about
Christian experience so that we don’t fall into the trap of glorifying
experience for its own sake.
5. Puritan writings show how to handle trials. Puritanism grew out of

a great struggle between the truth of God’s Word and its enemies.
Reformed Christianity was under attack in England at the time of
the Puritans, even more than Reformed Christianity is under attack
today. The Puritans were good soldiers in the conflict; they endured
great hardships and suffered much. Their lives and writings arm us
for battle and encourage us in suffering. The Puritans teach us how
affliction is necessary to humble us (Deut. 8:2), to teach us what sin is
(Zeph. 1:12), and to bring us back to God (Hos. 5:15).
Much of the comfort the Puritans offer grows out of the very
nature of God. Henry Scougal (1650–1678) said of afflicted believ-
ers that it comforts them “to remember that an unerring providence
40. Ibid., 426.

41. Edmund Calamy, Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity (London,
1722), 6.
doth overrule all their seeming disorders, and makes them all serve
to great and glorious designs.”42 And Thomas Watson (c. 1620–1686)
declared, “Afflictions work for good, as they conform us to Christ.
God’s rod is a pencil to draw Christ’s image more lively upon us.”43
6. Puritan writings describe true spirituality. The Puritans stressed the

spirituality of the law, the spiritual warfare against indwelling sin, the
childlike fear of God, the wonder of grace, the art of meditation, the
dreadfulness of hell, and the glories of heaven. If you want to live
deeply as a Christian, read Oliver Heywood’s Heart Treasure. Read the
Puritans devotionally, then pray to be like them. Ask questions such
as: Am I, like the Puritans, thirsting to glorify the triune God? Am I
motivated by biblical truth and biblical fire? Do I share their view of
the vital necessity of conversion and of being clothed with the righ-
teousness of Christ? Do I follow the Puritans as they followed Christ?
Does my life savor of true spirituality?
7. Puritan writings show how to live by holistic faith. The Puritans applied
every subject they discussed to practical “uses,” which propel a believer
into passionate, effective action for Christ’s kingdom. In their daily
lives they integrated Christian truth with covenant vision; they knew
no dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. Their writings can
help you live in a way that centers on God. They will help you appre-
ciate God’s gifts and declare everything “holiness to the Lord.”
The Puritans excelled as covenant theologians. They lived that
theology, covenanting themselves, their families, their churches, and
their nations to God. Yet they did not fall into the error of “hyper-cov-
enantalism,” in which the covenant of grace became a substitute for
personal conversion. They promoted a comprehensive worldview that
brought the whole gospel to bear on all of life, striving to bring every
action in conformity with Christ, so that believers would mature and
grow in faith. The Puritans wrote on practical subjects, such as how
to pray, how to develop genuine piety, how to conduct family worship,
and how to raise children for Christ. In short, as J. I. Packer noted,
they taught how to develop a “rational, resolute, passionate piety [that
42. Henry Scougal, The Works of Henry Scougal (New York: Robert Carter,
1846), 169.
43. Thomas Watson, All Things for Good (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 28.
is] conscientious without becoming obsessive, law-oriented without

lapsing into legalism, and expressive of Christian liberty without any
shameful lurches into license.”44
8. Puritan writings teach the primacy of preaching. William Perkins (1558–

1602) explained why preaching is so critical: “Through preaching
those who hear are called into the state of grace, and preserved in it.”45
To the Puritans, preaching was the high point of public worship. “It is
no small matter to stand up in the face of a congregation, and deliver
a message of salvation or damnation, as from the living God, in the
name of our Redeemer,” wrote Richard Baxter (1615–1691).46
The Puritans taught that preaching must be expository and didac-
tic, evangelistic and convicting, experiential and applicatory, powerful
and plain in its presentation, ever respecting the sovereignty of the
Holy Spirit. For the Puritans, what transpired on Sabbath mornings
and evenings was not merely a pep talk but was an encounter with
God by the Spirit through the Word.
9. Puritan writings show how to live in two worlds. The Puritans said we
should have heaven in our eye throughout our earthly pilgrimage.
They took seriously the New Testament passages that say we must
keep the hope of glory before our minds to guide and shape our lives
here on earth. They viewed this life as “the gymnasium and dressing
room where we are prepared for heaven,” teaching us that preparation
for death is the first step in learning to truly live.47
These nine points are reason enough to demonstrate the benefit
of reading the Puritans. We live in dark days where it seems the visible
church in many areas around the globe, and particularly in the West,
is floundering. Waning interest in doctrinal fidelity and a disinter-
est in holiness prevails in many Christians. The church’s ministry
has been marginalized or ignored. The Puritans were in many ways
ahead of their times. Their books address the problems of our day
with a scriptural clarity and zeal that the church desperately needs.
44. J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1990), 24.
45. William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002), 7.
46. Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo
Gloria, 2001), 4:383.
47. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, 13.
Where to Begin Reading the Puritans

The sheer amount of Puritan literature being reprinted today and
offered online can be intimidating. Furthermore, the number of
books written about the Puritans is nearly as vast as the collection
of Puritan titles. Our Puritan Research Center alone contains three
thousand books of primary and secondary sources, plus thousands of
articles about the Puritans.48
The Puritans were people of their time, and even while much
of what they wrote is timeless, we must understand them within
their context. They battled the spirit of their age and waged doctri-
nal debates pertinent to their day and which, at times, seem quite
removed from issues of today. Secondary sources help us understand
their historical milieu. The goal of this section is to offer bibliographic
information that can help you read the Puritans.
The best overall introduction to the worldview of the Puritans
is Leland Ryken’s Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were.49
Other somewhat shorter yet helpful introductions include Peter Lew-
is’s The Genius of Puritanism and Erroll Hulse’s Who Are the Puritans?
And What Do They Teach?50 For basic biographies of the one hundred
fifty Puritans that have been reprinted in the last fifty years, together
with brief reviews of seven hundred reprinted Puritan titles, see Meet
the Puritans, with a Guide to Modern Reprints by Randall J. Pederson and
myself.51 We suggest the best way to use Meet the Puritans is to read one
biography and reviews of that Puritan writer per day, thus using the
book as a kind of daily biographical devotional. For short biographies
of more obscure Puritans who have not been reprinted in the last fifty
years, see Benjamin Brook (1776–1848), The Lives of the Puritans.52 For
brief biographies of most of the Puritans at the Westminster Assem-
bly, see William S. Barker’s Puritan Profiles.53 For individual studies of
48. www.puritanseminary.org
49. Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).
50. Peter Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2008); Erroll Hulse, Who Are the Puritans? (Darlington, England: Evangelical
Press, 2000).
51. Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans, with a Guide to Modern
Reprints (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006).
52. Benjamin Brook, The Lives of the Puritans, 3 vols. (Pittsburgh: Soli Deo
Gloria, 1994).
53. William S. Barker, Puritan Profiles (Fearn: Mentor, 1999).
various Puritan divines and aspects of their theology, begin with J. I.

Packer’s A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life,
and my Puritan Reformed Spirituality.54
The Puritans can be difficult to read. Their wording, grammati-
cal structure, and detail can be hard for the modern mind to grasp. It
is best to read short books from some popular Puritan writers before
attempting to read Puritans of more theological profundity, such as
Owen and Thomas Goodwin (1600–1679). I recommend beginning
with Puritan divines like Thomas Watson (c. 1620–1686), John Flavel
(1628–1691), and George Swinnock (c. 1627–1673). Watson wrote suc-
cinctly, clearly, and simply. His Art of Divine Contentment, Heaven Taken
by Storm, and The Doctrine of Repentance are good places to begin.55
Flavel, who was pastor at the seaport of Dartmouth, became
known as a seaman’s preacher. He is one of the simplest Puritans to
read. His Mystery of Providence is filled with pastoral and comforting
counsel.56 Swinnock showed a special sensitivity to the Scriptures and
could explain doctrines with great wisdom and clarity. You might try
his The Fading of the Flesh and The Flourishing of Faith, recently edited by
Stephen Yuille and printed in a contemporary style.57 Both Flavel and
Swinnock have had their entire works published in multivolume sets.58
The books of Richard Sibbes and Thomas Brooks (1608–1680)
are also a good place to start, especially Sibbes’s The Bruised Reed and
Brooks’s Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices.59 You may also ben-
efit from that master of allegory, John Bunyan, though some of his
treatises reflect an unexpected intellectual depth from the tinker of
54. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1990); Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spirituality (Dar-
lington, England: Evangelical Press, 2006).
55. Thomas Watson, The Art of Divine Contentment (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo
Gloria, 2001); idem, Heaven Taken By Storm (Orlando: Northampton Press, 2008);
idem, The Doctrine of Repentance (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988).
56. John Flavel, The Mystery of Providence (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1963).
57. George Swinnock, The Fading of the Flesh and the Flourishing of Faith, ed.
Stephen Yuille (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009). Other easy-to-
read Puritan titles in this new series include William Greenhill, Stop Loving the World
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), and John Flavel, Triumphing
Over Sinful Fear (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011).
58. The Works of John Flavel, 6 vols. (repr., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968);
The Works of George Swinnock, 5 vols. (repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002).
59. Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), Thomas
Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1968).
Bedford.60 Then, too, you could move your way through the Banner
of Truth’s line of Puritan Paperbacks (which is how I began read-
ing the Puritans at age fourteen) or the more recent Pocket Puritans
series. Some Puritan titles written by Owen have been abridged by
R. J. K. Law and made easier to read. These are good places to start
reading the experiential writings of the Puritans.
How to proceed next depends on your particular interest. After
becoming acquainted with various styles of Puritan literature, you
have a broad spectrum of possibilities to consider. What joys you
might have wrestling with Owen’s weighty treatments of the glory of
Christ, his soul-searching treatise on sin, and his exegetical master-
piece on Hebrews. Or how thrilling it would be to ascend the heights
of the intellectual and spiritual atmosphere with Jonathan Edwards,
or to plumb the depths of divine attributes with Stephen Charnock
(1628–1680). You may probe the redemptive glories of the covenant
with John Ball (1585–1640) and Samuel Petto (c. 1624–1711) or be
allured by the redemptive doctrines of justification and sanctification
with Walter Marshall (1628–1680), Peter van Mastricht (1630–1706),
or Robert Traill (1642–1716). You could entrust yourself to a compe-
tent guide like Edward Fisher (d. 1655) to bring you safely through
the law/gospel distinction or be impressed with the profound but sim-
ple writings of Hugh Binning (1627–1653). Prepare to be challenged
by the soul-penetrating works of Thomas Shepard (1605–1649) and
Matthew Mead (1629–1699) or be instructed by the plain reason of
Jeremiah Burroughs (c. 1600–1646), Richard Baxter (1615–1691), and
George Hammond (c. 1620–1705).
Whatever topic you select, you may be sure that the Puritans have
addressed it with scriptural precision, vivid illumination, practical
benefit, experiential warmth, and an eye to the glory of God. Many
Puritan writings, however, are not for the faint of heart. But the
reader who diligently probes Puritan writings with the willingness
to gaze under every rock they overturn and prayerfully consider what
they say, will be drawn ever more deeply into the revealed mysteries
of God. When you follow the writings of these faithful men, you will
find that it will be for the betterment of your soul.
60. The Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2004).
How to Read an Individual Puritan

There are no rules for reading individual Puritans, but here are some
suggestions. Generally speaking, Puritans are best read slowly and
meditatively. Don’t rush through their books. Look up the texts they
cite to prove their points. Intersperse your reading with prayer.
Here are some guidelines for reading Thomas Goodwin, who
was, for twenty years, my favorite Puritan writer. The first collection
of Goodwin’s works was published in five folio volumes in London
from 1681 to 1704, under the editorship of Thankful Owen, Thomas
Baron, and Thomas Goodwin Jr. An abridged version of those works
was later printed in four volumes (London, 1847–50). James Nichol
printed a more reliable collection of Goodwin’s works in twelve
volumes (Edinburgh, 1861–66) in the Nichol’s Series of Standard
Divines. It is far superior to the original five folio volumes and was
reprinted in 2006 by Reformation Heritage Books.
Goodwin’s exegesis is massive; he leaves no stone unturned. His
first editors (1681) said of his work: “He had a genius to dive into the
bottom of points, to ‘study them down,’ as he used to express it, not
contenting himself with superficial knowledge, without wading into
the depths of things.”61 Calamy said: “It is evident from his writings
[that] he studied not words, but things. His style is plain and familiar;
but very diffuse, homely and tedious.”62 One does need patience to
read Goodwin; however, along with depth and prolixity, he offers a
wonderful sense of warmth and experience. A reader’s patience will
be amply rewarded.
Here is a plan for reading Goodwin’s works.
1. Begin by reading some of the shorter, more practical
writings of Goodwin, such as Patience and Its Perfect Work,
which includes four sermons on James 1:1–5. This book
was written after much of Goodwin’s personal library was
destroyed by fire (Works, 2:429–67). It contains much
practical instruction on the spirit of submission.
61. For the reprinting of the original preface, see The Works of Thomas Goodwin
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 1:xxix–xxxii.
62. Edmund Calamy, The Nonconformist’s Memorial, ed. Samuel Palmer (Lon-
don: Alex. Hogg, 1778), 1:186.
2. Read Certain Select Cases Resolved, which offers three expe-

riential treatises that reveal Goodwin’s pastoral heart for
afflicted Christians. Each deals with specific struggles
in the believer’s soul: (a) “A Child of Light Walking in
Darkness” encourages the spiritually depressed based on
Isaiah 50:10–11 (3:241–350). The subtitle summarizes
its contents: “A Treatise Shewing The Causes by which,
The Cases wherein, and the Ends for which, God Leaves
His Children to Distress of Conscience, Together with
Directions How to Walk so as to Come Forth of Such a
Condition.” (b) “The Return of Prayers,” based on Psalm
85:8, is a uniquely practical work. It offers help in ascertain-
ing “God’s answers to our prayers” (3:353– 429). (c) “The
Trial of a Christian’s Growth” (3:433–506), based on John
15:1–2, centers on sanctification, specifically mortification
and vivification. This is a mini-classic on spiritual growth.
You might also read The Vanity of Thoughts, based on Jer-
emiah 4:14 (3:509–528). This work, often republished in
paperback, stresses the need to bring every thought captive
to Christ. It also describes ways to foster that obedience.
3. Read some of Goodwin’s great sermons. They are strong,
biblical, Christological, and experiential (2:359– 425;
4:151–224; 5:439–548; 7:473–576; 9:499–514; 12:1–127).
4. Delve into Goodwin’s works that explain major doctrines,
such as:
(a) An Unregenerate Man’s Guiltiness Before God in Respect
of Sin and Punishment (10:1–567). This is a weighty trea-
tise on human guilt, corruption, and the imputation and
punishment of sin. In exposing the total depravity of the
natural man’s heart, this book aims to produce a heartfelt
need for saving faith in Christ.
(b) The Object and Acts of Justifying Faith (8:1–593). This is a
frequently reprinted classic on faith. Part 1, on the objects of
faith, focuses on God’s nature, Christ, and the free grace of
God revealed in His absolute promises. Part 2 deals with
the acts of faith: what it means to believe in Christ, to obtain
assurance, to find joy in the Holy Ghost, and to make use
of God’s electing love. One section beautifully explains

the “actings of faith in prayer.” Part 3 addresses the prop-
erties of faith: their excellence in giving all honor to God
and Christ, their difficulty in reaching beyond the natural
abilities of man, their necessity in requiring us to believe
in the strength of God. The conclusion provides “direc-
tions to guide us in our endeavours to believe.”
(c) Christ the Mediator (2 Cor. 5:18–19), Christ Set Forth
(Rom. 8:34), and The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards
Sinners on Earth are great works on Christology (5:1– 438;
4:1–92; 4:93–150). Christ the Mediator presents Jesus in
His substitutionary work of humiliation. It is a classic.
Christ Set Forth proclaims Christ in His exaltation, and The
Heart of Christ explores the tenderness of Christ’s glorified
human nature shown on earth. Goodwin is more mysti-
cal in this work than anywhere else in his writings, but as
Paul Cook has ably shown, his mysticism is kept within
the bounds of Scripture. Cook says Goodwin is unparal-
leled “in his combination of intellectual and theological
power with evangelical and homiletical comfort.”63
(d) Gospel Holiness in Heart and Life (7:129–336) is based on
Philippians 1:9–11. It explains the doctrine of sanctifica-
tion in every sphere of life.
(e) The Knowledge of God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ
(4:347–569), combined with The Work of the Holy Spirit (6:1–
522), explore the profound work in the believer’s soul of
the three divine persons. The Work of the Spirit is particularly
helpful for understanding the doctrines of regeneration and
conversion. It carefully distinguishes the work of “the natu-
ral conscience” from the Spirit’s saving work.
(f ) The Glory of the Gospel (4:227–346) consists of two ser-
mons and a treatise based on Colossians 1:26–27. It should
be read along with The Blessed State of Glory Which the Saints
Possess After Death (7:339–472), based on Revelation 14:13.
63. Paul Cook, “Thomas Goodwin—Mystic?” in Diversities of Gifts (London:

Westminster Confereence, 1981), 45–56.
(g) A Discourse of Election (9:1–498) delves into issues such

as the supralapsarian-infralapsarian debate, which wres-
tles with the moral or rational order of God’s decrees. It
also deals with the fruits of election (e.g., see Book IV on
1 Peter 5:10 and Book V on how God fulfills His covenant
of grace in the generations of believers).
(h) The Creatures and the Condition of Their State by Creation
(7:1–128) is Goodwin’s most philosophical work.
5. Prayerfully and slowly digest Goodwin’s nine-hundred-
plus page exposition of Ephesians 1:1 to 2:11 (1:1–564;
2:1–355). Alexander Whyte wrote of this work, “Not even
Luther on the Galatians is such an expositor of Paul’s mind
and heart as is Goodwin on the Ephesians.”64
6. Save for last Goodwin’s exposition of Revelation (3:1–
226) and his only polemical work, The Constitution, Right
Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ (11:1–546).
Independents would highly value this polemic, while
Presbyterians probably would not, saying Goodwin is
trustworthy on nearly every subject except church govern-
ment. Goodwin’s work does not degrade Presbyterians,
however. A contemporary who argued against Goodwin’s
view on church government confessed that Goodwin con-
veyed “a truly great and noble spirit” throughout the work.
Whichever Puritan you choose, familiarize yourself with his
various writings. With major and voluminous works be sure to note
earlier writings from later writings. This is particularly important
with Puritans such as Owen. The young Owen did not agree com-
pletely with the later Owen in certain areas, such as the necessity of
the atonement. Familiarity with these matters will help you grasp the
particular nuances of individual Puritans.
Some of My Favorite Puritans

My favorite Puritan-minded theologian from the English tradition is
Anthony Burgess, from the Dutch tradition, Wilhelmus á Brakel, and
from the Scottish tradition, Samuel Rutherford. Let me explain why.
64. Alexander Whyte, Thirteen Appreciations (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson

& Ferrier, 1913), 162.
Anthony Burgess (d. 1664)

In my opinion, Anthony Burgess, vicar of Sutton Coldfield, Warwick-
shire from 1635 to 1662, is the most underrated Puritan of all time.
I once asked Iain Murray why Burgess was not included in the nine-
teenth-century sets of the works of the best Puritans. He responded
that Burgess was the greatest glaring omission from those reprints.
In fifteen years (1646–1661), Burgess wrote at least a dozen books
based largely on his sermons and lectures. His writings reveal a schol-
arly acquaintance with Aristotle, Seneca, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther,
and Calvin. He made judicious use of Greek and Latin quotations
while reasoning in the plain style of Puritan preaching. Burgess was
a cultured scholar and experimental preacher who produced astute,
warm, devotional writings.
Burgess wrote about the mysteries of God and was also an experi-
mental writer. He masterfully separated the precious from the vile in
The Godly Man’s Choice, based on thirteen sermons on Psalm 4:6–8.
His detailed exegesis in his 145-sermon work on John 17, his 300-
page commentary on 1 Corinthians 3, and his 700-page commentary
on 2 Corinthians 1 are heart-warming. They fulfilled Burgess’s goal
to “endeavour the true and sound Exposition...so as to reduce all
Doctrinals and controversials to practicals and experimentals, which
is the life and soul of all.”65
Several of Burgess’s major works are polemical. His first major
treatise, Vindiciae Legis (1646), based on twenty-nine lectures given at
Lawrence-Jewry, vindicated the Puritan view of the moral law and
the covenants of works and grace in opposition to Roman Catholics,
Arminians, Socinians, and Antinomians. Two years later, Burgess
wrote against the same opponents, plus Baxter, in his first volume on
justification. He refuted Baxter’s work for its Arminian tendencies in
arguing for a process of justification that involves the cooperation of
divine grace with human works. His second volume on justification,
which appeared six years later (1654), discusses the natural righteous-
ness of God and the imputed righteousness of Christ. Those two
volumes contain seventy-five sermons. His 555-page Doctrine of Origi-
nal Sin (1659) drew Anabaptists into the fray.
Burgess’s best and largest work, Spiritual Refining: The Anat-
omy of True and False Conversion (1652–54)—two volumes of 1,100
65. Anthony Burgess, Second Corinthians 1, intro.

pages—has been called an “unequaled anatomy of experimental

religion.” The first volume, subtitled A Treatise of Grace and Assurance,
contains 120 sermons; the second, subtitled A Treatise of Sin, with its
Causes, Differences, Mitigations and Aggravations, contains 42 sermons.66
In the first section of the first volume, Burgess refutes the antino-
mian error that internal marks of grace in a believer are no evidence
of his justification. In my opinion, the first sixty pages of the facsimile
edition include the best short treatment on assurance in all Puritan
literature. Here is one choice quotation in which Burgess shows the
need to give priority to Christ and His promises rather than to the
marks of grace in ascertaining one’s assurance:
We must take heed that we do not so gaze upon ourselves to
find graces in our own hearts as thereby we forget those Acts
of Faith, whereby we close with Christ immediately, and rely
upon him only for our Justification.... The fear of this hath
made some cry down totally the use of signs, to evidence our
Justification. And the truth is, it cannot be denied but many of
the children of God, while they are studying and examining,
whether grace be in their souls, that upon the discovery thereof,
they may have comfortable persuasions of their Justification, are
very much neglective of those choice and principal Acts of Faith,
whereby we have an acquiescency or recumbency upon Christ
for our Acceptation with God. This is as if old Jacob should so
rejoice in the Chariot Joseph sent, whereby he knew that he was
alive, that he should not desire to see Joseph himself. Thus while
thou art so full of joy, to perceive grace in thee, thou forgettest to
joy in Christ himself, who is more excellent than all thy graces.67
Sections two and three describe numerous signs of grace. The
remaining nine sections of this volume discuss grace in terms of
regeneration, the new creature, God’s workmanship, grace in the
heart, washing or sanctifying grace, conversion, softening the stony
66. International Outreach has recently done two two-volume editions of

Burgess’s Spiritual Refining (Ames, Iowa: International Outreach, 1986–96). Only
one hundred copies were printed of the first edition, a facsimile, which contains
the complete unabridged text of 1658. The second edition of Spiritual Refining, an
abridged edition, is worth the investment for those who have difficulty reading fac-
simile print, though many sections are not included.
67. Spiritual Refining, 1:41.
heart, God’s Spirit within us, and vocation or calling. Throughout,

Burgess distinguishes saving grace from its counterfeits.
In the second volume of Spiritual Refining, Burgess focuses on sin.
He addresses the deceitfulness of the human heart, presumptuous
and reigning sins, hypocrisy and formality in religion, a misguided
conscience, and secret sins that often go unrecognized. Positively,
he explains the tenderness of a gracious heart, showing “that a strict
scrutiny into a man’s heart and ways, with a holy fear of sinning, doth
consist with a Gospel-life of faith and joy in the Holy Ghost.” His
goal, as stated on the title page, is to “unmask counterfeit Christians,
terrify the ungodly, comfort and direct the doubting saint, humble
man, [and] exalt the grace of God.”
I discovered Burgess’s Spiritual Refining a few days before complet-
ing my doctoral dissertation on assurance of faith in the mid-1980s.
When I read the first sixty pages of this masterpiece, I was over-
whelmed at Burgess’s scriptural clarity, insightful exegesis, balance,
thoroughness, and depth. I spent two days incorporating some of
Burgess’s key thoughts into my dissertation. Later, when called on to
speak on Burgess’s life and his views on assurance for the Westmin-
ster Conference (1997), I acquired a nearly complete collection of his
writings and immersed myself in them. That fall Burgess surpassed
Goodwin as my favorite Puritan author, and has remained so ever
since. One of my goals is to bring several of Burgess’s works back into
print—or better yet, do a complete edition of his works.
• Recommended reading: Burgess’s Spiritual Refining.
Wilhelmus á Brakel (1635–1711)

Wilhelmus á Brakel was a prominent preacher and writer of the
Nadere Reformatie (Dutch Further Reformation). This movement of
the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries paralleled English
Puritanism.68 Like English Puritanism, the Nadere Reformatie stressed
the necessity of vital Christian piety, was true to the teachings of
68. For summaries of the Nadere Reformatie in English, see Joel R. Beeke, Assur-
ance of Faith: Calvin, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation (New York:
Peter Lang, 1991), 383–413; Fred A. van Lieburg, “From Pure Church to Pious
Culture: The Further Reformation in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic,”
in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville, Mo.:
Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994), 409–430.
Scripture and the Reformed confessions, and consistently high-

lighted how faith and godliness work in all aspects of daily life.
Consequently, I feel justified in including Dutch “puritans” in a
selection of favorite authors.
I was once asked what book I would take with me if I were
stranded on a desert island. My choice was Wilhelmus à Brakel’s The
Christian’s Reasonable Service.69 In my opinion, this is the most valuable
set of books available in English today because of the rich doctrinal,
experiential, practical, pastoral, and ethical content this classic con-
veys. For centuries this set of books was as popular in the Netherlands
as John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress was in English-speaking countries.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most Dutch farmers of
Reformed persuasion would read a few pages of “Father Brakel,” as he
was fondly called, every evening during family worship. When they
completed the entire work, they would start over!
This massive work is arranged in three parts. The first volume
and most of the second consist of a traditional Reformed systematic
theology that is packed with clear thinking, thorough presentation,
and helpful application. The concluding applications at the end of
each chapter applying the particular doctrines are the highlight of this
section. I believe à Brakel’s practical casuistry in these applications
supersedes any other systematic theologian in his day and ever since.
They represent Reformed, Puritan, experiential theology at its best.
The second part expounds Christian ethics and Christian living.
This largest section of à Brakel’s work is packed with salient applica-
tions on topics pertinent to living as a Christian in this world. In
addition to a masterful treatment of the ten commandments (chaps.
45–55) and the Lord’s Prayer (chaps. 68–74), this part addresses topics
such as living by faith out of God’s promises (chap. 42); how to exer-
cise love toward God and His Son (chaps. 56–57); how to fear, obey,
and hope in God (chaps. 59–61); how to profess Christ and His truth
(chap. 63); and how to exercise spiritual graces, such as courage, con-
tentment, self-denial, patience, uprightness, watchfulness, neighborly
love, humility, meekness, peace, diligence, compassion, and prudence
(chaps. 62, 64 – 67, 76, 82–88). Other topics include fasting (chap.
75), solitude (chap. 77), spiritual meditation (chap. 78), singing (chap.
69. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vols., trans. Bartel
Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2001).
79), vows (chap. 80), spiritual experience (chap. 81), spiritual growth
(chap. 89), backsliding (chap. 90), spiritual desertion (chap. 91), temp-
tations (chaps. 92–95), indwelling corruption (chap. 96), and spiritual
darkness and deadness (chaps. 97–98).
The third part (4:373–538) includes a history of God’s redemp-
tive, covenantal work in the world. It is reminiscent of Jonathan
Edwards’s History of Redemption, though not as detailed as Edwards;
à Brakel’s work confines itself more to Scripture and has a greater
covenantal emphasis. It concludes with a detailed study of the future
conversion of the Jews (4:511–38).
The Christian’s Reasonable Service is the heartbeat of the Dutch
Further Reformation. Here systematic theology and vital, experi-
ential Christianity are scripturally and practically woven within a
covenantal framework. The entire work bears the mark of a pastor-
theologian richly taught by the Spirit. Nearly every subject treasured
by Christians is treated in a helpful way, always aiming for the pro-
motion of godliness.
In my opinion, this pastoral set of books is an essential tool for
every pastor and is also valuable for lay people. The book has been
freshly translated into contemporary English. Buy and read this great
classic. You won’t be sorry.
• Recommended reading: Brakel’s The Christian’s Reasonable Service.
Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661)

While divided by history, nationality, and race, and to some extent,
language, England’s Puritans and Scotland’s Presbyterians were
united by close spiritual bonds of doctrine, worship, and church
order. For this reason, I include a Scotsman on my short list of favor-
ite Puritans.
Actually, three Scottish divines have influenced me greatly:
Thomas Boston (1676–1732) led me to the depths of my original
sin and the beauty and symmetry of covenant theology;70 Thomas
Halyburton (1674–1712) taught me the power of bringing every
personal experience to the touchstone of Scripture;71 and Samuel
70. Thomas Boston, The Complete Works of the Late Rev. Thomas Boston, Ettrick,
12 vols., ed. Samuel M‘Millan (repr., Wheaton, Ill.: Richard Owen Roberts, 1980).
71. Thomas Halyburton, The Works of Thomas Halyburton, 4 vols. (Aberdeen:
James Begg Society, 2000–2005).
Rutherford taught me much about loving Christ and being submis-

sive in affliction. For twenty years, I kept a copy of Rutherford’s Letters
(unabridged) on my nightstand, and turned to it countless times when
I felt discouraged, challenged, or afflicted. On many occasions, I read
until I found my bearings once more in Prince Immanuel. No writer
in all of history can so make you fall in love with Christ and embrace
your afflictions as Samuel Rutherford can. I agree with Charles Spur-
geon who said, “When we are dead and gone let the world know that
Spurgeon held Rutherford’s Letters to be the nearest thing to inspira-
tion which can be found in all the writings of mere man.”72 I thank
God for this great man of God.
Though Boston and Halyburton rate a close second, my favorite
Scottish divine is Rutherford, who first pastored in Anwoth, then was
exiled to Aberdeen, and later became professor at St. Andrews. Ruth-
erford’s heart was a vast treasure chest filled with unspeakable love
for God. Rutherford wrote as one whose heart transcended this world
and lighted upon eternal shores. In the midst of trial and affliction,
he wrote, “Christ hath so handsomely fitted for my shoulders, this
rough tree of the cross, as that it hurteth me no ways.” 73 Even on his
deathbed, Rutherford focused on Christ. To those gathered around
him, he said, “This night will close the door, and fasten my anchor
within the veil.... Glory, glory dwelleth in Immanuel’s land!”74 In life
and in death, he found his Savior “altogether lovely” (Song 4:16). “No
pen, no words, no image can express to you the loveliness of my only,
only Lord Jesus,” he wrote.75 This is what makes him so devotional,
so beneficial, so engaging to read.
Most of Rutherford’s letters (220 of 365) were written while he
was in exile. The letters beautifully harmonize Reformed doctrine
and the spiritual experiences of a believer. They basically cover six
topics: (1) Rutherford’s love and desire for Christ, (2) his deep sense
of the heinousness of sin, (3) his devotion for the cause of Christ,
72. Charles Spurgeon, The Sword and the Trowel, 189. http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Samuel_Rutherford (accessed August 31, 2010).
73. Samuel Rutherford, The Letters of Samuel Rutherford (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1984), 144.
74. Ibid., 21–22
75. Samuel Rutherford, The Loveliness of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
2007), 88.
(4) his profound sympathy for burdened and troubled souls, (5) his
profound love for his flock, and (6) his ardent longings for heaven.76
Although he did not write his letters for publication, the compila-
tion of them is Rutherford’s most popular work. It has been reprinted
more than eighty times in English, fifteen times in Dutch, and several
times in German and French and Gaelic.
Several of Rutherford’s diversified writings have also been repub-
lished. His Communion Sermons (1870s), a compilation of fourteen
sacramental sermons, was recently published by Westminster Publish-
ing House. The Covenant of Life Opened (1655), an exegetical defense of
covenant theology, was edited and republished by Puritan Publications.
In this, Rutherford reveals himself as an apt apologist and polemicist in
defending the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture. His work Lex Rex
has become a standard in law curriculum; nearly every member of the
Westminster Assembly owned a copy. This book helped instigate the
Covenanters’ resistance to King Charles I and was later used to justify
the French and American revolutions. History has generally regarded
this work as one of the greatest contributions to political science.
In addition, Soli Deo Gloria has republished Quaint Sermons of
Samuel Rutherford (1885), composed from compiled shorthand notes
taken by a listener. The warmth of Rutherford’s preaching is par-
ticularly evident in “The Spouse’s Longing for Christ.” Like many
divines in his day, Rutherford drafted his own catechism, Rutherford’s
Catechism: or, The Sum of Christian Religion (1886), recently reprinted
by Blue Banner Publications. This was most likely written during
the Westminster Assembly and is filled with many quaint sayings.
The Trial and Triumph of Faith (1645) contains twenty-seven sermons
on Christ’s saving work in the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:21–28).
In nearly every sermon, Rutherford shows the overflowing grace
of Christ to Gentiles. He explores the nature of genuine prayer and
addresses practical aspects of the trial of faith. Most recently, Banner
of Truth published The Loveliness of Christ (2007), a little book that
contains Christ-centered quotes from Rutherford.
Rutherford’s Letters, however, remain the author’s masterpiece. They
are filled with pastoral advice, comfort, rebuke, and encouragement.
• Recommended reading: Rutherford’s Letters.
76. Adapted from Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 729–30.
More Puritan Favorites

It is difficult to conclude this section, for I would love to include so
many more Puritan authors. But, to keep this list concise, I will con-
clude with a list of fifteen favorite Puritans followed by five favorite
Scottish divines, then five favorite Dutch divines, adding up to a list
of twenty-five favorite Puritan writers:
1. Anthony Burgess (see above)
2. Thomas Goodwin (see above)
3. John Owen (1616–1683): This author’s sixteen volumes of works,
seven volumes on Hebrews, and a book titled Biblical Theology, make
up a learned library.77 The sixteen-volume set, which is a reprint of
the 1850–55 Goold edition, includes the following:
Doctrinal (vols. 1–5). The most noteworthy works in these
volumes are: On the Person and Glory of Christ (vol. 1); Commu-
nion with God (vol. 2); Discourse on the Holy Spirit (vol. 3); and
Justification by Faith (vol. 5). Mastery of these works, Spurgeon
wrote, “is to be a profound theologian.”
Practical (vols. 6–9). Especially worthy here are Mortification
of Sin, Temptation, Exposition of Psalm 130 (vol. 6); and Spiritual-
Mindedness (vol. 7). Volumes 8 and 9 comprise sermons. These
books are suitable for the educated layperson and have immense
practical applications.
Controversial (vols. 10–16). Noteworthy are The Death of Death
in the Death of Christ and Divine Justice (vol. 10); The Doctrine of
the Saints’ Perseverance (vol. 11); True Nature of a Gospel Church and
The Divine Original of the Scriptures (vol. 16). Several works in this
section have historical significance (particularly those written
against Arminianism and Socinianism) but tend to be tedious
for a non-theologian.
Owen’s wide range of subjects, insightful writing, exhaustive
doctrinal studies, profound theology, and warm devotional approach
explain why so many people regard his work with such high esteem.
77. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (repr. Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1996); idem, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 7 vols. (London:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1985); idem, Biblical Theology, trans. Stephen Westcott (Mor-
gan, Penn.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1994).
Owen may be wordy on occasion, but he is never dry. His works are
invaluable for all who wish to explore the rich legacy left by one who
is often called “Prince of the Puritans.”
Dozens of Owen’s works have been published individually in
the past half century, but I advise serious readers of Puritan literature
to purchase the sixteen-volume set of Owen’s works. For those who
have difficulty reading Owen, I recommend R. J. K. Law’s abridged
and simplified editions of Communion with God (1991), Apostasy from
the Gospel (1992), The Glory of Christ (1994), and The Holy Spirit (1998),
all published by the Banner of Truth Trust.
I was most influenced by Owen when I spent the summer of
1985 studying his views on assurance. The two books that influ-
enced me most were Owen’s treatment of Psalm 130, particularly
verse 4, and his amazing Communion with God, which focuses on
experiential communion between a believer and individual persons
of the Trinity.
4. Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758): A class at Westminster Theologi-
cal Seminary, taught by Sam Logan, motivated me to read most of
Edwards’s two-volume works in 1983.78 His sermons convicted and
comforted me beyond words. What a master wordsmith Edwards was!
More than sixty volumes of Edwards’s writings have been pub-
lished in the last fifty years.79 The two books that influenced me most
were Religious Affections, which is often regarded as the leading classic
in American history on spiritual life, and Edwards’s sermons on jus-
tification by faith.80 Earlier, I was greatly influenced by The Life and
Diary of David Brainerd.81
78. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (London: Banner of

Truth Trust, 1974). Cf. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 26 vols. (New Haven: Yale,
1957–2008). Each volume in the Yale series has been thoroughly edited by scholars,
and includes, on average, 35 to 150 pages of introduction. This series is essential for
aspiring scholars of Edwards. Those interested in reading Edwards for devotional
benefit could better purchase the two-volume edition of his Works, since the Yale
volumes are expensive. The Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary library collec-
tion contains the complete unpublished works of Jonathan Edwards in 48 volumes
additional to the 26-volume Yale set.
79. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 193–233.
80. Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 2001); idem, Justification by Faith Alone (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 2000).
81. Jonathan Edwards, The Life and Diary of David Brainerd (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1989).
I was touched by Edwards’s concept of “fittedness” throughout

his writings, and have often found that concept a great tool for leader-
ship and decision-making. Edwards grounded this concept in God; a
God who is always fitting will guide His people to want to do what is
fitting in each life situation to bring Him the most glory. Hence, we
must ask of every decision we face: What is most fitting in God’s sight
according to His Word? What will bring God the most honor?
5. William Perkins (1558–1602): Perkins’s vision of reform for the church
combined with his intellect, piety, writing, spiritual counseling, and
communication skills helped set the tone for the seventeenth-century
Puritan accent on Reformed, experiential truth and self-examination,
and Puritan arguments against Roman Catholicism and Arminianism.
Perkins as rhetorician, expositor, theologian, and pastor became the
principle architect of the Puritan movement. By the time of his death,
Perkins’s writings in England were outselling those of John Calvin,
Theodore Beza, and Henry Bullinger combined. He “moulded the
piety of a whole nation,” H. C. Porter said.82 Little wonder, then, that
Perkins is often called the father of Puritanism.
Perkins first influenced me while I was studying assurance of
faith for my doctoral dissertation. Ten years later, his Art of Prophesy-
ing, a short homiletic textbook for Puritan seminarians, helped me
understand how to address listeners according to their various cases
of conscience.83 My appreciation for Perkins has increased over the
years. I look forward to spending more time reading his works as
general editor with Derek Thomas on a ten-volume reprint of Per-
kins’s works.84
6. Thomas Watson (c. 1620–1686): Watson was my favorite Puritan
after I was converted in my mid-teens. I read his Body of Divinity as
a daily devotional. His All Things for Good was a wonderful balm for
my troubled soul in a period of intense affliction in the early 1980s.
His winsome writing includes deep doctrine, clear expression, warm
82. H. C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (London: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1958), 260.
83. William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson (Edin-
burgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996).
84. William Perkins, The Workes of that Famovs and VVorthy Minister of Christ in the
Vniuersitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins, 3 vols. (London: John Legatt, 1612–13).
spirituality, appropriate applications, and colorful illustrations. I love

his pithy, quotable style of writing.85
7. Thomas Brooks (1608–1680): Brooks became my favorite Puritan
writer in my late teens. His Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices,
The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod, Heaven on Earth: A Trea-
tise on Assurance, “The Unsearchable Riches of Christ” (vol. 3), “The
Crown and Glory of Christianity” (vol. 4)—a classic on holiness
consisting of 58 sermons on Hebrews 12:14 —all ministered to me.
Brooks’s books are real page-turners. He often brought me to tears
of joy over Christ and tears of sorrow over sin. His writings exude
spiritual life and power.86
8. John Flavel (1628–1691): With the exception of Jonathan Edwards,
no Puritan divine was more helpful for me in sermon preparation as
a young minister than Flavel. His sermons on Christ’s suffering also
greatly blessed my soul. What lover of Puritan literature has not been
blessed by Flavel’s classics: The Mystery of Providence, Keeping the Heart,
The Fountain of Life, Christ Knocking at the Door of the Heart, and The
Method of Grace?87
9. John Bunyan (1628–1688): When I was nine years old and first expe-
rienced a period of conviction of sin, I read Bunyan’s The Life and Death
of Mr. Badman. When I saw the book in my father’s bookcase, I figured
that since I had such a bad heart, that book must be for me!
More importantly, my father read Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress to
us every Sunday evening after church. When he finished, he started
over. I must have listened to that book fifteen times. From the age
of fourteen on, I would ask questions about how the Holy Spirit
works in the soul, about Mr. Talkative, the Man in the Iron Cage,
the House of the Interpreter, and scores of other characters and mat-
ters. My father often wept as he answered my questions. When I
became a minister, I realized what a rare gift those sessions were.
85. Seventeen of Watson’s titles have been reprinted in recent decades, though
to date no complete works set has ever been printed (Beeke and Pederson, Meet the
Puritans, 606–613).
86. Thomas Brooks, The Works of Thomas Brooks, 6 vols. (repr., Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth Trust, 2001).
87. John Flavel, The Works of John Flavel, 6 vols. (repr., London: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1968).
Forty years later, illustrations from Bunyan’s great classic still come
to mind while I’m preaching.88
10. Thomas Vincent (1634–1678): When we find ourselves cold and
listless, Vincent can help kindle the fire of Christian love. Just try
reading The True Christian’s Love to the Unseen Christ (1677) without
having your affections raised to heavenly places and yearning to love
Christ more. Let The True Christian’s Love to the Unseen Christ be your
frequent companion.
Only a handful of Vincent’s writings were ever published, and of
those, only six have been reprinted in the past fifty years. In addition to
The True Christian’s Love to the Unseen Christ, Vincent wrote The Shorter
Catechism Explained from Scripture (1673), a very helpful book for young
people and children; and The Good Work Begun (1673), an evangelistic
book for young people, explaining how God saves sinners and preserves
them for Himself. Three additional books by Vincent are more solemn
treatises. They include God’s Terrible Voice in the City (1667), an eyewitness
account of London’s Great Fire and Great Plague and an analysis of how
God judges wickedness in a city; Christ’s Certain and Sudden Appearance to
Judgment (1667), which was also written after the Great Fire of London
and was designed to prepare sinners for the great and terrible Day of the
Lord; and Fire and Brimstone (1670) was written to warn sinners to flee
the wrath to come. All of these titles, minus The Shorter Catechism, were
reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria Publications from 1991 to 2001.89
Vincent’s works are uniquely refreshing. He used the English
language in a captivating way to glorify God and strike at the heart
of Christians. It is no wonder that Vincent’s works were bestsellers in
the eighteenth century.90
88. John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1999).
89. Thomas Vincent, The True Christian’s Love to the Unseen Christ (Morgan, Pa.:
Soli Deo Gloria, 1994); idem, The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture (Edin-
burgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991); idem, The Good Work Begun: A Puritan Pastor
Speaks to Teenagers (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999); idem, God’s Terrible Voice
in the City (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997); idem, Christ’s Certain and Sudden
Appearance to Judgment (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 2001); idem, Fire and Brimstone
(Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999).
90. Andrew R. Holmes, The Shaping of Ulster Presbyterian Belief and Practice,
1770-1840 (England: Oxford University Press, 2006), 277.
11. Matthew Henry (1662–1714), the great British commentator, has

added spice to many preachers’ sermons, including my own. I am
also indebted to Henry for his practical books on spiritual disciplines,
particularly family worship, private prayer, and preparation for com-
munion. For many years, I read portions of Henry’s How to Prepare for
Communion during preparatory weeks.91
12. Richard Sibbes (1577–1635) was a life-long bachelor with a huge
network of friends. He wrote tenderly about the heavenly Bride-
groom and the Spirit’s sealing work in the soul. I became enamored
with Sibbes after reading his comment that the believer ought to
“entertain” the Holy Spirit in the courtroom of his soul, much as we
entertain guests in our living rooms. Later, I gave a conference address
titled, “Sibbes on the Entertainment of the Spirit.”92
13. Matthew Poole (1624–1679) left his mark on me with his careful
exegesis of Scripture. Many times I wanted to interpret a text a certain
way, but Poole reigned me in. In nearly every case, those who say the
Puritans were not good exegetes have not read Poole.93
14. Walter Marshall (1628–1680) helped me understand justification
and sanctification from a Christ-centered perspective through his
Gospel Mystery of Sanctification classic.94
15. William Spurstowe (c. 1605–1666) wrote an amazing book on
gospel promises, The Wells of Salvation Opened, which served as a
tonic for my ailing soul.95 James La Belle and I have summarized
91. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 6 vols. (repr., Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991); idem, Family Religion: Principles for Raising a
Godly Family (Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus, 1998); idem, A Method for Prayer
(Greenville, S.C.: Reformed Academic Press, 1994); idem, How to Prepare for Com-
munion (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 2001).
92. Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. A. B. Grosart, 7
vols. (repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1973–82).
93. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Whole Bible, 3 vols. (repr., London:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1983).
94. Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification (Grand Rapids: Refor-
mation Heritage Books, 1999).
95. William Spurstowe, The Wells of Salvation Opened: Or, A Treatise Discovering
the nature, preciousness, usefulness of Gospel-Promises, and Rules for the right application of
them (London: T. R. & E. M. for Ralph Smith, 1655).
its contents in contemporary language in our recent book, Living by

God’s Promises.96
Favorite Scottish Divines

1. Samuel Rutherford (see above)
2. Thomas Boston (see above)
3. Thomas Halyburton (see above)
4. Andrew Gray (1633–1656): Several of the short treatises in The
Works of Andrew Gray, particularly The Mystery of Faith Opened, Great
and Precious Promises, Directions and Instigations to the Duty of Prayer, and
The Spiritual Warfare have influenced me for good, as has his rare vol-
ume of fifty sermons (Loving Christ and Fleeing Temptation), which was
edited and published in 2007.97
5. Ebenezer (1680–1754) and Ralph Erskine (1685–1752): The Erskine
brothers have impressed me with their lives, their emphasis and insights
into God’s promises, and their passionate offering of the gospel.98
Favorite Dutch Further Reformation Divines99

1. Wilhelmus á Brakel (see above)
2. Willem Teellinck (1579–1629): The Path of True Godliness is the best
Puritan-style manual on sanctification that I have ever read.100
3. Herman Witsius (1636–1708): The masterful trilogy of The Economy
of the Covenants (2 vols.), The Apostles’ Creed (2 vols.), and The Lord’s
96. Joel R. Beeke and James A. La Belle, Living by Gospel Promises (Grand Rap-
ids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010).
97. Andrew Gray, The Works of Andrew Gray (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria,
1992); idem, Loving Christ and Fleeing Temptation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Kelly Van
Wyck (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007).
98. Ebenezer Erskine, The Works of Ebenezer Erskine, 3 vols. (Glasgow: Free
Presbyterian Publications, 2001); Ralph Erskine, The Works of Ralph Erskine, 6 vols.
(Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1991).
99. I limit myself here to selecting those who have at least one volume in
English.
100. Willem Teellinck, The Path of True Godliness, trans. Annemie Godbehere,
ed. Joel R. Beeke (repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008).
Prayer is generations ahead of its time. Reformation Heritage Books

has just brought these volumes back into print.101
4. Johannes VanderKemp (1664 –1718): His Heidelberg Catechism ser-
mons, reprinted by Reformation Heritage Books, are rich in pointed,
heartfelt, and diverse applications and are remarkably readable today.102
5. Alexander Comrie (1706–1774): His The ABC of Faith, a popular
treatment of various biblical terms that describe faith, was a great help
to me in my twenties for understanding that terms such as coming to
Christ, resting in Christ, and clinging to Christ focus on various aspects of
faith and ultimately are nearly synonymous with faith.103
Ideas for Printing the Puritans

If you are skeptical about reading Puritan authors, thinking them
outdated and no longer applicable for today, think again. Puritans
have much to offer to spiritually hungry young people and older
folk today. Though some Puritan titles are not worthy of reprint-
ing, there still are hundreds of great Puritan titles that have not been
reprinted since the seventeenth century. At Reformation Heritage
Books, we envision bringing many of these back into print by using
a five-tier approach:
• First, a radical purist approach (that is, no changes in punc-
tuation or word choice, though spelling may or may not
be updated), which is reserved mostly for scholars and
libraries. This is the approach of Chad Van Dixhoorn and
Reformation Heritage Books in printing definitive vol-
umes related to Westminster Assembly materials, including
the reprinting in facsimile form of all the books written by
101. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, Com-
prehending a Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (repr.,
Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010); idem, Sacred Dissertations on
the Apostles’ Creed, trans. Donald Fraser, 2 vols. (repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2010); idem, Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s Prayer, trans. William
Pringle (repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010).
102. Johannes VanderKemp, The Christian Entirely the Property of Christ, in Life
and Death, Exhibited in Fifty-three Sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. John M.
Van Harlingen, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1997).
103. Alexander Comrie, The ABC of Faith, trans. J. Marcus Banfield (Ossett,
U.K.: Zoar Publications, 1978).
Westminster Assembly divines. This will offer an expanding

library of English Puritan literature to a new generation of
scholars. Such books are not intended for most laypeople.
• Second, Reformation Heritage Books will continue to print
several Puritan titles per year using the purist approach,
which means changing a minimal number of words and
punctuation. With this approach, we will print titles under
our Soli Deo Gloria imprint. Approximately ten thousand
people continue to buy such material, but the readership is
shrinking as people move away from the Authorized Ver-
sion of the Bible and eventually can no longer grasp old
fashioned language without hard work.
• Third, more substantial editing will be done on other
Puritan titles. Examples of this include Sinclair Fergu-
son’s substantial editing of William Perkins’s The Art of
Prophesying, published by Banner of Truth Trust, and to a
somewhat lesser degree, my editing on Soli Deo Gloria’s
first printing of Thomas Watson’s Heaven Taken by Storm.
This approach would retain the Authorized Version of the
Bible for scriptural quotations and the Thee/Thou usage
for Deity, with accompanying verb forms, so that it does
not read like it is altogether removed from its historical
milieu, but would use contemporary pronouns and verb
forms for others. Obsolete illustrations would be contem-
porized or deleted. The advantage of this approach is that
it will enhance readability and sales. It is not a coincidence
that the top-selling Soli Deo Gloria book for many years
was the one edited most thoroughly.
• A fourth level is to rewrite Puritan books, using the
author’s main thoughts. This is the approach Ernest Kevan
used with Moral Law a few decades ago to summarize
Anthony Burgess’s work, reducing it from several hun-
dred pages to about one hundred pages. More recently,
Stephen Yuille used this approach to rewrite George Swin-
nock’s The Fading of the Flesh and the Flourishing of Faith.
Reformation Heritage Books is using this book as its inau-
gural volume in a new series titled Puritan Treasures for
Today. Kris Lundgaard also used this approach in rewriting

John Owen’s The Enemy Within. To date, this book has sold
more than sixty thousand copies. This type of editing may
become the preferred way to print Puritan titles to appeal
to more contemporary readers.
• A fifth level is combining several authors’ thoughts under
a theme. James La Belle and I are experimenting with this
approach as we launch the first volume of a series titled
Deepen Your Christian Life. In the first volume, Liv-
ing by God’s Promises, we draw heavily from three Puritan
treatises on God’s promises, written by Edward Leigh,
William Spurstowe, and Andrew Gray. The next two pro-
jected volumes are Living Zealously and Living with a Good
Conscience. In each case, we use extracts from a number of
Puritan works, collate their thoughts, then write a book on
the subject for the average layperson.
When levels three through five are used, it is critical that the edi-
tor and/or author is very familiar with how Puritans think, so as to
avoid misrepresentation. It remains to be seen whether levels three
through five will sell more books than level two, but early indications
are encouraging.
Concluding Advice
Where our culture is lacking, the Puritans abounded. J. I. Packer
says, “Today, Christians in the West are found to be on the whole
passionless, passive, and one fears, prayerless.”104 The Puritans were
passionate, zealous, and prayerful. Let us be as the author of Hebrews
says, “followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the
promises” (6:12). The Puritans demanded a hearing in their own day,
and they deserve one today as well. They are spiritual giants upon
whose shoulders we should stand.
Their books still praise the Puritans in the gates. Reading the
Puritans will keep you on the right path theologically, experientially,
and practically. As Packer writes, “The Puritans were strongest just
where Protestants today are weakest, and their writings can give us
more real help than those of any other body of Christian teachers,
104. Ryken, Worldly Saints, xiii.

past or present, since the days of the apostles.”105 I have been reading
Christian literature for nearly forty-four years and can freely say that
I know of no group of writers in church history that can benefit the
mind and soul more than the Puritans. God used their books for my
spiritual formation and to help me grow in understanding. They are
still teaching me what John the Baptist said, “Christ must increase
and I must decrease” ( John 3:30)—which is, I believe, a core defini-
tion of sanctification.
In his endorsement of Meet the Puritans, R. C. Sproul wrote,
“The recent revival of interest in and commitment to the truths of
Reformed theology is due in large measure to the rediscovery of Puri-
tan literature. The Puritans of old have become the prophets for our
time.” So, our prayer is that God will inspire you to read Puritan writ-
ings. With the Spirit’s blessing, they will enrich your life as they open
the Scriptures to you, probe your conscience, bare yours sins, lead you
to repentance, and conform your life to Christ. By the Spirit’s grace,
let the Puritans bring you to full assurance of salvation and a lifestyle
of gratitude to the triune God for His great salvation.
Finally, consider giving Puritan books to your friends. There is no
better gift than a good book. I sometimes wonder what would happen
if Christians spent fifteen minutes a day reading Puritan writings.
Over a year that would add up to about twenty books and fifteen hun-
dred books over a lifetime. Who knows how the Holy Spirit might
use such a spiritual diet of reading! Would it usher in a worldwide
revival? Would it fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord from
sea to sea? That is my prayer. Tolle Lege—take up and read!
105. Cited in Hulse, Reformation & Revival, 44.

Experiential Theology
q
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 235–266
“Satisfied with the Lord’s All-Sufficiency”:

Wilhelmus à Brakel on Joy
Paul M. Smalley
q
The subject of this article is the theology of Wilhelmus à Brakel, a

Reformed Dutch pastor and theologian who lived from the seven-
teenth to the start of the eighteenth centuries. The title, “Satisfied
with the Lord’s All-Sufficiency,” is a phrase taken from Brakel’s own
pen (3.370).1 This author does not try to establish that joy is the center
of Brakel’s theology, but that it is central. Joy stands among his core
concerns and permeates his theology.
The matter of this study is The Christian’s Reasonable Service, the
English translation of Brakel’s magnum opus, Redelijke Godsdienst.
The phrase, taken from the Dutch translation of Romans 12:1, liter-
ally means, “Reasonable Religion” (1.3). This work consists of over
2,400 pages organized in 103 chapters, plus an exposition of redemp-
tive history. It contains only one chapter on spiritual joy, which might
suggest that joy held a small place in Brakel’s teaching. But consider
the following table of how often various terms for joy appear in
Brakel’s text.2 Note that these terms for joy appear throughout all
four volumes. Note too that such words are used over 2,400 times by
Brakel—almost as many references to joy as there are pages.
1. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout,

ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992–1994). The
notation 3.370 refers to volume 3, page 370.
2. These statistics are based on computer searches of digital files of Brakel’s
text. The count includes tables of contents and headings, but excludes introductory
matter not written by Brakel and indices. I am indebted to Bartel Elshout for pro-
viding the digital files necessary for such searches.
Volume Volume Volume Volume All

Term
1 2 3 4 Volumes
Joy 89 265 95 117 566
Joyful 19 60 40 23 142
Rejoice 105 152 100 85 442
Sweet 49 70 77 86 282
Delight 152 202 260 142 756
Felicity 76 68 38 46 228
All Terms 490 817 610 499 2,416
As we will see, Brakel used the language of joy in the context

of knowing, worshiping, and serving the all-sufficient God. Brakel
loved to write of the “all-sufficient” God or divine “all-sufficiency”—
the expressions appear sixty times from his pen. Who was this man
who drenched his theological reflections with doxological joy? We
next consider Brakel and his background.
Wilhelmus à Brakel and the Dutch Further Reformation

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635 –1711) was the son of a godly minister and
praying mother who lived in the area of Leeuwarden, the Nether-
lands. Converted at a very young age, Wilhelmus studied at the
academy of Franeker and was admitted into pastoral ministry in the
national Reformed Church of the Netherlands. While awaiting a call
from a congregation, he studied under Gisbertus Voetius and Andreas
Essenius. Brakel then proceeded to serve various churches for the next
forty-nine years. His courageous stand against government interfer-
ence in church matters propelled him into national fame. He also
opposed a zealous religious sect known as the Labadists. But Brakel’s
greatest work consisted in his participation in a movement known
as the Nadere Reformatie, or Dutch Further Reformation. This move-
ment began with Willem Teellinck (1579 –1629) and concluded with
Theodore Vander Groe (1705 –1784). Similar to English Puritanism
but with a distinct focus on the Netherlands, the Further Reforma-
tion aimed to apply Reformation doctrine to the heart and life.
Brakel’s greatest contribution to this cause came in the 1700 publi-
cation of his masterpiece, Redelijke Godsdienst. The first edition sold out
in a year; there were more than twenty Dutch editions in a hundred
“Satisfied with the Lord’s All-Sufficiency” 237
years. It was translated into German and, finally, almost three centuries
later, into English.3 The Christian’s Reasonable Service, in the words of its
translator, “is experiential systematic theology,” a doctrinal handbook
for the church full of “warmth and spiritual vibrancy.”4 As we observed
by word counts, the book throbs with joy. Another prominent feature is
its saturation in Scripture. Brakel filled his pages with the Bible.
Brakel’s delightful approach to doctrine finds its fountain in the
Scriptures (consider the Psalms or Paul’s exclamations of praise as in
Eph. 1:3–14). The stream of Scripture-soaked joy flows through Chris-
tian history especially by way of Augustine, the medieval mystics,5
and the Reformed tradition.6 The English Puritan William Perkins
(1558–1602), who profoundly influenced the Dutch Reformed, wrote,
“Theologie is the science of living blessedly for ever.”7
Nevertheless, Brakel mixed this ingredient of joy into his writ-
ings in unusual quantity. For Brakel, joy in Christ was the promise
of the gospel.
The Good News of Great Joy

What did Wilhelmus à Brakel mean by the word “joy”? “Joy is the
pleasure, delight, and rejoicing of the heart. It is the expression of a
spirit set at liberty (or enlarged), generated by a present blessing or due
to the anticipation of a future blessing” (2.455). He then defined the
nature of “spiritual joy,” writing,
3. W. Fieret, “Wilhelmus à Brakel,” in Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service,

1.xxxi–lxxxi. Bartel Elshout, The Pastoral and Practical Theology of Wilhelmus à Brakel
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1997), 3 –19.
4. Elshout, Pastoral and Practical Theology, 20.
5. Bernard of Clairvaux included some 6,000 Scripture citations in his 86 ser-
mons on the Song of Solomon. The Bible is quoted or paraphrased about a thousand
times in Thomas á Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ. Arie de Reuver, Sweet Commu-
nion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages through the Further Reformation, trans.
James A. De Jong (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 31, 75.
6. Consider the openings of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and the West-
minster Shorter Catechism (1647).
7. William Perkins, A Golden Chaine (Cambridge: John Legat, 1600), 1. “J. van
der Haar records 185 seventeenth-century printings in Dutch of Perkins’s indi-
vidual or collected works, twice as many as any other Puritan.... He and Ames,
his most influential student on the continent, influenced Gisbertus Voetius (1589 –
1676) and numerous Dutch Nadere Reformatie (Further Reformation) theologians.”
Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2006), 475.
This spiritual joy consists in a delightful motion of the soul,

generated by the Holy Spirit in the heart of believers, whereby
He convinces them of the felicity of their state, causes them to
enjoy the benefits of the covenant of grace, and assures them of
their future felicity. (2.456)
His definition describes spiritual joy as a theological, covenantal,
supernatural, and emotional experience. It is “a delightful motion of
the soul.” It is a mystical experience where the Spirit of God meets the
spirit of men in Christ.
Brakel considered joy to be both pervasive and central to the gospel
of Christ. One may see it from this single, extended summary of the
gospel provided by Brakel. The language of joy has been highlighted
by placing it in italics, which are not original in Brakel’s writing.
All felicity, full satisfaction, and enduring joy of man consists in hav-
ing communion with God— such was Adam’s life prior to the fall.
After the fall, man’s understanding has been darkened; he has
become a stranger to the life of God, is deprived of the glory of
God, and thus travels upon the broad way to destruction.
In His goodness God has revealed a way by which a con-
demnable sinner can be reconciled with, and enjoy God, this being
his felicity, satisfaction, and joy. In this life, this is but in principle, but
after death and the general resurrection of the dead, this will be
enjoyed in perfection in the third heaven—in the paradise of God.
The Lord Jesus Christ is this way, being the one, eternal,
living, and only wise God and the eternal Son of the eternal
Father. He has assumed our own human nature out of the
holy Virgin Mary and has united it to Himself in singleness of
person. He is thus true and eternal God, and a perfectly holy
man. He was ordained by the Father in the eternal Counsel of
Peace — or in the eternal covenant of redemption—to be Surety
and Savior. In having given Himself to that end, He as Surety
has removed all the sins of all the elect and taken them upon
Himself. By His suffering and death He satisfied the justice of
God, thereby reconciling the elect with God. Furthermore, by
His obedience in fulfilling the law, He has merited a perfect
righteousness for them. He is “the way, the truth, and the life,”
and no man comes unto the Father, but by Him ( John 14:6).
Salvation is in none other, and He can save to the uttermost all
those who come to God by Him.
God causes this Savior and Surety, being the only way unto
salvation, to be proclaimed in various places in the world by
means of the gospel, that is, good news. He makes it known
to men and calls them; He urges everyone to desire this salva-
tion— and for the obtaining of it, to receive this Savior as their
Surety, and surrender to Him in order to be led by Him unto
salvation. Is not a person wicked who insists on remaining in his
wretched condition; who despises the salvation, eternal bliss, and
joy in the perfect enjoyment of communion with God; who despises
God, rejects the Surety, disdainfully rejects all friendly invita-
tions, and thus goes lost forever—is he not frightfully wicked?
On the contrary, is not he blessed who is acquainted with the
necessity of, the full salvation in, and the friendly invitation to
come to this Surety, Jesus Christ? Is not he blessed who delights in
this salvation, desires this way, and becomes a partaker of it in this
way?” (2.601–602)
We observe that man’s joy in God is the goal of creation and
redemption. Joy in God is the offer of the gospel, which the unre-
pentant despise. The joy of the Lord is a mark of a true believer.
At the heart of Christianity is the enjoyment of God. Therefore we
begin our detailed examination of Brakel’s theology of joy with the
doctrine of God.
God: The Fullness of Joy

Brakel followed the biblical doctrines of the Belgic (Dutch) Confes-
sion. Its first article reads, “We all believe in our hearts and confess
with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being,
whom we call God— eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchange-
able, infinite, almighty; completely wise, just, and good, and the
overflowing source of all good.”8
The last phrase, “the overflowing source of all good,” especially
pertains to our subject. The first attribute of God which Brakel set
forth was “the Perfection of God,” writing,
He has no need of anything. No one can add to or subtract any-
thing from His being, neither can anyone increase or decrease
His felicity. His perfection consists in His self-sufficiency, His
8. http://www.puritanseminary.org/media/BelgicConfession.pdf, accessed 5-24-

2010.
self-existence, and that He is the beginning—the first (Rev. 1:8).

His all-sufficiency is within and for Himself, the El Shaddai, the
All-sufficient One (Gen. 17:1). “Neither is worshipped with men’s
hands, as though He needed any thing” (Acts 17:25). (1.90)9
It was common for Reformed theologians to connect God’s hap-
piness to His all-sufficiency.10 Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) wrote,
First we call Sufficiency, that which excludes all lack, which is so
furnished with all abundance of all things necessary, that nothing
more can be desired. This the Philosopher terms Sufficiency in
itself, and attributes thereunto happiness, and the most high and
perfect goodness. But this doth belong to the nature of God only.11
In this connection, the Reformed followed Augustine regarding
the divine blessedness, and Boethius’s definition of blessedness as “a
state perfected by the union of all good things.”12 Augustine wrote of
God, “Luxury would fain be called plenty and abundance but Thou
art the fulness and unfailing plenteousness of unfading joys.”13 The
medieval mystics also stood in this Augustinian tradition of delight-
ing in God. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 –1153) wrote, “The cause of
loving God is God himself.... No one can be more justly loved, or
with greater benefit.” He also wrote, “No one, for example, pays a
hungry man to eat, or a thirsty man to drink.... How much more
does the soul that loves God ask for no reward but God?”14
9. Compare the teaching of William Ames (1576–1633), “10. The sufficiency

of God is his quality of being sufficient in himself for himself and for us. Therefore
he is called all-sufficient, Gen. 17:1.... 38. Therefore our faith, seeking eternal life,
rests in God alone because God is the fountain of all life, John 5:26.... 43. God is
infinite.... 45. Hence faith does not look just for a certain measure of blessedness to
be communicated by God, but an immeasurable glory.” William Ames, The Marrow
of Theology, ed. John D. Eusden (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1968), 84 –86 [I.iv].
10. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Three: The
Divine Essence and Attributes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 379–84. Hence-
forth cited as PRRD.
11. Loci communes, xliii, cited by Muller, PRRD, 3:369. On Musculus, cf. Craig S.
Farmer’s short biographical sketch in Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, eds.,
Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1996), 216–18.
12. De consolation philosophiae, quoted by Muller, PRRD, 3:372.
13. Confessions, 2.6/13, in The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans. J. G. Pilkington
(New York: Liveright, 1943), 36.
14. De Diligendo Deo, I.1; VI.17; in Bernard of Clairvaux: Selected Works, trans.
G. R. Evans (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 174, 187–88.
Willem Teellinck (1579 –1629), the first link in the Dutch Further
Reformation, also reveled in God as the best and infinite One beyond
comprehension. Arie de Reuver wrote about Teellinck’s joy in God,
He calls him a “Spring,” a “Fountain,” a “Full Ocean” and also
a “Sun.” He therefore seeks God with a burning desire, “more
intense than whatever can be thought of in this world.” He
esteems but one friendly glance from his face more than all the
‘pleasures’ of the world, even if these were to last ten thousand
years...joy in the Lord should surpass all earthly joy. He should
always be “the holy Fountain of everything that we desire,” above
health, peace and life itself. All these gifts are derived from God,
but they are not God himself. They are “only little droplets in
the whole ocean” and “rays of that marvelous Light.”15
Thus Brakel stood in a long line of Christian writers when he
held that God is the sum of all goodness in infinite degree. Some-
times his theology virtually sings in adoration, as here:
God is most adorable in Himself, and all that is adorable is to
be found in God. To adore that which is beautiful, delightful,
glorious, and lovely, is not a heavy task. It is naturally attractive
to the heart. All this is true concerning God in an infinite man-
ner, and he who beholds God cannot but love. Words are too
insignificant, passions too feeble, and everything falls short in
showing forth the beauty of the Lord. (3.273)
Brakel, confessing the perfection of God, taught that God’s all-
sufficiency is His sufficiency for our joy. He wrote at the close of his
discussion of divine perfection,
Such is our God, who not only is all-sufficient in Himself but
who with His all-sufficiency can fill and saturate the soul to
such an overflowing measure that it has need of nothing else
but to have God as its portion. The soul so favored is filled with
such light, love, and happiness, that it desires nothing but this.
“Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon
earth that I desire beside Thee” (Psa. 73:25). (1.91)
Brakel said in another place,
15. De Reuver, Sweet Communion, 126–27.

As He is all-sufficient in Himself, He is also ‫( יּדׁש‬shaddai), that

is, all-sufficient for each and every partaker of the covenant, to
fill them to overflowing with so much light, love, peace, joy, and
felicity, that they do not and cannot desire anything but God
alone. Yes, they experience that they can only perceive a small
drop of that all-sufficiency. (1.432)
Brakel says, “God Himself is their portion and complete joy”
(2.59). “All salvation, comfort, delight, holiness, and felicity for the
soul is to be found in having fellowship with God.... Such fellowship
with God is heaven itself” (2.596 –97). The Great Commandment
sums up all other commands because, “Love in essence has no other
object than that which is most eminent, most cherishable, most sat-
isfying, and unchangeable —which is God Himself” (3.263). The
Spirit gives us an “insatiable desire to continually enjoy communion
with God” (1.188).
God’s all-sufficiency is not the only divine quality which rejoices
His creatures, for in His simplicity everything about God is all-suffi-
cient. Brakel called believers to delight in His righteousness, be fully
satisfied with His goodness, be ignited by His love, fall in love with
His holiness, rejoice in His sovereignty, rest quietly satisfied in His
wisdom, and put joyful hope in His faithfulness (1.134 –36). The deep
mystery of the Trinity is “the fountain of all comfort,” and the source
of “much light, comfort, joy, and holiness” (1.191; cf. 2.628). Agreeing
with and doing God’s will is the desire and delight of His servants
(1.4). Seeing the glory of the Creator in His creation should fill us
with “wonder, delight, and joy” (1.283). His providences reveal Him
to our “astonishment and joy” (1.350). It is our joy that He is Lord
(1.208). Even His incomprehensibility makes His people “sink away
in sweet amazement...and rejoice that God’s glory so far exceeds his
comprehension” (1.250).
The essence of heaven is “to be satisfied with the Lord’s all-
sufficiency, to be irradiated by the light of His countenance” (3.370).
Brakel often used the expression of being “irradiated” by God’s light,
like being bathed in the warm light of the sun.16 Being irradiated by
16. 1.134, 263; 2.443, 444, 597, 602, 650; 3.101, 257, 258, 266, 370; 4.25. “The
Dutch word, translated as irradiated, alludes to the shining of the sun. It is the idea
of the soul being bathed in the light of God’s countenance — being enveloped by
God leads to being “ignited” by God.17 Brakel wrote, “This light has
an inherent warmth and ignites the soul in love” (4.145, cf. 259). The
God who burns with infinite, joyful light ignites men to burn with
Him. To see this better, we turn to the second locus of theology,
Brakel’s doctrine of man.
Man: The Seeker of Joy

Brakel’s doctrine of man followed his covenant theology. He began with
man as originally created and put under the covenant of works; then he
considered man as fallen under the curse, having broken that covenant.
Created Man: Designed for Joy

It might surprise critics of the Reformed doctrine of predestination
that Brakel insisted, “God created all men in Adam for the enjoyment
of felicity” (1.329). “Man was created to rejoice; to be joyful is his
life and health...all that man does, he does to be happy” (2.455). The
Creator embedded the pursuit of happiness into man’s nature. “Our
nature is naturally inclined toward joy, and every person desires joy”
(2.464; cf. 3.329).
Man was not created to find joy in himself. Brakel related this to
his concept of sufficiency. Brakel wrote, “Since man is not all-suffi-
cient within himself, he must seek all his delight and joy elsewhere,
that is, outside of himself” (2.455). “Man is not naturally self-suffi-
cient; he is but a vessel into which something can be inserted. And,
in order to be filled, he has desires which—as hands—reach out for
that which he deems to be fulfilling to him” (3.381, cf. 449). To desire
happiness is so essential to humanity that “to eradicate all desires...
would be to dehumanize man” (3.403).
God designed man to find happiness only in God, “man’s felicity
consisting in the enjoyment of God Himself— an enjoyment not to
be found in anything outside of Him” (1.360). Brakel loved to cite
the statements of Psalm 73:23–26, 28, quoting selections from this
Scripture in thirty-three places in his book.18
the rays of the Sun of Righteousness.” Personal email correspondence from Bartel
Elshout (6-4-10).
17. 1.134, 250, 450, 655; 2.125, 276, 421, 430, 432, 444, 676; 3.246, 283.
18. 1.91, 133, 134, 249, 263, 353, 432, 437, 454, 512, 646; 2.237, 251, 326, 328,
329, 431, 432, 440, 443, 625; 3.102, 387, 550, 555; 4.21, 145, 146, 181, 357, 365, 480,
485. It appears that Brakel never cited verse 27.
Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by

my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and after-
ward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and
there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and
my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my por-
tion for ever.... But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have
put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all thy works.
Brakel believed that the image of God consisted in the holy capac-
ity to delight in God. Brakel could even say that when the Holy Spirit
“imprinted the image of God” upon the redeemed, this image includes
“their insatiable desire to continually enjoy communion with God”
(1.188). This was the case when God first created man in His image.
The essential form, the true essence of the image of God, con-
sists in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, they being the
qualities that regulate the faculties of the soul: intellect, will, and
affections.
(1) The intellect was pure and transparent, immediately behold-
ing God....
(2) Additionally, the will was holy and righteous, being satisfied
and delighted with God. It was joyful and fervent in love, hav-
ing no desires outside of God. It readily, joyfully, and perfectly
performed the will of God....
(3) The affections were fully regulated, never preceding the exer-
cise of the intellect and the will, but being an orderly consequence
thereof. All desires were Godward, in order to continually enjoy
Him, and toward the performance of His will. (1.324)
When God made the covenant of works, “Adam had the promise
of eternal felicity” annexed to the commandment (1.360; cf. 2.612).
This promise of joy was implicit in the Law (cf. Matt. 19:16–17; Lev.
18:5; Rom. 7:10) and explicit in the “sacrament, that is, a sign and
seal” of the tree of life (1.360–62). The requirement of obedience did
not tarnish the joy of Paradise. Obedience to God is of the essence of
human joy in God. Brakel wrote,
Every man is obligated toward obedience by virtue of the nature
of God and of his own position relative to Him...human nature
mandates it, and it constitutes the well-being and felicity of
man.... The nature of obedience consists in subjection to God.

Man, by his very nature, has been placed in subjection to God.
Adam acknowledged this subjection with delight and joyfully
subjected himself to the Lord. (3.303–304)
When the Lord God revealed the covenant of works to Adam, “he
could not but delight in, desire, and embrace [the promises] with all
his heart.” Similarly, he rejoiced in the condition of obedience, “for
this was not only the way leading to felicity, but was his present felicity
itself” (1.364). Tragically, Adam did not persevere in the way of felicity.
Fallen Man: Excluded from Joy

As a result of Adam’s disobedience to the covenant of works, all man-
kind fell from joy into “misery” (1.377, 417). Brakel warned his readers,
Go to Paradise and behold how ingeniously and gloriously you
were created in Adam, enjoying sweet communion with God
and your very own nature. Behold how willfully you have fallen
away from God and have joined ranks with the devil. Having
thus sinned, you have forfeited the glory of God. (1.418; cf. 2.601)
The God who once was our delight is now our angry Judge. His
glory is now our terror (1.420–21). The perfections of God which
once satisfied man will overwhelm the soul with dread (1.423). “And
now, oh miserable one, what will you do?” (1.424).
Man remains by nature a seeker of joy. But, Brakel explained, his
quest for joy has turned from the Creator to His creatures. “Natu-
ral man is empty and desires to be filled. He does not know God as
the all-sufficient One and he has no desire after God. His passions
therefore focus on the creature and he says to whoever appears to
be capable of entertaining him, ‘be thou my satisfaction’” (3.401; cf.
2.456, 580; 3.358, 381).
Man’s love for divine glory has also turned inward, perverting his
natural self-love into self-deification. Brakel wrote,
God has created self-love in man.... After the fall, however, love
has become entirely distorted, as it causes man to be opposed to
God, to make himself as God, and all to end in man. This princi-
ple governs fallen man in his operations, and he wants everyone
to function toward him in harmony with this principle. (3.399)
Fallen man’s quest for joy is doomed to failure, for the creation
cannot be enjoyed apart from the favor of its sovereign Creator. Brakel
warned, “While you remain the object of His wrath, all His creatures
will be opposed to you, and every one as it were waits for permission
to destroy you.... Nothing will give you peace as long as your Maker
is displeased with you” (1.278).
The final end of this perverted pursuit of joy apart from God
is hell. Brakel described hell in terms of man’s need for the divine
all-sufficiency.
If this does not move you, proceed to observe the dreadful pit of
damnation, and listen to the gnashing of teeth, the weeping, the
frightful shriek, “Woe, woe, woe,” the terror, and the violent rag-
ing of the conscience of the damned in the eternal fire. Consider
that to all eternity they will never enjoy one beam of light, nor
one quiet moment, but will eternally be overcome with inex-
pressible despair knowing they will never be delivered as well
as be subject to an inexpressible perception of the wrath of God.
In all quietness you ought to meditate upon the state of
damnation. First of all, what will it be to have a soul and body
which cannot find fulfillment within itself and thus cannot be
satisfied unless this fulfillment comes from elsewhere, which,
however, will be lacking to all eternity. There will not be the
least refreshment, neither will there be food, drink, light, sleep,
nor companionship by which one could find some delight in
conversation. On the contrary, there will be an infinite separa-
tion from God, angels, the godly, joy, and glory. At the present
time one may be able to forget his unhappiness and sorrow by
a variety of means and thus feel no sorrow concerning that of
which he is deprived. Then, however, it will be unbearable when
these various means are removed. What dreadful despair will
this yield for the unfulfilled and sorrowing soul! (1.422)
From this dread subject we now turn to Brakel’s good news of joy
in Jesus Christ.
Christ: The Mediator of Joy

In Brakel’s arrangement of his theology, he included under the doc-
trine of God the doctrines of the divine decrees, predestination, and the
covenant of redemption. However, Brakel grouped the topic of the cov-
enant of grace with his Christology, so we consider the covenant here.
Eternal Covenant: The Plan of Joy

One reason not to make joy the organizing principle of Brakel’s theol-
ogy is that Brakel himself identified another organizing principle for
his work. After teaching on the covenant of grace (ch. 16), he sub-
sumed all the rest of his theology under “particular aspects of the
covenant” (1.465). He repeated this covenantal framework again (2.3),
confirming that it provides the structure of his theology. He was a
covenant theologian, and so joy in God is covenantal joy.
In opening the covenant, Brakel returned to the all-sufficiency
of God.
The one party and covenant initiator is the Lord God who in
this covenant must be viewed as the all-sufficient One. God
is all-sufficient in Himself, and does not need the worship of
man’s hands.... As He is all-sufficient in Himself, He is also
‫( יּדׁש‬shaddai), that is, all-sufficient for each and every partaker
of the covenant, to fill them to overflowing with so much light,
love, peace, joy, and felicity, that they do not and cannot desire
anything but God alone. Yes, they experience that they can only
perceive a small drop of that all-sufficiency.... In this covenant
God is also revealed to us as an omnipotent God, who not only
is desirous to communicate His all-sufficiency and goodness,
but is also able to do so. (1.431–33)
God is not only sufficient to keep His covenant, but He is also
sufficient as the great promise of the covenant. The essence of the
covenant of grace is that God gives Himself to His fallen creatures to
enjoy. Here again Brakel’s theology sings.
First, God offers Himself to be the God of a poor, contrite sin-
ner. “I will establish my covenant...to be a God unto thee” (Gen.
17:7); “But this shall be the covenant...I will be their God, and
they shall be my people” ( Jer. 31:33).
This is the sum and substance of all true felicity. No one
knows what this is, however, except those who enjoy it. This
felicity does not consist in receiving a benefit from God, but in
having God Himself as one’s portion. “The portion of Jacob is
not like them: for He is the former of all things” ( Jer. 10:16). This
was the joy of the church. “The Lord is my portion, saith my
soul; therefore will I hope in Him” (Lam. 3:24). Herein Asaph
found rest and encouraged himself in all tribulations. “Whom
have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I
desire beside Thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the
strength of my heart, and my portion for ever” (Psa. 73:25–26).
Who can give expression to the magnitude of this felicity?
It consists in being overshadowed with God’s gracious presence;
to be surrounded with His supporting and preserving omnipo-
tence; to rest in His unfailing faithfulness; to rejoice in God’s
eternal fullness, majesty, and glory: to be enlightened by His
light, goodness, and love; to be satisfied with His all-sufficiency;
to lose oneself in His infinity and incomprehensibility; to bow
before Him with delight and love; to be subject to Him; and to
worship Him. This felicity consists in rendering Him honor and
glory with heart, tongue, and deeds—being conscious of His
perfections and because He is so worthy of this. It consists in
fearing Him, in serving Him, and a complete and full acquies-
cence in His will because He is God. This felicity is such that I
can neither comprehend it, nor can you define it. Rather, we must
lose ourselves in its infinity, exclaiming, “Hallelujah!,” “Blessed
is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Ps. 33:12)! (1.436 –37)
The “origin and basis” of the covenant of grace is the covenant of
redemption between God the Father and God the Son (1.262). The
Father eternally ordained that His Son become the Surety of the elect
among fallen mankind (1:251ff). The work of the Surety was to sat-
isfy God’s justice as the representative of His people. This covenant
made both God and Christ “fully and mutually satisfied” (1.261).
Christ undertook this awesome task with joy (1.258, 261), the joy of
doing His Father’s will (Ps. 40:6 –8), and the joy of His future glory
(Heb. 12:2). The Father had promised to anoint Him with “the oil of
gladness” above all others (Ps. 45:7). The Father arranged the mar-
riage of His Son to the elect with approval and delight (2.88). In their
love for each other and mankind, the covenant of redemption reveals
“the eternal, mutual delight of the Father and the Son to save you”
(1.263). Therefore, the covenant of redemption is “the foundation
for all sure comfort, joy, holy amazement, and the magnification of
God” (1.261). The covenant of redemption arranged for the Surety to
accomplish “everything which was needful to bring them to felicity”
(2.582). The elect can rejoice in it as they experience the Holy Spirit
working in them.
They will be enabled to exclaim feelingly, joyously, and lovingly,

“For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things;
to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36).... Oh, how
blessed is he who is incorporated in this covenant and, being
enveloped and irradiated by this eternal love, is stirred up to love
in return, exclaiming, “We love Him, because He first loved us”
(1 John 4:19). (1.262– 63)
Though the covenant of grace expresses the inner joy of the Trinity,
Brakel carefully guarded against any notion of our salvation increasing
God’s joy. He must remain all-sufficient in Himself. The covenant
aims at God’s glorification in our satisfaction. So Brakel wrote,
The purpose of this covenant must be carefully noted.... This is
not to His benefit, for it neither increases his felicity nor renders
Him more perfect and glorious. Rather, the purpose as far as He
is concerned is the revelation of His grace, goodness, wisdom,
righteousness, and power; and concerning man, His purpose is
to bring him, motivated by love, to felicity. (1.443)
Outside the covenant of grace “there is nothing but misery” for
fallen man (1.449). Inside the covenant, God Himself becomes the
joy of man. Brakel wrote, “God Himself is the supreme good and the
complete felicity of man. In the covenant, God promises Himself to
believers and God is thus the object of hope” (3.319). Therefore, he
exhorts, “You who are truly partakers of this covenant...rejoice and
delight yourself...even though you do not enjoy as much of this as
you desire. One day you shall enjoy all this in full measure” (1.450).
Inherent in the covenant is turning from this world to take “God
alone” as “your desire, resting place, joy, delight.... The world is
therefore from now on, of no significance” (2.598). At the same time,
the covenant itself, not our feelings or experiences, is our stability
(2.596). For the covenant stands upon the immutability of God and
the finished work of Christ.
Incarnate Surety: The Embodiment of Joy

Brakel loved the word “Surety,” using it over five hundred times
through the four volumes. For him it encapsulated his covenant the-
ology of man as God’s debtor under the covenant of works, and Christ
as man’s legal representative, paying the debt for him (1.256, 465ff).
Without the mediation of Jesus Christ, there could be no enjoyment
of God by sinners.19 Those who desire God are “yearning, desiring,

praying, and crying out” for Jesus the surety (1.619; cf. 3.283, 288).
When someone asks how he can rejoice when he has sinned so much,
Brakel responded, “The cause and foundation for your joy must not
be found within yourself and your virtuousness, but outside of your-
self and in Christ” (2.465). After writing at length about rejoicing in
the attributes of God, Brakel wrote by way of application,
It is essential that one considers God to be his God in Christ.
The light of the knowledge of the glory of God is to be found
in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). Outside of Christ God is
a terror, and can only be viewed as a consuming fire. In Christ,
however, one may have liberty; and God reveals Himself to
such who approach unto Him that way. Then one will be able to
better endure the light of God’s countenance, rejoice in it, and
therein to glorify God. (1.138)
As we quoted earlier with respect to Brakel’s good news of great
joy, he wrote, “In His goodness God has revealed a way by which a
condemnable sinner can be reconciled with, and enjoy God.... The
Lord Jesus Christ is this way” (2.601).
Brakel exulted in Christ’s person. As God the Son, He has “the
same life” as the Father, “the same life, manifesting the same all-suffi-
cient activity and the same singular, energizing power” by virtue of His
eternal generation (1.163). The divine-human Person of the Mediator
overflows with “preciousness”; He is “sweet...altogether lovely...the
brightness of His Father’s glory.” “He who delights in holiness must
find delight in Him.... If there is therefore anything that will beget and
stir up love within you, it must be the Lord Jesus” (3.285–86).
Every aspect of Christ’s work becomes like a panel of a marvelous
stained glass window through which the perfections of God shine
upon believers for their joy (2.94 –95). The Incarnation should draw
believers to join the angels in “joyously magnifying God.... If our
soul should rejoice in anything, it ought to rejoice in this great and
wondrous work of God” (1.514). Reflecting on the intimate union
of our human nature with God in Christ will lead us to “lose our-
selves in holy adoration, joyously approve of this,” even to attain to a
19. “All contemplation of God apart from Christ he considers to be fictitious

and forbidden.” De Reuver, Sweet Communion, 258.
“rapturous frame” (1.511). The Incarnation manifests the perfections

of God for our delight, such as His righteousness, love, veracity, wis-
dom, power, and glory (1.513).
Christ’s voluntary humiliation makes His people to rejoice. The
believer should engage himself in “sweet meditation upon the suf-
fering of Christ” so that he would “rejoice more in the truth and
perfection of the satisfaction accomplished by that suffering” (1.613).
This is that looking to Him who was pierced which the prophet fore-
told (Zech. 12:10). Brakel could even write of sweet shame in the
shadow of the cross: “Oh, how sweet it is to be sensibly ashamed over
our sins as being the cause of Christ’s suffering.... I truly rejoice that
Thou hast taken my place, hast satisfied for my sins, and hast merited
eternal life for me” (1.618).
Meditating on the exaltation of Christ is “the beginning of heaven,
where the beholding of Christ in His glory will be the eternal joy and
occupation of the elect, according to the prayer of Christ, ‘Father, I
will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where
I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given me’
( John 17:24)” (1.653). We see Him as God “with experiential vision,
presently experiencing and tasting the efficacy and sweetness of these
incomprehensible perfections” of the Deity. We see Him as Media-
tor in full victory, worshiped by angels, feared by devils, trusted by
Christians. “When a believer may attentively reflect upon all these
matters, how frequently [his] heart will then be ignited in love. He
will rejoice over Christ’s glory” (1.654 –55). Brakel led his readers in a
jubilant procession to the throne of the heavenly King, writing,
Since Jesus is King, everyone ought to honor Him as such.
“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the
Father” (John 5:23), for He is the King of glory (Psa. 24:10). In
heaven all the angels worship Him (Heb. 1:6). All His subjects
on earth must likewise worship Him. Such worship consists in
considering His various attributes, the approval of them with
sweet delight, a rejoicing that He is such a King, a losing one-
self in holy adoration when viewing Him as such, and a bowing
before Him in worship, “for He is thy Lord; and worship thou
Him” (Psa. 45:11)....
Since Jesus is King, all and everyone of His subjects must
delight in Him as such. God has instilled in the nature of these
subjects that they delight in their King because of the majesty

and eminence to be found in Him....
Wherever love for this King is active, there will be excep-
tional light, clarity, and delight within the soul. The soul looks
to Him, beholds Him, and meditates and reflects upon His glory
and preciousness, rejoicing that Jesus is so highly exalted and
is crowned with honor and glory. Such a soul wholeheartedly
desires this to be so, and delights to see how all the angels bow
before Him and worship Him; how all the godly in radiating
their love end in Him as their focal point; how the devils trem-
ble before Him; and how all things are in His hand and must be
subservient to Him. Of such reflection the soul can never have
enough, and it grieves him that so often it is dark within, and
that he must stand so far away. How he wishes to behold Him
with more clarity and in closer proximity, and to be satiated with
the brilliance of His glory! Such a soul exalts Him above all and
has a high esteem for His majesty, which is delightful and awe-
inspiring, and stirs up in him extraordinary reverence.... His
will is the soul’s will, and it is the greatest delight of such to do
and refrain from doing as pleases Him. Oh, how the soul longs
for immediate communion with Him, to behold Him face to
face, and to sink away eternally in this mutual and perfect love!
Already on this side of the grave, the name of Jesus is written
with golden letters in his heart. (1.569 –70)
It is impossible to overstate the significance of communion with
Christ in Brakel’s theology. Union and communion with Christ and
His church “comprehend all true felicity” (2.87). He wrote, “Believ-
ers on earth love Him, their hearts go out after Him, and He is the
focal point of the passions of their love.... All their asking, crying, and
weeping is for Jesus. In Jesus only do they find all their satisfaction....
If you were to cut my heart in a thousand pieces, on each piece you
would find the name Jesus written with golden letters” (3.288).
Bartel Elshout writes, “For à Brakel the name of Jesus is sweeter
than honey; you can almost sense the inner stirrings of his soul when
he exalts Jesus as the Father’s unspeakable gift to fallen sons and
daughters of Adam.”20 Brakel truly wrote what his soul knew. Arie
de Reuver notes that as Brakel was dying, “[h]e repeated many times,

just as his teacher Voetius had done on his deathbed, the lines from a
Latin poem ascribed to Bernard: ‘O Jesu mi dulcissime, Spessuspiranti-
sanimae’ (‘O, my most sweet Jesus, Hope of a gasping soul’).”21 Brakel
knew Christ as the Mediator of joy. We next turn our attention to his
doctrine of the church.
Church: The Community of Joy

It may seem odd to discuss Brakel’s view of the church before his
doctrine of salvation, but in so doing we follow Brakel’s own order in
The Christian’s Reasonable Service. He may have chosen to rearrange the
normal order of theological topics out of pastoral concerns. Elshout
explains, “Brakel was leery of the individualism, unbiblical mysti-
cism, and denial of the organic nature of the church that was infecting
the Reformed Church of the Netherlands.”22
We will examine Brakel’s teaching on joy with regard, first, to
relationships in the local congregation, and, secondly, with regard to
the Lord’s Supper.
Congregation: The Fellowship of Joy

One might think that Brakel’s emphasis on personal communion with
God would lead to isolation for the sake of private contemplation. But
Brakel’s ecclesiology was wed to his Christology just as the church is
wed to Christ. The prime motive which he advanced to join the true
church is that Christ “is so precious, glorious, and full of salvation.” The
glory and joy of Christ in His church moved Brakel to exclaim, “Ought
not everyone therefore to delight himself in Zion, and be desirous to
be a member of this church?” (2.57–58). The delights of participation
in the church flow from communion with Christ. “As believers have
communion with their Head Jesus Christ, they likewise have commu-
nion with each other” (2.97). “They who belong to the true church
ought to rejoice, exclaiming, “Christ is here!” for Christ only dwells in
the true church” (2.3, cf. 33). Brakel goes so far as to say, “[T]he very
essence of the church, which gathers in an external form, is union with
Christ and each other by the Holy Spirit” (2.12). Therefore, “they cher-
ish the church above their chief joy upon earth” (2.100).
21. De Reuver, Sweet Communion, 234.

God anoints all the duties of church membership with the oil of
gladness. Christians should remember their baptism with rejoicing
(2.521–22). Attentive listening to discriminating preaching should
cause the converted to rejoice and walk worthily with spiritual joy
(2.182). The peacemaker finds delight in peaceful unity in the church
like a fish delighting in water (4.94). Brakel connected this joy with
the presence of the Lord with the peacemaker (4.100). Exhorting oth-
ers with the truth stirs the believer himself with more faith and joy
(1.534). The repentance of a person under church discipline leads to
joy in the church just as there is joy in heaven (2.163). And church
officers may take up their work with the joy of being God’s honored
servants and will be rewarded with the joy of their Master (2.152, 155).
Therefore, Brakel taught that those who see with spiritual eyes
will “be ignited with love for the congregation” (2.652). Just as Brakel’s
theology sings of God, so it sings of God’s church, for the congrega-
tion is the house of the Lord:
The church is “...the joy of the whole earth” (Psa. 48:2) and
“...a praise in the earth” (Isa. 62:7). It is the chief joy of God’s
children—yes, it exceeds all that is joyful. “If I forget thee, O Jeru-
salem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember
thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not
Jerusalem above my chief joy” (Psa. 137:5–6).... His only desire
upon earth was to be where the church was. “One thing have I
desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the
house of the LORD all the days of my life” (Ps. 27:4). (2.648)
Lord’s Supper: The Feast of Joy

If the church is the house of God, then the Lord’s Supper is the feast
prepared by God in His house. Brakel taught that the Lord’s Supper
required an intense season of preparation, an intentional mindset of
participation, and a grateful experience of reflection (ch. 41; 2.569 –
600). Brakel viewed the Supper as a supernatural event wrapped in
Trinitarian mysticism, a seal of covenant fellowship. He wrote,
The meeting place where the Lord’s Supper is administered is
at that moment none other than a portal of heaven.... Heaven
opens itself in such a place, and rays of divine glory and grace
descend to that place, filling it with the very presence of God.
The Father comes to His people with His favor and reveals
Himself in a familiar manner.... The Lord Jesus, the Bride-

groom, comes in His love to them to have this supper with them
and to cause them to enjoy it together with Him.... It is there
that the Holy Spirit is active, filling the soul with light, grace,
and comforts. (2.573)
God’s spiritual revelations at the table can “at times bring them
into ecstasy” (2.575). But Brakel warned against expecting unusual
experiences there. “Neither expect a miracle here nor an extraordi-
nary measure of elevation, light, or ecstatic joy. If the Lord gives you
this, enjoy this good thing while it may be your portion” (2.592).
Nevertheless, it is a spiritual duty to rejoice by faith when taking the
Supper: “Since the Lord Jesus has instituted this sacrament as a seal,
believers must use it as such, and they, upon receiving the sacrament,
must consider themselves as being sealed and rejoice in their temporal
and eternal blessedness” (2.534).
Having considered the church as the community of covenantal
joy, we turn next to Brakel’s teaching on personal salvation.
Salvation: The Life of Joy

Under the heading of salvation falls the entire Christian life in this age.
Space does not permit us to investigate Brakel’s whole doctrine of the
Christian life here. However the thesis of this paper is: Joy in God is
central and pervasive to true religion in the theology of Wilhelmus à Brakel. To
establish this, we must touch on several aspects of the Christian life.
Conversion: The Return to Joy

We saw that Brakel taught the misery of fallen man. After breaching
the covenant of works, mankind stands in a state of alienation from
the all-sufficient God. Himself an empty vessel, man thus runs after
creatures in a futile pursuit of happiness. His destiny in such a condi-
tion is to fall under the everlasting wrath of the Almighty. What then
can give man joy?
Sinful man must be reconciled to God. We will consider in the
next section how the gospel of reconciliation brings believers joy. In
this section, we note that, for Brakel, conversion consists of turning
back to God as our true felicity. In this he followed the Reformed
church. The Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 90) queries, “What is the
coming-to-life of the new self?” and answers, “It is wholehearted joy
in God through Christ and a strong desire to live according to the will
of God in all good works.”23
Similarly, joy was central to conversion in Brakel’s thought. Repen-
tance is sweet surrender. Brakel exhorted, “Therefore have mercy
upon your own soul, wake up, hate the devil and his work, flee from
him, bid his kingdom farewell, and surrender yourself to the sweet,
easy, and lovely government of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1.303). Brakel
taught that there was a great difference between proper mourning
over sin and “habitual melancholy” (2.466).
Faith includes delight in the promises of the covenant. In the
midst of his definition of the covenant of grace, Brakel wrote, “In this
covenant God promises deliverance from all evil and the bestowal of
full salvation by grace through the Mediator Jesus Christ. Man, fully
delighting himself in these promises, with all his heart acquiesces
in and accepts the way revealed in the Word of God, whereby these
promised benefits are to be obtained” (1.429).
Man’s response to the covenant consists of his personal “consent”
to God’s offer. This is a reversal of Adam’s choice in the Fall, a turning
back to God as one’s sole happiness. Brakel wrote, “If a man, who now
correctly understands the conditions,24 has a heartfelt desire for them,
believes the truth of the offer, turns away from all other things to God
alone, and quietly, truthfully, and joyfully declares his acquiescence
in this covenant, surrendering himself thereby to God in Christ, then
the covenant has thus been made and will eternally endure” (1.442).
We remember that Brakel emphasized that the covenant offers one
blessing above and in all its promises, namely God Himself. Brakel
believed that a true believer should be able to see in his own soul that
“he is enamored with being truly united to God” (1.581).
Justification & Adoption: The Foundation of Joy
Brakel defined spiritual joy in a manner which intertwined it with
reconciliation with God:
This spiritual joy consists in a delightful motion of the soul,
generated by the Holy Spirit in the heart of believers, whereby
He convinces them of the felicity of their state, causes them to
23. http://www.puritanseminary.org/media/HeidelbergCatechism.pdf, accessed

5-24-2010.
24. Brakel used the term “conditions” as a synonym for “promises” of the cov-
enant (1.434ff).
enjoy the benefits of the covenant of grace, and assures them of

their future felicity.... This joy pertains to being reconciled with
God—to their being the recipients of His grace, goodness, love,
and benevolence, He being their God and Father, their portion,
delight, rest, keeper, and felicity, and Jesus Christ being their
Savior. (2.456 –57)
The soul of reconciliation with God, indeed the “soul of Christi-
anity,” is justification.25 So justification is the foundation of joy. Brakel
wrote, “Justification also engenders joy. ‘I will greatly rejoice in the
LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me
with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe
of righteousness’ (Isa. 61:10)” (2.455). Brakel commanded believers,
“[D]o not condemn yourself if God justifies you.... To do this would
be to bring anguish upon yourself, since the Lord does not cause you
grief.” Instead, “the voice of divine acquittal in God’s Word, and by
His Spirit in the heart, is so sweet” (2.412). This is an experience in
which believers must grow. Brakel wrote, “The stronger that faith in
Christ is...the more clearly the believer will hear the pronouncement
of the justifying sentence by the righteous Judge, and the greater the
measure of peace and joy will be” (2.614 –15).
In Brakel’s theology, “justification includes spiritual sonship,” or
adoption (2.415). Here the believer finds abundant material for joy
(2.420–21). Brakel exulted,
To be a child of a king is a great thing in this world.... What then
must it be to be a child of God Himself who has all glory within
Himself, is above all praise, and has made everything? Every-
thing belongs to Him; all creatures and all kings of the earth
must be at His service and His beck, and must obey Him to the
minutest detail; He accomplishes all He wills, is nothing but love
and goodness; and all that He is, He is for His children. (2.417)
Assurance: The Evidence of Joy

We have already considered how assurance of one’s justification and
adoption leads to joy. Brakel similarly regarded an assurance of elec-
tion to be “the fountain of much joy in God” (1.246, cf. 248). He
25. “Having discussed calling, regeneration, and faith, we shall now proceed
to justification, which is the soul of Christianity and the fountainhead of all true
comfort and sanctification” (2.340).
could even write, “[T]o be without assurance concerning his state

prevents him from rejoicing in God” (4.208). Assurance leads to joy.
Now in this section we will consider how joy leads to assurance.
When Brakel wrote about assurance of election, he listed the following
among other evidences that God elected and called a person: “willing-
ness and obedience, spiritual liberty, and joy in the Lord...delight in
God’s counsel to reconcile sinners to Himself through the Surety, the
Lord Jesus Christ...an inner delight and love for a godly spiritual frame
and the practice of all virtues in the fear, love, and obedience of God,
as being His will...delight in communion with God” (1.247– 48).
There is a double joy for the believer: joy in Christ leads by way of
evidence to the joy of assurance. Brakel counseled, “You who yearn for
Jesus...so that He is all your joy and desire, generating in you a hatred
towards sin...you have reason to be assured that He has been born for
you. Therefore you have double reason to rejoice with delightful and
unspeakable joy” (1.516; cf. 2.581; 4:480). Just as assurance is distinct
from saving faith in Christ and is a fruit of such faith (2.276; 4.214),
so also the joy of assurance is a distinct fruit of rejoicing in Christ
Himself. Joy in Christ is of the essence of saving faith (2.326); joy
in assurance is not. To insist otherwise is a “snare” which deprives
believers “from being encouraged and joyful” (4.216).
Brakel did warn that there was counterfeit religious joy (2.322).
He wrote, “[T]emporal believers have a joy without root” (2.293; cf.
Matt. 13:20; Luke 8:13). Brakel distinguished between true joy and
false joy in three ways (2.459 – 60). First, true joy comes through faith
in Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:8). Second, true
joy comes from communion with God as our reconciled God, not
merely in God’s benefits to us (Phil. 4:4). Third, true joy makes a soul
holy (Ps. 119:32).The unconverted rejoice in sin (2.603; 3:271), but the
child of God finds obedience to the Father’s will to be a delight, not a
burden (2.429, 432, 435; 3.304 –5). In other words, for joy in God to
qualify as evidence of salvation it must include rejoicing in God’s will
because it is His will.
Love and Obedience: The Sacrifice of Joy

Christ taught His disciples that the heart of God’s law consisted of
love (Matt. 22:35– 40). So Brakel wrote, “The contents of the law is
love” (3.263). He did not try to change the Great Commandment into
“Rejoice in the Lord.” Yet Brakel wrote twice, “there is joy in love,”
that is, in love for the Lord (3.266, 287). Joy is an aspect of the essen-
tial activity of love. Brakel wrote,
Love in essence has no other object than that which is most emi-
nent, most cherishable, most satisfying, and unchangeable —which
is God Himself.... Love is the sweet motion of the heart toward
God—infused into the hearts of believers by the Holy Spirit—
whereby they, by virtue of union with Him and in view of His
perfections, delight themselves in God, and in a joyous embrace of
His will, fully surrendering themselves to His service (3.263–64).
The love of God does not beget casual irreverence to Him.
Instead, “there is reverence in love” (1.266). So too it is “the fear of
God” which “qualifies this joy as being true” (2.460). This combina-
tion of fear and joy marks “a childlike heart” towards the heavenly
Father (2.436). Brakel distinguished between “slavish fear” and “fil-
ial fear” (that of a son) toward God. Childlike fear of God springs
from a glad love for His majesty (3.293). Brakel explained, “Rever-
ence requires...a knowledge of and beholding of God’s majesty...a
delightful acknowledgement and a whole hearted approbation that
God is so majestic” (3.294).
From a sense of the divine majesty flows the believer’s glad submis-
sion to God’s will. Brakel opened his book with the principles that
First, the foundation of religion is the character of God…the
creature is obligated to God’s majesty to exist for the purpose of
serving God.... Second, the form or essence of religion consists
of man’s knowledge, recognition, and heart-felt endorsement of
this binding obligation, which is to live unto God at all times
and in all things with all that he is and is capable of perform-
ing.... He does so because He is his God, it is his obligation, and
it constitutes his felicity. (1.3– 4)
Doing God’s will is the felicity of man. This is a function of love.
Love for God and His will injects joy into all the duties of obedience,
whether viewed as holiness (1.441), self-sacrifice (3.268), self-denial
(3.397, 402), diligence (4.104), or humility (4.68).
Trials and Hope: The Training for Joy

Sorrow is the only pathway to eternal joy. Brakel wrote, “By way of
various trials and sorrows, it pleases the only wise God to lead His
elect, who have presently been regenerated, to the felicity which He

has ordained for them and which Christ has merited” (2.615). When
God’s providential will opposes our will, Brakel counseled his readers
to rejoice that God is Lord, not us. He wrote, “Since He is sovereign,
however, His will is supreme, and you approve of it with delight, sub-
ject your will to His will, and will what He wills. Delight yourself
in your circumstances, since it is the will of God concerning you”
(3.391). In the light of predestination: “All these trials and tribulations
proceed from love and are for your good” (1.249).
To be sure, trouble takes away joy. “Adversity presses the soul
down, robs her of a joyous and cheerful disposition, oppresses the
heart...both discouragement and despair are very near at hand”
(2.616). But “by faith in the promises,” the child of God sees that God
makes him holy by trials, so “The cross will then be sweet and light
even if it may press tears from our eyes” (2.616–17). We must rejoice
in God’s will through our tears (3.383; 4.178).
Is it all your delight, in willing obedience, to live a life pleasing
to the Lord? Is it your choice that the Lord be your only and
all-sufficient portion, and to delight yourself in the Lord? Do
you have eternal life as your objective, and do you lay hold on
it? Therefore choose then also the way of the cross...bear it cou-
rageously and be comforted in it—yes, bear it joyously. (2.618)
The promises engender hope that trials lead to greater joys. Patient
hope is essential to strengthen believers in all their troubles (3.413).
Brakel wrote,
Hope rejoices the heart; man cannot live without happiness.
However, in the world the godly endure many tribulations, and
if they had nothing but tribulation they would succumb. All that
man strives for is related to happiness, for a joyful heart begets
strength for soul and body. Hope, however, causes the believer
to “glory in tribulations (Rom. 5:3), and there is thus a “rejoicing
in hope” (Rom. 12:12). (3.329)
At the heart of patient hope is treasuring God above all things.
Believers “would rather enjoy communion with God with the cross,
than to be estranged from Him without the cross” (3.423). Spiri-
tual reflection consists not only in choosing God, but in despising
the world by comparison. Brakel said, “This means that God alone is
your desire, resting place, joy, delight, and the One whom I fear. The
world is therefore from now on, of no significance. It is merely to be
used as a means through which you traverse as a stranger in order
to come to the fatherland” (2.598). Choosing the Sovereign Lord by
grace as one’s happiness makes one meek (4.81).
Delight and Darkness: The Pursuit of Joy

Joy is not accidental to the Christian life, a mere by-product of obedi-
ence; it is the will of God. Brakel asserted, “God is pleased with the
joy of His children. It is His will that they delight themselves, value
the benefits, fully trust in His Word and in His promise, jubilate,
leap for joy, and sing His praises with joyful and singing lips” (2.463).
But the believer should not be distressed if he lacks strong emotions.
Brakel counseled, “One can have a true and genuine love which is
very strong— even if he does not have sweet and sensible passions”
(3.281). Nevertheless, the redeemed soul “is desirous to live continu-
ally in union with Christ and to be continually in amazement about,
and to rejoice in, the great work of redemption” (2.615).
The pursuit of joy conjoins sovereign grace and human respon-
sibility. On the one hand, joy can only be “generated by the Holy
Spirit” (2.456). It is a work of grace. On the other hand, believers
have a responsibility to seek spiritual joy for their strength and God’s
glory (2.461– 62). The enjoyment of God’s glory stands at the head
of the wise man’s goals. Brakel wrote, “The objective which the pru-
dent person has in mind is manifold: to enjoy and glorify God; to
have peace and joy in God; and love toward God; to exercise holi-
ness; to refrain from sin...to be instrumental in the conversion of
one’s neighbor” (4.130).
One of God’s strangest ways of dealing with His people is spiritual
desertion (4.171). Brakel taught that the Lord sometimes sovereignly
withdraws the normal operations of His Spirit to illuminate and
comfort His children, leaving them in partial darkness (4.173). Spiri-
tual darkness is a reality in some believers (1.190; 4.260 – 61). Darkness
may result in the experience of “deadness,” which the translator
explained as “a death-like state of insensibility” (4.265, 268).26 The
26. Brakel placed his chapter on darkness immediately before his chapter on
deadness, commenting in the former, “When someone comes into a state of dark-
ness, he will readily slip into a state in which he is cold, stiff, and insensitive. We
Lord may desert His people to darkness merely out of His sovereign
freedom for His glory (4.179). Or He may desert them temporarily for
their sins, such as scandalous acts, worldliness, pride, neglecting the
means of grace, or seeking novel doctrines (4.182–83; cf. 3.466). In
such cases, the believer should wholeheartedly repent of the sin and
rest in the blood of Jesus for forgiveness (4.189 –90).
Whether the Christian is struggling under darkness or seeking
to enjoy God more, the pursuit of joy in God is essentially the same.
Brakel gave the following guidelines (2.466 – 67):
• “Continually exercise faith in Christ” as revealed in the
gospel of salvation.
• “Continue to read and acknowledge the Word to be what it
really is: the Word of God,” with an eye to God’s unbreak-
able promises (cf. 1:75, 81).
• “Pray much, and acquaint yourself with the Lord by praying
to Him, communing with Him” as the One who provides
all that you desire. Steadfast devotional exercises in prayer
is the means to receive more light (cf. 3.468 –70; 4.264).
• “Engage much in holy contemplation and meditation.”
Meditating on God and the gospel is the duty and beauty
of all true worshipers (cf. 1.133–38; 2.582; 4:25–30).
• “Be much on guard against yielding to a sinful routine
in your life. Even if there are no great falls, this yielding,
this drowsy carelessness, and this departing from God will
readily rob us of this joy.”
We have seen that joy in God permeates the whole Christian life,
from conversion to perseverance through trials, from adoption to
sacrificial obedience. Next we consider how Brakel viewed joy with
respect to the ultimate destination of the Christian: eternal life.
Eternal Felicity: The Consummation of Joy

Brakel favored the phrase “eternal felicity” to describe the ultimate
glory of the elect, using it sixty times (e.g., 1.438). Happiness in God
shall shortly discuss this state of insensitivity more comprehensively” (4.262– 63).
Therefore, Brakel regarded “deadness” to be a potential result of “darkness.”
constituted the essence of heaven: “To be joyful in God is heaven”

(2.464). The believer sips the cup of heaven in the midst of his earthly
warfare. But in eternal glory awaits “magnificent happiness” (4.369).
Though Brakel sometimes spoke of ecstasy on earth, Arie de Reuver
notes that he also displayed a wise “eschatological reserve,” that is,
reserving the highest experiences of joy for the coming age.27
Brakel reasoned from the doctrine of God that heaven must be
incomprehensibly good:
That which the only wise and omnipotent God has conceived
and thought out within Himself (let me speak as a man), namely,
to exalt man to the highest level of felicity, fill him with incom-
prehensible glory and delight, and glorify Himself in His saints
and be admired in all them that believe (2 Th. 1:10), must be
glorious to the highest degree. (4.362)
Christians of all times have meditated on the coming kingdom of
God as the consummation of all man’s desires. We have already noted
the link between Brakel and the medieval mystic Bernard of Clairvaux.28
Bernard waxed lyrical about the pleasures of the heavenly wedding feast.
Christ will make His Bride completely intoxicated with God.
Hence, complete satisfaction without interruption; hence, ever-
lasting and insatiable desire that lacks nothing; hence, that sober
drunkenness (sobriaebrietas) that refreshes itself with the Truth
and not with drink (vero, non mero), drenched with wine, but
radiant with God (non madens vino, sedardens Deo).29
Similarly, the Reformed tradition exulted in hope in the glory of
God. The Heidelberg Catechism says:
Question 58. How does the article concerning “life everlasting”
comfort you?
Answer. Even as I already now experience in my heart the begin-
ning of eternal joy, so after this life I will have perfect blessedness

28. “In my opinion one can speak of a substantive congeniality with Bernard’s
mystical spirituality.... That he had direct knowledge of the corpus of Bernard’s
work is not obvious to me. It is possible that his thought-world...was conveyed to
him by his teacher Voetius and his spiritual kinsman Witsius.” De Reuver, Sweet
Communion 257–58.
such as no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no human heart has
ever imagined: a blessedness in which to praise God forever.30
When Christ comes again, He will bring His people that for which
their desires were created, “the enjoyment of the infinite” (4.365).
Christ will give His elect possession of that to which the whole gospel
points, “eternal felicity” (2.605). Brakel exclaimed, “Oh, how sweet it
shall be to sit eternally under the shadow of the almighty, good, lov-
ing, all-sufficient, and benevolent God!” (4.365). Their inheritance is
incomprehensibly good. Brakel wrote,
They are heirs of a possession which is far more excellent
than heaven and earth with all its creatures.... God Himself is
their inheritance: “The LORD is my portion” (Lam. 3:24). It is
incomprehensible and inexpressible what this is. No one can
comprehend this unless he has enjoyed in some measure what it
will be when the soul, with full satisfaction, will enjoy God in an
immediate sense. Of this we can say nothing else but, Oh, how
great this is! (2.427)
Consistent with the Bible’s teaching on rewards, Brakel taught
both the full happiness of all the elect, and the relative differences
among the elect in glory. He wrote,
We maintain that all they who are glorified will be filled with
felicity to overflowing; that is, as much as they can endure. Thus,
there will neither be a desire for more, nor will this be possible....
As one vessel can, however, contain more than another vessel,
while yet all being full, we believe that also the one will excel the
other in glory. This is, however, not due to merit.... Rather, on
the basis of His free grace, God will elevate in glory those who
have done or suffered much as a witness for His Name. (4.358)
What does their happiness and glory consist of? “Felicity consists
in seeing God.” Jesus, the God-man, will be seen “with physical eyes
with overwhelming joy and love by all the citizens of heaven.” Brakel
continued, “God, however, will be seen with the enlightened eyes of
the understanding.... God in an immediate and immanent manner—
in a manner which God presently has not made known to us—will
30. http://www.puritanseminary.org/media/HeidelbergCatechism.pdf, accessed

5-24-2010.
reveal His glorious perfections to His children, will cause the soul
to experience that He is her portion.” This vision of God does not
consist in “mere reflection” in the intellect, but also “the enjoyment
of mutual and perfect love.” “God will fill the soul with His all-suf-
ficiency, encompass it with His love, and overshadow it with all His
perfections...inexpressible joy” (4.365–67).
Brakel held out the hope of being “satisfied in the Lord’s all-suf-
ficiency” to brothers facing severe persecution and martyrdom. They
should weigh this against their sufferings:
The inheritance of the saints in glory, the immediate commu-
nion with God, the life of beholding Him, to be satisfied with
the Lord’s all-sufficiency, to be irradiated by the light of His
countenance, to be embraced by His love, to be surrounded by
His omnipotence, to be filled with His goodness, even to shine
forth in pure holiness, to be aflame with love, to be incompre-
hensibly joyful in God, to be among the angels, to be in the
company of the souls of the most perfectly righteous men, and
while being in His immediate presence, together with them
behold and experience the perfections of the Lord, and thus
magnify and praise these perfections—that is felicity and that
is glory. (3.370)
Conclusion
After having surveyed Brakel’s writings on the major loci of theol-
ogy, we may conclude that joy in God is central and pervasive to true
religion in the theology of Wilhelmus à Brakel. God is the fullness of
joy. Man is the seeker of joy. Christ is the mediator of joy. The church
is the community of joy. Salvation is the life of joy. Eternity is the
consummation of joy.
Brakel’s covenant theology dripped with joy because in the cov-
enant the all-sufficient God gives to His people nothing less than
Himself. We close with his golden words,
Did not God, by saying, “I am your God!” cause Himself to be
your portion so that you would enjoy all felicity in Him? If you
have the all-sufficient One as your salvation, are you then still
in need of anything else? Is He not better to you than a thou-
sand worlds, a piece of money, or a piece of bread? Therefore,
speak and practice what the godly did. “The Lord is my por-
tion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in Him” (Lam. 3:24).

As you consider God—the only blessed God, the God of full
salvation—to be your portion, turn to Him in times of distress,
take refuge with Him, delight yourself in Him by faith— even
if it pleases Him not to give you the measure of enjoying Him as
you would desire. This is laid away for you in eternity. Delight
yourself in having Him as your portion, and let this satisfy you
while foregoing the things of the world which you would desire
to have. To that end, hold before yourself the example of Habak-
kuk: “Although...the fields shall yield no meat...yet I will rejoice
in the Lord” (Hab. 3:17–18). (3.391–92)
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 267– 290
Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Use of Doctrine in

Calling Sinners to Repentance and Faith
jonathan holdt
q
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the nineteenth-century Baptist preacher,

said, “Soul-winning is the chief business of the Christian minister,
indeed, it should be the main pursuit of every true believer.”1 In
2 Timothy 4:5, the Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to not only preach
the Word, but to do the work of an evangelist in order to fulfill his
ministry. Evangelism and soul-winning ought to occupy the mind
and heart of every minister of the gospel.
It is clear from Wilhelmus à Brakel’s works that he had a great
concern for the salvation of the unconverted. Throughout his instruc-
tion in Christian doctrine and practice, there are numerous sections
where he seeks to exhort and persuade sinners to come to Christ for
salvation. From this it is evident that Brakel was more than just a
theologian; he was a pastor with a heart for the lost. He no doubt
preached as he wrote, pleading with and exhorting sinners of their
need of Christ. We today can learn from Brakel in this.
In our application of doctrine as preachers, do we consider the
plight of the lost sinner? Is the call for repentance and faith evident
in our preaching? Are our appeals to sinners limited to specific gospel
texts alone or are we able to drive home our appeals to the hearts of lost
souls from a wide range of doctrine? These are some of the important
questions this article will seek to answer from a study of Brakel’s use of
doctrine in calling sinners to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
To begin, this essay will focus on a general overview of Brakel’s
view of ministry and the importance of evangelism. Then a close look
needs to be given to his understanding of gospel invitations in the
context of his Calvinistic view of the sovereignty of God in salvation.
1. Charles Spurgeon, The Soul Winner (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 1992), 5.
Finally a closer examination needs to be given to his use of the doc-

trine of repentance and faith in his appeals to sinners from a wide
range of doctrine.
Ministry and the Importance of Evangelism

Brakel took the calling to the office of a minister of the Word very
seriously. Dr. W. Fieret wrote that he sharply condemned those minis-
ters who performed their task only to gain honor and wealth.2 Brakel
believed that there were five primary tasks of a minister: prayer,
preaching, catechizing, visitation, and the use of church discipline.
When it came to preaching, he believed that this was the means that
God uses to translate souls from darkness to light, and therefore that
it was of great importance how a minister explains the Word of God.3
In appealing to the unconverted in one of his sermons, he says, “O
wretched condition—yes, thrice wretched men! Give ear, you who are
spiritually dead; that is if you are able to hear. Do you not know that
you are dead before God, and thus also in all your works? As long as
you remain thus, death will be stamped upon all that you do.”4 Brakel
was thus very direct with his warnings. But he never left the sinner
without hope. He then called for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ
with words like this: “Do not despair, but rather look unto this living
Jesus and listen to His Word. For when he called Lazarus, He also
gave him the ability to hear. This Jesus is mighty to make you alive,
for He is the resurrection and life itself.”5 Brakel also had false profes-
sors of faith in mind and would regularly warn his congregation with
examples of apostates from the Word such as Simon the Sorcerer and
Judas Iscariot. He would then call for godly sorrow over sin and self-
examination that the listener needs to engage in.6
However, we see Brakel as an evangelist not only in his preaching
but also his pastoring. In his catechizing, he would teach on God’s
dealings with souls in conversion. In his visitation, he would seek
to direct people’s minds to eternal matters. In the use of ministe-
rial authority and church discipline, he would seek to admonish the
2. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service (Grand Rapids: Refor-

mation Heritage Books, 2007) 1: xxxiv.
3. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:xxxv.
4. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:xli.
5. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:xlii.
6. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:xliv.
Calling Sinners to Repentance and Faith 269
sinner to repent while proclaiming the forgiveness of sins by virtue of

the blood of Christ.7
Brakel’s view of the seriousness of ministry was governed by the
reality of the coming Judgment Day. He knew that each minister of
the Word would give an account before God as to how he watched
over the church. He writes that the Lord will ask the minister, “How
did you deal with souls? Are you to be blamed for any of them going
lost? Did you tenderly give attention to my lambs and sucklings? Or
did you unjustly grieve them, slay them, and take their veil away from
them? Where are the souls which, by means of your service, have
been converted, comforted and built up?”8
One can sense the holy fear that Brakel himself had in thinking
of the loss of one soul due to carelessness in ministry when he writes,
“It will be a dreadful burden to hear the accusations of misled and
neglected souls: ‘You knew very well that I was ignorant and lived
in sin. If you had looked after me, had warned and rebuked me, and
instructed and directed me in the way of salvation, I would have been
saved. Look however, you unfaithful minister, you unfaithful elder—
I am now lost! Let God require my blood from your hand, and deal
with you as a wicked and lazy servant.”9
In considering Brakel’s view of ministry and the seriousness
of the task given to him, it is not surprising to note how often and
earnestly he warns sinners to repent and to trust in Christ. Brakel,
however, was a Calvinist, believing in the absolute sovereignty of God
in electing sinners to salvation. How did he understand the gospel call
and invitation to sinners to repent and believe the gospel in light of his
strong Calvinistic view of the gospel?
The Gospel Call and God’s Sovereignty in Salvation

Brakel was a pastor who would time and again appeal to the sin-
ner in his writing and preaching, inviting him to embrace Christ in
repentance and believing faith. He was Calvinistic in his doctrine and
certainly believed that God would save His elect.
He also believed that God uses means to bring His elect to Him-
self. This He does by means of the external call to sinners through
7. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:xxxviii.

8. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:xxxix.
9. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:xxxix.
gospel preaching. Concerning this external call, Brakel wrote, “The

calling is a gracious work of God, whereby He invites the sinner by
means of the gospel to exchange the state of sin and wrath for Christ,
in order that through Him he may be reconciled to God and obtain
godliness and salvation.”10
Brakel distinguished between the external and internal call of
God. He wrote, “The one functions externally only by means of
the Word, to which also the Holy Spirit does join Himself in His
common operation, resulting in common illumination and his-
torical faith. The other, however, penetrates the very heart of man,
powerfully illuminating it with wondrous light, revealing spiritual
mysteries to man in their essential form, and powerfully inclines
the will to embrace those mysteries in Christ, and to the obedience
of faith.”11 Thus, in the external call, Brakel believed that the Holy
Spirit was indeed at work even in the mind of the unbeliever with
regards to the illumination of the truth—that Jesus is the Christ,
and that they are sinners and need to be saved from sin. Yet they will
not embrace Christ as Savior without the internal call of the Spirit of
God giving them the grace to willingly come to Christ for salvation
from sin and wrath.
According to Brakel, the fact that God alone does the saving work
ought not to deter the preacher from offering Christ to all. He wrote,
“Since Christ is offered to all under the ministry, it not only follows
that everyone may come and no one needs to remain behind for fear
whether he is called or not; but it also follows that everyone is obli-
gated to come to Christ and to receive Him in order to be justified,
sanctified, preserved, and glorified.”
Thus Brakel believed in the free offer of the gospel to every sin-
ner to whom it was preached. He knew, however, that the divine work
of God in the internal call of His Spirit was necessary for anyone
to embrace Christ as Savior. He said, “The Word alone can have no
effect upon the heart of such a person, but that the Word of God must
be accompanied by a powerful operation of God upon the soul.... His
instruction must be accompanied by the gift of repentance and under
the hearing of God’s Word He must open the heart.”12
10. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:191.

Brakel very definitely opposed Arminianism. He likened their

doctrinal view as that of making an idol of man’s own ability and good
will.13 He pointed out that Scripture refutes such foolish thoughts.
Yet, while he opposed Arminianism and its view of man’s free will, he
nevertheless believed in the free offer of the gospel to all who would
hear it. In answering the question, “Does God call all who are under
the ministry of the gospel, but who as yet are not saved, or does God
call the elect only?” he answers, “God calls all and everyone who live
under the ministry of the gospel.” He continues by saying, “There
is a general and unconditional declaration to all, that is to him who
thirsts, who is without money and who wills....”14
While it is important then for the Calvinistic preacher to hold to
the sovereignty of God in salvation, it is equally important that he
does not neglect the responsibility God has given to exhort all who
hear the gospel to repent and believe as well as to invite all needy sin-
ners to come to Christ and own Him as their Lord and Savior.
Having examined Brakel’s view of the free offer of the gospel,
our attention will now turn to consider his use of doctrine in calling
sinners to repentance and faith in Christ.
Calling Sinners to Repentance and Faith

Brakel repeatedly exhorted his hearers to repent of their sin and trust
in Jesus Christ for salvation. This is a matter which the contempo-
rary preacher needs to consider seriously. There seems to be a sharp
decline in the use of the doctrine of repentance in today’s preaching.
According to Steven Lawson, the contemporary church seems bent
on presenting a non-offensive, felt-need message, which he says is a
sad departure from the model presented in Acts.15 He goes on to talk
about the need for courageous as well as confrontational preaching.
Lawson laments the levity and triviality in the pulpit today. He quotes
John Piper who said, “Laughter seems to have replaced repentance
as the goal of many preachers. Laughter means people feel good. It
means they like you. It means you have some measure of power. It
seems to have all the marks of successful communication—if the
depth of sin and the holiness of God and the danger of hell and need

14. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:202–203.
15. Steven Lawson, Famine in the Land (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003), 44.
for broken hearts is left out of account.” Lawson then uses Jonah as an
example of bold preaching when he refers to his “crying out” against
Nineveh and warning them of impending judgment. He writes, “Such
confrontational preaching was not unique to Jonah. From Moses to
Malachi, this same strident tone reverberated in the voices of all the
prophets as they issued their calls to stubborn Israel to repent. The
preaching of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus was confrontational,
often calling the religious establishment of their day into account....
Such direct preaching has always marked the proclamation of God’s
men down through the ages.”16
Tragically, there seems to be a popular trend toward a non-con-
frontational preaching which waters down the gospel and fails to
call sinners to repentance. Marshall Davis, in critiquing Rick War-
ren’s book The Purpose Driven Life, quotes John MacArthur, who said,
“Warren does not lay this foundation of repentance in his presenta-
tion of the gospel. There is no turning away from dead works, no
call to bear fruits worthy of repentance. Just believe a few platitudes,
receive an unexplained Jesus, and you are assured of eternal life....
The Purpose-Driven gospel is nothing more than a postmodern ver-
sion of the old time liberalism, described by Richard Niebuhr as ‘a
god without wrath bringing men without sin into a kingdom without
judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.’”17
Chantry shares a similar concern regarding the popular practice
of evangelism. He writes, “Today, man are properly told to confess
their sins and ask for forgiveness. But evangelists and pastors are for-
getting to tell sinners to repent. Consequently this misinformed age
imagines that it can continue in its old ways of life while adding Jesus
as a personal hell insurance for the world to come.”18
In contrast to many modern preachers, Brakel was not a people
pleaser. He did not try to make people feel comfortable in the pew.
While his writings offer tremendous comfort and encouragement to
true believers, there is a tone of seriousness when he turns to exhort-
ing the unconverted. Brakel was a preacher who clearly believed in
the necessity of preaching repentance from all parts of Scripture. We
16. Lawson, Famine in the Land, 66–68.

17. Marshall Davis, More Than a Purpose (Atlanta: Word Press, 2006), 66.
18. Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel, Authentic or Synthetic? (Edinburgh: Banner of
need to take note of this and examine current preaching styles and
methods in light of the biblical and Christ-like method that Brakel
followed where sinners were called to repentance because the king-
dom of God was at hand.
Brakel was deeply concerned for the unconverted and constantly
appeals to them to examine their lives in the light of God’s coming
judgment and to turn to the Lord for saving grace. This is what the
gospel preacher is called to do in reaching sinners: warn them on the
one hand of the great dangers of sin and God’s judgment and appeal
to them on the other by the mercies of God found in Jesus Christ.
What follows below is a brief analysis of the various doctrines
Brakel used in appealing to sinners to repent of their sin and trust
in Christ Jesus for salvation. Throughout the works of Brakel, he
will include sections under the title of “A serious exhortation to the
unconverted” or similar titles. These sections deserve a more careful
analysis to shed light on Brakel’s use of repentance and faith in calling
sinners to Christ.
The covenant of works and of grace

Brakel contrasts the misery of those outside the covenant of grace
with the fullness of salvation to be found for those in it. He exhorts
those outside the covenant of grace with the following solemn words,
“God is a judge whom you have provoked to wrath; you are not a par-
taker of the Surety and His fullness, and you have no part in any of
the promises. Rather, all threatenings apply to you and all judgments
rest upon you.” He goes on to appeal to the blessings to be obtained in
the covenant of grace when he says, “In this covenant the fullness of
salvation is to be found...it is God with whom you shall live in peace
and friendship. This consists of nothing but light, love, joy and pure
holiness, which all partakers of the covenant will enjoy both now and
forever.” He then appeals to the sinner in these words, “Why do you
still hesitate? Come, make a resolution, and enter into this covenant.”
He then points to God Himself as the one making an appeal to them
through His calls to turn to Him and live. The seriousness of God’s
call to them to be saved is underlined by His only begotten Son whom
He has sent to sinners. He poses the question as to whether they will
then reject Him who has been sent from heaven.19 Brakel then allays

the fears of any who would think that they might be turned away
from God. He says, “The Lord shall turn no one away who in truth
comes unto Him through Christ.... Be not discouraged, for there is
hope concerning this matter. Come, for the Lord will certainly not
cast you out, but will receive you.”
The following important matters need to be highlighted from
Brakel’s method in persuading sinners to repent and turn to Christ.
First, he warns the sinner about sin and its consequences. He lays
upon them the guilt of their sin and the judgments of God. Second,
he moves on to appeal to the sinner’s desire for well-being by high-
lighting the promises and blessings contained in the new covenant.
Third, he draws attention to God’s own desire for them to be saved,
and finally, he seeks to remove any doubts or fears of rejection from
the sincere repentant sinner.
Regeneration
In Brakel’s exhortation to the unconverted, he calls upon them to
reason with themselves on the basis of the doctrine of regeneration
which teaches that all men are dead in trespasses and sins and need
to be united to Christ through faith. He places himself in the shoes
of the unconverted person and reasons in the first person with words
such as this: “I am separated from and live in separation from God.
I am not united to Him in Christ Jesus.... It is my delight to yield
to my lusts and to indulge in the commission of sin. I neither know
God nor know of spiritual life with God. It does not appeal to me;
I do not love it; it is not my objective.” Brakel aims here to get the
unconverted person to be true to his own feelings. He wants the
unsaved sinner to come to the conclusion that he is very definitely
unconverted.20 This reminds us of the need to help people to be
truthful about themselves. Too many will sit in church spiritually
dead and see no reason for conversion. It is the preacher’s duty to
help them see their wretched, desperate condition before he makes
an appeal to them to seek Christ for salvation.
Once Brakel has helped the lost sinner understand that he is
indeed unconverted and in need of grace, he then goes on to make
use of other arguments to persuade him to repent. He seeks to stir
up terror for the unconverted sinner who is outside the covenant of

grace and excluded from the promise, “I shall be your God.” He says,
“There is no rest and safety for you in God; instead He is your enemy.
God with His entire being, together with all creatures, is against you
and will afflict you with all those terrors which cause a man to be
wretched and in pain according to body and soul.... Oh, how dread-
ful it will be for you to fall into the hands of the living God! Where
will you hide yourself? Heaven above, hell beneath, your conscience
within, and all creatures surrounding you will conspire to bring you
into such a condition that your hair will stand up straight if you but
consider it.”21 He moves on to boldly state and argue the next few
points with the cornered sinner: that the Lord Jesus is not his Savior;
that his faith is but the same as the devils who tremble before God and
as such it will not save him; that he is cursed of God; that an eternity
lies before them in hell where there will be no comfort, where they
will dwell without light and rest, and where they will be filled with-
out grace and hope and experience an inexpressible despair.22
Brakel’s goal here is not to drive sinners to hopeless despair but
rather to awaken them to see their need of salvation. This surely is
one of the biggest challenges today within the church. There are
many who have professed faith or made some or other shallow com-
mitment to Christ but whose souls are still in terrible danger because
they remain dead in their trespasses and sins. This concerned Brakel
as he dealt with this subject of regeneration and drove home the utter
misery that awaited such a spiritually dead sinner. But he does not
leave the matter there. He goes on to urge the spiritually dead sinner
to seriously consider all he has said in light of the terror of the Lord.
He notes, “For God does use conviction and impressions of terror as
a means unto conversion.”23
He then proceeds to answer four questions which he anticipates
might arise in the sinner’s mind. These four questions are as follows:
1. What must I do to be saved?
2. Am I able to? Is this in the realm of my ability?
3. What counsel do you have? Is there any hope for me at all?
4. Shall I then be converted and saved if I do all this?

From this we can begin to understand the heart that Brakel has
for the unconverted. He does not want to leave them in a state of spir-
itual slumber but awaken them to the reality of their need of Christ.
He wants to answer any questions they might have concerning their
salvation that the way might be cleared for them to come to Christ.
One is reminded of the need to anticipate questions in the hear-
ers’ hearts and to seek to answer them in order to remove doubts
which would keep them from Christ.
Faith
Brakel defines faith as a heartfelt trust in Christ and through Him in
God, in order to be justified, sanctified, and glorified.24 Faith leans
upon Christ’s voluntary offer of Himself and upon His promises that
He will perform to all who receive Him and rely upon Him.
After defining faith, Brakel points out the kind of people who
hear the Word of God but do not receive it in faith: those who are
caught up with the things of this world, those who are overwhelmed
by their difficulties and sorrows, those who think they are saved and
are not, and those who are acquainted with spiritual things but upon
whom no spiritual impression is made whatsoever. He then calls all
such unconverted people with the following exhortation, “Come, all
whom I have named and also those to whom I have not alluded; come
murderers, adulterers, fornicators, unjust persons, thieves, drunkards,
you who revel in sin, gamblers, dancers, you criminals who have been
given over to yourself, liars, backbiters, perjurers; come whomever
you may be and whatever your circumstances may be; come to Jesus,
believe in Him and you will be saved.”25
Brakel’s invitation was simple and clear. It was open to all. It
invited the sinner of whatever form or shape to come to Jesus; to put
his faith in Him for salvation. Brakel, however, did not neglect to
make use of various reasons to persuade the sinner to trust in Christ.
In seeking to persuade the sinner to come to Christ, he does not by
pass the mind but appeals first of all to the wretched condition in
which the sinner finds himself. He strongly appeals, “Can anything
be more dreadful than to be without God, to be confronted with God
as an angry Judge, to be eternally outside of heaven, to have all that is

desirable and sought after here to be hostile toward you, and hereafter
to be forever condemned in the pool of fire?” The doctrine of hell and
eternal punishment very much features in his appeals. He continues,
“If you still remain insensitive and continue in this way, there is no
hope that you will escape eternal condemnation, and with sorrow we
must observe that you are on your way to hell. You are at the very
edge of hell.”26 He then appeals to the sinner to seek the Lord while
He may be found considering the fact that outside of Christ there is
nothing but restlessness and hostility.
It is important to note from this that Brakel takes much time in
preparing the ground for the seed of faith. He does not immediately
call sinners to trust in Christ; he takes time to make them aware of
the dangerous situation they find themselves in. Only once he has
highlighted the tremendous spiritual danger the sinner is faced with,
does he appeal to them to trust in Christ. This he does by magnify-
ing the beauty and loveliness of Christ. Of Christ he says, “In Christ
there is a fullness to meet all your needs and fulfil all your desires....
In Him there is complete fullness: (1) to remove all your sins, (2) to
reconcile us with God, (3) to deliver us from the eternal wrath of God
and from condemnation, (4) in Him there is fullness of Spirit, (5) of
light, (6) of life, (7) of peace, (8) and of full salvation.”27 He emphasizes
the fact that all these blessings are to be found in Christ alone. He
then points out the loveliness of the character of Christ by speaking
of His omnipotence to save, His inexpressible goodness and kindness
toward the soul that seeks Him, and His faithfulness as Good Shep-
herd and High Priest. He thus concludes, “One may therefore entrust
himself to Him, abide peacefully in Him as in a safe hiding place.”28
One would think that he has said enough. Most preachers would
think that they have fulfilled their responsibility in inviting the sinner to
Christ. But Brakel does not end there. He continues to drive his
appeal into the hearts of his hearers by emphasizing the great wicked-
ness of not believing in Christ. He lists several consequences of them
not believing, including (1) making God out to be a liar by implying
that true life is not to be found in His Son; (2) despising Christ in His
friendly invitation, and (3) despising all heavenly gifts that pertain to

their salvation. Having done all this, Brakel informs them that they
will be liable for the greatest of all punishments.29
Brakel then moves on to consider certain impediments in the way
of sinners coming to Christ. He deals with common problems such
as ignorance, an unwilling spirit, fear, feeling too sinful, or believing
that one’s brokenheartedness is insufficient. 30 Thus Brakel proves to
be a pastor and preacher who has carefully thought about the plight
of every sinner that may be seated in his congregation. He has con-
sidered their desperate plight, their need of Christ, and the great sin
that would be theirs of rejecting Christ and the obstacles that there
may be in their way of coming to Christ for salvation. In all this, he
emphasizes the necessity of faith in Christ and of the immediacy of
salvation for the one who believes. This is aptly summed up when he
says, “May one upon being convicted and being desirous for Christ,
immediately go to Christ at the very outset? Yes, you may come at
once.” For Brakel, the words of the hymn by Charlotte Elliott would
have echoed his own belief in the all sufficiency of Christ’s blood to
save the needy sinner. “Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy
blood was shed for me. And that Thou bidst me come to Thee, O
Lamb of God, I come!”31
Self-examination
Brakel includes in his works a chapter on the distinguishing marks of
saving faith. He is concerned for those who have false peace regarding
their conversion and thus he finds it necessary to distinguish between
true and temporal faith. He begins by calling his hearers to exam-
ine themselves as to whether they are true believers or not. “Come,
search yourself closely and examine yourself.... Should one be careless
in such a weighty matter?32 He points out that not all who have been
baptized and who attend church and partake of the Lord’s Supper are
true believers. He emphasizes the importance of self-examination in
that neglect will lead to a waste of time and render the means of grace
useless and impotent. He points out that it is very beneficial and causes
one to become conscious of the evils which dwell in the heart and

31. Charlotte Elliott, “Just As I Am,” in Grace Hymns (Grace Publications Trust,
1978).
to flee to Jesus for justification and sanctification.33 He then moves

on to consider the various forms of self-deceit and false foundations.
He also distinguishes between temporal and true believers regarding
sorrow over sin, the exercise of their faith, and their practice of holi-
ness. He then makes this appeal: “Examine yourself by this, for if these
spiritual frames, motions and considerations are not to be found in
your heart, and if the motives mentioned do not stir you up to refrain
from evil and perform that which is good, you have not been regener-
ated. Your sanctification is not in truth but is counterfeit. Oh that God
would grant you to be truly convinced of this and that it would result
in your conversion.”34 From this we learn the importance of preach-
ing for conversion based on the biblical doctrine of self-examination.
Brakel was careful in laying out all the reasons for false deceit as well as
distinguishing true faith from false so as to enable his hearers to make
a careful and through examination of their hearts.
Justification
Brakel defines justification not as an infusion of holiness as believed
by Roman Catholics but as a divine, judicial act attributed to God as
our judge who either acquits man or condemns him.35 He proceeds
to refute various objections to imputed righteousness before he con-
siders the means of our justification, which is faith. He considers the
objection raised by James’s teaching on justification by works and that
of Paul’s view of justification by faith. He also looks at the relationship
between justification and good works.
An important matter that needs to be addressed here concerns
the need for a sinner to strive for justification. Brakel underlines the
fact that justification is an act of God in which “a person by faith
receives Christ and His righteousness.”36 He points out that it is a
pronouncement made toward the believer in which God is in effect
saying, “Your sins have been atoned for; My justice is satisfied; you
are reconciled with Me; I forgive you your sins; I remit them; I do
not charge them against your account; and you are an heir of eternal
life.”37 He understands justification as a legal pronouncement made

by God in which a person is forgiven his sin and reconciled to God

through faith in Jesus Christ.
He also seeks to answer the person who believes that since justi-
fication is an act of God, there is nothing he can do but wait passively
for God to do something. Brakel anticipates such a person saying,
“Has not God eternally decreed whom He will justify and whom
not, this being a decree which cannot be changed by man? Is it not
therefore best to be quiet and await the outworking of this decree....
Are not all exhortations to strive for justification in vain?”38 While
one must not strive to be justified by his works, he must nevertheless
strive to receive this righteousness of God by faith in Christ. He must
strive to receive the promises made to believers regarding salvation
both from His Word and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. 39 This,
Brakel says, is life, joy, and comfort for the soul. Failing to do this
because of a willful passivity will bring about condemnation. Here he
says, “Tell me, you despisers of grace, you who are conformed to the
world and are lazy, is your condemnation not just? Will you not have
to say on your deathbed and in the day of judgment ‘I was not willing;
it is my own fault; therefore woe, woe is unto me that I have been so
foolish and that due to my own neglect I have now to go lost forever
and be condemned.’”40
Brakel’s view of justification by faith alone thus does not negate
the necessity for the sinner to pursue this righteousness through faith.
In contrast to modern “easy believism”41 where the sinner is exhorted
to “accept” Jesus as Savior by saying a simple prayer, Brakel empha-
sized the need to strive for justification and to seek for forgiveness of
sin and peace with God by appropriating the promises of the Word
regarding salvation in order to “hear the actual justifying pronounce-
ment of God both out of His Word and by His Holy Spirit.”42

41. John MacArthur, in his The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van, 1998), 21, points out that this easy-believism, where sinners are urged to accept
or invite Jesus into their lives or to make a decision for Christ, is a product of a
diluted gospel which is not the gospel according to Jesus. He mentions that present-
day evangelicalism ignores the cost of following Jesus and that many are being
deceived into thinking they are saved when in reality they will be lost forever.
Adoption
Leading on from the doctrine of justification is the doctrine of spiri-
tual sonship, which Brakel expounds on next in his works. Adoption
has to do with God not only forgiving the repentant sinner and grant-
ing him the gift of eternal life but also adopting him as His child.
Brakel considers the marks of a child of God: that he desires the
continual presence of God, that he is humble before God, that he is
willing to do the Lord’s will, and that he loves the children of God.
Then he calls his hearers to examine themselves to see whether they
are truly children of God and, in the light of them not being so, to
reflect upon the awful condition they are in.43 He then provides the
sincere repentant sinner with hope when he says that this hope lies in
taking refuge in the Lord Jesus and in receiving Him by faith.
One can learn from Brakel the need of constantly defining to
the congregation what the marks of a true Christian are before call-
ing them to self-examination. The preacher must be careful of not
leaving his hearers in a state of self-despair, after realizing that they
lack the true marks of a Christian. They need to be given hope by
reminding them of the refuge and security that can be found in the
Lord Jesus.
Spiritual peace and spiritual joy

Another blessing that flows from justification is spiritual peace. Brakel
defines this as a laying aside of former enmity between God and man.
He points out that it consists in fellowship between the believing soul
and God and is characterized by oneness of heart, intimacy, friendli-
ness, and love.44
Brakel is aware, however, of a false peace which many possess. He
calls out to them with these words: “You who have a peace of which
God is not the focus and which you enjoy apart from being in the
presence of and in communion with God...you who due to this inner
peace of mind are not prompted to be on guard against all sins and to
live a life pleasing unto God—I assure you that your peace is nothing
but carnal peace, and that God’s eternal and unbearable wrath hangs
over your head.”45 He continues with stern words by saying, “If you

presently do not come to your senses and repent, how rude will your
awakening then be when it will be too late and you will open your
eyes in hell!” From such exhortations one can almost feel the passion-
ate concern from Brakel for those living under a false sense of peace.
There is a note of urgency in his appeal, a fervent longing for his hear-
ers to be awakened from a false sense of assurance.
Regarding spiritual joy, Brakel defines it as a delightful motion of
the soul, generated by the Holy Spirit in the heart of believers whereby
He convinces them of the felicity (happiness) of their state, causes
them to enjoy the benefits of the covenant of grace, and assures them
of their future felicity.46 Brakel then moves on to consider counterfeit
spiritual joy which is the temporal joy of unbelievers. He deals with
a possible question from one of his hearers who feels his joylessness
because of his sins and asks, “How can a person rejoice who commits
as many sins as I commit?” He answers this poor soul in this way, “The
cause and foundation of your joy must not be found within yourself
and your virtuousness, but outside of yourself and in Christ.... When
someone’s sins are a heavy burden to him and grieve him; if he then
flees to Jesus and receives His atonement, and surrendering himself to
Him to be justified and sanctified...he has reason for joy.”47
In this we can see that Brakel continues to direct the troubled sin-
ner away from himself and his own virtues to the Lord Jesus Christ.
His appeals to lost sinners would invariably point them to the only
Savior, Jesus Christ. We can argue from this that while he warned of
God’s wrath and coming judgment repeatedly, Brakel never failed to
exalt the Lord Jesus Christ as the only source of salvation from sin
and judgment.
The use of the moral law

In Volume 3 of Brakel’s works, he expounds on the moral law. He
adopts the method of focusing first on what each commandment for-
bids and then what virtues it prescribes. He does not focus on many
lengthy exhortations to the unconverted, although here and there he
makes an appeal. For instance, in the third commandment (“Thou
shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain”) he concludes
the chapter with these words, “Therefore, you who find yourself guilty

ought to fear, and make haste to repent before judgment is executed

upon you....”48 It seems that Brakel primarily aimed to use the law to
teach believers not only what is sinful and displeasing to God but also
to direct them how to live holy lives. While this is absolutely necessary,
in light of the testimony of Scripture regarding the law being one of
the means God uses to convict the ungodly of their sin and point them
to Christ, Brakel might have made more in his exposition of the moral
law in appealing to the unconverted to flee to Christ for refuge.49
Nevertheless, this must not detract from the continued earnest
appeals Brakel makes toward lost sinners. In his chapter immediately
following his exposition of the moral law, he focuses on the glorifica-
tion of God. He points out that there are no virtues which are not
comprehended in the perfect rule of life, the law of God. He then adds
that while the most prominent aspects of each commandment were
considered in the previous chapters, he would now deal with more
explicit matters to stir up the soul to holiness.50 He mentions that the
ultimate goal in all we do is to glorify God. He goes on to write about
man’s failure to glorify God before considering the serious conse-
quences of not doing so. At this point he addresses the reader directly
once more, warning him of the terrible lot that will be his for failing
to glorify God. “You envision glory and honor but God will cover you
in shame.... And when you arise at the resurrection, you ‘shall awake
to everlasting shame and contempt’ (Daniel 12:2).” He continues,
“Since you do not glorify God, He will give you over to the commis-
sion of all manner of sin—particularly the dishonoring of your own
body by filthy lusts.... God will glorify Himself in you by manifesting
His righteousness and by punishing you in an extraordinary manner.
What a dreadful condition it is to be the object of God’s wrath!” He
concludes his appeal to the soul who does not glorify God with these
words, “Hear this, despisers of God, and tremble, for your judgments
are approaching. Repent and flee from the wrath to come.”51

49. See Galatians 3:19–25, in which we read of one of the purposes of the law
being to convict sinners of their sin and their need of the Savior in Jesus Christ. Paul
also mentions this use of the law in 1 Timothy 1:8–11, where he points out that the
law is needed to reveal and expose sin within the unconverted.
Love toward God

Brakel rightly begins these chapters by reminding his hearers that the
content of the law is love—primarily love toward God and love toward
ones neighbor. From chapter 57 to 61, he focuses on love toward God
which is evident in love toward Jesus Christ, the fear of God, obedi-
ence toward God, and hope in God. At various points, he addresses
the unconverted. He once more uses the technique of questioning
his hearers in calling them to examine their faith. He asks his hearer
whether he has a love for God, whether he delights in God and enjoys
Him. He continues by asking, “Is there also found in you obedience,
hatred toward sin, and love for the godly? Are you willing to sacrifice
honor, possessions, life, soul and body for the Lord’s sake and do you
yearn for felicity?”52 He points out that you cannot love God if you love
the world; you cannot serve God and mammon; you do not love God
if you are still entirely permeated with self-love. His aim in this is to
convince the self-deceived souls of their deluded state. Having done
this, he then wants to highlight their miserable condition in order to
lead them to repentance.53 He mentions that, being in such a condition
in which there is a love for the world as opposed to God, they in reality
hate and despise God. This makes them therefore an enemy of God.
Since God hates workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5), His wrath is upon
them to destroy them. Brakel then rebukes such as are in this condition.
“You are a wretched man in yourself. You—who are so abominable—
are hated by God, the Lord Jesus, the holy angels and the godly. You
have nothing else to expect but the eternal wrath of God. Poor crea-
ture! Have you not lived long enough in such a way? Is it not now time
to awake ere it is too late? Therefore, arise and flee the wrath to come.”54
In his chapter on love toward the Lord Jesus, he points out that
Jesus loves those who love Him. He quotes from Revelation 6:16–17,
which speaks about the wrath of the Lamb. He then says, “How
wretched you then are who do not love Jesus, for Jesus does not love
you and you are no partaker of His suffering and death. He hates you
and is provoked to wrath against you. Therefore tremble!”
Such an exhortation would be totally obnoxious to the modern-
day evangelical that holds to an Amininian view of the gospel and

emphasizes Jesus’ love for every single person on earth. Yet, Brakel
was merely echoing the words of Scripture which he quotes in this
section from 1 Corinthians 16:22: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus,
let him be anathema.” The strongest possible curse is pronounced by
God upon the soul who does not love Christ. While the love and
mercy of God in Christ need to be proclaimed to sinners, Brakel
would argue that it is equally important to warn those who refuse to
repent of sin that God loathes and detests their ungodly life.
In his chapter on the fear of God, he asks various questions, “Do
you fear God? Is your focus on your walk of life upon the Lord? Does
reverence for His majesty arise within when you think about Him,
speak of Him or make mention of His name? Do you reverently bow
before Him?” He goes on to say, “Give ear for a moment—you who
neither fear the Lord, nor give heed to Him but despise His name and
His holy things.” He writes of the serious consequences awaiting such
who continue without the fear of the Lord—consequences which
include finding neither rest nor safety from God, reaping the terror of
the Lord, and being overcome with fear on every side after death. Then
he ends with a touching appeal, “Oh, that you would quietly reflect
upon, and apply all this to yourself and that you would believe it.”55
In his chapter on obedience toward God, Brakel takes some time
to reprimand the disobedient. His aim is that they might be converted,
for he says, “I address the Word of God to you and declare to you your
abominable condition, for it is a departing from God, a separating
yourself from God and an ignoring of God. May it be the means to
your conversion.”56 Brakel then makes his appeal based on the lowli-
ness of man in relation to God. “Shall he, a creature, a worm of the
dust, and one who is dependent in all things, depart from God, the
living God, the Fountain of Life, his Maker—that God who is majes-
tic, all-glorious, and most worthy of obedience?”57 He points out that
to depart from God is to be in the most abominable condition; it is to
render any religious duties utterly in vain, for God will not hear the
prayers of the wicked (Prov. 28:9); it is to have God depart from you
and to face the vengeance of God.58

58. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 3:310 –11.
Still focusing on the theme of love toward God, Brakel next dis-
cusses the need for self-denial that is motivated from a love for the will
of God. Here he rebukes the person who does not practice self-denial.
“It is clear evidence that you are as yet unregenerate and cannot thus
enter heaven. You are not a partaker of Christ and His merits. You are a
worldly minded person and your portion is only in this world. You will
experience nothing but sorrow as you either seek, find or miss the things
of this world, and after this life there will be eternal destruction.”59
It is clear from these chapters that are connected to the theme of
love for God that Brakel himself had a great love and fear of God.
Absolute love and obedience was a necessity in one’s walk with God.
Anything less than this was sin and needed to be repented of. Of great
concern to Brakel was the sinful plight of those self-deceived or living
in open rebellion toward God. His great concern for them is brought
out again and again as he calls the unconverted to examine themselves
in the light of the truth of God’s Word and His judgment upon sin.
Love for one’s neighbor

Having focused on various virtues with regards to a love toward God,
Brakel then considers love toward one’s neighbor. He defines this love
as being a frame of heart of God’s children, wrought by God, in which
their heart is engaged with desires to have harmonious fellowship
with their neighbor, and to seek their welfare as well as their own.60
Brakel addresses those who say they have no desire to love others
and who are not affected by the needs of others. He tells them plainly
that they are not born of God and that they are not Christians. He then
addresses those who falsely argue that they are Christians because they
have been baptized and attend the Lord’s Supper. “You are lying and
you are deceiving yourself, for if you were a Christian you would love
those whom Christ loves and those who love Christ.”61 Brakel’s direct
approach to addressing sin and self-deception might be considered
by some to be insensitive, but Brakel is merely obeying the instruc-
tion given in Ephesians 4:15 to speak the truth in love. Love for one’s
neighbor necessitates telling others the truth even if it may hurt in
order to deliver them from the greater evil that sin would do to them.

Brakel then considers a number of virtues which are associated

with the command to love one’s neighbor—virtues such as humility,
meekness, peaceableness, compassion, and prudence. With regards to
meekness, he writes of God’s inevitable judgment on those without
meekness. He likens such to those who were around in the days of
the flood when the earth was filled with violence. He likens them to
Cain and Lamech whose wrath toward their fellow man was great. He
rebukes them with these words, “As insignificant as it may seem to
you that you are without meekness; as heroic as you consider yourself
in your wrath and in avenging yourself, so abominable you are in the
eyes of God, and so dreadful will your end be if you do not repent.”62
With regards to the virtue of a peaceable disposition, Brakel
addresses the unpeaceful as those without grace and who bear the
image of the devil.63 He quotes Proverbs 6:16 and 19 which mention
seven things that are an abomination to God, including a false witness
who speaks lies and one who sows discord among his brethren. He
says, “Since discord, dissension, and quarrelling are evidences of an
evil and murderous heart which is filled with anger, envy, vengeful-
ness; since such will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but rather
will have their portion in the lake which burns with fire and brim-
stone, you cannot expect anything else. You who live in discord with
men, be afraid of yourself and the wrath of God. God also lives in
discord with you and He will prevail over you.”64
Brakel then in addressing his hearers with regards to their love for
God and their love for their neighbors does not fail to examine, ques-
tion and exhort those who are deceived and lost to repent of their sin
that they might be saved.
The resurrection from the dead and eternal glory

The doctrine of the last things lends fertile ground to Brakel to again
address the unconverted. Regarding the resurrection of the dead,
Brakel makes use of the five senses in rebuking the ungodly.
Those eyes which you now misuse so greatly to stir up filthy
lust, whereby you now display the wrath, pride and vanity of
the heart, will behold with terror the Lord Jesus, the righteous

63. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4:96 –97.
Judge, and see light no more. Those ears, which are now ready
to receive all vanities, curiosities, immoral language, foolishness
and backbiting, will hear with terror the sentence of the Judge,
“Depart from Me, ye cursed,” and to all eternity your ears will
be filled with the howling of those who are damned together
with you.... That mouth and tongue which you now misuse to
curse, lie, backbite, say vain things, indulge, carouse, drink and
fornicate, will then howl and scream, and in grief you will chew
that tongue.... You who now despise the smell of the poor will
be no more than a filthy stench. Those hands which now handle
cards and dice, and which you now misuse in unrighteousness...
will then wring in pain. Yes, all the members which you are now
using as weapons of unrighteousness to serve the world and sin
will eternally be in the flames.65
He then appeals, “May the terror of the Lord persuade you to
believe.” What Brakel is doing is informing his hearers that the very
body which they are using in this life to indulge in the pleasures of
sin will turn out to be an instrument of pain and torture after the
resurrection. He is, as he said, trying to persuade the unconverted to
tremble at the thought and repent of their sins.
While Brakel more freely reminded the unconverted of the ter-
ror of the Lord regarding the resurrection, he also sought to persuade
them to take hold of glory. In his chapter concerning eternal glory, he
exhorts the unconverted to strive for faith in Christ in order that they
might become a partaker of salvation and be delivered from eternal
perdition. He says, “It is presently offered to you, and therefore, take
hold of it before it is too late.”66
Conclusion
From the preceding study on Brakel’s use of various doctrines in seek-
ing to awaken sinners to their need of salvation and calling them to
repentance, we detect a constant yearning and concern in Brakel for
the conversion of the lost. In a letter to a godly merchant, he makes
the following appeal to some lost soul, “What now, there is yet hope
for you, that is, if you but desire to be saved in the way which I shall
propose to you. There is no counsel for those who are insensitive to

their wretched condition, who will not hear of either hell or heaven,
and have neither desire nor fear. But poor man, awake! For you are
at the very edge of hell—and behold you are falling into it. Awake,
awake, before it is too late! If not, then with horror we must see you
sink away into eternal damnation.”67
One can almost detect in Brakel the same heart that Christ dem-
onstrated for rebellious sinners when He was on earth and wept over
Jerusalem, longing for its conversion.68 This is the heart that every
preacher of the gospel is meant to have: a heart that beats and throbs
to see sinners delivered from their sin and eternal judgment and trans-
lated into the kingdom of God. Such a heart will not fail to preach
Christ and call sinners to repentance from all of Scripture as Brakel
did. Whether Brakel was preaching on the covenant of grace, regen-
eration, faith, justification, adoption, spiritual peace, and joy; on love
toward God expressed in a fear of God and obedience to the moral
law, or love toward one’s neighbor expressed in humility, meekness,
and a peaceable disposition; or whether he was preaching on the resur-
rection from the dead or eternal glory, Brakel seldom failed to address
the unconverted. And when he did, he did so in an effort to awaken
them from the desperate state they were in by reminding them of the
terror of God’s wrath as well as the blessedness of the gospel. Time
and again, he would call them to examine their hearts, repent of sin,
and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. What would God do
within His church if modern preachers had such concern for sinners
in their own ministry today?
There is a vital need for a fresh working of the Holy Spirit through
the preaching of God’s Word in the church today. William Cooper,
speaking of the church in America today, wrote, “For a great while, it
has been a dead and barren time without fruit in all the churches of
the reformation. The showers of blessing have been restrained. The
influence of the Spirit stopped. The gospel has not had any famous
success. Conversions have been rare and dubious. Few sons and
daughters have been born to God.”69 His concern can be echoed in
many evangelical churches in the Western world. What is needed again

68. In Luke 19:41– 44, we read of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem at the knowl-
edge of its impending destruction because of their rejection of Him as the Messiah.
69. A. Parrish and R. C. Sproul, The Spirit of Revival (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
2000), 43.
are the voices of many more John the Baptist type of preachers who
prepare the hearts for Christ to save by preaching a message of repen-
tance. Indeed, the question must be asked as to whether the doctrine
of repentance has been all but forgotten in many of our churches. Has
the gospel been reduced to a simple message of deciding for Christ
where no repentance is called for and where the doctrine of hell and
eternal judgment is made little of?
Brakel serves to awaken us to the need to take seriously the call
to preach repentance earnestly. John the Baptist did. The apostles
did.70 Brakel followed in these prophetic and apostolic footsteps in
his ministry, preaching repentance from all parts of Scripture. What
is undoubtedly needed today is the authoritative, Spirit-anointed
preaching of the Word in which believers are exhorted to live holy
lives and the self-deceived and unconverted are called to repent of
their sin and flee the wrath of God. Far too little preaching is heard
where sin is denounced and the sinner shaken with strong rebukes
and warnings from the pulpit.
Far too many hearers in churches are entertained and made to feel
happy when they are living in a state of unbelief and self-deception
in which they assume they are right with God and going to heaven,
when in reality the flames of hell are licking at their feet. It is hoped
that from this article, the reader will be made aware of the necessity
for repentance and faith in Christ to be preached from all of Scripture.
We need preaching where the gospel is not watered down but burns
with a heavenly flame of conviction; preaching that warns sinners to
flee from sin and the terrible wrath of God that is coming upon the
unrepentant. May God be pleased to raise up more preachers in the
mold of Brakel who will not be afraid to rebuke and exhort sinners
to flee to Christ for salvation from sin and wrath. And may God be
pleased to bless such preaching to the awakening of His church and
the salvation of His elect.
70. In the Gospels, we read that John the Baptist preached, “Repent for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). He also called sinners to bear fruit in
keeping with repentance (Matt. 3:8). The apostles, like Peter, preached repentance
on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). They continued to do this in their preaching
later (Acts 3:19; 17:30).
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 291– 298
“Where shall my wondering soul begin?”:

A Historical and Theological Analysis1
brian G. najapfour
q
Born on December 18, 1707, in Epworth, England, Charles Wesley

grew up in an Anglican family. In 1726, he entered Christ Church
College at Oxford University, where he received his BA (1730) and
MA (1733). It was here in 1729 that he led the so-called “Holy Club,”
a religious organization that promoted piety through a systematic
study of the Bible. Yet, at this time, he was not saved.
In 1735, still unconverted, Wesley was ordained priest in the
Anglican Church. That same year he and his brother John (1703–
1791) journeyed to the newly found colony of Georgia to start a
mission work among the Indians. Their mission being unsuccessful
compelled them to sail back to England. Despite this failure, however,
this mission trip became memorable to the brothers. It was during this
period that they met the Moravians, who made a profound impact on
them and on their passion for hymns.
On May 21, 1738, while living in England, Charles Wesley
experienced evangelical conversion, which he expressed this way: “I
now found myself at peace with God, and rejoiced in hope of loving
Christ.”2 Two days after his conversion, he wrote a song which he
called “an hymn upon my conversion.”3 It is generally believed that
1. The quote is taken from the first line of the hymn whose title is also: “Where
shall my wondering soul begin?” For my biographical sketch of Charles Wesley, I am
indebted to J. R. Tyson, “Wesley, Charles,” in Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals,
eds. Timothy Larsen, David Bebbington, and Mark A. Noll (Leicester: InterVarsity
Press, 2003), 710 –12.
2. The Journal of Charles Wesley (1707–1788), entry date, May 21, 1738; available from
http://wesley.nnu.edu/charles-wesley/the-journal-of-charles-wesley-1707-1788/the-
journal-of-charles-wesley-may-1-august-31-1738/; Internet; accessed 14 October 2010.
3. The Journal of Charles Wesley (1707–1788), entry date, May 23, 1738; available
from ibid.
this conversion hymn, the first of numerous hymns that he wrote, was
“Where shall my wondering soul begin?” What follows is a historical
and theological analysis of this hymn, the original title of which was
“Christ the Friend of Sinners.”
“Where shall my wondering soul begin?” has eight stanzas and
each stanza has six lines.4 The very first line has become the title for
the song.
Stanza 1
Where shall my wondering soul begin?
How shall I all to heaven aspire?
A slave redeemed from death and sin,
A brand plucked from eternal fire,
How shall I equal triumphs raise,
Or sing my great Deliverer’s praise?
Amazed by his life-changing experience of redeeming grace,
Charles Wesley opens his hymn by asking rhetorically, “Where shall
my wondering soul begin? How shall I all to heaven aspire?” The
hymnist was so astonished that the most glorious God would redeem
a “slave” like him. That Wesley considers himself a slave, the lowest
of the low in society, indicates his humility. Like the Apostle Paul,
Wesley regards all his achievements as loss. But what really strikes
him with wonder is the fact that God has “redeemed” an insignificant
person like him from sin and its wages, which is “death” in “eternal
fire.” The choice of the word “redeemed” should not surprise us for
two reasons: first, the word fits well with the portrayal that Wesley
gives of himself as a “slave.” A description used for a slave that has
been sold is redeemed rather than saved. Second, the day before Wes-
ley wrote his hymn, he had been meditating on Isaiah 43:1–3.5 The
first of these verses reads, “But now thus saith the LORD that created
thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have
redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.” His
meditation on this passage leads to this conclusion: Wesley wants his
4. The text for this hymn as cited above is taken from Cyber Hymnal, http://
www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/w/h/wheresha.htm; Internet; accessed 5 July 2011.
5. The Journal of Charles Wesley (1707–1788), entry date, May 22, 1738; available
from ibid.
“Where Shall My Wondering Soul Begin?” 293
singers to know that he is but a worthless slave redeemed by God’s

wonderful grace.
To further emphasize his worthlessness before God, Wesley com-
pares himself to a “brand plucked from eternal fire.” He borrows this
description from Zechariah 3:2. His use of Bible words or phrases in
this hymn and in his ensuing hymns is one of the earmarks of Wes-
ley’s hymnody. In fact, someone has said that “if the Bible were lost,
[we] might extract it from Wesley’s hymns. They contain the Bible
in solution.”6 This comment may be exaggerated, but it demonstrates
how his hymns are saturated with scriptural language.
Having experienced this undeserved redemption, and pondering
ways to express his heartfelt gratitude to the Lord for this, Wesley
can only exclaim: “How can I ‘sing my great Deliverer’s praise?’” By
implication, the celebrated hymnist is confessing that the best hymns
in this world only fall short of expressing his gratefulness for God’s
great work of salvation.
Stanza 2
O how shall I the goodness tell,
Father, which Thou to me hast showed?
That I, a child of wrath and hell,
I should be called a child of God,
Should know, should feel my sins forgiven,
Blessed with this antepast of Heaven!
Still thrilled by God’s goodness, Wesley exclaims prayerfully:
“O how shall I the goodness tell, Father, which Thou to me hast
showed?” This goodness is expounded in the third and fourth lines:
that he who was once “a child of wrath and hell” is now by grace
“a child of God.” With the use of the personal pronouns (I, my, and
me) throughout the verse and the words “know” and “feel” in the
fifth line, Wesley is unveiling the experiential nature of the doctrine
of adoption; it can be experienced personally. We can know that
our sins have been forgiven—that we are now the children of God.
The scriptural backdrop for this thought is most likely 1 John 3:1:
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us,
that we should be called the sons of God.”
6. Cited in Tyson, “Wesley, Charles,” 711.

The stanza ends with an eschatological tone. Our present experi-

ence of the doctrine of adoption is just an “antepast” or foretaste of
what we will fully enjoy in heaven someday.
Stanza 3
And shall I slight my Father’s love?
Or basely fear His gifts to own?
Unmindful of His favors prove?
Shall I, the hallowed cross to shun,
Refuse His righteousness to impart,
By hiding it within my heart?
The third stanza is filled with rhetorical questions which expect
“no” for an answer. The first line teaches us that our proper response
to God for His love is praise, anything short of which would be a
“slight” upon His love. According to Wesley, as he was composing
this hymn, Satan kept discouraging him. The devil knew that he was
going to write about the good things that God had done for him in
salvation. Opposing his desire to share his conversion story through
the song, Satan made him think that his composition would not be
for God’s praise but for his pride.
At nine I began an hymn upon my conversion, but was persuaded
to break oil, for fear of pride. Mr. Bray coming, encouraged me
to proceed in spite of Satan. I prayed Christ to stand by me, and
finished the hymn. Upon my afterwards showing it to Mr. Bray,
the devil threw in a fiery dart, suggesting, that it was wrong, and
I had displeased God.7
Possibly Wesley was thinking of this event as he was framing the
third stanza of his hymn. He really wanted to “impart” God’s “righ-
teousness”—that is, to make known to others his extravagant gospel
experience, but Satan tried to hinder him. Nevertheless, he says in his
Journal on the same day in which he devised the hymn, “But God has
showed me, he can defend me from it, while speaking for him. In his
name therefore, and through his strength, I will perform my vows
unto the Lord, of not hiding his righteousness within my heart, if it
should ever please him to plant it there.”8
7. The Journal of Charles Wesley (1707–1788), entry date, May 23, 1738.
8. The Journal of Charles Wesley (1707–1788), entry date, May 23, 1738.
Noticeably, the latter part of this quote and the last two lines of
stanza three are identical. This adds evidence to the claim that the “hymn
upon my conversion” is “Where shall my wondering soul begin?”
Wesley’s covenant to God to announce the good news of salvation
to others is striking. With the Holy Spirit’s help, he kept this vow until
his death on March 29, 1788.
Stanza 4
No! though the ancient dragon rage,
And call forth all his host to war,
Though earth’s self-righteous sons engage
Them and their god alike I dare;
Jesus, the sinner’s friend, proclaim;
Jesus, to sinners still the same.
In the fourth stanza, Wesley mentions Satan, calling him “the ancient
dragon,” a metaphor that John the Beloved often uses to describe Satan
in the book of Revelation. Wesley is aware that the devil always tries to
hinder sinners from coming to Christ. The “dragon” often whispers in
the sinner’s ears: “You are too sinful to come to Jesus.” But in the fifth
line, Wesley, challenging Satan and “all his host,” proclaims that Jesus is
“the sinner’s friend.” The original title of the hymn, “Christ the Friend
of Sinners,” was derived from this line. Then the hymnist concludes
the stanza by stressing that this beautiful truth mentioned in the fifth
line is unchanging: “Jesus, to sinners still the same.”
Stanza 5
Outcasts of men, to you I call,
Harlots, and publicans, and thieves!
He spreads His arms to embrace you all;
Sinners alone His grace receives;
No need of Him the righteous have;
He came the lost to seek and save.
In the fifth stanza, with profound simplicity, Wesley begins to
exhort sinners to come to Christ. Here he is writing as one with
authority, calling first those of his time who are socially insignificant,
the “outcast,” who may feel too unworthy to come to Jesus. Then,
with an evangelistic heart, he proceeds to invite the morally worst
people, the “harlots, and publicans, and thieves!” Wesley assures
them, regardless of their social or moral status, that Jesus is graciously
willing “to embrace” them all. Why? Because it is for this reason that
Jesus came—“to seek and save” that which was lost. Obviously, with
these words, he has Luke 19:10 in mind, but he might also be think-
ing of Matthew 9:13: “for I am not come to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance.”
Stanza 6
Come, O my guilty brethren, come,
Groaning beneath your load of sin,
His bleeding heart shall make you room,
His open side shall take you in;
He calls you now, invites you home;
Come, O my guilty brethren, come!
In this stanza, Wesley, with evangelistic zeal, continues to plead
to sinners to flee to Jesus. They need to come for forgiveness because
they are guilty. Anticipating the possible excuse from those for whom
the song is intended that there is no room for them, Wesley tells them
metaphorically that Christ’s “bleeding heart shall make [them] room”
and that “His open side shall take [them] in.” This metaphor is pow-
erful, for it vividly conveys the message that there is always room for
us at the cross. To further persuade his “guilty brethren,” in line five
he reminds them that Christ Himself is calling them. This is a reflec-
tion upon Matthew 11:28: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Therefore, no one can say, “I
am not invited, and thus I cannot come.” Furthermore, this gospel
invitation is urgent—they must come “now.”
Stanza 7
Come, all ye Magdalens in lust,
Ye ruffians fell in murders old;
Repent, and live: despair, and trust:
Jesus for you to death was sold:
Though hell protest, and earth repine,
He died for crimes like yours— and mine.
Most of the descriptions that Wesley has previously given to sinners
are usually associated with men. To avoid the impression that the gospel
is only given to men, he uses the name “Magdalens.” This name, the
plural form of Magdalen or Magdalene, is the appellation of Mary, “out
of whom went seven devils” (Luke 8:12). It is also commonly attributed
to the unnamed woman in Luke 7:36–50 who is called “a sinner.”

However, by using this title, which in the course of time has become
synonymous with the term reformed prostitute, Wesley is emphatically
getting the attention of women in general, including the notoriously
immoral.9 They too must repent of their sins and “trust” in Jesus for
their salvation. Jesus died for them, too. The fact that Jesus died for the
wicked makes “hell protest and earth repine.” But the truth of the mat-
ter is Jesus “died for crimes like yours—and mine.”
Stanza 8
For you the purple current flowed
In pardons from His wounded side,
Languished for you the eternal God,
For you the Prince of glory died:
Believe, and all your sin’s forgiven;
Only believe, and yours is Heaven!
This verse, the climax of the song, is very Christological. Wesley
portrays Jesus as “the eternal God,” and then says in a striking way
that this “eternal God” “languished” or suffered. We also find this
similar theme in Wesley’s other hymn: “And Can It Be,” in which
he bursts out: “Amazing love! How can it be, That Thou, my God,
shouldst die for me?” Certainly, Wesley is not promoting patripas-
sianism, which teaches that it is God the Father who suffered or died.
But then why would he say that God suffered? No doubt he wants
to press upon his singers the paradox of atonement and the unique
nature of Jesus as God-man. Since the deity and humanity of Jesus
Christ are inseparable, what ultimately causes Wesley to wonder is
that “the eternal God,” the Lord Jesus Christ, would die for such a
sinner like him.
The frequent use of the phrase “for you”—as in line four: “For
you the Prince of glory died”—probably reveals the composer’s belief
in unlimited atonement, one peculiar doctrine of Methodism, with
which Calvinists would not agree. At the same time, for Wesley,
Christ’s death will not have any effect if sinners do not believe in
Jesus. Thus, he asks them to believe and all their sins will be for-
given. But they might say, “Is faith in Christ enough?” Yes, it is; “Only
believe, and yours is Heaven,” declares the Methodist. This is the
9. Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, s.v. “Magdalen, Magdalene.”

cardinal Protestant doctrine of justification by faith from which all

Wesley’s succeeding hymns flow.
Conclusion
Have you been redeemed by the blood of Christ? If so, does this doc-
trine of redemption still cause you to be amazed and thank the triune
God for redeeming such worthless slaves as you and I are? Do you
proclaim this great news of redemption to others who are still chil-
dren of “wrath and hell”? Where shall our wondering souls begin?
Pastoral Theology
and Missions
q
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 301–317
Preaching from Lamentations

gavin beers
q
Lamentations is one of those much forgotten and neglected books

of the Bible. Nestled between Jeremiah and Ezekiel it is easy to pass
over and, as one of the most tragic books in the inspired record, its
dark themes are not naturally appealing, which may create a tendency
to shy away from it in private study and public preaching. However,
Lamentations will greatly reward those who stop to ponder its con-
tent, and that is what this article is designed to encourage.
The book was written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jeru-
salem by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. Following a long siege, the city
was decimated. Her walls were torn down, her palaces burned, and
her temple plundered and destroyed. As for the inhabitants of the city,
the majority had been slain or enslaved while only a remnant remained
struggling for existence in the face of cruel persecution and famine.
The national, social, physical, psychological, and spiritual devastation
of Judah and Jerusalem was horrific. To the Jew, the unthinkable had
happened, even the impossible: Zion, the city of God, had fallen!
In introducing this book, Matthew Henry gives us some wise advice
on its importance and the manner in which it should be approached:
“Since what Solomon says, though contrary to the common opinion of
the world, is certainly true, that sorrow is better than laughter, and it is
better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting, we
should come to the reading and consideration of the melancholy chap-
ters of this book, not only willingly, but with an expectation to edify
ourselves by them; and that we may do this, we must compose our-
selves to a holy sadness and resolve to weep with the weeping prophet.”1
1. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 4 (Peabody, Mass.:

Hendrickson, 1996), 559.
Introduction to Lamentations
Title & Author
In the Hebrew Bible, Lamentations receives its title from the first word
of the book hkya ekah, meaning how. The word is not interrogative,
intending a question, but rather exclamative, carrying a sense of aston-
ishment: “How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people!” (1:1).
Chapters 2 and 4 also begin with exclamations of wonder. The title
of the book in the Septuagint (LXX) is “The tears of Jeremiah.” The
Latin Vulgate follows the Septuagint, calling it “The Lamentations of
Jeremiah the Prophet,” and it is from this tradition that we get the title
“The Lamentations of Jeremiah” in our English Bibles.
Concerning authorship, the book is anonymous, but the tradi-
tional view from at least the third century B.C. was that Jeremiah was
the author. At that time, Jeremiah was identified as the author in the
title of the LXX and to the title the translators added this preface:
“And it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem
made desolate, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with this
lamentation.” From that time until the eighteenth century, Jeremiah’s
authorship was almost universally accepted; but since then modern
scholars claimed that certain phraseological, stylistic, and theologi-
cal differences between Lamentations and the prophecy of Jeremiah
meant that both books could not come from the pen of the same author.
E. J. Young critiques a number of these objections and rejects them;
he then shows on the contrary the similarities between the books and
concludes “arguments offered against Jeremianic authorship are not
sufficiently cogent.”2 In this article we accept the traditional view that
Jeremiah is the author of Lamentations.
Genre
It is not immediately obvious in the English Bible, but Lamentations
is a poetic book. Its position in the Hebrew Bible hints at this, where it
is found in the third division of the Scriptures—Kethubim or The Writ-
ings. More specifically, it is a collection of funeral dirges or laments;
there are five in total, and these are marked by the chapter divisions
in our Bible. Together they sing of the destruction of Jerusalem as
if the city had died. Those familiar with Scots/Irish culture have an
illustration in the piper. He plays for the fallen in battle; you find him
2. E. J. Young, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 345.
Preaching from Lamentations 303
at the head of a funeral procession but his strain is not a reel, it is a

slow, painful lament. Here then are five laments for Jerusalem which
to this day are read by Jews on the anniversary of the later destruction
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
There is an alphabetic structure underlying each of the poetic
laments. Chapters 1, 2, and 4 each have twenty-two verses matching
the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, and each verse begins
with the corresponding letter of the alphabet. Chapter 3 is three times
longer than the other laments, having sixty-six verses, but the same
pattern is followed here only with groups of three verses. Chapter 5
is the exception. It again has twenty-two distinguishable verses but it
does not follow in alphabetic sequence as the others do. The alpha-
betic or acrostic structure is, of course, not specific to Lamentations.
It is found, for example, in Psalm 111 and Psalm 119, but when it is
employed we should take note, as the human author and the Holy
Spirit have something specific to teach us. We suggest three possible
explanations for the alphabetic structure of these laments.
Conscious Sorrow
Sometimes, in grief, we can lose control and are not quite sure what
we are saying or how to describe our pain. The structure of Lamen-
tations shows these laments are not the product of such uncontrolled
grief. Instead, each one is the fruit of conscious reflection, not impas-
sioned outbursts. The grief expressed is no less painful for being
reasoned. That pain would rather be increased as the full extent of
the city’s destruction has been considered and digested. Time has
been taken to evaluate the situation fully and describe the emotions
of the heart.
Comprehensive Sorrow
Jeremiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem were brought to great
depths of grief. As one reads these laments, a picture of compre-
hensive grief is painted. The various causes of grief are described
in detail with the extent of the emotional response provoked in the
afflicted soul. In the underlying alphabetic structure of Lamenta-
tions, the Holy Spirit may be suggesting that what is given here is a
brief compendium of spiritual grief, an A–Z of sorrow. Bruce Waltke
writes, “The acrostic form provides an emotional catharsis for the
purging of emotions by allowing the writer to express his feelings

from A–Z.”3
Commemorative Sorrow
The design of this alphabetic pattern is also an aid to memory. The
destruction of Jerusalem was monumental in the history of the Jewish
nation. They must never forget the reasons for this devastation and the
consequences of it. So God gave them a book in a format that could be
easily committed to memory from childhood, a book of commemo-
rative sorrow. Although we do not benefit from these features in our
English Bible, the fact that it exists in the original ought to impress
upon the church in all ages the importance of this neglected book.
Preaching from Lamentations

In dealing with this theme, we will look at three ways to preach from
Lamentations. First, we will look at preaching an expository series.
Then we will consider thematic and textual preaching before focus-
ing on how to preach Christ from Lamentations.
Preaching an Expository Series

If you have preached an expository series through Lamentations, you
are among a great minority of preachers. George Barlow writes in
his introduction to the book, “Preachers appear to have shunned the
Book of Lamentations, as if it lacked suggestiveness for homiletical
purposes.... It may be that the undertone of melancholy that runs
so sadly through the five elegies of which the book is composed, has
created the impression that the theme is too monotonous to admit the
freshness and variety expected from the pulpit of the present day.”4
This is borne out in the history of preaching. The closest thing
to a sermonic exposition of the book is Calvin’s eighteen lectures that
make up his commentary.5 A search of the various internet audio
3. Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

2007), 162.
4. George Barlow, The Preacher’s Homiletic Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996), preface to vol. 18.
5. More modern homiletic commentaries include Philip G. Ryken’s Jeremiah and
Lamentations in the “Preaching the Word Series,” ed. R. Kent Hughes (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2001); also Richard Brooks, Great is Your Faithfulness (Darlington, U.K.:
Evangelical Press, 2002).
sermon databases will show that we moderns continue to neglect

Lamentations. On the whole, one will find relatively few sermons,
and most of these on isolated texts in the book. If a series of sermons
are preached, these tend not to treat the whole book and are more
thematic in character.
Despite this, Lamentations actually lends itself to an expository
series of messages. It has a very simple and obvious structure: the five
chapter divisions identify five individual laments. Each of these chap-
ters, with the exception of chapter 3, can be comfortably expounded
in one sermon. A closer examination of the book and a longer sermon
series is, of course, possible; however, the longer the series becomes,
the more difficult the preacher will find the book to preach due to the
repetitive nature of the content of each lament. Even when preaching
a shorter series, the preacher will need to reckon with this repetition
from the outset and decide how he will deal with it so as not to be
preaching the same thing each week to his hearers.
For instance, chapter 1 is the most general of the laments and
most of the themes of the book are found more or less in seed form
in this chapter. It is possible to introduce these themes in a gen-
eral way from chapter 1 and then add the detail when progressing
through the book. An example of this would be the imprecations
Jeremiah makes against the nations. These are found in chapters 1, 2,
3, and 4, but by far the strongest statement is at the end of chapter 3.
Bearing this in mind, the preacher could wait until that point to give
a thorough treatment of the subject and draw in the other relevant
passages when doing so.
What all this stresses is the importance of thorough groundwork
before embarking on an expository series of sermons. The whole of
the book and the whole of the sermon series must be kept in view
when preaching any part of it.
Textual & Thematic Preaching

If you have not or do not plan to preach an expository series through
Lamentations, it will yet serve you well to be familiar with the content
and themes of the book. Lamentations will then be of more use to
you in the course of your ministry, supplying texts to preach from or
answering a need to preach on a particular theme. We draw attention
here to five main themes in the book.
1. Sin—The Reason for Jerusalem’s Fall

Sin is identified as the reason for Jerusalem’s fall from the very first
chapter, where we learn that Jerusalem’s sins were many, and for her
many sins she fell. “For the LORD hath afflicted her for the multitude
of her transgressions” (1:5). Her sins were also grievous: “Jerusalem
hath grievously sinned” (1:8). Judah’s sins were worse than the sins of
other nations because she sinned against so much light and privilege.
Every section of society was guilty, but this guilt increased accord-
ing to the position of responsibility one held in the covenant nation.
Therefore, the prophets and priests are singled out for particular
condemnation (2:14; 4:13) because they both sinned themselves and
caused the people to err.
As Lamentations is a poetic book, it is replete with many vivid
pictures of the doctrines it sets forth, furnishing the preacher with
many biblical illustrations of these truths. This is true of the figures
Jeremiah uses to expose the sinfulness of Jerusalem’s sin. In 1:8, she
is a harlot who uncovered her nakedness to all without shame. In 1:9,
she is unclean like a menstrous woman, but whereas such uncleanness
would ordinarily be private, the magnitude of Judah’s sin was such
that her shame was public. “Her filthiness is in her skirts,” i.e., her
menstrual blood had stained her skirts so that her disgrace appeared
to all. For that sin God has brought her down astonishingly. Sin was
the reason of Jerusalem’s fall which is a solemn reminder how serious
a thing the sins of God’s covenant people are today.
2. Judgment—The Reality of Jerusalem’s Fall

Nebuchadnezzar’s armies besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and
reference is naturally made to this in Lamentations. Yet, in many pas-
sages, the human agents disappear from view as Jehovah is seen as
the God of history and providence who used these agents to His own
righteous ends. “The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of
Jacob and hath not pitied: he hath thrown down in his wrath...” (2:2;
see also 2:4 –5). In short, as Dillard and Longman state, “The power
behind this carnage was God.”6
The reality of Jerusalem’s fall is God has judged and this was
the chief cause of her pain. While He will yet judge the nations, He
6. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testa-

ment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 303.
has judged Judah. Judgment has begun at the house of God. Lam-
entations therefore describes covenant judgment and is very closely
related to Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 28, God told Israel of
curses that would fall on them for unfaithfulness to His covenant.
Lamentations 2:17 refers back to this passage and tells us these curses
have now fallen on Jerusalem: “he hath fulfilled his word that he had
commanded in the days of old.”
As the city sings her destruction in Lamentations 4:6, she informs
us of another solemn fact: “For the punishment of the iniquity of the
daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of
Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on
her.” While this certainly contrasts the sudden judgment of Sodom “in
a moment” with the prolonged destruction of Jerusalem, it also tells
us something about covenant judgment reiterated by Christ to Caper-
naum where He had done many wonderful works: “It shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee”
(Matt. 11:24). Lamentations therefore gives us an insight to what God
will do to an unfaithful church or to an individual who rejects the bless-
ings of the gospel—a covenant child who breaks covenant with God or
someone who apostatizes from the faith. It shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment than for him, and so preachers
are furnished with a host of applications to the contemporary church.
3. Sorrow—The Result of Jerusalem’s Fall

Like the book of Job, Lamentations deals with the reality of suffering
in the experience of God’s people. But while there are obvious simi-
larities between the books, there are also distinct differences. One
of these is that whereas Job describes the experience of an afflicted
individual, Lamentations presents the outpoured grief of an individ-
ual and the corporate body of the Old Testament church. There is
clear solidarity between the two: Jeremiah is crushed because they are
crushed (cf. Jer. 8:21).
The laments display the grief of a remnant of Jews who witnessed
God destroying their civil and religious institutions. We are principally
instructed by their grief to lament the sins and afflictions of the church.
This needs to be emphasized today; a corporate aspect of sorrow has
been squeezed out of the church by our modern individualism and
aversion to grief. It is a fault of the sermons and commentaries of many
good men on Lamentations that they fail to get beyond the individual
in application and the church is left no further on in knowing how to
lament the corporate sins and afflictions of the body of Christ.
The poetic nature of the book supplies us with many rich
metaphors describing the depth of grief and intense spiritual and
emotional pain. There is speechless astonishment, broken-hearted
mourning, and sore weeping. “Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bow-
els are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction
of the daughter of my people” (2:11). One cannot mistake this for
something superficial or manufactured; it is the natural product of
a shattered heart. It is not the mere talk of sorrow so common in
the modern Reformed church, but real sorrow because sin has sacked
Jerusalem and now “Zion is a wilderness and Jerusalem a desolation.”
Deep individual and corporate sorrow is the result of Jerusalem’s fall.
4. Comfort—The Reassurance in Jerusalem’s Fall

God’s wrath is more frequently spoken of in Lamentations than His
mercy, and yet His mercy occupies the central place in the book. Lit-
erary analysis has revealed that Hebrew poetry is often built around
a chiastic structure in which the most important truths are found in
the middle of the composition. Walter Kaiser recognizes a chiasm not
so much in the individual poems of Lamentations, but in the arrange-
ment of the five laments.7 Taking account of this structure, the book
therefore reaches its climax in chapter 3, and it is in the central sec-
tion of that central chapter that Jeremiah reveals the mercy of God
for Jerusalem’s comfort. “This I recall to my mind, therefore have I
hope. It is of the LORD’s mercies that we are not consumed, because
his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy
faithfulness.... The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the
soul that seeketh him” (3:21–26).
Here the church in her sorrow has its gaze fixed on God’s mercy,
compassion, faithfulness, and goodness. Each time God is mentioned,
it is by His covenant name Jehovah to remind His desolate people that
He is still the God of covenant mercy. Yes, He destroyed Zion and
interrupted the Davidic dynasty, but He did not void His promise
(Ps. 89:34). Because of this mercy, Judah was not utterly consumed
7. W. C. Kaiser, A Biblical Approach to Personal Suffering (Chicago: Moody Press,

1983), 40.
and their situation now, while very serious, was not hopeless. This
will always be true of God’s people in their afflictions; mercy and
forgiveness remain with Him.
5. Repentance —The Recovery of Jerusalem’s Fall

Jerusalem is lamenting in this book, but she is also repenting; Lamen-
tations is designed to aid the reader in this. Consider the themes we
have introduced: sin, judgment, sorrow, and mercy. They are all, in
fact, motives to and marks of repentance. A sense of sin teaches men
their need of repentance, and the rod of God acts as a spur to repen-
tance. Godly sorrow is the true emotion of repentance while mercy is
that loving cord God draws us with, encouraging us to come to Him
for forgiveness. So repentance is in view to the very end of the book
where the final plea is, “God grant us repentance!” “Turn thou us unto
thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old” (5:21).
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks in question 87, “What is
repentance unto life?” The answer is: “Repentance unto life is a saving
grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and an apprehen-
sion of the mercy of God in Christ, doth with grief and hatred of his
sin turn from it unto God with full purpose of, and endeavour after
new obedience.” This evangelical doctrine is illustrated throughout the
whole of Lamentations, with chapter 3 providing a notable summary.
• 3:1 “I am the man that hath seen affliction by the rod of his
wrath.”
• 3:21ff “‘It is of the LORD’s mercies that we are not con-
sumed, because his compassions fail not....”
• 3:39– 40 “Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man
for the punishment of his sins? Let us search and try our
ways, and turn again to the LORD.”
The exhortation to the devastated nation in the light of God’s
justice and mercy is to consider, and, rather than complain, to confess
their sins, put their mouth in dust, and turn to the Lord. Through
these five painful laments, even to the last words, Judah is learning,
and we are to learn with her, the bittersweet experience of repentance.
These then are some of the themes to look for when studying and
preparing to preach this book: Sin, Judgment, Sorrow, Comfort, and
Repentance. Now we want to examine how to preach Christ from

Lamentations.
Preaching Christ from Lamentations

“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and
they are they which testify of me” ( John 5:39). If what Jesus said of
the Old Testament is true, then Christ will be found in Lamenta-
tions. He is in the Law and the Prophets, and also in the Psalms or
the writings (Luke 24:44). The following is not intended to be an
exhaustive list but four suggestions of how to preach Christ from
Lamentations.
1. Christ the Sufferer

“‘Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any
sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the
LORD hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger” (1:12). These
words have often been taken as a reference to the sufferings of Christ.
Examples of this can be found in the use of the text in Handel’s Mes-
siah 8 and many of the sermons preached on the passage where the
words are assigned to Christ as if He asked the question. However, it
must be kept in mind that Jerusalem’s sufferings are what is in view in
Lamentations 1:12. It is her voice that is heard appealing to her neigh-
bors for pity while she holds out her condition as something without
parallel. To apply the text directly to Christ is an unwarranted accom-
modation; however, we can find Christ three ways from this text.
• Symbolically
There is a shadow or type of the sufferings of Christ in Lamentations
1:12. Many typical features are to be found in the history and experi-
ence of Israel. God called Israel to Himself from among the nations to
be His covenant people and called them His son (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1).
In Lamentations, all that remains of the old covenant people is the
nation of Judah, and in them God has judged His son for violations of
His covenant. Furthermore, Jerusalem is the place where God chose
to dwell in the midst of His people and manifest His glory. Christ is
8. The text is employed at the close of the section on Christ’s sufferings after
Isaiah 53:3–6, Psalm 22:7–8, and Psalm 69:20. The pronoun is also changed in most
of the arrangements from “my sorrow” to “his sorrow.”
revealed as the antitype of these things in the New Testament. He is

the Son of God, the Servant of the LORD,9 and the true Israel.10 He is
also the One in whom the glory of God dwelt and was beheld as He
tabernacled among men ( John 1:14). On the cross, the curse of God’s
covenant was poured out on Christ on behalf of His people, the Israel
of God. In this sense, we can hear the voice of Christ in Lamentations
1:12, asking if there is any sorrow like His sorrow. The same link to
Christ can be made in the whole suffering of God’s covenant people
on view in the book of Lamentations.
• Responsively
Understanding the question as coming historically from the mouth of
a desolate Judah, Christ will then be the one who indirectly answers
the question the text poses. Jerusalem asks, “Is there any sorrow like
unto my sorrow?” Scripture answers yes, and directs us to the cross
and the truly unique sufferings of Christ, sufferings as unparalleled
as they are unfathomable and as immense as they are unspeakable.
All the graphic descriptions of pain, anguish, and sorrow experienced
by Jerusalem and described in this book are really but a shadow of
Christ’s infinite sufferings. We know of sorrow beyond that in Jeru-
salem’s lament, for there is no sorrow like Messiah’s sorrow.
• Similarity
The sufferings of Christ and Jerusalem are distinct as we have seen,
but they are similar in this—God did it! As God bade the Babylo-
nians rise in judgment against His city, so He summoned His sword
awake against His Son. “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and
against the man that is my fellow” (Zech. 13:7). It was the Father’s
awful sword and not Roman cruelty that drew the cry, “Eli, Eli, lama
sabachtani.” Furthermore, as Jerusalem here looked for someone to
take pity and comfort her, we are again reminded of the sufferings of
Christ: “Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness:
and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none, and for com-
forters, but I found none” (Ps. 69:20).
9. A motif used in Isaiah with reference to the collective (Israel) and individual
(Messiah), e.g., Isaiah 41– 45.
10. Scholars have recognized elements of a recapitulation of the history of Israel
in the life of Christ, especially in Matthew 1– 4.
In the descriptive poems of Lamentations, there are also a number

of texts that allude to the sufferings of Christ by the use of strikingly
similar language. Compare Lamentations 2:15–16, 3:8, and 3:30 with
Psalm 22:1–2, 7–8; Matthew 27:39– 44, 46; and Isaiah 50:6. All such
texts in Lamentations, if not direct prophetical references, are cer-
tainly illustrative of the Savior’s sufferings.
2. Christ the Sorrower

By the pen of Jeremiah, Jerusalem mourns her destruction in five
funeral songs. Tragically, she did not learn and the city fell again
some six centuries later in 70 A.D., after rejecting the Messiah. In that
first-century destruction, the Jews turned again to the book of Lam-
entations; still to this day, on the anniversary of that fall in 70 A.D., the
book of Lamentations is read in their synagogues.
When He was on earth, Christ predicted Jerusalem’s fall. Fore-
seeing her ruin, He raised His own lament over the city’s pending
doom. “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept
over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day,
the things which belong unto thy peace! but now are they hid from
thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies
shall cast a trench about thee and compass thee round, and keep thee
in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy
children within thee” (Luke 19:41– 44). If we allow this text to speak
for itself, it is clear that Jesus wept because He foresaw that Jerusa-
lem would be destroyed and her children would perish. Numerous
prophets over many years had published peace and promised the
coming of the Messiah; now He had come to save. It is Palm Sunday,
and Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem on a donkey, the road
thronged with pilgrims shouting “Hosanna,” meaning “Save now”
(Ps. 118:25–26; Mark 11:10). As He begins His descent of the Mount
of Olives, Jerusalem comes into view; in the midst of the surround-
ing jubilation, He beholds the city and weeps because the majority in
Jerusalem would reject Him and perish.
Christ laments over Jerusalem like Jeremiah and the remnant of
Jews who witnessed the city’s previous fall. Because of this, Lamenta-
tions offers a window into the sorrow of Christ over the rebellious city
upon whom covenant judgment would fall. Texts like Lamentations
2:11 are illustrative of His grief. “Mine eyes do fail with tears, my
bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth.”
3. Christ the Comforter

“For these [things] I weep; mine eye, mine eye runneth down with
water, because the comforter that should relieve my soul is far from
me” (1:16). The Comforter spoken of here is understood by Jewish
commentators to be the Messiah. John Gill quotes the Babylonian
Talmud and rabbis such as Kimchi, who says, “The name of Messiah
is Menachem ~xnm the Comforter.” Among the texts cited is Lamen-
tations 1:16.11 This is why the devout Simeon was one who “waited
for the consolation”— or comforter—“of Israel” (Luke 2:25). When
he saw the infant Christ in the Temple, he took Him in his arms
and exulted, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation” (Luke
2:29–30). The Comforter he waited for had come, “a light to lighten
the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel” (Luke 2:32)— and
what joy filled his heart and that of Anna (Luke 2:36) and others who
lived in expectation.
In Lamentations 1:16, however, the Comforter was looked for
and not found. We understand from this that, in the day of her desola-
tion, Jerusalem looked for Messiah to deliver her from the hand of her
enemies but He did not come. It was not His time to be revealed, and
sparing the city from Babylonian destruction was not the work the
Father gave Him to do. Yet, while they could not find the Comforter
presently, the faith of the remnant still lived on the promise of His
coming and He remained their sole hope. In this way, it is possible
to preach Christ from His absence in Lamentations. The Comforter
who did not come then has now come, and “the God of all comfort”
has caused peace and consolation to abound toward sinners by Jesus
Christ (2 Cor. 1:3–5).
4. Christ the Redeemer

In the Old Testament, Christ appeared in type and shadow in a vari-
ety of ways. One of these was in the messianic offices of Prophet,
11. John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible. See comments on Lamentations 1:16,
Zechariah 3:8, and Luke 2:25.
Priest, and King. The Westminster Shorter Catechism reminds us

these are the offices Christ executes as our Redeemer.
Q. 23: What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?
A: Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet,
of a priest and of a king, both in his estate of humiliation and
exaltation.
The offices themselves foreshadowed Christ in the Old Testament
and not just the person who occupied them. The best of the prophets,
priests, and kings gloriously anticipated the coming of Christ, while
the worst of them in their failures reminded the people how great their
need was of Christ the Redeemer. It is the failure of the men who held
these offices that is in evidence in Lamentations, especially in chapter 4.
Successive kings had been weak and foolish and failed to protect the
people. The prophets were liars and had denied the Word of God to
become men-pleasers. The priests abused their office and were guilty
of sacrilege. Philip Ryken comments, “Ultimately, what Jeremiah was
looking for was the kind of leadership that can only be found in Jesus
Christ the true prophet, the holy priest and the servant king.”12
The cumulative effect of Lamentations as it weeps over the failure
of Judah’s civil and ecclesiastical leaders is to trumpet the need for
Christ. The message of the book in large part is: Christ is the answer!
He is the true Prophet who always speaks the Word of the Lord; He
is the faithful High Priest who has made a perfect atonement and ever
lives to make intercession for His people; He is the righteous King
who shall reign and prosper, and who subdues His people to Himself,
ruling and defending them from all His and our enemies.
Christ is in Lamentations as He is in all the Scriptures. We see
Him as the Sufferer, the Sorrower, the Comforter, and the Redeemer
that Jerusalem needed. Our desolate nation and our individual hearts
need no more or less than this Christ, an all-sufficient and glorious
Savior of sinners who is freely offered to all in the gospel.
The Need to Preach Lamentations in the

Contemporary Church
As we move to a conclusion, the goal is to bring what has been consid-
ered a little closer to the heart—to make the case that Lamentations
12. Ryken, Jeremiah and Lamentations.

is not just a book that can be preached but one that is particularly
relevant to the Reformed church of the twenty-first century. I offer
three reasons why Lamentations should be heard from the contem-
porary pulpit.
We Need to Be Schooled in the Art of Godly Sorrow

The naked reality of sorrow poured out in Lamentations has much to
say to modern Christians because we do not seem to understand the
place of grief in the Christian life and the life of the church. While
it may be a caricature, generally speaking, there is a shallowness in
the evangelical world that answers what the Bible calls godly sorrow
either with humanistic positive thinking techniques, or, if an attempt
is made to be scriptural, it amounts to “Jesus loves you, so smile and
sing another chorus.” The grief of Lamentations is alien to the broader
evangelical world.
In more conservative evangelical and Reformed churches, even
those who desire to preach experiential theology, Lamentations seems
to speak a different language. In some circles, it can be correlated with
the disappearance of psalm-singing with the painful laments recorded
there,13 but even psalm-singing churches don’t know what to do with
some of the darker psalms.14 In the context of Lamentations, Chris-
tians want “Great is Thy Faithfulness” but not “For these things I
weep, mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water, because the
comforter that should relieve my soul is far from me.”
Studying Lamentations gives the opportunity to address this cur-
rent imbalance and can be a vital tool in teaching congregations the
place of godly sorrow in the Christian life. Christians passing through
deep waters will be helped, others will be prepared for sorrows yet
to come, and preachers will be better equipped to deal with broken
Christians in their pastoral work.
Lamentations also teaches us about the place of godly sorrow in
the life of the church. It is the duty of Christians to weep not only
over their own sins, but over the sins of the church, the sins of the
nation, and the fearfulness of the judgment to come. But where are
13. For an interesting discussion of this point, see Carl Trueman, “What shall
miserable Christians sing?” in Wages of Spin (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor Publica-
tions, 2005).
14. For example, Psalm 6, 22, 38, 69, 79, 88, 102. I include Psalm 22 and 69 as
they relate to David as a shadow of Christ.
the weeping men and wailing women of the contemporary Reformed

church?15 We need Lamentations to school us in the place and the art
of godly sorrow.
Now Is the Time for the Church to Lament

Perhaps we don’t weep because we are simply too blind and insensitive
to the plight of our church and nation. I write from a British perspec-
tive, more particularly as a pastor in Scotland. One sincerely wonders
if there has been any nation under heaven except Israel more favored
with gospel privileges and true religion than Scotland. Covenanted to
God, the law of God was once paramount in national life in periods
when rulers appeared to be like nursing fathers to the church. The
aim here is not to be nostalgic but to give one example of the height
from which many nations that were touched by the Reformation have
fallen and to ask if it is not something to weep over. Today the story in
Scotland is much bleaker. The number and size of past congregations
can barely be compared with the scattered handfuls that constitute
congregations today, and those tiny remnants of denominations have
been shattered by divisions. From those churches in the past the world
received some of her noted theologians and preachers. Missionaries
like Alexander Duff and William Chalmers Burns took the gospel
to the ends of the earth and now Scotland is in need of missionaries.
Each nation will have its own story, but if that story is anything
like the one above, ought we not to lament in astonishment as Jer-
emiah: “How doth the city sit solitary that was full of people! How
has she become a widow! She that was great among the nations, and
princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary”—not
with that phantom sorrow that speaks because it knows it should but
is void of real emotion, but the kind of grief displayed in this book by
one to whom Zion meant so much. Again we see why Lamentations
should be heard from the pulpit.
Now Is the Time for the Church to Repent

Lamentations also assures us that what has happened in our churches
and nations has not happened by accident. The same God of history
and providence who sacked Jerusalem in 587 B.C. is the one who has
15. Cf. Francis Schaeffer, Death in the City (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1969), 71.
brought the church where it is today. The power behind the carnage
is still God. The truth of this may seem too stark and painful to con-
sider. The temptation is also to try and escape our guilt by protesting,
“But we are the remnant who remains, seeking to be faithful.” Yet,
in the book of Lamentations, the remnant were all who were left to
lament and repent in Jerusalem.
There is a time to repent and it is now. “Let us search and try
our ways and let us return unto the LORD.” The encouragement is
that the hand that chastens and wounds is the same hand that binds.
The hope is that a day came when desolate Jerusalem exchanged her
funeral dirges for the wonderful song of deliverance: “When the Lord
turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream.
Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with sing-
ing” (Ps. 126:1–2).
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 318–329
An Introduction to
Christian Leadership
david murray
q
In this article, I want to provide an introduction to the subject of

Christian leadership by answering five questions: What is Christian
leadership? Should I seek Christian leadership? What are sources for
learning Christian leadership? What is the key to Christian leader-
ship? And, is Christian leadership worth the hassle?
A Summary of Christian Leadership

Warren Benson and Burt Nannis discovered 850 definitions of
leadership when researching The Leader’s Strategies for Taking Charge.
Although we won’t find quite as many definitions of Christian leader-
ship, they probably still run into the hundreds.
Here’s my own: “A Christian leader serves God and His people by
exemplifying godly character and conduct; by communicating God’s
Word to everyone with wisdom and love; by excelling in vocational
responsibilities; by uniting, equipping, and inspiring God’s people for
worship and works of service; and by preparing them for eternal life.”
It’s a bit of a mouthful and probably still doesn’t cover all the bases.
Let me expound it a little.
He serves God and His people

The Christian leader sees himself primarily as a servant, not a ruler.
He is a servant of God first, then of His people.
He exemplifies godly character and conduct

The internal life comes first. Without a Christ-like core, everything
else will eventually decay and rot. But character does issue in external
conduct. Modeling holiness of life is perhaps the most powerful and
yet most neglected element of spiritual leadership.
An Introduction to Christian Leadership 319
He communicates God’s Word

A Christian leader reads and studies God’s Word in order to commu-
nicate it wisely and lovingly to Christian and non-Christian alike, as
opportunity arises. He is concerned to speak God’s Word more than
his own and to make sure all his own are consistent with God’s.
He excels in vocational responsibilities

He does not over-spiritualize leadership by thinking that prayer and
Bible study will cover a multitude of incompetencies and inefficien-
cies in everyday life. He recognizes his duty to be organized, to be
efficient, to keep appointments, to prepare for meetings, to inspire
trust and respect by wise financial stewardship, etc.
He unites, equips, and inspires God’s people for worship

He unites God’s people in thoughtful, orderly, reverent, and Word-
centered worship. But he also leads and directs worship so that it
reaches and inspires the heart and the emotions. Like the Father, he
wants worship to be full of truth and spirit.
He equips and inspires God’s people for works of service

While prioritizing worship, he also teaches, trains, organizes, and
enables God’s people to serve Him, His church, and His world as
their talents and opportunities permit.
He prepares God’s people for eternal life

Eternity is ever before him. However busy his life or his church’s life,
however much he and God’s people serve here below, the spiritual
leader is ever mindful that all this is all too short preparation for the
long world to come.
You may have your own additions, subtractions, or re-writes of
my definition. But whatever definition we come up with, surely the
more we learn what’s involved in spiritual leadership, the more we
cry with the Apostle Paul, “Who is sufficient for these things?” And
thankfully we hear the welcome echo, “But my sufficiency is of God.”
Seeking Christian Leadership

It’s not usually expressed quite so blatantly or bluntly, but however well
the call to the ministry is dressed up, there is usually at least an element
of desire for leadership present. Some might say, “No, no, I don’t want
to be a leader. I just want to preach the gospel and teach God’s people.”
However, even teaching and preaching involve leadership (1 Tim. 2:12).
The question is, “Does the ambition or desire to lead automati-
cally disqualify a person from the ministry?” As J. Oswald Sanders
asks, “Is it not better for a position to seek out a person than the person
to seek out the position?” In earlier American history, it was thought
improper of anyone to want to be president. If it happened, it hap-
pened, but you certainly didn’t seek it. So what about the ministry?
Does the desire to be a pastor or preacher disqualify a person? There
have been notable cases, like Calvin or Knox, when men were virtu-
ally forced into church leadership. That’s rare today, although in some
limited circles the idea persists that a man is not called to the ministry
unless God has more or less forced him into it against his will.
What usually happens today is that a man goes to his pastor or
elders and says something like, “I believe God is calling me into the
ministry.” That sounds very passive and humble. The desire and
activity is all on God’s side. But there is nothing wrong with a man
wanting to be a pastor and taking steps to implement that desire. Paul
said that if any man wants to be an elder, he desires a good work
(1 Tim. 3:1). As another version puts it: “To aspire to leadership is an
honorable ambition.” The potential problems do not lie in the desire
or aspiration itself, but with the strength and nature of the desire.
Powerful desire
When a man tells me he feels he is being called to the ministry, I want
to test the strength of that desire with questions such as: “Do you
really want to be a pastor or minister? If so, how much do you want it?
What difficulty would stop you from becoming a pastor? How would
you respond if your pastor or elders rejected your application? Is there
anything in life you desire to be or do more than be a pastor?” There
should be very clear and definite answers to these questions. If a man
does not have a strong desire to be a pastor, he might just about get
through his seminary studies, but he won’t last long in pastoral min-
istry. (Similar questions may be asked of anyone seeking other kinds
of ministry positions.)
Pure desire
Once a strong desire is established, then the motive behind the desire
should be examined. While Paul commended the desire to lead,
Jeremiah said that if anyone seeks great things for himself, he should
stop right there ( Jer. 45:5). Diotrephes, who loved the preeminence,
was a classic example of what Jeremiah warned against (3 John 9 –10).
Church history is littered with the ministerial corpses of those who
had strong but unholy desires to lead.
Maybe Jeremiah’s words are more relevant to Americans than
Paul’s. When Paul was complimenting men who wanted to be church
leaders, he and they both knew that such positions guaranteed per-
secution, financial hardship, and a lifetime of stress. In that context,
the desire to be a church leader was good and honorable — and rare.
But when there are significant rewards associated with being a church
leader, as there are in many American settings, then sinful ambitions
and selfish motives are going to be much more common.
So, if some desires for church leadership are good and holy, while
others are sinful and selfish, how do we distinguish them? Obviously
anyone with a bit of savvy can say the right words to please a questioner.
No question on earth will guarantee the exposure of real motives if
someone is determined to disguise them. All we can really do is ask
the man to prayerfully examine his own motives over a period of time.
Perhaps provide him with a list like this and ask him if he finds his
desires in the God-glorifying column or in the self-glorifying column.
God-glorifying desires
1. I want to exalt God by my life and my lips
2. I want to serve God and His people
3. I want to see sinners saved and Christians equipped for
works of service
4. I want to teach people about the Bible and lead them in
worship
5. I want to prepare people for eternity
6. I want to see the church reformed and strengthened
7. I want to see the church make an impact on my commu-
nity, country, and culture
Self-glorifying desires
1. I want to be famous
2. I want to be rich
3. I want to be powerful and influential
4. I want to be respected and recognized
5. I want to serve on important committees and boards

6. I want to be more fulfilled in my life
7. I want more time at home with my wife and children
8. I’m getting on in life and fancy an easier job
9. I’m not happy in my present work, and thought I should
try ministry
10. I want to make up for the wrong I’ve done in my life
11. I want to be the next Sinclair Ferguson, R. C. Sproul, etc.
12. I want to make something of myself
13. I want to control others’ lives
14. I want to be wanted
15. I want to be free of a boss
16. I want to read and study
17. I want a title
18. I want to work where I don’t have to listen to cursing and
swearing all day
May God give His servants powerful and pure desires!
Sources of Christian Leadership

Can pastors and other church leaders learn anything about leadership
from President Obama? From President George Bush? From Bill
Gates? From General Petraeus? That’s one of the questions I’d like to
answer as we look at the three main resources God has provided to
teach us about Christian leadership: His precepts, His patterns, and
His providence.
God’s Precepts
God’s Word is obviously the first source of teaching on Christian
leadership. The Bible tells us that there are two fundamentals for
a Christian leader: spiritual life and moral life. Before anyone can
become a Christian leader, he must first become a Christian; he must
be born again ( John 3:3, 10). There can be no spiritual leadership
without spiritual life.
But spiritual life is not enough; there must also be a moral life. As
Christian leaders lead first and foremost by moral example, God’s moral
law—the Ten Commandments—must shape their moral character.
Moreover, a Christian leader must go beyond having spiritual life
and a holy life; these are but the basics of every Christian’s life. There
are further leader-specific precepts and commands in both the Old Tes-
tament (e.g., Josh. 1:7) and in the New (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:24).
God’s Patterns
In addition to His commands and instructions, God also provides us
with models, or metaphors, of leadership: the servant, the shepherd,
the captain, the father, the steward, etc.
God also makes these leadership models come alive in the lives
of biblical characters, who are frequently set forth as exemplary lead-
ers with unique leadership qualities: Joseph (long-range planning),
Moses (meekness), Jethro (delegation), David (team-building), Daniel
(courage), the apostles (pioneering), etc. And, of course, the ultimate
model, Jesus Christ, combines every leadership quality in perfect pro-
portion and balance.
God’s models are also found in the pages of church history (Charles
Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Robert Dabney, Charles Hodge, Wil-
liam Wilberforce, etc.). There are also Christian leaders in our own day
that the Lord has raised up, whose faith we are to follow (Heb. 13:7).
Some of them may be internationally known. Others may be simply
the pastors and elders whom the Lord has brought into our lives at
various points.
God’s Providence
In His gracious providence, God has given leadership gifts to many
outside the church. They may be Christians or non-Christians, and
they may be found in various fields: political, military, sports, or busi-
ness. May we learn from such leaders in some or all of these fields, or
not at all? And if so, what safeguards and cautions do we need to put
in place to avoid contaminating the church with unbiblical practices?
I can understand the instinct to say, “No, we may not learn any-
thing about leadership outside the Bible.” Too often the church has
become far too much like a corporation, the pastor has become too
much like a CEO, worship has become too much like a concert,
preaching has become too much like a stand-up comedy, and evan-
gelism has become too much like a marketing campaign. However,
these abuses and perversions should not stop us from learning even
from unbelievers in certain areas and with certain safeguards in place.
I’d like to defend the idea of learning from non-biblical (I did not
say unbiblical) sources and then consider a couple of safeguards.
Defense
First, by way of defense, in addition to God’s saving grace, the
Reformed church has usually acknowledged God’s common grace
whereby He distributes gifts and abilities to non-Christians for the
benefit of His church and people.
John Calvin used the illustration of spectacles to explain this. He
said that the Bible is not only what we read, but what we read with.
We use its pages as spectacles to view and read the world and the
knowledge, the light of nature, God has distributed throughout it
(Institutes, 1.6.1). Calvin wrote:
The human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its
original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable
gifts from its Creator.... We will be careful...not to reject or
condemn truth wherever it appears (Institutes, 2.2.15).
If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole foundation of truth,
we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it
shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. Shall
we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation
and artful description of nature?... No, we cannot read the writ-
ings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration.
But if the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic,
mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and min-
istry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect
God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just
punishment for our sloths (Institutes, 2.2.15–16).
Second, there are over twenty models of leadership in the Bible;
and they have all been brought in or borrowed from the “world” (the
servant, the shepherd, the captain, the father, the steward). The model
was first in the world (by God’s providence, of course) and then used
by God to teach His church.
Third, some of the words used for Christian leaders are taken
from non-Christian activities.
• oikonomia is a noun meaning administration of a house-
hold or an office; management of a state or house (e.g.,
Luke 16:1–17; 1 Cor. 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10).
• kybernesis is borrowed from sailing and refers to the helms-

man or pilot that guides the vessel to its destination (e.g.,
Acts 27:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; Rev. 18:17).
• episkopos is usually translated “overseer” and originally
described a man charged with responsibility of seeing that
things done by others are done right (Titus 1:7).
• proistemi in classical Greek referred to leadership in an army,
state, or party. It developed a range of meanings including
guard, care, be at the head of, have charge over, preside
over, lead, represent, or sponsor (Rom. 12:8; 1 Thess. 5:12;
1 Tim. 3:4, 12; 5:17; Titus 3:8; 3:14).
Safeguards
What safeguards can we put in place to learn from God’s gracious
distribution of truth and gifts outside the church, without “bringing
the world into the church”?
1. Biblical precepts and patterns are non-negotiable. If any
leadership principle or practice is contrary to the Bible,
then it must be rejected. The authority of Scripture stands
above everything.
2. Biblical precepts and patterns must be studied most. While
we may learn from non-biblical sources, if we are reading
the Harvard Business Review and business bestsellers more
than the Bible, we are in grave danger of drifting from bib-
lical moorings.
3. Biblical precepts and patterns should control the big pic-
ture. If we keep the Bible’s principles and practice as our
overarching control, we can fill in some of the details from
non-biblical sources. Here are some examples:
• The Bible gives us the general principle of time man-
agement (Eph. 5:16), but it does not give us much detail
about how to do this. We may fill out the details of this
general principle by looking at the methods successful
people in other fields have used to manage their time.
• The Bible tells us that we are to be careful listeners,

but again does not give us too many details about the
“How to.” We can learn much from those who have
studied the details of listening skills.
• The Bible tells us we are to be shepherds, but we fill
out the details of what that means by studying the char-
acter and conduct of ancient and modern shepherds.
• The Bible tells us we are to teach God’s Word, but we
can learn to be more effective teachers from special-
ists in the field of education.
With these three safeguards in place, we can prayerfully “plunder the
Egyptians” for the good of Israel.
The Secret of Christian Leadership

The Christian leader has to juggle numerous balls while innumerable
forces seem to pull him in every direction. On top of that, the Bible
presents those twenty biblical models of leadership. Do we have to be
twenty things at one time?
Not exactly. Sometimes the situation is simple and demands a
single model of leadership. More commonly, depending on the sit-
uation, the Christian leader has to combine different elements and
proportions of the Bible’s leadership models. And here is where so
many go so wrong. It is so easy to become imbalanced.
Temperament imbalances us
Temperaments or characteristics, per se, are not sinful. God has wisely
given different leaders different characters for different times and dif-
ferent purposes. However, our temperaments or personalities do tend
to imbalance us. Men with confident, forceful personalities are going
to be more attracted to the authoritative captain model, while men with
gentler, more compassionate natures are going to be more like the car-
ing nursing mother (1 Thess. 2:7). Men who enjoy debates will love the
Reformer model; while those who hate controversy will default to the
peacemaker model. Men with speaking skills will tend to speak more
than listen, while men who listen well, will listen more than speak.
While we have to work on our weaknesses, we also have to beware
lest the strengths God has given us become our weaknesses.
Sin imbalances us
Sin has weakened every faculty, every sense, and every aspect of our
gifts and abilities. Take our thinking abilities, which enter into every
aspect of leadership. Every thought we have passes through our brain.
Everything we see, hear, smell, taste, or touch passes through our
brain as a thought, using a phenomenally complicated combination
of electrical impulses and chemical reactions. Brain surgeon Ludvic
Zrinzo said, “The brain is the final frontier. If you look at the number
of neurons, synapses and connections, these vastly outnumber the
stars in our galaxy, and we won’t understand all the complexities for
many generations to come.”1 Stanford researchers have found that “[a]
single human brain has more switches than all the computers and
routers and Internet connections on Earth.”2
But like the rest of our bodies, our brain is fallen; the chemistry
and electronics are faulty. That means that even if we lived in a perfect
world, our perceptions and thoughts about it are going to be imperfect.
That also means that, even if we had perfect hearts with per-
fect desires and motives, these desires and motives are often going
to be obstructed, misdirected, frustrated, or weakened by having to
pass through our misfiring and imbalanced brains. In other words,
whether it is an incoming perception or an outgoing thought or
desire, they are going to be “damaged” to one degree or other by
passing through our brain.
But we do not live in a perfect world, and we do not have perfect
hearts either. On top of a fallen and faulty brain, we have to contend
with our fallen and faulty hearts and environments. What a toxic mix!
When we have sin coming at us from within and without, all pro-
cessed by a sin-cursed brain, these negative forces combine to make it
very easy to become imbalanced and fall off the leadership tightrope.
Role models imbalance us

We are all thankful for the powerful impact of godly men and women
in our lives. God has given us pastors, elders, and teachers who have
1. Brain surgery to relieve headaches. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/

ferguswalsh/2010/12/brain_surgery_to_relieve_headaches.html. Internet: accessed
03/07/2011.
2. Human brain has more switches than all the computers on earth. http://news.
cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html#ixzz18tkK38c5. Internet: accessed
03/07/2011.
modeled godly leadership for us. We cannot help but imitate these
people, consciously or unconsciously. However, strangely, we often
tend to imitate their quirks, eccentricities, and idiosyncrasies rather
than their strengths and qualities. And even the best models were
best for their time and situation. Their kind of leadership may not be
suitable for us, or our time, or our situation.
The secret of Christian leadership is having the spiritual wisdom
to know the balance of leadership characteristics required for each
situation you are dealing with. Knowing your temperament, knowing
your sin, and knowing how role models have influenced you will help
you to prayerfully seek God’s wisdom to know what kind of leader
you should be.
Of course, this means that sometimes the Christian leader is
changing his approach multiple times in a day. In the one situation he
has to be a courageous captain, in another a far-sighted visionary, in
another a team builder. And sometimes when being a team builder he
has to act as part-peacemaker, part-administrator, part-judge.
Our ability to choose the right model for each situation, or the
right models in the right proportions, will make or break our minis-
tries and our congregations. It is that significant. If what’s called for
is a listening ear and all we do is talk, or if we choose peacemaking
instead of fighting when facing false doctrine, then we have failed
ourselves, our congregations, and God Himself.
In the light of all this, are we not thankful for the promise: “If
any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” ( James 1:5)?
God alone is able to balance out all our imbalances and keep us on
the tightrope.
The Satisfaction of Christian Leadership

I have emphasized the difficulties of leadership. However, I don’t
want to end on a depressing note. I want to close by emphasizing the
satisfaction of leadership.
Personal satisfaction
Yes, there are challenges, disappointments, and failures, but it is also
very rewarding to see God’s people grow, develop, and mature; to
be privileged to counsel and advise those facing problems; to see
decisions vindicated; to see team spirit develop and unite people; to

see dormant gifts being deployed for the benefit of the church.
Congregational appreciation
We do not serve God’s people in order to be praised by them. However,
it is extremely rewarding when fellow Christians express gratitude
for your guidance or leadership. To sense the growing love of God’s
people in their prayers or in their gifts is just so encouraging. I pas-
tored a congregation that had a fair number of village and country
folks. On pastoral visitation, I often returned home with fresh eggs,
legs of lamb, salmon, etc. No meal tasted so good as those that were
marinated in Christian love. I believe part of the reward of heaven
will be to see the impact that our lives and ministries made on God’s
people, though at the time neither they nor we may have recognized
it. And that brings us on to eternal reward.
Eternal reward
No, we don’t want to be leaders because of the rewards in this life
or the next. However, God does encourage His servants with won-
derful promises of eternal reward: “Well done, good and faithful
servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee
ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (Matt.
25:23); “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for
ever and ever” (Dan. 12:3).
Contemporary and
Cultural Issues
q
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 333–340
The Accuracy of the Authorized

Version After 400 Years
malcom h. watts
q
We are grateful that the Authorized Version is receiving so much

attention in terms of books, articles, and conferences on its 400th
anniversary this year. We do not believe the Authorized Version to
be an inspired or perfect translation, only that it is the best available
translation in the English language. There is therefore no need for
us to answer every criticism of this version. However, some criti-
cisms are totally ill-founded and unjustified, and we believe such
do require a detailed response. In this article, my aim is modest as I
simply wish to address a sampling of fifteen ill-founded criticisms.
1. Romans 5:11—Critics maintain that “atonement” is a mis-

translation. The Greek word is katallagen. While it could have
been rendered “reconciliation,” the Authorized Version rendering
is not summarily to be rejected. W. G. T. Shedd comments: “This
important word is rendered ‘atonement,’ in the English version. At
the time when the version was made, atonement=at-one-ment,
or reconciliation.”1 Furthermore, Shedd argues with reference to
Athenaeus that the true meaning of the Greek word is “satisfac-
tion,” and he concludes: “Through Christ, the believer ‘receives
the atonement’: namely, that expiation for sin which settles the
difference between God and man. The result is reconciliation and
harmony between the two parties.”2
Moses Stuart of Andover confirms Shedd’s first point, writ-
ing, “The word means reconciliation; and such is the sense in
1. William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St.

Paul to the Romans (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 118 –19.
2. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary, 119.
which our English translators here used the word atonement (quasi
at-one-ment).”3
2. 2 Thessalonians 3:5 —It is maintained that “patient waiting for

Christ” is a misrendering of the original. The Greek literally means
“the patience of Christ,” and could mean “the patience which Christ
exercised” or, as in the Authorized Version, “the patient waiting for
Christ.” C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine acknowledge that the latter is a
possible interpretation.4 Calvin endorses that interpretation, although
he does concede the expression might be otherwise understood. He
says, “I prefer to understand it as referring to the hope of ultimate
redemption. For this is the only thing that sustains us in the warfare
of the present life, that we wait for the Redeemer; and farther, this
waiting requires faithful endurance amidst the continual exercises
of the cross.”5 Certainly, this supports the rendering of the Autho-
rized Version and is in accord with the emphasis in the two epistles
(1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:16, 17; 5:23; 2 Thess. 1:10; 2:8).
3. Romans 1:3 —The phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord” is said to be

misplaced. In Scrivener’s Greek text it does indeed appear at the end
of verse 4 —“...resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord.”
The words between “his Son” and “the dead” were therefore regarded
by the translators as a parenthesis. Surely the point is that the words
are properly translated, although included slightly earlier for the sake
of the sense and the right understanding of the two verses.
4. 1 Peter 1:2 —The objection here is taken to the position of “elect.”

It is true that, in the Greek, this word appears in the first verse —“elect
strangers,” and the epistle then proceeds with “Bithynia, according to
the foreknowledge of God the Father....” The point is, however, that
the word “elect” begins Peter’s description of his readers. The transla-
tors obviously believed (and rightly so, in our opinion) that the verbal
3. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Thomas

Tegg and Son, 1838), 198.
4. C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians
(Glasgow: Pickering and Inglis, 1914), 285. Cited by W. E. Vine in An Expository
Dictionary of New Testament Words (London: Oliphants Ltd., 1966), 168.
5. John Calvin, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (Grand Rap-
ids: Baker, 1979), 351.
The Accuracy of the Authorized Version 335
adjective “elect” governs the words which follow in the second verse
(“according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”). If it doesn’t,
then what does? E. H. Plumptre concludes, “The word ‘elect’ or “cho-
sen” belongs, as already stated, to verse 1, but the English sufficiently
represents the meaning of the Greek.”6
5. Matthew 27:44 —Exception is taken to the words “cast the

same in his teeth.” The word used here is oneidizon, which means
to “reproach” or “to heap insults upon.” If we look at the original,
it literally reads, “And with the same thing also the thieves who
were crucified together with him reproached him.” The Authorized
Version (which follows Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Geneva) under-
stands “reproached” quite correctly, as “cast on him reproaches.” The
Greek words to auto, translated “the same,” indicate that “something”
was actually thrown—and the concluding word auto indicates that
it was thrown “at him” (this being the indirect object of the verb).
This is why the Authorized Version chooses to translate the verb in
this somewhat surprisingly accurate manner, although it is not widely
used in English today—“cast the same in his teeth.”
Regarding Matthew 27:44, we may note James Morison’s com-
ment: “An exceedingly graphic translation.”7
6. Mark 2:3 —“Paralytic” is reckoned to be a better translation than

“sick of the palsy.” The problem is that the term “paralytic” is the
modern definition of a person with palsy. J. A. Alexander says it is “a
word now in common use, but not at the date of our translation.”8
But leaving aside that fact, if “palsy” means “paralysis” (which it
does), then we can surely assume that one “sick of the palsy” is actu-
ally a paralytic. Given that there was no such word in common use
in the seventeenth century, the Authorized Version has an excellent
rendering of the Greek word.
6. E. H. Plumptre, The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1899), 92.
7. James Morison, A Practical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899), 594.
8. J. A. Alexander, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (New York: Charles Scrib-
ner and Sons, 1864), 34.
7. Romans 3:4 —The exclamation “God forbid” is considered far too

free a translation. The Greek literally means, “May it not be!” but
since it is an exclamation of abhorrence, some scholars, like Professor
John Murray, have defended the rendering. Murray writes, “It really
needs the force of the expression given in our version ‘God forbid.’”
In a footnote, Murray says, ”[M]e genoito corresponds to a Hebrew
expression and actually occurs in the LXX of Gen. 44:7, 17; Josh.
22:29; 24:16; 1 Kings 21:3. The Hebrew expression is sometimes used
with names for God (1 Sam. 24:6 —‘The Lord forbid that I should
do this thing unto my master.’ See also: 26:11; 1 Kings 21:3; 1 Chron.
11:19; Job 34:10).” He concludes: “Hence our English expression ‘God
forbid’ has biblical precedent. The Greek me genoito, indicating the
recoil of abhorrence, needs the strength of this English rendering
derived from the Hebrew.”9
8. Matthew 8:31—Here and elsewhere, the word for “demons” is said

to be mistranslated “devils.” In the New Testament, “devil” appears
some thirty-five times, and literally means “slanderer” or “one who trips
us.” The Greek word, which could be translated “demon” and which
denotes an evil spiritual being, occurs a number of times in the origi-
nal—and it occurs in its verbal form, “demonized” or “possessed of
devils.” It is often maintained that there is one devil but many demons,
or inferior spirits, subject to him. Hence, the devil is called “the prince
of devils” (literally, demons) (Matt. 12:24). But this very title suggests
that demons are “the same in nature with one another, also the same
with their prince.”10 Conceivably, then, it is quite acceptable to speak of
the devil and also of lesser devils, which is what the Authorized Version
appears to do. In fact, it is perhaps worth noting that the word “demon”
does not appear anywhere in the Authorized Version.
9. Revelation 4:6ff.—“Beasts” is considered to be a most unsuitable

translation for “living beings” or “living creatures.” In the Authorized
Version, “beast” appears as a general word for creatures other than
man. The Greek word translated “beasts” in the book of Revelation
9. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
1967), 94.
10. James Henderson, The Imperial Bible Dictionary, ed. Patrick Fairbairn, D.D.
(London: Backie and Son, n.d.), Article on Demons, 2:145.
could certainly have been translated “living beings” (in keeping with
Ezek. 1, 3, 10); but it should be noticed that the term “beast” is used in
reference to forms resembling a lion, a bull calf, etc.— creatures that
have mighty power (as the “protectors” of the throne of God) and are
meant to strike all observers—and readers—with real and deep fear.
10. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8 —It is argued that “with water,” in
reference to baptism, is a mistake and inconsistent with “in Jordan”
mentioned elsewhere. Now, Greek prepositions are notoriously dif-
ficult because often they can be translated in many different ways.
The Greek preposition en properly signifies “in,” and that is how it
could have been rendered (which rendering would have no doubt
pleased some); but, in all fairness, it must be said that, in Greek, this
preposition (en) followed by the dative case (hudati) can signify the
instrument. Here are just two examples: “almost all things are by
the law purged with blood (en haimati)” (Heb. 9:22); and “the high
priest entereth into the holy place with blood (en haimati)” (Heb.
9:25). Given this indisputable fact, no one can say that the Authorized
Version’s rendering (in Matt. 3:11 and Mark 1:8) is a mistranslation,
although some might prefer the other rendering.
11. Matthew 6:10 —The point made is that this verse should read
“thy will be done on earth” rather than “in earth.” The Greek prepo-
sition here is epi, literally, “upon”; but, again, it is a preposition which
can be variously translated, and when followed by the genitive, it can
often mean “in,” as the following examples show: “Archelaus did
reign in [epi] Judea” (Matt. 2:22); “in [ep]) their hands they shall bear
thee” (Matt. 4:6); “From whence can a man satisfy these men with
bread here in [epi] the wilderness?” (Mark 8:4); “there shall be two in
[epi] one bed” (Luke 17:34); and “by him were all things created, that
are in heaven, and that are in [epi] earth” (Col. 1:16).
12. 1 Thessalonians 4:14 —“Sleep in Jesus,” some say, should prop-

erly be translated “sleep through Jesus.” Here the preposition is dia,
usually “through,” but consider the following: “build it in (dia) three
days” (Matt. 26:61); “a vision appeared to Paul in [dia] the night”
(Acts 16:9); “I have written a letter unto you in [dia] few words (Heb.
13:22). If this is allowed, it will express the same truth as in 1 Corin-
thians 15:18 (although there it is with a different preposition): “they
also which are fallen asleep in Christ.” However, if “through” is still

preferred, it will simply mean, as Albert Barnes observes, that “his
death and resurrection are the cause of the quiet and calm repose.”11
13. 2 Peter 1:1—It is maintained that this phrase should read “in” and
not “through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.”
The preposition is indeed en (literally, “in”), and if so translated (as by
Wycliffe and Tyndale) it will be similar to “faith in his blood” (Rom.
3:25). But if “through” be maintained—as in “sanctify them through
[en] the truth” ( John 17:17); “preached through [en] Jesus the resur-
rection” (Acts 4:2); “consolation and good hope through [en] grace”
(2 Thess. 2:16); and “grace and peace be multiplied unto you through
[en] the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:2)—
then, as Alexander Nisbet rightly remarks, “Faith...comes...through
Christ’s righteousness, which is, His doing and suffering to purchase
it, and other saving graces for us.”12 A slightly different understanding
is supplied by John Lillie, who says, “[I]t may indeed be said that faith
is ‘through’ this righteousness, inasmuch as, had there been no such
righteousness, there could have been no revelation of it, and conse-
quently no faith.”13
14. Luke 9:58 —Fault is found on account of the omission of the

definite articles in the expression “foxes and birds.” The omission of
the definite article in these two cases is a very small matter, especially
as particular foxes or birds are not intended. A stronger case could
be made for an improvement in Luke 18:13 —“God be merciful to
me a sinner” (literally, the sinner), as the publican may have thought
of himself as the sinner above all others (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15). But this is
not at all certain. Dean Alford says, “There may be a stress on to (the
Greek article) before hamartolo, ‘me the sinner.’ But see Matthew 18:17,
where, as probably here, the article is generic. It seems to me that any
emphatic comparison here would somewhat detract from the solem-
nity and simplicity of the prayer.... The to (the article) rather implies,
11. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 1966), 1098.
12. Alexander Nisbet, An Exposition of 1 & 2 Peter (Edinburgh: The Banner of
13. John Lillie, Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1869), 355.
not comparison with others, but self-abasement: ‘sinner that I am.’”14

As for John 3:10, in the Greek it does indeed read, “Art thou the mas-
ter of Israel, and knowest not these things?” It is suggested that there
is a contrast with verse 2, “a teacher come from God,” but this is not
a view generally endorsed. Indeed, I cannot find it mentioned by any
commentator. “The master of Israel” just may suggest that Nicode-
mus held some special, high position; but, interestingly, Alford, in his
Greek Testament, defends the Authorized Version’s rendering here—“a
master”— on the grounds that “the article is inserted as required by
tou before Israel, which is expressed as giving a solemnity to Isr. as the
people of God.” As an alternative reason for this rendering, he asks
this question: “Is it possible that ‘the master’ may merely be meant as
‘one of the masters’?” He then concludes by saying, “I prefer either of
these reasons for the presence of the article, to supposing it to have
any emphatic meaning.”15 I quote Alford here, not to suggest that he is
necessarily correct in his interpretation, but to show that some Greek
scholars (and Alford was recognized as eminent in this discipline) sup-
port the omission of the article in the translation because its inclusion
would give an emphasis not intended. The conclusion must be that
criticism of the Authorized Version at this point is quite unjustified.
15. 2 Corinthians 5:14 —“If one died for all, then all died” is regarded
as more in accord with the original than the Authorized Version’s “if
one died for all, then were all dead.” Charles Hodge states that the
verse has been “variously explained.” One view (Beza’s and others)
is that it means “if one died for all, then were all subject to death,”
while another view (supported by the use of the aorist and favored
by Hodge) is that “the death of one was the death of all.... The death
of Christ was legally and effectively the death of his people.”16 This is
perhaps more a matter of interpretation than translation. The render-
ing in the Authorized Version could conceivably support both of these
views, the point being that “if Christ died for all, then all those were
dead for whom he died” ( John Gill).17
14. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (London: Rivingtons, 1874), 615.
15. Alford, The Greek Testament, 716.
16. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Lon-
don: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1963), 136.
17. John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (London: Mathews & Leigh,
1809), 2:789.
The criticisms which have been made do not, in any way, constitute a
general and sustainable indictment of the Authorized Version. Indeed,
on examination, they appear to be neither significant or valid. Mod-
ern versions, on the other hand, are generally found to be lamentably
deficient, containing not only many departures from the Received
Text, but also a great number of palpable translational errors. It is our
firm belief that the Authorized Version retains its honorable place as
the most noble, worthy, and accurate translation of the Scriptures in
the English language.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 341–350
Delight in the Lord’s Day

andrew j. barnes
q
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy
pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy
of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing
thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking
thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD;
and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth,
and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth
of the LORD hath spoken it.
— Isaiah 58:13–14
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of
the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor
thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six
days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
— Exodus 20:8–11
Revelation 1:10 states, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” John
was speaking of the first day of the week, the day we know as Sunday
when we gather in our local churches to worship the Lord just as the
apostles did on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). But the Lord’s
Day is so much more than going to church. The Lord’s Day is that day
when our souls are nourished by the pure milk of the Word of God.
Jesus speaks directly to us!
In the twenty-first century, there seems to be widespread thought
that the command to keep the Lord’s Day holy is a heavy burden
(Ex. 20:8 –11). To some it has become the forgotten commandment

and is perceived as simply another legalistic regulation. Happily, the
Lord created the Lord’s Day to bless man, not to oppress him (Mark
2:27). This day is a blessed day, a happy day, a joyful day, a glad day;
not one of oppression but one of freedom in the Lord, for He has said,
“Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” If the
church and our own souls are to flourish unto holiness, then we must
actively learn to delight in the Lord’s Day.
The Lord’s Day: A Burden?

We must answer this question, “Is the Sabbath, the Lord’s Day, a bur-
den or a delight?” How did God design it? In our culture today, in the
church, the assumption is that the Lord’s Day is a burden. There are all
these regulations: lists of things to do and not to do. But what is a burden
really? The Lord defines it for us when He says in Nehemiah 13:15, 19:
In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the
sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine,
grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought
into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them
in the day wherein they sold victuals.... And it came to pass, that
when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath,
I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that
they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my
servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought
in on the sabbath day. (emphasis mine)
The burden upon the people was their working on the Sabbath, spe-
cifically treading winepresses, bringing in goods, and loading donkeys.
Another way to look at this is that the burden is not following the Lord’s
command when He says, “in it thou shalt not do any work.” The Lord
has created the Lord’s Day to be a day of delight. He blessed the day
and tells us to rejoice in it. To ignore the command of the Lord and
thus ignore the way of holiness is to curse the day and to burden man
and self. When we remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, the Lord
promises that we will be blessed. But if this day is not kept, if we do not
remember and rest in Christ, then surely we will receive discipline from
the Lord. That is what happened to Israel in Nehemiah 13:18 (see also
Neh. 9:13–17; 13:15–22). The burden is following man’s way instead of
God’s way. Man’s way will always be bent towards sin and self-pleasure.
Delight in the Lord’s Day 343
Because of this, we approach the Lord’s Day wrongly. We ask the

wrong questions. Is it okay for me to eat out at a restaurant? Can I play
a game of golf on Sunday afternoon? We assume that the Lord’s Day
is a day that restricts and burdens us. Before we really understand the
Lord’s Day, we are trying to apply it to our lives. When we do this, we
have to base our practice on something, so the basis of how we live on
the Lord’s Day is based on our experience. We make the foundation
of the Lord’s Day ourselves. Is this man’s day or the Lord’s Day? If it is
man’s, let man decide how it should be, but if it is the Lord’s, let Him
show us what His day is all about.
The Delight of the Lord’s Day

The Lord’s Day was not designed to be a burden to you who are in
Christ, but a delight. Therefore, to see how this day is a delight and
how it can be a delight for us, let us try to understand the meaning of
this day. Of the Ten Commandments, the one most often forgotten
is the fourth, which states, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is
the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work....
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Ex. 20:8–11). Why did God create
the Sabbath day of rest for man?
First, God created the Sabbath day of rest for man to give us rest from
our work. “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh
day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God.” The Lord designed us to work,
and gave us six days in which to do all our work. Before sin entered this
world, described in Genesis 3, God gave man work to do. Genesis 2:15
tells us that He placed man in the garden “to dress it and to keep it.”
Just as God labored for six days, so too He rested on the sev-
enth day, and not because He needed rest but because it was fitting
and right to do so. Genesis 2:2–3 states that God ended His creating
work on the seventh day and rested, and then He blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it because He rested from all His work on that
day. Man, therefore, through the Lord’s example, is to follow Him
in keeping the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:8–11), and to rest from
his work because it is fitting and right. Our Lord designed one day of
seven to be more special than all the other days.
Consider the giving of the fourth commandment in order to see

how powerful this day really is. The Lord had just delivered Israel
from Egypt where they were slaves. The nation of Egypt did not cel-
ebrate the Sabbath; they had no day of rest. The Israelites were made
to toil and labor every day. Do you see how sweet and precious a day
of rest is in a context of never receiving such a rest, but always work-
ing? They would still work, but only six days. The seventh would be
a day of rest from their work. What a blessing! A. W. Pink states of
working and resting, “He who never works is unfitted for worship.
Work is to pave the way for worship, as worship is to fit us for work....
The more diligent and faithful we are in performing the duties of the
six days, the more shall we value the rest of the seventh.”1
Yet, for many Christians this blessing is missed. One of the first
temptations we have coming home from worship is to work or do our
own pleasure.2 We fill the remainder of the Lord’s Day with thoughts
of the work we do on the other six days, planning for the week ahead.
Some of us will go into work or do work around the house. The Lord
calls us to work, but He has graciously given rest from it as well.
Praise the Lord we do not have to be slaves like Israel in Egypt; He
has given us freedom in Christ!
Second, the Lord’s Day is designed to give us rest for our souls. The
Lord has commanded this day to be especially holy; consequently, we
gather together in public worship. As we worship, we are given the great
opportunity of having our souls filled by God with His Word. When we
worship we pray the Word, sing the Word, read the Word, hear the Word
preached, and feel and see the Word in the sacraments. The Word, there-
fore, fills our mind, which ultimately, if received in faith, fills our souls.
As the Word fills us, we see the love of God in Christ Jesus who
saved us from all of our sin and guilt. We become more aware of our
sins from the past week and understand they are forgiven in Christ.
The sins that we will commit in the week ahead are covered by Jesus’
blood, and our souls find rest before His mercy seat. In worship, we
are granted in our souls that which is profitable for doctrine, reproof,
1. A. W. Pink, The Ten Commandments (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Pub-

lishers, 2003), 28.
2. Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 61 states, “The fourth commandment
forbiddeth the omission, or careless performance, of the duties required, and the
profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unneces-
sary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations.”
correction, and instruction in righteousness, that each one of us who is

in Christ may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work
(2 Tim. 3:16–17). There is a blessed rest for our souls on the Lord’s Day.
Finally, the Lord’s Day is intended to give us rest in the Lord. Man’s
chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.3 Yet, most of our lives
are focused on our work, our home, our time, our plans, our pleasures.
We are certainly able to glorify God and enjoy Him through our work,
home, time, plans, and pleasures, but the point is that six days of the
week are focused on us and what we do and like. That you would see
your need for the Lord, see your need to rest, see your need to repent of
your sins and be blessed eternally, the Lord created the Lord’s Day—a
day focused not on you, but on Him; a day not where you work for
yourself to receive physical benefits now, but where you submit yourself
to your Savior and Lord and receive benefits that will last for eternity.
How can resting in the Lord be a burden? Just try to grasp the
love of God through His giving of this day. It pleases Him to give to
you one day out of seven for the very purpose of blessing you in a spe-
cial way. God gives you fifty-two holy days a year, one each week, to
celebrate Him. Right now look forward with joy in your hearts each
week to the Lord’s Day, the day of sweet delight, which the King of
the universe has made for you.
Now you certainly have questions and thoughts just as I did when
I began studying the fourth commandment. When I began seminary,
I remember on a few occasions other students challenging me not
to do my studies on the Lord’s Day. Of course, there were excuses
I made when it came to studying on the Lord’s Day. “But the books
I am reading for class are good biblical books that are edifying” and
“How would it be possible for me to get all this work done on time if I
do not study on the Lord’s Day?” After the first semester, I had grown
in my understanding of the Lord’s Day and I greatly desired to keep
the Lord’s command in Christ because He promised blessing. I was
also recently married so there was a greater need to support ourselves.
I had four part-time jobs and I was attending seminary full-time. One
of those jobs required me to cut down trees on Saturdays from sun-
rise to sunset. Since I could not study on Saturdays, I studied between
Monday and Friday between working the other jobs.
3. Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1.

So you ask the question, “How will I get all my work done, if I do
not work on the Lord’s Day? I am not going to have enough time.” The
answer to this question and excuse is simple and often overlooked.
God is sovereign over our work, time, and strength. For the next cou-
ple of years, as I began resting in the Lord on Sundays rather than
working, my studies actually improved, because we work better when
we have truly rested from our work. I worked harder Monday through
Saturday; I was more diligent and disciplined to the praise of the Lord.
He also strengthened me. Every Saturday, I was wiped out. Yet He
used the Lord’s Day to preserve and strengthen me for worship and
the week ahead. Truly, it was and still is a day of blessing and delight.
The Lord’s Day was made for us. Let us live as if the Lord’s Day is
the Lord’s and not ours. Let us not dictate what we do, but let us fol-
low the Lord in what He wants. He gives us rest from work, rest for
our souls, and rest in Him. Let us live as if the most important day of
the week is the Lord’s Day, because it is; it is the day that we celebrate
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead where He secured our
justification and won the victory on our behalf (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor.
15:57). He made us more than victorious over death and gained for
us eternal rest (Rom. 8:37; Heb. 4:1–13). Each week, as it comes, let us
remember that it is the day that the Lord has made, and we will rejoice
and be glad in it (Ps. 118:24).
Is the Lord’s Day a delight? There is one key text that answers
this question:
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy
pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy
of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine
own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine
own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I
will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and
feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of
the LORD hath spoken it (Isaiah 58:13–14).
The Lord’s Day is not about our own pleasure, it is not about
doing things the way we want to do them, it is not even about speak-
ing the words we want; rather, it is a day to delight in the Lord. Let us
turn from trampling upon and turning our foot from His day. Robert
Murray M‘Cheyne said of the Lord’s Day, “We love the Lord’s day,
because it is His. Every hour of it is dear to us— sweeter than honey,
more precious than gold. It is the day He rose for our justification. It
reminds us of His love, and His finished work, and His rest. And we
may boldly say that that man does not love the Lord Jesus Christ who
does not love the entire Lord’s day.”4
How Do We Delight in the Lord’s Day?

The first step is to see the Lord’s Day as Scripture shows us and call it
a delight. If in our hearts we do not cling to the Lord’s Day as the chief
day and His day, then we will never truly delight in it. Secondly and
practically, we must prepare physically beforehand. If the most impor-
tant day of the week is the Lord’s Day, then ideally you will always be
looking forward to the following Sunday. It is like looking forward
to a vacation a week prior to its arrival. Your thoughts are constantly,
“Please, vacation, come quickly!” That should be our focus towards
the Lord’s Day. Just as we prepare in advance for a delightful vacation,
let us prepare in those six days for the Lord’s Day. As Israel was com-
manded in the wilderness (Ex. 16:2–30), so we too should prepare
beforehand, especially the day before, so that we will not be unneces-
sarily burdened on His day. Keep your meals simple, and if you are
going to have a house full of guests, try to do as much preparation the
day before. Make Saturday your cleaning day. Fill up your gas tanks in
your cars. These are not legalistic requirements but good suggestions.
In other words, the principle here is to do all those physical things
that are unnecessary on the Lord’s Day in the six days prior to Sun-
day. Matthew Henry says, “The Sabbath day is a market day, a harvest
day for the soul; it is an opportunity,—it is a time fitted for the doing
of that which cannot be done at all, or not so well done, at another
time: now, if this day be suffered to run waste, and other business
minded than that which is the proper work of the day, our souls can-
not but be miserably impoverished and neglected, and the vineyards
we are made keepers of cannot but be like the field of the slothful, and
the vineyard of the man void of understanding.”5 This is why we must
prepare physically for the Lord’s Day: it will produce a body that is
ready to leave off all other thoughts and acts, and worship the Lord. If
4. Andrew Bonar, The Life and Remains, Letters, Lectures, and Poems of the Rev.
Robert Murray McCheyne (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1849), 325.
5. Matthew Henry, Daily Communion of God (New York: Robert Carter, 1848), 287.
we clutter this day up with other things, it will be like the person who
is constantly working on vacation.
Moreover, we must prepare spiritually. Richard Steele, talking about
being distracted in worship, says that one reason for being distracted is
because we are not prepared.6 He quotes from Job 11:13–15, “if thou
prepare thine heart, and stretch out thine hands toward him; If iniquity
be in thine hand, put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in thy tab-
ernacles. For then shalt thou lift up thy face without spot; yea, thou shalt
be stedfast, and shalt not fear.” We must prepare our hearts. Before the
Lord’s Day, go to the Lord in prayer. Search your heart for sin and turn
from it unto God. Put it far from you so that when you come prepared to
worship the Lord, you will be without spot, steadfast, and without fear.
Be in prayer for your pastor and elders that the Lord would use them
for His glory and for your edification. If it is known, read the Scripture
verses that will be used for the sermon(s) and meditate on them through-
out the week. Prepare especially the day before; as Thomas Watson states,
“[Saturday] evening preparation will be like the tuning of an instrument,
it will fit the heart better for the duties of the ensuing Sabbath.”7
When the day comes, we are to spend the day in public acts of
worship. We go and worship together in our local congregations (Heb.
10:24–25), and we hear Jesus Christ speak to our hearts and minds. But
to you who have thought or at least lived as if the Lord’s Day is only the
Lord’s morning, let me offer some helpful suggestions. Some of you will
have only one worship service in the morning, so what do you do after
worship? The truth is it is easier to keep the Lord’s Day up until the
time of morning worship ending. However, you really want to delight
in the day and not just a part of the day, but you do not know what to do.
I would submit to you that there are many things for us to do to honor
the Lord, not seeking our own pleasure, but keeping the day holy.
First, cultivate your own soul privately with God. Spend some extra
time in prayer, Scripture-reading, meditation, and the reading of a vari-
ety of sound Reformed literature. Treasure this time alone with God.
Second, worship God in the evening in His house of prayer. If your
church has no second service, try to find and attend one in your locality
6. Richard Steele, A Remedy for Wandering Thoughts in the Worship of God (Har-
risonburg, Va.: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 72.
7. Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 2006), 295.
that does, providing it is sound. If that search is fruitless, worship God

in your home by reading sermons or listening to sermons online of
well-respected pastors. If you know none, then ask your pastor for
some suggestions. Lead your family in prayer and engage in singing so
that your time together feels as much as possible like a worship service.
Third, do what we should be doing each day of the week and that
is family worship (Deut. 6:6–7). If you are single, meet with your
other single friends or other families in the church and study Scripture
together. You can even study that morning’s sermon further. Follow-
ing morning worship and lunch, spend the afternoon hours with your
family and friends. This implies hospitality, which is great to do on the
Lord’s Day. Aim to engage in godly and edifying conversation. Families,
seek out those who are single or widows and invite them over for fellow-
ship and prayer. Pray and read Scripture and edifying books together.
Sing hymns and psalms together. Take the time to catechize your chil-
dren. My wife and I found that some of the most enjoyable Lord’s Days
are when we have company over. Take the time to be hospitable.8
Fourth, you can also take the opportunity to go and visit those who
are not able to come to worship due to health or age. Matthew Henry
says, “Reading the Holy Bible and other good books, repetition, cat-
echising, singing psalms, praying, praising, profitable discourse; these
are the exercises which, if they meet with a heart piously and devoutly
affected toward God, will furnish us with such a pleasing variety of
good works, to fill up those hours of the Lord’s day which are not spent
in public worship, or in works of necessity and mercy, and will turn so
much to our advantage that we shall complain of nothing so much as
the speedy returns of the Sabbath evening, and the shadows thereof....”9
To delight in the Lord’s Day is vitally important, not only for
yourself, but for your spouse and your children. Listen to what Robert
L. Dabney said about his experience growing up:
How sacredly was the Sabbath improved! My father went about
making the best of the sacred day just as seriously and system-
atically as any wise business man planning to put in the best
work possible on some favorable day in the middle of harvest.
8. Joseph A. Pipa, The Lord’s Day (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2001),
176–80.
9. The Miscellaneous Works of The Rev. Matthew Henry, ed. J. B. Williams (Lon-
don: John Ogle Robinson, 1833), 1:502.
He evidently acted on this clear, rational and conscientious con-

viction, “I have a great and urgent work to do for my own soul
and others; the one day in seven which a kind Heavenly Father
has endeavored to secure for me, for this task, is none too much,
if improved to the best. So I must make the most of it.”10
Think of the possibilities, not only for you but also for your chil-
dren. Fifty-two days a year spent consumed in the Lord! For your
children, by the time they graduated high school, that is 936 days
filled with delight in the Lord. That is two and a half years with noth-
ing but the Lord for your child to prepare them for this world. Oh,
that we would delight in the Lord and not bring burdens upon our
lives because we desired our own pleasures or our own ways. If we
want to do all for God’s glory, if we want to live lives pleasing to Him,
if we want to grow in Christ in our hearts and minds, if we want true
unending rest, then let us now delight in the Lord’s Day.
Suggested Reading
Chantry, Walter. Call the Sabbath a Delight. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1991.
Dennison, Jr., James T. The Market Day of the Soul: The Puritan Doctrine of the
Sabbath in England, 1532–1700. Lanham, Md.: University Press of Amer-
ica, Inc., 1983.
Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship. Eds. Philip Graham Ryken,
Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R
Publishing, 2003.
Henry, Matthew. Daily Communion of God. New York: Robert Carter, 1848.
Knecht, Glenn. The Day God Made. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Pink, A. W. The Ten Commandments. Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Pub-
lishers, 2003.
Pipa, Joseph A. The Lord’s Day. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2001.
Ray, Bruce A. Celebrating the Sabbath: Finding Rest in a Restless World. Phillips-
burg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2000.
Steele, Richard. A Remedy for Wandering Thoughts in the Worship of God. Har-
risonburg, Va.: Sprinkle Publications, 1988.
Watson, Thomas. A Body of Practical Divinity. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 2006.
10. Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney (Edin-
burgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 10.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 351–360
Retaining Scripture in our

Minds and Hearts
Ryan M. McGraw
q
The Word of God is sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and

instruction in righteousness so that the man of God can be complete
and thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The
man of God must meditate upon God’s law day and night, and rejoice
over it above all riches (Ps. 1:2). The Word must be upon his lips when
he sits down, when he rises up, and when he walks by the wayside
(Deut. 6:7); and if we have indeed tasted that the Lord is gracious, we
must desire the pure milk of the Word that we may grow by it (1 Pet.
2:2). It is only as we let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly that we
will be able to teach and admonish one another, give a reason for the
hope that is in us, tear down everything that exalts itself against the
knowledge of God, and contend earnestly for the faith delivered to
the saints. For these reasons, I have put together some practical sug-
gestions, mostly drawn from my own reflections and experience, to
help drill the Scriptures into our minds, root them in our hearts, and
express them in our speech and our lives.
Systematic Reading
Read the whole Bible carefully, regularly, and frequently. Believers
are held accountable and are often condemned for their ignorance of
what the Word of God says. This is illustrated throughout the book
of Judges (especially ch. 17), the wrath of God upon the Samaritans
(2 Kings 17), and Josiah discovering the immanence of God’s wrath
after finding the Book of the Law (2 Chron. 34). If we cannot afford to
be ignorant of any part of Scripture, then we must be familiar with all
of its parts. This can only be done by systematically reading through
the entire Bible, repeating the process often enough that what we have
learned will be remembered and built upon.
This type of Bible study provides context and allows us to think

about the text in connection to a larger whole. For example, when the
reader realizes that Isaiah 13–24 is a single discourse, it sheds much
light upon the otherwise difficult content of chapter 24. The Gospel
of Matthew is also filled with long sections and drawn-out strains
of thought. Chapters 5–7 represent one sermon with an introduc-
tion, body, and conclusion. Chapters 23–25 denounce the Scribes
and Pharisees, pronounce the resultant destruction of Jerusalem, and
then naturally end with the destruction and judgment of the wicked
on the Day of Judgment. We have been concerned with using the
thought processes used in Scripture in order to think God’s thoughts
after Him and argue in a biblical manner against unbelief.1 Systemati-
cally reading through Scripture is the only means by which we will
be enabled to do this. The benefits of this method of Bible study are
primarily cumulative, requiring patience and time, but few endeavors
will be more rewarding.
Meditation
Meditation is often treated as a synonym for relaxation and is associ-
ated with emptying the mind, such as in Yoga and New Age thinking.
In the Scriptures, however, meditation refers to deep, careful, and
prayerful thought. Meditation may be described as thinking long
and continuously about one subject. Systematic reading will naturally
lead to meditation upon particular verses as portions of the text either
stand out for further thought or raise questions. It is also profitable to
take time to meditate through entire books of the Bible so that we are
not limited to those things that immediately interest us. Meditation
is the best means of keeping the words of Scripture in our minds and
applying them to our hearts and lives. See my example using the book
of Hebrews under “Direct Meditation” below.
If meditation arises from a question over a verse of Scripture, it
will often take the form of prayerfully reading and re-reading the text
and the surrounding context and slowly narrowing the possibilities.
This may also result in observing theological implications of a pas-
sage and should ultimately result in practical application that is solidly
drawn from the text. I have found that meditation creates a sort of
“dialogue” between my soul and the Lord in which I study the text,
1. This paper was presented in the context of a study of apologetics.

Retaining Scripture in our Minds and Hearts 353
pray for light, and present my questions before the Lord (confessing
sin and pursuing self-examination), and repeat the process. This is
one of the most practical ways of communing with God and empha-
sizes the fact that the Spirit of God never communicates His will to
us apart from His inspired Word.
It should also be noted that running to commentaries too quickly
for answers may eliminate the process of meditation altogether.
Commentaries are indispensable, but our goal should be that they
supplement (and at times correct) our meditations rather than replace
them. On the other hand, when commentaries are used properly, they
foster further meditation. Meditation in Scripture is assumed to be a
daily practice of the godly (Ps. 1). By reminding ourselves that every
Word of Scripture is the inspired Word of God, we will give greater
attention to all of its words and be slower to come to conclusions
about its meaning. This cannot be done without mediation.
Regular Daily Private Worship

I have chosen the term “private worship” instead of “devotions” or
other comparable terms because it emphasizes God as the object of
worship rather than upon what we “get out of it.” There may be times
when we receive less profit from private prayer and study of the Scrip-
tures, whether through physical weariness, trials, etc. It is only when
we emphasize that these are times of worship that we will persevere
in them at all times and wait long, if we must, before reaping personal
benefits to our souls. When we persevere in our private worship, we
often will eventually find that we have received far greater benefits
than we perceived at the time. The primary emphasis is not a time of
peace and quiet to ourselves or even primarily to feed our souls, but
to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
This practice combines Scripture reading and meditation (along
with prayer) and places them in the context of worship. Using the
means of grace in a spirit of worship is what makes them profitable to
our souls. The psalmist in Psalm 5 states that he sought God early in
the morning; he also meditated upon God’s ways in the night watches
(Ps. 63). Psalm 119 even depicts him seeking God’s face seven times
in a day. If that is the case, then one daily time of private worship is a
bare minimum. This ensures that Scripture reading and meditation
will be practiced daily. My practice is to place the heaviest emphasis
on private worship in the morning before the distractions of the day
begin to encroach upon the mind. This assists in being mindful of

the Lord, His glory, and His coming throughout all the activities of
the day and makes extended meditation upon Scripture easier. Addi-
tionally, it is profitable to end the day with private prayer (at least),
confessing the sins of the day, praising God, and preparing for the
next day. This directs our thoughts to private worship the next morn-
ing more naturally.
With respect to meditation in private worship, there are times in
which I attempt to be ahead in my systematic Bible reading and then
slow down to place a heavier emphasis upon a particular book for a
time. Taking notes may be helpful if they are brief and do not con-
sume a burdensome amount of time. The benefit of note-taking is
not ordinarily to re-use them, but that the process itself helps think-
ing and memory in what we read. If some insights are particularly
important and I want to be reminded of them often, I write them in
the margin of my Bible so that they will be re-read annually.
Prayer
Prayer is the single most important element in understanding the
Scriptures, keeping them in our minds, and having them change our
hearts and lives. Since no man may know the things of God profitably
apart from the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:13–14), prayer makes us self-con-
sciously dependent upon God in studying His Word. We ought never
to open our Bibles without at least a brief prayer for the Lord’s help and
grace in understanding it and living by it. God made our minds and
may give us wisdom and deprive us of it as He pleases (Dan. 4). He has
often diminished my own “natural” ability when I have become proud,
and He has provided far above and beyond my abilities when necessity
has called for it, or grace has been pleased to grant it.
Even the memory has a spiritual dimension and should be a mat-
ter of prayer. Thomas Boston pointed out how easily we remember
things that make a deep impression upon us. One reason we remem-
ber so little from Scripture is because it makes such a small impression
upon us; when truth makes a deep impression upon us we rarely for-
get it and often remember the very words in which we learned the
truth. My own memory of Boston’s discussion of the memory illus-
trates this point. Do not excuse yourself or limit the power of the
Holy Spirit by assuming you cannot retain Scripture in your memory.
Circumstances certainly affect the memory, such as age, lack of sleep,
and even diet, but we may always be confident that our prayers are
according to God’s will when we ask Him to impress us deeply with
His glory, His gospel, and the knowledge of His will. We must pray
and wait patiently knowing that we have those petitions that we have
asked of Him (1 John 5).
Hearing Sermons
Our private study of the Scripture is indispensable, yet it is in the pub-
lic proclamation of the Word that we hear from Christ most directly.
It is through preaching that we “hear Him” and faith comes by hear-
ing the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:14, 17). The preacher is sent as a
herald to proclaim the will of the great triune Jehovah and particu-
larly Christ and Him crucified. True preaching will emphasize the
text of the Scriptures, in which God has chosen to reveal His will,
and will itself be full of Scripture. Because preaching is the primary
means of grace, we should have a greater expectation for the blessing
of the Holy Spirit as we come to hear a sermon. For this cause as well,
we should use the sermon to the utmost of our ability.
If our ministers preach through books of the Bible, we will
know generally what comes next and can prepare ahead of time. If
we study the book that is being preached upon, the book itself will
be more embedded in our memories and the sermons will come to
us with greater profit. Even if we simply read the passage ahead of
time, which requires minimal effort and time, we shall be amazed at
how it helps us profit from sermons. We may also profit after hear-
ing sermons through conversation. I believe that Spurgeon once said
that some people acted as though sermons were the best kept secrets
in the world, and that men were free to speak of anything and every-
thing after worship with the exception of the sermon. We will gain
the greatest profit from the preached Word while the exposition and
application of the passage is fresh in our minds. If the preaching of
the Word is not in our conversation after worship, does our silence
declare that it has had no effect upon our hearts?
This point leads us back to the importance of prayer. All that was
said above concerning prayer in our private worship applies with even
greater force here. If we expect preaching to be profitable and to profit
personally from it, we must pray and we must labor for profit. Let us
not lose the power and effectiveness of the preached Word!
Using the Scriptures

We should approach our study of the Bible as we would studying a
foreign language. The only way to learn a language is to be immersed
in it and to use it as often as possible. A person may study Spanish by
spending only an hour in the morning reading a textbook, memoriz-
ing vocabulary and grammar; but if he uses what he has studied all
day, he will stretch out the benefits gained from that hour and make
great progress in that language.
The best place to begin using the Scriptures is to implement the
words of Scripture in prayer. This has the added benefit of giving us
confidence that what we are praying is according to the will of God.
We should turn the language of Scripture into “arguments” to enforce
our petitions before God. For example, when God says His will is our
sanctification (1 Thess. 4), we ought to pray, “Lord, sanctify me for
Thy name’s sake.”
We should attempt to use the Scriptures from our private wor-
ship in our conversation with others. This helps us self-consciously
set our minds on things above where Christ is in all we do. It is useful
in evangelism, in encouraging believers, and in admonishing others
when necessary as well. This can even be applied by inserting Scrip-
ture into letters and e-mails. By this practice we pursue what is good
for ourselves and for others (1 Thess. 5).
Scripture should also be used in the instruction and discipline of
children. Using it in positive instruction at every opportunity or sim-
ply speaking with children about what we have been reading in the
Scriptures helps us remember what we have read and communicates
Scripture to the children in a positive context. Using it in discipline
makes sure that discipline is neither arbitrary nor understood to be so
by the child. Every occasion when our daily reading can be used in
some manner will assist us in remembering it and cause us to care-
fully consider how to put it into practice.
Reading Good Books

This especially applies to reading literature written by those well
versed in the Scriptures, such as the Puritans. Some Puritan literature
is filled with either direct citations or allusions to Scripture in nearly
every line. Even when verses are not explicitly cited, such books can be
used to test our memory by striving to identify book and chapter. My
opening paragraph above is an illustration of this, in which are refer-

ences to 2 Timothy 3, Psalm 1, Psalm 119, Deuteronomy 6, 1 Peter 2,
Colossians 3, 1 Peter 3, 2 Corinthians 10, and Jude, respectively. If
you initially have to look up references with a concordance, you will
become more familiar with the Scriptures over time and eventually
use the concordance less and less. Several books may repeat verses in
connection with specific emphases (for example, with reference to the
providence of God, Ephesians 1:11 may appear in most books) so that
these texts will come to our minds more easily in that connection.
As a suggestion, if you begin reading through the Puritan Paperback
series by Banner of Truth and read ten pages per day, you will get
through about one book per month. If you read five pages per day,
you will get through one every other month.
A good set of commentaries may serve the purpose as having a
conversation with someone who knows more than you do about the
text of Scripture. Not commentaries only, but works on biblical intro-
duction and biblical theology help tremendously in understanding
books of the Bible as a whole. An excellent example of the latter that
has radically transformed my own understanding of the Old Testa-
ment prophets is The Christ of the Prophets by O. Palmer Robertson.2
Using the Catechism

Catechizing is not only an invaluable help in understanding and
expressing the doctrines of Scripture in a concise manner, but it is
useful for growing in the knowledge of Scripture itself. For example,
2. One word of caution: Avoid attempting to use the biblical languages unless
you are committed to truly learning the language. Greek and Hebrew grammar are
unlike English grammar, and words do not always retain dictionary definitions when
read in context. Books on word studies are particularly dangerous for those who do
not know the languages since there is no way to verify what is asserted. For example,
agape does not inherently distinguish divine love from brotherly love (phileo), as is
commonly assumed, but the two terms are normally synonyms. Scripture uses phileo
to describe God’s love to His children and the Septuagint uses agape to describe the
“love” of a man for a prostitute. Reading the New Testament in the original would
make this clear immediately. Also do not make too much out of the origins of words.
If someone learning English attempted to do this, they would think that the word
“understand” meant to stand beneath something. The study of the languages is very
useful, but it is an all or nothing endeavor: either learn the language well enough to
implicitly understand its meaning or avoid making much reference to it. You will get
yourself into trouble. By studying the context prayerfully and cautiously, you may end
up understanding the Scriptures better than those who are experts in the languages.
the Westminster Shorter Catechism along with the Larger and the
Confession of Faith often use the very language of Scripture in
expressing theological conclusions. Memorizing the Shorter Cat-
echism and parts of the Larger is one of the most useful things that
I have ever done. Studying the Scripture proofs of the catechism in
their context assists in learning how to use Scripture in a different
manner than bare reading and meditation will. The catechism teaches
us the theological implications of Scripture and it will help us begin
to identify these on our own. Additionally, looking at an otherwise
familiar section of Scripture with a focused theological purpose helps
keep that text in our memories.
Audio Bible
With the aid of portable electronic devices, you can listen to a well-
read audio version of the Bible while doing other things, such as
driving, cleaning house, yard work, home projects, etc. Listening can-
not replace reading, especially because our full attention will not be
devoted to worship, but listening gives another opportunity to have
the content of Scripture before us and will gradually make biblical
language part of our vocabulary. Listening to Scripture has greatly
increased my ability to concentrate over extended periods of time as
well. At first I had to stop and rewind the same chapter several times
before truly hearing it, but in time my ability to concentrate on the
text and continue other tasks grew.
Family Worship
Even if there is little comment on the text, reading Scripture daily in
family worship makes the entire family more familiar with the Bible.
It is not only the duty of Christians to worship the Lord in their
families, but it is a great benefit to all involved. It is not the presence
of children that makes family worship necessary. If a husband and
wife hope to worship God together in eternity, is it not a strange
inconsistency when they do not worship together daily on earth? I
recommend reading a chapter at each sitting, although the length
of some passages does not always make this practical. It is helpful
to read enough to prevent isolating passages from the context and
especially to connect sections such as the parables in the Gospels.
Reading too little can break up the thought of Paul’s epistles, but
reading too much at once in Leviticus can exasperate the family. I
would love to discover a way to lead the family through the whole
Bible in family worship yearly or at least every other year, but have
not yet found a practical way to do this. We have tried M‘Cheyne’s
calendar, but even reading without comment required at least two
hours of family worship per day. Instead, we have begun to alternate
reading one book from the Old Testament and one from the New,
always reading through books we have not done before. Some hus-
bands do not lead in family worship because they make the mistake
of assuming that they must read several commentaries on a book in
order to lead their family through it. Even a bare reading of a chapter
is incomparably better than reading none.
Direct Memorization
I have placed direct memorization of Scripture last because I have
found it to be the least effective means of memorizing Scripture. The
main reason for this is that it is by far the most difficult and labo-
rious method. Memorization also lends itself to learning Scripture
in a vacuum with no context. To illustrate, I have carefully studied
and meditated on the book of Hebrews over the past several years.
Without conscious effort at memorization, by thinking through the
language of the book, reading and re-reading it, meditating on verses
in relation to the larger context, and working out practical and theo-
logical implications, I have committed most of the book to memory. I
could not have done this as easily by rote memorization, and I would
certainly not understand the book as deeply.
Nevertheless, memorizing is useful and necessary, especially for
children in getting the words of Scripture into their minds before
they are able to think through and understand content. This provides
a solid foundation upon which they will build. I would go so far as
to say that direct memorization of Scripture is indispensable for chil-
dren. It is essential for us all, however, that the words of Scripture are
in our minds and vocabulary, regardless of how we get them there.
Direct memorization is useful to meet the needs of particu-
lar situations. For example, if a man finds himself in a situation in
which he is continually tempted to anger and quarrelling, he may
memorize a passage such as, “The discretion of a man deferreth
his anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression” (Prov.
19:11). This applies to any temptation, trial, need for comfort, verses
that summarize the content of the gospel, etc. Certain portions of
Scripture also make memorization a virtual necessity, such as the

book of Proverbs in which there is often little to no context to draw
upon. I do not mean in any way to exclude memorization by plac-
ing it last. Memorization works best in the context of practicing the
suggestions above.
Let me remind you that these reflections are only practical sug-
gestions. Hopefully, they can buttress your own practical ways of
striving to retain Scripture within you. Whichever ways you use, may
God abundantly bless the Scriptures to your mind and heart, always
remembering that it is by Spirit-applied Scripture that we truly live.
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 361–380
The Church Community in Contemporary

Culture: Evangelism & Engagement
kieran beville
q
He who loves his dream of a community more than the Chris-

tian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even
though his personal intention may be ever so honest and earnest
and sacrificial. 1
— Deitrich Bonhoeffer
There is a movement within the church that is disillusioned with the

existing model and methods of traditional church practice. I am not
just referring to a restless few who dislike conservative mainstream
denominational churches. I am not just referring to people who want
to move away from church buildings with pews, elevated pulpits, and
stained-glass windows. The same attitude is adopted with regard to
churches with more modern buildings and more contemporary styles
of worship. I am referring to what is known as the missional church.
What is the church? What is its nature and purpose? What is its
role in this world? What is its relationship to the wider community?
What are its sacred and secular responsibilities? What is a Chris-
tian? What is the gospel? What is mission? What is evangelism? In
our eagerness to engage with contemporary culture these questions
tend to be neglected. But they come into focus if we try to unite in
inter-church collaboration on evangelism. Without broad consen-
sus, any such endeavor will be problematic. But we also need a clear
understanding of the answers to these questions within our own
church community.
Church communities are being drawn into the vortex of unhelp-
ful and unhealthy alliances ostensibly for the sake of evangelism and
1. Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together: A Discussion of Christian Fellowship (San

Francisco: HarperOne, 1954), 27.
engagement. These problematic partnerships lead to confusion and

compromise. I am concerned that people with evangelistic antennae
are picking up this signal on their radar and embarking on a route
to nowhere. We need to rethink the mission paradigm in the light
of emerging challenges. We need to keep mission central to church
life. We need to be in tune with the rhythm of God’s heartbeat.
But we need biblical perspectives on mission theology as a pre-
requisite to identifying the way forward. Why? Because there are
new directions in mission and it is important to examine these new
departures. I want to take the missional church (the most significant
new direction in evangelism and engagement) as a case study and
offer a critique of this emerging phenomenon by asking whether it
is a menace or a catalyst.
My article will be more philosophical than methodological and
I hope this will not disappoint. I cannot apologize for my approach
because I believe good principles provide a foundation for further dis-
cussion about the direction we should take and as such is the correct
starting place. Perhaps an evangelist or church planter could put flesh
on these bones.
The important question to be addressed is whether or not God is
at work in this recent phenomenon. Some will say it’s the new reality
and we better get on board before the ship leaves shore. We cannot
simply endorse something just because it is a reality; we must be more
discerning and test the spirits. For this we will need some criteria for
evaluating a work of the Holy Spirit.
Is the missional church a menace? It is perceived by some as a
threat to the welfare of the church. Is it a dangerous development? It
seems to me (as a father of three) that new life has a nuisance element
to it inasmuch as it disrupts life as it has been heretofore. Certainly
the missional church is a catalyst insofar as it is precipitating change.
The question I want to address is: Is this change a good thing? It is a
development which has implications not only for missiology but also
for Christology and ecclesiology.
The “attractional” church is understood as a church with a build-
ing that is used for regular worship services, prayer meetings, Bible
studies, Sunday school, youth group meetings, and a host of other
programs and activities. It is argued that, in this postmodern culture,
the attractional church is outmoded. It has been so named because
of the idea that the church’s missional stance is futile. They see it as
The Church Community 363
ineffective and unsuccessful because it is based on the hope that peo-

ple will be attracted to our pews by our preaching and programs. It
might be likened to lighthouses which were once manned and useful
but have become irrelevant in a world where seafarers have sophisti-
cated navigation technology based on global positioning systems.
The new movement in evangelism and engagement advocates
what it calls “incarnational” communities. These communities are
essentially mission-focused, seeker-centered alternatives to the attrac-
tional church model. The locus of mission is re-centered so that instead
of expecting unchurched people to come to us, we are exhorted to go
to them. Clearly there is much merit in taking such an approach. The
exponents of this new way would advocate launching lifeboats rather
than building lighthouses as a mission strategy.
So what? At first glance, this might sound like nothing more than a
different way of fishing for souls. But it is not. This is not a movement
that advocates a different way of doing church or merely an attempt to
put mission at the center of church life. If we stay with the nautical anal-
ogy for a moment, they would say that doing church differently is like
re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. So they see existing attrac-
tional church models (our churches) as doomed structures and they
are sounding the bell to abandon ship. But are they entering uncharted
waters in crafts that will withstand the fury of the raging seas?
There is some concern that some people in this new movement
do not have the theological competence to pilot these flimsy vessels.
But some of its leaders have advanced theological training and are
directors of global networks and are quite organized in their approach
to the dissemination of this new thinking through publication, con-
sultation, and training. One has to admire the energy of these radical
activists. We can be defensive and rigid and reject this new order, but
that would be as unwise as unquestioningly embracing it. What is
needed is an honest, open-minded critique of this movement rather
than a gut-feeling response rooted in a predisposed antipathy to any-
thing perceived as novel or trendy.
Has the attractional church passed its “best before” date? Accord-
ing to the leading exponents of the missional movement it is time to
shut our doors and walk away before the sun sets on the institutional-
ized church form.
God can work in surprising ways and unexpected places, as hap-
pened to some degree in the charismatic movement of the 1960s and
1970s, despite all of its problems in theology and practice. By and large,
the evangelical community kept its distance because it was problematic
and messy. I’m not saying Christians should have gotten involved then
and I am not sure how we could be involved with some new directions
in evangelism and engagement now. But we do need to think about
the dynamics of our relationship with the missional church.
According to missional church literature, this movement is see-
ing people being converted, lives being changed, a searching of the
Scriptures, and evidence of a new love for God and for one another.
Some will say that surely this is to be welcomed and that God does
not need our permission to act in unexpected ways. The argument
might be offered that, sadly, the Christian establishment is often
dragged reluctantly into acknowledging God’s work outside its own
restricted circles.
Once Upon a Time

I once read a story about a lifeboat station on the Eastern Coast of the
United States.
It had begun when some of the locals with sailing experience
became concerned about the number of ships that got into
trouble in their waters. So they clubbed together and bought
a lifeboat. Then they built a boathouse to keep it in. Over the
years many lives were saved and there were countless instances
of remarkable bravery. Often when the men were out on a res-
cue, the women would gather at the boathouse, comforting one
another as they waited anxiously for news of their husbands.
They discovered they worried less if they kept busy, so they put
up curtains on the boathouse windows and generally smartened
the place up. They persuaded their husbands (when not out on
rescues) to put in a little kitchen and some comfortable chairs.
Over the years the boathouse became a much more comfortable
place to wait. In fact it became so comfortable that the men and
their wives used to meet there sometimes when there was no
rescuing to be done. Sometimes they brought friends who had
never been out in a lifeboat in their lives. Some of the friends
moored their yachts nearby. Gradually the character of the life-
boat station changed. One day there was a furious storm and a
ship got into trouble just a little way along the coast. The people
were all very concerned but no one went out to help. Why? The
lifeboat station had become a yacht club.2
Many people are now saying that our churches have ceased to be rescue
stations for the lost and have become comfortable clubs for the saved.
In fairness to the missional church, which is seeking to create
incarnational communities, it must be said that they are well-meaning,
sincere, and hard-working, dedicated to achieving their goals. They
rightly understand that there is a problem with regard to reaching
the unchurched. They correctly understand that dwindling church
attendance and declining numbers of church adherents is a perplexing
trend. But because they are evangelists, they think that everything in
the church should center on evangelism. I think all believers would
want to place huge importance on evangelism, but in a balanced way.
People with evangelistic antennae have a tendency to develop tunnel
vision. The church needs people with these gifts, but some blinkered
individuals who do not have a panoramic view of the church think that
evangelism is all that really matters. I have no doubt that many zealous
but theologically naïve individuals are attracted to emerging situations.
But I believe the more discerning churches will pick and mix the best
and most innovative approaches and this is to be encouraged.
What Is Church?
When it comes to understanding the missional church, it is important
to examine the biblical basis for Christian community. We all agree
that a church is not a building in which Christians meet for wor-
ship. Rather, the essence of the local church consists of a fellowship
of believers who gather to worship God. If we do not understand
the biblical basis for Christian community, we will be terribly con-
fused about the nature of true fellowship. An obvious concern about
the new directions in evangelism and engagement which need to be
addressed is that fellowship with unbelievers is more a kind of cama-
raderie which does not constitute true unity of the Holy Spirit.
Many church leaders will agree with the missional church’s
diagnosis concerning the condition of the attractional church in the
twenty-first century, but it is their prognosis and prescription that
causes some concern. It is important for every generation to find ways
2. Gary Benfold, “So that I can rebuild it,” Evangelical Magazine of Wales, May/
June, 2004.
of communicating the gospel to its culture but there is a danger that

in seeking to be relevant we cross a line that ought not to be crossed.
Seeker-centered or Seeker-sensitive?
An occupational hazard for evangelists and church planters is that they
become seeker-centered (as distinct from seeker-sensitive) and cross
the line between contextualization and syncretism. Contextualization
is about finding ways of explaining and exhibiting the gospel that can be
understood within a particular cultural context, without compromis-
ing the integrity of the message or the messenger. Syncretism occurs
when the desire to be relevant transcends all other motives and both
message and messenger become integrated into the prevailing cultural
context. Syncretism occurs when Christians adapt, either consciously
or unconsciously, to the prevailing worldview. It is the reshaping of
Christian beliefs and practices so that they reflect those of the domi-
nant culture. In this process, Christianity loses it distinctiveness.3
Syncretism is frequently birthed from a yearning to make the gospel
appear relevant. The church attempts to make its message attractive to
outsiders and as these adaptations become regularly assimilated they
become an integral part of the church’s life. When significant changes
in worldview take place, the Christian community, swept along by the
ebb and flow of cultural currents, begins to lose her moorings.4
There has been a significant paradigm shift best summarized by
the word postmodernism. Some church people are wondering if it will
come into the church. The reality is that it is well embedded in the
church. Many churches have gone beyond the process of contextual-
izing the gospel in Western culture and have married themselves to
these core values of society. One writer cautions: “While Christian
witness must be savvy concerning the realities of the postmodern con-
dition in order to make the historic Christian message understandable
and pertinent to denizens of the contemporary world, this does not
mean that we should become postmodernists in the process.”5
3. Gailyn Van Rheenen, “Modern and Postmodern Syncretism in Theology

and Missions,” The Holy Spirit and Mission Dynamics, ed. C. Douglas McConnell
(Pasadena: Wm. Carey, 1997), 173.
4. Van Rheenen, “Modern and Postmodern Syncretism,” 173.
5. Douglas Groothuis, “Facing the Challenge of Postmodernism,” To Everyone
an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis Beckwith, William Lane
Craig, and J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2004), 253.
Radical Developments
There are many radical developments in how church is practiced today.
We are going to see much more of this kind of thoroughgoing reca-
libration in the next decade. The orientation toward missional and
incarnational communities is not merely a rediscovery of the values and
vision of the ancient faith communities found in the book of Acts. We
must be careful not to disregard centuries of subsequent church history
(including the Reformation) as if they are entirely irrelevant; that would
be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is a calamitous
thing to do. Has our failure to address mission in a holistic way partly
contributed to new departures in evangelism and engagement?6
The missional church is not a counter-cultural movement; it is, in
fact, the opposite. Certainly they react to the consumerist, materialis-
tic, and therapeutic values of modernist churches that have developed
too cozy a relationship with the prevailing cultural norms. There is
a real danger that they will lose their distinct identity as Christians.
The missional church contends that traditional Christian iden-
tity is perceived as unattractive to seekers. It charges the church with
creating self-serving institutions that are not connecting with com-
munity. It would say that the attractional church has merely created
holy huddles which are no-go zones for unbelievers who do not feel
they belong to these “clubs.” They say that we have retrenched into our
private enclaves. The accusation that we live a kind of neo-monastic
existence is nonsense and this myth needs to be dispelled. Most of our
people are connected to the real world in one way or another.
Missional church people integrate themselves into various com-
munities and sub-cultures and intentionally conceal their spiritual
identities until they have built what they call “meaningful relation-
ships.” I feel there is something inappropriate and dishonest in this kind
of subterfuge. I think Christians are called to be conspicuous in this
world, not chameleons who adapt to the surrounding environment. We
should not be disingenuous about our intentions. Christians are to be in
the world but not of the world. D. L. Moody said, “The ship is meant to
be in the water but God help her when the water gets into the ship.” It is
an obvious truth that states an important principle of Christian living.
6. I have witnessed holistic models of mission working well in India and East-
ern Europe, but I acknowledge the dangers inherent in this model whereby the
gospel message of salvation can become subordinate to material concerns.
The missional church claims to be involved in creating places of

inclusive belonging where God’s kingdom can be experienced. This
sounds good until what that actually means is spelled out. Certainly,
Christians should be creating places of welcome but we should not adopt
an end-justifies-the–means approach to winning souls. The church is
the bride of Christ and should remain pure and uncompromised.
Some new directions in evangelism and engagement are mani-
festations of a myopic movement which appeals to the disaffected
and trend-oriented. Any critique of their motives and methods is
viewed with suspicion and deemed to be judgmental. They dismiss
people who present a different theological perspective as those who
“know too much, talk too much and judge too much.” 7 This is both
unfair and unhelpful.
The missional church criticism of the attractional church is
rooted in the observation that there are so few conversions. They say
churches are “musty, fussy, clubby, judgmental, mean, punishing,
ungenerous....”8 It is an unfair generalization to have the faithful and
fervent work of so many pastors, elders, deacons, and church mem-
bers denigrated in this way. Yet we must examine ourselves to see if
there is an element of truth in this.
However, I think the missional church tends to see growth in nar-
row terms as an increase in numbers. But growth in a church context
is not just about people coming to faith but also about people growing
to maturity as individuals and also growing together in unity and love
as a community, and numerical growth may be part of this process.
Schismatic Squabble
Differences about how evangelism and engagement are to be con-
ducted have the potential to give rise to schismatic squabbles. I don’t
want to contribute to polemical debate, but new directions have
potentially dangerous undercurrents and I think it would be negligent
not to flag this. Our desire to engage with contemporary culture must
have safeguards against being ensnared by it. Many who start out
meaning well may otherwise end up watching Oprah, Larry King, or
Dr. Phil for spiritual guidance.
7. Hugh Halter and Matt Smay, The Tangible Kingdom (San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 2008), xxii.
8. Halter and Smay, The Tangible Kingdom, 11.
What are we to make of pastors leaving churches to become baris-

tas and bartenders in the belief that in so doing they will be more
effective witnesses for Christ? I suggest that people who do this were
never ideally suited to pastoral ministry. Rather, they were church
planters and evangelists. I wish them well but hope their new mission
outpost situations will stay connected to local church communities.
For the missional church, connecting with sojourners is par-
amount. They establish communities which permit anybody,
irrespective of belief or behavior, to belong. It appears to have a dis-
regard for doctrine and tradition and argues that we should set aside
our apologetics and theology and include those outside the kingdom.
Church communities must be places of benevolence and blessing; we
must extend a warm and genuine welcome to all. However, the theo-
logical and biblical reality is that a person does not belong to Christ
until and unless he has repented of his sin and confessed Christ as
Savior. We should not pretend that people belong when, in fact, they
do not. That would be deceptive and unwise. It is like allowing people
to come to our homes and dine with us. We can have a great deal of
interaction, but they are not members of our family.
Some new directions in mission tend to have an end-justifies-
the-means approach to involving non-believers in church ministries.
This has resulted in incidents such as stoned and drunk musicians
playing at their gatherings and the unconverted teaching Bible stories
to children. Boundaries are blurred and nobody in their communities
is bothered by this.
Because society has lost interest in “organized Christendom,”
there is a desire to offer it a radical alternative. An important ques-
tion, therefore, is whether or not this alternative is authentic to the
ideals of Scripture.
The missional church seems to have lost confidence in the effi-
cacy of preaching to accomplish God’s purposes. Maybe they have
been exposed to poor models of preaching; sadly, there is much of
that about. I believe that preaching Christ in a postmodern culture
is not only feasible but imperative. The missional church argues that
people won’t change by listening to preaching. But I wonder why Jesus
preached. Jesus was first and foremost a preacher. The Nazareth Mani-
festo identifies preaching as central to His ministry. If we want to model
Him, we cannot dismiss preaching. Even by their own admission, the
missional church says that “Christology determines missiology, and
missiology determines ecclesiology.”9 The whole notion of church is

being systematically deconstructed and radically redefined.
To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before

The missional desire to spend time with the un-churched is admi-
rable. They see themselves as pioneers who are taking risks in going
where no man has gone before. For them, the fulfillment of the Great
Commission to “go” is not merely about outreach evangelism pro-
grams; rather, it’s about living among and belonging. But we must
love the found as well as the lost. To what extent (if any) have we
contributed to the sense of disaffection which is giving rise to this
movement by inserting extra-biblical proscriptions, written and
unwritten (about issues like alcohol, smoking, styles of dress, etc.)
as conditions of membership in constitutions and codes of conduct?
The balance between being a community which confronts the
godless values of the cultural norms and being an inclusive com-
munity is difficult to achieve. The missional church is calling for a
revolution in inclusive community in which the masses will want to
participate. The distaste for present forms of church is evident in the
words of Hugh Halter: “The typical message has been to be good,
stop sinning, go to church, and wait for God to come back. Yuck.
It’s too simple.”10 Surely, it is right to stop sinning. Sin is grievously
offensive to God and to cease sinning is an indication that the person
has newness of life. This is what God wants and expects of converts.
Is it not right to go to a place where like-minded people assemble to
worship God as a community of believers? Did not the early church
have an eschatological hope that radically altered how it lived?
The missional church believes that through benevolent action in
the community, spiritual dialogue will ensue; they openly admit that
they would prefer doing something useful (like sweeping up leaves
in the community) on Sunday morning instead of going to church.
They will randomly cancel their gatherings so that they can do some-
thing alternative to worship. But the kingdom of God is not about
winning the Tidy Towns competition! Some churches have involved
their youth in making a positive contribution to the community by
9. Michael Frostl and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come (Grand Rap-
ids: Baker, 2004), 16.
10. Halter and Smay, The Tangible Kingdom, 74.
clearing up litter. This kind of activity can be very positive and can
open opportunities for conversations about how our faith motivates
us to do good deeds. The problem is in conducting such benevolent
acts as alternatives to church worship services. The missional church
does not seem to care much if people attend their Sabbath gatherings.
They encourage people to spend their Sunday mornings being with
sojourners. Perhaps the missional church is attractive because one does
not have to forsake much or believe much in order to belong to it.
The missional church talks about apprenticing disciples as more
authentic than cognitive discipleship. But Jesus taught His disciples
for three years and the Great Commission instructs us to “teach” all
that Christ has taught. This is clearly part of the discipleship pro-
cess. Maybe the discipleship process is best done through supervised
hands-on experience supplemented with teaching.
In his trenchant analysis of the cultural corruption weakening the
church’s thought and witness, David Wells argues that evangelicals
have blurred the distinctions between Christ and culture, and have
largely abandoned their traditional emphasis on divine transcendence
in favor of an emphasis on divine immanence. In doing so, they have
produced a faith in God that is of little consequence to those who
believe. He says, “There is a profound sense in which the church has
to be ‘otherworldly.’”11
Nobody is saying that everything in existing structures and the
prevailing modus operandi is sacrosanct. We must be open to the idea of
reviewing our structures to see if they hinder or help our goals. But
all of this must be done in the light of Scripture. In this new move-
ment, church becomes a discovery zone for participating sojourners
where the desire to be relevant leads to convictions being diluted. We
must be careful about how we proceed so that what is harmful can be
rejected and what is helpful can be retained as we seek to advance in
evangelism and engagement.
Evaluating Criteria
Are there any criteria that can be used to evaluate contemporary
approaches to mission? What is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit?
One would certainly hesitate to make unfair accusations or derive
11. David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading
Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 41.
inappropriate conclusions about any activity which might be authen-

tic. John MacArthur has presented material condensed, adapted, and
excerpted from Jonathan Edwards’ “The Distinguishing Marks of a
Work of the Spirit of God.”12 This MacArthur/Edwards article identi-
fies five distinguishing characteristics of the Holy Spirit’s work, based
on an analysis of 1 John 4:1–8. These are helpful in determining
whether or not emerging trends are a true work of God. MacArthur
says that a genuine work of the Holy Spirit exalts the true Christ,
opposes Satan’s interests, points people to the Scriptures, elevates
truth, and results in love for God and others. Let us examine the new
phenomenon in the light of this standard.
First, we must ask if the missional church upholds a scriptural
view of Christ. Clearly, the doctrine of the incarnation must be
affirmed. The missional church subscribes to this truth in asserting
that Jesus is the Son of God.13 The community of this new move-
ment genuinely desires to lead people to Christ. Christ is revered
(perhaps sentimentally) in this new movement.
Nevertheless, there is something imaginary about the Christ they
extol. I have already asserted that Jesus was a preacher. The missional
church makes a distinction between “Galilean Christians” and “Jeru-
salem Christians.” The Galilean Christians are those who interpret
the Bible through the life of Jesus; the Jerusalem Christians are more
doctrinal. This bias toward the Galilean way is quite subjective. They
see Jerusalem people as idolaters of the Bible who have overly intellec-
tualized spirituality. They have reduced the Bible to the Gospels and
argue that if we only had the Gospels Christianity would look very
different today. But we have the entire canon of Scripture because
God wanted to reveal more than what is disclosed in the Gospels.
Their tendency to ignore, reject, or devalue any Scripture that is not
directly spoken by Jesus is potentially heretical.
Second, a distinguishing mark of a work of the Spirit of God is
that it will oppose Satan’s interests. Satan desires that people remain
in a sinful condition and succumb to the lusts of the flesh. The mis-
sional church is not entirely indifferent to sinfulness, but its attitude
12. John MacArthur, Jr. “A True Work of the Spirit,” Grace to You broadcast.
See also: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/je-marksofhs.htm
13. As far as I am aware, they believe in the sinless life, substitutionary death/
atonement, resurrection, ascension, intercessory role, divinity, and second coming
of Christ.
toward sin is lax. They claim to create an environment in which the

conscience can become sensitive to the truth in relation to sin, but in
the absence of preaching about the dreadfulness of sin, they have cre-
ated an environment which is casual about sin.
A third mark that distinguishes a work of the Spirit of God is
that it points people to the Scriptures. The missional church does not
induce a high a regard for the whole counsel of God. As already men-
tioned, they tend to be red-letter people rather than biblical people;
they put a higher value on the words of Christ than on the words of
other authors of Scripture. This distorts revelation.
A fourth feature of a work of the Spirit of God is that it elevates
truth. Certainly, the missional church makes people more aware of
the central gospel truths. They may be effective in leading people to
faith but fall short of leading them to maturity in Christ.
The fifth and final mark that distinguishes a work of the Spirit of
God is that it results in love for God and others. The missional church
loves the lost and it is to be highly commended for this. They profess
to love God and I don’t doubt their sincerity in this regard. Neverthe-
less, the God they profess to love is eviscerated of much of the divine
nature as a sin-loathing God.
The missional church is not heretical, but it is a movement which
has potentially harmful effects. In spite of reservations about and
objections to its “unorthodox” irregularities and potential hazards, it
cannot be dismissed as a work of Satan. Must it, therefore, be embraced
as a work of the Holy Spirit? From past experience (consider the his-
tory of revival movements), it is clear that the Spirit of God can work
even in the midst of much that might be deemed problematic.
We should be very reluctant, therefore, to condemn a work in
which the Holy Spirit might be involved and we should have a similar
sense of hesitancy about contributing to the polarization of differing
Christian communities. But we must test the spirits and, where we
find deficiencies and dangers, we must be diligent in alerting others
to the potential pitfalls.
The Way Forward

Everyone’s ideas about mission are shaped by their theology. Much has
been written in recent years about mission, which focuses on meth-
odological approaches to engaging contemporary culture. Many of
these works boldly propose new ways of engaging with contemporary
culture. We must be concerned about keeping mission central to

church life and identifying a way forward in the labyrinthine com-
plexity of postmodern society.
The trendy literature suggests that the attractional model of the
church of Christendom is outmoded. It is an influential body of
work which contends that what is needed now is a missional and
incarnational Christian church. But these works tend to be primarily
focused on how to engage in mission rather than putting in place a
theological foundation which would underpin the missionary enter-
prise. What is needed is a biblical perspective on mission theology
that informs and shapes our understanding, approaches, and meth-
odologies in facing the unfinished task of “making disciples of all
nations.” This will not only safeguard and strengthen mission but
will also provide a means of evaluating trends which seek to influ-
ence future directions in mission activity.
Postmodernism presents a new frontier situation. We must have
a missionary impulse to bear witness to the gospel. Certainly, we
must adapt to the new environment but without compromising. We
live with the tension of seeking ways of contextualizing the gospel
without capitulating to culture. As the current cultural context is
emerging, we are in uncharted waters and navigating our way will
require experienced and savvy people at the helm.
Paradigm Shift
It is generally acknowledged now that a paradigm shift has taken
place. This “cultural sea change” has contributed to significantly wid-
ening the gulf between church and culture.14 This is not necessarily a
bad thing, because the Western church has had too cozy a relationship
with the prevailing culture. We now have to talk not about culture but
cultures, because we live in what might be called a pluriverse rather
than a universe. In this kaleidoscopic cultural context, we are all influ-
enced by a variety of cultures in diet, dress, art, architecture, music,
and the media. Secularization, cultural and religious pluralism, glo-
balization, and advances in technology have all had an impact on the
church’s role in society. It is not just city center churches that have
this mélange of cultures but rural churches as well. It is in response to
14. Graham Ward, “Introduction: ‘Where We Stand,’” in The Blackwell Compan-

ion to Postmodern Theology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), xv.
such challenges that new directions and departures in evangelism and

engagement have emerged.
Navigating this emerging missiological landscape will involve
experimenting with approaches to ministry that will challenge pres-
ent understandings of what it means to be the church today. These
challenges are new opportunities to engage in innovative forms of
communication and dialogue. Should we consider this taking place in
unconventional spaces, often referred to as the third place? This would
mean inhabiting places outside church buildings that are also inhab-
ited by non-Christians. The missional church thinks in terms of shared
space rather than sacred space. They see our commitment to buildings
as an absurd loyalty akin to the captain going down with the sinking
ship. Evangelists and theologians must work together like architects and
engineers in constructing a new order which is both attractive and safe.
Being Church Today

So, what does it mean to be the church today? It is about participating
in a way of life. It means an understanding that we are the gathered
community of God’s people. We gather around Christ and a body of
divinity, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, united as blood-brothers. We can
create all sorts of artificial communities, but the church is an organ-
ism, not an organization. It is a living, dynamic, and organic entity of
the redeemed.
The missional church challenges believers to leave their private
enclaves and comfort zones and infiltrate unorthodox and even profane
places. But discernment is needed. Some will reject the call out of hand
as an invitation to compromise which can only result in Christians
being contaminated. Others will rush in “where angels fear to tread.”
When visiting a city, it is helpful to find the map that says “you are
here,” accompanied by a big arrow pointing to the spot. We can navi-
gate from there. With regard to evangelism and engagement, there is
a sense in which the landscape does not change and the map does not
change, but we need to know where we are and re-orientate the map
so that we can head in the right direction.
Evangelism is not an elective element of the spiritual life. These
new approaches to evangelism and engagement have far-reaching
implications because they are not proposing prioritizing mission
within existing church structures. It is not about churches giving
more time to mission or conducting outreach more often. It is not
about preaching more about mission or having more missionaries

come and speak in the local church. It is not about more time being
given to prayer for mission. It is, rather, a complete reorientation of
the church, a reshaping of its life, a rediscovery of mission as the activ-
ity around which everything else is coordinated.15
Emerging Phenomenon
In the West, we are now living in what may be called the post-Chris-
tian era. Many people are no longer interested in what the church
has to offer. Paradoxically, in postmodern culture, there is new open-
ness to spirituality. In this situation, where the church in its present
institutionalized form is perceived as irrelevant, growing numbers of
Christians are engaging in more innovative missionary activity. But
the stories gathered from these emergent church projects give rise to
some concern about the future direction of mission. These spirited
experiments are primarily motivated by a desire within the church
to be more relevant to society in the twenty-first century. This rela-
tively new movement is not comprised merely of armchair theorists;
it is a radicalized and organized cohort of activists who are effectively
disseminating their message, recruiting adherents, and replicating
missional communities in Western society.
The missional church is an expression of the emerging church phe-
nomenon. It deemphasizes what it perceives to be as divisive doctrine
by emphasizing the primacy of relationship. This is characteristically
postmodern. They also elevate God’s (almost indiscriminate) love for
mankind over His essential holiness. By raising unity above truth, the
missional church creates an atmosphere where peace is the summum
bonum, that is, the supreme good from which all others are derived.
The missional church is essentially rooted in contemporary cul-
ture, and this fact may be the cause of its own demise. Philosophies
that are driven by culture are inexorably destined to disappear in time.
As Os Guinness warned, “He who marries the spirit of the age soon
becomes a widower.”16
The greatest threats to the health of the church are liberalism
on the one hand and legalism on the other. The avant-garde are the
15. Ward, “Introduction: ‘Where We Stand,’” 45.

16. Os Guinness, Dining with the Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). Google Ref-
erences attributes this remark to W. R. Inge, the famed Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral.
adventurers and innovators who pioneer new approaches and depar-

tures. They are more likely to gravitate to liberalism than legalism.
The missional church mentality is compatible with this instinct. The
rearguard, however, is comprised of those whose instinct is conserva-
tive and whose desire is to protect and preserve the status quo and as
such they are more likely to gravitate to legalism. I think we all have a
default mode in this regard.
Faith should not be inert and unchanging but dynamic and
vibrant. Our experiences of life must inspire reflection, and our inter-
action with others who hold different views ought to stimulate honest
appraisal and reappraisal of our own opinions and positions. Daniel
Migliore says:
Theology must be critical reflection on the community’s faith
and practice...not simply a reiteration of what has been or is cur-
rently believed and practiced by a community of faith. It is a
quest for truth, and that presupposes that the proclamation and
practice of the community of faith are always in need of exami-
nation and reform.... When this responsibility is neglected...the
faith of the community is invariably threatened by shallowness,
arrogance and ossification.17
Those with a risk-taking disposition want to face the white-water
rapids in a canoe. Those with a conservative bias would prefer to take
a trip in a barge on the canal. It is unlikely that those with a risk-
taking disposition and those with a conservative bias will enjoy a jour-
ney together. In this sense, the disposition of the Reformers at the
time of the Reformation was not conservative. This may be a surprise
to those who revere the Reformers as establishment heroes. We must
cherish a past that is not only connected to the present but also con-
nected to the future.
At the outset, I asked if the missional church was a menace or a
catalyst. I believe it is both. The words of Mr. Spock might be applied
to the missional church: “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it.”
Our theoretical presuppositions about mission and our theologi-
cal rationale for mission should be determined by the Word of God.
17. Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian

Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), xxi.
We must allow Scripture to speak for itself as the missionary manual

rather than impose our views upon it. Eric Wright says:
Nothing can be more important than to ensure that our mis-
sionary presuppositions reflect the principles of Scripture. This
will not be true if theology is ignored, because theology brings
us face to face with the principles, parameters and priorities that
God has revealed.18
Mission must be a Christ-centered intentional process of com-
municating the gospel in word and deed. An informed, biblical
missional view goes beyond the frequently quoted commissioning
passages to a more comprehensive perspective from Genesis to Rev-
elation. Nevertheless, the missionary mandate is about living out the
Great Commission with the passion of the Great Commandment (to
make disciples and love God and neighbor). Christ’s followers are to
take the gospel to all peoples (nations and ethnic groups) irrespective
of class, culture, or creed. This demands conviction, commitment,
and courage in the face of the objections of pluralism and the hostility
of anti-Christian fundamentalisms. Christians must avoid the pitfall
of theological liberalism which perceives evangelism as proselytizing.
Christians must also avoid the snare of religious legalism which is
nurtured in separatist enclaves.
Our God is a missionary God. The Bible is a missionary book. The
church is a missionary institution. Christ’s mandate is a missionary
mandate. The Great Commandment (to love) is to be the regulating
principle of all mission activity. Contemporary culture presents many
opportunities for the entrance of the gospel. So each church must find
ways of having meaningful interaction with those outside the church.
But this must be done without capitulating to the prevailing culture.
The missional church may be overzealous in its approach and
naïve in much of its activity, but it has led to some innovative ways
of engaging with culture. However, its central problem is its overem-
phasis on pragmatism. A. W. Tozer identified this issue as far back as
1955 when he said, “Religious pragmatism is running wild among the
orthodox. Truth is whatever works. If it gets results it is good.”19 Eric
18. Eric E. Wright, A Practical Theology of Missions: Dispelling the Mystery; Recover-
ing the Passion (Leominster, U.K.: DayOne, 2010), 10.
19. A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publica-
tions, 1955), 8.
Wright suggests that “the most pragmatic thing we can do in the long
run is to teach what God has revealed, trust his revealed methods and
try to apply them in dependence on the Holy Spirit.”20
Our involvement in the world comes about in a variety of natural
and intentional ways. One of the most obvious is in the workplace
(though, for pastors, this might be a problem because our world is
inhabited by Christians). There are other areas where the Christian
may come into contact with the world, such as sports, cultural pur-
suits, social activities, volunteering, educational programs, and politics.
Scripture refers to anyone involved in any form of government
as “God’s servant” (Rom. 13:4). God has ordained the powers that be
(Rom. 13:10). Clearly, the Christian individual may in good conscience
be involved in politics. The Old Testament character Daniel walked
with God and occupied a senior position in the Babylonian/Persian
civil service. Another Old Testament character, Joseph, was directly
involved in the government of Egypt. God’s people are not forbidden
to be involved in society. Some Christians have spearheaded important
social reform, such as William Wilberforce with the abolition of slavery.
There are many practical and positive ways in which we can let
our light shine. Our good deeds give credibility to the gospel message
which we proclaim. The Christian is to be concerned for good works
as well as good words. If we are to model the Master, we must realize
that He was compassionate and went about doing good (Acts 10:38).
But there is a difference between humanitarianism and Christian
mission. We need to ensure that we engage in more than philanthropy.
The essential difference is the gospel message of salvation. Christian
mission ministers to the soul of humanity and its greatest need: that
of a Savior. We must distinguish between the calling of the Christian
citizen to engage in social and political action and the mandate of the
church. Nevertheless, in certain contexts, the gospel has unavoidable
political implications.
Jesus could have gained enormous popularity if He had been
willing to respond to the people’s political agenda, but He resisted. We
must do likewise by resisting such temptations and being alert to the
danger of being used to further the world’s agenda, even when aspects
of that agenda are good causes. History abounds with sad examples of
the church being hijacked in this way. Para-church organizations that
20. Eric E. Wright, A Practical Theology of Missions, 10.

started out with an overtly Christian mission have drifted from their
formative ideals and have become virtually secularized. Examples of
this are the Salvation Army and the YMCA.
One of the major dangers facing the Christian church in contem-
porary culture is religious pluralism. The missionary frontier is the
line which separates belief from unbelief. That means that it is also
the line between false and true religion where cherished beliefs are
challenged, contradicted, or even, when necessary, condemned. For
example, the practice of sati in the Indian context was identified by
William Carey as morally wrong.
It is important that the Bible should be respected in any shap-
ing of things to come because it is the authoritative source of our
understanding of evangelism and engagement. The church’s mission
is about presenting the unique and universal claims of Jesus, and that
runs counter to the pluralist agenda. The church’s mission is about
calling people to repentance, faith, and community relationship. We
are partners in this great work in progress. Consider the challenging
words of the well-known hymn:
Facing a Task Unfinished21
Facing a task unfinished We bear the torch that flaming
That drives us to our knees; Fell from the hands of those
A need that, undiminished Who gave their lives proclaiming
Rebukes our slothful ease; That Jesus died and rose.
We, who rejoice to know Thee, Ours is the same commission,
Renew before Thy throne The same glad message ours;
The solemn pledge we owe Thee, Fired by the same ambition
To go and make Thee known. To Thee we yield our powers.
Where other lords beside Thee O Father who sustained them,

Hold their unhindered sway; O Spirit who inspired,
Where forces that defied Thee Savior, whose love constrained them
Defy Thee still today; To toil with zeal untired;
With none to heed their crying From cowardice defend us,
For life, and love, and light, From lethargy awake!
Unnumbered souls are dying Forth on Thine errands send us
And pass into the night. To labor for Thy sake.
21. Frank Houghton, Christian Hymns, ed. Paul E. G. Cook and Graham Har-
rison (Bryntirion, Bridgend: Evangelical Movement of Wales, 1977).
Review Article
q
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 383–388
The Reading of Scripture

pieter devries
q
Philip asked the chamberlain if he understood what he was reading.

The chamberlain replied honestly that he did not (Acts 8:26–39). What
happens when we read Scripture, and how do we determine what is
meant in Scripture? These questions are probed by the theological dis-
cipline of hermeneutics. This discipline has long been regarded as the
applicable rules of exegesis. Its leading principle used to be that the
Bible is the voice of the living God; however, since Friedrich Schleier-
macher (1768–1834), a more comprehensive view of hermeneutics has
risen. In this view, hermeneutics is the discipline which reveals how
the Bible text of long ago is relevant to the present time.
According to Schleiermacher, it is not the divine Author who
stands central, but the many human authors. We have to imagine
ourselves in their position in order to understand their writings even
better than they could themselves. According to Schleiermacher and
those of his persuasion, it is possible to trace the objective meaning
of the Bible text. As a consequence, however, the unity of Scripture
is abandoned. According to modern hermeneutics, the Bible contains
a diversity of religious convictions which not only complete but, in
some cases, also exclude each other.
We err greatly if we deny the possibility that the Bible text can
have an objective perpetual meaning that we can trace. This is the
claim in many contemporary studies of hermeneutics. The funda-
mental point is no longer the text and the author’s meaning, but the
reader and his presuppositions. From our own horizon, the text’s
horizon gets placed within our symbolic universe. Sometimes great
attention is paid to literary structures, attention that can be valuable
to us from a biblical point of view. But this train of thought involves
the idea that the historicity of the biblical stories is irrelevant. This is
an idea to be rejected entirely. The correct interpretation of Scripture

is a matter both of knowledge and of devotion—two things not to
be deliberated, but to be associated. When interpreting Scripture, we
need our understanding to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
Here is an evaluation of several works in the field of hermeneutics
that were published in recent years.
W. Randolph Tate. Interpreting the Bible: A Handbook of Terms and Methods.

Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006. 482 pp., paperback.
W. Randolph Tate gives a short survey of the interpretation of
the Bible in order to give an impression of its scope. The following
subjects are addressed: argumentum e silentio, intertexuality, antile-
gomena, canon, Gnostics, translation, text critics, narrative exegesis,
deconstruction, and semiotics. This is a manageable and clear man-
ual and reference book.
William Yarchin. History of Biblical Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hen-

drickson Publishers, 2004. 444 pp., hardcover.
William Yarchin, professor at Azusa Pacific University, wrote
this handbook of the history of Scripture’s interpretation. His book
is divided into five parts. He begins with pre-rabbinic Jewish exege-
sis. Then follows the patristic Script interpretation, the rabbinic, the
modern, and, lastly, the late modern interpretation of Scripture. The
first three surveys are particularly instructive. Yarchin lets the begin-
ning of the modern period coincide with the Reformation, which is
problematic since the upheaval that was set in motion by the Enlight-
enment is not properly evaluated. Another drawback is the fact that,
in the last parts, the voices of those who adhere to the self-authenti-
cating character of Scripture are hardly heard.
Peter Masters. Not like any other Book: Interpreting the Bible. London:
Wakeman Trust, 2004. 161 pp., paperback.
Peter Masters, minister of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in Lon-
don, underlines that, when reading the Bible and its interpretation,
we can only do it justice if we acknowledge the unique character
of Scripture, namely, as the Word of God. Like the Reformers, he
maintains the notion that Scripture has only one meaning. He disas-
sociates, however, from an inferior application by neglecting to learn
spiritual lessons from Bible stories. He disputes that the parables of
The Reading of Scripture 385
Jesus should only have an ethical message. He is right in proposing

that the parables clearly present to us the meaning of God’s kingdom
in all its aspects.
Masters points out a number of important aspects of explain-
ing Scripture. He begins with the necessity of praying for the Holy
Spirit’s light and an attitude full of reverence regarding Scripture. Mas-
ters abhors any restriction of the normative character of Scripture. He
rightfully proposes the sufficiency of Scripture in all respects. He does
not deny the necessity to study Scripture in order to understand the
concrete meaning of Scripture for our practical walk of life. He also
gives a number of criteria, such as that the whole of Scripture is binding
unless Scripture clearly revokes itself, as in the case of the Mosaic laws.
Another possibility is that Scripture itself clearly restricts certain things.
Masters mentions that the apostles performed signs and miracles.
But we do not live in the time of the apostles; the vocation of apostle was
unique. When Paul in 1 Corinthians writes not to prefer the married
state, he also says that he writes this in view of concrete persecution.
We have to consider that things described in the Bible have not auto-
matically been approved; there is a difference between description and
prescription. In a different cultural context, the same basic principle can
and may be practiced in a way differing from the original. Masters then
mentions as examples the washing of the disciples’ feet and the holy kiss.
Masters’s appendix gives concrete direction for the preparation
of a sermon. I sincerely recommend this study of Masters. This rec-
ommendation is meant in particular for ministers and students of
theology. I have only two small recommendations for this valuable
book: in his rejection of a too vulgar notion of the literary meaning
of Scripture, Masters is not sufficiently critical of allegory. We have
to bear in mind the difference between allegory as a figure of speech
and as a means to explain history. He sometimes seems to reject all
contemporary academic theology when there are some instances of
academic theology that are true to Scripture, rare though this may be.
Grant R. Osborne. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduc-

tion to Biblical Interpretation. Revised and Expanded. Wheaton, Ill.: IVP,
2006. 624 pp., paperback.
This is an example of an academic work about the interpreta-
tion of Scripture that fully respects the unique character of Scripture.
Osborne, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, maintains the objective meaning of Scripture. Nowadays

many have the opinion that it is impossible to affirm this and move
beyond simply deducing how a denomination understood Scripture.
This switch from the objective meaning of the text to the reader/
denomination who gives to the text its meaning is typically postmod-
ern. Everybody is bound up with his own history; no one approaches
Scripture unprejudiced. However, our views need to be corrected by
Scripture so that we can understand Scripture better. Thus Osborne’s
picture of a hermeneutic spiral, not a circle.
The way Osborne interprets the meaning of the Bible is very
clarifying. The Scriptures explain what came to happen. They offer a
window into reality. The reader is moved to a concrete reaction—for
example, to identify with or reject a certain person and his actions.
Parables function as windows and particularly as mirrors. Thinking
of Masters’s book, there is one aspect I missed with Osborne and
which hardly occurs in any contemporary work on hermeneutics—
even if it is faithful to the Bible: the necessity to be born again and
to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit in order to understand Scrip-
ture properly. In pre-Enlightenment hermeneutics, this was always
emphasized. Think of the work of John Owen: The Causes, Ways, and
Means of Understanding the Mind of God as Revealed in His Word with
Assurance Therein. Scientific capability should always remain embed-
ded in secret communion with God. Masters’s work is aimed at a
more popular level and thus is less profound in the academic sense,
yet it is more aligned with classic Reformed theology than Osborne’s.
Gerard Maier. Biblical Hermeneutics. Translated by Robert Yarbrough.

Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994. 526 pp., paperback.
This book was originally published in German. It shows us,
among other things, that not all German Bible academics are Bible
critics. Maier’s book is not about the rules of Scripture explanation
(although these are also mentioned, specifically when it deals with
the meaning of categories of script interpretation); it is primarily
about the fundamental points of departure for the interpretation of
Scripture. He pleads for specific Bible hermeneutics. The Bible as the
inspired Word of God is entirely unique. Whoever wants to under-
stand Scripture has to do justice to this. The exegete has to conform
to the Bible, not vice versa.
The Reading of Scripture 387
Maier wishes to follow the Reformation and German Pietism.

Like Bengel, he says that whoever wants to understand Scripture
needs to commit entirely to Scripture and let himself be transformed
by it. We learn to understand Scripture by getting familiar with it.
The emphasis on the concrete relation with Scripture is, according
to Maier, the weak spot of many American fundamentalists. Quite
rightly, he points out that fundamentalism is a multi-colored phe-
nomenon. He supports their wish to uphold the authority of Scripture
right down the line, rejecting historical-critical exegesis.
Maier points to the principle of analogy formulated by Troeltsch,
which excludes miracles because they are without analogy. Whatever
the Bible makes known to us as history is indeed history. Revelation
prevails. In view of this, Maier disputes that the gospels should be
only proclamations and thus cannot be biography or history. Proc-
lamation is inextricably bound up with historical facts; if we deny
that, the character of proclamation is changed. Maier draws atten-
tion to the fact that the focus today is primarily on ethics as criterion
rather than on the reliability of what is presented as history. Referring
to principles supposedly superior to the Bible weakens its authority.
Maier argues that Scripture can be read with an attitude other than
the current post-Enlightenment position; he emphatically defends
pre-critical exegesis.
Maier promotes reading Scripture the same way that the church
did until the Enlightenment. While we can profit from the Enlight-
enment’s attention to the historical character of Scripture, we must
beware that we are not induced by the idea that a text from the past
cannot be directly relevant to the present. Since the Enlightenment,
more attention is given to the diversity of Scripture witness. This may
also be allowed for, if only we consider the diversity from the unity of
scriptural testimony. On the one hand, Maier intends to do justice to
newer exegetical opinions and, on the other hand, to show that revela-
tion has to rule over method.
Maier supports what he calls the biblical-historical method,
also called the grammatical-historical method. The word historical
highlights the importance of context and background. Phrases and
expressions need to be understood within the text’s genre. The text’s
message also needs to be determined. Maier rightly emphasizes the
importance of the salvation-historical character of biblical revelation.
Maier strongly argues against separating application from exegesis.

Real exegesis involves application, and good application evolves from
exegesis; separating them is an offensive fruit of the Enlightenment.
Because of the objective character of Scripture, even non-believers
can understand and discuss Scripture, but in order to understand its
deepest meanings, we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit. This
notion has all but disappeared from theology today.
The real study of Scripture is never without prayer and also not
without trial and temptation. This is what connects the interpreters of
the present with generations before them. Maier’s book is extremely
valuable in particular for preachers and students of theology.
Book Reviews
q
PRJ 3, 2 (2011): 391–408
Book Reviews
q
John Carrick. The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards. Edinburgh: Banner of

Truth Trust, 2008. 465 pp., hardcover.
This is a very important book on one of America’s most important
pastor-theologians. In the realm of Edwards studies, relatively little
attention has been given to the theology and rhetoric of his preach-
ing. Carrick’s work is significant, not only for its historical interest,
but because it dissects Edwards’s preaching in a manner that sets him
forth as a pattern of powerful rhetoric for contemporary preachers.
In particular, Jonathan Edwards is an excellent model for blending
together strong exposition, sound doctrine, and piercing application.
This healthy mixture is conspicuously absent in most modern preach-
ing, making Carrick’s work not simply a useful read but a necessary
one in our day and age.
This large book is divided into twenty-eight chapters, which treat
virtually every feature of Edwards’s sermons, including introductions,
doctrine, application, illustrations, conclusions, and much more. The
chapters on “God-Centeredness” (ch. 2), “Introductions” (ch. 8), “Dif-
ferent Categories of Hearers” (ch. 16), and “The Spirit of God” (ch. 27)
are particularly helpful. The last of these reveals the heart of Carrick’s
treatment of Edwards’s preaching. We must not simply view Edwards’s
sermons from a literary standpoint, but from a homiletical and spiri-
tual standpoint (444). As much as we have to learn from Edwards’s
rhetoric and style of preaching, the greatest lesson that we have to
learn from him is dependence upon and confidence in the power of
the Third Person in the Trinity in our preaching. This leaves readers
with a carefully maintained balance between developing effective rhe-
torical methods in preaching, while simultaneously placing all hope
and dependence upon the Spirit of God rather than upon methods.
Edwards’s use of application in his sermons is both gripping in its

force and astonishing in its breadth and depth. One of the primary
needs in modern preaching is to recover powerful and searching ap-
plication that is deeply rooted in a thorough exposition of Scripture
and a clear understanding of theology. Edwards is perhaps one of
the most preeminent examples of effective sermon application in the
history of Christianity. This reason alone makes this book one that
ministers cannot afford to pass by.
An interesting feature of this work is how the author has inter-
woven the historical context of Edwards’s life with his treatment of
Edwards’s sermons. The result is that, instead of reading as a bare list
of citations and observations, the book presents a gripping narrative.
It abounds with primary source evidence, much of which has been
gleaned from the recently completed Yale edition of Edwards’s Works.
The interaction with secondary literature is thorough as well, though
it would have been useful to situate Edwards’s preaching in the his-
toric context of Reformed orthodoxy in general; there is little to no
emphasis or comparison of Edwards to contemporary or previous
Reformed preaching. Although Edwards lived during the transition
between the era of Reformed orthodoxy and the Enlightenment,
several aspects of his preaching, such as “Confutation” (ch. 18) and
“Objections and Answers” (ch. 22), have historical roots and prec-
edents in Medieval Scholasticism as well as in subsequent so-called
Protestant Scholasticism. That being said, the influence of theologi-
cal methodology on Reformed orthodox preaching is a topic that has
been generally neglected.
The primary drawback to this book is the absence of subdivisions.
In closely printed chapters that often reach twenty pages, the lack of
divisions in the text can make reading cumbersome. The material is,
however, well organized and easy to follow.
Ministers who avail themselves of Carrick’s labor of love on
The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards will do good service both to them-
selves and to their congregations. The author both loves his subject
and exemplifies the principles gleaned from it in his own preaching.
May the Lord use this book to help produce a generation of wise and
Spirit-filled preachers.
—Ryan M. McGraw
Book Reviews 393
William Greenhill, Stop Loving the World, ed. Jay T. Collier. Grand
Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. 73 pp., paperback.
Worldliness is an increasing problem in Western Christendom.
No one wants to admit that they are worldly, but the tragic fact is that
Christians have often lost sight of how the Bible defines worldliness.
In this second installation of Puritan Treasures for Today, Jay Collier
has carefully updated the language of William Greenhill’s sermon on
this topic. Jay is the editor for Reformation Heritage Books and he is
well qualified for this task through his ample experience with Puritan
literature. Greenhill was very influential in his time, but until now,
few of his works have been reprinted. This lengthy sermon has been
divided into six chapters and presented as a short and easily accessible
book. Jay has done an excellent job with chapter divisions, subhead-
ings, and bullet points, making the thought of the book easy to follow.
In this work, Greenhill plumbs into the depths of our hearts and
asks hard questions. The problem with loving the world is that we
hate it when our inordinate love is pointed out to us. Based upon the
imperative in 1 John 2:15, the author summarizes John’s meaning:
“Do not love the creatures of the world, the customs and fashions of
the world, or the splendor, pomp, glory, and worship of the world.
These three meanings of ‘world’ are all understood in our text” (5).
The topic of worldliness is extensive, but the primary test of worldli-
ness is simple: is the glory of God and Jesus Christ the primary theme
that sets the context for all the activities of our lives (20–21)? If we live
for the next world rather than for the present world, then everything
that we do in this life will be transformed.
Two examples illustrate Greenhill’s point. When we consider a
calling in life, do we pursue that which profits us most or that which fits
us best (39)? If we are more concerned with our earthly profit than with
a realistic and God-glorifying use of our gifts, then we are worldly to
that extent. Another point is that our convictions must precede our ap-
plications (65). Too often our tendency is to pursue what we want and
then to justify it in hindsight by saying that we do all things to the glory
of God. Greenhill does not let us get away with this kind of thinking.
Instead, our lives must follow our convictions as they are shaped by the
Word of God. This is the lion’s share of the cure to the worldliness that
is creeping in unawares upon the church today. Read this book to be
convicted, to pray, to repent, and to follow Christ more closely.
—Ryan M. McGraw
Darrin Patrick. Church Planter. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010. 238 pp.,
paperback.
The history of Christian missions has been marked by a series of
transitional movements and trends. At present, the church planting
movement is the most significant. In many respects, this is a wel-
comed development. Church planting was held in high esteem by the
Reformers; in fact, the Reformation was itself a church planting move-
ment. John Calvin was the instrumental figure behind the planting
and establishing of 2,150 churches in France in a matter of just two
years. Somewhere along the way, the Reformed church lost its passion
for local church planting. As the population of North America grows,
the number of churches per capita has rapidly decreased. In the face
of this decline, the Lord has raised up a number of young men eager
to set out to meet the challenge of starting new churches and reaching
the lost. Darrin Patrick is one such man. Church Planter is a com-
pendium of what Patrick deems to be the most essential elements of
healthy, biblical church planting.
Church Planter is organized into three main sections (also the subtitle
of the book): The Man, the Message, the Mission. Moving from the call for
converted and spiritually minded men to the call for Christ-centered
men to the call for culturally engaging men, Patrick unfolds a series of
statistics, stories, Scripture, and sociological observations to bolster his
arguments. This book is saturated with an experiential quality, leaving
the reader challenged and convicted in many places. It is written in a
clear and simple style, making it accessible to a broad audience.
In the preface, Patrick admits a thoroughly complementarian ap-
proach. Convinced that God calls only men to plant churches, preach
the gospel, and pastor the flock, Patrick offers a series of observations
about the decline of male leadership and maturity in our culture. His
honesty is appreciated. Anyone who has entered adulthood in the last
three decades should be able to attest to the legitimacy of his observa-
tions. Evangelical churches have failed to patiently bring the needed
change. Patrick’s audience is diverse, and many of his reflections stem
from his own experiences as a youth minster and pastor.
The first seven chapters address the greatest need for church
planters—namely, that they be converted, sanctified, Christ-
dependent men. These chapters are the most searching and experien-
tial in their quality. The reader is brought face to face with his sin and
his need for the saving grace of Christ. The chapters are thoroughly
Book Reviews 395
evangelical in tone. There are times, however, when Patrick’s state-

ments need more careful qualification. Sometimes the reader is
left with more questions than the book is prepared to answer. For
instance, while writing about the pressing need for ministers to be re-
generate men, Patrick writes, “Many pastors enter the ministry with
serious doubts about their own salvation! Could this be one reason
why thousands of churches will close their doors this year in North
America?” (24). While the statements surrounding the above quote
are accurate, the oversimplification of the language could lead to the
idea that anyone who does not have a full assurance of their salvation
is not regenerate. Those who have read the biographies or autobiog-
raphies of ministers throughout church history know that many of
them struggled to gain and keep assurance in their everyday Chris-
tian experience. Overgeneralizations like this surface every now and
then throughout the book, but Patrick is to be admired for his deep
concern about unconverted ministers. These seven chapters cover a
number of searching analyses concerning conversion, call, and mo-
tives necessary for a God-honoring ministry.
The next five chapters deal with the message entrusted to the
church planter. These are by far the most theologically substantive
chapters in the book. Patrick’s commitment to the articulation and
application of the gospel is praiseworthy. Standing squarely in the
biblical-theological tradition, he repeatedly returns to Christ’s law-
keeping, substitutionary atonement, and resurrection as the principle
message of Christian preaching. Dealing with such topics as the rela-
tionship between the indicative and imperative, Patrick ensures that
the reader understands his need to preach Christ, first as Savior and
then as example. In his typical analytical fashion, Patrick raises the
warning against moralism, relativism, self-helpism, and activism. It
is refreshing to find a gospel-centered approach permeating the sub-
stance of these chapters.
The remaining chapters deal with the mission of the church. The
range of topics under consideration varies; however, one theme unites
them all: the mission of God to redeem lost sinners and a fallen world.
One of the principle distinctives of Church Planter and the missional
movement (of which Patrick is a prominent leader) on the whole, is a
desire to see lost sinners brought to saving faith in Christ. Perceiving a
real deficiency in Reformed churches, Patrick—who classifies himself
as being soteriologically Reformed—wants to challenge the church
planter to ground his church upon worship and zeal to win the lost to
Christ. With regard to the later commitment, the call to radical com-
passion and community is emphasized. As is true with much of the
previous subject matter, the content of these chapters is searching and
challenging. Patrick expounds upon such subjects as compassion, the
church, contextualization, care, and city transformation.
There are a few criticisms that must be raised. The first has to
do with the way in which the foundation of Scripture is sometimes
overshadowed by sociological analysis. The inclusion of sociology
into our formation of methodology is a detailed process that re-
quires great knowledge and care. The context of the chapters on
contextualization and city transformation are insightful and thought
provoking; however, it quickly becomes evident that a fair amount
of historical and theological background is needed for the reader
to safely enter into the conversation. Patrick highlights areas of the
local church that have clearly been neglected or distorted. His ob-
servations and solutions will seem palpable to many upon a prima
facia reading. Patrick effectively brings the reader to the place of ask-
ing whether due consideration of these subjects has been given, and
whether they are or will be integrated into the fabric of a church
plant. They must, however, be read with care. Young men are often
ready to buy into a systematic methodology without adequately in-
vesting the time needed to learn opposing arguments and come to an
informed decision. In addition, the reader must do the hard work of
exegeting the biblical passages to which Patrick appeals throughout
the book. Exegesis, hermeneutics, and historical theology must be
guiding principles for the reader to sift through the discussion about
contextualization and cultural transformation.
The criticisms raised above are not meant to discount the value
of the book. There is a great amount of beneficial material for church
planters and pastors alike. The man who has a grasp on exegetical,
hermeneutical, and historical theology will be more apt to be able to
think through some of the ideological content quickly; as he does so,
he will be able to glean many helpful things from it. The confession-
ally Reformed church planter must allow himself to be challenged
while avoiding some of Patrick’s sociologically driven conclusions
on contextualization and cultural transformation. The broad Cal-
vinist or evangelical church planter must give heed to the criticisms
raised and work diligently to study the history of Reformed exegesis,
Book Reviews 397
methodology, and ecclesiology. Overall, Church Planter is a delightful,

challenging, and edifying book from which all involved in church
planting may benefit.
—Nicholas T. Batzig
q
Philip Sutherland Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theo-
logical Basis for the Three-fold Division of the Law. Fearn, Ross-shire,
Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2010. 426 pp., paperback.
Notwithstanding the vast number of theological volumes pub-
lished in recent years, two deficiencies remain: the first is a lack of
careful scholarship guided by a historically Reformed hermeneutic;
and the second is the scarcity of volumes written on neglected sub-
jects. In his first major theological publication, Philip Ross has given
us a work that is both scholarly and needed. From the Finger of God is
the substance of Ross’s Ph.D. thesis. In it he competently defines and
defends the systematic categories of the Mosaic legislation, commonly
known as the tri-partite division of the law (i.e., the moral, ceremonial,
and civil laws of the Mosaic legislation). Throughout the book, Ross
exhibits both a breadth of scholarship and a cogent appeal to the appli-
cability of his subject matter. He provokes within the serious student
a desire to go deeper at every turn.
With a schedule full of prayer, teaching, preaching, visitation,
evangelism, training, and administering—the pastor knows his limi-
tations with regard to scholarly study. He must be selective in how
he spends his time. While such detailed analysis is not usually pos-
sible for the busy pastor, From the Finger of God will prove to be a
worthwhile use of every pastor’s time and mental exertion. Its appli-
cability to the pulpit ministry will be quickly discovered and cannot
be overemphasized.
In the wake of nineteenth-century revivalism, Protestant churches
largely abandoned confessional adherence and welcomed any attempt
to revise existing systems of thought. The rise of Dispensationalism
played the primary role in this shift. Instead of reading the Bible through
the unifying lens of covenant, the Testaments were viewed as two books
written to two different people. While the Westminster divines readily
admitted two dispensations, or administrations, of the one covenant
of grace, Dispensationalist theologians abandoned historic covenant
theology and drove their systematic theology through presuppositions

of discontinuity. Today, modifications of original Dispensationalism,
such as Progressive Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology
(NCT), make it difficult for students of theology to wade through all
the nuances. Ross interacts quite substantially with some of the more
influential theologians of the NCT movement, such as D. A. Carson.
Carson has openly rejected the idea of the tri-partite division.
Coming to a settled understanding of the role that the law plays
in the life of the believer is one of the more difficult challenges that
the pastor faces today. Over the past two decades, the evangelical
world has been subject to a large-scale call for exegetical revision of
the moral law, particularly the fourth commandment. While there
have always been varying degrees of emphasis placed on the extent to
which the moral law should be utilized in the teaching and preach-
ing ministry, Ross suggests that there has always been a great deal of
catholicity with respect to the tri-partite division of the law, and the
binding nature of the moral law on all men descending from Adam.
The moral commands given at Sinai and the moral law written on
the heart of Adam are one and the same; therefore, it is unthinkable
that this standard should be abrogated. God’s ethical standard never
changes, even if it is applied in specific ways and for specific purposes
in redemptive history in the Mosaic legislation.
As to the arrangement of the book, it is divided according to a
biblical-theological division of the canon. The chapters transition
from the Mosaic period to the prophetic era, from the prophets to
Christ, and from Christ to the apostles. The book ends with a con-
sideration of the apostolic teaching concerning the three divisions and
their cessation and/or continuation in the New Covenant era. In addi-
tion to providing an impressive historical analysis of the subject, Ross
engages in serious theological and exegetical investigation.
From the outset of the work, Ross highlights the importance of
defending the tri-partite division of the Mosaic Law. First, he explains
that “the rejection of the threefold division, with its view that moral law
and sin are defined by the Decalogue” (1) is inseparably linked to the
doctrine of the atonement. One cannot tamper with the moral stan-
dards, binding on all men for all time, without in some way tampering
with the definition of sin and therefore with the atonement Christ
provided for sin. Ross is also interested in answering the question of
the Christian, “Am I still bound to obey the Mosaic Law?” (5). He
Book Reviews 399
wastes no time observing that the rejection of the tri-partite division

rests almost exclusively on the rejection of the fourth commandment
in modern evangelical and Reformed circles. While this book is not
a defense of the fourth commandment per se, a large amount of the
material is an interaction with the thoughts of those who reject the
continuing obligation of the commandment. Ross draws out the im-
plication of this when he writes, “Attempts at performing a precision
strike on the Sabbath produce an embarrassing amount of unintended
damage. Strike out the Sabbath and you also shatter the entire category
of moral law and all that depends on it” (6). Ross shows the extent to
which anti-Sabbatarianism has taken root in the minds of even those
who call for a public display of the Ten Commandments in American
courthouses. He writes, “Even churchgoers who express such opinions
are inclined to hesitate a little, if not retreat from their pro-Decalogue
stance, when the subject turns to the fourth commandment” (161).
Throughout the volume, Ross repeatedly reminds the reader of the
interconnectedness of one’s view of the moral law with one’s under-
standing of the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of Christ’s fulfillment of
the law, the doctrine of the atonement, and worship.
By appealing to the Westminster Standards, Ross establishes that
the tri-partite division is clearly articulated in the document that most
fully expresses the ecumenical systematization of Protestant doctrine.
Ross is not interested, however, merely to provide the widespread ac-
ceptance of the division among Reformed theologians; he is eager to
prove that “the threefold division of the law is catholic doctrine” (1).
Ross sets out to prove the catholicity of the tri-partite division of the
law of God by an impressive consideration of first source statements
from theologians of the first century to the present. It doesn’t take
long to discover the impressive breadth of historical analysis and re-
search that Ross exhibits.
Ross also aptly shows that our view of the Torah must rest largely
upon our systematic theology and hermeneutical methodology. He en-
gages with theologians and archeologists who have promoted many and
various views of the Pentateuch. Whether interacting with those who
employ modified forms of higher criticism or those who have adopted
the use of Ancient Near Eastern literature as the guiding hermeneutical
tool, Ross’s citations and analysis reveal an impressive work of scholarship.
One of the vital arguments of Ross’s thesis is that the moral
law—given at Sinai prior to any of the cultic or juridical laws—runs
through the entirety of the Mosaic legislation as the implied moral

kernel of the ceremonial and civil laws. This is the unifying principle
of the law and its threefold distinction. He explains:
Even if the threefold division categorizes certain laws as essen-
tially ceremonial, it recognises a moral aspect to those laws and
treats them as subservient to morality. While prooftexts do not
reveal the sole basis for confessional statements, they do give
some indication of what various ‘instructions of moral duties’
might point to. The Westminster Confession’s references to 1 Cor-
inthians 5:7 and 2 Corinthians 6:17 suggest that the divines’
primary focus was the implied moral demands of ceremonial
law rather than ethical stipulations that appeared within laws
categorized as ceremonial (292).
When he comes to take up the sticky issue of whether the civil law
is binding on men in the New Covenant era, Ross enters into a dis-
cussion of the confession’s statements about the judicial laws having
“expired with the state of that people,” together with the “the general
equity” clause. Ross stresses the importance of understanding what
is meant by the word “expired.” Providing one of the more interest-
ing parts of the book, Ross interacts with the divines’ use of Genesis
49:10 —the proof text supplied to defend the idea that the civil laws
were only binding until Christ came to reign over Judah.
For the pastor, one of the essential distinctions that Ross makes
in this volume is between how the moral law functions in its pre-
lapsarian relationship in the covenant of works, and it’s role in the life
of the believer in the covenant of grace. This is a crucial distinction
in understanding the various ways that the Westminster divines use
the word “binding.” When they speak of the moral law as “a rule of
life” (4) and as something that “directs and binds” (4) men to walk
accordingly, they do not omit the qualification that “true believers
be not under the law as covenant of works, to be thereby justified or
condemned” (4). Ross notes:
The Westminster Confession begins its lengthy explanation of the im-
plications of moral law binding all with the statement that ‘true
believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby
justified or condemned.’ It is in this sense that passages such as Ro-
mans 6:14 –15 that might otherwise be interpreted as proclaiming
absolute freedom from the law are understood. ‘You are not under
Book Reviews 401
law but under grace’ therefore points not to the Mosaic economy
but to moral law ‘as a covenant of works’ or something to be ful-
filled in order to be justified. To be ‘dead to the law’ (Rom. 7:4 –6;
Gal. 2:19) is to be free from that impossible burden. Believers are
dead to the hope of justification by works. (347)
Ross’s reflections are praiseworthy on so many levels that one
hesitates to offer any criticisms. However, in his section on the civil
law and its use in the New Testament, the reader could benefit from
more detailed interaction with the specific penal case laws, their
place in redemptive history, and the spiritual application of them by
the apostles in the New Testament epistles. It is somewhat surpris-
ing that Ross does not expound Galatians 3:13—a text wherein the
theological significance of a specific penal sanction is applied to the
crucifixion of Christ. The obedient Son is treated as the disobedient
son (Deut. 21:18–21). Though He was sinless, He was accused of be-
ing a “drunkard and a glutton” (Matt. 12:19). In the law, such a son
was to be taken to the elders of the city and—if found guilty—stoned
and hung on a tree (Deut. 21:23). As to the spiritual application of the
case laws to the New Covenant church, the reader would certainly
have benefited from a discussion of 1 Corinthians 5:13, where the
apostle exhorts the church to “put away...the evil person.” This direct
quote from Deuteronomy 17:7; 19:19; 22:21, 24; and 24:7, in its OT
context, is used with reference to putting to death someone who has
committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. In 1 Corinthians, it
is used with reference to church discipline. There is an obvious shift
from the civil to the ecclesiastical sphere with regard to the applicabil-
ity of the civil law.
Despite this minor criticism, Ross’s work is a masterpiece and a
much-needed work; it is a tour de force of theological depth and analy-
sis. Whether one agrees with Ross’s conclusions or not, this book will
provide pastors and scholars with a wealth of background knowledge
with which to interact. After all, his subject matter is nothing less
than words that have come from the finger of God.
—Nicholas T. Batzig
George Swinnock, The Fading of the Flesh and the Flourishing of Faith,
ed. J. Stephen Yuille. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books,
When it comes to old books, I am a purist. Ordinarily, something
is lost along the way in translations or abridgments. However, as a
pastor, I have come to recognize that most Christians do not have
adequate time or dedication to become familiar with the language of
older authors. This means that a rich treasure of unparalleled Chris-
tian literature is lost to the vast body of believers today. Reformation
Heritage Books has sought to remedy this problem with the series,
Puritan Treasures for Today. The books in this series are neither transla-
tions nor abridgments. Instead, the publisher has sought out authors
who are familiar with the Puritans in order to smooth out difficult
language for contemporary readers. The language is updated with
great care in such a way that the original remains intact. Moreover,
they have selected books that are short in length and that address
issues of contemporary importance. The result is a series of small,
inexpensive, and easily accessible books that bring the wisdom of the
Puritans to a contemporary world. These small works encapsulate
warm-hearted practical theology that is so rare in our age that most
church members do not know what they are missing.
The Fading of the Flesh and the Flourishing of Faith by George Swin-
nock is the first installation in this series. This book is based upon
his sermons on Psalm 73:26: “My flesh and my heart faileth: but
God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.” In typical
Puritan fashion, Swinnock begins with an overview of the psalm in
context, which gradually narrows to a brief exposition of his selected
text. The subject matter is roughly divided into two parts. First, the
concept that our flesh is fading and that we must consider death as an
inevitable reality (chapters 1–8). Second, the glorious consideration
that God alone is suitable to satisfy man’s soul (chapters 9–20). The
book as a whole reads as an extended evangelistic tract that drives
people to the conviction of their sins, faith in Christ, and the neces-
sity of repentance. The most delightful part of the argument resides
in the manner in which the author entices his readers by meditations
upon the all-satisfying nature of God so that every other means of
satisfaction appears as dust and ashes by comparison. While it is true
that sinners do not love God by nature, it is true as well that most
people have never considered what the Bible says about the beauty
Book Reviews 403
and glory of the Lord. In chapter 17 (“Choose God as Your Por-

tion”), Swinnock becomes so enraptured with the pleasure that he
finds in God that he bursts forth into exuberant doxology. Because
the language of the book has been updated, you can actually give this
book to unbelievers as an evangelistic tract and they will be able to
understand it.
The only significant flaw in this work seems to be an under-
emphasis upon the Holy Spirit. It is surprising that while the Father
and the Son predominate in the author’s meditations upon God’s
glory, the Spirit is mentioned rarely. That caveat aside, this book is a
feast for the soul. Swinnock’s use of illustrations rivals even Thomas
Watson and the overall tone of the work is very comforting.
—Ryan M. McGraw
q
Carl Trueman. Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of

History. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010. 192 pp., paperback.
Carl Trueman’s latest work, Histories and Fallacies, is what readers
familiar with his style have come to expect: witty, erudite, wide-
ranging, and thoughtful. Trueman’s book examines the approximate
science of historical writing, conveyed with a literary flourish and ref-
erences ranging from pop-culture to politics. The slim volume is not
a light read as it brings the reader to grapple with both philosophical
approaches to the understanding of history and historical method.
In his introduction, Trueman provides us with some insight into
his own formation as a historian before outlining the remainder of the
book. His first chapter addresses the issue of the pursuit of objectivity,
highlighting the concern to present accurate descriptions and analy-
ses of historical realities, and the need to defend the possibility and
legitimacy of this endeavor in the light of increasing historical relativ-
ism. Using the dark backdrop of the Holocaust and the movement
of Holocaust denial as a case study and foil, Trueman ably notes the
inconsistency of the deconstructive trend in historiography, provid-
ing helpful insights and cautions for the history student and historian
along the way. The chapter weaves together astute reminders on the
nature of historical evidence, historical method, the inherent biases
and interests of the historian, and historical theory.
Trueman’s own approach as a historian begins to emerge in this

first chapter; he notes that “we need to make a distinction between
historical theories (Marxism and the like) and historical practice”
(55). While qualifying that there “can be a somewhat gray area” be-
tween the two, he is content in the main to focus on methodology,
with some critique and analysis of theory along the way.
The second chapter of Histories and Fallacies is devoted substan-
tially to the “grand schemes” of interpretation. Trueman reminds the
reader “history is not the same as the past. It is rather a re-presentation
of the past...with all of the contingency and limitations that such im-
plies” (69). Picking up on his earlier, substantial separation between
historical method and theory, Trueman notes that “it is often the case
that history has been pursued by those committed to a very tight and
closed view of what the world is and how it operates” (73).
For those who have read Trueman in other contexts, it is not
surprising that he turns to examine Marxism as a historical theory
which, despite its interpretive merits—he really believes there are
some—blindsides its more devoted adherents to legitimate ranges
of interpretation, and at times negates accurate, objective historical
understanding. Christopher Hill, a scholar of post-Reformation Eu-
ropean history, serves as the key defendant to Trueman’s prosecution
in this case. Trueman concludes: “grand interpretive schemes such as
Marxism have proved helpful, historically, in offering frameworks by
which to make sense of the chaos that is so often the first impression
the historian has when looking at the artifacts of history...the danger
comes when the theory becomes less a means of penetrating history
and more a prescriptive, Procrustean bed into which the evidence
must fit or be twisted to fit” (107).
The third and fourth chapters are really the book’s gems. Here
Trueman deals with the nitty-gritty of historical method. He pro-
vides excellent caution against the dangers of anachronism, noting
that while the historian must engage the past from the present he
must take care to avoid distorting the past by inappropriate selection
or arrangement of evidence by present categories. Two case studies
from church history are given: a comparison of Calvin and Turretin,
and the question of whether or not Luther was racist. Both illuminate
the necessity of understanding historical contexts. The fourth chap-
ter, as with some earlier material, is essentially a condensed version of
David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies. This is really the heart of
Book Reviews 405
Trueman’s contribution: he has provided students and teachers of his-

tory with a concise text on crucial areas of historical method.
A lingering disappointment with this Crossway publication is
simply its failure to constructively venture beyond historical method,
despite ostensibly addressing the “grand schemes” of history. At the
end of the day, Trueman provides us with little beyond some of the
better insights of the secular academy. He cites Marxism as “perhaps
the foremost recent example” of a great theory of history. One would
expect some reflection on the great stream of historical understand-
ing, and its connections to method, displayed inerrantly in Scripture,
and then reflectively in men like Eusebius, Augustine, Bede, Gregory
of Tours, Polydore Vergil, David Calderwood, Jonathan Edwards,
and others. Instead, the closest Trueman gets is lobbing a somewhat
perfunctory two-page missile at the straw-man of “providentialism,”
which he states is “really useless to the historian” (167). “Providence,”
he argues, “really has no place in the toolbox of the historian” (167).
While I agree in part with his critique as set up (if taken as a cau-
tion), I more broadly disagree, in much the same terms as Trueman
critiques Marxism.
Trueman seemingly operates within the walls of a positivist his-
torical theory with a sprinkling of socialist economic theory—one
wonders if he is unwittingly caught within the theoretical limita-
tions of methodology formulated by Von Ranke, Comte, and other
nineteenth-century thinkers. This could easily lead to history con-
formed to a “prescriptive, Procrustean bed” (107), albeit one that
appears very scientific. Surely Trueman would reject superb academic
scholarship confined to producing spiritually sterile history, devoid of
God, sin, judgment, and grace, and of any substantive meaning in the
history of the church or history at large. Yet, is this not what often results
from history that only deals with empirical data that can be footnoted?
Such a perspective too often makes history the story of man in a post-
Enlightenment, atheistic box—a rather tight and closed view of how
the world operates. I would argue that all of Scripture, and the deriva-
tives of exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology, are essential to the
Christian historian’s task, and that a far better “grand scheme” would
be one rooted in divine revelation. This provides a legitimate place for
all that is useful and accurate in historical theories and method, and
an infallible ground to deny that which is not. Certainly this requires
care in development and application; but is it impossible? I for one am

glad to join in working toward it.
—William VanDoodewaard
q
Diana West. Death of the Grown-Up. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
Where have all the grown-ups gone? It’s a question that has per-
plexed me. Why is it that young people these days seem unwilling, or
perhaps unable, to grow up? What is so attractive about youth, about
perpetual adolescence? My wife and I have discussed these things
at length, trying to understand why so many of the young people
we know (young people who are really not so young anymore) seem
stuck. They are working on second or third college degrees; they are
living at home with mom and dad, even into their thirties; they are
not considering marriage until their late twenties or early thirties.
What is happening? When I was young I could hardly wait to pass
through my teenage years so I could live life as an adult, and I think I
followed generations before me. What has happened since?
Diana West has asked the same questions, and The Death of the
Grown-Up is her attempt at an answer. A book that has generated no
small response, it concludes that America is suffering from a case of
arrested development and that this will inevitably bring down West-
ern civilization. This is no small claim. Neither is it a popular one (as
evidenced by a near 50/50 split in Amazon reviews between 1-star
and 5-star reviews). But it is one West manages to legitimize.
It seems that one of the driving forces behind the death of the
grown-up was the rise of the teenager. Before the 1940s, the term
teenager was unknown; humans tended to fall into only two groups—
children and adults. Exactly when a child transitioned to adult could
vary, but what was clear was that there was no intermediate period.
Furthermore, children, or those in their teen years, would seek to
identify with adult culture—they would seek to behave like adults
and wanted to be taken seriously like adults. Today the tables have
turned. “That was then. These days, of course, father and son dress
more or less alike, from message-emblazoned t-shirts to chunky
athletic shoes, both equally at ease in the baggy rumple of eternal
Book Reviews 407
summer camp. In the mature male, these trappings of adolescence

have become more than a matter of comfort or style; they reveal a
state of mind, a reflection of a personality that hasn’t fully developed,
and doesn’t want to—or worse, doesn’t know how.”
It is teenagers who are respected and envied. Adults now seek to
recapture youth and return to their teen years. They dress like teens,
think like teens, and increasingly act like teens. This intermediate
period between childhood and adulthood, this recent development,
is being continually extended. Some organizations today suggest that
adolescence continues until age thirty. Some go further and suggest
thirty-four. Thus a thirty-three-year-old man or woman should not
truly be considered an adult. Any other generation would laugh at the
mere suggestion.
After the idea of adolescence became popular, it took only a gen-
eration before popular culture, particularly the medium of television,
began to portray age as “square” and youth as “hip.” The dignity of
age was replaced with disgust. Where children used to orbit around
their parents, today the opposite is true. Parents orbit around their
children, “abdicating their rights and privileges by deferring to the
convenience and entertainment of the young.” No wonder, then, that
people wish to avoid adulthood.
There are consequences to our disregard for maturity. “Even as
age has been eliminated from the aging process, they have a hunch
that society has stamped out more than gray hair, smile lines, and
cellulite. What has also disappeared is an appreciation for what goes
along with maturity: forbearance and honor, patience and responsibil-
ity, perspective and wisdom, sobriety, decorum, and manners—and
the wisdom to know what is ‘appropriate,’ and when.”
Having laid a foundation for the death of the grown-up, West
surveys a variety of topics, showing how they are contributing to the
downfall of society or how they played a role in the rise of the adoles-
cent. She looks to popular music and entertainment, to parents who
need parents, and to a society that values excess rather than control.
And then the book takes an unexpected turn. As she moves from
the past to the future, West suggests why this matters so much; she
turns to the consequences of the death of adulthood and the death
of maturity. Focusing on the ideas of multiculturalism and political
correctness, cultural forces she believes could only be accepted by
an immature society that is willing to pretend that differences are
non-existent and unimportant, she suggests that these leave us en-

tirely unequipped to deal with the forces seeking to destroy us. Here
she points primarily to Islam and to terrorism. She writes about how
our immature thinking leaves us unable to grapple with the reality
of what we are facing in global Islam. Our society sits passively by,
anaesthetized with movies, music, television, and video games, while
Islam plants deeper and deeper roots within.
The Death of the Grown-Up is a compelling book. While it is cer-
tainly not the only book examining the growth of adolescence, it is
perhaps the most far-reaching and the most courageous in its analysis
of where this will and must lead. If West is correct, our society needs
to grow up and needs to do so before it is too late. Yet whether or not
you find you agree with her prescription, only a person blind to the
culture could disagree with her initial analysis. On this basis alone
this book is worth reading and enjoying. I recommend it to anyone
with an interest in understanding the culture we find ourselves in.
—Tim Challies
Contributors
q
Andrew J. Barnes is the pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Kan-

sas City, Missouri.
Michael P. V. Barrett is president of Geneva Reformed Seminary and
professor of Semitic Languages and Old Testament interpretation. He
also serves as Associate Minister of Faith Free Presbyterian Church in
Greenville, South Carolina.
Joel R. Beeke is president and professor of Systematic Theology and
Homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and a pastor of
the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation of Grand Rapids,
Michigan.
Gavin Beers is a graduate of the Free Church Seminary, Inverness,
Scotland, and pastor of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) at
Ayr, Scotland.
Kieran Beville is pastor of Lee Valley Bible Church (Baptist), Ballincollig,
Co. Cork, Ireland.
Gerald M. Bilkes is Professor of Old and New Testament at Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary, and an ordained pastor in the Free Re-
formed Churches of North America.
Pieter DeVries is pastor of the Reformed Church of Waarder, the Neth-
erlands, and a lecturer of biblical theology, hermeneutics, and apologetics
at the Seminary of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands.
Jonathan Holdt is pastor of Bethany Baptist Church in Pretoria, South
Africa, and is currently working on his Masters in Theology at Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary.
Steven Lawson is senior pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in

Mobile, Alabama, and a Teaching Fellow of Ligonier Ministries.
Ryan McGraw is pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Conway,
South Carolina.
David Murray is professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.
Brian G. Najapfour, a pastor-teacher from the Philippines, is a recent
Th.M. graduate of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and is pres-
ently enrolled in a doctorate program at Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary.
John E. Skidmore holds a Master of Arts in Religion from Westmin-
ster Theological Seminary and is pursuing a Th.M. degree at Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary.
Paul M. Smalley is pursuing a Th.M. degree at Puritan Reformed
Theological Seminary and is a Teacher’s Assistant for Joel Beeke.
Malcolm H. Watts is pastor of Emmanuel Church, Salisbury, England.
He is also Chairman of Trinitarian Bible Society and of Bible League
Trust, and a visiting lecturer at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary,
David Wenkel is a doctoral student at the University of Aberdeen,
Scotland.
Jeongmo Yoo is adjunct professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, and a post-doctoral student and junior fellow of The Andrew
Fuller Center at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
REFORMATION HERITAGE BOOKS
2965 Leonard Street NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49525
Introduction to
Reformed Scholasticism
by Willem J. van Asselt
with contributions by T. Theo J. Pleizier,

Pieter L. Rouwendal, and Maarten Wisse
Translated by Albert Gootjes
Foreword by Richard A. Muller
ISBN 978-1-60178-121-5
This work supplies a long-standing need in the field of early modern stud-
ies by providing a basic introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Although
technical studies abound and interest in the subject continues to rise,
until the appearance of this work by Willem van Asselt and his colleagues,
students of history have lacked a concise guide to help them navigate the
difficult waters of Reformed Scholasticism. This book carefully defines
the phenomena of scholasticism and orthodoxy, concisely surveys the era,
notes the most significant thinkers together with the various trajectories of
thought, and references the relevant secondary scholarship. In short, this
Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism surveys the topic and provides a guide
for further study in early modern Reformed thought.
Willem van Asselt is one of the foremost scholars in the recent

studies of the nature of Reformed Orthodoxy and Scholasticism,
and its relationship, theologically, philosophically, and pedagogi-
cally, with late medieval thought. The field is highly technical and
somewhat daunting to students; but here Dr. van Asselt and his
colleagues have distilled their vast learning into a book which will
be a sure guide to the field. I cannot think of a better introduction
to the study of this significant, though often neglected and misun-
derstood, chapter in the development of Christian thought.
— Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History,
Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
Paperback, 272 pages Retail Price: $25.00

Page size: 5.5” × 8.5” RHB Price: $19.00
REFORMATION HERITAGE BOOKS
2965 Leonard Street NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49525
Godly Conversation
Rediscovering the Puritan
Practice of Conference
Joanne J. Jung
ISBN 978-1-60178-133-8
With one eye constantly on the needs of the contemporary church,

practical theologian Joanne Jung has recovered an important
aspect of Christian community from old and neglected Puritan
sources. This stimulating and important study examines the
gathering of the saints in informal settings, or “conferences,”
where Scripture and sermons were discussed and “ingested”
to nurture the spiritual life. The cumulative effect of Jung’s re-
search is to put the topic of conference at the top of the list
of important Puritan disciplines, thereby redressing the popu-
lar misconception that Puritans were individualists. The book
offers us a detailed taxonomy of the types of Puritan confer-
ence, and it expounds for the first time the important role that
women played in fostering the practice. The study is based on
extensive original research in primary sources, and the author’s
infectious passion for the church and its history clearly demon-
strates that the “old” can illumine the “new” and inform and
guide the church today.
— James E. Bradley, Geoffrey W. Bromiley Professor of
Church History, Fuller Theological Seminary
Paperback, 224 pages Retail price: $25.00

Page size: 5.5” × 8.5” RHB price: $19.00
616-977-0889 • Fax: 616-285-3246
e-mail: orders@heritagebooks.org • website: www.heritagebooks.org
Jonathan Edwards’s
Apologetic for the
Great Awakening
with particular attention to
Charles Chauncy’s criticisms
Robert Davis Smart
Foreword by Kenneth P. Minkema
ISBN 978-1-60178-124-6
In the 1740s Jonathan Edwards emerged as the New Light proponent

of the claim that the Great Awakening was, in the main, a true work of
the Spirit of God. Conversely, Charles Chauncy led the Old Lights in
opposition by offering criticisms of the Awakening. In this book, Robert
Davis Smart examines Edwards’s defense of the revival with particular
attention to Chauncy’s criticisms, which have often been acknowledged
but not previously subjected to thorough analysis. He sets forth histori-
cal and contextual factors that shaped Edwards and his generation, shows
how Edwards emerged as a leader of the revival from its early days, and
offers an updated survey of the modern attempts to interpret the Awak-
ening theologically, sociologically, and historically. Here is a detailed
treatment of the contrasting perspectives of Edwards and Chauncy, an
extensive analysis of their major works regarding the revival, an able
assessment of the essential issues raised by the debate, and an evaluation
of the significant contributions of these men.
Robert Davis Smart provides us with a thorough, impressive, and

theologically informed account of one of the great debates in Amer-
ican history. His work will be the point of departure for future
discussions of the topic.
— George Marsden, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of
History Emeritus, University of Notre Dame
Hardcover, 368 pages Retail Price: $30.00

Page size: 6”
×
9” RHB Price: $24.00
Puritan Reformed
Theological Seminary
The Mission of Puritan Reformed

Theological Seminary
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary is an educational institution whose
mission is to prepare students to serve Christ and His church through biblical,
experiential, and practical ministry. The seminary’s training objectives are to
glorify God, to promote and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, to promote the
supremacy of the Holy Scriptures, and to be true to the historic Reformed creeds.
In dependence on the Holy Spirit, we believe that our objectives are well served
by providing theological instruction and training to facilitate the development
of knowledge and skills in our students as well as personal piety and Christian
character that is essential for faithful Christian ministry.
The seminary is committed to the perspective that a balanced training for
Christian ministry includes a sound theological education and the nurturing of
healthy, personal piety. The theological development of a student at PRTS in-
cludes instruction in the full range of biblical, theological, historical, and mission
studies. Please ask for our catalog and DVD.
The seminary also strives to provide its students with a social environment
that nurtures godliness. Instruction is complemented by formal and informal
occasions for personal interaction with academically qualified and spiritually
minded theological professors or instructors as well as with godly fellow stu-
dents. This creates a seminary atmosphere that facilitates personal piety in the
context of responsible scholarship.
2965 Leonard Street N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525

Phone: 616-977-0889; Fax: 616-285-3246 • E-mail: info@puritanseminary.org
Please consider partnering with us in carrying out our mission of of-
fering the following degrees: M.A.R. (Master of Arts, 2 years), M.Div.
(Master of Divinity, 4 years), and Th.M. (Master of Theology, 2 years).
Above all, please continue to pray for us that our institution may remain
faithful to biblical, Reformed truth.
YES, I WOULD LIKE TO DONATE!

q I would like to financially support PRTS by giving $________ , designated for:
q Operation Fund q Scholarship Fund q PRTS Foundation
q Puritan Resource Center
q I would like to enroll in the monthly donation program.
q I will send a check for ________ each month.
q Please charge my Debit/Charge card $________ per month.
PAYMENT METHOD
q Check/cash enclosed
q Charge my Debit/Charge card: Card #______________________________
Exp. Date ____ / ____ Security Code ____________
q Please send me the PRTS catalog and DVD.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Name ______________________________________________________________
Address _____________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip ________________________________________________________
Phone _____________________ E-mail _________________________________
American donors and donors from countries other than Canada,

please send your gifts and this form to:
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
2965 Leonard Street N.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49525
Canadian Donors please send your gifts and this form to:
Burgessville Heritage Reformed Church, Attention: PRTS
685 Main Street, P.O. Box 105, Burgessville, Ontario N0J 1C0
Donors may also give on-line through www.CanadaHelps.org. Make donations to the
Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation, PRTS operating fund.
Thank you for supporting Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. Were it not for
the prayers and financial gifts of friends like you, much of what takes place on a daily
basis at the seminary would need to be reduced or eliminated.
For more information regarding the seminary, visits, or ministries affiliated with
the seminary, please contact our registrar, Mr. Henk Kleyn, at 616-977-0599 ext.
120, or send an email to henk.klyen@puritanseminary.org.

Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2011.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2011.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puritan Reformed Journal

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Joel R. Beeke, Editor

Please address all PRJ communication as follows:

POSTMASTER: SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO: Puritan Reformed Journal,

SYSTEMATIC AND Historical Theology

Pastoral theology and missions

CONTEMPORARY AND CULTURAL ISSUES

Brian Najapfour; Jonathan Edwards’s exegesis of the prophets Isaiah,

Hosea: His Marriage

according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel.” It

The Problem and Proposed Solutions

The proposed solutions to this interpretation problem have been

2. For other proposals to the difficulties of chapters 1 and 3, see C. Hassel

titute; it is an abstract plural that would more likely describe an

Parallels between Marriage and Message

using the imagery suggested by Gomer’s fornication, details how the

other text brought commendation. The solution is in the verb trans-

3. For a similar explanation of the verb construction, see Thomas E. McComis-

The Glory of the Cross (2)

The Early Church

Clement of Rome was one of them, and around 96 A.D. he wrote

The Middle Ages: Anselm of Canterbury and Abaelard

subjective meaning of the atonement was of central importance for

The Reformers, Faustus Socinus, and John Owen

when we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, who vicariously

4. Martin Luther, Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883), 5:608.

Three Approaches in the History of the Christian Church

God’s Wrath Has Been Quenched

only confronted with God’s revelation in creation. The entire world is

As we focus on the biblical basis for the atonement, I also wish

Calvin’s Thoughts on the Atonement

7. Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.22.

blood of Christ may not be interpreted as if the Son reconciled us with

Karl Barth’s Thoughts Regarding the Atonement

8. Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.3.

The Suffering and Dying of the Lord Jesus as the

is confirmed in the experience of God’s children. August Montague

The Death of the Lord Jesus Christ Is the Fountain

only has He been given unto us to be our wisdom, righteousness, and

The Death of the Lord Jesus Christ Yields a

Masterful Parables: The Language of

It is widely agreed that the parables proclaim the kingdom of God.1

question how Christ’s parables promote the kingdom of God. In other

Jesus, or Christianity considered as a power— a cause, an influence, a moment, the

Supremacy and Revelation

ignorance of it. It is humbling to man’s religious sensibilities that he

Supremacy and Salvation

to the principle of the kingdom. The Pharisees, whose religion was

Supremacy and Judgment

10. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 478.

Paul and James: Are We Justified

Read Romans 3:21–28; James 2:14 –26

1. This article is a slightly expanded and collated version of an address the

of this church?” Mr. Jones responds, “Well, I believe that my entire

2. Quoted in F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and

Suddenly, Luther saw and understood from the book of Romans

A Right Strawy Epistle

Commentary, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 57.

its teaching on justification by faith and works. Luther was correct

I. The Root of Justification (Romans 3:21–28)

“alien” righteousness, or a “foreign” righteousness. This means it

of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I