5 The Confessional Presbyterian · 230 Volume 5 (2009) The Confessional Presbyterian Articles This...

The Confessional Presbyteri an, P. O. Box 141084, Dallas, Texas 75214.Editor: Mr. Chris Coldwell. Email: edi [email protected] Editor: Mr. Lane Keister. Email: [email protected]: USA $18; Library/Foreign $25. Retail: $25.The Confessional Presbyterian, Volume 5 (2009).ISSN 1549–9979 ISBN 978-0-941075-44-2

All Material Copyright © 2009 by Confessional Presbyterian Press. This periodical is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database®, a product of the American Theological Library Association, 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606, USA. email: [email protected], www:http://www.atla.com.Front Cover: John Calvin (1509–1564). Copyright © 2009 by Mike Mahon.Back Cover: Westminster Abbey, Exterior, North Entrance, Rose Window.

Table of Contents

2. Editorial Articles 3. The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological

Compilation and Analysis. Part One: Chronology By Chris Coldwell 56. The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological

Compilation and Analysis. Part Two: Analysis By Matthew Winzer

89. John Calvin on the Doctrine of Divine Revelation By W. Gary Crampton. Th.D.

115. Samuel Rutherford’s Contribution to Covenant Theology in Scotland By D. Patrick Ramsey

127. Presbyterian Quintessence: The Five ‘Heads’ of Church Government By Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D.

161. Johannes Megapolensis: Pioneer Reformed Missionary to the Mohawks By Wes Bredenhof

170. An Answer to the Challenge of Preaching the Old Testament: An Historical & Theological Examination of the Redemptive-Historical Approach

By Rev. Anthony T. Selvaggio, J.D., M. Div.

185. The Deacon: A Divine Right Office with Divine Uses By C. N. Willborn

199. Francis Turretin and Barthianism: The Covenant of Works in Historical Perspective

By James J. Cassidy

214. Pictures of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature and a Defense of the Confessional Reformed View

By David VanDrunen

229. The Sabbath Day and Recreations on the Sabbath: An Examination of the Sabbath and the Biblical Basis for the “No Recreation” Clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 21.8 and Westminster Larger Catechism 117

By Lane Keister

239. “So Great a Love”—James Durham on Christ and His Church in the Song of Solomon

By Donald John MacLean

2009 AJournalforDiscussionofPresbyterianDoctrine&Practice

5 TheConfessionalPresbyterian

The Confessional Presbyterian

Purchase Current and Back Issues of The Confessional Presbyterian Journalcpjournal.com

Practical Introduction

Wherein the wickednesse of this exceedeth, in that men commonly no day in the weeke followe so muche their own wayes, and delightes of their owne hart, as on that day, which is appointed to learne them how to cease from their owne wayes, workes, and delightes. For a great number (& those not the worst of all,) take that day to be ordeined only for ease of their bodie & to be a day of recreation after their trauels & labours that haue been the sixe dayes before, and vse it accord-ingly: whereas, the Lorde hath appointed it to the ex-ercise of word and prayer, that beeing vnburdened of their worldly affaires, they mighte with free harts and mindes attend vpon the word, prayer, and meditation…. Thus the right vse and end of the Sabbaothe is cleane altered, and not that only, but chaunged into a practice moste contrarie to the institution thereof. For beeing appointed to bee the market day of the soule, to make provision for the dayes following.1

Being on the Candidates and Credentials Committee of my Presbytery means that I look often at differences that candidates have with the standards of the church. We have even seen a few candidates who deny that the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath at all. These, for-tunately, are few. More commonly, however, the most often taken exception is to the “no recreation” clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 21.8 and Westminster Larger Catechism 117.2 As an added bonus, I am usu-ally treated to a description of “throwing a football” around on the Sabbath. Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t really that they want to watch football on the Sabbath! At any rate, I usually press them on their understanding of Isaiah 58:13–14 which is the biblical basis for the Pu-ritan understanding of “no recreation” on the Sabbath day. If any answer is given, it is usually that the word

“pleasure” refers to business rather than to recreation. This article will attempt to provide a relatively cursory glance at the biblical evidence for the Puritan position on the Sabbath in general, and also that the Puritan understanding of “no recreation on the Sabbath” is in fact the biblical understanding of the Sabbath Day.3 To do this, we must first examine the redemptive-his-torical unfolding of the Sabbath Day to show that the moral, unchanging, creational principle is that of one day in seven (not the Saturday Sabbath) to rest from all normal weekly activities (except works of necessity and mercy) so that we can worship God, which was in the Old Testament appointed by God to be the seventh day, and in the New Testament the eighth or first day.

The Author: Lane Keister is a PCA pastor laboring out of bounds serving RCA and CRC churches in rural North Dakota. Rev. Keister’s sermons, book reviews, and critiques of the Federal Vision appear on his blog, Green Baggins, http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com. 1. John Knewstub, Lectures upon the twentieth chapter of Exodus (1577) 72–73. Quoted in James T. Dennison, Jr., The Market Day of the Soul: The Puritan Doctrine of the Sabbath in England, 1532–1700 (1983; Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2001) 29. 2. Hereafter WCF and WLC. WCF 21.8 says, “This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments, and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy” (emphasis added). WLC 117 asks “How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?” The answer is that “The Sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful...” (emphasis added). 3. The Puritan view may be summarized by the following points: 1. the Sabbath is a creation ordinance; 2. Saturday-Sabbath is not com-manded in the Decalogue; 3. The Lord’s Day is the New Testament Sabbath; 4. the Lord’s Day is by God’s positive command on Sunday; 5. The Lord’s Day should be passed in suspension of recreations and rest from normal labor. See the excellent chart in Dennison, 177.

229Volume 5 (2009)

The Confessional Presbyterian

The Sabbath Day and Recreations on the SabbathAn Examination of the Sabbath and the Biblical Basis for the “No Recreation” Clause in

Westminster Confession of Faith 21.8 and Westminster Larger Catechism 117

By Lane Keister

230 Volume 5 (2009)

The Confessional Presbyterian Articles

This must be done in order to show that Isaiah 58:13–14 applies not only to the Old Testament version of Sat-urday Sabbath, but also to the New Testament version of Sunday Sabbath. Then, finally, we will examine the exegesis of Isaiah 58:13–14 (the key text in the debate concerning recreations) in order to show that the Pu-ritan understanding of the Sabbath is the best exegesis of the passage.

I. Old Testament and New Testament

One of the main issues involved in the discussion of Sab-bath worship versus Sunday worship is the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament (hereafter abbreviated as OT and NT, respectively). How does the NT interpret the OT? Are there discontinuities between the testaments? If so, where do the lines fall? How do we know what continues and what does not? This is a huge question that rockets around the reformed world in the form of the issue of theonomy, a term that comes from theos (God) and nomos (law), which is an interpreta-tion that sees only continuity between the testaments, such that we as a secular (!) nation ought to be going back to observe theocratic (!) Israel’s laws; and the is-sue of dispensationalism, which sees almost complete discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. These represent the opposite poles on the question of continuity and discontinuity.

So exactly how does the NT interpret the OT? To sum it all up in one sentence: the OT is about Jesus Christ. Two passages are absolutely essential to this understand-ing of the OT. The first comes in Luke 24, after Jesus’ resurrection when He is on the road to Emmaus with the two disciples. The two disciples are confused about what happened to Jesus; they do not recognize Him. Verse 21 says it all, “We had hoped that He was the one to redeem Israel.” This implies clearly that they thought that Jesus’ death precluded Him from being able to re-deem Israel. So the crucifixion/resurrection is a huge puzzle to them. Jesus then says (vv. 25–26), “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Notice the phrase here “all that the prophets have spoken.” What

does this mean? Well, Jesus clarifies that in the very next verse. “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself ” (emphasis added). If we are left in any doubt as to how Jesus interpreted the OT, here let us doubt no longer: Jesus thought that the entire OT was about His death and resurrection. Now, in verse 27, there is some question as to whether Jesus refers to some things in the Scriptures concerning himself, or that the entire Scriptures refer to Him. It must be the latter, be-cause of verse 32, where the disciples (their eyes now open) ask this poignant question, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” and verse 45, where Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. This emphasized phrase means the entirety of the OT.4 In fact, there is no place where this phrase is used in the entire Bible, where it does not refer to the entire OT (with the possible exception of Daniel 9:2, since the OT was not a closed canon at that time). This pas-sage in Luke 24 clearly indicates that Jesus interpreted the entire OT to be about Himself. This would include the idea that the Sabbath is fulfilled in his death and resurrection. All the Scriptures (including the passages about the Sabbath) point to Jesus’ death and resurrec-tion (see especially 1 Corinthians 15:3–4). More on this later (especially about issues of what continues from the Old Testament into the New and what does not).

The second passage in this regard that is important is John 5:30ff. Jesus is talking about witnesses to Him-self. In verse 39, he accuses the Jews of searching the Scriptures because the Jews want eternal life, and think that they can find it in the Scriptures. The irony is that they are right, if only they would see it! The Scriptures bear witness about Jesus, who is the light. Even more pointedly, in verse 46, Jesus says that Moses, on whom the Pharisees set their hope, wrote about Jesus. That means that when Moses was writing about the Sabbath, he was writing about Jesus: when Moses was writing about creation, he was writing about Jesus, and when Moses wrote about Israel’s redemption from Egypt, he was writing about Jesus. Connecting this passage with the Luke 24 passage (the Reformation said that Scrip-ture interprets Scripture), we can see that when the OT penmen write about Jesus, they are writing about his death and resurrection. So, when Moses wrote about the Sabbath, he was writing about Jesus’ death and resurrec-tion. When Moses was writing about creation, he was writing about Jesus’ death and resurrection. And, when he was writing about redemption from Egypt, he was writing about Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Sabbath

4. See also such passages as Matthew 21:42, 22:49, 26:54, etc. An important qualification must be inserted here. It is not my position that every detail of every passage is a type of Christ. Rather, every passage of the OT forms part of the organic unfolding story that cli-maxes in the person and work of Jesus Christ. So it is not an atomistic typology, but rather a connected whole that points to Christ, although there certainly are many details that do point to Christ.

Volume 5 (2009) 231

The Sabbath Day & Recreations on the Sabbath The Confessional Presbyterian

is about Jesus’ death and resurrection. This is the ines-capable conclusion to which Luke 24 and John 5 lead.

II. Old Testament meaning of the Sabbath

There are three main passages that tell us the signifi-cance of the Sabbath: Genesis 2:1–3, Exodus 20:8–11, and Deuteronomy 5:12–15.

A. Genesis 2:1–3

This passage is well-known to everyone in the discus-sion. The Seventh-Day Adventists (who argue that we should still observe Saturday Sabbath) rightly note that this passage proves that the Sabbath was not just for Is-rael. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance. This has been hotly contested throughout the history of discussion on the Sabbath.5

The passage is remarkable when compared to the first chapter of Genesis. The first chapter (and 2:1–3) is ex-tremely formulaic. That is, there are repeated formulas that occur over and over (“And God said,” “and it was so,” “there was morning and evening,” “God saw that it was good”). What is remarkable in 2:1–3 is that the very structure of morning and evening does not occur with the Sabbath. The text does not say that “there was eve-ning, and there was morning, the seventh day.” There is something special about the seventh day. Now, the lack of the evening/morning formula has been taken in dif-ferent ways by interpreters. Some say that the Sabbath was therefore meant to be seen as eternal (not being bound by the usual strictures of beginning and ending). Some say that it merely points out that this day was the end of the cycle of the week. In any case, the lack of the evening/morning formula must mean something. Mo-ses has been much too careful with his words in the first chapter for us to think that he merely forgot to add the morning/evening formula. He intended to say some-thing by the omission. I believe that He intended to say that the Sabbath pattern was started here for man, but that God entered into an eternal rest. That he intended this to be the rationale for man’s Sabbath observance is clear from Exodus 20:8–11. (More on this passage later.) That Moses intended to indicate an eternal Sabbath is clear from two other passages that help us to under-stand Genesis 2.

1. John 5:16–17

Here the Jews are persecuting Jesus because He was healing on the Sabbath (why this fact added to Jesus’

example of Saturday worship before His death and res-urrection does not hurt the Sunday Sabbath position will be explained later). Jesus’ answer makes no sense unless God is in an eternal Sabbath. Jesus was address-ing here an age-old problem that the rabbis had to deal with: if God rested on the seventh day, how come the world doesn’t fall apart when He is resting?6 They, of course, recognized that God preserved the world continuously, and that without that preservation, the world would immediately cease to exist. So Jesus an-swers them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” Admittedly, this could be understood to say that every time the Sabbath rolls around, God is still at work preserving the world. And yet, as a “work of ne-cessity” (read here “grace”), God continues to “work” during this whole time that He enjoys the completion of the creation. Jesus then says that His own rest is of a piece with God’s rest, just as His work is of a piece with God’s work. The language literally means “continuously working.” There is no stop to it.

2. Hebrews 3:7–4:13

In this extended discourse on the meaning of the Sab-bath, Hebrews says that there is yet a Sabbath rest for the people of God. That means that the older Sabbath did not exhaust the meaning of the Sabbath. The point I wish to make here stems from 4:4–5. Paul says that God entered His rest, and then that the Israelites shall not enter that same rest. In other words, the rest of God entered into at creation is the same rest He calls the Is-raelites to enter. Obviously, if they could enter such a rest, that rest must be eternal, or else they would only be able to enter it one day in seven. Just prior to these two verses, we find confirmation of this interpretation: Hebrews links the finished work of creation with the Sabbath of God (4:3). The finished work of creation means Sabbath for God. Since the creation continues to be finished, God continues in His rest.7

5. The very best historical treatment of the Puritan view of the Sab-bath in conjunction with their argumentation against the Prelatical view and against the Anabaptist view is undoubtedly the Dennison book mentioned above. It is good to see that Reformation Heritage Books has made this work available again in a recent reprinting. I should also note that I am indebted throughout to Joey Pipa’s treat-ment of the subject (though in more formative ways, and especially in practical ways). See Joseph Pipa, Jr., The Lord’s Day (Fearn, Ross-shire: Scotland, reprinted 2008). 6. See Andreas Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 185. 7. The best treatment of this passage remains Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s article, “A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God,” in Pressing

232 Volume 5 (2009)


These two passages together confirm that we are to understand God as entering into a permanent rest in Gen 2:1–3. Several implications follow from this: Adam would have entered into that rest if he had remained obedient. This was the carrot held out to Adam. God said to him, “Obey me and live.” This would mean eter-nal life with God.8 Since God was in an eternal Sabbath rest, then Adam would have entered that Sabbath rest. Adam failed to achieve this entrance into God’s rest. God immediately judged the world as a result. Adam was cursed in this very area: instead of getting rest, he would have to work hard, and get no rest. No longer would work be enjoyable, but would rather become a tiresome burden. Later on in redemptive history, God created the people Israel for Himself. This people be-came enslaved to Egypt. They had no rest. They were in a land that the Bible characterizes as the land of death. They were dead. God resurrected them out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and brought them out into the wilderness (typological to what the church is today). The wilderness is where they failed to reach their Sab-bath rest (the rest was the land of Canaan, as Hebrews 4:8–9 explicitly says). So no one, not even the OT mes-siah (Joshua, whose name is the Hebrew form of the Greek “Jesus”) was able to bring God’s people into that eternal rest of God (Hebrews 4:8–9). However, as the point of Hebrews as a whole is that Jesus is our great high priest (8:1), the point of Hebrews 3–4 is that Je-sus, the greater Joshua, entered into the rest of God, enabling His people to do to same. This is confirmed by the context: “Since then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession” (4:14). He says this because Jesus having entered that rest means that we can now enter that rest (see 4:11, where Hebrews tells us to strive to enter that rest: he would only say that if it were now possible to enter that rest). Jesus has entered into

that rest as the new Adam, Jesus has passed through the heavens (meaning that he has entered heaven, and therefore, into God’s rest).

From this it needs to be asked: when did Jesus enter into that rest, enabling His people to follow? The answer must be two-fold: 1. the weekly Sabbath is not when he entered that rest: nothing of such earth-shattering impor-tance is ever mentioned about Jesus happening on the Sabbath; 2. the only possible times as to when he could have entered that rest are the resurrection and the ascen-sion. Since the ascension would not have been possible without the resurrection, and since the resurrection is the ultimate victory over sin and death (sin and death are antitypological to Israel’s “work” in Egypt), and since resurrection is therefore the parallel to the Exodus, we must date Jesus’ entry into that rest by the resurrection.

One more issue remains in the interpretation of He-brews 3–4, and that is the issue of eschatology. Does Je-sus give us complete access to this rest, thus making our entrance into the rest fully eschatological when we come to faith? Or is our current entrance into that rest more of an inaugurated eschatology? If there still remains a Sabbath rest for God’s people, then some aspect of that Sabbath is still to come. This is why there is still a weekly celebration of the Sabbath today. It commemorates the “not yet” aspect of our Sabbath rest. To say that there is no Sabbath rest today is to have an over-realized es-chatology. None of this should downplay the “already” aspect that is genuinely there in the text. The Sabbath has an “already, not yet” structure to it, as does the en-tire New Testament.

To conclude this section about the OT meaning of the Sabbath in Genesis 2:1–3: it points to Jesus’ acquir-ing of the Sabbath rest for the people of God. Jesus acquired it on Sunday, specifically, on Easter Sunday. That is why we should worship on Sunday. Jesus’ death and resurrection is nothing short of a new creation and new redemption.

B. Exodus 20:8–11

This passage interprets Genesis 2 for us. How or whether it does so is disputed. For instance, a recent treatment of this passage argues that the Sabbath day in the fourth commandment is not an explication of Genesis 2:1–3.9 He says, “Genesis 2 does not mention the word ‘Sab-bath.’ It speaks about the ‘seventh day.’ Unless the reader equates ‘seventh day’ and ‘Sabbath, ‘ there is no ref-erence to the Sabbath here. Genesis 2 does not speak about a religious, cultic feast day or any institution at all” (Dressler, 28). He explains more fully:

Toward The Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, edited by Charles G. Dennison and Richard C. Gamble (Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the Or-thodox Presbyterian Church, 1986) 33–51. He effectively dismantles the arguments of Andrew Lincoln’s article, “Sabbath, Rest, and Es-chatology in the New Testament,” in From Sabbath To Lord’s Day, edited by D.A. Carson (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1982) 197–220. Gaffin has expanded somewhat his argument in the equally excellent article in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Volume One, edited by Ligon Duncan, III (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2003) 123–144. 8. For an excellent discussion of the Sabbatical principle as the principle of the covenant of works, see Geerhardus Vos, Biblical The-ology (1948; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 2000) 139–140. 9. Harold Dressler, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, pp. 21–41.

Volume 5 (2009) 233


We interpret the statement in verse 11b as an explana-tion of God’s blessing activity in connection with the new institution of the Sabbath on the analogy of God’s blessing activity with regard to the seventh day at cre-ation (Dressler, 38 fn43).

Now, I am not arguing, as the Seventh Day Adven-tists do, that the aspect of Sabbath given at creation was the Saturday, or seventh-day Sabbath. Rather, I argue that the principle of one day in seven as rest in worship was given at creation. So, on one level, I agree with Dressler: the creation ordinance was not equal to Saturday Sabbath. Where I disagree with Dressler is that I affirm that the creation ordinance was equal to the Sabbath principle. The Puritan view is that the principle of one day in seven is what God inaugurated at creation, and that the Sabbath occurring on the sev-enth day was established by an additional command in the OT. This is a command that is not part of the moral law, but is rather a temporary positive injunction that can easily be changed in the NT to Sunday via the res-urrection of Christ.

This can be shown from the passage. On the one hand, the Fourth Commandment, as given in Exodus, explicitly links the seventh day to the Sabbath and to God’s creational pattern. Verse 11 connects the seventh with the Sabbath by means of the causal particle ÷KeAl[‘, which means “therefore.”10 That the Israelites will rest on the seventh day is based on God’s resting on the sev-enth day, which is now called the Sabbath. On the other hand, this does not make the seventh day as Sabbath part of the moral law, which was given at creation. The archetypal pattern is that of God working six days and resting one. The Israelites are to copy that, specifically making the seventh day the one of rest. But the only principle that is in common between Genesis 2 and Exo-dus 20 is that of one day in seven rest. We come to this conclusion because, in Genesis 2, the word “seventh” does not mean Saturday, but rather the seventh in a se-quence of six other days (Genesis 1). We do not know, in other words, that God rested on Saturday. We know that God rested on the seventh-day-after-six-work-days.

The reason for the Sabbath observance in the Exo-dus version of the Ten Commandments is what we may call the “creation reason.” The Israelites must keep the Sabbath, because God rested on the seventh day at cre-ation. Now, from what I wrote above on Genesis 2:1–3, it follows that we must interpret this “creation reason” in the light of Jesus acquiring the ultimate, final Sab-bath rest in his resurrection.

One further point must be noticed here: did Jesus, in

fact, usher in a new creation? Surely, nothing short of new creation and new redemption would be sufficient to change the day of an observance that got started because of the old creation and the old redemption. To answer this question, we will look at one particular new cre-ation passage (though there are many). 2 Corinthians 5:17 says: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” Most translations interpret the first part of the verse something like what is here. The Greek is actually a little more loosely connected. What I mean is that the Greek does not actually say, “He is a new creation.” The Greek actually just says, “new creation” (kainh; ktivsi~). The translation could then be something like this, “If anyone is in Christ, then there is a new creation.” The existence of anyone in Christ then proves that there is such a thing as the new creation. In fact, the new cre-ation is of such an order as to supersede (in some way) the old. For that is what the second part of the verse says (“the old things have passed away; look, all things have become new”).

One other passage (leading to yet one more) must be mentioned here by way of confirmation. What I am try-ing to say here is that Jesus ushered in a new creation; that creation had its beginning on Sunday; therefore, worship changed from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday Sabbath when that new creation was ushered in. The other passage I wish to discuss here is 1 Corinthians 15. Paul is answering the Corinthians’ questions about the resurrection. Paul is talking about people that die, and their bodies go into the ground. What happens to those bodies? They are like seeds (vv. 36–37): they can-not produce a crop unless the seed dies. So also with the body. It cannot be raised in power, unless the body dies. Let us follow carefully his line of reasoning. First, he starts by contrasting the post-Fall body with the res-urrection body. This is where the seed analogy comes in. What happens to believers is that their body dies, and their soul goes to be with the Lord, and their body rests until the last day, when it is resurrected in glory. This contrast comes to a climax in verse 44a: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. Note care-fully that Paul uses “natural body” in the first part of this verse to refer to the post-Fall body of a believer that dies. But there is a shift that occurs in the second part of verse 44. The question might come up, “How do I know that there is a resurrection body?” Paul thinks of

10. See Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Intro-duction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990; 1997) 11.3.2, 221. See also the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB), 485.

234 Volume 5 (2009)


this question and answers it. “If there is a natural body, then there has to be a spiritual body.” But notice care-fully here in the second part of verse 44 that Paul uses the word “natural body” to refer to a pre-Fall body. How do we know this? Because Paul then quotes Genesis 2:7 about Adam as he was given life before the Fall. The NIV has very astutely put a paragraph break between the first part of vs. 44 and the second part of verse 44.11 In what immediately follows, Paul compares Adam with Christ: God breathed into Adam (the word “breathed” is the same word as “spirit”) the breath of life, and he became a living soul; the last Adam (became) a life-giv-ing spirit. The reason that there is a resurrection body is that there was a pre-Fall perfect body. In other words, the first body (Adam’s sinless, but changeable body) points inevitably to the last body (the body of Christ in glory). The question now is, what does Paul mean by the word “spirit?” I think it ought to be capitalized: Paul means that Jesus Christ became life-giving Spirit.12 In other words, Jesus was resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit, such that he became life-giving Spirit. God rewarded Jesus’ obedience by giving Him the Holy Spirit, which Jesus, in turn, gave the church on the day of Pentecost (also a Sunday, I might add!). How do we know that this is the correct interpretation of 1 Corin-thians 15? Because of Romans 1.

Romans 1:1–6 says that the Gospel that God prom-ised beforehand through the prophets was fulfilled in the death and resurrection by the Holy Spirit of Jesus from the dead. Verse 4 says that, through the Holy Spirit, Jesus was declared (or proclaimed) with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. This confirms that Jesus became life-giving Spirit, as 1 Cor-inthians 15 says. Just as the Holy Spirit hovered over the

deep in Genesis 1:2, so also the Holy Spirit “hovered” over Jesus Christ, giving Him life when He was in the grave. This is new creation. Remember, all of this part of the argument is to prove that Jesus ushered in a new creation. From 1 Corinthians 15 and from Romans 1 we learn that this new creation (or new aeon, as the NT also calls it) is the age of the Holy Spirit.

To summarize our reflections on Exodus 20:8–11: the new creation displaces the old (2 Corinthians 5:17), because the Holy Spirit ushered in the new creation (1 Corinthians 15) at the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ro-mans 1). This proves that new creation started at Jesus’ resurrection. This is inescapable from the pages of the NT. Thus, the purpose of the fourth commandment is fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One small digression needs indulging here. What do I mean by the word “fulfill?” Does it mean fulfill so as to bring to an end, such that the fourth commandment no longer has any meaning (such as the Sabbath-worship people would charge)? It should be plain from the ar-gument so far, that far from undermining its authority, Scripture rather increases the meaning of the Sabbath for us today. “Fulfilled” means that obeying Sabbath rest ultimately means believing in Christ, and rejoic-ing in His great salvation, which He accomplished on Sunday. This means that the force of the Fourth Com-mandment carries over to the Christian Sunday. We can now truly enter into God’s rest. We can paraphrase the Fourth Commandment’s NT meaning this way: “Re-member Sunday, to keep it holy. Six days you shall la-bor, and do all your work, but the Sunday is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the so-journer who is within your gates. For in thirty-three years Jesus prepared the new creation, and rested the first day of the new era. Therefore, Jesus blessed Sun-day, and made it holy.”13

C. Deuteronomy 5:12–15

This passage adds to Exodus 20 (the “creation reason”) what we may call the “redemption reason” for keeping the Sabbath. It is because God redeemed Israel out of Egypt (a land only associated with work-death) that Is-rael should now remember that great salvation by keep-ing the Sabbath. For now they did not have to work on the Sabbath. They had regular rest from their labors. As Paul says in Hebrews, the promised land was not the ultimate rest, though it pointed to the ultimate rest. We may see the parallels between Israel and the church:

11. For these insights on 1 Corinthians 15, I am entirely indebted to Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. in his class notes on Acts and Paul. The same argument is also found in Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Re-demption, second edition (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 1987) 78–92. 12. This should be understood in terms of economic equivalence of their work as due to Christ’s resurrection and ascension, not in terms of a conflation of the ontological persons of the Trinity, which would be heresy. 13. The main lines of argument here regarding creation and new creation are present in the seminal work of Jonathan Edwards, “The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath,” found in Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 17: Sermons and Discourses, 1730–1733, edited by Mark Valeri (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999) 217–250. In the two-volume Banner of Truth set, the same material may be found in volume 2, 93–103. It should be noted, however, that the Yale edi-tion has some very helpful additions noted in the footnotes, which Edwards made when he re-preached the three sermons later in his career.

Volume 5 (2009) 235


Israel in Egypt points to the church before Christ makes it alive; Israel in the wilderness points to the church be-tween Christ’s first coming (the greater Exodus that Je-sus provides) and second coming (the final judgment); Israel in the promised land points to church in final rest. Sharp readers will probably have noticed that there is a problem with this analogy: the final rest, by this anal-ogy, does not come until Jesus’ second coming. It does not seem to have anything to do with His first coming. But here it is easy: Jesus’ coming should be thought of as one coming in two stages. At His first coming, the rest comes, but at the final coming, the rest will be con-summated. It is exactly parallel with the coming of the kingdom: the kingdom is here, but is not here: it is here in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but is not consummated until the second coming. The bride is af-fianced, but the wedding is not yet. We have the first-fruits, but not the full harvest.

Joshua was to have been the final deliverer of the Israelites from Egypt into the promised rest. But as Hebrews says, there was a greater deliverance to come in the person of Jesus Christ. There was a greater rest. Israel did not enter God’s rest, so there still remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. Jesus accom-plished the attainment of that rest, and He did so at His resurrection.

The ultimate meaning of Deuteronomy 5:12–15 is then that Jesus has accomplished the greater Exodus out of sin and death. Thus, we celebrate that greater deliverance by worshipping the founder and archi-tect of our faith (Jesus Christ) on the day on which it was accomplished (Sunday). In fact, not to worship God on Sunday now is to deny that the greater Exo-dus has come.

To sum up the OT meaning of the Sabbath: from Genesis we learn that the Sabbath is eternal, and that God has already entered it. From Exodus, we learn that Jesus brought about a new creation (on Sunday). And from Deuteronomy, we learn that Jesus has brought about the greater Exodus of His people. All of this points to the fact that Jesus fulfills the meaning of the Sabbath such that we must worship Him on Sunday, the day this fulfillment happened.

III. The New Testament on the Sabbath

A. Jesus’ examples

Jesus worshiped God on the Sabbath prior to his death and resurrection. It was still officially the OT era. The new era had not broken in until Jesus’ death

and resurrection. Therefore, it was natural that Jesus would worship God on the Sabbath prior to his death and resurrection. However, after the resurrection, every time Christ appeared to the disciples, it was on a Sun-day. When Jesus rose from the dead and was preach-ing (!) on Sunday to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, having fellowship (!) with them, that was an act of worship. Later on, that same day, (see especially Luke 24:33 “that same hour they went to tell the disci-ples”), He appeared to them while they were discuss-ing these things. Then he gave to them a mini-sermon (probably abbreviated to the few essential points by Luke), and furthermore, ate a meal with them (simi-lar, though somewhat different, from the Lord’s Sup-per). John is even more important in this regard. In John 20:19, John emphatically declares that “on that day, the first day of the week” the disciples were gath-ered together, and Jesus appeared among them. John is peculiarly emphatic about the fact that it was the first day of the week when this appearance of Jesus took place. This is probably because of the fact that John’s gospel was written primarily to Jews (this is indicated by verse 31, which should actually be read, “these things (all of John) are written so that you may believe that the Christ is Jesus”). The question of the identity of the Christ is a question that Jews asked. Because he wrote to Jews, he wanted to explain to them the origin of the Christian Sunday worship. Even more plain is verse 26, where a pattern starts to emerge: the Christians worshipped on Sunday. The disciples were together again (the word “again” implies design on their part to meet) eight days later (counting inclusively, therefore meaning Sunday, as all commentators agree), when Je-sus appeared to them again. Contrary to the assertion of some that there is no mention of Sunday worship in the NT, either in the worship of the early church, or in the example of Jesus, there is every reason to believe that not only did the early church worship on Sunday, but that the example of Jesus also shows the pattern of Sunday worship. This is clear from Luke and from John.

B. The rest of the New Testament

There are three more references in the NT that con-clusively demonstrate (again, according to the plain sense of the passages, as well as the opinion of most “unbiased” commentators) that Sunday was the day of worship for the early church. The first passage is Acts 20:7. Not only were they gathered together on the first day of the week, but they broke bread together (most

236 Volume 5 (2009)


commentators think that this is the Lord’s Supper).14 Paul also preached a very long sermon to them. So the Lord’s Supper and preaching happened on Sunday. Fur-thermore, Eutychus dies, necessitating a resurrection on Sunday. This is probably not accidental reporting on Luke’s part, but rather a backward reference to Je-sus’ own resurrection.15

The only difficulty to be mentioned here is the debate among scholars as to whether the evening of the Sab-bath is mentioned, or the evening of Sunday is meant. It really does not matter. If Luke is using the Jewish method of reckoning, then the day started on the eve-ning (thus meaning that Saturday night was the start of Sunday). If Luke is using the Roman/Greek method of reckoning, then he means the evening of Sunday (which the Romans/Greeks thought of as part of the daylight preceding). Either way, Luke means Sunday. Most commentators note that Luke elsewhere uses the Roman system of reckoning, and so Sunday is meant.

The Seventh-Day Sabbath position will object: what about all the references in Acts to the Christians worshiping on the Sabbath in the synagogue? This is answerable. Paul (along with all the other disciples/mis-sionaries) always went to the Jews first in a given city before they went to the Gentiles. In order to witness to them, he would naturally have attended their synagogue service in order to be there when the Jews were there. That fact does not mean that the Christians worshiped by themselves on the Sabbath. There is no indication in the NT that the Christians worshiped on Saturday when there were no Jews present. Only when the Jews were there did they worship in the synagogue on Saturday, and only then for missionary purposes.

The second indication of Sunday worship is 1 Cor-inthians 16:2. Paul asks that a collection be gathered for the saints in Jerusalem. He wants it done on the first day of the week. Why would he mention this if the saints were usually gathering on Saturday for wor-ship? Wouldn’t it have been more convenient for Paul to ask them to gather it together on the Saturday Sabbath,

if that is when they met? It is objected that the collec-tion being taken is private, thus giving no indication that the church body is meant. However, the letter as a whole is addressed to a church. In 1:1, Paul draws a parallel between the Corinthian churches and the Ga-latian churches. Thus, there is every indication that the individual offering was then collected by the church “on the first day of every week.” There would be no need at all to mention the first day of the week were it not for the fact that the church worshiped on that day. Tak-ing it (along with most commentators Protestant and Catholic) as an indication that worship happened on Sunday, we now have three of the elements prescribed for worship as having a clear precedent of happening on Sunday: preaching (Jesus’ examples, and Paul), break-ing bread, i.e. the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7), and tithes and offerings (1 Corinthians 16:2).

The third clear indication of Sunday worship is found in Revelation 1:10. He says that he was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s day.” This term “Lord’s day” means Sunday, not Saturday, as every commentator on the passage ad-mits. It was used in the early (!) church to mean Sun-day. Already by John’s time the word had acquired a technical sense meaning that day on which Christians worshipped. Even today, the same Greek word means Sunday in the modern Greek language. So the argument from this passage is that the term had acquired a special meaning. It was a day commemorative of the Lord (of what could it be commemorative but the Lord’s resur-rection?). This was the day of the week set aside for com-memorating the resurrection of the Lord from the dead.

The argument is not affected at all by the observa-tion that the context does not specifically mention a worship service. The question is not about where John was at this point in time, but rather what the adjective kuriakov~ means in connection with the word “day” (hJmevra). Even in modern Greek, the word Kuriakhv means “Sunday.”

One common passage cited against the Puritan view of the Sabbath is Colossians 2:16. Most modern com-mentators simply assume that the weekly Sabbath is re-ferred to by the plural sabbavtwn. This is by no means clear.16 The context seems to indicate matters of cere-monies, not the weekly Sabbath. One could argue that no judgment should be passed on those who argue for Saturday Sabbath. However, the Jews often observed special Sabbath Days that had no relation to the weekly Sabbath. It is much more likely that these special Sab-bath days are in view rather than the weekly Sabbath, which principle is a matter of the inviolable moral law, not a ceremony. The same general line of argumentation

14. Barrett does not think that the Lord’s Supper is here intimated. See C. K. Barrett, Acts 15–28 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998) 950. How-ever, as Alexander notes, the Lord’s Supper was originally attached to a fellowship meal, as in 1 Corinthians 11:20–22. See J.A. Alexander, Acts (1857; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1991) 2.228. 15. See the slightly more guarded appraisal in David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 559. 16. Most modern commentators ignore the issue of the weekly Sab-bath, or simply take the arguments of From Sabbath to Lord’s Day for granted. The best modern treatment of the passage from the Puritan standpoint is undoubtedly Gordon Clark, in Colossians (Jefferson, Md.: The Trinity Foundation, 1979), pp. 94–97.

Volume 5 (2009) 237


goes for Romans 14:5 as well, which does not describe the weekly Sabbath, but festival days.

In summary, the NT indicates that Christians wor-shiped on Sunday. This evidence, combined with what we have set out in the OT section, would indicate a re-demptive-historical movement from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday Sabbath. All of this evidence is necessary to set out in order to provide conclusive proof that Isaiah 58:13–14 still provides normative directions for Sabbath observance in the NT era. This point is emphatically important, since a latent dispensationalism seems to infect candidates as they consider the Sabbath day. The continuity of OT Sabbath to NT Sabbath is important in its own right. However, it is also vitally important to the confirmation of the point concerning recreation. It is to the passage in Isaiah that we now turn, confident that whatever it says applies to the NT Sabbath day just as much as it did to the OT Sabbath day.

IV. Isaiah 58:13–14

A. Contextual Considerations

This passage is certainly the key passage when it comes to the “no recreation” clauses in the Westminster Stan-dards. The question is this: does the passage support the conclusions that have been based upon it? My the-sis is that it does support the divines’ conclusion. First we will deal with some contextual issues, and then dive into the heart of the exegesis.

In the largest scope of the book, this passage occurs in the prophecies concerning deliverance which form the second main portion of Isaiah (40–66). I assume here, but will not attempt to prove, that Isaiah, son of Amoz, wrote the entirety of the book bearing his name. The second main portion of the book is concerned with preaching the good news of comfort to Jerusalem (40:1–2). The pas-sage in question occurs in the sequence of 56–58, which deal with true worship as opposed to false worship. Wes-termann rightly notes that this passage forms an inclu-sio (envelope structure) with 56:1–8.17 The people were profaning the Sabbath by doing their own desires (56:2, 6). The connection of 58:13–14 to 56:1–8 is established by several links: the house of prayer (56:5, 7 and 58:12), the mention of keeping the Sabbath (56:2, 4, 6 and 58:13–14), and the references to Jacob/Israel (56:3, 8 and 58:1, 2, 14).

The issues in chapter 58 are not limited to the Sab-bath observance. Righteousness in general, true wor-ship in fasting, the Sabbath, and social justice are all woven together (see Seitz, 500). It is important to notice here that the concerns of the prophet are not limited

to concerns about social justice. Verse 4 is clear: quar-reling, fighting, and boxing are not legitimate parts of a proper fast. Verse 5 also supports this reading, since the concern in verse 5 is about outward observance of the fast, but no inward righteousness to go along with the outward fast. The contrast with verses 6–12 is quite pronounced, and says the same thing as Hosea: “I de-sire mercy and not sacrifice” (6:6). Here, it is “I desire righteousness, not fasting.”

However, the idea of the Sabbath is slightly differ-ent than the idea of fasting. With fasting, the problem was an outward observance without the substance of righteousness. The people were attempting to coerce God by means of outward fasting without inward righ-teousness.18 The solution given was actually not directly related to fasting. However, with the Sabbath the com-mandment is plain that the people should observe the Sabbath in a better way. They were not keeping the Sab-bath holy, but were profaning it with things better done on other days of the week.

B. The Meaning of Åp,je in context

The key exegetical issue of the passage with regard to the support of the confession’s understanding of recreation is undoubtedly the meaning of Åp,je. This noun has one of two possible meanings in this context: “business,” or “pleasure.” The difference between the two makes a vast difference as to whether recreations are allowed on the Sabbath day. If the scope of the word is limited only to business transactions, then the passage has nothing whatsoever to say about recreations, unless one finds it in the phrase “your own ways.”19

There are arguments in favor of taking the word this way. For example, the issue of oppressing workers is cer-tainly in the context (the last part of vs. 3). This word can mean “business” elsewhere in Scripture, especially in Ecclesiastes.20

17. Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969) 340. See also Christopher Seitz, Isaiah 40–66, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, volume 6, 307–552 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) 499. 18. See H. G. M. Williamson, “Promises, Promises! Some Exegetical Reflections on Isaiah 58, Word and World 19 (1999) 153–160, esp. 156. 19. For advocacy of the translation “business,” see G. Johannes Botterweck, and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 4-5. (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1980) 5.99. See also emphatically Jan Koole, Isaiah III: vol. 3, Isaiah 56–66 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001) 156. 20. See the article by David Talley in Willem VanGemeren, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Car-lisle: Paternoster, 1997).

238 Volume 5 (2009)


However, the matter is not so simple as Jan Koole, for one, would have us to believe. The word can certainly mean “desire” or “pleasure.” Malachi 1:10 and Psalm 1:2 are certainly instances of the word meaning “delight” and not “business.” Furthermore, this is how the ver-sions have translated the word. The LXX uses the word qelhvmata (“desires”), and the Vulgate translates it “vol-untatem” (“things of your will”). The verbal form is used in the context in verse 2 in a way that certainly points to “delight” and not to “business.” Furthermore, while the noun form is used in verse 3 in a context that is ar-guably favorable to the “business” translation, the later context of verse 4 broadens out the meaning of the word. The context of fasting holds together the oppression of workers and the “pleasure” being sought. Therefore, it could be the case that the “pleasure” of verse 3 includes both the oppression of workers and the quarreling and boxing in verse 4. These concerns would then be treated in the same order for the rest of the chapter: oppression in vv. 6–12, and proper Sabbath observance in vv. 13–14.

In the passage itself, the contrast is not between do-ing business or not doing business, but between de-light in “your own things” versus delight “in the Lord” of verse 14. As E.J. Young puts it, “It is the pleasure of man in contrast to that of God that is brought to the fore.”21 On the practical level of determining which ac-tions are appropriate for the Sabbath Sunday, Motyer is helpful here:

The determining factor is whether this or that activ-ity defiles or honours the holiness of the day, whether it is a mere indulgence of a personal pleasure (doing

as you please) or preference (going your own way) or whether it conduces to “sweet delight” in the Lord and his ordinances.22

The translation “business” is less natural in the con-text because of how the word is used in terms of the de-light in the Lord in verse 14.23 To say that one should “do business in the Lord” for verse 14 makes little sense.24 However, to say “delight in the Lord” makes a great deal of sense. It should be noted here that the verb at the beginning of verse 14, while not the same verb as Åpej;, is nonetheless a synonym of it (the verb is gnO[; in the hithpael).25

C. The Meaning of òyk,r;D] t/c[}me in Context

The usual understanding of Jr,D, in such circumstances is “conduct, way of life.” E.J. Young has the most help-ful comment on this:

The “way” is a course of conduct and refers to all courses and actions that men choose in preference to the com-mands of God. These courses and actions may be right and legitimate on other days, but when they obtrude in the place of that delight, which is to find expression in the observance of the sabbath, they are to be refrained from (Young, 427).

In other words, the way of Sabbath-keeping which is forbidden here is “one’s own way.” The way of Sabbath-keeping which is commanded here is “the delight in the Lord.” This understanding of the phrase strongly sup-ports the Puritan view of Isaiah 58: 13–14.

D. Concluding Remarks on Isaiah 58:13–14

It is not merely the case that a good argument may be mounted for the Puritan view. The exegetical evidence here presented shows that the Puritan understanding of the Sabbath is the biblical understanding of the Sabbath when it comes to recreation, which would certainly fall under the category of “your own ways” and “your plea-sure,” which are here proscribed. Therefore, the Puritan understanding of this passage, used to support the “no recreation” clause in the Westminster Standards, is the correct understanding of the passage.

IV. Concluding Practical Observations

One of the main problems I see among candidates forContinued on Page 323.

21. E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: volume 3, chapters 40–66 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 426. It should be noted that Young easily dismisses the caricature of the Puritan view in the immediately pre-ceding context of the quotation in question. He says, “It is a gross misunderstanding to interpret as though the words meant ‘that which is pleasant’ and to conclude from this that the prophet’s only concern is that the sabbath be a day not of pleasure but of gloom” (ibid.). In-deed, the command is to delight in the Lord, not to be gloomy in the Lord! 22. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993) 483. 23. See J. A. Alexander, Commentary on Isaiah, 2 vols. in one (1867; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1992) 2.362. 24. It could make more sense if one translates it “make the Lord your business.” However, this is not a natural way of taking the prepo-sitional phrase hw:hy]Al[‘, which is more naturally understood as “in the Lord” or “over the Lord.” 25. Delitzsch helpfully comments, “Again, if thou call (i.e. from inward contemplation and esteem) the Sabbath a pleasure (‘ōneg, because it leads thee to God, and not a burden because it leads thee away from thine everyday life; cf. Amos viii.5).” Franz Delitzsch, Isa-iah, 2 vols. in one (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint 1983) 2.394.

Volume 5 (2009) 323

In Continuation The Confessional Presbyterian

Francis Turretin and Barthianism: The Covenant of Works in Historical Perspective. Continued from Page 213.

To again invoke the impression of à Brackel mentioned in the beginning of this study, only when we understand aright the covenant of works will we understand aright the covenant of grace.55 Only when we first understand what Adam failed to do, can we fully appreciate—to the glory of God alone who is abundant and rich in mercy—what Christ succeeded to do on our behalf. For if we are to be justified, and justifi-cation is to truly be by grace alone, it must be on the basis of a righteousness that is not our own. It must be on the basis of a perfect righteousness that is imputed to us by faith alone because of Christ alone. Perhaps ironically, only with this understanding of the covenant of works can the covenant of grace be truly gracious. ■

In Brief: The Intent of Larger Catechism 109 Regarding Pictures of Christ’s Humanity. Continued from Page 228.

The wording of public ordinances and subsequent wide-spread destruction of depictions of Christ, the Parliament’s authorization of views such as those held by Vicars and others, Laud’s view contrary to the Homilies noted in his trial, and the involvement of the four London ministers in identifying idols for destruction which included pictures of Christ, as well as the work by the Assembly on Parliament’s list of scandalous sins, all indicate that if indeed the Westminster divines were of a mind to omit pictures of Christ’s humanity from their proscriptions in Larger Catechism 109, they would surely have needed to have stated this explicitly. Clearly, subsequent gen-erations of Presbyterians understood this to be the intent of the Westminster Assembly, which can be traced in the many sources cited in Dr. VanDrunen’s article.

Chris Coldwell ■

The Sabbath Day and Sabbath Recreations. Continued from Page 238.the ministry is a failure to engage the Puritan view of the Sab-bath. One is tempted to think that no exegetical or historical work has been done by these candidates. It behooves candi-dates coming into a confessional church to examine the rea-sons why the standards say what they say. If they plan to take an exception to the “no recreation” clause, they need to have a better understanding of what Isaiah 58:13–14 mean in the context, and in the overall scope of redemptive history, and not simply argue that “pleasure” means “business,” when the con-text of the passage does not lend itself to this interpretation.

On what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath, there is endless debate, stretching all the way back to Talmudic times (the Talmud has an entire treatise on the Sabbath). Rather

than asking about a specific activity, as to whether or not it is lawful (and usually with the mindset of what the person can get away with), it is more helpful to remember that the rest in view is not simply physical rest, but rather a rest of wor-shipping the Lord. Therefore, if the activity is conducive to worship, then it is lawful. We cannot ignore the human con-science here either, since an activity that might be conducive for worship to one person may not be conducive to worship for someone else. To take one example, it is certainly wise to let small children let loose some of their excess energy on the Sabbath (contrary to Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Farmer Boy!). Otherwise, they will not be able to sit still and pay attention in worship. One does not have to take the attitude of Almanzo Wilder’s father in order to have a Puritan view of what is ac-ceptable on the Sabbath! It is certainly a work of necessity to do something about the energy of small children. We must avoid both extremes of legalism and antinomianism here, as well as everywhere in our treatment of the law. ■

Psallo: Psalm 42:1–11. Continued from Page 296. of God. In the companion Psalm which follows, he asks for that deliverance which results once again in joining in those public ordinances. In a day when the lightest or slightest things become excuses for missing the public worship of our day, this is indeed a refreshing encouragement not only to be diligent in attendance upon those ordinances, but to count them as the precious gifts that they are from the Lord.

Let us then learn from this “Wisdom Psalm”. Let us, with the Psalmist, confess that the Lord is our necessary sustenance, and that we are indeed dried and parched apart from Him. Let us confess that our affections are not as they ought to be, and bewail, and confess our indifference and coldness toward the Lord. Let us also confess that the public ordinances of wor-ship are our necessary food, and turn away from the pietistic notion that we can be content in private and secret worship. Let us prize the Day the Lord has set apart for Himself, and those ordinances by which He communes with us. Let us pre-pare to meet the Lord week by week, and have a proper sense of anticipation which befits the greatness of His blessing in these signal benefits. Let us long for Him as the thirsty deer long for the valley springs!

Todd L. Ruddell■

55. And therefore we cannot agree with the points of agreement that McGowan has with Barth on the covenant. McGowan argues that Barth’s rejection of the covenant works/grace distinction and denial of the priority of law over grace was a helpful critique of tra-ditional covenant theology. He therefore concludes that to advocate these things is potentially “fatal.” However, as for us, it appears to be just the opposite; the preservation of the gospel depends upon the priority of law and the distinction between covenant of works and grace. “Karl Barth,” 130.

260 Volume 10 (2014)

The Confessional Presbyterian Author Index: Volume 1–10

Author IndexVolumes 1–10 (2005–2014)

Allen, Walter. In Brief: In Librum D. N. Boundi, De Doctrna de Sabbatho, Gualteri Aleni Pothumus. 10.244.

Anonymous. Death of Dr. Plumer. 9.78.

Anonymous. In Brief: Introduction to the United States Chris-tian Magazine of 1796. 2.19.

Anonymous. In Brief: Two Good Anecdotes [Re: Samuel Miller and Archibald Alexander]. 1.93.

Anonymous. In Brief: William Carruthers: 1830–1922). 1.64.

Anonymous. In Brief: Rev. Dr. Alexander in Virginia. 8.64.

Arnold, Patrick. Review: Paul Helm, Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time, 2nd ed. 7.178

Backensto, Bruce R. John Brown of Wamphray, Richard Bax-ter and the Justification Controversy, 3.118.

Baillie, Robert. In Brief: Robert Baillie on the Chiliasm of Archer, Burroughs and Goodwin. 7.110.

Barnes, Roland S. The Practice of Lent and the Reformed Tradition. 10.89.

Bottomly, R. Victor. In Translatiōne: Calvin’s Response to a Certain Tricky Middler. 8.254.

Bredenhof, Wes. Review: John M. Frame, Systematic Theol-ogy: An Introduction to Christian Belief. 10.207

Bredenhof, Wes. Review: Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. 7.164.

Bredenhof, Wes. Review: Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology. 5.274.

Bredenhof, Wes. In Translatiōne: De Brès versus Richardot: A Sixteenth-Century Debate Regarding the Lord’s Sup-per. 6.250.

Bredenhof, Wes. Johannes Megapolensis: Pioneer Reformed Missionary to the Mohawks. 5.161.

Bredenhof, Wes. Martyrdom, Mission and the Belgic Con-fession. 4.109.

Brown, Michael. The Covenant Of Works Revived: John Owen on Republication in the Mosaic Covenant. 4.151.

Bucey, Camden M. The Lord and His Messengers: Toward a Trinitarian Interpretation of Malachi 3:1–4. 7.153

Cangelosi, Caleb. William Swan Plumer’s Defense of the Im-peccability of Jesus Christ. 9.63

Cassidy, James J. Review: Kevin Giles, The Eternal Genera-tion of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian The-ology. 8.230.

Cassidy, James. Review: Paul C. Gutjahr, Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy. 7.187.

Cassidy, James J. Critical-Realism & the Relation of Redemp-tive Act to Revelatory Word. 2.79.

Cassidy, James J. No ‘Absolute Impeccability’: Charles Hodge and Christology at Old and New Princeton. 9.143.

Cassidy, James J. Francis Turretin and Barthianism: The Cov-enant of Works in Historical Perspective. 5.199.

Clark, R. Scott. Review: Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teach-ing of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of ad Diognetum. 5.283.

Clark, R. Scott. Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Dou-ble Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace. 2.3.

Clark, R. Scott. Olevianus and the Old Perspective on Paul: A Preliminary Report. 4.17.

Clary, Glen J. Holy Communion in the Theology of John Knox. 7.3.

Clary, Glen J. The Liturgical Nature of Ecclesial Ministry. 10.100.

Clary, Glen J. Ulrich Zwingli and the Swiss Anabaptists: Sola Scriptura and the Reformation of Christian Worship. 6.108.

Volume 10 (2014) 261

Author Index: Volume 1–10 The Confessional Presbyterian

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: The James Durham MSS Held by Glasgow University Library. 5.303.

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: The James Durham MSS Part II. 7.230

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: Nicholas Bownd’s Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti: or the True Doctrine of the Sabbath. 10.234.

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: An Overview and Analysis of George Gillespie’s Dispute Against the English Popish Cer-emonies. 9.224.

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: T. & J. Swords. Part One. Printers During the Federal Period to Doctors, Scientists, Friendly and Calliopean Clubers, and other New York Literati, as well as High Churchists, and the Occasional Presbyterian. 2.211.

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: T. & J. Swords. Part Three: The ‘High Churchism’ Controversy. 4.277.

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: T. & J. Swords. Part Two. Two Large Presbyterian Works. 3.280.

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: The Traditional Form of The Westminster Standards. 1.168.

Coldwell, Chris. Antiquary: Westminster Abbey Library: And Other Theological Resources of the Assembly of Divines (1643–1652). 6.263.

Coldwell, Chris. In Brief: The Intent of Larger Catechism 109 Regarding Pictures of Christ’s Humanity. 5.217.

Coldwell, Chris. Anti-Sabbatarian Scold: Thomas Rogers’ Let-ter to Nicholas Bownd, April 29, 1598. 10.113.

Coldwell, Chris. Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines, Or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? 6.31.

Coldwell, Chris. A Critical Text of the Westminster Larger Catechism: Q. 1–50, 3.37.

Coldwell, Chris. Examining the Work of S. W. Carruthers: Jus-tifying a Critical Approach to the Text of the Westminster Standards & Correcting the 18th Century Lineage of the Traditional Scottish Text. 1.43.

Coldwell, Chris. The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part One: Chronology. 5.3

Cooper, Christopher. Binding Bodies and Liberating Souls: James Henley Thornwell’s Vision for a Spiritual Church and a Christian Confederacy. 9.35.

Coppes, Leonard J. Review: Response to Benjamin Shaw. 2.165.

Coppes, Leonard J. Review: Response to Benjamin Shaw’s Review. 1.153.

Coppes, Leonard J. Review: Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs. 2.193.

Crampton, W. Gary. Review: Jay E. Adams, Keeping the Sab-bath Today? 6.208.

Crampton, W. Gary. Review: Greg L. Bahnsen, Presupposi-tional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. 6.239.

Crampton, W. Gary. Review: J. Knox Chamblin, Matthew: A Mentor Commentary 7.190.

Crampton, W. Gary. Review: Response to J. V. Fesko. 7.206.

Crampton, W. Gary. Review: George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life. 2.175.

Crampton, W. Gary. Review: Robert L. Reymond, Faith’s Reasons For Believing: An Apologetic Antidote to Mindless Christianity. 4.214.

Crampton, W. Gary. Review: Robert L. Reymond, The God-Centered Preacher: Developing a Pulpit Ministry Approved by God, 3.261.

Crampton, W. G. Review: Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Im-perative. 8.237.

Crampton, W. Gary. According to Augustine. 4.72.

Crampton, W. Gary. An Analysis of Open Theism. 2.61.

Crampton, W. Gary. Edwards’ Freedom of the Will: A Review and Analysis, 3.86.

Crampton, W. Gary. John Calvin on the Doctrine of Divine Revelation. 5.89.

262 Volume 10 (2014)


Crampton, W. Gary. Jonathan Edwards on Scripture & Sal-vation. 1.65.

Deatsch, Tim. Review: Timothy Z. Witmer, The Shepherd Leader. 6.244

Delivuk, John (Jack) Allen. Liberty of Conscience in the Westminster Confession and its Application to Modern ‘Worship Wars.’ 2.43.

Dilday, Steven. In Translatiōne: Part II. John Brown of Wamphray: Singing of Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs in the Public Worship of God. 5.296.

Dilday, Steven. In Translatiōne: Nicholas Bownd’s Sabbathvm veteris et Novi Testamenti: Commendations by Andrew Willet & William Jones. Pages 228–233.

Dolezal, James E. Review: J. van Genderen and W.H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics. 5.278.

Dolezal, James E. Review: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologiz-ing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. 7.167.

Dolezal, James E. Review: Paul Helm, Calvin at the Centre. 6.229.

Dolezal, James E. Review: Surrejoinder to Kevin Vanhoozer. 7.175.

Duncan, J. Ligon III. Review: The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, 1.161.

Estelle, Bryan D. The Old Testament and the Comparative Method. 6.145.

Fesko, J. V. Review: W. Gary Crampton, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism: A Critique of the Westminster Standards on the Subjects of Baptism. 7.203.

Fesko, J. V. Review: Surrejoinder to Dr. Crampton’s Response. 7.210.

Fesko, J. V. Review: Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, 2.184.

Fesko, J. V. Heinrich Bullinger on Union with Christ and Justification. 6.3.

Fesko, J. V. A Critical Examination of N. T. Wright’s Doctrine of Justification. 1.102.

Fesko, J. V. The Westminster Standards and Confessional Lu-theranism on Justification, 3.15.

Fesko, J. V. and Cornel Venema. Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Distinctives? [Part I.] III. The Republication of the Covenant of Works. 8.197.

Forkner, Wayne. Review: Norman Shepherd: Law and Gospel in Covenantal Perspective. 1.155.

Gaffin, Richard B. Review: Cornelius P. Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ. The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology. 5.269.

Gallant, Tim. Review: A Response to Leonard Coppes Re-garding Feed My Lambs. 2.199.

Gallant, Tim. Review: Response [to Cornelis P. Venema, A Response to the Coppes-Gallant Exchange Regarding Paed-ocommunion]. 3.242.

Garcia, Mark A. and Michael S. Horton. Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Distinctives? Part III. I. Law and Gospel. 10.171.

Garretson, James M. Archibald Alexander & the Founding of Princeton Theological Seminary. 8.3.

Goodwin, Thomas. In Brief: Thomas Goodwin on God’s Blessing His People. 7.122.

Hall, David W. Explicit and Implicit Appendixes to Calvin’s View of Justification by Faith. 6.97.

Hall, David W. John Calvin on Human Government and the State. 4.122.

Hall, Jimmy. Review: Clinton Arnold, Ephesians, Zonder-van Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 8.247.

Hart, D. G. Review: Bradley J. Longfield, Presbyterians and American Culture: A History. 10.223.

Hart, D. G. Francis Makemie and the Meaning of American Presbyterianism. 2.71.

Hart, D. G. The Reorganization of Princeton Theological Seminary and the Exhaustion of American Presbyterian-ism. 8.109.

Volume 10 (2014) 263


Helseth, Paul Kjoss. “Right Reason” and the Science of Theol-ogy at Old Princeton Seminary: A New Perspective. 8.75.

Herzer, Mark. The Modern Roman Catholic View of Scrip-ture. 6.132.

Hofstetter, N. E. Barry and Chris Coldwell. In Translatiōne: Andrew Willet’s Preface to Nicholas Bownd’s Sabbathvm veteris et Novi Testamenti. 1.166.

Hofstetter, N. E. Barry and Chris Coldwell. In Translatiōne: John Brown of Wamphray: The Universal Visible Church. 2.208.

Hofstetter, N. E. Barry and Chris Coldwell. In Translatiōne: John Brown of Wamphray: Singing of Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs in the Public Worship of God From De Causa Dei contra Antisabbatarios, [Part 1], 3.276. See under Dil-day, Steven for Part 2.

Horton, Michael S. and Mark A. Garcia. Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Distinctives? [Part I.] I. Law and Gospel. 8.154

Howe, George. In Brief: A Bibliography of Published Works. 4.69.

Hutchinson, Christopher A. Review: Sinclair Ferguson. In Christ Alone: Living the Christ Centered Life. 5.290.

Hyde, Daniel R. For Freedom Christ Has Set Us Free: John Owen’s A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and Their Im-position. 4.29.

Hyde, Daniel, R. In Defense of the Descendit: A Confessional Response to Contemporary Critics of Christ’s Descent into Hell, 3.104.

Jeon, Jeong Koo. The Abrahamic Covenant and the Kingdom of God. 7.123.

Jeon, Jeong Koo. The Covenant of Creation and the Kingdom of God. 9.123.

Jones, Mark. Review: Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. 4.217.

Jones, Stuart R. Presbyterian Due Process: A Scottish and American Recovery of Procedural Canons. 2.28.

Jones, Stuart R. Review: C. N. Willborn, ‘In Thesi’ Deliver-ances. 2.167.

Jones, Stuart R. Review: Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incar-nation.3. 251.

Keister, Lane. Review: Douglas Bond, The Mighty Weakness of John Knox and D. M. Lloyd-Jones and Iain Murray, John Knox and the Reformation. 7.211.

Keister, Lane. Review: Joseph C. Morecraft, III, Authentic Christianity: An Exposition of the Theology and Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism; Chris Coldwell, The Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly: A Transcription of the Surviving Manuscripts with Notes; John R. Bower, The Larger Catechism: A Critical Text and Introduction. 6.202.

Keister, J. C. Review: Vern Sheridan Poythress, Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought. 9.202.

Keister, Lane. Review: Bruce Waltke, with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. 4.212.

Keister, Lane. Review: N.T. Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Es-says on Paul, 1978–2013. 10.210.

Keister, Lane. Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Semi-nary California Distinctives? Introduction. 8.153.

Keister, Lane. Should Women Teach or Have Authority Over Men in the Church? An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:8–15. 4.142.

Keister, Lane. The Sabbath Day and Recreations on the Sab-bath: An Examination of the Sabbath and the Biblical Basis for the “No Recreation” Clause in Westminster Confession of Faith 21.8 and Westminster Larger Catechism 117. 5.229.

Kerr, Robert P. “The Office of Deacon:” Extracts from The Presbyterian Quarterly (April, 1896). 5.198.

Korljan, Scott. In the Presence of a Common Foe: Billy Sun-day and Conservative Presbyterians in the Battle Against Liberalism. 9.103.

Lauer, Stewart E. John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatar-ian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues.3.3.

264 Volume 10 (2014)


Lems, Shane. The Centrality of the Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology: A Robust Pneumatology. 4.136.

London Provincial Assembly. In Brief: Defining Divine Right. 10.87

Lucero, Jody. Review: John Currid, Deuteronomy—An Evan-gelical Press Study Commentary. 6.236.

M’Leod, Alexander. In Brief: Alexander M’Leod on a Pastor According to God’s Heart.3.154.

M’Leod, Alexander. In Brief: Alexander M’Leod on the Call to the Gospel Ministry. 3.117.

Macedo, Breno. Systematic Theology and the Preaching of Samuel Davies. 9.51.

Machen, J. G. In Brief: Christ our Substitute. 10.56.

Machen, J. G. In Brief: Excerpt from Machen’s What is Faith? 10.22.

Machen, J. G. In Brief: Tyranny of Unbelief. 10.82.

MacLean, Donald John. “So Great a Love”—James Durham on Christ and His Church in the Song of Solomon. 5.239

MacLean, Donald John. Review: Garnet Howard Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation: The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-biblical Prophecy is Still Possible. 6.223.

Marshall, Stephen. In Brief: A Defence of Infant Baptism. 4.191.

Mason, John Mitchell and Jacob Van Vechten. In Brief: John Mitchell Mason on the New York ‘High Churchism’ Con-troversy. 2.88.

Mason, John. Mitchell. In Brief: Dr. John M. Mason and a Colorblind Lord’s Table. 8.54.

Mason, John Mitchell. In Brief: Extract from John M. Mason, Pardon in Sin in the Blood of Jesus. 2.234.

McGinnis, Andrew M. Review; D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism. 4.222.

McGraw, Ryan M. In Translatiōne: Franciscus Gomarus on Roman Catholic Baptism. 9.216.

McGraw, Ryan M. Review: J. V. Fesko, Last Things First: Un-locking Genesis 1–3 with the Christ of Eschatology. 7.200.

McGraw, Ryan M. Review: J. V. Fesko, Word, Water, And Spirit. With Rejoinder by J. V. Fesko and Sur-Rejoinder by Ryan M. McGraw. 9.190.

McGraw, Ryan M. Review: Daniel R. Hyde, In Living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace. 5.276.

McGraw, Ryan M. Review: Brian K. Kay, Trinitarian Spir-ituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion. 6.242.

McGraw, Ryan M. The Benediction in Corporate Worship. 7.111.

McGraw, Ryan M. John Owen on the Study of Theology. 6.180.

Miller, Samuel, D. D. Edited from Manuscript by Chris Coldwell. Faith Shewn by Works: A Sermon on James 2:18, by Samuel Miller, D.D. 1.3.

Miller, Samuel, D. D. In Brief: Dr. Samuel Miller on Armin-ian and Pelagian Subscribers to the Westminster Confes-sion of Faith. 1.175.

Miller, Samuel, D. D. In Brief: Letter from Dr. Samuel Miller to Dr. A. W. Mitchell, Treasurer of the Presbyterian Board of Publication, October 7, 1840, (8.43

Miller, Samuel, D. D. In Brief: Mature Preparation for the Gospel Ministry. 1.41.

Miller, Samuel, D. D. In Brief: Samuel Miller’s Sermon on the Death of George Washington. 2.233.

Miller, Samuel, D.D. In Brief: Miller on Worship. 1.40.

Moore, T. V. In Brief: T. V. Moore’s Twenty Hints for a Happy Family. 7.97.

Nelson, Caleb. Review: N. T. Wright, How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels. 8.234.

Nevin, Alfred. Samuel Miller (1769–1850). 1.9.

Volume 10 (2014) 265


Olevianus, Caspar. In Brief: On Law and Gospel. 4.28.

Patterson, Daniel F. Review: Eric L. Johnson, Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal 7.195.

Patterson, Daniel F. Review: Edward T. Welch, Running Scared: Fear, Worry, and the God of Rest. 5.292.

Perry, Andy. Puritan Instruction for Profitable Hearing of Sermons. 10.33

Phillips, T. J. Severing the Dragon’s Tail: The Rejection of the Mass and the Adoption of the Reformed Practice of the Lord’s Supper during the Scottish Reformation. 2.20.

Pipa, Joseph, Jr. Seminary Education.3.223.

Ramsey, D. Patrick. Baptismal Regeneration and the Westminster Confession of Faith. 4.183.

Ramsey, D. Patrick. Samuel Rutherford’s Contribution to Cov-enant Theology in Scotland. 5.115.

Rankin, W. Duncan. The Early Reformation in Scotland. 7.41

Reiter, David. The Modal Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence. 7.147.

Richard, Guy M. Review: Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened. 2.189.

Richard, Guy M. In Translatiōne: Samuel Rutherford: Examen Arminianismi, Chapter 19: Of the Civil Magistrate. 4.270.

Richard, Guy M. Samuel Rutherford’s Supralapsarianism Re-vealed: A Key to the Lapsarian Position of the Westminster Confession of Faith? 4.162.

Ritchie, Daniel. Reformed Presbyterian Criticism of the 1859 Ulster Revival’s Impact on Worship and Church Order. 7.47.

Rolison, Joseph E. By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them—A Timely Admonition from an Ancient Narrative: A Sermon on Genesis 9:18–29. 10.13.

Ruddell, Todd L. Psallo: Psalm 109:1–10. 1.164.

Ruddell, Todd L. Psallo: Psalm 2. 2.206.









Schäfli, Ephraim. In Translatiōne: The Preface to the Con-stance Hymnbook by Joannem Zwick. 7.216.

Selvaggio, Anthony T. An Answer to the Challenge of Preach-ing the Old Testament: An Historical & Theological Ex-amination of the Redemptive-Historical Approach. 5.170

Shaw, Benjamin. Englishing the Bible: A Confessional Ap-proach. 6.125.

Shaw, Benjamin. De Jure Divino Presbyterianism. 10.83.

Shaw, Benjamin. Review: Leonard J. Coppes, The Divine Days of Creation. 1.152.

Shaw, Benjamin. Review: Reply to Leonard Coppes’ Response. 1.154.

Shaw, Benjamin. Review: Preston Graham, Jr., A Kingdom Not of This World: Stuart Robinson’s Struggle to Distinguish the Sacred from the Secular During the Civil War. 9.210.

Shaw, Benjamin. The Old Testament at Old Princeton. 8.65.

Smith, Frank J. American Presbyterianism and the Cold War. 6.60.

Smith, Frank J. American Presbyterianism, Geology, and the Days of Creation. 4.3.

Smith, Frank J. Presbyterian Quintessence: The Five ‘Heads’ of Church Government. 5.127.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Dominic A. Aquila, “Redemptive His-tory and the Regulative Principle of Worship,” in The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson. 4.244.

266 Volume 10 (2014)


Smith, Frank J. Review: A Conversation on Denominational Renewal, February 26–28, 2008, Bill Boyd, “Worship,” Matt Brown, “Ecclesiology,” Jeremy Jones, “Theological Reflec-tion.” 4.251.

Smith, Frank J. Review: W. L. Bredenhof, “A Guide to Re-formed Worship,” ten articles in The Clarion. 4.247.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Walter H. Conser Jr. and Robert J. Cain, Presbyterians in North Carolina: Race, Politics, and Religious Identity in Historical Perspective. 9.204.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Robert L. Dickie, What the Bible Teaches About Worship. 4.238.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Mark Dalbey, “Christian Worship,” Online Course Lectures, Covenant Theological Seminary. 4.248.

Smith, Frank J. Review: John M. Frame, “The Second Com-mandment: Regulating Worship,” in The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship. 4.233.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Cory Griess, “The Regulative Prin-ciple: A Confessional Examination,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal. 4.248.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Paxson H. Jeancake, The Art of Wor-ship: Opening Our Eyes to the Beauty of the Gospel. 4.230.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Reggie M. Kidd, With One Voice: Discovering Christ’s Song in Our Worship. 4.227.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship. 4.239.

Smith, Frank J. Review: R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Volume 2: Salvation and the Christian Life and A Taste of Heaven: Worship in the Light of Eternity. 4.240.

Smith, Frank J. Review: Blogroll: Andrew J. Webb, Building Old School Presbyterian Churches; Jeffrey J. Meyers, Cor-rigenda Denuo; Sean Michael Lucas, Sean Michael Lucas; R. Scott Clark, The Heidelblog; Will Shin, Thoughts & Ac-tions. 4.249.

Smith, Frank J. with Chris Coldwell. The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature. Part One (1946–1999). 2.89.

Smith, Frank J. with Chris Coldwell. The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature. Part Two (2000–2007). 3.155.

Smith, Frank J. and David C. Lachman. Reframing Presbyte-rian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore. 1.116.

Sparkman, Wayne. Archibald Alexander D. D. (1772–1851) An Annotated Bibliography. 8.120.

Sparkman, Wayne. The Rev. Dr. Alexander M’Leod, An An-notated Bibliography With Extracts from his Diaries. 3.231.

Sparkman, Wayne. Samuel Miller, D. D. (1769–1850) An An-notated Bibliography. 1.11.

Stanton, Allen. 1812–1822: The Development of Princeton’s Polemic. 7.65.

Stanton, Allen. 1823–1830: The Establishment Of Princeton’s Polemic. 8.20.

Stanton, Allen. The Theological Climate of the Early Nine-teenth Century and the Founding of a Polemical Seminary at Princeton. 6.22.

Steward, Gary. The Calvinistic Soteriology of Jonathan Dick-inson. 7.77.

Steward, Gary. Old Princeton and American Culture: Insights from J. W. Alexander. 8.55.

Stivason, Jeffrey. Review: Sinclair Ferguson, From the Mouth of God: Trusting, Reading, and Applying the Bible. 10.212.

Stivason, Jeffrey. Review Article: Wright on Evil. N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God. 10.214.

Stivason, Jeffrey A. McLeod Campbell, Edwards and Atone-ment. 10.47

Strange, Alan. Review: D. G. Hart, John Williamson Nevin: High-Church Calvinist. 3.256.

Strange, Alan. Affirmation of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly of Di-vines. 4.194.

Swords, T. & J. In Brief: Transcription of a Letter from T. & J. Swords. 2.205.

Volume 10 (2014) 267


Thomas, Chris. To the Law and the Testimony: James Henley Thornwell and Jus Divinum Presbyterianism. 9.21.

Thornwell, James H. In Brief: The Sacrifice of Christ. 9.20.

Thornwell, James H. A Sermon on Hebrews 11:7. 9.3.

Tipton, Lane G. The Presence of Divine Persons: Extend-ing the Incarnational Analogy to Impeccability and Iner-rancy. 6.196.

Trueman, Carl R. Review: Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. 10.205.

Trueman, Carl R. Some Personal Thought on B. B. Warfield’s Life and Significance: A Lecture. 8.99

VanDrunen, David and Jeffrey C. Waddington. Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Dis-tinctives? [Part I.] II. The Reformed Two Kingdoms Doc-trine. 8.177.

VanDrunen, David. Pictures of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature and a Defense of the Confessional Reformed View. 5.214.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Review: Response to James Dolezal: “On the Scope and Scopus of ‘Always Reforming.’” 7. 172.

Venema, Cornel and J. V. Fesko. Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Distinctives? [Part II.] II. The Republication of the Covenant of Works. By Cornel Venema with Response by J. V. Fesko. 9.157.

Venema, Cornelis P. Review: A Response to the Coppes-Gal-lant Exchange Regarding Paedocommunion. 3.235.

Venema, Cornelis P. Review: Reply [to Tim Gallant]. 3.247.

Vogan, Matthew. Review: Ryan M McGraw, The Day of Wor-ship: Reassessing the Christian Life in Light of the Sabbath. 8.243.

Waddington, Jeffrey C. Review: J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ: A Doctrine in Contention; Michael Horton, Cov-enant and Salvation: Union with Christ; Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ: Union with Christ and the Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. 5.256

Waddington, Jeffrey C. Review: Richard C. Gamble, The Whole Counsel of God: Vol. 1, God’s Mighty Acts in the Old Testament. 6.234.

Waddington, Jeffrey C. Must We Believe? Jonathan Edwards and Conscious Faith in Christ. 6.11.

Waddington, Jeffrey C. On the Shoulders of Giants: Van Til’s Appropriation of Warfield and Kuyper. 7.139.

Waddington, Jeffrey C. and David VanDrunen. Sic et Non. Views in Review: Westminster Seminary California Dis-tinctives? Part III. II. The Reformed Two Kingdoms Doc-trine. 10.189.

Walker, James. In Brief:James Walker’s Assessment of Samuel Rutherford. 5.126.

Ward, Rowland S. Review: [Orthodox Presbyterian Church], Justification Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification. 3.265.

Ward, Rowland S. Review: Chad Van Dixhoorn, The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643–1652. 9.188.

Ward, Rowland S. Review: Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context. 6.219.

Ward, Rowland S. Review: Lewis Bevens Schenck, The Pres-byterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant. 2.181.

Ward, Rowland S. Review: Stephen Westerholm, Perspec-tives Old And New On Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul And His Critics. 1.151.

Ward, Rowland S. The Basis and Practice of Christian Mis-sion to Jews 1520–1860. 7.99

Warfield, B. B. In Brief: Warfield: On the Expansion of the Seminary. 8.119.

Warfield, B. B. In Brief: Warfield: “Dr. McCosh as a Teacher.” 8.98.

Warfield, B. B. In Brief: Warfield: Revision Or Reaffirma-tion? 8.73, 108.

Waters, Guy Prentiss. Review: Reply to John V. Fesko, Review of Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul. 2.187.

268 Volume 10 (2014)


Waters, Guy Prentiss. Review: Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. 5.286

Waters, Guy Prentiss. Covenant Theology and Recent Inter-pretation of Paul: Some Reflections. 6.167.

Waugh, Barry. Antiquary: James Henley Thornwell’s First Pas-toral Ministry at the Waxhaw Presbyterian Church. 8.276.

Waugh, Barry. In Brief: J. G. Machen and the Benham Club. J. G. Machen and the Checker Club. 10.12

Waugh, Barry. Review: Andrew Hoffecker, Charles Hodge: The Pride of Princeton. 8.228.

Waugh, Barry. An Appeal to the Young Men of the Presbyte-rian Church by George Howe (1802–1883). 4.52.

Waugh, Barry. Carolina Scots, the Westminster Confession, and a Deceased Wife’s Sister. 9.48.

Waugh, Barry. An Extraordinary Case of the Use of the Ex-traordinary Clause. 10.57.

Waugh, Barry. An Introduction to T. V. Moore through his Essay on Juvenile Delinquency. 7.87.

Waugh, Barry. J. Gresham Machen and LeRoy Gresham: Cousins, Confidants, and Churchmen. 10.3

Waugh, Barry. The Ministerial Shortage Problem in Presby-terian History & George Howe’s Appeal for More Minis-ters. 4.43.

Waugh, Barry, Thomas H. Law, Thornton Whaling, & A. M. Fraser. Centennial Addresses Commemorating the Birth of the Reverend James Henley Thornwell. 9.79.

Weaver, Jr., G. Stephen. Review: Richard C. Barcellos, The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More than a Memory. 10.221.

Webb, Andrew J. Review: Robert Traill, Justification Vindi-cated. 1.158.

Webb, Andrew J. Samuel Miller’s Pastoral Theology. 8.35.

White, J. Wesley. Review: J. Mark Beach. Christ and the Cov-enant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. 4.210.

White, Wes. Review: Willem J. Van Asselt, et al., Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules. 7.183.

White, J. Wesley. The Denial of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ: Piscator on Justification. 3.147.

Willborn, C. N. Review: Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life. 2.172.

Willborn, C. N. Review: T. V. Moore, The Last Days of Je-sus. 7.185.

Willborn, C. N. The Deacon: A Divine Right Office with Di-vine Uses. 5.185.

Willborn, C. N. Eschatology and the Westminster Standards. 4.171.

Willborn, C. N. The Gospel Work of the Diaconate: A Min-istry “Proportioned in Number.” 10.23

Willborn, C. N. The Ministerial and Declarative Powers of the Church and In Thesi Deliverances. 1.94.

Willborn, C. N. Hodge and Thornwell: “Princes in Israel.” 8.44.

Willborn, C. N. Presbyterians in the South and the Slave: A Study in Benevolence. 3.216.

Willborn, C. N. James Henley Thornwell: An American Theo-logian. 9.5.

Winzer, Matthew. Review: Nick Needham, “Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns? and Musical Instruments?” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, volume 2, ed. J. Ligon Duncan. 4.253.

Winzer, Matthew. The True History of Paedo-Communion. 3.27.

Winzer, Matthew. The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part Two: Analysis. 5.56.

Wright, Iain. John Knox and the Reformation by the Rev. Dr. James Begg. 7.25.

Zaspel, Fred G. Princeton and Evolution. 8.91.

Zaspel, Fred G. B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution. 6.50.■

5 The Confessional Presbyterian · 230 Volume 5 (2009) The Confessional Presbyterian Articles This...

Documents

Transcript of 5 The Confessional Presbyterian · 230 Volume 5 (2009) The Confessional Presbyterian Articles This...