When Hopes are Dashed: Personal Failure and the Providence of God in the Life of David Brainerd

David Brainerd was born on April 20, 1718 in Haddam, Connecticut. In the year he was born, both John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards turned fourteen. Brainerd would live to see both waves of the Great Awakening and then die of tuberculosis in Jonathan Edwards’ house at the young age of 29 on October 9, 1747.

His earliest upbringing was of a strict Puritan nature. His father Hezekiah was a Connecticut legislator with rigid Puritan views of authority and discipline in the home. At the age of nine his father died and just four years later his mother as well. Being fourteen when his mother died, he went to live with his married sister Jerusha, just across the river in East Haddam. He described his religion during those days as being very careful and serious, but having no true grace. At nineteen he inherited a farm and moved a few miles west to Durham to try his hand at farming, but his heart was not in it. What he longed for was what he called a “liberal education” (what he meant by “liberal” was thorough and extensive). It was on the farm that he made a commitment to God to become a minister while he was yet unconverted. It was during this year on the farm that he read through the Bible twice and he began to see that all his religion was legalistic and based on his own efforts. Internally, he hated the ideas of original sin and the sovereignty of God and the strictness of the Law, and he quarreled with God about his own inability to commend himself to God.

In 1738, at twenty years of age, he moved back to East Haddam and began to prepare himself to enter Yale. On July 12, 1739 he was given the grace of the new birth.

As I was walking in a dark thick grave, "unspeakable glory" seemed to open
to the view and apprehension of my soul ... It was a new inward apprehension or
view that I had of God; such as I never had before, nor anything that I had the
least remembrance of it. So that I stood still and wondered and admired ... I
had now no particular apprehension of any one person of the Trinity, either the
Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but it appeared to be divine glory and splendor
that I then beheld. And my soul "rejoiced wit joy unspeakable" to see such a
God, such a glorious divine being, and I was inwardly pleased and satisfied that
he should be God over all forever and ever. My soul was so captivated and
delighted with the excellency, the loveliness and the greatness and other
perfections of God that I was even swallowed up in him, at least to that degree
that I had no thought, as I remember at first, about my own salvation or scarce
that there was such a creature as I.

Thus the Lord, I trust, brought me to a hearty desire to exalt him, to
set him on the throne and to "seek first his Kingdom," i.e. principally and
ultimately to aim at his honor and glory as the King and sovereign of the
universe, which is the foundation of the religion of Jesus ... I felt myself in
a new world.[1]

Two months later he entered Yale to prepare for the ministry. Within one year he was sent home from school because he was so sick that he was spitting up blood. He was already infected with the tuberculosis which he would die from seven years later. When he returned to Yale in 1740, George Whitefield had been there and the spiritual climate had radically changed. Many students were now serious about their faith and tensions were rising between some of the less-excited faculty and the newly-awakened students. Some students had been so bold as to assert that some of the faculty were unconverted. In 1742 and at the top of his class academically, Brainerd was overhead saying of one of his tutors, Chauncey Whittelsey, that he had “no more grace than a chair”. As a result, in 1742 he was expelled. Over the next several years he would diligently pursue reconciliation in order to continue his education but to no avail. This seemed to Brainerd to be mortal blow to his intentions toward a pastorate, for it was a law at the time that no minister could be installed in Connecticut who had not graduated from Harvard, Yale, or an European university. Brainerd’s hopes for ministry were dashed to pieces, so it would seem.

God had another plan for David Brainerd, and David Brainerd would grow to embrace it. Jonathan Dickinson, a leading Presbyterian minister in New Jersey took an interest in Brainerd and had a hand in sponsoring him as a missionary to the Indians. In 1743 he would go to the Housatonic Indians northwest of Stockbridge, Massachusetts and preach through an interpreter to them for a year, translating some Psalms and starting a school for children. In 1745 he would make his first preaching tour to the Indians around Crossweeksung , New Jersey, and it was here that God would move in amazing power and pour out a great awakening among the Indians. Within a year there was a growing and healthy assembly of 130 believers. In 1746 Brainerd grew so sick that he could no longer minister to them, and he took leave of them in order to recuperate at Jonathan Dickinson’s home. He would return to see his Indian friends one last time in 1747, and then ride on to Jonathan Edwards’ home where he would die.

Twenty nine years, five months, and nineteen days. Only eight of those years a believer, and only four of those eight a missionary. There are tremendous lessons for us to learn from the life of David Brainerd. God uses sickly, weak, discouraged, beaten-down saints who cry out to Him to magnify the glory of his name in missions. There are some Indians, maybe a couple hundred, whose souls were transferred from everlasting torment to everlasting life because of David Brainerd’s preaching and ministry. There are still “Indians” perishing today all around. Could it be that God wants you to follow Brainerd’s example?

[1] From The Life of David Brainerd, ed. Norman Pettit, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 7, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985)

How the Bible says the end will come - Part 3

Before we take a look at Rev 20 and consistent hermeneutics, I would like to make a few applicable points. First, historically, the interpretation of the first few verses of Rev 20 has at times brought much shame upon Christ. Churches have split, families have feuded and friends have become hateful to one another, all over the meaning of the words “a thousand years”. We must resolve ourselves, as brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ, not to dishonor him even when we disagree.

Another preliminary consideration is this: Rev 20 is the only place in the Bible which specifically mentions a millennium. Now this fact does not diminish its importance in relation to the whole, but it should remind us that our interpretation of these verses must be held in the context of Rev itself, and ultimately, in the larger framework given to us in all the Scriptures. It does mean, however, that there is a good chance that a person’s millennial view might not be well informed by and consistent with the rest of the Bible if little study has been done.

Another preliminary point is this: I have come to settle upon an interpretation of Rev 20 which would historically have been labeled as “amillennial”. It is at least somewhat significant for me to point out that I initially held a dispensational premillennial view, and as I studied eschatology with more vigor I found significant biblical inconsistencies within that view. This led me to tentatively hold what would be called “historic premillennialism”. As I studied further, I continued to find inconsistencies in premillennialism in general and finally came to my current resting place – “realized millennialism” or amillennialism. I think it is the only framework which is fully consistent with all that the Bible has to say about how the end will come. And most importantly, realized millennialism is the only view which is completely gospel-centric.

Yet another point, Revelation is a book full of metaphors and symbols and images. Even the premillennialists cannot deny this. One of the base principles in hermeneutics is due consideration of the literary type of the document in question. Revelation is full of figurative language. Revelation is an apocalyptic text. These things cannot be denied. And lastly, what is the overall purpose of Revelation? It is to magnify the glory of Jesus Christ as the only true comfort and motivation for worship among suffering saints. With these things in mind, let’s look at Rev 20.

Rev 20:1-3

1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Then I saw…

Throughout the book of Revelation, these are words John repeats indicating that what he is “seeing” is part of the vision or visions he is communicating to us. What we see here in chapter 20 is a recapitulation of what has already been seen earlier in the book. In chapter 12 we see that through the incarnation and redemptive work of Christ, Satan has been soundly defeated. Here in chapter 20 we see another vision of what Christ has done to Satan at the cross. This interpretation is solidified when we consider what Jesus himself said in John 12:31-33 : “31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.” Likewise, the Greek word that John uses in Rev for Satan being bound is the same word Jesus uses in Matthew 12:22-29 : “22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons." 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.” Therefore it is the first advent of Christ and what he accomplished in it by which the devil is currently bound!

Does the notion that Satan is currently bound line up with our experience? Compared to Old Testament times – the time before the first advent of Christ, has his message been squelched or has it explosively expanded to encompass the ends of the earth? Prior to Christ’s first advent, the gospel was largely contained solely within one ethnic people – Israel. Now, the gospel has encompassed all the earth! Though Satan has certainly not been annihilated, his activity in this gospel age has been so curtailed that he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel to the nations of the world. The church – Christ’s kingdom on this earth – is conquering the nations! So the “thousand years” is figurative language for this gospel age in which you and I currently live.

How the Bible says the end will come - Part 2

Implications of the "two-age construct" for premillenialism

In the comments on the last post, Rick pointed out that there is certainly a sense in which the age in which we live has been punctuated by historical events which subdivide this age into "ages" or "times". This is a valid point. Yet, it does not have an effect on my overarching notion here - Luke 20:27-40 clearly distiguishes between two "meta" ages: this age, and the age to come, and the character or nature of each of these ages is revealed.

So, how does this "two-age construct" that we see in Luke 20 prove that premillenial eschatology is wrong? Well, to answer that, let's look back at the text. This age is characterized by: marriage, death and dying, natural men, and the coexistence of righteous and wicked men. The age to come is characterized by: no marriage, no death and dying, resurrected men, and the only ones who attain to eternal life are those who are worthy. Whatever the stripe of premillenialism positted, the pre-miller's millenium cannot square with either of the natures of the ages presented in Luke 20 (or Matt 13).

Under the premillenialist scheme, there will be some kind of earthly reign of Jesus for 1000 years. Most pre-millers which I have talked with say that the saints will reign with him on the earth during this 1000 years. So... are they resurrected? If so, then that falls under the nature of "the age to come" in Luke 20. So... is there death and dying during this supposed 1000 years? If so, then that means we are still in this age. Hmmm... Do you see the problem? The millenium, as the premillenialist would posit it, cannot conform to or be consistent with the clear teaching of Luke 20 and Matt 13.

Next post, I'll talk about Revelation 20 and consistent hermeneutics...

How the Bible says the end will come - Part 1

What you end up believing about the “last days” is dependent upon the hermeneutic you approach the Bible with when studying the subject. One of the fundamental principles of hermeneutics is that we allow clearer passages to guide us in our interpretation of those which speak about the same subject, but are more obscure. It is this hermeneutical principle which serves to simplify biblical eschatology.

Eschatology has to do with history in general as well as the end of history as we know it in this age. Before we can deal with the numerous difficult figurative passages in the Bible which deal with some of the details of history, we ought to have a notion of the broader and more basic structure of all of redemptive history. The “big picture” is made clear at many points throughout the NT in passages which are not apocalyptic, figurative, or prophetic. There are three broad biblical constructs which clearly show us the overarching structure of biblical eschatology:
1) The two ages
2) The general judgment
3) The eschatological kingdom

It is my intention of deal with each of these and possibly some related implications in a series of upcoming posts. I will deal with the first one here.

If I had to pick one principle which was foundational to a biblical understanding of the “last days”, it would be this first construct – the two ages. It is formative to a proper understanding of much Bible doctrine in general (not only eschatology).

The Bible clearly teaches us that there are only two “ages” – this age, and the age to come. (The Greek word “aiwn”, translated “age” or sometimes “world” is the keyword under examination here.) In order to see the importance of this terminology it is necessary to overview its prolific usage throughout the NT. There are at least 17 places in the NT where this kind of terminology is used: Matt 12:32; Luke 16:8; Luke 18:30; Luke 20:34-36; Mark 10:30; Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Cor 1:20; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 1 Cor 3:18; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:21; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17-19; Titus 2:12; Heb 6:5. The Bible makes it obvious that there is a clear distinction between the two ages. The age in which we live right now is evil, temporal and spatial (Gal 1:4; Luke 20:35). As we will see in a future post, d.v., the age to come has already been inaugurated and has broken into this age with Christ’s first advent – Christ is king already (Eph 1:21; Titus 2:11-12; Heb 6:5), yet the age to come has not been fully consummated. The age to come will be consummated upon the second advent of Christ. This age and the age to come, then, taken together, exhaust all time. The proof of this assertion can be seen in Matt 12:32 and its parallel in Mark 3:29 – not being forgiven in this age or in the age to come is being guilty of an eternal sin. Therefore, this age and the age to come are viewed in these texts as including all possible times in which one may be forgiven. The next logical question is, “How does Scripture distinguish between these two ages?” In other words, what are the qualitative differences we see described in the Bible between the two ages? There are two passages which will help us at this point: Luke 20:27-40 and Matt 13:24-43.

In Luke 20, what are the differences between this age and the age to come?
• This age
o Marriage
o Death and dying
o Natural men
o Righteous and wicked co-exist
• The age to come
o No marriage
o No death or dying
o Resurrected men
o Only the worthy attain

In Matthew 13, this age is a time of sowing and the end of this age is a time of harvest. What differences between the ages do we see here?
• Time of sowing (this age)
o Mixed wheat (good) and tares (evil)
o Natural condition
• Time of harvest (the end of this age)
o Only the wheat (good)
o Shining-as-the-sun condition (glorified)

From these passages, it is clear that this age and the age to come are qualitatively different, and the primary difference is that between the natural and supernatural order. What are a few of the implications of what the Bible teaches here?
1) Luke 20:35 teaches that attaining to the age to come is equivalent to attaining to the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, the resurrection of the dead is the door out of this age, and into the age to come. And when does this resurrection occur? It occurs at Christ’s second advent (1 Cor 15:22, 23, 50-55; 1 Thess 4:16).
2) Matt 13:39-43 refers to the same event as Luke 20:35. It is clear that it is a reference to the judgment of the wicked and the resurrection of the righteous which occurs at the return of Christ (Matt 24:30, 31; 25:31).
3) Titus 2:12 teaches that the second coming consummates this age and ushers in the age to come in all its fullness. Jesus’ coming brings the consummation of the age (Matt 28:20). The last day of this age is the day of Christ’s return and it is the first day of the age to come (John 6:39).

Points in summary, this post:

The basic scheme of biblical eschatology is truly simple. There are, of course, many difficulties (exegetically and doctrinally) to be worked out, but the basic structure of biblical eschatology is plain and it is simple: there are two ages – this age and the age to come. Every biblical prophecy finds its fulfillment in one of the two ages.

Pause for just a moment and let the simplicity of the biblical scheme of eschatology sink in. Jesus comes back. This age is over, and the new age begins. Biblical eschatology is humiliatingly simple. There is nothing sensational here. Biblical eschatology is not too complicated for you to know well. There are two ages: one temporal and natural, and the other eternal and supernatural. If you understand this, you understand more about eschatology than most of the “prophecy nuts” of our day.

Next post:

Implications of the two-age construct for premillenialism

Long time, no post

Whew! Sorry its been so long since i posted - alot of things going on in life right now! Good things. I love being a daddy. I'll be posting soon on eschatology - stay tuned!

A little light reading...

He already loves good books!

Pics are up!

Here's one pic for y'all...

More can be found here...