One aspect of Scripture that has repeatedly born witness to its reliability, unity, and even its divine authorship is typology—namely, the way that types and shadows, patterns and persons (in their public actions and offices) are repeated and fulfilled throughout the Bible.

In a few weeks, I will be teaching a class on Scripture at my church, followed by teaching Systematic Theology at Indianapolis Theological Seminary. In preparation for those classes, I have begun thinking through many of the facets related to the doctrine of Scripture, especially as it pertains to Scripture’s trustworthiness.
For those who question Scripture and its veracity, they often make claims regarding errors in the manuscripts, discrepancies in the text, or immoral teachings in the Law or Paul. Each of these must be and can be answered by a careful reading of the text. But one aspect of Scripture that has repeatedly born witness to its reliability, unity, and even its divine authorship is typology—namely, the way that types and shadows, patterns and persons (in their public actions and offices) are repeated and fulfilled throughout the Bible.
Most recently, I encountered this in the book of 1–2 Kings, where Solomon is presented as a new Joshua. Previously, I had seen Solomon as a new Adam, but in reading again from Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 and 2 Kings, I found his observations compelling, in that the author of 1–2 Kings presents Solomon as a new Joshua. Here’s what Leithart observes from 1 Kings 2,
David’s charge to Solomon is one of several key farewell speeches in Scripture (e.g., John 13-17), but the closest analogy is Moses’s speeches to Joshua, Moses encouraged Israel, Joshua especially, to be “strong and courageous” as it entered the land (Deut. 31:1-8), and Yahweh repeated this exhortation (Josh. 1:7-8). David says the same to Solomon. Hence: Moses is to Joshua as David is to Solomon. Solomon is a “new Joshua,” who spends the early part of his reign wiping out the “Canaanites” that remain in David’s kingdom, bringing rest” to the land, and building a sanctuary for Yahweh, recapitulating the sequence of events in Joshua (which climax in Josh. 18:1). Because building the temple completes the conquest, replacing the Canaanite shrines with the house of Yahweh, that project in particular demands a Joshua-like strength, and determination. (p. 36)
So, if Leithart is correct, we should see Solomon as a better David, just as Joshua was a better Moses. Indeed, Joshua fulfilled what Moses began (leading Israel into the Promised Land), and so too Solomon fulfilled what David longed to begin (the building of God’s house). Similarly, 1 Kings 4 shows in Solomon other Joshua-type attributes.
Read More

This is not just nonsense; it is dangerous nonsense. It is a distraction from the real work of diplomacy. It further erodes American credibility in the eyes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and the apocalyptic mullahs in Tehran, who may well conclude that a putative superpower obsessed with “fluid gender identity” will not pose an obstacle to their aggressive designs. It sends a signal of terminal unseriousness to the rest of the world. It offends what are often termed “traditional” nations and cultures, but which are in fact repositories of common sense.

Dean Acheson, U.S. secretary of state from 1949 until 1953, is buried in Washington’s Oak Hill Cemetery. When I read recently that Acheson’s 20th successor, Antony Blinken, had sent a cable subtitled “Gender Identity Best Practices” to American  diplomats around the world, warning against “harmful, exclusionary messages” conveyed by the use of terms like “mother/father,” “son/daughter,” and “husband/wife,” I was tempted to visit Oak Hill, to determine if Secretary’s Acheson’s mortal remains were spinning in his grave.
Acheson titled his brilliant 1969 memoir Present at the Creation, which he certainly was, as initiatives in which he played a key role, such as the Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Japanese peace treaty, became the international security architecture that underwrote communism’s defeat in the Cold War. Might Secretary Blinken riff on his distinguished predecessor and entitle his memoirs, Present at the Destruction? Of what, you ask? Of what Acheson and others wrought.
Consider what was afoot in the world when Mr. Blinken dispatched that cable. Wars were raging in Ukraine and Gaza. Latin America was falling apart politically and economically, one result of which was an unprecedented migrant-and-refugee crisis on America’s southern border. Russia was building a space-based nuclear weapon that could eliminate America’s satellite-based communications network. Iranian proxies were creating mayhem throughout the Middle East and disrupting vital international commerce in the Red Sea. China continued its saber-rattling attempts to intimidate Taiwan. The crises of governance in sub-Saharan Africa were too numerous to count. The president of the United States couldn’t keep the presidents of Mexico and Egypt straight. The leading Republican candidate for the presidency was informing his adoring fans that he would tell Vladimir Putin to “do whatever the hell [he] wanted” to NATO allies not spending 2% of GDP on defense.
And amidst all that, the U.S. secretary of state thought it important to instruct his diplomats to “remain attuned to and supportive of shifts in pronouns” while substituting “you all” or “folks” for the potentially offensive “ladies and gentlemen”?
Read More
Related Posts:

In a recent video, renowned psychologist and thinker Jordan B. Peterson made a scathing critique of the Church. He challenged churches to invite young men back — to make church a place where they are welcome. Here are my thoughts on several of Peterson’s points.

Yesterday, Jordan B Peterson, a now-famous psychologist and philosopher, published a video on his YouTube channel: “Message to the Christian Churches”. At the time of writing, the video had received almost half a million views. In it, Peterson criticises the Church — particularly Western churches — for their adherence to Woke ideology and their treatment of young men.
Four points — critiques of either the Church as a whole or Christian people — stand out to me. They certainly ring true.

The Church has Gone Woke

Maybe this is too broad of a generalisation. Nonetheless, it is sadly true for many churches and Christian organisations in Australia and the West.
Peterson rightly points this out in his video.
He argues that Western culture, in general, has embraced a deviant version of Original Sin that imputes responsibility for any number of social ills (from systemic patriarchy to environmental abuse) to masculine tendencies — what he sarcastically calls “damnable male ambition”.
In response, according to Peterson, our culture attempts to inculcate men with an “extremely damaging ideology” that disillusions them and saps them of a healthy, adventurous spirit.
“… young men… have come to believe, in pain, that every deep impulse that moves them out into the world for the adventure of their life — even that impulse drawing them to women — is nothing but the manifestation of a spirit that is essentially satanic in nature.” (Peterson)
Peterson argues that this inculcation is undertaken from childhood when boys are “hectored” for their toy preferences, through to grade school, where they are trained to conform to “a docile, harmless obedience”.
 “… our young people face a demoralisation that is perhaps unparalleled.” (Peterson)
In my opinion, the issue here is not the adherence to and support of a particular ideological framework (i.e., what is sometimes called “Woke” ideology), per se. Rather, it is the fact that the church is not ascribing to God the fundamental place that He deserves.
The Christian Church is now often answering to a “higher” authority than God and His Word. That authority is our culture — one dominated by neo-paganism and the institutions and structures that enforce it.
Christian faith demands so much more than secondary adherence to certain Biblical principles. As Paul points out, Christians’ whole lives are living sacrifices — totally committed to the worship and service of Christ (Romans 12:1).
We are called to be transformed by the renovation of our minds. Instead, Christians so often fall into conformity to the pattern of this world (Romans 12:2).
Nevertheless, we should not dismiss the concerns raised by those who hold to Woke ideology. Often, they are tapping into a genuine concern — one that Scripture has an answer for.
John Calvin writes,
“All truth is from God; and consequently, if wicked men have said anything that is true and just, we ought not to reject it; for it has come from God.”
The Church is not obliged to reject outright all of the ideas the world presents.
Nevertheless, our authority is God. We should interpret all worldly ideas through the paradigm of a Scriptural worldview and reject anything that conflicts with His Word.

Low Expectations for Christian Young People

Towards the end of his video, Peterson implores Churches to welcome young people — young men in particular — back to church. He urges them: “Put up a billboard. Say, ‘Young men are welcome here’.”
“The Christian Church is there to remind people — young men included, and perhaps even first and foremost — that they have a woman to find, a garden to walk in, a family to nurture, an ark to build, a land to conquer, a ladder to heaven to build and the utter terrible catastrophe of life to face stalwartly — in truth, devoted to love, and without fear.” (Peterson)
Importantly, however, Peterson exhorts churches to explain to young men what they can do. “Ask more, not less, of those you are inviting,” he says. “Ask more of them than anyone ever has.”
This is significant.
Read More
Related Posts: