'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature': George Whitefield's Signature Sermon

The Nature and Necessity of our New Birth in Christ Jesus, in Order to Salvation. A Sermon Preached in the Church of St Mary Radcliffe, in Bristol (London, 1737).

Whitefield’s signature sermon on the new birth is preached on the text of 2 Corinthians 5:17: ‘If any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature’. According to Whitefield, the doctrine of regeneration or the new birth is one of the ‘most fundamental doctrines of our holy religion’.[1] Whitefield laments the general ignorance concerning the doctrine. Although there is a general orthodoxy concerning the doctrine of God and Christ, there is ignorance concerning the new birth: ‘But then tell them, They must be Regenerate, they must be Born Again, they must be renewed in the very Spirit i.e. in the inmost Faculties of their Minds, ere they can truly call Christ Lord, Lord, or have any Share in the Merits of his precious blood; and they are ready to cry out with Nicodemus: “How can these things be?”’[2] The reference to Nicodemus connects Whitefield’s sermon with the narrative about the new birth in John chapter three. Nicodemus, a Pharisee who was a member of the ruling council, comes inquiring of Jesus about the miracles he is able to perform. Jesus responds by saying that no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. This is the classic statement of the doctrine of the new birth from the Gospels. Whitefield draws extensively upon it for his sermon on the new birth, even though he chooses a different text from which to preach.

First, Whitefield endeavours to show what is meant by the phrase ‘being in Christ’. He distinguishes between the two ways a person may be said to be in Christ. First, only by an outward profession. This is nominal Christianity. It includes everyone that is called a Christian and is baptised into the Church. Whitefield distinguishes a second sense of the phrase being in Christ which goes beyond nominal Christianity. It is obvious to Whitefield that many of those who are said to be Christians do not show the evidence of being new creatures. In sum, ‘Many are baptized with Water, which were never, effectually at least, baptized with the Holy Ghost’.[3] To be in Christ must mean something more than a bare outward profession: ‘For, as the same Apostle tells us, “All are not Israelites that are of Israel,” i.e. when applied to Christianity, all are not real Christians that are nominally such’.[4] The second sense then involves a real inward change: ‘To be in him not only by an outward Profession, but by an inward change and Purity of Heart, and Cohabitation of his Holy Spirit’.[5] Whitefield connects the doctrine of the new birth with that of mystical union with Christ: ‘To be in him so as to be mystically united to him by a true and lively Faith, and thereby to receive spiritual Virtue from him, as the Members of the natural Body do from the Head, or the Branches from the Vine’.[6] A true Christian is united to Christ by faith and receives spiritual nourishment from him. It is a vital, living union. True Christianity does not merely consist in an outward profession, but in an inward change of heart: ‘He is not a real Christian, who is only one outwardly; nor is that true Baptism, which is only outward in the Flesh. But he is a true Christian, who is one inwardly, whose Baptism is that of the Heart, in the Spirit, and not merely in the Water, whose Praise is not of Man, but of God’.[7] Those belonging to the Established Church would have been baptised as infants and brought up in the Church to profess the creed, but for Whitefield this is not enough. Something more is required to be truly and properly in Christ. There must be a new birth, a new heart, a change of life.

In the next place, Whitefield considers what is meant by being a new creature. Whitefield gives three examples of the change required – of gold that has been purified, of dirty glass that has been wiped clean, and of Naaman who was cleansed from his leprosy (2 Kings 5:1–15).[8] Whitefield suggests that there is an element of mystery to this doctrine: ‘For no One knows the Ways of the Spirit, save the Spirit of God Himself’.[9] Whitefield cites John 3:8: ‘The Wind … bloweth where is listeth, and thou hearest the Sound thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth’. There is an element of sovereignty in the discretion of the Spirit. He moves according to His own purposes. Regeneration is a secret, sovereign, and supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. 

Whitefield proceeds to consider arguments to prove why we must become new creatures. The first reason is that God himself has told us that we must be born again in Scripture. Whitefield thus appeals to revelation. Whitefield laments Nicodemus’ ignorance of the Old Testament Scriptures such as those of the Psalmist who begged God for a new heart and a right spirit within him; or of the prophets who warned the people of the need for new hearts and new minds. Whitefield then turns to the New Testament, specifically the words of Jesus: ‘Except a Man be born again of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God’ (John 3:5). He also turns to the many passages in the Epistles which speak of the new birth such as those which speaking of being renewed in the Spirit, or those which speak of putting of the old man and putting on the new, those which tell us that old things must pass away and that all things must become new, or those which say we are to be saved by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Whitefield second argument is taken from the ‘Purity of God, and the present corrupt and polluted State of Man’.[10] Whitefield appeals to the holiness and purity of God who is a most holy spirit and contrasts this with man who is ‘conceived and born in Sin; as having no good Thing dwelling in him; as being carnal, sold under Sin; nay, as having a Mind which is Enmity with God’.[11] There is then an infinite gulf between God and man. Not merely an ontological separation of Creator from creature, but an ethical separation of the holy from the unclean. For God to enjoy communion with man, a change of nature is necessary in man to make his heart a fit habitation for the Holy Spirit. Whitefield’s third argument is eschatological in nature, appealing to the ‘Nature of the Happiness God has prepared for those that unfeignedly love him’.[12] Whitefield sees the glory of heaven as beyond description since ‘Eye hath not seen, nor Ear heard, neither hath it entered into the Heart of Man to conceive, the Things that are prepared for the sincere Followers of the Holy Jesus even in this Life, much less in that which is to come’.[13] The happiness that God has prepared is a spiritual happiness. It follows that ‘unless our carnal Minds are changed, and become spiritualized, we can never be made meet to partake of that Inheritance with the Saints in Light’.[14]

Whitefield cites the text from Hebrews 14:14b: ‘Without Holiness, no Man living shall see the Lord’. A change of nature is needed to prepare the soul for the beatific vision in the life to come. There is a definite emphasis on the eschatological in Whitefield’s sermon. What happens in the here-and-now prepares us for the life-to-come. ‘For Death makes no more Alteration in the Soul, than as it inlarges [sic] its Faculties, and makes it capable of receiving deeper Impressions either of Pleasure of Pain. If it delighted to converse with God here, it will be transported with the Sight of his glorious Majesty here after’.[15] Notice the emphasis on eschatology in the following: ‘If it was pleased with the Communion of Saints on Earth, it will be infinitely more so with the Communion and Society of holy Angels, and the Spirits of just Men made perfect in Heaven’.[16] There is an element of the already/not yet in this formula – an inaugurated eschatology. The saints already enjoy communion with each other on earth, but full and complete enjoyment of communion with saints and angels is reserved for the not yet of heaven.

The fourth and final argument Whitefield offers for becoming a new creature is that Christ’s redemption would be incomplete without it. The new birth is necessary ‘in order to make Christ’s Redemption complete, that we should have a Grant of God’s Holy Spirit to change our Natures, and so prepare us for the Enjoyment of that Happiness our Saviour has purchased by his precious Blood’.[17] In other words, the new birth is necessary for the application of redemption. According to Whitefield, Christ has purchased redemption by his death and resurrection, but it is still necessary for this redemption to be applied personally in the work of regeneration. Whitefield appeals to several Scriptures noting that those whom Christ justifies; he also sanctifies. The renewal of nature is necessary to salvation. There must be sanctification. In some parts of Scripture, the work of sanctification is said to precede justification: ‘But ye are washed, says the Apostle, but ye are sanctified; and then follows, but ye are justified’.[18] Similarly, ‘Christ is to us Justification, Sanctification, and then Redemption’.[19] Whitefield’s point seems to be that sanctification – by which he means regeneration – must precede the work of justification. This is pure Calvinism in the form of monergism, meaning that the work of the Spirit in regeneration precedes faith and justification.

Whitefield proceeds to some general inferences from what has been delivered thus far. First, he reproves those who rest on a bare outward profession and performance of outward duties, without any real inward change of heart. Attending Church, receiving the sacrament, saying prayers, fasting are all good things, but they are not enough unless they are found to make us ‘inwardly better, and to carry on the spiritual Life in the Soul’.[20] Secondly, it is a reproof to those who think religion merely consists in being ‘just in their Dealings, and temperate in their Diet, and [in doing] Hurt or Violence to no Man’.[21] Whitefield asks if this is the sum of true religion then what is the difference between the Christian and the heathen who lives a morally upright life. He also cites the example of the Apostle Paul before his conversion who ‘lived in all good Conscience, and was, touching the Law, blameless’.[22] Whitefield brings his argument to a crescendo:

The Sum of the Matter is this: Christianity includes Morality, as Grace does Reason; but if we are only mere Moralists, if we are not inwardly wrought upon, and changed by the powerful Operations of the Holy Spirit, and our Moral Actions proceed from a Principle of a new Nature, however we may call ourselves Christians, it is to be feared we shall be found naked at the Great Day, and in the Number of those, who vainly depend on their own righteousness, and not on the Righteousness of Jesus Christ.[23]

Morality alone is not enough, there must be a powerful inward change by the Holy Spirit. It is not enough merely to profess to be a Christian, there must be an inward change of nature – a new birth. Notice the eschatological theme, this time towards judgement. For Judgement awaits those who are only outwardly Christians and depend upon their own righteousness rather than on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Whitefield here moves from regeneration to justification and sanctification which is to be both ‘imputed to them’ (justification) and ‘inherent in them’ (sanctification) as necessary to eternal salvation.[24]

            Third, Whitefield argues that partial amendment of life is not enough. There must be a complete and radical change in the soul:

Thou must be inform’d that nothing short of a thorough, sound Conversion will avail for the Salvation of thy Soul. It is not enough to turn from Profaneness to Civility; but thou must turn from Civility to Godliness. Not only some, but all Things must become new in thy Soul … In short, thou must not be an almost [Christian], but altogether a new Creature, or in vain thou hopest for a saving interest in Christ.[25]

Merely being a civil person is not enough, there must be a turn conversion towards godliness. There must be a thoroughgoing change in the soul. All the faculties of the soul must be renewed – mind, heart, will, affections. It is not enough to be an ‘almost’ Christian, one must become an ‘altogether’ new creature in Christ Jesus.  Fourthly and lastly, those who are in Christ must also be new creatures. This is ‘an infallible Rule for every Person of whatever Denomination, Age, Degree or Quality’.[26] The new birth is thoroughly ecumenical. It is open to people of all denominations, of every type and sort. For Whitefield, it is the essential and defining experience of Christianity – to be a new creature in Christ.  Whitefield challenges his readers:

Let each of us therefore seriously put this Question to our Hearts: Have we received the Holy Ghost since we believed? Are we new Creatures in Christ, or no? … Do we make a constant and conscientious Use of all the Means of Grace required thereto? Do we fast, watch, and pray? Do we not only lazily seek, but laboriously strive to enter in at the strait Gate? In short, do we renounce ourselves, take up our Crosses, and follow Christ? If so, we are in that narrow Way which leads to Life; We are … become new Creatures in Christ’.[27]

Here Whitefield expounds a practical and experimental piety, encouraging the use of the means of grace. The new birth involves some serious undertakings: striving to enter the strait gate and taking up the cross and following Christ. Whitefield has a theology of praxis. It is energetic and engaging: a far cry from nominalism which is merely outward. Whitefield’s religion requires true inward piety. There is also an eschatological dynamic: ‘Unless the Spirit, which raised Jesus from the Dead, dwell in you here, neither will your mortal Bodies be quickened by the same Spirit to dwell with him hereafter’.[28] Notice the here/hereafter dialectic – the already and the not yet of an inaugurated eschatology. We must possess the Holy Spirit in the here and now in order to be raised from the dead by that same Spirit at the Parousia.

            Whitefield closes with some brief exhortations, calling on his readers to ‘act suitable to those Convictions, and to live as Christians, that are commanded in Holy Writ, to put off their former Conversation concerning the Old Man, and to put on the New Man, which is created after God, in Righteousness and true Holiness’.[29] The evidence of the new birth is a changed life. The old man has died, the new man lives in Christ. There may be a cost involved: ‘It is a Task likewise that will put us to some Pain; it will oblige us to part with some Lust, to break with some Friend, to mortify some beloved Passion, which may be exceeding dear to us, and perhaps as hard to leave, as to cut off a right Hand, or pluck out a right Eye’.[30] In other words, the new birth will lead to the mortification of sin. The reward for such pains is eschatological in nature: ‘Will not the being made a real living Member of Christ, a Child of God, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven, abundantly make Amends for all this trouble? Undoubtedly it will’.[31] The prize is the Kingdom of Heaven. It is but ‘the Beginning of an eternal succession of pleasures’. When the believer dies, he is taken to an ‘everlasting Scene of happiness and Comfort’. He has no need to fear death like the unregenerate. He has a title to ‘all the glorious Promises of the Gospel’ and is ‘infallibly certain of being as happy, both here and hereafter, as an All-wise, All-gracious, All-powerful God can make them. The hope for those who have experienced the new birth is thoroughly eschatological: There is ‘an Eternity of Happiness set before him’ and the promise that he will be ‘an actual possessor of the Kingdom of Heaven’.[32]

Further Reading: Sean McGever, Born Again: The Evangelical Theology of Conversion in John Wesley and George Whitefield (St. Bellingham, WA, 2020).



[1] GW, The New Birth, p. 1. 

[2] GW, The New Birth, p. 2.

[3] GW, The New Birth, p. 4.

[4] GW, The New Birth, p. 4.

[5] GW, The New Birth, p. 5.

[6] GW, The New Birth, p. 5.

[7] GW, The New Birth, p. 6.

[8] GW, The New Birth, p. 7.

[9] GW, The New Birth, p. 8.

[10] GW, The New Birth, p. 12.

[11] GW, The New Birth, p. 12.

[12] GW, The New Birth, p. 13.

[13] GW, The New Birth, p. 13.

[14] GW, The New Birth, p. 14.

[15] GW, The New Birth, p. 15.

[16] GW, The New Birth, pp. 15–16.

[17] GW, The New Birth, p. 17.

[18] GW, The New Birth, p. 17. See 1 Corinthians 6:11. 

[19] GW, The New Birth, p. 17. See 1 Corinthians 1:30.

[20] GW, The New Birth, p. 19.

[21] GW, The New Birth, p. 20.

[22] GW, The New Birth, p. 20.

[23] GW, The New Birth, p. 21.

[24] GW, The New Birth, p. 21.

[25] GW, The New Birth, p. 22.

[26] GW, The New Birth, p. 22–23.

[27] GW, The New Birth, pp. 23–24.

[28] GW, The New Birth, p. 25.

[29] GW, The New Birth, p. 25.

[30] GW, The New Birth, p. 26.

[31] GW, The New Birth, p. 26.

[32] GW, The New Birth, pp. 27–28.

Some Thoughts on the Psalms

The psalms express the whole range of human emotion and feeling. This has been part of their appeal for the many thousands of years they have been sung, recited, and prayed. In beautiful poetry, the psalms express the message of Scripture as a whole. Martin Luther famously said of the psalms:

You may rightly call the Psalter a Bible in miniature, in which all things which are set forth more at length in the rest of the Scriptures are collected into a beautiful manual of wonderful and attractive brevity.[1]

It is a sad indication of the decline of evangelical Christianity that the psalms are not taken seriously in contemporary worship. While there is much to commend in modern worship, there is also something missing. That something is God’s own hymnbook – the Psalter. This brief introduction to the psalms will consider the text, title, authorship, arrangement, historiography, and theology of the psalms.

Text

The Hebrew text behind the modern translations of the psalter is the Masoretic Text (MT). This is a generally reliable text, but even this presents problems for the translator, making variant readings common. There is also a Greek translation in the Septuagint (LXX). Scholars often compare LXX with the MT to clarify the original meaning of the psalmist, occasionally this helps shed light on an obscure text. A third text is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, this is known as the Palestinian text type. MT is the most reliable of the three textual sources, but LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls are useful points of comparison.

Title

The title in Hebrew for the Psalter simply means ‘Songs of Praise’ (Tehillim). This reflects the fact that most of the Psalter is composed of praises to God, even the laments often contain a note of praise. The title most familiar to us is derived from the Greek translation ψαλμοί (psalmoi) meaning "instrumental music". Since many of the psalms would have been set to music and used in the context of worship, this is also an appropriate title for the collection. Combining both titles, we have ‘praises set to instrumental music’.

Authorship

Modern scholarship generally rejects the reliability of the many superscriptions to the psalms. Though many of these refer to David, they could equally read ‘A psalm attributed to David’ or ‘a Psalm concerning David’, or ‘a Psalm about David’. Some of the psalms are attributed to other authors such as Asaph and Solomon, others are noted as being ‘for the chief musician’ or ‘for the sons of Koreh’. These superscriptions were probably not part of the original psalms and represent subsequent traditions regarding authorship. David who famously played the harp to soothe King Saul is an obvious choice in terms of ascribing authorship. We cannot rule out the possibility that David may have actually composed some of the psalms, but modern scholarship generally rejects Davidic authorship – leaving most of the psalms anonymous. It has been suggested that many of the psalms could have been written by devout women. Anonymity would have been sought in a patriarchal society.

Arrangement

The Psalter was arranged into five books by the post-exilic community. There does not appear to be any distinctive reason for this arrangement, but some have suggested theological and historical reasons for this particular arrangement. The editors may have chosen the five books of David (so to speak) to reflect the five books of Moses. This would be quite plausible. There has been renewed interest in the particular arrangement of the psalms in recent studies during the 20th century. Allen P. Ross, for example, sees a definite historical-theological arrangement behind the books of psalms:

Those who study the arrangement of the Psalter conclude that it was deliberately planned with theological and historical contexts in mind. In general, Books I and II lay out the foundation of God’s programme in the Davidic monarchy, Book III reflects the failure of the monarchy and was shaped with the exile in mind, and Books IV and V present the restoration and the hope for the future with the LORD as king.[2]   

This arrangement sees distinctively historical and theological reasons for the post-exilic arrangement of the psalms, particularly reflecting God’s dealings with His covenant people.

Historiography

The Church originally interpreted the psalms theologically and saw in them clear references to Christ and his kingdom. This was generally the approach of the early Church Fathers and the medieval doctors. The psalms were interpreted as showing types of the antitype: Christ Jesus, the ultimate son of David. The historical context was generally lost in these considerations and little attention was given to critical analysis of the psalms or what the psalms would have originally meant to their composers. 

The Reformers incorporated the psalms into their worship as hymns, especially in the Calvinist tradition where only psalms were sung. The paraphrases by Isaac Watts (1674–1748) became enormously popular in Reformed circles and are still sung with relish today. However, with the Reformation came a more critical approach to the psalms and an emphasis on going back to the original Hebrew text. This approach was in line with the Reformers emphasis on Sola Scriptura, but it was also a part of the Renaissance emphasis on going back to the sources (ad fontes) in Hebrew and Greek. This method of careful source analysis was particularly true following the Enlightenment in the 18th century. Davidic authorship was questioned and scholars took seriously the task of determining date, authorship, composition and unity of the psalms. The place of Christ in the psalms seemed to be eschewed by these thinkers in favour of historical and literary analysis.

The form-critical approach of the 20th century has radically changed the way we read psalms. Hermann Gunkel divided the psalms into five primary types or forms: hymns (songs of praise for God’s work in creation or history), communal laments (or laments for the whole nation), royal psalms (or psalms relating to kingship and coronation), individual laments (usually expressing sorrow for sin), and thanksgiving psalms (thanking God for deliverance from some particular distress). Subsequent work on the psalms has tried to identify their function in relation to the cult. Sigmund Mowinckel suggested a single cultic setting and festival patterned after the Babylonian festival, the enthronement of the deity. Arthur Weiser modified this approach by suggesting that the festival was not to do with the enthronement of Yahweh, but reflected the desire for covenant renewal.

These are just some of the ways modern scholarship has interpreted the psalms. It seems that Christ has been lost within the higher critical schools. While taking seriously the concerns of modern scholarship, there should be scope for considering how the psalms relate to Christ and his kingdom – particularly in how the New Testament uses the psalms to speak of Christ. This would see a partial return to how the Church Fathers viewed the psalms, albeit with due consideration to the insights of modern scholarship.

Theology

The psalms speak about God. They arguably tell us more about God than any other part of the Old Testament. They speak in terms of doxology which is based on a rich evangelical theology. The psalms affirm both God transcendence and immanence. The God of the psalmist is both “wholly other” as the great Creator and “wholly revealed” as the good shepherd of the sheep. In terms of immanence, God is intimately involved in the life of Israel. He is a help and shield, a deliverer, a rock, a high tower, and a gentle shepherd. He is also a king, the transcendent creator of all reality. As the hymnwriter puts it,

O tell of his might!
O sing of his grace!
Whose robe is the light,
whose canopy space.
His chariots of wrath
the deep thunderclouds form,
and dark is his path
on the wings of the storm.

Rather than an either/or in terms of transcendence and immanence, the psalmist thinks in terms of both/and. As John Goldingay says, ‘While in one sense Yhwh lives outside the cosmos and in another sense makes a home in the heavens, Yhwh also deigned to make a home on Zion, in the temple. It is Yhwh’s house, his place to settle permanently’.[3]

In terms of humanity, the psalmists express a deep honesty about life and death. The psalmist often faces enemies, battles with sins, struggles with the forces of darkness, but in all this he knows God is with him. As Psalm 23 reminds us, ‘Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me’ (Psalm 23:4). However, the psalmist does not a have a fully developed eschatology of heaven and hell. Death is taken up by Sheol, the pit, a place of darkness to which the dead go. In the New Testament, Sheol becomes a place of punishment and the abode of the wicked, whereas paradise is the abode of the righteous who have faith in Jesus. They dead in Christ anticipate the resurrection of the body and the glorious life of the world to come. While the wicked anticipate judgement.

Conclusion

Ultimately the Psalms celebrate God’s sovereign rule as king over his covenant people and all creation. He is portrayed as infinite, eternal and unchanging in his being, the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Psalmist considers God as wise, loving, holy, righteous, good, faithful, and true. The psalms also teach us how to pray to this very God, how to worship Him, how to grieve over sins, how to confess our sin, how to give thanks for his mercies and steadfast love, and how to make requests of God. There is a psalm for every occasion in our liturgy and confession as Christians. They deserve a place in our worship because they are holy and infallible hymns about our majestic Lord and Saviour.

Our doxology should be shaped by the theology of the psalms. They should form an integral part of our worship. We could try to sing or read at least one psalm every Sunday during worship. We could also incorporate the psalms into our daily prayer life, making the words of the psalmist our own words to God. I would suggest using a daily devotional on the psalms such as Timothy Keller’s short book, My Rock, My Refuge: A Year of Daily Devotions in the Psalms (2015). This contains an extract from the psalms, some devotional thoughts, and a suggested prayer. You will find your prayer life deeply enriched by a careful study of the psalms. The Psalmist offers words of comfort, hope, joy, deliverance, and lament and often expresses the deepest feelings of our hearts.

Recommended Reading

I have chosen mostly non-technical commentaries to aid the pastor, preacher, and layperson in their understanding of the Psalms.

Alter, Robert, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (W. W. Norton and Company, 2007).

deClaisse-Walford, Nancy L., Rolf A. Jacobson, Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms (NICOT) (Eerdmans, 2014).

Estes, Daniel J., Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms (Baker Academic, 2005). 

Eveson, Phillip, The Book of Psalms: From Suffering to Glory, vol. 1 (Evangelical Press, 2014).  

Eveson, Phillip, The Book of Psalms: From Suffering to Glory, vol. 2 (Evangelical Press, 2015).

Goldingay, John, Psalms, vol. 1 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms) (Baker Academic, 2006).

Goldingay, John, Psalms, vol. 2 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms) (Baker Academic, 2008).

Goldingay, John, Psalms, vol. 3 (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms) (Baker Academic, 2008).

Grant, Jamie A., & Dennis Tucker Jr, Psalms: The NIV Application Commentary, vol. 2 (Zondervan Academic, 2018).

Keller, Timothy, My Rock, My Refuge: A Year of Daily Devotions in the Psalms (Hodder, 2015).

Lane, Eric, Psalms 1– 89: The Lord Saves (Christian Focus, 2006).

Lane, Eric, Psalms 90 – 150: The Lord Reigns (Christian Focus, 2006).

Longman, Tremper, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC) (IVP, 2014).

Ross, Allen P., A Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1 (Kregel, 2011).

Ross, Allen P., A Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 2 (Kregel, 2013).

Ross, Allen P., A Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 3 (Kregel, 2016).

Spurgeon, Charles, Psalms, vol. 1 (The Crossway Classic Commentaries) (Crossway, 1993).

Spurgeon, Charles, Psalms, vol. 2 (The Crossway Classic Commentaries) (Crossway, 1993).

Wilson, Gerald H., Psalms: The NIV Application Commentary, vol. 1 (Zondervan Academic, 2014).


[1] Luther, Works, ed. 1553, vol. iii, p. 356.

[2] Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011), pp. 53–54.

[3] John Goldingay, Psalms, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI, 2006), p. 71.