John Gill

And so a wandering star is a planet.

And so when it says the morning stars, this is what John Gill said.

It says, Job 38.7 allows that morning stars can be the actual stars, which in their way sing the praises of God.

And he mentions Psalms 19.1 and Psalms 148.3. And so John Gill still takes sons of God as angels, but he keeps the door open for figurative reading of the stars themselves.

So John Gill was very open about, to the sons of God being a reference to stars.

Albert Barnes notes that some have thought that the stars literally are referred to, and that they seem to unite in a chorus of praise when another world was added to their number.

Jameson Fawcett Brown says the stars are figuratively said to sing God's praises, as in Psalms 19, 1 and 148, 3, and then treats them as symbols of the angels.

David describes these men who were coming against him who had surrounded him writing they return at evening they howl like a dog and go around the city behold they pour forth speech with their mouth swords are in their lips for they say who hears that's an interesting thing for them to say who hears God hears God hears that's exactly why we boldly go before the throne of grace in times of need Not only does he hear the prayers of his people, but he also hears the plots and plans of those who oppose his people and those who oppose him.

And so with this in mind, Puritan author John Gill writes, the swords in their lips will be turned into their own breasts and the God who hears their blasphemies will bring them into judgment.

And that was David's confident hope.

That can be our confident hope when we are being persecuted as well.

So we've got an instance there where Charnock is writing very explicitly about something not being the case that Spurgeon later goes on to say, this is the case.

And lastly, as far as some discontinuity, and I know I'm not answering your question with respect to individual Puritans that he had an issue with, they were mostly thematic, but with regard to perseverance, Spurgeon out and out stated a disagreement with John Owen, who was a Puritan, and John Gill, who was a Baptist.

And that's early in his London ministry.

So it would be interesting to trace that out.

Looking around at the Bible publishing landscape, he may have written, remember Jesus Christ as I preached in my gospel, which I am free to proclaim, but God's word is bound in chains as a criminal.

Of course, there is a sense in which what John Gill says is true.

The word of God cannot be fettered and bound by men, though men may be fettered and bound for the sake of it.

But this book intends to address a present danger that was foreign to most of Christian history.

Now, when you are established your land, you are not to do as the Egyptians did and vex the stranger.

John Gill, in his commentary on these passages, he points out that vex here doesn't just simply mean to miscarry justice.

So for instance, you can steal from the stranger.

That's okay.

And again, these arguments are mainly theological, but they're driven by concerns to safeguard God's sovereignty and power over the dead and the integrity over God's special revelation.

Major proponents would be Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Calvin, Luther.

Many of the Reformed, our forefathers, held this view.

Matthew Henry himself says that it was an evil spirit and person named Samuel.

I highly recommend, especially for pastors, read Matthew Poole on this text.

read John Gill on this text, and read John Brown, the Banner of Truth, first volume on 1 Peter.

Some of the stuff in there is just, it was just, I mean, I got all the quotes in my lecture notes, but here's the text.

Of this salvation, the salvation the first century Jews and Gentiles that Peter was writing to were experiencing, of this salvation...

But when he says something that just Christians have always said, it's just sometimes mind-bogglingly, mind-bogglingly outstanding.

And then I read Matthew Poole.

I read John Gill.

I do read J.C. Riles, the notes at the end.

It says, wherefore henceforth, wherefore henceforth, know we no man after the flesh, yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Now, folks, why is he saying this? Now let me tell you why he's saying this, and then I'm going to go to John Gill.

who I doubt Jeff Dollar is going to call him out, and we're going to see what he said about this passage, because this is exactly what I say about this passage.

Henceforth know we know man after the flesh.

God cannot lower his standards, which is why Jesus is the standard.

Jesus is the evidence of salvation.

Stay with me, okay? And I want you to see what John Gill said about this passage, because this is exactly what I believe.

So this is John Gill.

And like I said, I don't look in the book of Nehemiah a lot.

John Gill noted the phrase, you alone shuts the door on every idol.

Spurgeon loved to say that the God who made all things is the God who must be praised for all things.

And that certainly fits.

And so I do lean into him perhaps more than other writers in the confession itself.

John Gill is another one that I leaned into.

Calvin is very helpful.

And so I pulled from a wide variety of sources, but those are the men that I thought about principally.