We live in divided times—we live in polarized times. There are reflections worthy of making in this fractured relationship between two Puritan giants. Are all matters worth dividing over? Were the issues that Owen and Baxter divided over worthy of division? Are your divisions with your reformed and evangelical brother worth dividing over? Again, I will not answer the question for you but it is worth reflecting on in relationship to disagreements. 

When Christians Disagree: Lessons from the Fractured Relationship of John Owen and Richard Baxter by Tim Cooper is a 167 page book (including 20 pages of end material) recently published by Crossway. The book is a fast read, easily read in two or three short sittings. The volume is attractive—a signature of Crossway—with a wonderful little introduction by Dr. Michael AG Haykin, one of my favorite Baptists and one of my former church history professors. 
Before discussing the value of the book, there are the two areas of pause with the book that I have considered. The first is there is a repetition of information and stories related to Owen and Baxter. Although most likely purposeful in highlighting Cooper’s thesis, it occasionally comes across like an editing problem. The second concern is the question of anachronism. As Cooper wrestles through the question of conflict and resolution (or lack thereof), was this on the minds of Owen and Baxter, or is this our concern? Is the larger question of reconciliation over doctrinal differences a matter that is more of a concern to us rather than to them? A worthy question for meditation. 
Puritan Giants
When Christians Disagree introduces readers to an area of the life and ministries of Puritans John Owen and Richard Baxter. Both Owen and Baxter lived during a time of transition in England as the English Civil War raged on. Most of us know Owen and Baxter from their devotional material rather than for their interpersonal conflicts or disputes; much less their involvement in the English Civil War. Owen wrote Communion with God, The Holy Spirit, Mortification of Sin, The Glory of Christ, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ among many other theological and devotional works. Baxter is best known for his Directory, The Saints Everlasting Rest, The Reformed Pastor, and several other devotional works. Both Baxter and Owen stand on their own as theological and devotional giants as well as golden examples of the best of English Puritanism. But they had differences—and their differences were great—and worthy of discussing in writing. 
Differences and Disagreements
So what were the differences between Owen and Baxter in relationship to their disagreement and fractured relationship? Much of the disagreement between Baxter and Owen was related to their theological training and understanding, relationship to the English Civil War, personality and convictions concerning unity. 
Baxter was a largely self-taught pastor after attending “a few mediocre schools in his locality”  and sitting under private tutors. John Owen was given the best of university education available at the time, graduating with a Master of Arts from Queens College, Oxford and later with his Doctor of Divinity, also from Oxford. Owen’s greater understanding of nuances and theological precision largely led to difficulties between the two in their writings. 
Personality and relationship to the civil war led to further division between the two pastors. Owen saw the English Civil War as a “triumphant vindication of a glorious cause.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Look at verse 22, “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being.” One of the proper uses of the law – and a part of heartfelt obedience to the law – is to love it. To delight in it. To cherish it. To derive actual pleasure from the righteousness, holiness, and goodness of it. Obeying the law means enjoying the law.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the French reformer and pastor John Calvin wrote that there are three “uses of the law” for today. Calvin wasn’t the first to articulate the enduring value of the Mosaic Law (Calvin himself quotes liberally from his spiritual forebears), but he has become the name most associated with the so-called Three Uses of the Law.
Though other reformers ordered these uses differently, Calvin’s three uses of the law can be listed as:

Exposing Sin in Everyone (Institutes, 2.7.6–9)
Restraining Sin in Non-Believers (Institutes, 2.7.10–11)
Teaching Obedience to Believers (Institutes, 2.7.12–13)

To put it another way: 1) The law shows you how sinful you are by showing you the righteous standard you can’t meet, ultimately driving you to Christ as your Savior. 2) Additionally, the law, when it’s known by unbelievers, causes them to fear judgment for breaking it externally, so they sin less, and society is more inhabitable. 3) But the “principal use” and “proper purpose” of the law, according to Calvin, is its instruction and exhortation to obey God’s will as revealed in the law, and effective only for those whom the Holy Spirit had made willing to obey God through the gospel.
The apostle Paul captured all three of these functions of the Mosaic Law in Romans 7. In the midst of his discussion on sanctification, Paul delineates all three uses of the law in this one chapter.
Paul also shows us that there is yet another use of the law (or, better, an extension of the third use of the law), and it is a critical function of the Old Testament in your life, believer. If Calvin were here writing this article (he’s got better things to do now), he’d give a hearty “Amen” to the last fraction of the use of the law. Christians need the law not only as a spotlight (Use 1), a bridle (Use 2), and a teacher (Use 3), but also as honey.
Let’s look to the text and see Paul’s 3.5 uses of the law in Romans 7.
The First Use of the Law in Romans 7
The law unmasks us. We all assume we’re cleaner than we are, and so avoid a good Scriptural bath with the normal excuses. But when, through the law, we come into contact with actual cleanliness, true purity, and the moral perfection of God, we realize that we stink. And we need to.
That’s Paul’s argument in Romans 7:7. He writes, “What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’”
Paul calls himself “alive apart from the law” (v. 9). In his own perception, without the holy standard of God to rain on his parade, Paul could get away with thinking he was a pretty stand-up guy. But then God exposed his heart of sin with the tenth commandment – don’t covet – and all that external religion started looking suspiciously like the cover-up it was.
He goes on to write in verse 13, “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.” The phrase rendered “in order that” describes intentional purpose. So, was it the purpose of sin itself to be shown to be sin? No, sin wants to hide in a dark corner and remain unseen (John 3:19-20). Then, who purposed that sin would be shown to be sin through the law? Answer: God, who wrote it. God designed the law to rip off our masks and show us the ugly, sinful motives underneath.
Read More
Related Posts:

The triune God has graciously revealed himself to us. Historically and on biblical grounds, Christians have held two affirmations about who and what God is—God is one God, and he exists as three persons. This identification of God as triune stands at the heart of the Christian faith, along with the confession that the second person of the Trinity, the Son, took on a human nature without ceasing to be God.

The Way We Talk about God
Imagine that you’re trying to describe what God did on the cross. What do you say? Here’s how we’ve heard it described (including, at times, by ourselves!):

The Father poured out his wrath on the Son.
The Father turned his face away.
The Father abandoned his Son.
The Son felt the pangs of hell because he was separated from the Father on the cross.

Notice that in describing the cross this way, we are saying that there are two primary actors, two distinct individuals, the Father and the Son, the first two persons of the Godhead, and that each is doing something different at the crucifixion. For now, notice also that the third person of God, the Spirit, is never mentioned in these statements.
Let’s use a different example. You’re asked to describe God’s providence. What do you say? Here’s how we’ve heard it described (again, at times, by ourselves!):

The Father chose this path for me because he cares for me.
When we talk about election, we’re talking about the plan of God the Father.
We have a good Father who has planned all things to work together for our good.

Notice that in describing providence this way, we’re attributing God’s “plan” specifically to God the Father, and sometimes it sounds as if it’s only God the Father who plans out providence. One last example will suffice. Imagine that you’re told to describe how a Christian receives and uses spiritual gifts. What do you say?

The Spirit gave me the gift of [X, Y, or Z].
I can [use gift X, Y, or Z] because the Spirit empowers me.
I’m gifted at [X, Y, or Z] because the Spirit chose to make me that way.

Are the Father and the Son involved in the spiritual gifts? Or just the Spirit?
In each of these examples, and even in the way we’ve asked the follow-up questions, what we’re trying to help you see is that we often think about God’s acts as divisible between the persons and distributed according to their roles. So in these scenarios, sometimes the actor is primarily the Father, as in the examples about providence; sometimes the actor is the Son, as in the examples about the crucifixion; and sometimes the actor is the Spirit, as in the examples about the spiritual gifts.
Let’s return to the examples related to the crucifixion. A question we often ask our students when talking about this subject, and after we’ve described the crucifixion in the ways we gave above, is, “What was the Spirit doing while the Father was forsaking the Son?” Was the Spirit just watching from the sidelines? Was he taking a break from his divine duties? Are the Son and the Spirit also wrathful toward sin? Returning next to providence, do the Son and the Spirit sit on the bench while the Father governs his creation? And with respect to the spiritual gifts, do the Father and the Son renounce their authority and hand it over to the Spirit to let him distribute gifts to whom he wills?
These questions, we hope, help us see that the way we talk about God’s acts often divides the persons of God in a way that is contrary to our confession that God is one God in three persons. If only one divine person, or in some cases two of the three, is acting on any given occasion, how is that consistent with the Christian confession of one God, or with its roots in Jewish monotheism? Aren’t there now three Gods, each of whom acts in different ways in different times? Or is there one God who is sometimes Father, sometimes Son, and sometimes Spirit?
Read More
Related Posts:

Spurgeon believed suffering could benefit believers in various ways, and he particularly reflected on the good a variety of evils could produce for pastors. In times of ease and prosperity, pastors might rely on themselves and not look to God’s promises, consider eternity, or lean on the strength that comes from the Spirit. Through suffering, pastors learn to live the truths they preach. Spurgeon asked, “Does a man know any gospel truth aright till he knows it by experience?”

Many pastors have longed for a taste of Charles Spurgeon’s preaching gifts and ministry success, but few have desired the pronounced suffering that accompanied them. Spurgeon’s published sermons show him a master of preaching to distressed souls, but he had to be distressed himself to do so. Sufferings were not coincidental or unfortunate in a pastor’s life; for Spurgeon, ministry and suffering were theologically connected, the pastoral package deal.
Spurgeon argued suffering is necessary for faithful ministry, because of the distinctive relationship pastors have with Christ—they were his conduits of God’s grace to others. In preaching the gospel of Christ’s sufferings, they would become like Christ in his sufferings. Suffering is also necessary for ministers because of its benefits: it makes pastors experience the truths they preach to their people, keeps them humble, and gives them the sympathy necessary for their labors.
All-Out Ministry
Spurgeon’s life was filled with a mix of sufferings that came upon him in his remarkable ministry. For example, he preached more than 10,000 times, sometimes preaching while so sick that he had to be carried from the pulpit. His popularity and growing church created never-ending duties, but he did not skirt or delegate what he believed were key pastoral responsibilities.
Spurgeon insisted ease in ministry is evidence of a false ministry, which will be hard to account for at the judgment seat of Christ: “The man who finds the ministry an easy life will also find that it will bring a hard death.” True ministers would have the marks of “stern labor” upon them; this was necessary, for how else were God’s people—sheep with many spiritual needs and diseases, who often rambled far and caused great trouble to their shepherds—to be adequately cared for? The pastor at ease was usually the one content to let a few sheep die!
Spurgeon’s comments on strain in ministry must be appreciated in light of his practice of rest and renewal.
Read More
Related Posts:

Marriage is for the here and now reality, as many vows say, “For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live.” It’s not just for the times we feel loved or we feel like loving—it is for life. While God provides divorce as an option for particular circumstances, it is not to be pursued as a response to every unwanted, unexpected, or unfair situation. In anticipation of marital challenges, couples wisely pray for God to renew, add to, and even multiply their love for one another (Matt. 7:7), knowing that God is pleased to answer such prayers (1 John 5:14–15). One reason couples need such prayers is because we are still sinners, but this is no reason to lose hope.

With so much said about marriage, it’s important to remember the essentials. Whether you are married or single, here are five things you should know about marriage summarized by the famed five Ws: who, what, when, where, and why.
1. Who: Marriage Is Designed by God, for One Man and One Woman, Evenly Yoked (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4–5)
God created marriage. If we expect God’s blessing on marriage, it’s wise to heed His rules for it. Most importantly for Christians, this means sharing the same faith (2 Cor. 6:14). Sometimes a Christian ends up married to a non-Christian because people change. Either one spouse comes to faith or one spouse proves never to have had true faith in the first place. Though God permits such mixed-faith marriages, and even works through such marriages, He commands us not to enter such a marriage by choice. For a Christian to choose to marry a non-Christian is to walk away from Christ rather than toward Him and to lose step with the Spirit rather than keeping in step with Him (Gal. 5:16–19).
2. What: Marriage Is a Lifelong Union between Husband and Wife, Picturing the Relationship between Christ and the Church
Marriage entails two people leaving their family of origin to start a new family. A Christian marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church, His bride (Eph. 5:32; 2 Cor. 11:2). As such, husbands are given commands modeled after Christ’s role as head of the church. Husbands are called to lead sacrificially, even to lay down their life for their wife as Christ did for the church (Eph. 5:25). Similarly, wives are given commands corresponding to the church’s role as the body of Christ. Wives are called to submit to their husband as the church submits to Christ (Eph. 5:24). Both roles are equally important. What an honor and responsibility couples have to reveal the relationship between Christ and the church through their marriage.
Read More
Related Posts:

In his new book, Cultural Sanctification: Engaging the World like the Early Church, historian Stephen O. Presley draws on the Bible and an extensive array of early church primary sources to tell stories of Christians (including Paul) engaging their pagan neighbors wherever and whenever they could. Faced with a hostile culture, the natural reaction would have been to hide—and early Christian communities did plenty of that. But more often, Christians reached out to others, sometimes at great personal cost, owing to their conviction that the gospel was a matter of life or death. In the process, Christianity spread—as did its sanctifying effect on the ambient culture.

Sometime in the early 50s AD, the ever trouble-prone Apostle Paul found himself jailed in the Macedonian city of Philippi. Originally named after Philip II, the great Macedonian conqueror of Greece and father of Alexander the Great, by Paul’s time the city was best remembered as the site of a major battle. Almost a century earlier here, in 42 BC, the armies of the Second Triumvirate, led by Octavian and Marc Antony, decisively defeated the forces of Julius Caesar’s assassins. It proved one of the final death knells for the Roman Republic. Perhaps this political history was of no import for Paul, but for the thoroughly Roman culture of the town it certainly mattered. 
What was this pre-Christian Roman culture like? We forget, living in a world inescapably shaped by two-thousand years of Christianity, that many of the gentler aspects of the West have resulted from the slow but steady Christianization of culture. In particular, Christianity is how we learned to hate genocide, to treasure human life, to respect the dignity of all persons, and to abhor the casual cruelty towards the weak so common in the ancient world. It’s impossible read about the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Caesar’s Gallic Wars, a classic of Western history, and not recognize the stark difference between cultures that affirm the value of all persons according to the imago Dei and ones that do not.
The latter view was a defining contrast between early Christianity and pagan religious practice, difficult to us in 2024 to fathom. Pagan gods most certainly did not love human beings, as a casual perusal of Greco-Roman mythology reminds. Much of the time they didn’t even like them, plotting their abuse and destruction in various ways. By contrast, according to Christianity, “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). 
Paul’s sojourn in Philippi is illustrative of the revolutionary nature of Christian thought in the world of antiquity. Spending his night in jail worshiping God, Paul does not rail against the injustice of his arrest and the oppressive power of the empire. Instead, he remains steadfast in his faith, ultimately converting and baptizing the jailer and his family. He teaches him the gospel and equips him to start a local church, one that grows into a flourishing congregation—as Paul’s own letter to the Philippians a decade later attests.
In other words, instead of keeping to himself in the Philippian jail, Paul used this opportunity to reach local leaders. In the process, he sanctified local culture, bringing Christianity into this outpost of the Roman world.
Read More
Related Posts:

How is it that so few take care to make sure that the God they are worshiping is in fact the true God? How many people glaze over and become bored or disinterested when they hear teaching aimed at making sure that the God they are worshiping is in fact the God of the Bible—the triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Does it not matter whether we are worshiping the true God versus a false god? You better believe it matters. It matters eternally.

Last Saturday, I watched an old video of the moments right after my son’s birth. Right after the delivery, the nurses took him to a table near the bed, cleaned him off, and put medical tags around his wrist and around his ankle. Do you know why they did that? So that no one at any time would get confused about who this baby is.
I recently read about two men who were born on the same day in the same hospital in Canada 67 years ago (source, source). A few years ago, the men discovered that the hospital sent them home with the wrong families. At this point, all of the parents have passed away never having learned that their real child was taken from them. And now, these two elderly men and their families are dealing with the emotional aftermath of this shocking revelation about who they are and who they aren’t. Why? Because someone 67 years ago in a hospital in Canada got confused about who these children were.
Mothers, after you gave birth, did it matter to you that the baby you delivered be the same one that you took home with you? What if hospital personnel told you as you were leaving for home, “Things got a little hectic back in the nursery this week. We think this is your baby, but we can’t be sure. But we know that we owe you a baby, so you go ahead and take this one.” Would that be acceptable to you? Would anyone in their right mind find that acceptable?
Husbands, think back to your wedding day. You run out to the car after the reception, everyone is throwing rice and cheering, a lot of confusion. But you get into your side of the car and she gets into hers. And as you are driving away, you look over and discover a woman in a wedding dress in the passenger seat, but it’s not the woman you just married.
Read More
Related Posts:

God wants his people to know that we are part of his body. This is true even for the youngest members of Christ’s church. Long before they publicly profess their faith those baptized in infancy are part of Christ’s church and covenant. Baptized infants aren’t future church members but actual church members.

In places with a Christian heritage the weightiness of baptism can easily be underestimated. Many people get baptized, or baptize their children, out of impulse, or as a matter of custom. It isn’t usually a sobering decision.
Believers under persecution understand baptism differently. Immediately after Paul’s conversion Ananias said to him, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). We would understand if Paul was hesitant. Jesus had already told him how much he would suffer for his name. Being baptized would mark him as a follower of Jesus and an enemy of the world. Still, Paul “arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). He knew there was no other way; he was a disciple of Jesus. Baptism marked his new life in God’s Son.
To treasure baptism, whether we are living in times of persecution or peace, we need to know that it is commanded by Christ and offers rich benefits. 
The Command of Baptism
Baptism is ordained by Jesus as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Jesus himself did not baptize (John 4:2). But he commanded his disciples to do it (Matt. 28:19). And their example shows us what it looks like. Whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, a baptized person receives the outward element of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Jesus didn’t invent water baptism. The Jewish people baptized various household goods with water (Mark 7:4). They themselves were baptized in the red sea (1 Cor. 10:2); God bound them to himself and separated them from their former owners. This old symbol now tells of how Jesus’ blood washes away our sins.
So important is baptism for the Christian life that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize the nations. This command is why Christian ministers baptize today. In fact, for baptism to be useful it cannot be performed by any but “a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.” This is not because he has special skill in baptizing or lends any virtue to the ceremony. But because, like the original baptizers, he has been called by Jesus with authority to speak and act for him. When a true ambassador of Christ baptizes it as though Christ himself is confirming his covenant promises (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20).
By Jesus’ command all disciples must be baptized. This surely includes adult believers. Throughout the book of Acts Luke records this pattern: adults who came to believe in Jesus were baptized. When the Ethiopian eunuch came to believe that he was healed by Christ’s wounds, he was baptized (Acts 8:36, 38). After God opened Lydia’s heart to pay attention to spiritual things “she was baptized” (16:15). When the Philippian jailer got saved by trusting in the Lord Jesus “he was baptized at once” (16:31). 
Read More
Related Posts:

In season and out of season he met his engagements. His custom was to catechize at regular periods, throughout his charge, and not only the children but also the heads of families—households. This was done by announcing from the pulpit certain days in the week, to meet those of a particular district, at a place named, and so he continued from week to week until the whole congregation was visited, and instructed in a pastoral way.…A little before he breathed his last (my brother Samuel having been sent for the physician, and not yet returned), he had his other children brought to his bedside, of whom my sister and myself were the oldest present. He looked upon us all, and said, “My poor girls!” — paused, and then asked, “What is the chief end of man?” This question I answered, in the words of my catechism, “To glorify God, and enjoy him for ever.” 

Samuel was born to the William Waugh household in 1749 within the parish of Lower Marsh Creek Presbyterian Church in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, his mother’s name could not be determined with certainty. The pioneer settlers of the region were Scots Irish and if they attended church, it was Presbyterian. Education in preparation for college was received from a man named Dobbin who lived somewhere in the region of Gettysburg. He moved east to the College of New Jersey to begin preparation for the ministry. Languages were of particular interest for him and he excelled in learning their nuances. He found political comradery as a member of the American Whig Society, which was a debating society that followed the principles of John Locke through promoting virtue, the rights of citizens, and separation of powers. The year before he graduated he won prizes for reading Latin and Greek and for translating from English to Latin. Included among his thirty colleagues graduating with him in 1773 were, William Graham (Presbyterian minister and founder of what is currently Washington & Lee University), Hugh Hodge (the father of Princeton Seminary’s Charles Hodge), Harry Lee, Jr. ( “Light Horse Harry Lee” and father of Robert E. Lee), John Linn (childhood friend, ministerial colleague, and founding board member of Dickinson College), Presbyterian minister and educator brothers John Blair Smith and William Richmond Smith (brothers of Princeton University president Samuel Stanhope Smith and the three were sons of Robert Smith), and John Witherspoon, Jr. At commencement, Waugh demonstrated his linguistic skill in a debate using only the Latin language.
Returning to Pennsylvania, Waugh was tutored in theology by a local minister, then he was licensed to preach during the meeting of Donegal Presbytery, December 4, 1776, at the Upper West Conococheague Church in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The Cumberland frontier, Maryland, and northern Virginia had settlements sprinkled hither and yon with many needing worship leaders, so Waugh tested his gifts supplying remote churches by traveling on horseback into Maryland and Virginia. In Virginia he directed worship at churches in Turkey Run, Culpepper Court House, and Kittocktin. He was ordained May 1781 after more than four years preaching as a licensed missionary and he continued supplying churches as a minister.
In April 1782, he was installed pastor of the united congregations of East (or Lower) Pennsborough and Monaghan. His guaranteed annual salary was £150, and he was promised a gratuity of £75 from each of the two congregations with one paid shortly after his installation and the other when he had been minister for three years. It is unclear what constituted a gratuity, but it may have been given only if the storms didn’t come and the creeks didn’t rise to set back the local economy. By about 1783 Waugh’s church changed its name to Silver Spring Church. As often occurred for a single minister in his first church, he was attracted to one member of his flock particularly, Eliza, the daughter of David Hoge. They were married April 14, 1783. Samuel and Eliza moved into their home about the time Silver Spring Church completed its stone building to replace the rustic log meeting house in East Pennsborough.
Read More
Related Posts:

Indwelling sin is compared to a person, a living person, called “the old man,” with his faculties and properties, his wisdom, craft, subtlety, strength; this, says the apostle, must be killed, put to death, mortified—that is, have its power, life, vigor, and strength to produce its effects taken away by the Spirit. It is, indeed, meritoriously, and by way of example, utterly mortified and slain by the cross of Christ; and the “old man” is thence said to be “crucified with Christ” (Rom. 6:6).

“If ye by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live” (Rom. 8:13)
The Duty: Mortify Your Deeds
The duty itself, “Mortify the deeds of the body,” is next to be remarked upon. Three things are here to be inquired into:
(1) What is meant by the body?(2) What by the deeds of the body?(3) What by mortifying of them?
(1) “The body” in the close of the verse is the same with “the flesh” in the beginning: “If ye live after the flesh ye shall dye,” but if ye “mortifie the deeds of the body”—that is, of the flesh. It is that which the apostle has all along discoursed of under the name of “the flesh,” which is evident from the prosecution1 of the antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh, before and after. “The body,” then, here is taken for that corruption and depravity of our natures whereof the body, in a great part, is the seat and instrument, the very members of the body being made servants unto unrighteousness thereby (Rom. 6:19). It is indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust, that is intended. Many reasons might be given of this metonymical expression2that I shall not now insist on. The “body” here is the same with παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος and σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, the “old man” and the “body of sin” (Rom. 6:6); or it may synecdochically3 express the whole person considered as corrupted, and the seat of lusts and distempered affections.
(2) The deeds of the body. The word is πράξεις,4 which, indeed, denotes the outward actions chiefly, “the works of the flesh,” as they are called, τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκὸς (Gal. 5:19); which are there said to be “manifest” and are enumerated. Now, though the outward deeds are here only expressed, yet the inward and next causes are chiefly intended; the “axe is to be laid to the root of the tree”5—the deeds of the flesh are to be mortified in their causes, from whence they spring. The apostle calls them deeds, as that which every lust tends unto; though they do but conceive and prove abortive, they aim to bring forth a perfect sin.
Read More
Related Posts: