Justin Taylor's Blog, page 297

Atmospheric Repentance

Martin Luther's first of his 95 Theses was:

Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said "repent," willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

In 1521 Luther wrote:

This life, therefore, is

not righteousness,

but growth in righteousness,

not health,

but healing,

not being,

but becoming,

not rest,

but exercise.

We are not yet what we shall be,

but we are growing toward it.

The process is not yet finished,

but it is going on.

This is not the end,

but it is the road.

All does not yet gleam in glory,

but all is being purified.

—Martin Luther, "Defense and Explanation of All the Articles," in Luther's Works, Volume 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. George W. Forell & Helmut T. Lehman (Fortress, 1958), p. 24.

David Powlison explains how repentance can be a transforming, unfolding process throughout all of life.

(See also Tim Keller's meditation on "All of Life Is Repentance.")

On the Misuse of the Tongue, or Being Careless with Fire

"How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" (James 3:5)

Sinclair Ferguson:

Gospel, Grace, and Effort: Roundup

William B. Evans and Sean Michael Lucas have been engaged in a profitable discussion over at Reformation 21 on sanctification and the gospel. Here are their exchanges:

Evans, "Sanctification and the Nature of the Gospel"
Lucas, "A Rejoinder on Sanctification and the Gospel"
Evans, "Sanctification and the Gospel: A Surrejoinder to Sean Lucas"
Lucas, "A Concluding Contribution on Sanctification and the Gospel"
Evans, "A Question of Balance? Some Final Comments on Sanctification and the Role of the Law"

Rick Phillips also added a helpful and important post summarizing seven assertions about the relationship between justification and sanctification.

As I've mentioned before, Kevin DeYoung and Tullian Tchividjian have been engaged in a longer—though less direct—discussion addressing similar issues:

DeYoung, "Make Every Effort"
Tchividjian, "Work Hard! But in Which Direction?"
DeYoung, "Gospel-Driven Effort"
Tchividjian, "First Things First"
DeYoung, "Glorying in Indicatives and Insisting on Imperatives"
Tchividjian, "Deconstructing Moralism"

I am thankful for this iron-sharpening-iron among friends done in a respectful and edifying way.

Beyond Rational Opinions about God

From Jonathan Edwards's sermon, "A Divine and Supernatural Light":

Thus there is a difference between having an opinion, that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loveliness and beauty of that holiness and grace.

There is a difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes; but a man cannot have the latter unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind.

So there is a difference between believing that a person is beautiful, and having a sense of his beauty. The former may be obtained by hearsay, but the latter only by seeing the countenance.

There is a wide difference between mere speculative rational judging any thing to be excellent, and having a sense of its sweetness and beauty. The former rests only in the head, speculation only is concerned in it; but the heart is concerned in the latter.

When the heart is sensible of the beauty and amiableness of a thing, it necessarily feels pleasure in the apprehension. It is implied in a person's being heartily sensible of the loveliness of a thing, that the idea of it is sweet and pleasant to his soul; which is a far different thing from having a rational opinion that it is excellent.

Paul's Theology Visualized as a House Being Built

Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006), 19-20, on how "the image of a house may help us visualize the heart and soul of Pauline theology":

The illustration of a house is used here because it is suggestive in conceiving of Paul's theology not because Paul himself supplies such an illustration. No analogy fits perfectly when we try to communicate the Pauline gospel. Visualizing Paul's thought in terms of the building of a house provides an entry point into Paul's thought, a doorway through which we can enter into his worldview.

The foundation of the house is God himself. From him the house takes its shape, and it is utterly dependent on him for its growth.

The house in this illustration represents God's saving plan in history, and that plan includes the role of church in history. God is the foundation for all that occurs, "because from him and through him and for him are all things. May the glory be his forever" (Rom. 11:36). . . . .

One advantage of thinking of God as the foundation is that the other teachings of Paul are not then conceived as concentric circles that are farther and farther from the center. Whether Paul thinks of justification, reconciliation, or sin, they are all based on the foundation; they are not separate from the foundation, nor are they far removed from it. They are themes that frame the house and give it detail, but all these themes depend on the foundation. Since God is the foundation of the house and it depends on him for its survival, he deserves honor for the building of the house.

. . . Such an illustration also highlights the importance of salvation history, what is often called the "already but not yet" dimension of Pauline theology. When we speak of salvation history, we think of the fulfillment of God's saving plan and promises. The fulfillment of God's plan in history is announced in the Pauline gospel. The promises made to Israel in the Old Testament have now become a reality in and through the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God's saving promises are already a reality for the believer in Jesus Christ. . . . On the other hand, believers still await the consummation of salvation history. . . .

Salvation history, then, could represent the remodeling of the house, for the new covenant fulfills what was promised in the old (Jer. 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:4-18). The image of "remodeling" is misleading if it suggests that God "starts over" with the church. Perhaps we should think of the Old Testament as the framing of the house and think of the fulfillment of salvation history as the completion of the inside of the house. . . .

Hence, the image of the house nicely captures various dimensions of Paul's theology—the foundation is God and Christ, salvation history portrays the progress being made on the house, and the theme of the house is the gospel.

Are We Making the Main Thing the Only Thing?

Joe Thorn:

There is more in God's word than the gospel. God has given us his law to show us the way, uncover our corruption and condemnation, and point us to our need of redemption. There are commands to be obeyed, there is wisdom to learn and practice, and affections to feel and be moved by. But, the law itself is unable to create within us new hearts, or empower us to obey its demands. So let me say it this way: The gospel is the main thing, it is not the only thing. However, it is the only thing that brings life, power, and transformation. The gospel isn't everything, but it does connect to everything, and preachers and teachers in the church must be able to show that connection lest we allow the church to drift (or even be lead) into various kinds of hopeless, powerless legalism.

You can read the whole post here, where he goes on to illustrate this paradigm with regard to prayer and the gospel.

Not unrelated, I recently came across this quote from C.K. Barrett, commenting on 1 Corinthians 5:7 and the interplay of the indicative ("you really are unleavened") and the imperative ("cleanse out the leaven"):

The imperative is unthinkable without the indicative, which makes the otherwise impossible obedience possible; the indicative is emasculated if the imperative, which give it moral bite, is wanting.

Ten Commandments for Preachers

Sinclair Ferguson asks:

What Ten Commandments, what rule of preaching-life, do I wish someone had written for me to provide direction, shape, ground rules, that might have helped me keep going in the right direction and gaining momentum in ministry along the way?

Here is an outline of his answers:

Know your Bible better.
Be a man of prayer.
Do not lose sight of Christ.
Be deeply trinitarian.
Use your imagination.
Speak much of sin and grace.
Use the "plain style."
Find your own voice. 
Learn how to transition.
Love your people.

You can read the whole thing here.

Generational Conflict in Ministry

I hope that D.A. Carson's editorial in the new issue of Themelios will be widely read and heeded. This is something Dr. Carson has been seeing and saying this for years but observes through his international travels that it seems to be getting worse.

After describing the situation, he expands on each of the following exhortations:

1. Listen to criticism in a non-defensive way.

2. Be prepared to ask the question, "What are we doing in our church, especially in our public meetings, that is not mandated by Scripture and that may, however unwittingly, be functioning as a barrier to getting the gospel out?"

3. Always focus most attention on the most important things, what Paul calls the matters of first importance—and that means the gospel, with all its rich intertwinings, its focus on Christ and his death and resurrection, its setting people right with God and its power to transform. So when we take a dislike of another's ministry primarily because he belongs to that other generation, must we not first of all ask whether the man in question heralds the gospel? If so, the most precious kinship already exists and should be nurtured.

4. Work hard at developing and fostering good relations with those from the other generation.

The entire article is very much worth reading, no matter your age. I think the fourth point is probably worth quoting at length:

This means meeting with them, even if, initially at least, you don't like them.

It means listening patiently, explaining a different point of view with gentleness.

It means that the new generation of ministers should be publicly thanking God for the older ministers, praying for them with respect and gratitude; it means that the older generations of ministers should be publicly thanking God for the new generation, seeking to encourage them while publicly praying for them.

It means that ideally, disputes should be negotiated in person, winsomely, not by blogposts that are ill-tempered and capable of doing nothing more than ensuring deeper divisions by cheering on one's supporters.

It means shared meals, shared prayer meetings, shared discussions.

It means younger men will seek out older men for their wisdom in a plethora of pastorally challenging situations; it means older men will be trying to find out what these younger men are doing effectively and well, and how they see the world and understand their culture in the light of Scripture.

It means that younger men will listen carefully in order better to understand the past; it means that older men will listen carefully in order better to understand the present.

It means humility of mind and heart, and a passion for the glory of God and the good of others.

I pray that we will have the wisdom to put this vision into practice. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

What Love Is and Isn't

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

"4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never ends."

7 Differences Between Galilee and Judea in the Time of Jesus

R. T. France, in his very fine commentary on The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007), laments:

Modern readers of the NT often know little about the geopolitical world of first-century Palestine. It is commonly assumed that "the Jews" were an undifferentiated community living amicably in the part of the world we now call "the Holy Land" united in their resentment of the political imposition of Roman rule to which all were equally subject.

But, he says, "this is a gross distortion of the historical and cultural reality."

The northern province of Galilee was decisively distinct—in history, political status, and culture—from the southern province of Judea which contained the holy city of Jerusalem.

Admitting that the following is a drastic oversimplification but hoping that it's not a complete caricature, Professor France summarizes seven differences:

Racially the area of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel had had, ever since the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C., a more mixed population, within which more conservative Jewish areas (like Nazareth and Capernaum) stood in close proximity to largely pagan cities, of which in the first century the new Hellenistic centers of Tiberias and Sepphoris were the chief examples.
Geographically Galilee was separated from Judea by the non-Jewish territory of Samaria, and from Perea in the southeast by the Hellenistic settlements of Decapolis.
Politically Galilee had been under separate administration from Judea during almost all its history since the tenth century B.C. (apart from a period of "reunification" under the Maccabees), and in the time of Jesus it was under a (supposedly) native Herodian prince, while Judea and Samaria had since A.D. 6 been under the direct rule of a Roman prefect.
Economically Galilee offered better agricultural and fishing resources than the more mountainous territory of Judea, making the wealth of some Galileans the envy of their southern neighbors.
Culturally Judeans despised their northern neighbors as country cousins, their lack of Jewish sophistication being compounded by their greater openness to Hellenistic influence.
Linguistically Galileans spoke a distinctive form of Aramaic whose slovenly consonants (they dropped their aitches!) were the butt of Judean humor.
Religiously the Judean opinion was that Galileans were lax in their observance of proper ritual, and the problem was exacerbated by the distance of Galilee from the temple and the theological leadership, which was focused in Jerusalem.

The result, he says, is that

even an impeccably Jewish Galilean in first-century Jerusalem was not among his own people; he was as much a foreigner as an Irishman in London or a Texan in New York. His accent would immediately mark him out as "not one of us," and all the communal prejudice of the supposedly superior culture of the capital city would stand against his claim to be heard even as a prophet, let alone as the "Messiah," a title which, as everyone knew, belonged to Judea (cf. John 7:40-42).

This may at first blush sound like interesting background material that is not especially helpful for reading and interpreting the gospels. But Mark and Matthew have structured their narratives around a geographical framework dividing the north and the south, culminating in the confrontation of this prophet from Galilee and the religious establishment of Jerusalem.

Professor France writes: "To read Matthew in blissful ignorance of first-century Palestinian sociopolitics is to miss his point. This is the story of Jesus of Nazareth."