The Spiritual Resurrection Body

One of the biggest challenges to understanding the Scriptures is understanding what the biblical text meant to those for whom it was written. It is very easy to superimpose our own ideas onto the text and filter the Scriptures through our own interpretative grid rather than understand what the inspired author actually meant. As an illustration of this point, consider Paul's description of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15:44:

The "Sinner's Prayer"

Scot McKnight had some interesting comments regarding a mini-controversy at the Southern Baptist Convention. I think McKnight is on target.

Chronology and Christology

Here's a link from New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado's fine blog summarizing evidence regarding the early development of the high view of Jesus in early Christian writings (esp. Paul).

Baptism with the Holy Spirit

I have been teaching a class on the Holy Spirit this fall, and here is an outline of a lesson on Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit

In the last few lessons we have studied the identity of the Holy Spirit, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments. This week we are going to study an aspect of the Spirit’s work that ties together the expectation of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of the New Testament – the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

The Bible speaks of Jesus baptizing “with the Holy Spirit” in six passages (Matt. 31:1; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:6; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16). One more passage may speak of baptism “in” the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13, ESV and ASV). What does baptism with the Holy Spirit mean?

I. Various Views of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit

A. Various views in Protestanism

1. Calvinistic view: refers to regeneration.

2. Wesleyan view: refers to second work of grace.

3. Pentecostal view: refers to endowment, manifested in speaking in tongues.

B. Among brethren

1. The most common view is that baptism with the Holy Spirit only took place twice – the apostles on Pentecost and the household of Cornelius.

2. Some brethren (most notably Foy Wallace Jr) have argued that the household of Cornelius was not baptized with the Spirit.

C. I believe there is a better option – “Baptism in the Spirit” is simply one way to describe the coming of the new covenant and the era of Messianic blessings.

1. This does not mean that all Christians are supernaturally endowed to speak with tongues, as Pentecostalism suggests. This wasn’t even the case in the apostolic period (1 Cor. 12:10, 30).

2. In fact, a major source of confusion on this subject has been equating baptism with the Holy Spirit with miraculous signs, something that the text does not do.

3. As Moses Lard wrote in 1864: “Baptism in the Spirit does not consist in endowing the mind with miraculous powers, as seems to have been so generally taken for granted.” (Lard’s Quarterly I:275).

II. Baptism with the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments

A. The Old Testament prophets looked forward to a new era of blessings through the Messiah, which included the pouring out of the Spirit.

1. Isaiah 32:15 – Israel will be desolate until the Spirit is poured from on high.

2. Isaiah 44:3 – God will pour His Spirit on Israel’s offspring, like water on a thirsty land.

3. Ezekiel 36:25-27 – God will sprinkle water to cleanse His people, give them a new heart, and put His Spirit within them to cause them to walk in His statutes.

4. Ezekiel 39:29 – God will pour out His Spirit on the house of Israel.

5. Joel 2:28-32 – God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh, followed by prophecy, dreams and visions.

6. Zechariah 12:10 – God will pour out on the house of David and people of Jerusalem a spirit of grace.

B. Observations regarding these OT statements:

1. Notice the comparison of the Spirit to water, “poured out,” connected with the “sprinkling” of the people, parallel to water on a thirsty land.

2. None of these passages suggest this pouring out would be limited to a handful of people. It is for the house of David, Jerusalem, the offspring of Israel, “all flesh.”

3. Except for Joel 2 there is nothing inherently miraculous in any of these statements.

4. This expectation continued into the New Testament period, as is reflected in the writings found at the Dead Sea. “Then, too, God will purge all the acts of man in the crucible of His Truth, and refine for Himself all the fabric of man, destroying every spirit of perversity from within his flesh and cleansing him by the holy spirit from all the effects of wickedness. Like waters of purification He will sprinkle upon the spirit of truth, to cleanse him of all the abominations of falsehood and of all pollution through the spirit of filth.” From the Manual of Disciple (1QS).

C. The fulfillment of this expectation in the New Testament.

1. John the Baptist taught that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:15-16; John 1:33).

a) Nothing in these passages indicates that John was speaking only to the twelve. Indeed, he said this before the Twelve were chosen. Luke is specific that he addressed “them all.”

b) Against the backdrop of the passages in the OT, John’s promise was that Jesus was the one through whom God’s new era of blessing and salvation for His people would come.

c) And baptism was the perfect metaphor in light of the language comparing the coming of the Spirit with water in the OT.

d) In light of the OT promises, nothing inherently miraculous was expected.

e) Since it is always God who would pour out the Spirit in the OT, for John to say Jesus would do this indicates that Jesus is deity.

2. Jesus taught that He would baptize with the Spirit (Acts 1:5).

a) He said this to the apostles, but it is not correct to interpret this to mean it only referred to the apostles – Peter understood this statement to have wider application in Acts 11:16.

b) This is in keeping with the promise Jesus made in John 7:37-39, where once more the Spirit is described in terms of water – “rivers of living water.”

3. The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

a) We sometimes call this the “birthday of the church,” the first gospel sermon, the beginning of the kingdom, the “hub of the Bible,” and so on. It was a pivotal event.

b) And since the OT pictured the Messianic age as the time when God would pour His Spirit on His people, Peter says that the Day of Pentecost is the inauguration of that era of blessings (quoting Joel 2 in 2:17-21).

c) In order to bear testimony to those in attendance that this the start of something new, God enabled the apostles to speak in tongues – 2:1-4; cf. Heb. 2:3-4.

d) But the speaking in tongues is not to be confused with baptism with the Spirit. Rather, the speaking in tongues confirmed that the new age of the Messiah, the start of the new covenant, the outpouring of the Spirit, had begun.

e) The promise of the Spirit is for all who turn to the Messiah (Acts 2:38; cf. 5:32).

4. The Household of Cornelius (Acts 10).

a) The Spirit fell on Cornelius and his household in Acts 10, enabling them to speak in tongues. This was to bear witness that God accepted Gentiles on the same basis as Jews (Acts 15:8).

b) In Acts 11:16-17, Peter says that when he saw this he thought of Jesus’ promise. He realized that the age of Messianic blessings was for everyone, including Gentiles.

c) Normally in Acts miraculous manifestations of the Spirit took place by the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:14-18; 19:4-6). As Peter says in Acts 11:15, what made the events at the house of Cornelius so remarkable was that the Spirit came on them “just as on us at the beginning,” without any human intermediary.

d) The normal course of events in Acts is baptism, then the giving of the Spirit. This was different. “In Acts 10 the tongues were evidence that God wanted the Gentiles to be received into His church along with the Jews. Thus these events were not intended to be paradigms of conversion. They were meant to be exceptions to the rule in the sense that every miracle is an exception; this is what gives them their evidential value” (Jack Cottrell, Baptism: A Biblical Study, p. 61).

e) To emphasize: what makes Acts 2 and Acts 10 unique is that there were miraculous signs without human intermediaries. They were miraculous signs that the Messianic age (the age of the outpouring of the Spirit) had begun and included Gentiles.

D. Summary:

1. The OT expectation of the pouring out of the Spirit on God’s people was fulfilled through the work of Jesus Christ who baptizes His people with the Spirit.

2. All Christians share this blessing at conversion (John 3:5; Titus 3:5). It is not miraculous.

3. On two occasions (Acts 2 an 10) God did give miraculous signs that this age had begun. But these signs are not to be confused with baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Does God Have "Two Wills"?

Those who hold to the Calvinistic concept of predestination believe that God predetermined everything that would happen. The Westminster Confession of Faith outlined this decree and its ramifications in this way:

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

In summary, God decreed from eternity which specified individuals He would give faith to and save, and which He would not give faith to and ordain for wrath.

Such a teaching seems to run counter to passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, which say that God desires all men to be saved and is not willing that any should perish. In Calvinistic theology, one way this apparent contradiction is handled is by positing two wills of God. There are different terms used to describe these two wills, but the essential distinction is between God's revealed will and His secret will. In His revealed will, God has declared His desire to save all men. But in His unrevealed or secret will, He has decreed that only certain individuals will be given faith and saved.

One proponent of this explanation is John Piper:

Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least "two wills" in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass. This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.

Is this a legitimate argument?

Piper is correct that the phrase "the will of God" can be used in two ways. Sometimes the Bible speaks of the "will of God" in the sense of that which He desires that we do, but permits us not to. "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality" (1 Thess. 4:3). God has revealed His desire that Christians abstain from fornication. That is His desire, or His preferred will. But Christians may choose to ignore this desire and commit sin. God does not cause us to sin - we choose to sin (James 1:13). We sin because we choose to ignore God's desired will. The Bible often speaks of God's will in this sense of what He prefers or desires (Mark 3:35; Eph. 6:6; 1 Thess. 5:18; Heb. 10:36; 1 Peter 4:2; 1 John 2:17).

On the other hand, the Bible sometimes speaks of the will of God in the sense of what God desires to happen AND causes to happen. These are matters which God not only desired to happen, but actually made to happen. They do not involve human freedom or choice. The classic example of this would be creation. "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created" (Rev. 4:11). God not only desired for there to be a creation, He caused it to happen. The same is true with God's plan of redemption. God determined to save sinners though His Son (1 Peter 1:20). This was something He desired to do and caused to happen by sending Jesus to die for sinners.

So I have no problem speaking of God having "two wills"- or even using some of the standard theological terms:

• God's permissive will = God desires but permits man to act otherwise

• God's efficient will = God desires and God causes to happen

God in His great mercy chose to offer salvation through the death of His Son. He both desired to do this and caused this (His efficient will). God desires that everyone respond to this gift, but He permits us to do otherwise (His permissive will). These two wills are in harmony with each other.

When Piper and other Calvinists say that God has "two wills," they mean something much different. They mean that at the same time God expresses that He desires all men to be saved (His "revealed will") that He does not desire all men to be saved (His "secret will" - the eternal decree).

The issue is not, "does God have two wills?" The issue is, does God express one thing in His revealed will that He has already in His eternal decree specifically foreordained otherwise? This is inherently contradictory!

Many Calvinistic writers acknowledge this, and opt for interpretations of passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 that limit the seeming universal scope of God's saving desire. While I don't agree with those interpretations, they are certainly an improvement over the dubious view of the two wills of God argued by Piper and others.

What Does the Bible Teach About Baptism? (A New Look at Old Questions - Part 4)

Introduction
One of my favorite movies released in the last few years is a quirky comedy called O Brother Where Art Thou. It is a retelling of Homer’s Odyssey, the classic from Greek literature, set in the Depression era American South. The soundtrack is phenomenal, and the characters in the movie are hilarious. The three main characters are fugitives from a chain gang, Pete, Delmar and Everett. While they are on the run they come across a baptismal service taking place in a river, and Delmar, the kindest of the three, splashes off into the water to get to the preach to be baptized.

Some of my favorite lines are what Delmar says when he slogs back to the other two guys. “Well that's it boys, I been redeemed! The preacher warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight-and-narrow from here on out and heaven everlasting's my reward!”

His skeptical friend Everett asks him what he’s talking about, and he says: “Preacher said my sins are warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo!”

Everett asks, “I thought you said you were innocent of those charges.”

Delmar answers, “Well I was lyin' - and I'm proud to say that that sin's been warshed away too! Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now! Come on in, boys, the water's fine!”

Well I suppose this morning’s sermons is really about how accurate Delmar’s theology was. Does baptism “warsh” away our sins? This one of the watershed issues that divides Catholics and Protestants. And it is an issue that frankly separates what I believe from both Catholicism and Protestantism. So this morning I want to accomplish three things:
-First, I want to set forth the basic positions of Catholic and Protestant theology regarding baptism.
-Second, I want to look at what the NT teaches about the topic.
-And third, I want to compare and contrast the biblical picture with those widely held views of baptism.

I. Baptism in Catholic and Protestant Theology

Let’s begin with Catholicism, which is easy since the official positions of the church are set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

So in Catholic teaching, in baptism we find forgiveness of sins and fellowship with Christ and His church.

And because Catholic theology subscribes to the belief that babies are born guilty of sins, the church teaches that babies must be sprinkled in order to receive forgiveness.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

So the purpose of baptism is the removal of sin, even for those who do not have any faith of their own.

This kind of sacramental thinking led to the Protestant Reformation, which emphasized the need for personal faith in Christ. In fact, Protestants argued that the biblical teaching on justification by faith meant that we are saved by faith alone, without any acts of obedience, such as baptism. And while it is impossible to paint everyone who claims to be a Protestant with this broad brush, I do think it is fair to say that the overwhelming percentage of non-Catholics believe that baptism plays no role in the conversion process, since we are saved by faith alone without any works.

I found this typical statement on the web-

While we should preach that all people are commanded to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), adding any other requirement to salvation by grace becomes "works" in disguise.

Even though numerous Scriptures speak of the importance of water baptism, adding anything to the work of the cross demeans the sacrifice of the Savior. It implies that His finished work wasn't enough. But the Bible makes clear that we are saved by grace, and grace alone,

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
—Ephesians 2:8-9

Baptism is simply a step of obedience to the Lord following our repentance and confession of sin. Our obedience--water baptism, prayer, good works, fellowship, witnessing, etc.--issues from our faith in Christ. Salvation is not what we do, but Who we have.

In fact, if you have virtually any study Bible, if you look at the commentary on any text that mentions baptism (like Acts 2:38), I would almost bet it says something like “baptism is sign of the forgiveness we have through our faith in Christ.”

So on this, Catholic and Protestant teaching are diametrical opposites:
-Catholicism says, we are saved by baptism, without personal faith in Christ.
-Protestantism says we are saved by personal faith in Christ, without baptism.

Of course, Catholics would say that a sprinkled baby should grow up to develop their own faith, going through catechism class and confirmation to confirm what took place in their baptism, and Protestants would say that once a person has been saved they should be baptism as a good work of discipleship. But as to the purpose of baptism, they are in complete disagreement.

With these positions clearly marked out, let’s look at the NT to see what the text says about baptism.

II. NT Teaching About Baptism

First, the NT teaches that baptism is centered in Christ and what He accomplished in His death, burial and resurrection.

In Romans chapter six, the apostle Paul is refuting a possible objection to his strong message of grace – man is sinful, but God is even more gracious. The objection is that if that’s the case then we should just really live it up in sin, banking on God to be even more gracious. And his counter to this line of thinking is that Christ paid a horrible price to free us from sin, a price we personally identified with in baptism, and because of that deep identification with Jesus’ death we should never revert to the sinful life we once lived.

Rom. 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Look at what Paul says in this passage.
-Baptism is Christ-centered. We have been “baptized in Christ.”
-And it is centered on what Jesus did in His death, burial and resurrection. Since we are “in Him,” we share with Him in His death – we were “baptized into his death” –we share in His burial – “we are buried therefore with him by baptism into death” – and we share in His resurrection: “just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

And as Paul says in Galatians 3:27, this newness of life is so shaped by the character of Christ that when we are baptized “into Him” – just like changing clothes - we take off our life and put His on.

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

So baptism is centered in Christ and His work on the cross.

Second, the NT teaches that baptism is our response of faith to Christ and what He did in dying and rising.

I just quoted from Gal. 3:27. Look at it again with the previous verse as well-

26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

In Christ we are sons of God through faith – for – here’s the reason why – we have been baptized into Christ and put Him on.

In this text faith and baptism are not mutually exclusive – they are inclusive and complimentary. As one Protestant commentator says:

“Some will no doubt have problems with the observation that faith and baptism are parallel expressions for Paul…baptism was in the early church the initial and necessary response of faith.” -Scot McKnight, NIV Application Commentary on Galatians, p. 198

Here’s another passage that links faith and baptism- but with completely different imagery. In 1 Peter 3 the apostle Peter makes a comparison between the salvation of Noah and is family and our salvation:

20 God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Whatever Peter says about baptism here, let’s first make the point it is Christ-centered – “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” And in particular, Peter says baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Peter doesn’t use the word “faith” here; he says that baptism is an appeal to God, a prayer for a good conscience, and what better way to describe faith than a prayer or plea for help?

It is this inner dimension to baptism rather than the external – not the removal of dirt from the flesh but the appeal to God – that Peter says is the reason baptism saves us, just as Noah was saved.

To quote another commentary:

“Just as the flood spoke of judgment, which those in the ark were both saved from, and saved by, in order to enjoy a new world, so the water of Christian baptism speaks of the death which fell upon Christ, a death due to sinners, which believers into Christ are both saved from, and saved by, and through which they enter into the enjoyment of new life before God.”-A.M. Stibbs and A.F. Walls, Tyndale NT Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, p. 144

Baptism is our response of faith – our appeal to God – centered on Christ and His death and resurrection.

Now for a third point in the NT-

Baptism is God’s work of salvation in response to our faith in Christ and His death and resurrection.

In Colossians 2 Paul uses another illustration for what happens in baptism – it is spiritual surgery-

Col. 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Just as under the Law of Moses Jewish men were to be circumcised, Paul says that our sins are excised from us in a surgery not by human hands, but by Christ Himself, and that this happens when we are identified with Him in baptism.

As Anglican scholar NT Wright says:

“The transfer from the old solidarity to the new is accomplished in baptism. Such a statement alarms many Christians today; seeing the dangers regarding baptism as a quasi-magical rite through which people are automatically transformed, many draw back from the realism of Paul’s language, not only in this passage but in (for instance) Romans 6:2-11 and Galatians 3:27…But Paul’s thought is not to be forced into the ‘either-or’ of anachronistic Protestant -or, for that matter, Catholic - polemics.”
-N.T. Wright, Tyndale Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, pp 106-107

In other words, the extreme positions of salvation being either by faith or by baptism found in Catholicism and Protestantism is not something people believed in Paul’s day, and it is a mistake to read Col. 2:12 in that light. The answer according to this passage is not either/or but both.

And that leads me to my third objective this morning – to compare and contrast what the NT says with Catholic and Protestant teaching.

III. Baptism in the Bible and Baptism in Theology

First of all, what do these systems have right? Protestants are correct when they say that we must have personal trust in Jesus to be saved. Not only do many passages generally teach this (John 3:16), but as we have seen, many passages which discuss baptism specifically make the same point. We are sons of God by faith – we appeal to God for a good conscience – we are raised through faith in the working of God.

And Catholics are correct to acknowledge the clear link in Scripture between baptism and salvation. In passage after passage we have seen the NT connect the two together.

The mistake in both systems is putting asunder what God has joined together, denying the need for personal faith on the one hand, and assuming that faith and baptism are exclusive on the other.

I sympathize with the Protestant effort to protect justification by faith from the sacramentalism of Catholic practice. But the assumption that baptism can play no role in the conversion process because it is a human work, and relegating it to the category of a good work that we do as Christians, completely misses the point of what we have seen in these verses.

Think about the idea of baptism as spiritual surgery found in Colossians 2. When I lived in IL, one of the little girls at church had a flare up of appendicitis. Her mom called me, and I went up to the hospital to visit with the family. All of the sudden the nurse who wins the all time award for “Worst Bedside Manner Ever” came in and just blurted out, “We’re gonna have to take it out.” Well, little 10 year old Jasmin was petrified and started to cry. And I wanted to cry! But we explained to her that she needed to have surgery because there was something in her making her very sick, and it could even make her more sick if the doctor didn’t get it out. And thankfully the surgery went just fine.

Jasmin had a problem that only the doctor could remove, and she had to put her trust in him to do the surgery she needed. That was an act of faith. And what Paul is saying in Colossians 2 is that we all have something that is fatal – sin. And we need for it to be cut away. Only God can do that surgery, and baptism is when that happens. It is not a good work we do. It is a saving work that Christ does for us!

Conclusion
I think the best way for us to end this study is to compare our own practice with the biblical pattern, just as we critiqued Protestantism and Catholicism.

Since part of what prompted this series of lessons is the questioning of certain beliefs I have seen among former students of mine, and others, I think it is important to stress the view I have given you today of baptism is not just a recent innovation of “church of Christ preachers.” That is the reason I quoted so much today from various commentaries- something I don’t normally do. None of the authors I quoted are in any way connected with “the church of Christ,” but all of them acknowledged the clear implications of these passages about baptism, and some of them did so while deliberately offering the same critiques I did of Catholicism and Protestantism.

And if you are someone interested in history, you may be curious to know that the view I have presented today was held by the early writers in church history. And you don’t have to just take my word for it. As English Baptist authors Donald Bridge and David Phypers have written, “In their understanding of baptism the early Fathers stressed its connection with forgiveness more than anything else.” (The Water That Divides, p. 60)

So for those who are tempted to jettison the emphasis on baptism in conversion as a relic of 1950s church-of-christ-ism, please realize that you are not only abandoning the most straightforward interpretation of passage after passage, but also centuries of church history in which this same view was held.

Something else that I think needs to be said has to do with what we sometimes call the “age of accountability.” How old does a child have to be in order to be baptized? There is obviously no set answer to that question, but I do think we need to be really careful about letting kids be baptized too soon. It is very common for a child who is not even in double digits to want to be baptized, because if a child pays attention at all they will hear it mentioned a lot. And years ago someone told me they thought that if anyone, including a child, came forward to be baptized, that they should be immersed no questions asked. I profoundly disagree with that statement.

I told you one story about Jasmin – let me tell you another. When she was quite young, one Sunday night she came forward during the invitation song. It was totally unexpected for me. So I sat down on the front pew with her and asked her why she came forward- and she said she wanted to be baptized. I said, “why?” And she said, “for the forgiveness of sins.” So then I said, “Are you a sinner?” And she shook her head no! Then I asked, “Have you ever committed a sin.” And again she shook her head no!

Now what if I had done what someone said and just took her and immersed her. How much faith was she putting in Christ’s saving work on the cross? None! How can you put your trust in a Savior to save you from your sins when you don’t think you have any? At that point she did not have faith in Christ – she had faith in baptism. And baptizing someone who has no faith in Christ is the very thing we condemn Catholicism for!

I don’t have any magic or easy answers for when a kid should be baptized. But we must make sure that what they believe about baptism is centered on Christ and His death and resurrection, or else all we are doing when we baptize them is getting them wet.

And that is true for anyone regardless of age. I will tell you that one of my greatest fears is that this church – or any church I have work with – is filled with people who think they are going to go to heaven simply because they punched their ticket by being baptized, but who never truly placed their trust in Jesus, never truly decided to forsake everything to follow Him. If we truly believe baptism is God’s work, His gracious rescue, then we should be profoundly stirred to live for Him. But if you think that your baptism was your work, that you climbed up the final rung of the gospel ladder, then how could you possibly serve God with a heart of gratitude and trust. If we believe baptism is God’s work, we need to live like it!

When Delmar got baptized in O Brother Where Art Thou, he was like a little kid he was so happy. He knew he was a sinner, and he couldn’t wait to tell his friends, “Come on in boys, the water’s fine.”

Do you remember when you were baptized? Maybe it was at the end of a service like this. Perhaps it was in the middle of the night. Do you remember why? Here’s what I hope. I hope that you recall being terrified – terrified because you knew you were a sinner and that God was holy and that you would face His wrath in your sins. And I hope you remember a conviction that only Jesus could take away your sins, and that you knew His word said that to be forgiven you needed to respond in faith, and repentance and baptism. And I hope you remember the joy, the feeling of a millions pounds of guilt lifting off of you when you came up. And may we never lose our sense of dread of our Holy God, nor our sense of joy at His grace.

An Introduction to the New Perspective

Over the last 25 years a growing number of scholars have adopted a new view of Paul’s teaching regarding the law, a perspective which has been simply and broadly labeled as “the new perspective” (hereafter NP). While there are many variations of the NP, in this article I want to set forth the major issues raised by the NP, and explain why I believe it is a dramatic step in the right direction of understanding Paul.

The “Old Perspective”
To really grasp the basic issues raised by the NP, it is important to understand the traditional way Paul has been interpreted. The single greatest influence on interpreting Paul in the last 500 years was unquestionably Martin Luther. Luther struggled with his own sense of unworthiness in the face of a holy God.

I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: “The justice of God is revealed in it.” I hated that word, “justice of God,” which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.

Once he read Romans 1:17, “the just shall live by faith,” in dramatic contrast to the sacramental system of Roman Catholicism, Luther’s misery turned to joy.

I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: “The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: ‘The just person lives by faith.’” I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: “The just person lives by faith.” All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. (ibid)

Since that discovery by Luther, Protestantism in general has essentially followed Luther’s reading of Romans. On this view, “law” refers to any system of commands to obey, and in such a system, salvation can only be achieved by perfect works. Since we all sin, this means of justification is impossible. As Luther wrote in his introduction to his commentary on Romans:

The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, “No human being is justified before God through the works of the law.”

While there are obviously many variations on the traditional reading of Paul, its basic conclusions can be summarized as follows:
1. “Justification” is a legal term declaring the sinner “not guilty” (or “not punished)”.
2. The basic issue in Romans is how an individual can be declared “not guilty” before a righteous God.
3. “Law” (Greek nomos) is a generic term for any system of commands by God, of which the Law of Moses is only one example.
4. “The righteousness of God” is the gift of righteousness, or right standing, given by God to the sinner.

The New Perspective
The traditional reading of Romans and Galatians assumed that the real problem with the Jews in the first century was legalism, the belief that salvation was earned by perfect law-keeping. This understanding of Judaism was seriously challenged by E.P. Sanders’ groundbreaking 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. In this work, Sanders surveyed rabbinic literature, the Dead Sea scrolls, and the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and concluded that the traditional reading of Judaism was a gross misrepresentation.

The Rabbis certainly believed that God would punish transgression and reward obedience, but it is not a Rabbinic doctrine that one’s place in the world to come is determined by counting or weighing his deeds… Although obedience is required, no number of good deeds can earn salvation if a man acts in such a way as to remove himself from the covenant. Obedience and the intention to obey are required if one is to remain in the covenant and share in its promises, but they do not earn God’s mercy. (Sanders, p. 146-147)

Sanders argued that God’s relationship with Israel as a nation was determined solely by God’s grace. God chose the nation of Israel and entered into covenant with it by grace, not because Israel had earned his favor. Whether an individual Israelite remained in that covenant depended on his obedience to God’s law. “Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such” (Sanders, p. 421).

Furthermore, this obedience to the Law did not have to be perfect. According to Sanders, the view that was “universally held” by the Jews was this:

God has appointed means of atonement for every transgression, except the intention to reject God and His covenant. That is, those who are in the covenant will remain in and will receive the covenant promises (including a share in the world to come), unless they remove themselves by “casting off the yoke”. (Sanders, p. 157)

Sanders coined a term to describe this view: covenantal nomism. “Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.” (Sanders, p. 75)

This in turn led Sanders to conclude that in some ways Paul misrepresented Judaism as a system of works-righteousness.

Paul himself often formulated his critique of Judaism (or Judaizing) as having to do with the means of attaining righteousness, “by faith and not by works of law”…Paul agreed on the goal, righteousness, but saw that it should be received by grace through faith, not achieved by works. But this formulation, though it is Paul’s own, actually misstates the fundamental point of disagreement. (Sanders, p. 551)

Sanders concluded, “In short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity.” (p. 552)

Other scholars of Paul have taken Sander’s argument a step further. What if it is not only Judaism that has been misread, but also Paul’s own writings? This is the essence of the NP. Paul was not inaccurately critiquing Judaism as a “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” religion. But if that is not the case, what is Paul’s point in books like Romans and Galatians?

Legalism or Nationalism?
The NP argues that Paul was not dealing with the questions that faced Luther in the 16th century, but with the questions facing the church in the first century – particularly the issue of Gentile inclusion into the church. Peter was not criticized for preaching a message of grace and forgiveness; his critics spelled out why they were alarmed: “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them” (Acts 11:3, ESV). And when he defended himself, his critics did not say, “Now we understand that we are justified by a system of grace rather than law.” They said: “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18).

This echoed Peter’s own discovery just prior to his preaching to Cornelius. After the three-fold vision of the unclean food on a sheet (was that “pigs in a blanket”?), the voice told him, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 10:15). Once he made his way to Cornelius’ house, Peter said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

It should be clear from this one episode that the issue was not perfectionism or “works-righteousness.” Indeed, Peter flatly says that “doing what is right” is necessary to be acceptable to God. Rather, the issue was, can Gentiles become Christians without becoming Jews first? While it is understandable why many Jews would have believed the answer to that question was an emphatic no, given the fact that all of the first Christians were Jews, the controversy recorded in Acts demonstrates that the issue for the Jews was not legalism as much as it was exclusivism.

No one had to face this issue more that the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul. As Luke recounts Paul’s conversion and Paul’s retelling of his conversion, one detail that is carried consistently throughout all three passages is the focus on the Gentiles. “He is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles” (Acts 9:15). “Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles” (Acts 22:21). “I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles – to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:16-18).

In this connection, it is revealing that when Paul described his conversion before the mob at the Temple in Acts 22, they listened to everything he had to say until he spoke of his commission to preach to the Gentiles. “Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live’” (Acts 22:22). Again, the problem was not legalism, but exclusivism.

The NP and Romans and Galatians
Two of the classic proof-texts of the traditional reading of Paul are Romans 3:28 (“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”) and Galatians 3:11 (“Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith’”). However, the very contexts in which these statements are embedded have to do with the Jew-Gentile issue. Romans 3:29-31 goes on to say, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” And Galatians 3:12-14 says, “But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us–for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’– so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” Frankly, these two statements are non sequiturs by the traditional reading, but they make a great deal of sense in light of the NP.

God blessed the Jews with great privileges, “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). However, the Jews proved to be as sinful as the Gentiles (Rom. 2:9-12). Paul is careful to exonerate the law itself, which he says is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). The only “weakness” of the Law was the flesh of those to whom it was given (Rom. 8:3). Even then, God’s purpose would not be thwarted. By causing sin to abound (Rom. 5:20), to become “sinful beyond measure” (Rom. 7:13), the Law “imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).

It is almost as if God concentrated sin from all humanity to Israel to Christ himself. This allowed God to do “what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:3-4). Or, to use language rooted in the curses of the covenant (Deut. 27-28), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).

Consequently, the only way in which the Law could save Israel was as a “guardian” to lead Israel to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Christ is the “end [“goal,” NASB footnote] of the law” (Rom. 10:4). By rejecting Christ, the Jews ironically rejected the only way the Law could have saved them. The choice was Christ or the curse, and they chose the curse, stumbling over the stumbling stone of Christ (Rom. 9:32).

But why did Israel reject the gospel? This is the key issue. According to the traditional reading, the Jews thought they could achieve salvation by perfect law-keeping and did not need God’s grace. If this is not a correct analysis, what was the reason the Jews rejected Christ? According to Paul’s withering criticism in Rom. 2:17-25, the Jews allowed their special status as God’s chosen people to lead to boasting and arrogance toward the Gentiles, despite their own abysmal track record of disobedience. (While my focus here is on Paul’s teaching, I think this point can be made even more strongly from the gospels. Consider the following passages: Matt. 8:5-12; Mark 7:24-30; Luke 3:7-9; Luke 4:16-30; John 8:31-58). To the Jews, the Law was the “barrier of the dividing wall” which maintained their distinct identity from the Gentiles, an identity they wished to preserve even though it meant shutting themselves up under the Law’s curse. It may even be that the phrase, “the works of the law,” refers specifically to the commands which marked out Jews as distinct from Gentiles: circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath. Not only was this self-destructive, it was in direct contradiction to God’s stated promise to Abraham that all families of the earth would be blessed (Romans 4:9-17; Gal. 3:15-29; 4:21-31). God always intended for his people to consist of Jews and Gentiles.

The Covenant Context
The prominence of the promise to Abraham in Romans and Galatians is a clue as to the true focus of Paul’s teaching. Instead of seeing the “righteousness of God” (or justification) as a judicial verdict pronounced upon the sinner, “righteousness of God” refers first and foremost to God’s own righteousness in the sense of his faithfulness to his promises and covenant. As Nehemiah prayed, “You are the LORD, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous” (Neh. 9:7-8, emphasis added). Consequently, when Paul says the “righteousness of God” is revealed in the gospel, he primarily means that the gospel reveals how God will be faithful to his covenant with Abraham. This helps to explain Paul’s emphasis on the promise to Abraham from Genesis 15, which is the text in which God makes the formal covenant with Abraham. And it also helps to explain Paul’s heavy use of the “covenant” texts of Deuteronomy 27-30 in Romans 10 and Galatians 3.

While the “righteousness of God” refers first to his own faithfulness to his covenant, that is not its only dimension. God’s faithfulness to his covenant also involves the vindication of his own people and the judgment of his enemies. This vindication necessarily requires a verdict by God, and so there is a legal dimension to God’s justifying work. And there is both a present and future dimension to justification. It is present in the sense that God pronounces the status of right-standing on those who trust in Christ. And it is future in that there will be a great and final day, the eschaton, when God puts an end to evil once and for all and ushers in the new creation. To appreciate the full scope of Paul’s teaching about justification, we must keep all three of these nuances in mind: God’s faithfulness to the covenant, God’s verdict in the lawcourt, and God’s judgment at the eschaton.

From this point of view, the book of Romans becomes much more unified. Instead of Romans 9-11 being an interesting sidelight, and the end of the argumentative section of the epistle, it becomes the very climax of the letter’s argument. The key issue of those three chapters has to do with God’s covenant faithfulness: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” (Rom. 9:6). And those three chapters are designed to explain why the current state of the church, predominantly Gentile, does not mean God has reneged on his covenant. As N.T. Wright summarizes:

The passage from Romans 9:30-10:21 sets out the results of what God has done in Israel’s history. God has called Israel to be the means of salvation for the world. His intention always was to narrow this vocation down to the messiah, so that in his death all, Jew and Gentile alike, would find salvation. If, however, Israel insists in keeping her status for herself, she will find she is clinging to her own death-warrant. (Wright, What St. Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997] p. 130)

This view also adds meaning to Romans 14-15. Since the entire epistle explains that God’s purpose all along was to unite Jews and Gentiles together in the Messiah, it only makes sense that Paul would also explain in practical terms how Jews and Gentiles should get along.

The NP also falls right in line with the situation Paul addressed in Galatians. The argument in Galatians was not about Luther’s “works-righteousness.” As Paul narrates the problem in Galatians 2, it was specifically about the Jew-Gentile issue. Must Gentiles be circumcised? Can Jews eat with (uncircumcised) Gentiles? We cannot correctly understand Paul’s answers if we do not understand the questions.

Responses to the NP
I think it is fair to say that most NT scholars have accepted the findings of Sanders, at least insofar as the issue of Jewish legalism is concerned. And among evangelicals there has been a strong shift toward reading Romans and Galatians in light of the NP. Even many scholars who would see themselves in the Reformed tradition have acknowledged the contribution of the NP to the study of Paul. For example, see Craig Blomberg’s review of Wright’s What St. Paul Really Said.

However, there has been strong negative reaction to the NP from many Reformed scholars. Why? Because the NP calls into question many assumptions of the Reformation. For example, most NP adherents would say that God’s righteousness is his own covenant faithfulness, which in turn casts serious doubt on the “imputed righteousness” formula of the Reformation. And without the imputed righteousness of Christ, critics say there can be no assurance for the Christian. As one opponent (Paul Barnett) says, “The huge defect with the ‘New Perspective’ is that it denies or obscures the believer’s assurance of salvation.”

From my standpoint, the NP makes great sense of the overall message of the New Testament. Just as God’s covenant with Israel was by his gracious election, so also is the new covenant, with election centered in Christ (Eph. 1:1-10; Gal. 3:26-29). And just as maintaining membership in the covenant with Israel required obedience (including repentance in the event of sin), the same holds true with the new covenant (which explains Paul’s heavy emphasis on obedience in passages such as 2 Cor. 5:10).

This does not mean that we must earn our way to heaven on the basis of perfect law-keeping! Membership in God’s covenant has never required that. Our status of being “in Christ” is a matter of God’s grace, and the obedience we surrender to God is out of gratitude for his love and by the strength which he supplies (Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 8:1-13; Phil. 2:12-13).

Conclusion
My own study of Paul in light of the NP is in its very early stages. I have not worked out to my satisfaction all the questions that the NP raises for Romans and Galatians, but it has certainly provided a much clearer context for those books than the traditional reading. It would be just as easy to oversimplify what Paul says in light of the NP as it has been to oversimplify his message in light of the Reformation. I encourage you to take a look at the NP and share your thoughts about its validity and value.

Further Reading

E.P. Sander, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977). This is the book that started the move toward the New Perspective.

N.T. Wright, What St. Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). This is where to begin if you want to read a concise introduction to the NP. And if you are familiar with Wright’s work you see his obvious influence on my thinking.

N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). This is a collection of Wright’s lectures in which he exegetes key passages in Paul’s writings in light of the NP.

Three recent major commentaries on Romans from the NP are James D. G: Dunn, Romans (WBC), 2 vols. (Dallas: Word, 1988); N.T. Wright, “Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts - First Corinthians Volume 10 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002); and Ben Witherington with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). I recently worked through Scot McKnight’s commentary on Galatians in the NIV Application series and really enjoyed his application of the NP to that book.

In addition, there is a website dedicated to the study of the NP that I have found very useful: The Paul Page. There is also a page dedicated to N.T. Wright’s material that I enjoy.

Paul Vs. James? A Brief Look at Faith, Works, and Justification

In his 1522 Preface to the New Testament Martin Luther expressed his reservations about the book of James, which he described as an “epistle of straw.” He had questions about the identity of its author, but he was even more troubled by its seeming contradiction with the teaching of Paul on justification. At one point Luther offered to give his doctor’s beret to any man who could reconcile the teaching of Paul and James.

On the surface, it is easy to see why Luther was so perplexed. In Romans 3:29 Paul says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Yet in James 2:24 we read, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” We have basically two options: either Paul and James contradict each other, or they are using the same terms to mean different things .

And I believe this latter approach is correct.

Is God Vain?

The Bible is emphatic that God works all things to the “praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:12). This is true of creation (Revelation 4:11), redemption (Ephesians 1:5-6), and the consummation (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10). The fact that God desires His own glory is clearly taught in Scripture.

And yet this teaching presents something of a problem. We do not like people who “toot their own horn.” And for good reason – the Bible says that those who exalt themselves will be humbled (Matthew 23:12); it says that love does not seek its own (1 Corinthians 13:5). So what are to make of these passages that teach that God does indeed seek for His own name to be exalted and for His own purposes to be accomplished?

This is a common allegation of unbelievers. A quick google of the terms God, vain, egotistical, will yield dozens of websites published by unbelievers which assert this charge. One bulletin board contained this entry:

Ask yourself this, if you had the powers of God, would you create something just for the sake of having it thanking you? God is an egotistical, self centered narcissist in a fairy book tale of right and wrong.

Even many Bible believers struggle with this issue. Cecil Hook, whose book Free in Christ has had some influence among younger Christians particularly, poses this question:

Have we not portrayed our Father as having a colossal ego problem which would cause Him to demand our flattery to satisfy His vanity, to require our gifts to feed His pride, and to bind arbitrary whims to build up His sense of power? It is more a picture of a child abuser than of a child lover. It puts praise, adoration, and devotion on a demand basis. This is one of the cruelest aspects of legalism. This concept was born of the legal ritualistic specifics of the Law of Moses, was developed by the medieval church, and was inherited by the reformers and restorers.

He goes on to declare:

God has no self-esteem problem that must be bolstered by man’s praise. God is concerned with saving man, not adding to His self-image. That which edifies man fulfills God’s purpose.

In certain respects I have more sympathy for an unbeliever who accepts at face value the clear biblical teaching that God demands our praise and adoration and questions it than someone who professes to believe Scripture and yet ascribes God’s desire for praise and obedience to distorted legalism. When Nadab and Abihu offered unauthorized fire, God struck them down with this explanation: “Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified” (Leviticus 10:3). God most certainly puts obedience and glorification on a demand basis, to our grave peril should we ignore this demand.

So what are we to make of God’s desire for His own glory? In the next few posts I want to offer four responses to the charge that God’s pursuit of His own glory makes Him egotistical. Here are the four issues we will explore:
-The nature of God
-The nature of praise
-The nature of man
-The nature of love

Response 1 - The Nature of God
The first response I will make to the charge that God is vain for pursuing His own glory has to do with the nature of God Himself. What I have in mind in particular is the difference between God who desires His name to be magnified and self-centered people who “toot their own horn.”

Have you ever known someone who habitually fishes for compliments? I have. And I think I know why certain people are guilty of that habit - they are insecure. There is some sense of inadequacy that compels them to seek reinforcement.

Have you ever known someone who constantly boasted of their achievements? Maybe a businessman who brags about his wealth, or an intellectual who boasts of his education, or a gorgeous woman who flaunts her beauty. Aren’t these examples of an extreme sort of the same insecurity that leads a person to fish for compliments?

Further, every example I just gave is an illustration of derivative talents. What I mean is that no one is inherently wealthy or well-educated. A businessman depends on investors (or wealthy benefactors) to provide capital. An intellectual must have some resource for learning (books, schools, teachers). Even a beautiful woman must concede that she is a lucky winner in the genetic lottery.

God’s pursuit of His own glory comes from a much different stance. It is certainly not prompted by weakness or insecurity. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Romans 11:36). “Nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25).

Futher, God is the only being in the universe who can truly say that His attributes and perfections are inherent, and not derivative. He did not get His omniscience because of someone else! He is unique in His self-existence. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).

So it is a fundamental error to project how we feel about people who pursue their own glory onto God. They do so out of weakness; He does so out of strength. They do so despite their dependence on others for what they have (and ultimately on God! - James 1:18). He does so from the unique position of one who is reliant on no one for His greatness.

(By the way, I should acknowledge that many of my own thoughts in this series are derivative! I am especially indebted to John Piper’s book Desiring God, and to an article by Greg Koukl found here).

Response 2 – The Nature of Praise
A second reason why God is not vain for pursuing His own glory has to do with the nature of praise. We intuitively understand that some things should be praised. When you go to the Grand Canyon, for instance, no one has to teach you to go “WOW!” It just happens (if you are mature enough to understand that which deserves a WOW!). Some things are so beautiful and so majestic that they elicit praise.

Further, praise is a moral issue. Praise is the rightful recognition of worth. It is just and right to give honor where honor is due, and it is unjust and wrong to fail to give praise where it is due. If you took a friend to the Grand Canyon and they said, “Looks like a big ditch to me,” you would think to yourself, “That’s not right!” You would be alarmed that someone lacked the sense of propriety to praise the Grand Canyon.

On a personal level, it would be an injustice for a mother to work day after day to provide good meals for her family and never once be recognized for her work. And it is not as if she wakes up every morning expecting to receive a certificate of merit, since she is just doing what a mother does. But it would be wrong for her work to be ignored. It is a matter of justice that she be praised.

It would be an injustice for a father to work day after day to provide for his family and never once be recognized for his work. And again, it is not as if he wakes up every morning expecting to receive a medal of honor, since he is just doing what a father does. But it would be wrong for his work to be ignored. It is a matter of justice that he be praised.

Last week I saw a special about Hurricane Katrina. One scene showed a car embroiled in the swirling torrent of the flood waters, and a young man plunging into the water to get to the vehicle to try to save the person inside. If someone saw no difference in that and in taking a relaxing swim, you would be outraged. There is honor due such a hero, not indifference!

By now my point should be clear. God is so unique in the beauty of His perfections that we cannot simply ignore His greatness. Such splendor and excellence deserves our recognition. To ignore such wisdom, power, love, and holiness is an outrage. It is offensive.

Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens!
Praise him for his mighty deeds;
praise him according to his excellent greatness! (Psalm 150:1-2).

One thing have I asked of the LORD,
that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of the LORD
all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD
and to inquire in his temple. (Psalm 27:4)

God desires justice. And because of the very nature of praise it is only just and right that One as great as God be glorified.

Response 3: The Nature of Man
In this series I have been addressing the question of whether God is vain to pursue His own glory. So far I have argued that the very nature of God combined with the nature of praise make it a matter of justice that a God so awesome should receive glory. Praise is the just recognition of God’s unique beauty. Now I want to turn to a third factor – the nature of man.

Mankind inherently seeks pleasure. There are certain things that we all enjoy – good food, a comfortable bed, loving relationships, and so on. Further, part of our enjoyment in what gives us pleasure is sharing it with others. When we order a tasty dish, we enjoy sharing it – “Here take a bite and taste this!” When we find a comfortable recliner, we enjoy letting others sit in it. The point is that part of our pleasure in what we enjoy is the sharing of it.

Recently one of our families at church enjoyed the birth of a daughter. The grandparents were absolutely beaming with joy. But they did even more – they shared that joy by showing all of us pictures. And in glorying in their granddaughter by telling others about her their own pleasure was deepened. To illustrate it another way, the pleasure two lovers have in their relationship finds it greatest joy in the expression of that love, when they tell each other (and others) how special they are.

The reason it is not vain for God to seek our praise is because God knows that in Him we can find our greatest pleasure, and that our pleasure is deepened when we can tell others of His excellent greatness. Consider Psalm 84:

1 How lovely is your dwelling place,
O LORD of hosts!
2 My soul longs, yes, faints
for the courts of the LORD;
my heart and flesh sing for joy
to the living God.
3 Even the sparrow finds a home,
and the swallow a nest for herself,
where she may lay her young,
at your altars, O LORD of hosts,
my King and my God.
4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house,
ever singing your praise!

10 For a day in your courts is better
than a thousand elsewhere.
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God
than dwell in the tents of wickedness.
11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield;
the LORD bestows favor and honor.
No good thing does he withhold
from those who walk uprightly.
12 O LORD of hosts,
blessed is the one who trusts in you!

God desires our praise not because He is vain or insecure, but because He knows that we love to share that which gives us happiness. In praising Him we can find our greatest joy. He gets the glory; we get the pleasure.

Response 4 – The Nature of Love
As my final response to the suggestion that God is vain for pursuing our praise and His glory, I would like to focus on the nature of love. After all, part of the reason that some people have a problem with God pursuing His own glory is because love “seeketh not her own” (1 Corinthians 13:5). So how can God demand our praise?

In my third response I argued that man desires pleasure, that only God can give us true and lasting satisfaction, and that our pleasure in something or someone finds is deepest enjoyment in praise. Therefore, if love is giving someone what they most need and what gives them the greatest joy; and if man’s greatest need and joy is glorifying God, then God’s love for us means that He must present Himself for our praise unto His glory. In doing so He is supplying what meets our greatest need and what gives us our greatest happiness.

I call my Granny every day. Last year, I called her on my birthday, and during the course of the conversation she failed with wish me happy birthday. I was a little depressed afterwards, because it mean that her age was starting to take a toll on her and she was forgetting things. But I was not nearly as upset by her forgetfulness as she was. When we talked the next day, she said, “Do you know what I forgot?” And then she apologized. I could tell she was really crushed that she had forgotten.

Last Friday was my birthday. Once again I called her, and once again she forgot. All day long I debated whether to remind her. And so I called her later that day and said, “Did you forget something today?” Why did I call her? On the surface, I called a person to remind them to wish me happy birthday. And on the surface that could appear to be vain and egotistical. But you know the real reason I called her to remind her it was my birthday? Because I love her. Because I know that her greatest joy (like every grandparent) is to dote on me, to express her love for me, and that she would have been crushed to have failed to do so.

God wants us to praise Him because He loves us, which means He wants what is best for us, and He knows that our greatest joy and happiness can come only in glorifying Him.