God Centeredness

John Piper was recently challenged to speak to a group of people who don't necessarily agree with him theologically. He presented seven theses on why he is on this planet. I particularly like his third:

I press on this because I believe that if we are God-centered simply because we consciously or unconsciously believe God is man-centered, then our God-centeredness is in reality man-centeredness. Teaching God’s God-centeredness forces this issue of whether we treasure God because of his excellence or mainly because he endorses ours.

Solomon's Justice: Kill the Baby

1 Kings 3:16-28

We all know the story:

Solomon prays for wisdom. Then he has this case where two women are fighting over a baby. His solution is to cut the baby in half. One woman says to go ahead and do it. The other begs Solomon not to kill the baby, but she would give up the baby so he could live. So Solomon gives the baby to the woman who would give him up for his life.

What kind of man would propose killing a baby out of a spirit of fairness?

This actually isn't a post about Barak Obama's stated policies, although I could go there.

No. Rather, turn to Exodus 32.

[Edit: I added this summary of Exodus 32.]

The Israelites make a golden calf and worship it while Moses is on the mountain talking to God. God tells Moses to leave Him so He can wipe out the Israelites and start over with Moses. Moses argues that everything God did to glorify himself in Egypt would be for naught if that happened. So God refrains from killing the Israelites. Moses goes down the mountain, grinds up the calf into water and makes everyone drink it. Then he has the Levites go out and kill 3000 people. Moses then goes back up the mountain and begs God to forgive the Israelites and if He won't, then to judge Moses along with them. God condemns only those who have sinned and sends a plague on the Israelites.

The Creator of the universe can do with His creation what He wants. Some may have a problem with God wanting to destroy all His people and start over with Moses, but if you actually believe in a divine Creator, then how could you have a problem with it? Where most people stumble in this account is on verses 11-14 where Moses apparently causes God to change His mind. Open theists answer this by claiming that God really doesn't know everything. Other libertarian free-willers answer this different ways. For example, they may say that God does know everything, but that He "limits Himself." It brings into question God's immutability.

Did Solomon actually intend to kill the innocent baby in order to judge fairly between the women? No. That's silly. I supposed they believed he would actually do it, but you don't kill an innocent person in the spirit of fairness. For Solomon, he never intended to kill the baby. He intended to discover who the real mother was, or at least who would be a good mother to the baby.

Why do we read that God "repented"? To say that God "repented" is an anthropomorphism. Where there is ever an apparent choice to make, there can only be one choice made. God's anthropomorphic repentance is what Moses needed to embolden him to accomplish God's purpose. It was part of God's whole presentation to him. God is not so ignorant a Creator to fail to plan, or even merely know, the outcome. Why else would God threaten to kill the Israelites if He knew that He would "repent" of it?

God never intended to kill all the Israelites.

Did God lie when He threatened to kill the Israelites? Did Solomon lie when He threatened to kill the baby? Technically no. They both gave good laweresque statements.

Solomon: 24 And the king said, "Bring me a sword." So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, "Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other."

God: 9 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."

Solomon's statement was an order that could be rescinded. It was not a statement of intent.

God's statement was conditional on Moses leaving Him alone.

Solomon's intent was to determine who the mother was.

God's intent was to teach Moses not to leave Him.

Solomon's tactic required that the true mother be willing to give of herself for another.

God's tactic eventually required Moses to offer himself up for judgment along with Israel. (v 32)

In both cases, the requirement was an act of constrained will against a previous desire. The mother desired to have the baby, but the baby's well-being was more important. Moses desired God's forgiveness, but not at the expense of God's righteous judgment and His glory.

Both Solomon and God achieved their goals.

God will achieve His goals in us. Praise Him to His glory.

Law and Grace in the Christian Life

Skip Cartin at Western Avenue Baptist Church has been preaching through Romans over the past year. This image came to mind recently:

God is like a circle. I know God has been represented as a circle because the line of the circle continues over and over and is kind of analogous to infinity. All metaphors for God are incomplete and using a circle in this way certainly lacks much. However, the circle that I have in mind isn't with regard to God as being infinite in the same way that people often use the circle.

My explanation of this symbol is that the center of God is the center of the circle, here marked by cross hairs. The presence of God radiates out from the center infinitely. The circle itself is the point at which one can be considered to be "in God". Outside of the circle, God is present, but one can be considered not to have company with God there.


We tend to think of this circle as being soteriological. That is, we consider what we must do or have in order to be inside of the circle. As such, most people hang around the circle. Some may stray inward while many remain outside the circle, but most "try to be good" and often wipe their brow, rest some, and plateau when they believe they have "made it" inside the circle.


Theologians may debate precisely where this circle should be placed. Those in between the theoretical circles are held in the sway. Are they in or are they out? Can we consider these to be fellow brothers and sister in Christ? Do they truly have fellowship with God?

Blue and Red hang out near the circle's edge. What could they be saying about Green? Could they be clicking their tongues and commenting on all the evil he does that keeps him out of the circle? Perhaps they are planning how they can get him to come into the circle? What do they tell him to get him to come? It depends on their particular soteriology. they may also look with amazement or disdain at Purple. He's awful far in. Perhaps they think he's to heavenly minded to be of any earthly good. After all, unless one hangs out near the edge of the circle, they may reason, one can't help anyone get in.


The attachment to the circle's edge is purely legal. We want to know whether we are in or out and it's falsely comforting to know what we need to do in order to be "in". That's the law. The problem is that the circle is illusory. We think we can be "in" by doing doing good things. However, if we have any sin at all, entering the circle results in death because God doesn't tolerate sin. What Christ has done has removed this barrier so that we can approach God. The message of grace is to head to the center of God. This is true if you are Purple, Green, Red or Blue:

Now, with the circle becomes not soteriological but merely ecclesiological. It's a matter of how you are going to define the requirements of church membership rather than whether or not you are actually saved.

Just tonight I read Exodus 20 with the kids. We visited Matthew 22:34-40 and tried to find the two greatest commandments in the ten we just read. We talked about the sermons we've hearing lately. But the ten commandments aren't the only thing in Exodus 20. We've just been taking Psalms in order each night and we were on Psalm 91 tonight. I won't paste it here - go read it for yourself. I love it when a message comes together on its own.

After God delivers the decalogue, the Israelites are afraid because of the lightning, smoke and trumpet blasting from the top of the mountain and beg Moses to have God not do the talking, but to rather come and tell them what He says. They are afraid of God, and rightly so: the revelation of His presence is terrifying. I asked the kids about the sorts of things that make them afraid and we went from there.

But in the Psalm, we have the testimony of the protection of God. We are encouraged as we follow His law of love that we reside in Him and He protects us. He isn't terrifying at all.

So what's the difference? The Israelites were afraid by the physical manifestation of His powerful presence. They had been given the law, but they didn't yet understand His grace. We would be terrified too. Most of us don't understand the grace of God as we ought. May we learn it so we can rejoice with the Psalmist that we can rest in the shadow of the Almighty.