Yesterday, after preaching twice at his church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, John Piper caught a flight down to Los Angeles and preached a different sermon for us. That is dedication. He spoke one what is one of his favorite recent topics: God is the Gospel. I have heard him speak on this a few times now and have also read his book by the same title. And yet, strangely, I still have trouble digesting it all. I hope in the future to read God is the Gospel once more, this time taking for more notes and pausing a lot longer as I make my way through. I know there is a gold mine in there, but I’m having trouble getting some of the initial thoughts to make sense to me. As I’ve said in the past, while I absolutely love Piper’s teaching, I often find it difficult—more so than with most other speakers.
Piper defined “God is the gospel” something like this: “The highest, best, final, decisive and good benefit in the gospel, without which all other benefits are no benefits, is the glory of God in the face of Christ revealed to us for our everlasting enjoyment.
Based on this definition he asked and answered six questions:
1) What is the relationship between “God is the gospel” and the glory of God? The answer is that God is most glorified in Him when we are most satisfied in Him. When we find God to be the supreme treasure, pleasure and delight, we magnify Him in that act. The key text for this (and for all of Christian Hedonism) is Philippians 1:20-21. From this text Piper wrestled with this question: How do you make Christ look good in dying? The answer? The magnification of Christ shines most brightly when I am able to experience death as the loss of absolutely everything but Christ and call it gain.
God is the gospel says the supreme, ultimate good of the Bible is God revealing Christ for our enjoyment and when we do that He is glorified.
2) What is the relationship between “God is the gospel” and the love of God? He read the story of Lazarus in John 11. From that story we know that Jesus let Lazarus die. Piper has often preached a sermon on this text he calls “The strange and Wonderful Love of Christ.” He had to ask, How does it show love for Lazarus for Jesus to let him walk up and to the horrors of death? The answer is in verse 4 - it is the for the glory of God so that the Son of God may be glorified through it. It is more loving to Lazarus and his sisters and the other people that Lazarus die if God would be displayed as more glorious than if he had lived and God had not been displayed as more glorious. The essence of loving humans is exalting the glory of God for their enjoyment. Love can be defined in all kinds of lesser ways, but if you don’t get to this point it is aiming too low and is not the highest love. If you don’t want the people you love to see more of God and enjoy God, you don’t truly love them because you don’t care about the ultimate satisfaction of their souls forever in God.
The love of God is not His making much of us, but His enabling us to enjoy making much of Him forever.
3) How does “God is the gospel” relate to your conversion? Here he looked at 2 Corinthians 4:4-6 and showed that the gospel is the gospel of the glory of Christ (which, as I recall, is the dominant theme of his book). It is the gospel that displays God’s glory.
God is the gospel says that the best and highest good that makes the gospel good news is the glory of God in the face of Christ revealed for your everlasting enjoyment. It is the gospel of the glory of Christ.
4) What does “God is the gospel” have to do with the gospel as it is usually preached rightly? He wants evangelicals to take the gospel all the way to the ultimate good of the gospel. There are five elements to the gospel. First, there is an event (1 Corinthians 15:3) - the crucifixion of Christ. There must have happened in history this event for without it there is no gospel. The event is, of course, Jesus’ death and resurrection. Second, the achievement of His death objectively outside of you. For example, the wrath of God absorbed for all the elect. The curse for our sin is averted by Christ. Third, the free offer. With no event and achievement there can be no offer. It is offered freely by faith alone. Fourth, the application of this in your experience. You must experience reconciliation, forgiveness, justification, and so on. For the gospel to be gospel to you, you must experience these things. And fifth? Well, I don’t think he ever got to the fifth.
5) How does “God is the gospel” relate to salt and light? He turned to Matthew 5:11-16 and showed that ultimately, every reward in heaven leads to God. Because we have a treasure in heaven called Jesus Christ, we can rejoice in persecution. We are the salt of the earth. So what is the salt? It is not wealth because prosperity gospel is no gospel. It offers to people what they want as natural people. You don’t have to be born again to be wealthy and therefore you don’t have to be converted to be saved by this false gospel. When you appeal to people to come to Christ on the basis of what they already want, this gospel is unbiblical. The salt of the earth are people that are so satisfied with their reward in heaven that they joyfully endure pain in the service of Jesus. Because the world is not simply not going to be impressed by a church motivated by what they are motivated by.
6) How does “God is the gospel” relate to evangelism? Piper has already stressed that preaching what appeals to the natural man is foolish. He attempted to make this overlap with the heart of an unbeliever and gave three examples of how “God is the gospel” can be used for evangelism. First, nobody goes to the Grand Canyon to improve his self-esteem. Why would they go there? The reason is that deeply written in the human soul is that we were not made to be made much of, but to make much of God. Your highest joy is not standing in front of a mirror liking what you see. The second illustration is a cartoon that says “the best moments make you feel insignificant.” When you go down, He goes up, and your joy expands. Third, he turned to an advertisement that said “You’ve never felt more alive, you’ve never felt more insignificant.” From this he showed that it is written on men’s hearts that they are made for God. And he encouraged us to find ways to evangelize using “God is the gospel,” for it is possible to find a way to talk to friends about God being the gospel. There are overlaps in the things they long for and yearn for.
At the heart of evangelizing through this message is showing unbelievers that we want to feel insignificant—we want to make much of God and be made little of.
This message was another example of Piper’s ultimate thinking. And by that I mean that he is always pushing to the ultimate meaning, the ultimate value, of any doctrine or any passage of Scripture. Exposition is not enough—he will not stop short of application. We will hear Piper again this morning, but first up is C.J. Mahaney.
Desiring God came through already. You can listen to the audio here.
Comments (13) »
1. clyde
February 19, 2007
10:09 AM
This is excellent. Thanks Tim!
2. Steve Camp
February 19, 2007
11:27 AM
Geerhardus Vos was the originator of Christian Hedonism—not Piper. Some of Vos’s following remarks, compiled by a friend of mine, may help to clarify Piper’s passionately given message last night.
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
When reading Vos, one cannot but notice the similarities between Vos’ understanding of the eschatological reward in Pauline theology and Piper’s Christian hedonism… even more interesting is that Vos uses the word hedonism in reference to delight in God in a footnote that appears on page 71, Chapter 3, on “The Religious and Ethical Motivation of Paul’s Eschatology” in “The Pauline Eschatology”.
Vos argues that Paul’s eschatological reward has its endpoint in God’s glory and that the reward is for God’s sake: “the motive underlying Paul’s championship of grace is at bottom not different from that binding him to the forensic principle of eschatological reward. The two are at one in this that they both aim at securing the revelation of the supreme glory of God, the one in the ethical sphere, the other in the soteric sphere. The eschatological reward-idea is simply one of the twin forms in which the Apostle gives expression to the absolute ascendancy of the divine glory in religion. The law of recompense for righteousness is intended to express that the ethical process (no less than the soteric process) exists for the sake of God.” — Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p.67 fn. 4.
Vos further argues that the eschatological reward, the bestowal of eternal life, is on the basis of fulfillment of the divine law (a la Romans 2) and necessarily involves the body: “All that is related in the Messianic prophecies concerning the enjoyments of the future age is inseparable from the existence and functioning of the body. It is not otherwise with Jesus, who likewise associated with the resurrection the reendowment of the heirs of the age to come with a true body.” — PE, pg. 69.
The conclusion for Vos is self-evident: Paul is not a hedonist in the sense that his understanding of the next world includes the resurrection of the body in order to gratify his flesh in eternal self-satisfaction. “…to say that the Apostle loved his body, and loved it for specific eschatological reasons, is by no means equivalent to saying that this love sprang from hedonistic desire. Paul was not a man easily satisfied with half-way attainment in the redemptive sphere. He was governed by the absolutistic impulse, which is in the same manner characteristic of the teaching of our Lord. Nor should we dismiss in such a connection the ideal of a fuller measure of glorification of God through the completely restored organism of man than would be possible in a disembodied state. Not the slightest evidence, however, can be produced of an anticipation of, far less of a legitimate, eschatological satisfaction cherished by Paul apart from God and the enjoyment of communion with Him.” — PE, pg. 70 (emphasis mine).
Paul is not interested in eschatological reward as an individual as much as he is in the collective body of Christ. Vos conclusion? “The intense Christ-ward bent of the Apostle’s piety… is irreconcilable with the type of hedonism laid to his charge… because…If hedonism be principally individualistic, then the inclusion of additional egos would be bound to break its force.” — — PE, pg. 71 (emphasis mine).
The eschatological reward of eternal life is not about individual self-satisfaction. The endpoint for Paul is Christ himself. “The climacteric consolation extended to the Thessalonians in connection with their ultimate deliverance is that they shall “be forever with the Lord,” Where the note of joy and glory enters it is not seldom produced by the sense of pride arising from the presentation of believers in holiness and blamelessness at the parousia rather than from any hedonistic prospect opening up for the Apostle himself, 1 Thess. 2:19, 20.” — PE, pg. 71
Having made his point that Paul’s eschatology is not motivated by an egomaniac, Vos adds this caveat that rings Piperian. This comment was written some 50 years (1930) before Piper unleashed his “Christian hedonism”. In the footnote attached to the 1 Thessalonians passage, Vos quotes Augustine in suggesting that one might speak of Paul’s eschatology in terms of “spiritual” hedonism: “Of course, it is not intended to deny to Paul that transfigured spiritualized type of ‘hedonism,’ if one prefers so to call it, as distinct from the specific attitude towards life that went in the later Greek philosophy by that technical name. Nothing, not even a most refined Christian experience and cultivation of religion are possible without that. It is concreated with ‘the seed of religion’ in man. Augustine speaks of this in his Confessions in these words: ‘For there exists a delight that is not given to the wicked, but to those honoring Thee, 0 God, without desiring recompense, the joy of whom Thou art Thyself! And this is the blessed life, to rejoice towards Thee, about Thee, for Thy sake.’ Conf. X, 32.”
For Vos, this spiritual hedonism consisted in a delight and joy of God himself… toward God, about God, and for God’s sake. And this view of God in Paul’s eschatology permeates the entire body of Vosian work.
3. Dan H.
February 19, 2007
12:36 PM
Geerhardus Vos may have an earlier proponent for “Christian Hedonism” and may influenced John Piper, but Christian Hedonism is more from the works of Jonathan Edwards. If you were to read the works of Jonathan Edwards (e.g. Religious Affections), you will realize that much of John Piper’s work are really Jonathan Edwards’ work, as he notes on the DG website.
We see this treasuring and savoring of God and His glory in the following quote from Jonathan Edwards:
“God is glorified not only by His glory’s being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it… He that testifies his having an idea of God’s glory [doesn’t] glorify God so much as he that testifies also his approbation of it and his delight in it” (Jonathan Edwards, Miscellany #448).
4. Dan H.
February 19, 2007
12:49 PM
I did think that John Piper could have spent more time on this sermon as it seemed to be rushed for the sake of time. This session did not begin until 20-30 minutes after it was supposed to begin. Since I have read his book, “God is the Gospel,” I understand the points in his sermons, but for attendees who never read the book, if John Piper was alloted more time, he could have explained each point in more detail.
5. clyde
February 19, 2007
2:04 PM
I also thought that Edwards was the person most influential in Piper’s development of his own Christian Hedonism.
6. Mark McAndrew
February 19, 2007
2:52 PM
In Piper’s book “When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy”, he quotes Geerhardus Vos (along with C.S. Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, St. Augustine, Jesus, etc.) in order to prove that Christian Hedonism is as old as the Bible, and is taught in the Bible.
The quote that Piper gives of Vos is also quoted above, where Vos writes about Paul’s writings contained a “spiritualized type of ‘hedonism’ if one prefers so to call it”.
Also, C.S. Lewis uses the word ‘Hedonism’ at least three times that I know of in his books. Twice he has his character Screwtape, in The Screwtape Letters, call God “a Hedonist at heart”.
This whole basic idea that Piper has so powerfully brought forward thru his life and books (especially Desiring God), namely, that God is Glorified by our Joy in Him, has really revolutionized the way I understand Christian living.
I am so unspeakbly thankful for Piper’s books and ministry.
One thing that makes me curious is why I rarely, if ever, hear other preachers and Christian writers talk about glorifying God ‘by enjoying Him’ - it seems to be strangely ignored or overlooked.
Amd I also think that Piper’s ‘Christian Hedonism’ is the best antidote to Legalism and Lawlessness that I have ever heard of.
It helps put Legalism to death, because the Joy in obeying God is not hypocritical, or self-glorifying, but is glorifying to God because it is Joy in God (not self).
It helps put Antinomianism (Lawlessness) to death in that it simply argues: Why purse sin? It will only destroy your Joy and make you miserable.
7. Russ Copeland
February 19, 2007
3:35 PM
While I have not read much Piper, I have listened to a number of his sermons and talks, and have greatly profited from them. About a year ago I happened to be reading Desiring God at the same time that I was reading “Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment” by the Puritan preacher Jeremiah Burroughs, published in 1648. A number of times I would read something in Rare Jewel that would make me stop and think that it sounded a lot like Piper’s expression of Christian Hedonism.
Is it not possible that “Christian Hedonism” was a concept present, if not prevalent, among the Puritans. So while Piper may have picked up on it from Edwards, Vos my have picked up on it from X and Lewis may have picked up on it from Y, Edwards, X and Y were all simply expressing an idea that was being discussed at more widely in the 1600’s?
While my reading of the Puritans so far has primarily been Burroughs and John Owen, I find their writings to be satisfying in the way that steak and potatoes are more satisfying to a hungry man than chips and cookies.
Russ
8. Mark McAndrew
February 19, 2007
6:12 PM
The past couple of days I have been skimming around in Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Works’, the two volume set, and it is truly amazing how much Edwards talks about Happiness, Joy, Delight, Satisfaction, Contentment, etc. in God Himself and His Glory.
The illustration from Piper that helped me best grasp what he meant by ‘We Glorify God BY Enjoying Him’ was the illustration of when he comes home to his wife on their anniversary. He buys her three dozen red roses, and knocks on the door. When she opens the door, he hands her the roses, and she turns to him and says, “Why did you do this for me?!” - He responds with a dry voice, lifting up his hand, saying, “It’s my duty.”
He said that when he does that, how do you think his wife feels? Does she feel honored? The answer is obviously, No!
So Piper says “Let me rewind the tape and try it over again.”
This time he comes up to the door with his roses, rings the door bell, his wife opens the door, and he hands the roses to her, and she says, “Why did you buy these for me?!”
This time he responds: “Because nothing makes me happier than to buy these roses for you. And I made arrangements to take you out tonight, because there is nobody I would enjoy being with tonight more than you.”
How does his wife feel now?
Honored. Very Honored.
What Piper notes is that his wife does not call him selfish, even though he just referred to his own happiness twice in the statement he made to his wife - namely, “Nothing MAKES ME HAPPIER than to be with you….there is nobody I WOULD ENJOY being with more than you.”
Why is this not selfish?
Piper’s response:
Because God has given us the capacity to Delight in one another, so that we have the means whereby we can honor another. And guess who we’re supposed to Honor Most?
God!
Therefore when we stand before God and say that we want to enter Heaven because we kept the commandments, and did our duty, etc. God will not smile or be honored.
But, if we say to God on that Day: “Everything else in the world has left my soul empty, miserable, and unsatisfied. Only you have made me fully and lastingly Happy. Therefore, there is no where in the universe I would rather be, than with You.” - Then God will smile, and be honored.
Piper’s conclusion: Therefore, God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied (happy/joyfully) in Him.
We glorify what we enjoy.
I love this truth. Our desire to be Satisfied, which runs so deep in my soul, and God’s desire to be Glorified, are not at odds, they are not enemies. They are ‘holding hands’, so to speak. They go together perfectly.
That is what Heaven will be.
God being always Glorified,
Us being always Satisfied,
Forever.
“In Your presence there is fullness of Joy;
At Your right hand there are Pleasures forevermore.”
9. C.H.H.
February 19, 2007
8:39 PM
I think one of the biggest proofs that “Christian Hedonism” is simply a distillation and clarification of a very Biblical theme is the fact that we find it expressed in so many different times by people who may not have recognized a primary influence on their thought besides the Bible itself.
For example, you find it all over the place in Spurgeon (a singular case is the “Morning and Evening” reading for the evening of Jan. 9).
That being said, while agreeing that “Christian Hedonism” is a very Biblical idea, I’m not sure that Piper is correct to push it to the point where it almost becomes the controlling paradigm through which we view the entirity of our Christian life, simply because I don’t see the Bible giving it that kind of emphasis.
Again, Spurgeon is a good example of how we can recognize a truth as being part of the picture without making it the whole picture itself (or better, not the lens through which the whole picture is to be viewed properly.)
As far as Biblical emphasis is concerned, it seems to me that Piper is far more correct when he deals with the God-centredness of God, of God’s passion for His own Glory.
10. Ken Flower
February 19, 2007
8:45 PM
Tim,
Thanks so much for sacrificing the time, energy, and work to help many people follow what is happening at Resolved. It is greatly appreciated by many.
Regarding “God is the Gospel as related to Preaching the Gospel Rightly” (Question #4), I believe the fifth point was that you must understand that the end of the whole Gospel is God. The event is crucial. Without the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, we have no Gospel. The achievement is also crucial. If the event did not provide atonement and redemption, and reconciliatoin; then it is not truly good news to people who are without hope. The third aspect, free offer, is also crucial. If it depends on our own effort, then there is no Gospel. It must be free. And the fourth element of right Gospel preaching is also huge. If if is never applied to us individually, then it is not the Gospel to us. We must be personally forgiven. But if all of these things happen, and we don’t get God, then it is not the Gospel. This was the fifth point. Forgiveness is great. But if forgiveness does not allow a restored relationship with God, then it is not the Gospel. Many people desire forgiveness so that they don’t feel guilty. Instead, whats so wonderful about the Gospel is that forgivness and reconciliation and redemption bring us into a restored relationship with God, so that we get God. Justification, Redemption, and Reconciliation are all huge, amazing things. But what makes them so great is that they allow a restored relationship with God.
Piper actually clarified this fifth point today in his second sermon. It was very helpful for him to explain it one more time. I think this is one of those messages that you need to listen lots of times in order to really think through the implications for all of theology and life.
11. Jennifer
February 20, 2007
12:07 AM
just a thought i had…
you can never fall asleep during a sermon huh? because everyone who reads your blog will know…
thank you so much for this btw. it’s great
12. Ann Addison
February 20, 2007
11:44 AM
Tim, thanks for the summary. I listened to the audio yesterday and found it extraordinary. There are so many good comments above…but I will call attention to comment number 10, Ken Flower, who said the fifth point in the sermon is that God is the Gospel, “that forgivness, and reconciliation and redemption bring us into a restored relationship with God, so that we get God.” If anyone missed Ken’s comment, it is worth reading the whole comment.
Listening to and reading John Piper is difficult, but so satisfying. He doesn’t settle for raking leaves on the surface, but digs deep, mining for gold. I try to mine for gold, but his skill with the shovel is superior to mine. So, while I dig, I continually peer over his shoulder to see what he is finding.
John Piper says that his messages are nothing new. It seems to me that we are so devoid of Christ centered doctrine today, that delighting in God seems new or strange. The Puritans, along with many other writers through the ages, wrote extensively about delighting in God. I hope we will hear more preachers of the Word focusing on God as the gospel.
13. Steve Camp
February 20, 2007
11:57 AM
Russ:
You said, “I was reading “Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment” by the Puritan preacher Jeremiah Burroughs, published in 1648. A number of times I would read something in Rare Jewel that would make me stop and think that it sounded a lot like Piper’s expression of Christian Hedonism.”
It’s one of my favorites too brother. I had listened to Piper’s message the other day as well and thought it was very good. John keeps the emphasis on God and His glory which is so good to see in a very “self” driven culture even within evangelicalism,
It would be great if another term could be devised rather than “hedonism” to describe the character of our life in Christ because of the obvious baggage associated with it.
Any thoughts?
I appreciated your comment.
Steve