All are wonderful. As long as "glory" finds it's meaning within these statements. They could only be considered objectionable if 'glory' proved to be a trojan horse smuggling in other conceptions of glory defined in isolation. (Like 'God mangifying His own perfections' or something).
But once we realize that 'God is glorified IN OUR SALVATION', and once our definition of divine glory is properly adjusted to this truth, then we can trumpet as loudly as we like the equally wonderful truth that 'GOD is glorified in our salvation.'
Although I must admit that it was thinking over the comments between you and Pete Jackson, plus listening to John Webster that led me to posting this.
I was trying to focus thinking in my own mind about what the real question is.
I'm not sure that I am clear what your position is on this, from your comments on your blog, or this comment now.
If you mean by '"glory" finds it's meaning within these statements' that God's revelation of himself in his saving acts is the only source we have for knowing what his glory is, then I agree. But are we just talking about revelation/definitions? Are we not talking about how his glory relates to our salvation more widely?
I think I'd agree that all are wonderful. But my last question is probably the most important to me.
Statement 1: seems standard evangelical to me Statement 2: seems more like much modern theology Statement 3: seems more like John Piper and Tom Wright.
I'm really not baiting, or making a statement of my own. Just trying to make clear the issues.
Defining 'glory' by those statements regarding our salvation is a radical and thoroughly evangelical move. It's following Athansius and the Nicene creed. The very being of God is defined by the evangel (which is 'for us men and for our salvation').
So yes perhaps I'd vote for number 2 as foundational. And I am prone to suspect number 3 as a potential 'trojan' trying to smuggle in another kind of 'glory'. But if we begin with 2 then 3 is cool.
Also, btw, I think people often read bible verses that essentially say (1) and read them as (3) statements (smuggling in the self-centred definitions along the way). That is to say - Who can deny that God saves us for His own glory? Yet I think the Piper position fails to appreciate the wonder that OUR SALVATION glorifies God. This should lead to a gospel-shaped enquiry into the kind of glory we're talking about.
Glory, as with God's own being, is not obvious. Theism says it is. Theism posits both as self-centred. Evangelical trinitarian theology is radically different.
That's helpful. And connects with your post about love from Thomas Manton recently, which I thought was brilliant.
I understand why you wouldn't go for 3 as foundational, but why not 1?
I suppose my concern with 2. is that it seems to have the danger of denying God's freedom, and making salvation something God necessarily had to do to be glorious.
I think John Webster in his second lecture has something useful to say here about the relationship of the three persons, and how that relates to 'spreading goodness', while protecting God's freedom.
Of course you may want to challenge me for bringing in a trojan horse understanding of God's freedom here!
Freedom's a funny thing. It's nothing like an enlightenment conception of 'independence' or 'unlimited options'. (I've posted on this before). Even God's freedom is not *limited* by the fact He can't lie, etc. He wouldn't be 'more free' if He could pursue deceptive relations and we don't uphold His divine rights by imagining those possibilities.
Freedom is about authentically expressing your identity-in-relationship. The Father expresses His freedom by saying "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." Because that simply *is* His eternal identity-in-relationship. Interestingly though that expression is the resurrection.
That's why I like the conception of God's being as "being-towards-resurrection."
That's a fascinating post actually, and it is very relevant.
I suddenly feel a bit out of my depth though, so this would have to go on the back-burner to think about later. I'll keep thinking about it as I listen to Webster though. Your map of the theological scene fits with what Webster said in his lecture. Jenson was definitely not his friend on this issue. Oliver Crisp in his lectures had some big problems with Jenson as well, and I think the issues link up (historical actions and eternal relations... hmmm).
To my mind, I've heard of Shikinah (glory=presence) and Cabod (glory=heaviness). I don't know about shikinah, but if we're talking cabod, then I think of something weighty, substantial, permanent, real - in contrast with vanity (hebel) meaning weightless, insubstantial, ephemeral, illlusory. I take Isa 40 to be contrasting man's glory with God's, and glory there seems to be the basis of God's critique of idols.
Following CS Lewis' "Weight of Glory & Ecclesiastes ("hebel, hebel, everything is hebel under the sun"), I find that all of us in this way are glory hunters - looking for significance, something substantial, weighty, real in a pretty insubstantial world (Isa 40/Mark 1/1 Pet 1:24).
So for instance, I recently spoke on "what's Jesus got to do with me", arguing that this question is precisely the objection: other things have more glory (cabod) than Jesus. I said that Christians were the first atheists, insisting that "gods made with hands (and minds) are not gods at all" (Acts 19:26) - in other words, there's literally nothing to them, and the question is what makes Jesus so weighty, so substantial, so permanent? Following Tim Keller on "God-as-a-concept is lighter than you; God-as-a-reality is heavier than you", I go to John 17
- Jesus gets his glory (weight, substance, being, signficance) from rel'n w/God (v2) - Jesus brings God glory on the earth - brings the Father to bear on the world (concept becomes reality) - Jesus is granted authority (by Father) to grant eternal life to all given him (ie giving us glory) - Jesus' glory is he has been eternally loved by the Father, and reveals the Father in his perfect obedience - NB Jesus' glory actually gives creation a certain glory - life is not insignificant, love is not an illusion - we are created out of love; sinful exploitation is grounded as love rejected, generosity abused - Jesus is offering his disciples his own glory
so from John 17 & Isa 40, I'd go with 3, and 2 if you made it "God's glory is his self-giving", which in his eternal relationship is eternal love, and which in contingent relation to his creatures is salvation love.
3 is about God's essential relations 2 is about God's contingent relations 1 is a proclamation of this scandal
I prefer biblical theological categories set up in Exodus to the more abstract systematic definitions. A word search on glory would shed some light on your 3 statements, even in Exodus. I guess in John, the key verses would be John 12:27-33
- his name Isa 42:8, "I am the LORD, that is my name, I will not give my glory with another" - cf John 12,17...(cf Pharaoh's question in Ex 5:2 "who is the LORD that I should obey him, and moreover I will not let Israel go")
- his dealings with his people through Moses (Exodus 33-34, when God's word tabernacled among a people who don't receive him, in fact, they only heard thunder (cf John 12) and Moses asks "show me your glory" (cf John 1:14-18).
- among the nations - Ex 14:4 ("But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD") - of course, instead of hallowing his name, they profaned it among the nations, so God's glory left the temple (Eze 10 echoing 1 Sam 4), bringing spiritual exile even when never to return until Jesus comes to them.
Particularly struck by the 1 & 2 Peter references to glory to be revealed and shared in, in the future.
I've not read Jenson, but Vanhoozer appropriated his God-from-the-beginning and he-who-is-faithful-to-the-end fairly helpfully in this essay
Whose is this "being-toward-resurrection" idea? It's reminded me of a thought I had a few years ago about taking christology seriously, that perhaps the Son's whole incarnation is the imprint of a God who is inherently incarnational, standing forth to himself in his Son. Is there anyone developing/bringing this together in preaching/evangelism? I'd love to hear more but feel out of my depth with Jenson/Williams etc.
I've been having two different discussions on this issue with two different Princeton (or ex-Princeton) bloggers (Princeton is where McCormack lectures).
I dunno - I think you don't want a self-serving God whose glory is *behind* the events of the gospel. But you don't want a God who is 'Elector' before He is Father. His being is not divorced from His gospel-action, but He's not the Ultimate Pelagian either - acting in order to be.
I find myself disagreeing with Piper and with McCormack. I'm also not 100% with Webster/Molnar/Hunsinger - who are at least more trinitarian than Piper, but still don't relate glory to the gospel strongly enough for me.
Only got 5min. Sorry everyone. Thanks for your thoughts which put mine in the shade, I'm going to think more and read more carefully when I have time.
Just a thought: would it not be true to say that Christ died firstly to give glory to the Father, and the Father glorified the Son for obeying him? This is the same dynamic as the self-glorification of God for eternity before creation, and could have continued without creation and redemption.
But the key thing here is that nothing changed in that dynamic with the salvation of sinners. The only thing that changed was the inclusion of us in that dynamic which has existed for eternity and will continue to do so. The glorification of Christ in the disciples, is the glorification of Christ in them. Our justification is first Christ's justification. Our glorification is firstly the Father's glorification of Christ. And he is justified because he obeyed the law. He is glorified because he glorified the Father (John 17:4-5) - and this is the same as the glory/justification he had before the world but gave up. We participate in that which occurs apart from us.
Does that make sense. I guess I'm making our salvation too incidental. But I think we're returning to a familiar theme of allowing the gospel to be a surprise. Yes we want it to be the starting point... but the starting point as foolishness... as incomprehensible. Even starting with the Gospel we shouldn't be able to make sense of it. We should be amazed that it took place even starting with the assumption that it took place.
you're baiting me.
ReplyDeleteAll are wonderful. As long as "glory" finds it's meaning within these statements. They could only be considered objectionable if 'glory' proved to be a trojan horse smuggling in other conceptions of glory defined in isolation. (Like 'God mangifying His own perfections' or something).
But once we realize that 'God is glorified IN OUR SALVATION', and once our definition of divine glory is properly adjusted to this truth, then we can trumpet as loudly as we like the equally wonderful truth that 'GOD is glorified in our salvation.'
See what I mean?
I really wasn't baiting you :)
ReplyDeleteAlthough I must admit that it was thinking over the comments between you and Pete Jackson, plus listening to John Webster that led me to posting this.
I was trying to focus thinking in my own mind about what the real question is.
I'm not sure that I am clear what your position is on this, from your comments on your blog, or this comment now.
If you mean by '"glory" finds it's meaning within these statements' that God's revelation of himself in his saving acts is the only source we have for knowing what his glory is, then I agree. But are we just talking about revelation/definitions? Are we not talking about how his glory relates to our salvation more widely?
I think I'd agree that all are wonderful. But my last question is probably the most important to me.
Statement 1: seems standard evangelical to me
Statement 2: seems more like much modern theology
Statement 3: seems more like John Piper and Tom Wright.
I'm really not baiting, or making a statement of my own. Just trying to make clear the issues.
I think it does make a difference though.
Must be my paranoid egomania... Again...
ReplyDeleteDefining 'glory' by those statements regarding our salvation is a radical and thoroughly evangelical move. It's following Athansius and the Nicene creed. The very being of God is defined by the evangel (which is 'for us men and for our salvation').
So yes perhaps I'd vote for number 2 as foundational. And I am prone to suspect number 3 as a potential 'trojan' trying to smuggle in another kind of 'glory'. But if we begin with 2 then 3 is cool.
Also, btw, I think people often read bible verses that essentially say (1) and read them as (3) statements (smuggling in the self-centred definitions along the way). That is to say - Who can deny that God saves us for His own glory? Yet I think the Piper position fails to appreciate the wonder that OUR SALVATION glorifies God. This should lead to a gospel-shaped enquiry into the kind of glory we're talking about.
Glory, as with God's own being, is not obvious. Theism says it is. Theism posits both as self-centred. Evangelical trinitarian theology is radically different.
That's helpful. And connects with your post about love from Thomas Manton recently, which I thought was brilliant.
ReplyDeleteI understand why you wouldn't go for 3 as foundational, but why not 1?
I suppose my concern with 2. is that it seems to have the danger of denying God's freedom, and making salvation something God necessarily had to do to be glorious.
I think John Webster in his second lecture has something useful to say here about the relationship of the three persons, and how that relates to 'spreading goodness', while protecting God's freedom.
Of course you may want to challenge me for bringing in a trojan horse understanding of God's freedom here!
Hmmm... lots of thoughts.
Freedom's a funny thing. It's nothing like an enlightenment conception of 'independence' or 'unlimited options'. (I've posted on this before). Even God's freedom is not *limited* by the fact He can't lie, etc. He wouldn't be 'more free' if He could pursue deceptive relations and we don't uphold His divine rights by imagining those possibilities.
ReplyDeleteFreedom is about authentically expressing your identity-in-relationship. The Father expresses His freedom by saying "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." Because that simply *is* His eternal identity-in-relationship. Interestingly though that expression is the resurrection.
That's why I like the conception of God's being as "being-towards-resurrection."
See this post:
http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/when-was-christ-begotten-and-for-why/
I think it gels with a 'spreading goodness' understanding. But it means we need a properly *evangelical* doctrine of God, freedom and time.
That's a fascinating post actually, and it is very relevant.
ReplyDeleteI suddenly feel a bit out of my depth though, so this would have to go on the back-burner to think about later. I'll keep thinking about it as I listen to Webster though. Your map of the theological scene fits with what Webster said in his lecture. Jenson was definitely not his friend on this issue. Oliver Crisp in his lectures had some big problems with Jenson as well, and I think the issues link up (historical actions and eternal relations... hmmm).
hi Dave.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind, I've heard of Shikinah (glory=presence) and Cabod (glory=heaviness). I don't know about shikinah, but if we're talking cabod, then I think of something weighty, substantial, permanent, real - in contrast with vanity (hebel) meaning weightless, insubstantial, ephemeral, illlusory. I take Isa 40 to be contrasting man's glory with God's, and glory there seems to be the basis of God's critique of idols.
Following CS Lewis' "Weight of Glory & Ecclesiastes ("hebel, hebel, everything is hebel under the sun"), I find that all of us in this way are glory hunters - looking for significance, something substantial, weighty, real in a pretty insubstantial world (Isa 40/Mark 1/1 Pet 1:24).
So for instance, I recently spoke on "what's Jesus got to do with me", arguing that this question is precisely the objection: other things have more glory (cabod) than Jesus. I said that Christians were the first atheists, insisting that "gods made with hands (and minds) are not gods at all" (Acts 19:26) - in other words, there's literally nothing to them, and the question is what makes Jesus so weighty, so substantial, so permanent? Following Tim Keller on "God-as-a-concept is lighter than you; God-as-a-reality is heavier than you", I go to John 17
- Jesus gets his glory (weight, substance, being, signficance) from rel'n w/God (v2)
- Jesus brings God glory on the earth - brings the Father to bear on the world (concept becomes reality)
- Jesus is granted authority (by Father) to grant eternal life to all given him (ie giving us glory)
- Jesus' glory is he has been eternally loved by the Father, and reveals the Father in his perfect obedience
- NB Jesus' glory actually gives creation a certain glory - life is not insignificant, love is not an illusion - we are created out of love; sinful exploitation is grounded as love rejected, generosity abused
- Jesus is offering his disciples his own glory
so from John 17 & Isa 40, I'd go with 3, and 2 if you made it "God's glory is his self-giving", which in his eternal relationship is eternal love, and which in contingent relation to his creatures is salvation love.
3 is about God's essential relations
2 is about God's contingent relations
1 is a proclamation of this scandal
I prefer biblical theological categories set up in Exodus to the more abstract systematic definitions. A word search on glory would shed some light on your 3 statements, even in Exodus. I guess in John, the key verses would be John 12:27-33
ReplyDelete- his name Isa 42:8, "I am the LORD, that is my name, I will not give my glory with another" - cf John 12,17...(cf Pharaoh's question in Ex 5:2 "who is the LORD that I should obey him, and moreover I will not let Israel go")
- his dealings with his people through Moses (Exodus 33-34, when God's word tabernacled among a people who don't receive him, in fact, they only heard thunder (cf John 12) and Moses asks "show me your glory" (cf John 1:14-18).
- among the nations - Ex 14:4 ("But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD") - of course, instead of hallowing his name, they profaned it among the nations, so God's glory left the temple (Eze 10 echoing 1 Sam 4), bringing spiritual exile even when never to return until Jesus comes to them.
John 17:10: I have been glorified in them.
ReplyDeleteWow. Especially given the context.
wow indeed. what a privilege. what significance to discipleship!
ReplyDeletethis is overwhelming. It's too much.
Particularly struck by the 1 & 2 Peter references to glory to be revealed and shared in, in the future.
I've not read Jenson, but Vanhoozer appropriated his God-from-the-beginning and he-who-is-faithful-to-the-end fairly helpfully in this essay
Whose is this "being-toward-resurrection" idea? It's reminded me of a thought I had a few years ago about taking christology seriously, that perhaps the Son's whole incarnation is the imprint of a God who is inherently incarnational, standing forth to himself in his Son. Is there anyone developing/bringing this together in preaching/evangelism? I'd love to hear more but feel out of my depth with Jenson/Williams etc.
Hey Chris,
ReplyDeleteI've been having two different discussions on this issue with two different Princeton (or ex-Princeton) bloggers (Princeton is where McCormack lectures).
One is here in the comments.
The other is on this very blog.
I dunno - I think you don't want a self-serving God whose glory is *behind* the events of the gospel. But you don't want a God who is 'Elector' before He is Father. His being is not divorced from His gospel-action, but He's not the Ultimate Pelagian either - acting in order to be.
I find myself disagreeing with Piper and with McCormack. I'm also not 100% with Webster/Molnar/Hunsinger - who are at least more trinitarian than Piper, but still don't relate glory to the gospel strongly enough for me.
In case those links don't work, here they are again:
ReplyDeletehttp://theevangelicalcalvinist.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/a-mini-comp-between-ec-and-classic-calvinism/
and
http://the48files.blogspot.com/2009/11/bad-barth.html
Only got 5min. Sorry everyone. Thanks for your thoughts which put mine in the shade, I'm going to think more and read more carefully when I have time.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought: would it not be true to say that Christ died firstly to give glory to the Father, and the Father glorified the Son for obeying him? This is the same dynamic as the self-glorification of God for eternity before creation, and could have continued without creation and redemption.
But the key thing here is that nothing changed in that dynamic with the salvation of sinners. The only thing that changed was the inclusion of us in that dynamic which has existed for eternity and will continue to do so. The glorification of Christ in the disciples, is the glorification of Christ in them. Our justification is first Christ's justification. Our glorification is firstly the Father's glorification of Christ. And he is justified because he obeyed the law. He is glorified because he glorified the Father (John 17:4-5) - and this is the same as the glory/justification he had before the world but gave up. We participate in that which occurs apart from us.
Does that make sense. I guess I'm making our salvation too incidental. But I think we're returning to a familiar theme of allowing the gospel to be a surprise. Yes we want it to be the starting point... but the starting point as foolishness... as incomprehensible. Even starting with the Gospel we shouldn't be able to make sense of it. We should be amazed that it took place even starting with the assumption that it took place.
I'm rambling.
I really should be doing law as well.