Think Wink.

I have now read Dr Witherington’s two posts (“For God so loved Himself?” Is God a Narcissist? and Did Christ Come to Please Himself?) critiquing the Edwardsean world view that God created this world for his glory. The posts themselves, especially the first one, did not do a fair job of representing the Edwardsean view (You can read this post for more on Witherington misrepresenting the view). Edwards, and those who have followed him (like Dr. John Piper and myself), taught and believed that God created this world not so that he could have more glory but so that he could manifest his glory to the world and so that the world could know that glory and be satisfied in it and enjoy it forever. As Piper has stated, “God is most glorified in us (his glory is most clearly seen) when we are most satisfied in him.” But having read both of Witherington’s posts, I don’t think that he would disagree with the way he does in the posts with what is actually being stated. It is funny, Witherington said this in the second post as he concluded,

I don’t ask those out there in the blogosphere to take my word on this. Go and read some good commentaries on Isaiah by legitimate scholars who know the honor and shame cultures of the Ancient Near East, and know how this sort of language functions in such cultures. It is not sufficient to rely on old texts or textbooks on systematic theology whether by the Spurgeons or Owens or the like of this world, or by John Wesley for that matter. These men were not experts in ancient near-eastern culture, and they did not know how the language of honor and glory functioned in such cultures.

A good place to start would be to read two recent more conservative but well informed commentaries on Isaiah— say Brevard Childs’ on the one hand and John Oswalt’s on the other. When you do that, you will discover that ‘a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean’, and always there is the every present danger of reading one’s own theology into the text, especially if the only commentaries one reads on the matter are those of ancient systematic theologians, or even worse, you read no sources other than an ancient English translation of the Bible.

I completely agree. Many of the great theologians were not aware of the cultural background of the biblical writings to understand a lot of what is going on. I am always very weary of many of these older exegetes and what they had to say of a biblical text. But I do not hold to this Edwardsean view because of some ancient scholar. I read Piper’s book The Justification of God which is his attempt to understand γὰρ in Romans 9:15 when he was on his sabbatical when he was a professor. It was on the basis of this work that I came to hold to this view.

Over the last few weeks since BW3 started this blogosphere discussion, I was thinking about how to critique BW3. I was going to go to John 11 and the death of Lazarus and how Jesus waited for a while longer so that when he arrived Lazarus would be dead. The reasons being is that Lazarus illness was to show the glory of God and Jesus’ love for Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Thus when Jesus shows his glory he is showing them his love for them. I also thought about Daniel’s pray in Daniel 9 or Yahweh’s discussion of the new covenant in Ezekiel 36:22-27. But Witherington discussed in his posts about how this is shame language and God does not and will not allow his people to shame or dishonor his name. God’s honor is of top concern because all that he does is grounded in the honor of his name. But I will say that if God’s primary purpose in instituting the new covenant is to uphold his name, then doesn’t that mean that Jesus came to repair the damage mankind has done the honor of God by dying on the cross (cf. Romans 3:25-25)?

However, BW3 has really affirmed one of my primary concerns in trying to articulate my Edwardsean world view. People may misconstrue what I am saying very easily. I am not saying that God wants to get more glory for himself as if he is deficient in any way. So when I say God’s primary motivation in all his actions is to glorify himself, BW3 and others are taking it to mean that God is trying to get more glory or honor for himself. That just simply isn’t what I am saying. God is infinitely glorious and has infinite honor. There is no more honor to give him, for him to have.

What I am speaking of, what Piper and Edwards are speaking of, when I talk about God’s glory or δόξα is God’s moral perfections, his holiness, his beauty. I speak of what makes him God. His honor is part of that δόξα, but so is his self-sacrificing love for others as well.

I am reminded of the Gospel according to John. In John 1:14 we read about Jesus, the Word, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus came and revealed his glory to us so that we could see it. Us seeing Jesus’ glory is the reason why he came to earth. But what is so striking to me is what Jesus (and by extension John the author) considered him being glorified, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23). Jesus here is speaking of the cross. Jesus viewed his crucifixion as the hour when the Son of Man was to be glorified. On the cross Jesus’ glory is most clearly seen. The righteousness of God, the love of God, the holiness of God, the faithfulness of God are all seen on the cross of Jesus Christ. Paul calls Jesus “the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8).

When I am thinking of δόξα I think of Paul’s discussion in 2 Corinthians 3-4. In 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul says, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory (δόξα) of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” The δόξα spoken of here is that which made Moses’ face shine so bright after being in the very presence of Yahweh that it had to be covered with a veil. But it is a greater δόξα here that Paul says we are “beholding” or “reflecting.” And that δόξα changes us, transforms us into the image of Christ (cf. Romans 8:29). Piper compares this with the idea of a telescope. A microscope takes objects that are small and makes them appear big. A telescope takes an object, like a star, and makes it appear closer so that we can see it more clearly. We are to telescope God’s glory (cf. Psalm 96:1-5). We are to make God’s glory visible to the world and in doing so we become more like it!

Then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4 where Paul says that the gospel, the good news, that Satan blinds us from and causes us to perish (2 Corinthians 4:3) is the glory of Christ who is the image. But when one looks a 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, that person would see that Paul says that the gospel, or good news, is that Jesus died for sins and was raised to life according to the Scriptures. Thus Paul understands the gospel as being both Christ’s glory (δόξα) and Christ crucified and raised. They are the same thing. Satan doesn’t want us to see the light of this gospel of Christ’s glory. And in 2 Corinthians 4:6, that is exactly what God has shone forth into the heart of Paul, “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus.” God made Paul see his glory and Paul preached to the Corinthians Christ crucified and became a servant of the Corinthians for Christ’s sake.

The δόξα or glory that I speak of, when beheld by a person, transforms that person. It changes them from a God-hating and darkness-loving sinner to a God-loving, light-loving, sin hating saint. It isn’t just the reputation of God that is seen in the glory of God, but the very essence of God. It is seeing Exodus 34:6-7 in Christ Jesus on the cross (it is very important to note that Exodus 34:6-7 is God exegeting his name, Yahweh, which he told Moses is his glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-19)).

In conclusion, I want to thank BW3 for really underscoring the need to make myself absolutely clear in my world view. It took his misrepresentation of my view to make me realize how careful I have to be when I articulate what I am saying because the words I chose could convey an idea that I don’t intend to convey. So let me state as clearly as I can what I mean when I speak of God glorifying himself: God makes known his personal beauty/holiness/moral perfections to the created so that the created will be fully satisfied by them. God gives himself, in the person and work of Jesus Christ, in order to bring about the greatest joy and happiness of the created. In doing so, God is seen as most glorious, perfect, beautiful, and the creature is the most happy and joyous.

Are God’s glory and love at odds with each other?

BW3 and The Seer’s Tower

More Time with LDS

Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Calvin You are John Calvin. You seek to be faithful to Scripture, and to harmonize difficult sayings. You believe that in the Lord’s Supper those who have faith are united to Christ, who is present spiritually, yet in a real way. Calvin 81% Zwingli 75% Orthodox 56% Luther 56% Catholic 31% Unitarian 0%

My Comfort in Romans 9

Grudem’s Response to Piper

Original Sin

Jason E. Robertson at FIDE-O has posted on a possible BCS playoff after the disaster that has happened this year. Being a Mizzou fan, my heart was enraged to see two teams MU beat this year get a BCS bowl game and MU get the Cotton Bowl (not that the Cotton Bowl isn’t a good game). Granted Mizzou lost to Oklahoma twice and should not play for the national title, but that last lost should not have killed any hope for a BCS game. Check out the bracket the Robertson has drawn up. I like it.

Oh and before I forget…I hope Kansas can find any recruits in Texas after the Cotton bowl where MU will get all of them while KU is away in Florida. May be Missouri didn’t loose so bad after all.

Not As Tough As They Thought

BCS Rankings