Since Westminster lists “glory” as a divine attribute, I have to say that this Q&A seems kind of shocking:
Q. 46. What was the estate of Christ’s humiliation?
A. The estate of Christ’s humiliation was that low condition, wherein he for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death, and after his death, until his resurrection.
Besides, the Bible says that the estate of Christ’s humiliation actually revealed the glory of God:
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.
I’m pretty sure the Divines meant “outward glory” in his heavenly existence, which he did, undoubtedly give up and empty himself of. Even in his high priestly prayer, he speaks of having partaken of the Father’s glory with him before the world began, and he anticipated partaking of that glory once again, and in such a way that his disciples would be with him and experience his glory.
I really appreciate your posts on defining glory this way. While some theologicans insist on an ego-centric definition of glory–as if God has an ego he needs to feed, God’s way of revealing his glory by self-empytying and self-giving is the only way we can truly know him. We must understand this if we are to imitate Christ and give glory back to him.
Can’t we just say its a paradox?
You can’t “seek glory” by seeking glory, you have to be humble. But nobody can seek to be humble with an attitude of “I’m just doing this for the glory”. You have to be humble in the moment.
The cross isn’t SO MUCH the glory of Christ that he isn’t even humbled by it.
Was it Christ’s humiliation that revealed glory to St. John, or was it his Transfiguration?
It begs the question to assume it was the transfiguration.
John 3:14, 8:28, and 12:32 emphasize the crucifiction was a form of “elevation”
And 12:23-24 links the hour of his glory with the hour of his death.
It begs the question? Really?
Perhaps it begs the question to assume that Christ’s elevation on the cross was his glorification when Scripture everywhere speaks of the Resurrection-Ascension as his exaltation (e.g., Phil. 2:8,9; Heb. 12:2).
Certainly, the cross was glorious–but for the sake of that for which it was endured:
In his high priestly prayer, Jesus prays that the Father will glorify him with the glory he had before the world began (Jn 17:5). I take this to mean that once Christ performed his “obedience unto death” as the perfect living sacrifice, the Father raised, glorified, and enthroned him. At that time, the human nature of the Son was beatified in the divine uncreated glory.
1. the resurrection is not the transfiguration.
2. I think it is well established that John uses double entendres in his gospel. When Jesus says that he must be lifted up, in John 12:32, those who hear think of ascension. But John tells us this signified the kind of DEATH he would die. But people didn’t understand that aspect of it. But thats also in the context where Jesus has just been told by the father that he will be glorified.
For John, Jesus being lifted up on a cross is a ‘heavnely thing” it includes within it the connontation of ascention and return to heaven.
For John, its the cross that will be the place of angels ascending and descending.
Its almost as if Jesus were saying “Ha! You dummies thought you were shaming me on that cross, but little did you think that putting me UP on a cross midway between heaven and earth would actually draw my people to me and place me as mediatorial king of the nations. I’ll TAKE that crown of thorns thank you”
as it were…
3. Mark is also significant for it being the DEATH of Christ on the cross that enables the centurion to testify to the divinity of Jesus. Too often we think that the only thing that testifies to his divinity is the resurrection, but the centurion knew it by seeing how he died.
4. Essentially, there’s a paradox at work. Doing something so shameful on behalf of someone else transforms the nature of the act itself.
We are not left looking at Jesus washing filthy feet and thinking: “Wow, what a raw deal for Jesus. Too bad he had to debase himself that way.” Instead we look and say “Ah, there is the true God”. In so doing, we’ve just brought glory to God. We don’t say “what a shameful thing to have happen, lets never speak of it again”. Instead we speak openly of the crucifiction and what it did for us. Instead, Jesus bears the wounds of the cross, even in his glorified state.
We recount with awe the tales of martyrs.
We buy gold jewelry in the shape of an instrument of torture and death.
Amen.
1. Sorry I wasn’t clear, I was trying to go somewhere with the argument, but left it half finished.
Basically, on the Mount of Transfiguration the inherent uncreated glory of the Son was revealed to Peter, James & John. And when Peter suggested that three tabernacles be erected to honor Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, the voice from Heaven spoke.
At the Ascension, the Son’s human nature was permanently endowed with divine glory unlike the temporary glory that shone from Moses’ face. It was at that point that Jesus became the consummated Image of God.
So, while the cross was a revelation of God’s moral glory, there was a prior revelation of the glory that the Son possessed before creation and which later graced his human nature when he ascended and received his inheritance (Heb. 1:2-4).
Obviously, I’m relying on the Eastern idea of the divine energies here which I think is a necessary inference from Scripture.
2. I agree with what you say here and rejoice in it. I just think that our understanding of Christ’s glorification must include the revelation of the divine light on the Mount of Transfiguration.
By his endurance of the Cross, Jesus consummated his earthly obedience. And, because all was finished, the propitiation of his sacrifice “earned” the Father’s approbation. Furthermore, he was raised up so that all men could look to him and behold God’s glory with the eyes of faith. The Cross, then, is the termination point of Christ’s self oblation and the beginning of his reign as our risen High Priest. This reign was consummated (came into its full exercise) when he entered into his glory.
Perhaps it is best to say that the Transfiguration (inherent glory) and the Cross (aquired glory) taken together express the full range of God’s revelation of glory in his Son.
What do y’all think?