Skip to content

Tag: trinity

13

Published on 13 Comments on But we’re not all evangelists, are we?

Ok, so Christians and evangelism.  Is everyone supposed to look like this guy?

Or do we send those few nut-jobs out on the street so that we can get on with the the kumbaya's, the marshmallows, oh and "building the kingdom" (insert meaning here).

Well blog du jour seems to be modelling community on the trinity.  So here goes.

The Ultimate community-on-mission is God who is a multi-Personal union moving outwards.  Two things are important here.  First, mission is not just one of the things God does.  His ek-centric (outgoing) life is His very way of being.  Second, the Three do not take on identical roles but Each depends on the Others in order to corporately perform the work.

So now, we are swept up into mission as the Spirit unites us to the One Sent from the Father.  "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." (John 20:21)  We will also share these two characteristics.

First, mission is not just one of the things the church does.  We are sent ones commissioned by the Sent One.  We are created by mission and for mission.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.  (1 Pet 2:9)

It's not that church, from time to time, decides to act in a missionary way.  It is missionary, that is its nature.  So when we became Christians we joined an evangelistic organisation.  If we're in the body we need to know that the body is heading somewhere.  It's always going to the nations to disciple them.  You cannot 'buy into' Christ without 'buying into' evangelism.  The Christian's life and being is now oriented towards this mission.  There is not 'love' or 'unity' as well as 'mission.'  But rather there is love and unity in mission.

But second, as with the Trinity, we don't all do the same stuff.  Same mission, different roles.

Later in Peter's letter he speaks about two broad categories of gifting - speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10ff).  And he implores them to get on with their particular giftings.

And that's great.  It's so unfortunate when people think of 'evangelism' simply in terms of the guy in the picture!  And it's tragic when  giftings aren't recognized and encouraged.  We want diversity and we certainly don't want to cram people into the same moulds.  So Peter speaks of different giftings - 'speakers' and 'servers'.  But let's not imagine that he has thereby set forth completely different spheres of operation!  That wouldn't be a very good model of the Trinity.

No, think of the diakonos kind of serving spoken of here (which most basically means table-serving, ie hospitality gifts).  And think of combining this with the speaking gifts?  What if the differently gifted church members collaborated in the missionary task - good food and hospitality and those good with words are liberally sprinkled around the place - what a powerful gospel work!

At such evangelistic dinner parties it is very true that some are performing quite different functions to others.  But they are all being thoroughly missionary.  It's a unified diversity and it's going somewhere - to the nations!

If we get our trinitarian styled mission communities wrong...

The Arian church will laud the noble few who do the real missionary work  (i.e. street preaching etc...)

The Tritheist church will have the speakers heading off by themselves and the servers serving a quite different agenda.

The Modalist church will forget giftings altogether and fit everyone into the same mould.

But the truly trinitarian church will allow the particular giftings to flourish in the service of the one missionary aim.

This post was prompted by this and this.  And I wrote some more about this back here.

.

13

Published on 13 Comments on But we're not all evangelists, are we?

Ok, so Christians and evangelism.  Is everyone supposed to look like this guy?

Or do we send those few nut-jobs out on the street so that we can get on with the the kumbaya's, the marshmallows, oh and "building the kingdom" (insert meaning here).

Well blog du jour seems to be modelling community on the trinity.  So here goes.

The Ultimate community-on-mission is God who is a multi-Personal union moving outwards.  Two things are important here.  First, mission is not just one of the things God does.  His ek-centric life is His very way of being.  Second, the Three do not take on identical roles but Each depends on the Others in order to corporately perform the work.

So now, we are swept up into mission as the Spirit unites us to the One Sent from the Father.  "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." (John 20:21)  We will also share these two characteristics.

First, mission is not just one of the things the church does.  We are sent ones commissioned by the Sent One.  We are created by mission and for mission.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.  (1 Pet 2:9)

It's not that church, from time to time, decides to act in a missionary way.  It is missionary, that is its nature.  So when we became Christians we joined an evangelistic organisation.  If we're in the body we need to know that the body is heading somewhere.  It's always going to the nations to disciple them.  You cannot 'buy into' Christ without 'buying into' evangelism.  The Christian's life and being is now oriented towards this mission.  There is not 'love' or 'unity' as well as 'mission.'  But rather there is love and unity in mission.

But second, as with the Trinity, we don't all do the same stuff.  Same mission, different roles.

Later in Peter's letter he speaks about two broad categories of gifting - speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10ff).  And he implores them to get on with their particular giftings.

And that's great.  It's so unfortunate when people think of 'evangelism' simply in terms of the guy in the picture!  And it's tragic when  giftings aren't recognized and encouraged.  We want diversity and we certainly don't want to cram people into the same moulds.  So Peter speaks of different giftings - 'speakers' and 'servers'.  But let's not imagine that he has thereby set forth completely different spheres of operation!  That wouldn't be a very good model of the Trinity.

No, think of the diakonos kind of serving spoken of here (which most basically means table-serving, ie hospitality gifts).  And think of combining this with the speaking gifts?  What if the differently gifted church members collaborated in the missionary task - good food and hospitality and those good with words are liberally sprinkled around the place - what a powerful gospel work!

At such evangelistic dinner parties it is very true that some are performing quite different functions to others.  But they are all being thoroughly missionary.  It's a unified diversity and it's going somewhere - to the nations!

If we get our trinitarian styled mission communities wrong...

The Arian church will laud the noble few who do the real missionary work  (i.e. street preaching etc...)

The Tritheist church will have the speakers heading off by themselves and the servers serving a quite different agenda.

The Modalist church will forget giftings altogether and fit everyone into the same mould.

But the truly trinitarian church will allow the particular giftings to flourish in the service of the one missionary aim.

This post was prompted by this and this.  And I wrote some more about this back here.

.

6

Published on 6 Comments on The Way to Frame the World – Perichoretically

PLEASE NOTE:  John Frame is not 'a baddie'.  It would be hard to find a contemporary systematic theologian as engaging, clear and humble-hearted as Frame.  He is very easy to like.  And my beef here is down to a certain way of doing trinitarian theology and a certain dislike of scholastic theology and of the doctrine of simplicity in particular.  Those views of mine probably make me the baddie in many minds.  But hopefully we can get beyond caricatures and affirm what is good, be challenged where we need challenging and keep sharpening our intellects and softening our hearts.

What started me thinking about Frame was a great post Pete's written against the idea of "balance": Balance is tritheistic.  We do not seek to walk a tightrope between divine sovereignty and human responsibility or between transcendence and immanence or between unitarianism and polytheism or between faith and works or between evangelism and social action or between any other supposed polarities. As Pete says, such thinking assumes that the 'many' are over against the 'one' - it's tritheistic.

To view this as a trinitarian question is exactly right.  But at one point Pete speaks of 'perspectivalism' as though it was doing the same job as trinitarian thinking.  I don't think it does.  From my reading of Frame, perspectivalism  stems from a consideration of the three Lordship attributes (authority, control, presence) and how they are ultimately identical in the simple divine essence.  What's more when this kind of triadic thinking is applied to the actual Trinity you get modalism (as Frame admits).  Perspectivalism is triadic.  But then Plato's god is triadic.  Allah has an eternal word and a spirit.  Triadic doesn't mean trinitarian.  And I think we're missing a major trick if we think we're being trinitarian every time we co-ordinate a group of three.  There are right and wrong ways to do it.

My fear is that if 'perpectivalism' is seen as the answer to 'balance', then tritheistic balance will just be replaced by modalistic balance.   Both modalism and tritheism share a concern to uphold the equal deity of the Three.  The tritheist does it by cutting them loose from one another while the modalist does it by equally smushing them into the same divine stuff.  Balance for the former means equal air time for the three separate entities.  Balance for the latter means blurring the distinctions and saying they're all deep down the same.

And both are as bad as each other.

Perichoresis on the other hand is the way the ultimate Triad relates.  And I believe this provides a far more helpful way to co-ordinate other relations.  Not least because perichoresis upholds the need for a starting point and a structure.  With perichoresis there is a Beginning and a Way.  And you have to get the Beginning right (you can't start just anywhere).  And you have to continue according to the Way (you can't proceed any old how).

To know God you must begin with Jesus illuminated by the Spirit as He reveals the Father.  That is the only beginning you can make.  Because there is an inherent and non-reversible structure to the relation.  And as you proceed in your knowledge of God your method will be determined by the concrete and asymmetrical (functional) hierarchy of Father, Son and Spirit.

Perspectivalism won't give you this.  If perspectivalism pure and simple is your guide then you are meant to look deep enough into God's 'presence' and you'll get his 'control' and 'authority' thrown in.  Or you'll look deep enough into his 'authority' and you'll see the other two.  Perspectivalism won't give you a starting point or a method.  Not in any hard and fast sense.

But that's a problem.  Because in so many of those polarities mentioned above there are right and wrong ways to relate them.

Take for instance the way Keller uses perspectivalism in preaching.  We need preaching that is doctrinal (normative), personal (existential) and culturally transformative (situational).  Now perspectivalism might be able to tell you to hit all three bases but, by itself, it won't allow you to have a priority nor give you a right method for how to co-ordinate them.  But, in my opinion, you can't just preach cultural transformation trusting that, in the end, this perspective will naturally include the other two.  Rather I'd want to make a strong case for proclaiming Christ's finished work extra nos and only then, on that basis, making personal and cultural applications.  There is a Beginning and a Way inherent to those relations. 

Pete also mentions the relation between evangelism and social action.  I have some very particular views on this relationship.  We must not simply balance up the two "like two wings of a bird" as some would have it.  There is a Beginning and a Way.  The Beginning is gospel proclamation.  And the Way to continue in that relation is under the banner of explicit gospelling. 

Perhaps my biggest beef is in the realm of theological method.  Frame assiduously avoids talk of 'starting points' in theology.  (I'm sure it sounds all too Barthian!)  The centre of theology is, for him, every word that proceeds from God's mouth.  Yet Scripture speaks of matters "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:1ff) and in particular Christ is set forward as the Way, the Truth, the Word, the Image, the Revealer, the Mystery, the Hiding Place of God's revelation (John 14:6; John 1:1-3; Col 1:15f; John 1:18; Col 2:8f; Matt 11:25-27).  There is a perichoretic structuring of revelation that cannot be ironed out.  In theology the Beginning and the Way is Christ or else you have nothing of God. 

I commonly hear people reacting against 'starting points' and 'christocentric methodology' and often this objection is registered with Frame's name somewhere on the horizon.  "Because of perspectivalism we shouldn't get too hung up on certain ways of approaching X, Y and Z."

That's a major, major pity.  And it's absolutely wrong.  The ultimate relational principle is not perspectivalism.  It's perichoresis.  And this gives us every reason to approach theology (and everything else!) expecting structure and hierarchy, beginnings and ways.  Our starting points and methodology are absolutely crucial - the trinitarian nature of reality guarantees it.

A fuller essay on Frame is here

.

4

Published on 4 Comments on Participating in God means participating in the cross

Last time I finished on this thought:

It’s a wonderful thing to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).  But the very essence of it is taking up your cross and following Christ (Mark 8:34)

It got me thinking about the three 'Abba, Father's of the New Testament.

In Galatians 4:6 we read about the Spirit of adoption praying the Son's prayer within us - 'Abba, Father.'  If anything is 'participating in the divine nature' it's this.  God adopts you into God's communion with God.  And He carries on His life of union and communion in us.  Deeper than your heartbeat is the Spirit's cry within you.  This is your true spiritual pulse.  Abba, Father.  Abba, Father. Abba, Father.

In Romans 8:15 we join in with the Spirit.  Adding our Amen, we make Christ's prayer our own and call out to the Father in that same childlike dependence. Again, this is wonderful participation in God.

But what about the original 'Abba, Father'?  Mark 14:36 - Christ is sweating blood at the prospect of drinking the cup.  With loud cries and tears He prays with reverent submission, "Your will be done." (cf Heb 5:7).  The original 'Abba, Father' is prayed in the midst of Christ's total self-offering.

It's this prayer that is placed within us.  Not just any intimacy with the Father but the intimacy of the obedient Son, obedient even to death on a cross.

Now our co-crucifixion with Christ is something that's graciously happened entirely outside ourselves.  It's first happened for us and then been applied to us.  But now that we've granted this we must confess it's something that happens in us too.  The gift of participating in God is the gift of participating in the obedient self-offering of the Son.  It's not a warm bath and a cup of herbal tea.  It's much more earthy and glorious than that.  In fact it's much more profoundly joyful than that.  We will experience fellowship in the communion of the trinity as we experience fellowship in Christ's sufferings.

10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.  (Phil 3:10-11)

5

Published on 5 Comments on Triune Glory is Cruciform Glory

A meandering waffle...

Recently I've written about the glory of the triune God.  This glory is His other-centred love.  When He acts for this glory it's not because He or His glory are self-centred.  No He is other-centred and His glory is His grace.  But just because this is so, when God acts for the sake of His glorious grace He is simply determining to be Giver.

From eternity the nature of the triune God has been deferral and other-centred praise.  When faced by creatures, even creatures who would ignore and spurn such love, this God determines to love with an almighty 'nevertheless'.

It's like the mother who is faced by a naughty and manipulative child.  She could cave in to the tantrum or she could withdraw and ignore the child altogether.  But she condescends in love, not because the child is good (he's not) and not because she's weak (she's not).  She acts in accordance with her gracious motherliness, to love the child in spite of himself and in this way to lift him from his misbehaviour.

Put it another way, it's like the man who is struck on the right cheek by an aggressor.  By nature his instincts are fight or flight - strike back or withdraw.  But instead he stands his ground and offers his left cheek also.  He opens himself out in grace and continues the offer of relationship.  This is God-like glory.

Put it another way, it's like Christ crucified.  He might have remained in heaven or merely sent us to hell.  Instead He acted for the sake of His glory.  He absorbed our blow and rather than retaliate He offered reconciling love.

The cross was the triune love laid bare.  And this is not simply because the Persons demonstrated how much they love and act for one another.  More than this, they demonstrated how the glory of grace encounters what is outside this love.  In costly sacrifice the triune glory suffers what is outside in order to draw it in.

How do we respond to this glorious God?  Well we rejoice in the grace of Jesus shown to us - the terrible children and violent aggressors.  And we pass on the divine glory we have received.  Out of the fulness we have received we empty ourselves (which is precisely the dynamic we have seen from the triune God in the cross of Christ).  Out of the strengthening of Christ's Spirit we will adopt cross-shaped love towards others and in every circumstance imaginable practise costly cheek-turning.  (More on cheek turning here, here and here).

In this sense "What would Jesus do?" is exactly the question to ask in every ethical situation.  Just make sure your answer is always: To receive the grace of the Father and lay down our lives for the unworthy.  Once you're looking for opportunities, it's surprising how often you'll be able to apply the wisdom of the cross in daily, practical cheek-turning.  And this is what it means to 'glorify God.'  The glory of the cross lived out is the glory of the triune God applied.  Because the triune glory is the cruciform glory.

It's a wonderful thing to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).  But the very essence of it is taking up your cross and following Christ (Mark 8:34)


Published on Leave a comment on Casting crowns

Revelation 4 shows the 24 elders casting their crowns before the throne (Rev 4:10).  Though these have been given by the Almighty Father Himself, all the elders can think to do with them is throw them to the ground in His presence.  We can almost hear them singing Psalm 115 as they do it: "Not to us, O LORD, not to us but to your name be the glory, because of your love and faithfulness."

The love and faithfulness of the LORD has raised them them to incalculable honour - robes and thrones and crowns.  Yet they gladly abandon all back to Him. Verse 10 is like a freeze-frame of the life of heaven.  All honour given and all honour returned.  It's an everlasting circle of deferral and praise.

On Trinity Sunday we remember that this is not simply the life of the future.  And it's not simply the dynamic of the creature and its Creator.  This eternal deferral to the Other is the everlasting life of God.  The Father commits everything into the hands of His Beloved.  The Son casts His crown before the Father, desperate that all honour be ascribed to His Name.  The Father lifts Him up and establishes Him as King over all.  The Son hands all power and authority back to the Father.  And the Spirit inspires and empowers this loving reciprocity.  Heaven is nothing but a participation in this other-centred glory.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Arian misogyny

Finally!  JW's knocked on my door this morning.  First time ever.  An older guy and a younger Polish woman.

So I threw some Gen 19:24 shapes their way. "To which Jehovah are you witnessing, the LORD out of the heavens or the LORD on the earth?"

The woman seemed quite interested.  The man said "Trinity?  Rubbish.  Paul refutes the trinity in 1 Corinthians 11:3."  So we went to 1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

"How does this refute the trinity?" I ask.

"Well," he explains, "God is the head over Christ which means Christ is less than God."

I say "So the Father is the head of Christ the way I'm the head of my wife?"

"That's right"

"Let me ask you, Is my wife less of a human being than me?"

"Yes" said the man.  "N.." said the woman and then changed it to a faltering yes.

I check I've heard them right.  "So my wife is less of a human being than me?"

"Well," reasons the man, "you make the decisions.  You're in charge."

"Mmmm and so I'm a greater being than my wife?"

"That's right" said the man.  The woman frowns.

I turn to her and say "You realise you're in a cult don't you."

The man grabs her by the arm and they start to make their escape.

"Keep reading the bible and keep thinking about marriage," I call to her as they move down the street.  "You know women are equal to men... AND JESUS IS EQUAL TO GOD!"

Don't think they'll be back any time soon.

But it goes to show that Arians are misogynists whatever the PC gloss.  And of course misogynists are Arians, whatever the Christian gloss.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Is it cos we're Arians?

Yesterday I heard yet another talk on 2 Corinthians 5 in which it was simply assumed that 'the judgement seat of Christ' (v10) is a believer-only judgement.  Now certainly the "we" includes believers - but why is it so rarely taught from this verse that the whole world is brought before Christ's throne?  Surely that's the context in which we evangelize the world (v11ff).

Instead I've heard many a time that Christ's judgement seat is the living room of His discipline rather than the court room of God's wrath.  It seems to be assumed that Christ's judgement seat is a rap over the knuckles for Christians.  (And this is our motivation for evangelism, rather than the world-wide fiery judgement of the living and the dead).  By implication do we think "God's judgement seat" would be the really scary one?  If Paul said "God's" instead of "Christ's" would we so readily take this as some form of 'judgement-lite'?  In short: is it cos we're Arians?

.

29

Published on 29 Comments on Is it cos we’re Arians?

Yesterday I heard yet another talk on 2 Corinthians 5 in which it was simply assumed that 'the judgement seat of Christ' (v10) is a believer-only judgement.  Now certainly the "we" includes believers - but why is it so rarely taught from this verse that the whole world is brought before Christ's throne?  Surely that's the context in which we evangelize the world (v11ff).

Instead I've heard many a time that Christ's judgement seat is the living room of His discipline rather than the court room of God's wrath.  It seems to be assumed that Christ's judgement seat is a rap over the knuckles for Christians.  (And this is our motivation for evangelism, rather than the world-wide fiery judgement of the living and the dead).  By implication do we think "God's judgement seat" would be the really scary one?  If Paul said "God's" instead of "Christ's" would we so readily take this as some form of 'judgement-lite'?  In short: is it cos we're Arians?

.

9

Published on 9 Comments on We did it all for the glory of love – part 4

We've thought a little bit about how glory language is introduced in Exodus.  Of course John's Gospel makes for a fascinating study in 'glory'.  But it would be too easy to camp out in John and refuse to engage the other 'glory' Scriptures.  So let's think about three other key texts in the glory debates: Isaiah 42; Ezekiel 36 and (in the next post) Ephesians 1.  If you've got others on your mind, raise them in comments:

Isaiah 42:1-8

"Here is My Servant, whom I uphold, My Chosen One in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him and He will bring justice to the nations. 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise His voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed He will not break, and a smouldering wick He will not snuff out. In faithfulness He will bring forth justice; 4 He will not falter or be discouraged till He establishes justice on earth. In His law the islands will put their hope." 5 This is what God the LORD says--He who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, Who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: 6 "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness; I will take hold of Your hand. I will keep You and will make You to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. 8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols.

Usually it's only verse 8 that's quoted in the glory discussions.  But the context is crucial.  Here is the Beloved, Spirit-filled Servant of the LORD.  And He Himself is a covenant for the people.  The love of Father for Son spills over to the whole world and this is all a part of the integrity of the Creator.  The Maker of the ends of the earth will bring reconciliation through His Servant.  Therefore - verse 8 - He will not accomplish His creation-reconciliation project through anyone other than His Beloved, Anointed Son.  And this very commitment is the commitment to be the over-flowing, self-giving God of redemption.

So, no self-centred glory here.

What about, Ezekiel 36:16-32

16 The word of the LORD came to me: 17 "Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity. 18 So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. 19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. 20 But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.' 21 But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came. 22 "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.... 32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

You will notice here that the issue is the 'name of the LORD's holiness' which is not exactly the same as 'glory' - but they're pretty connected I think everyone will agree.

The "name" of the LORD has always been the gracious, saving character of the Gospel God (Exodus 34:6-7; see also Num 6:23-27).  It's the name that is in His Divine Angel and, again, is expressed through His deliverance of the people (Exodus 23:20-23).  This name dwells in the temple (Ex 20:24; Deut 12:5) and just as the priests are to put the name on the people (Num 6:23-27), the people are meant to reflect the name out to the nations.

In Ezekiel, the LORD's Glory (Christ) has departed from the physical temple (ch8-10) because the Israelites have profaned it (5:11).  Yet He Himself has been a sanctuary for the people (11:16) - in exile with His people!  And He promises that He will return as the LORD's Servant - the True King David - to make His sanctuary with His people forever (Ezek 37:21-28).

But here in chapter 36, the Israelites have not 'sanctified' but rather 'profaned' the name of the LORD's holiness.  God's people - as the priests He has made them to be - ought to be reflecting out to the world that same out-going goodness of God which they themselves have received.  Instead they do the very opposite.  And the thing that really profanes the name is that the saved people of God have become the wicked and exiled people of God (v20).  The LORD has tied His name so closely to His people that when they are profaned - He is profaned.  He has chosen to be so at one with His people that His destiny and reputation is bound up in their destiny and reputation.

And so He makes them know that this salvation He is about to work is His gracious initiative and not something they've provoked either by their goodness or their badness.  It's certainly not that the Israelites have cleaned up their act enough for God to save.  And it's not even that they are now so pitiable that God goes soft on them.  What moves Him to act is His fierce determination to be this kind of saving and forgiving God.  His gospel name will be vindicated because that is simply who He is.

And in fact verse 23 says the LORD will vindicate His holiness by saving a wretched people!  What kind of holiness is this that is expressed when renowned offenders are treated with extravagant grace?  This holiness is not the holiness of 'splendid isolation' but of gospel grace.

So again, these verses are not proof that God is, after all, self-centered.  The very opposite.  All that He does is motivated by a gospel character that will not be thwarted even by the worst opposition of His own people.  His name, His glory and His holiness are not considerations that would keep Him from engaging His wrath-deserving people.  They move Him out into costly, shame-bearing, sacrificial redemption.  Because His grace is His glory.

UPDATE:  Dave Bish has some great thoughts on Ezekiel 36 just posted.


Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer