Thesis.
SECTION XVIII: ON THE MAJESTY AND GLORY OF GOD
Thesis.
§ 300. As God is utterly perfect, so also is He the Most High, possessing supreme majesty. Like perfection, so also the essential majesty and glory of God include all the other attributes and, according to our way of thinking, stem from them. For because God is utterly simple, eternal, omnipotent, omnisapient, therefore He is also understood to be supremely perfect and possessing supreme majesty. Therefore when we recognize God the way He is and the way He has revealed Himself in the Word—that is, as the supreme being, uncreated, utterly simple, infinite, etc.—then we recognize His majesty and glory, which, of course, are nothing else but the essence of God and His essential properties. Thus when Moses asks to see the very essence of God within an external, created image, he is asking to see the glory of God (Exod. 33:18). However, God responds: “You cannot see My face,” that is, My bare essence within an external, visible symbol. Therefore the majesty and glory of God is the face of God, that is, God Himself and His very essence.
§ 301. Scripture proclaims the majesty and glory of God: (1) Essentially, when it calls God “great,” “the Most High,” “glorious,” etc. Acts 7:2: “The God of glory.” (2) Effectively, when it asserts “the whole earth is full of the glory of God” (Isa. 6:3) and sets forth for our consideration the glorious and wonderful works of God. (3) Exhortatively, when it bids us to glorify, praise, extol, and magnify God.
Thalassius, to Paulinus the presbyter: “As God is unknown to us according to His essence, so He is immense according to His majesty.” Ambrose, Hexaëm., bk. 2, c. 3: “God is venerable in nature, inestimable in magnitude, incomprehensible in works. In God there is length through eternity, height because of majesty, width because of mercy, depth because of wisdom.” Basil, De fide, homily 15: “We concede that the magnitude of the divine nature triumphs over every faculty of speech. You see, neither the tongues of angels, regardless of how great or [how] many they are, nor even those of archangels assembled with every rational nature, can fittingly express even the smallest portion of that divinity, much less be equal to explain the entire thing.”
Antithesis.
§ 302. The majesty and glory of God are undermined: (I) Theoretically: (1) By whoever does not acknowledge Him as He has revealed Himself in His Word. (2) By whoever restricts His power, mercy, and wisdom.
(II) Practically: (1) By those who, by the wickedness of their lives, provide the adversaries with an opportunity to blaspheme the name of God (Isa. 52:5). Rom. 2:24: “Because of you, the name of God is blasphemed among the heathen.” (2) By those who conceal the glory of God with their own carnal lusts and affections. (3) By those “who love the glory of men more than the glory of God” (John 12:43), etc.
Questions on the majesty of God.
§ 303. (I) The question arises: Is the glory of God something distinct from God’s essence? “The glory of God” is taken in two ways: (1) Essentially, as it indicates the essential properties of God, the virtue, majesty, and sublimity of God. (2) Relatively, as it marks the praise and recognition of that majesty which is subjectively in rational creatures that recognize and proclaim God. Taken in the first sense, the glory of God is nothing other than God’s very essence. Taken in the second sense, it is distinguished from His essence and properly is called “glorification.” It is also in this sense that glory is understood to be given to God in time and that we are commanded to extol, increase, and spread the glory of God.
§ 304. (II) The question arises: Is truly divine and infinite glory communicated to Christ according to His human nature? The Calvinists deny this and, to prove it, misuse the words of Isa. 42:8: “I shall not give My glory to another.” From this they distinguish between purely divine glory and mediating glory, which they say is “close to divine and more sublime than the glory of all created things” (Polanus, Syst., c. 31). We shall fully prove the contrary, however, in its own place. Here we merely note the clear words of John 17:5: “Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.” Here Christ is certainly asking that He be given the sort of glory that is not inferior to divine glory but which He had according to His divine nature with His Father from eternity. If this is not truly and purely divine, then Christ is not true God.
Polanus retorts: “Mediating glory is understood as that which Christ had before the world was, in predestination.” But from what source does he prove this gloss of his? Christ declares absolutely that He had this glory, and Polanus adds “which He had in predestination.” Christ said that He had this glory “with [
] the Father,” obviously because He was from eternity “the only-begotten from [
] the Father” (John 1:14). But Polanus says: “which He had in predestination not with the Father but in the Father, that is, in the decree of the Father.” In predestination, the creation of the world and the glorification of Christ are simultaneous. But Christ asks that He be given that glory which He had “before the world was.” If we accept Polanus’s response, all the foundations are undermined that we bring out to affirm the deity of Christ from His eternity.
I add the obvious argument: In whatever sense Christ asks that He be given glory in time, in that sense He is asserting that He had that glory with the Father before the world was. The logic is that we have in both cases the same words: “Glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with [
] You.” But Christ is asking that He be given glory through a real communication. Therefore He also had that glory from eternity through a real communication. The manner of the communication varies, because according to the divine nature the Father communicated glory to Christ through eternal begetting, but according to the human nature it was communicated through the hypostatic union and His exaltation to the right hand of the Father.
Polanus responds: (1) “Christ is asking for this glory a little before His sufferings, and He finally received it after His resurrection. Therefore we cannot take it to mean the essential properties of God, which He certainly had in actuality from eternity.” We respond. What is this logical conclusion? Christ asks that He be given it in time according to His human nature. Therefore He did not have it according to His divine nature from eternity?
(2) “Many absurdities follow; for example, the essence of the Deity is also really communicated to the humanity of Christ.” Also: “Those essential properties were not communicated through the personal union.” To the former we respond that nothing absurd follows from that, but rather because of his negation, he undermines the personal union of the two natures. To the latter we respond that there is a distinction between the communication of glory and the plenary use of that communicated glory.
(3) “Christ is asking that such glory be given to Himself, not to His flesh.” We respond. Whatever things are attributed to His person befit Christ either according to both natures or only according to one of them, namely, the divine or human nature. But the giving of glory in time does not befit Christ according to His divine nature; otherwise He would not be of the same essence and glory with the Father from eternity.
(4) “Christ is asking for that glory only as the consequence of and reward for His obedience.” We respond: with regard to plenary use. Moreover, we succeed in proving firmly from this that that glory was given to Christ in time not according to the divine but only according to the human nature in which, namely, He sustained suffering and death. Polanus asserts: “Mediating glory was given to Christ both through the grace of the personal union and through His exaltation above every name.” However, Christ was Mediator before His exaltation. Surely, then, He also had that mediating grace before it. If, while that hypothesis stands, it is still correct to say that He received that glory as the reward for and consequence of His obedience, why not also believe (while the same hypothesis stands) that He received truly infinite and divine glory through the personal union?
The practical use of the doctrine of God’s majesty.
§ 305. (I) Consoling: (1) In the contempt of the world. If humans hold us in contempt, it is enough for us that God, who is our supreme glory, honors us (1 Sam. 2:30). The apostle considers this and says: “With me it is a small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court …. He who judges me is the Lord” (1 Cor. 4:3–4).
(2) In the shame of death. 1 Cor. 15:[43]: “Our body is sown in dishonor; it rises in glory.” God removes from us that shame to which our body is destined and subject—rot and worm—because of sin. Instead, He gloriously brings our bodies out of the grave and “will conform them to the glorious body of Christ” (Phil. 3:21) and “will glorify” us in eternal life (Rom. 8:30).
(II) Exhorting: (1) To glorify God (1 Chron. 16:24; Isa. 6:3). We owe all glory to God; therefore we must render it to Him alone through our glorification and thanksgiving. Whoever assumes glory for himself takes to himself that which belongs to God and commits idolatry.
(2) To suppress our arrogance. God’s glory and majesty are incomprehensible and indescribable. Therefore let us humble ourselves before Him seriously and sincerely. Gen. 18:27: “I have dared to speak with God, though I am dust and ashes.” Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 6.) comments on this passage as follows:
When he looks at God, he then says and confesses freely, “I am dust and ashes.” He did not say, “I am earth,” and fall silent, lest he appear to be calling himself that great element “earth,” but adds that he is ashes to show his worthlessness, frailty, and weakness. Is anything less significant than ashes, smaller than ashes? He took the comparison of ash to house, of house to city, of city to province, of province to the Roman Empire, of the Roman Empire to the whole earth; he took all the limits again of the earth to that surrounding heaven. The comparison of earth to heaven as like a point in a circle to its entire circumference, for so great is the comparison of heaven to earth.