Num. 14:22; Ps. 97:2–6; Isa. 35:2; 40:5; Exod. 33:18 – 34:7.
A. M. Ramsey, Glory of God, p.28.
For the transfiguration glory see Luke 9:32 and 2 Pet. 1:16; for the glory at the Parousia see Mark 13:26, and for the glory of the final kingdom see Mark 10:37; Matt. 25:31.
John 2:11; 11:4, 40.
F. Donald Coggan, Glory of God, p.52.
John does not use the verb ‘crucified’ until chapter 19, where it occurs ten times. Before this he three times uses the term ‘lifted up’, with its deliberate double entendre (3:14; 8:28; 12:32).
Luke 24:26. Cf. 1 Pet. 4:13; 5:1, 10 and Rom. 8:17–18.
I write ‘also’ because clearly John thinks of Christ being glorified in other ways too, e.g. by the work of the Spirit (16:14), in the church (17:10) and in heaven (17:5, 24).
John 12:20–28; 13:30–32; 17:1.
John 1:29; 10:11; 11:49–52 and 18:14.
Exod. 34:6; John 1:14, 17.
Calvin’s St John, p.68 (on John 13:31) and p.135 (on John 17:1).
Acts 17:30–31; Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:3–9.
Heb. 10:4 and 9:15.
E.g. Pss. 71:15; 98:2; Isa. 45:21 (‘a righteous God and a Saviour’); 46:13; 51:5–6; 56:1. See, for example, C. H. Dodd in Romans, pp.10–13.
Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?, I. xiii, and James Denney, Death of Christ, p.188.
P. T. Forsyth, Justification of God, pp.124–125. Barth also wrote that the justification of man is the self-justification of God (Church Dogmatics, V.1, pp.559–564).
P. T. Forsyth, Justification, p.154.
Jürgen Moltmann, Crucified God, p.72.
Abelard’s Commentary on Romans 3:19–26, in A Scholastic Miscellany, ed. Eugene Fairweather, p.283.
Ibid., p.284. Cf. James Orr, Progress of Dogma, pp.229–230.
Robert S. Franks, Work of Christ, p.146. After writing these paragraphs my attention has been drawn to a penetrating article by Dr Alister McGrath, entitled ‘The Moral Theory of the Atonement: An Historical and Theological Critique’. He maintains that to call the ‘moral influence’ theory ‘Abelardian’ is mistaken; that the mistake arose from regarding ‘a single, small portion of Abelard’s Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos as representative of his teaching as a whole’ (p.208); and that the imitation of Christ he emphasized was not the means, but rather the result, of our redemption. Nevertheless, the passage in his commentary on the Letter to the Romans is quite explicit, so that I do not see how one can fairly eliminate this element from Abelard’s view. At all events, the leaders of the German Enlightenment certainly taught the ‘moral influence’ theory as Dr McGrath shows. So did Hastings Rashdall, to whom I come soon.
Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences, iii, Dist. xix.1 (quoted by Rashdall, pp.371, 438).
James Orr, Progress of Dogma, p.229.
E.g. Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25; 1 John 3:16.
James Denney, Death of Christ, p.158.
G. C. Berkouwer, Work of Christ, pp.277–278.
H. W. Robinson, Suffering Human and Divine.
Douglas White, ‘Nature of Punishment’, pp.6–9.
Kenneth E. Bailey, Cross and the Prodigal, p.56.
T. J. Crawford, Doctrine of Holy Scripture, p.335.
