Hi Bob,



Once again, thanks for getting back to me. You posted:



>>You posted:

[DW]Jesus words as recorded by the apostle John seem clear to me; the glory that God the Father gives to His Son is the same glory that the Son gives to His faithful disciples. Here is John again: John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: Conclusion: the glory that God the Father gives to the Son is the exact same glory that the Son gives to the saints; as such, God?s glory is given to the saints.

Quote:



Glory (Gr. doxa) "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation, i.e., what He essentially is and does, as exhibited in whatever way he reveals Himself in these respects, and particularly in the person of Christ, in whom essentially His "glory" has ever shone forth and ever will do, John 17:5, 24;" (Vine's Dictionary).



[BB]This is one of four definitions of glory. If we use this definition in context with John 17:22, then Joseph Smith was right: we would have the same glory as that of God; we could arrive at the Station of a God just like heavenly Father. The problem with this definition in the context of John 17:22 is that Jesus spoke in past tense on the first half of the verse and present tense in the second half: "the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one even as we are one." Are we, as Christians, by the above (Vine's) definition, already "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation"? Are we already "what He essentially is and does"? I think you'll agree that we are not. Yet, Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one.>>





Me: Excellent response Bob, I truly think we are beginning to arrive at a better understanding of the complex issues at hand. The New International Dictionary of the New Testament concurs with the definition you provided from Vine?s (although it has 6 definitions in total instead of 4). And one of my favorite NT commentators, R.C.H. Lenski (also noted for his Greek skills) is in agreement. He wrote:

QUOTE:
It is impossible to dissociate the glory the Father has given to Jesus from the glory mentioned in v.1 and 5. This is the eternal glory which the Logos had before the world was, the uncreated and essential glory of God, consisting of the sum of the divine attributes. This glory was given to Jesus in his human nature at the incarnation when the Logos assumed that nature. This glory the apostles beheld in Jesus, shining through the veil of his flesh (1:14). (The Interpretation of John, p. 1159.)

Lenski goes on to state that the same glory that was given to Jesus was then given by Jesus to ?all believers??and this is exactly what the passage in John 17:22 relates. But such a straight-forward interpretation seems to a create a problem: if believers receive the same glory from Jesus that God gave to him then why are we not already "what He essentially is and does"?



In an attempt to resolve this apparent paradox you wrote (quoting part of this again):



>>Are we, as Christians, by the above (Vine's) definition, already "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation"? Are we already "what He essentially is and does"? I think you'll agree that we are not. Yet, Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one.>>



Me: First, once again, we are clearly not already "what He essentially is and does". But then, I think you make an error with ?Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one.? This is not what the text says, rather it states, ?that they may be one, even as we are one?. I think this is a very important distinction and shall shortly attempt to demonstrate why.



You continued with:



>>Have we, as JS taught, "inherited the same glory...power...exaltation"? Have we already arrived "at the station of a God"? I think you'll agree that we have not. So this definition, which would make JS's teaching correct, does not apply. A different definition must apply. How about this definition: "of the state of blessedness into which believers are to enter hereafter through being brought into the likeness of Christ, e.g., Rom 8:18, 21; Phil 3:21." No. The "glory" in this definition is future tense, and John 17:22 is clearly not future tense. How about this one: "natural, as of the heavenly bodies, 1 Cor. 15:40, 41." No, this is a totally different subject. Then, how about this one: "of the character and ways of God as exhibited through Christ to and through believers, 2 Cor. 3:18 and 4:6." Yes, this fits. This is the correct definition and tense of "glory." But, it obviously doesn't help LDS doctrine as taught by JS.



So, your conclusion misses the mark, when you say "the glory that God the Father gives to the Son is the exact same glory that the Son gives to the saints; as such, God?s glory is given to the saints." By definition, the glory Christ gives to current believers which makes them one with God, is not at all the exact same glory that JS was talking about.>>



Me: Second, if I am reading your comments correctly, it is your belief that because of the different tenses involved, the glory which God gave to Jesus must be different than the glory which Jesus gave to His believers (i.e. a ?different definition must apply?). But this certainly seems to contradict the text itself for it emphatically states that, ?the glory which thou gavest me I have given them??Jesus does not make a distinction between the two!



Now to the paradox: if the glory which God gave to Jesus is then given to believers then why are we not already "what He essentially is and does"? I believe that the solution lies in the degree in which the same glory is given. It was given in its complete fullness to Jesus, but not so with believers. Believers will not receive the fullness of God?s glory until heaven. This concept fits very well with other Biblical texts. For instance in Rom. 8:30 we read:



Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.



All the tenses are past, and yet, though believers have been already fully justified, they have not been fully glorified. But Paul, as he does in others instances, speaks of a future event as if it has already happened.



God?s glory is one, but the process by which believers are glorified is by degrees. Paul also wrote:



2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.



The ?now yet future? motif is all over the NT, and applies to many aspects of the believer?s life, including glorification.



Anyway, I fear this post may be getting a bit too long; I sincerely hope that I have cogently conveyed my thoughts to you, and would like to end this post by saying that I am of the opinion that our dialogue has not only been stimulating, but more importantly, productive.



Grace and peace,



David