To what end salvation?

I return my reader to one of the key questions of this book: What is the goal of salvation? For too long, scholars and laymen alike have myopically viewed justification and salvation as ends in themselves, whether for the benefit of the individual or of the incorporative body of Christ. The goal of salvation is believers’ conformity to the Son of God—their participation in his rule over creation as God’s eschatological family and as renewed humanity—but only and always with the purpose of extending God’s hand of mercy, love, and care to his wider creation. This was humanity’s job in the beginning; it will be believers’ responsibility and honor in the future; it is God’s purpose in calling his people in the present.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 266

<idle musing>
Indeed! We underestimate the purposes of God and are unaware of his ability to bring it about.

That's the final paragraph of the book. I hope you enjoyed the brief snippets I posted; they really don't do the book justice. It is definitely worth the time invested in reading it. But, be aware that it is loaded with untranslated Greek—both LXX and NT—so if your Greek is rusty/nonexistent, you will miss some of the nuances. But, it is still worth the time invested.
</idle musing>

Participation in Christ

God’s children will receive this glory in full when their own redemption and adoption is complete, but they also are currently glorified, even if in part. This is the reason believers are predestined, called, and justified: that, as God’s eschatological family, his children might be used by God to bring redemption to the world around them, in part by action and in part by prayer (Rom 8:26–27). This participation is the now of believers’ glorification, the present purpose for which they were called (Rom 8:28, 30). Believers are not yet glorified entirely or completely, but they nonetheless participate in the Son's glory in the present as those whose new identity is established in the Messiah, the Son of God.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 250 (emphasis original)

Participation in Christ

God’s children are tasked with the role of participating in God’s restoration process in creation through the practice of prayer. In this way they participate with the Son's rule over creation as those whose new identity is in Christ. Just as the Son intercedes on behalf of the saints in his glory in Romans 8:34, so also the saints demonstrate their sonship, and thus their participation in the Sons glory, in the present. And they do so not in domination but in a Christ—modeled dominion (e.g., Phil 2:6–11) that leads to redemption. But because of their weakness, they can only fulfill this role with the help and intercession of the Spirit.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 245

For whom do we groan?

I propose that nothing in the text warrants reading τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν [We don’t know what we should pray] in Romans 8:26 as a reference to the prayers believers should make only on their own behalf. Instead, what believers ought to pray for in Romans 8:26 and what the Spirit intercedes for in Romans 8:27 is not only for the believers’ own good but is also for the good of the creation, which currently groans, hence Paul’s transition from creation to believers in Romans 8:22–23.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 244 (emphasis original)

Coworkers!

I suggest that, though God’s children have not yet fully received their adoption as sons and thus are not yet in full possession of the inheritance, they are nevertheless called with the purpose of cooperating with God to bring restoration to his creation in the present. Discussions regarding humanity’s responsibility toward the nonhuman creation are increasingly popular, particularly within discussions surrounding the intersection of ecological concerns and theology. Byrne even goes so far as to suggest that “the future of the world (salvation) does to some extent lie in human hands.” He continues by stating, “Hope for the future in this sense takes human action into account. It remains hope in God but it is also hope in the prevailing power of God’s grace working through, not around or above human cooperation.”—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 242 (emphasis original in/quotation)

He shall glorify…

OK, I've been listening to Handel's Messiah, what can I say! Anyway, here's today's excerpt from Conformed to the Image of His Son:

Glorification, according to my working definition, occurs in two stages. On the basis of believers’ union with Christ, glorification is a present reality, at least in part. They are free from the powers of sin and death and have received the Holy Spirit, the firstfruits of their adoption. When believers’ bodies are resurrected to share in the glory of Christ, as in Philippians 3:21, then they will do so fully.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 237

But what does the text say?

Contrary to Schreiner, Witherington, Moo, and others who maintain this guaranteed future reality, there is no indication within the context of Romans 8:30 that Paul writes from this future standpoint. Assurance alone is not a strong rationale for assuming Paul is writing about believers’ guarantee of glorification from a future perspective. I suggest that scholars take this view because their presupposed definition of δόξα [doxa] requires it: God’s people have clearly not yet been brought fully into the divine glory; therefore, the only explanation of the aorist is that, because it is so assured in the future, it can be spoken of as if it were a reality already in the present. This anticipatory interpretation, however, is unsupported.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 236

The goal

My emphasis here is on the ultimate goal of the calling, which Paul makes clear is not believers’ justification, contrary to much of Protestant post-Reformation theology. The goal is a redeemed people through whom God brings redemption to the rest of the cosmos. The embedded structure of Romans 8:28–30 makes this clear.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 230–31 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
A helpful reminder, isn't it? Post-Reformation theology gets hung up on the penultimate goal, forgetting what the reason for salvation is in the first place. God's ultimate goal hasn't changed: He gave humanity the imago Dei to be his stewards on earth; the method has changed because of sin and rebellion, but the goal remains the same.
</idle musing>

But we see Jesus…

In short, what I have argued here in Romans 8:29-30 is that Paul sees that those conformed to the image of the Son are those who, though once participants in the Adamic submission to the powers of sin and death, now participate in the reign of the new Adam over creation. Mankind’s position on earth as God’s vicegerents to his creation is now restored, though now through the image of the Son of God, who reigns as God’s preeminent vicegerent. The depiction of humanity being crowned with glory and honor and established with dominion over creation in Psalm 8 is now again a reality, through both the Firstborn Son of God and those who participate in his exalted status, that is, his glory. Byrne notes that this is the “full arrival at the goal of God’s intent for human beings” in Romans 8:29. Those conformed to the image of God’s Son participate in the Firstborn Son’s sovereign position over creation as adopted members of God’s eschatological family and, as such, as a reglorified humanity.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 226–27

What do you do with that εἰκόν [eikon] in Romans 8:29

How then should one understand Paul’s use of εἰκόν [eikon] in Romans 8:29? It should be noted first that, as Philip Hughes rightly suggests, τῆς εἰκόνος [tes eikonos] and τοῦ υἱοῦ [tou huiou] in Romans 8:29 should be taken as mutually explicative, so that the verse reads “be conformed to the image (that is) [God’s] Son” (see 1 Cor 15:49). The image is neither external to the Son nor an attribute of the Son that can theoretically be removed or replaced; the image is the Son himself, the perfect representation of Sonship.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 193

<idle musing>
For those of you paying close attention, you'll see over a hundred page jump here from the last one. That's because she has been laying a lot of foundational and literature review work (it's a revised dissertation after all!) that, while important to the study, doesn't lend itself very well to extracting a paragraph here and there. I recommend you look at the book if you are really interested. A word of warning though: If you aren't quite proficient in Greek, you will have a terrible time of it! She quotes large sections of the LXX without translating it.
</idle musing>

Genesis—yes, but which part?

The point of Romans 1:23 is not the fall into sin of the primal pair from Genesis 3, particularly through idolatry, which thus affected either Gentiles specifically or humanity more generally, but humanity’s (אדם ['adam]) “exchange of the glory of the immortal God” in terms of its failure to fulfill its created purpose or identity as creatures made in the image of God, having dominion over creation as vicegerents of the Creator God—hence Paul’s obvious allusion to Genesis 1:26–28 and not Genesis 3:6. Dane Ortlund rightly argues that Paul’s reference here is not to God’s own glory, which then implies an “exchange of worship,” but that “it is probably human glory (the divine image) that is in view.” Humanity’s rejection of its created purpose throughout history took the form of idolatry—a form found in both Gentile and Jewish history—and resulted in a humanity that existed in their actions and desires as shadows of their created selves (Rom 1:24-32). Though the fall narrative of Genesis 2–3 is not implicit in Romans 1:23, Genesis 1:26-28 certainly is. Moreover, though the name “Adam” is not mentioned in Romans 1, the created purpose or identity of corporate humanity (“adam”; אדם) in Genesis 1:26-28 is undoubtedly of central importance in Romans 1:23.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 93–94

<idle musing>
Interesting idea, which I really like and think is probably correct. I don't follow Romans' scholarship very closely, so I don't know how common this view is, but let's let her run with it. It ties in nicely with Second Isaiah's idea of a recommissioned humanity via the Servant.
</idle musing>

Unfortunate reversal

Behind the line of argument here [Rom 1:23] would seem to be the biblical tradition, stemming from Gen 1:26–28, where human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, are given dominion over the rest of creation (fish, birds, animals, reptiles), a motif given more poetic expression in Psalm 8 (esp. vv 5–8). Idolatry represents the summit of “futility” (v 21) in that it has human beings submitting themselves in worship to the creatures over which they were meant to rule. This perverts the whole raison-d'étre of the non—human created world, subjecting it to “futility” (8:30).—Brendan Byrne, Romans, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 38; quoted in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 93

How does the LXX use δοξάζω?

Two points of significance are notable here. First, in each of the examples for δοξάζω above [Daniel, Esther, 1 maccabees, Isaiah, and Sirach], the aorist active idicative third-person singular form is used—the same form used 1n Romans 8:30 for God's glorification of humanity. Second, in nearly every instance of humanity's glorification in the LXX (the exceptions being Ex 34:29-30, 35; Sir 50:15), δοξάζω refers primarily to a status or position of honor, authority, being radiant or brought into the presence of God.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 50

<idle musing>
Remember that! It will be important later in the book.
</idle musing>

It's tautological

Put another way, according to the presentation of the identity of God by the translators of the LXX, the identity of God is irreducible to his presence. God is presented as a God who reigns because he is omnipotent and, as an omnipotent God who ranks above all idols and other gods, he therefore reigns as king.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 45–46

'Tis metaphorical, you see

All God-talk, all theology, even ours, is metaphorical, describing God in terms that properly belong to the human sphere. It cannot be otherwise, as human words, like human thought, belong this side of creation, and cannot begin to describe its other side, God as he is in his own interior life. Such knowledge as we have of God is not of God as he is, but as he shows himself towards human beings.… When we say that God saves, redeems, pities us, is our Father, our shepherd, our King, we are using metaphors or images drawn from human life and experience. In other words, we are using anthropomorphisms, ascribing to God human actions and human feelings.—J. C. L. Gibson, Language and Imagery in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 22; cited in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 28

<idle musing>
Starting a new book today, Conformed to the Image of His Son. I picked it up at AAR/SBL a few years ago, and it languished on my bookshelf until recently.

Today's snippet might seem to contradict the previous post from Tozer about God being near, but not really. We use anthropomorphisms, but they accurately reflect God to a degree. The danger is to forget they are metaphorical, trying to describe what is beyond human comprehension.
</idle musing>