That link provides you with the full volume of Jonathan Edward’s Works. The section I am referring to is “Dissertation on the End for Which God created the World” –about 80 pages.

Michael,
I have just read today a 1765 work by Jonathan Edwards who promulgated this idea about the purpose of creation being for the glory of God. Worth reading. This work has permeated into philosophical theology since then. Still just as problematic as before even with the passing of time. Can be downloaded from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.pdf if you are registered.
Typical of eighteenth century thinking.
But your reasoning is closer the truth. The explanation of the reason for creation is to be found in the quality of the fellowship within the Trinity, and why that led God to extend their circle to created intelligences with an ability to appreciate love as freewill agents, as They are, which in turn inspires love to others.
Only seeing God face to face can help us to appreciate the dynamics of this intense experience and can understand why he wanted us to taste what has been His experience since all eternity past.
I think Jonathan Edwards has a valid point, and your ideas can be incorporated into his theory, but the way he reduces the purpose of creation to “Glorifying God/His Name” does nothing for our existential drives for valuable meaning in life.
There are better ways to express it. When we see God face to face we will be able to appreciate the argument that the purpose of creation was to glorify His name, but until we understand much better who the Father really is, and look into his eyes, and see the love he has for each of us individually, this reason must leave us with numb brains.

Michael,

BTW, I have a question for you. When do you think God is most glorified? And what is your definition of glorifying God?

I totally agree with you. Everything God created glorifies Him. But what makes us human beings different from say a dog or a tree is HIS special love relationship with us. If I was told that my meaning in life is for the sole purpose of glorifying and serving HIM, then I would tend to feel like my Filipino maid at home. Think what’s wrong with that definition is that the love part of the equation is missing.

I also use the same parent-child analogy that you used to illustrate to others about the point. Think a lot of the things in life that God done start to make sense when you think of HIS motivation from a parent’s perspective.

If I picked up the Bible and read through the First Testament I would be struck by God’s patience.

The Israelites would not have survived if I had been God.

I appreciate your blog on this subject. Having been to a church where the “chief purpose was to glorify God”, I felt that there was this constant drive to somehow please God or gain his favor.

A great friend of mine asked me the same question – what is man’s chief purpose? I threw out “to glorify God” to bait him and he answered in a way that I found liberating:

“our chief purpose is to love God”

This is embodied in the greatest commandment that God expects from us – to love Him. Love implies relationship – glorification does not.

Everyone, whether believer or not, “will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glorify of God the Father.”

Dear Mr Patton – I recently read Revelation 4.8-10 for the first time in quite
sometime. For days I’ve been disturbed by the image that suddenly overtook
me; that of God sitting egotistically on His throne as the four creatures
and twenty-four elders bowed and threw down their crowns worshiping day
and night without rest forever and ever. I have never considered my Lord
and Savior as a possible self-centered egotistical God until that moment. I’ve
talked with a few people about it, but none were able to give an explanation
that satisfied.
When I came across this website and began reading your reasons for not
subscribing to the “egotistical God” school of thought, I found for the most
part an element of consolation. But when you finally quoted scripture to
substantiate your theology my heart lept within me and I was instantly
comforted by the treasures He has given through His word.
Thank you, for taking the time to share and encourage.

Ouch!

Mr. Patton states that someone handed a Bible for the first time would, upon reading it, , most likley “be overwhelmed by the generosity and mercy of God.”

If he truly believes that a person unfamiliar with Christianity would read the Old Testament and be struck by God’s mercy and generosity…that simply illustrates his inability to distance himself from faith born presumptions.

I disagree with you conclusions. As the previous comment states, to give any other reason for creation would subtilly remove God from the center of all things and place man there. But even more to the point, the Bible tells us that God’s desire is for the whole earth to be filled with His glory.

Numbers 14:21 But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

Psalms 72:19 And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.

Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

That may not be the stated purpose of creation but it comes pretty close to it.

As to God being an egotist, I would submit that God is the only One worthy of being glorified. When God states He is holy, or sinless, or all powerful, He is not being arrogant but truthful. And when God places the understanding of why He demonstrates His kindness, His mercy, or His generousity into our hearts, and we understand it is so that we will see His worthiness and proclaim His glory, He is not being arrogant, just revealing the truth. He alone is worthy.

1 Peter 5:11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Lastly, to suggest that God created us so that He would have someone to show generousity or love toward (your last two thoughts), is to “deny His aseity” (a new term to me but an interesting one.)