blackwell b.c.- immortal glory and the problem of death in romans 3,23 (jsnt 2010)

7/28/2019 Blackwell B.C.- Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3,23 (JSNT 2010)

1/25

http://jnt.sagepub.com/

TestamentJournal for the Study of the New

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X09357674

2010 32: 285Journal for the Study of the New TestamentBen C. Blackwell

Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3.23

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the New TestamentAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285.refs.htmlCitations:

by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285.refs.htmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285.refs.htmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285http://jnt.sagepub.com/


2/25

JSNT32.3 (2010): 285-308 The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://JSNT.sagepub.com

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X09357674

Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3.231

Ben C. Blackwell

Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, Abbey House, Palace Green,

Durham, DH1 3RS, UK

[email protected]

AbstractPaul enigmatically describes humanitys universal sinfulness in Rom. 3.23 as a lack

of the glory of God. Interpreters have tried to situate the lack of this glory in various

contexts: ancient honour discourse, ancient Jewish Adam traditions, and Pauls ethi-

cal discourse. To interpret this passage, this article utilizes the literary context of glory

language throughout the letter. From this we find that glory denotes not only elevated

honour, but also incorruption. Thus, the lack of glory in 3.23 refers to mortality and

shame as the result of sin. In addition, this study of glory has implications for the bur-geoning interest into the question of theosis with regard to Pauline theology.

KeywordsDeath, deification, glory, honour, incorruption, resurrection

1. Introduction

As the initial elucidation of Pauls soteriology in Romans, Rom. 3.21-26

rightfully captures much attention. Within this passage Paul reaffirmshumanitys universal sinfulness in Rom. 3.23 and describes its prob-

lem as a lack of the glory of God (h9 do&catou= qeou=). Various attemptshave been made to determine the referent of this enigmatic phrase, but a

lack of consensus remains. At the same time, commentators also debate

whether the verb u9stere/w should be read as lack or fall short of.Noting the variety of interpretations offered for the verse, Leon Morris

concludes that commentators tend to read their own meaning into the

passage (1988: 177 n. 111). While the situation is not as dire as Morris

claims, scholars are divided about how to understand the different

1. I would like to thank Professor John Barclay, Kevin Hill and Mark Mathews

for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


3/25

286 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

aspects of the verse. Since the meaning ofu9stere/w is highly dependentupon what the glory of God means, we will focus primarily on glory.2

In the search for the referent of this glory, interpreters must decidewhat the proper context for understanding this language is. Some see

the socio-cultural context as most informative for understanding Pauls

language, particularly because do&ca plays such a central role in the hon-our discourse of ancient Mediterranean cultures (e.g., Jewett 2007: 280).

However, others emphasize the theological context of do&ca in Jewishtraditions in such a way that glory relates to a luminous state of being

(e.g., Cranfield 1975: 260). I categorize these two options as sociologi-

cal and ontological readings, respectively.3 In contrast to those who

focus upon larger social and theological contexts, a third group focuses

upon the immediate context within the verse, particularly the use of ethi-

cal terms relating to sin (a9marta&nw) and righteousness (dikaio&w) (e.g.,Dodd 1932: 50-51). Which, then, of these three contexts best informs

our understanding of Pauls language? Or, is there a context yet to be

fully explored? After exploring these different contexts, this article will

argue that these contexts are informative but not quite determinative.

As a result, I will then investigate the literary context of the letter as a

whole to see how this might clarify our understanding of what it meansto lack the glory of God. To conclude I will analyse the implications of

this reading for the interpretation of 3.23 and related topics.

2. Prior Interpretations

2.1 Glory as Social Status

In classical Greekdo&ca had the meaning of opinion or reputation, andin Koine Greek it eventually shifted towards a good reputation or hon-

our (LSJ, 444), which clearly situates it in ancient honour discourse. In

its verbal form, to glorify (doca&zw) signified the process of granting orascribing honour, and this usage was also common in ancient Jewish tra-

ditions (e.g., Exod. 15.2 lxx;Pss. Sol. 10.7). Accordingly, as a primary

term in ancient contexts of honour discourse, do&ca is a fundamentally

2. I translate u9stere/w as lack throughout this article, though my primary conclu-sions are not dependent on this reading.

3. The use of sociological is self-evident because of its use in honour discourse.

By ontological I am referring to a state of being, which for those advocating this

reading is characterized primarily by luminosity. Based on Wayne Meekss (2003:

187-89) taxonomy, others have described these as sociomorphic and physiomor-

phic, respectively.



4/25

Blackwell Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 287

relational term. The emphasis may be upon the divinehuman relation-

ship (vertical) or humanhuman relationships (horizontal). Including

both horizontal and vertical emphases, Robert Jewett stands at the fore-front of those who emphasize the role glory plays within the honour

discourse in Romans.4 Seeing a connection between Rom. 1.18-32 and

3.23, Jewett notes in both passages the refusal to grant honour to God

(vertical), but he then focuses on how lacking honour has an equalizing

effect socially (horizontal). Accordingly, he writes:

Pauls claim is that allfall short of the transcendent standard of honor ...

If all persons and groups including believers in Rome had been equally

involved in sin and thereby had fallen short of the ultimate standard ofhonor that they were intended to bear, that is, the glory of God, then

none has the right to claim superiority or to place other groups in posi-

tions of inferiority (Jewett 2007: 280, emphasis original).

This helpfully explains the function that this discourse plays and that

other interpretations have left unexplored.

Jewett is not alone in viewing this phrase as one relating to honour,

but others have focused solely upon the vertical aspect. Carey Newman

(1992: 225), for instance, argues for a sociomorphic reading of Rom.3.23, maintaining that falling short of the glory of God reflects the pre-

vious exchange of the glory of God in 1.21. As such, the two verses are

synonymous for a ruptured relationship with God (cf. Schreiner 1998:

187). In this manner, he interprets tou= qeou= as an objective genitiveglory given to God.5 Within the context of Rom. 1 and other doxological

statements in the letter, this reading has merit, but other occurrences of

glory in the letter are not doxological. In fact, we find several uses in

distinctly ontological contexts where Paul uses it to describe human anddivine states of being, and these passages serve as the basis of the next

group of interpretations.

2.2 Glory as Participation in Gods Radiance

With its association with dwbk by means of the lxx tradition and otherancient Jewish writings, do&ca comes to represent Gods radiant divine

4. See also Moxnes 1988: 61-77 for a partial discussion of Pauls glory language

with regard to his honour discourse.

5. Calvin (2003: 141 cf. n.1), on the other hand, reads this as subjective genitive,

speaking of approbation received from God.



5/25


presence (e.g., Exod. 16.7; Isa. 60.1-2; Ezek. 1.28).6 Through thier rela-

tionship with God, both angels (e.g., Dan. 10.5-6) and humans (e.g., Exod.

34.29-35; Dan. 12.3) are also attributed this divine radiance, though do&calanguage itself may not be used.7 Seeing the lxx and other ancient Jewish

traditions as determinative for Pauls language, the majority of commenta-

tors understand glory in 3.23 as relating to conceptions of divine radiance

or brightness.8 Charles Cranfield exemplifies this view when he writes:

By the do&ca tou= qeou= is meant here that illumination of mans wholebeing by the radiance of the divine glory which is mans true destiny but

which was lost through sin, as it will be restored ... when mans redemp-

tion is finally consummated at the parousia of Jesus Christ (1975: 260).

In this same line of thought, others also associate this loss of divine

illumination with Adams loss of radiant splendour through the Fall.9

Many texts are cited as related to this tradition,10 but the texts that directly

mention Adam and his loss of glory are these: GreekLife of Adam and

Eve 20-21; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Gen. 2.25; 3.7; 3Baruch (Greek)

4.16; Genesis Rabbah 12.6; andApocalypse of Sedrach 6.5.11

GLAE20.1-2: [Eve speaking] At that very moment my eyes were openedand I knew I was naked of the righteousness [glory in Armenian] with

which I had been clothed. And I wept saying [to the Tempter], Why

have you done this to me, that I have been estranged from my glory with

which I was clothed?12

GLAE21.6: And he [Adam] said to me [Eve], O evil woman! Why

have you wrought destruction among us? You have estranged me from

the glory of God.

6. In addition to the standard theological dictionaries, Newman (1992: 15-153)

provides a good analysis of glory language in the Jewish context. Based on this, he

concludes that in the Old Testament glory is a technical term to refer to Gods visible,

mobile divine presence (Newman 1992: 190). See also Harrison forthcoming: 6.4.

7. Related terminology includes fai/nw (to shine), fwsth&r (star, splendour),a!stron (star), etc.

8. Cf. Isa. 35.2; 43.7.

9. See Pate 1991: 33-76 for a discussion of key texts.

10. The following texts have also been mentioned but, in my opinion, offer lit-tle or no relevant evidence: Sib. Or. 3.282-83; 4QpPsa 3.1-2 [on Ps. 37.19-20]; and

LatinLife of Adam and Eve (LLAE) 12.1.

11. Following John Levison (2004: 519-34), I refer to the previously named

Apocalypse of Moses as the GreekLife of Adam and Eve (GLAE).

12. The Armenian version of 20.1 substitutes glory for righteousness, when

describing what has been lost. See Anderson and Stone 1994.



6/25


Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 2.25: And the two of them were wise, Adam and his

wife; but they did not remain in their glory.13

Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 3.7: Then the eyes of both of them were enlightened

and they knew that they were naked, because they had been stripped

of the clothing of beauty in which they had been created, and they saw

their shame, so they sewed for themselves leaves from fig and made for

themselves girdles.

3Bar. (Greek) 4.16: Then know, Baruch, that just as Adam through this

tree was condemned and stripped of the glory of God, thus those now

who insatiably drink the wine deriving from it transgress worse than

Adam, and become distant from the glory of God, and will secure forthemselves eternal fire.

Gen. Rab. 12.6 on 2.4: He [Adam] passed the night in his glory, but at

the termination of the Sabbath He deprived him of his splendour and

expelled him from the Garden of Eden ... Though these things [his lustre,

his life, his height, the fruit of the earth, the fruit of trees, and the lights]

were created in their fulness, yet when Adam sinned they were spoiled,

and they will not again return to their perfection until the son of Perez

[i.e., Messiah] comes.

Apoc. Sedr. 6.5: [God speaking about how Adam wasted his gifts] The

father then, seeing that the son has forsaken him (and gone away), dark-

ens his heart and going away, he retrieves his wealth and banishes his son

from his glory because he forsook his father.

The narrative progression from sin to the loss of glory in Rom. 3.23

appears to parallel these texts where Adams sin leads to a loss of glory.

However, none of these works pre-date Paul. The GLAEmay be the

earliest, with a possible date from the first century,14 but the texts range

in possible dates from the first to the sixth centuries. Scholars argue that

though these texts are later, they reflect earlier traditions upon which

Paul would draw (e.g., Dunn 1988: I, 178). On the other hand, some

never mention the difficulties of the time difference (e.g., Cranfield

1975: 204-205).

In addition to these texts that explicitly mention Adams fall from

glory, other texts associate Adam with glory in other contexts. Some

13. The other Targumim speak of nakedness and shame like the mt rather than

wisdom and glory.

14. Levison (2004: 522) argues that the GLAEprobably dates from between the

late first century ce to the third century ce, but it is important to note that both de

Jonge (2003) and Davila (2005) have argued for Christian influence in this work.



7/25


refer to Adam with regard to his (created) gloryPs. 8.4-6;15 Sir. 49.16;

4Q504 frag. 8; 2 En. 30.10-18;Hist. Rech. 20.4;16 Gen. Rab. 20.12;Lev.

Rab. 20.2;Eccl. Rab. 8.1-2.17 Other texts mention Adams fall withoutmention of his glory but then discuss the issue of eschatological glory for

the righteous: 4Ezra 7.116-31; 2 Bar. 15.119.8; 54.13-21. In contrast

to 4 Ezra and 2Baruch that do not include Adam among the eschato-

logical righteous (Levison 1988: 122-27),18 three documents preserved

in the Qumran caves mention all the glory of Adam (Md) dwbk lwk)in the context of an eschatological reward of glory: 1QS 4.22-23 (cf.

1QS 4.6-8);19 CD 3.19-20;1QHa 4.14-15 [17.14-15].20 At the same time,

a glorious Adam observes the eternal destinies of his descendants in

T. Ab. 11.8-9. From these many texts, we can easily affirm that Adam

was associated with glory in a variety of ancient Jewish texts and that

in some traditions his sin is associated with a loss of glory, which easily

parallels Pauls argument in Rom. 3.23.

Several factors make some interpreters hesitant to associate directly

the lack of glory in Rom. 3.23 with Adam. While these later tradi-

tions show that Adam is associated with glory in various contexts,

the human experience of glory is not limited to Adam contexts.21 For

15. The mt reads #wn) andMd)-Nb, whereas the lxx tradition reads a!nqrwpoj andui9o\j a)nqrw&pou for man and son of man (Ps. 8.6 lxx).

16. According to James Charlesworth (1985: 444), chs. 1923 of the History of

the Rechabites are thought to be a later Christian addition.

17. b. B. Bat. 58a provides a parallel discussion of Adams glowing heels.

18. Levison argues that Adam has no role in the eschaton; any primeval splendor

which persists belongs to the righteous. It is questionable whether the author even

considers Adam to be one of the righteous (1988: 127).

19. This reference occurs in the Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3.134.26), whichis understood by some to be a tradition collected and copied at the site but not a

Qumran document (Lange 1995: 127-28). As such, it probably represents wider

traditions incorporated into the Qumran community.

20. Cf. 4QpPsa (4Q171) 3.1-2, where the writer uses all the inheritance of Adam

(Md) tlxn lwk) to describe salvation. For associations between Adam and glory in the

DSS, see Fletcher-Louis 2002: 91-98.

21. In addition to the traditions, some scholars postulate that we can see an

implicit association with Adam in Rom. 3.23 because of the conjunction of image

(ei0kw&n) and glory in Pauls letters (Rom. 8.28-30; 1 Cor. 11.1-12; 15.40-49; 2 Cor.

3.18) (e.g., Jervell 1960: 174, 325-30). Byrne (1996: 125) also notes the relation-ship between glory and image and likeness in Gen. 1.26-28 and Ps. 8.6 lxx. Adam

only explicitly appears in two of these four Pauline passages (1 Cor. 11.1-7; 15.40-49),

whereas Christ is the model for glory in three of these (Rom. 8.28-30; 1 Cor. 15.40-

49; 2 Cor. 3.18). Since neither Adam norei0kw&n are explicitly mentioned in this text,reading Adam through an implied ei0kw&n here is possible but speculative.



8/25


example, Moses (Exod. 34; 2 Cor. 3) and Noah (1 En. 106) are asso-

ciated with glory. Several texts mention future glory or radiance for

the righteous, but have no mention of Adam: Dan. 12.1-3; 1 En. 50.1;62.13-16;22 104.1-6; 108.11-15; 1QHa 15.22-25; 1QS 4.6-8; Mt. 13.43;

T. Benj. 10.6-8; 4 Ezra 7.38-42, 75-101 (esp. 95-98); 8.51-54; 9.31-

37; 2 Bar. 48.4951.12; 54.14-22; and possibly Wis. 3.4-8 and T. Mos.

10.9.23 In addition, angels (e.g., 2 Bar. 51.10-12) and the devil (LLAE

12.1) are described as having glory. Noting the lack of explicit evidence

in Paul, Newman writes: Paul never connects Adam and glory and, for

that matter, neither does Genesis 1 (1992: 226 n. 30).

In spite of Newmans caution, the similarity of 3.23 and the Adam

tradition with regard to sin and a fall from glory is striking. Other con-

textual clues support seeing Adam in the background here, but this will

become clear later. While the focus of this discussion is upon Adam

and his experience of glory, we should remember that Paul qualifies

this glory with a genitive phrasetou= qeou=. If Adams experience is inthe background here, it is notAdams glory that humans lack, but rather

Gods glory. Accordingly, the future experience of glory is not a return

to Adams glory but a participation in Gods glory through Christ (8.17-

30) (cf. Harrison forthcoming: 6.4.3).

2.3 Glory as Ethical Likeness to God

While notions of Adamic and divine splendour drawn from Jewish tra-

ditions gather the most attention, others emphasize the role of sin and

the loss of righteousness within the immediate context of the verse. For

example, C.H. Dodd writes:

The latter clause [come short of the glory of God] may be taken as adefinition of sin ... The glory of God is the divine likeness which man is

intended to bear. In so far as man departs from the likeness of God he is

sinful. To come short of the glory of God is to sin (1932: 50-51; cf. Moo

1996: 226).

Accordingly, humans do not lose the experience of divine splendour

through sin, but rather an ethical likeness to God. In fact, Helmut Kittel

22. However, Pate (1991: 48) notes a possible allusion to Adam in 1En. 62.13-16

with the term garments.

23. On the eschatological experience of glory by the righteous, see Nickelsburg

2006: 45, 81, 109, 152, 183-84, 194. Despite the regular mention of glory in escha-

tological texts, Nickelsburg does not provide a developed discussion of it.



9/25


describes glory as a spiritual-ethical concept (1934: 192). Not all who

take this reading remove Adam from the picture. Peter Stuhlmacher, for

instance, associates 3.23 with the Fall in Gen. 3 and describes it as aloss of (or also divestment of) the glorious manner of being as the crea-

tion of God in innocence and righteousness (1994: 58). The strength

of these readings is that they allow the immediate context to shape the

interpretation, but they do not give adequate weight to the larger con-

texts in which this language fits, as we will see.

2.4 Summary

We see from the variety of interpretationsrelational status, divinesplendour, and ethical likenessthat this terse phrase offers little herme-

neutical control in itself. Interpreters use different types of evidence to

determine their readings: thematic correlations, immediate context, and

social backgrounds, among others. But, which is determinative for our

understanding? Perhaps A.M. Ramseys use ofAlice through the Looking

Glass by Lewis Carroll to note the ambiguity of glory is appropriate:

[Humpty Dumpty to Alice] Theres glory for you. I dont know what

you mean by glory, Alice said. I meant Theres a nice knock-downargument for you. But glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argu-

ment, Alice objected. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a

rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither

more nor less (1967: 4).

We, like Alice, are left wondering what Paul meant with his use of glory,

and the evidence offered by other interpreters is helpful but not conclu-

sive. How can we evaluate these different forms of evidence? Paul, like

Humpty Dumpty, is willing to answer our question if only we ask him.His reply is that we should look at his use of glory language throughout

the letter, and it will become clear. Accordingly, to understand the refer-

ent of the glory of God and what it means to lack this glory, I will now

analyse Pauls use ofdo&ca language throughout the letter.

3. Glory in Romans

With 22 occurrences throughout the letter, the role of glory has receivedless attention than one might expect.24 J.D.G. Dunn (1988: II, 533-34)

24. In fact, Cranfields suggestion (cf. Newman 1992: ix) that work be done has

been neglected until the last couple of years.



10/25


describes glory as a leitmotif of the letter, but the commentary format

did not allow him to explore its depth. Several works discuss glory in

Pauls letters,25 but I am only aware of two recent works by PrestonSprinkle (2007: 201-33) and James Harrison (forthcoming: ch. 6) that

look specifically at glory in Romans.26 These works are quite helpful,

but they explore different questions from ours. Accordingly a fresh

analysis of Pauls language throughout the letter will help us situate our

reading of 3.23. Heeding James Barrs (1961) caution against confus-

ing words and concepts, we will pay close attention to other terminol-

ogy used in conjunction with glory language, noting how these terms

are conditioned by their co-occurrence with other lexical units (Nida

1972: 86). In particular, my approach here searches for lexical meaning

based upon the literary context, as opposed to the context of situation

that drives the status and divine radiance readings outlined above (Silva

1983: 138-48).

3.1 Sociological Glory: Glory as Honour

Paul uses a range of terms in his honour discourse, and as Jewett and oth-

ers have noted, do&ca stands at the centre of the vocabulary he employs(DeSilva 1999: 9, 124-27; Malina 1993: 59; cf. Moxnes 1988: 61-77).

In Romans Paul uses do&ca synonymously with terms such as honour(timh&)e.g., 1.23-24; 2.7, 10; 9.22-23and praise (e1painoj)e.g.,15.6-9with little noticeable difference in meaning.27 We see that the

sociological use ofdo&ca primarily governs the divinehuman relation-ship, describing its breakdown and restoration. Paul often expresses

this relationship through the verbal form doca&zw, which, when directedtowards God, refers specifically to ascribing honour or worship to

him1.21; 3.7; 4.20; 11.36; 15.6-9; [16.27].28 Using terms of honour

25. In addition to other works above, notable discussions of glory in the Pauline

letters include: Kittel 1934, Kuss 19631978: II, 608-18, and Carrez 1964. See also

Schneider 1932, Schlier 1963 and Coppens 1970.

26. Harrisons study is comprehensive in that he explores texts from both Roman

and Jewish traditions and argues convincingly that Pauls glory language has key

points of contact with both.

27. Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida (1989) list do&ca and timh& (87.4) anddoca&zw and tima&w (87.8) in pairs, showing their synonymity in certain contextsrelating to status.

28. In a verbal form activities associated with glorifying God in Romans are

giving thanks (1.21), worshipping (1.25), serving (1.25), acknowledging (1.28),

believing (4.20), praising (15.9, 11), singing (15.9), rejoicing (15.10), and singing

praises (15.11).



11/25


(doca&zw) and benefaction (eu)xariste/w) in 1.21, Paul accuses unbeliev-ers in 1.18-32 of not glorifying God as one would expect in a proper

patronclient relationship (DeSilva 1999: 11-12). Paul, accordingly,speaks of the shamea)tima&zw (1.24), a)timi/a (1.26), and a)do&kimoj(1.28)associated with Gods judgment. In contrast to the idolatry of

ch. 1, Abraham honours God and thus represents a return to a proper

relationship (4.20). This return to the proper worship of God climaxes

with Jews and Gentiles glorifying God together (15.5-13).

Particularly interesting is the human experience ofdo&ca in associa-tion with timh&. Based on their experience ofa)timi/a in ch. 1, humans arein search ofdo&ca and timh& as synonymous goals in 2.7-10, along withincorruption, eternal life and peace. The contrast of glory and dishonour

returns in Pauls discussion in 9.19-24, where he uses the analogy of

clay vessels destined for honour (timh&) and dishonour (a)timi/a). Thesetwo states are then further described as glory (do&ca) and destruction(a)pw&leia), respectively. In both passages, do&ca and timh& are set togethersynonymously, but at the same time this language transcends mere hon-

our discourse. Glory and honour here signify not just an elevated social

status, but an eschatological state of being. Before discussing the onto-

logical aspects of glory, we should summarize our findings regardinghonour: in settings of social relationships do&cadenotes the possessionof a position of honour among a community. This status can be held

by God, humans, or even objects (11.13). Expressed in a verbal form,

doca&zw denotes a recognition of honour in or grant of honour to another,primarily in worship of God.

3.2 Ontological Glory: Glory as Incorruption

Just as its association with honour language gives a clear indication ofdo&cassemantic domain, its juxtaposition with ontological terminology also shapes

our understanding of its meaning. While other Pauline texts mention visible

splendour as an aspect of glory (1 Cor. 15.41; 2 Cor. 3.7), visibility stands in the

background of Pauls language in this letter (Berquist 1941: 82-83).29 Rather,

29. Two pieces of evidence support visibility as part of Pauls meaning: the

repeated association of glory with visibility in ancient Jewish texts (cf. Newman

1992: 15-153) and Pauls other uses where he associates glory with visibility (e.g.,

1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 3). However, it is clear that he does not emphasize brightness like

many other authors (e.g., Dan. 12.1-3; 1 En. 50.1; 2 Bar. 51.1-3; 4 Ezra 7.75-131)

(pace Sprinkle 2007: 220). Glory is actually related to Gods invisible attributes

seen through creation (1.18-21). But, as glorification is a hope, yet unseen (8.24),

we can surmise that the glory hoped for will be visible in the eschaton.



12/25


Paul repeatedly associates do&ca with incorruption and life.30 This connection,which has not received its due place from most commentators, stands at the

centre of Pauls use in ontological settings.Paul makes several direct associations between glory and incorrup-

tion, and his antitheses form one of the strongest bases for understand-

ing the relationship:

1.23 theglory (do&ca) of theimmortal(a!fqartoj) God

the likeness ofmortal

(fqarto&j) images

8.17-18 sufferwith Christ (sumpa&sxw)

... presentsufferings(paqh&mata)

glorifiedwith Christ

(sundoca&zw) .

..glory (do&ca)about to be revealed

8.21 the slavery ofcorruption

(fqora&)the freedom of theglory (do&ca)of the children of God

9.22-23 vessels of his wrath, prepared

forruin (a)pw&leia)vessels of mercy, foreordained

forglory (do&ca)

In 1.23 glory characterizes the immortal (a!fqartoj) God in contrast to

mortal (fqarto&j) images.31 The antithesis of suffering and glorificationwith Christ in 8.17-30 builds upon the deathlife contrast central to ch. 8

(cf. 8.2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13), and the sufferingglory dialectic in the second

half of the chapter continues the deathlife contrast through different

terms (cf. Dunn 1988: I, 463-64; Jewett 2007: 502-503). This reading is

confirmed in 8.21 where we see freedom of glory as the solution to the

problem of corruption/mortality (fqora&), which is exactly like 8.11,where life is the solution for the mortality of the body. Based on these

readings, Byrne writes, As the contrastive parallel with fqora& shows,do&ca in this passage carries in very strong measure the sense of immor-tality (1979: 107).32 In ch. 9, Paul contrasts destruction (a)pw&leia) and

30. While Paul uses cognates ofa)fqarsi/a exclusively in Romans, rather thana)qanasi/a (cf. 1 Cor. 15.53-54), he regularly describes humanitys problems as oneofqa&natoj (e.g., 5.12; 6.23; 7.5, 10; 8.2).

31. Rather than an affirmation of Gods ontology, the glory tou= a)fqa&rtou qeou=could be read as an objective genitive, so that the phrase refers to humans not glo-

rifying God. An objective genitive requires the head noun containing a verbal idea,

and do&ca can express a verbal idea. However, the fact that do&catou= a)fqa&rtou qeou=antithetically parallels the noun phrase o9moi/wma ei0ko&noj speaks against this readingin this context. While this reading gives evidence for hints of an Adam background

to this passage, associations with the golden calf incident in Exodus are not easily

disambiguated. See n. 46.

32. See especially Schlatter 1995: 186-87.



13/25


glory (do&ca) as the two ultimate destinies of humans, and this reflectsthe deathlife destinies noted earlier in the letter (5.21; 6.23).33 With

each antithesis, glory is either synonymously identified with incorrup-tion or antonymically opposed to corruption.

Three other passages also directly connect glory and life/incor-

ruption. First, in 2.7, those who seek glory (do&ca), honour (timh/) andincorruption (a)fqarsi/a) receive eternal life (zwh\ ai0w&nioj). In additionto being understood as elevated status or honour with timh/, the thrustof the verse is ontological. Thus, do&ca synonymously designates theeschatological experience of incorruption (a)fqarsi/a) and eternal life(zwh\ ai0w&nioj). Second, in 6.4 Paul describes Christ as raised by theglory of the Father so that believers may walk in new life (zwh&). Asthe personified agent of God, glory not only brings new life to Christ,

but also to believers. Third, the experience of glorification ([sun]doca&zw)described in 8.17, 30 clearly describes the experience of resurrection life,

culminating in being glorified like the resurrected Christ (8.29-30; cf.

8.10-11, 23).34 In each of these three instances, Paul presents the experi-

ence of immortal, resurrection life in conjunction with glory language.

In these ontological contexts, do&ca represents Gods state of being

and stands as the culmination of human soteriology, as believers areconformed to the image of Christ in their resurrection by the agency of

the Spirit.35 Although many have noted the connection of glory to res-

urrection, they primarily emphasize visible splendour with little or no

mention of immortality. With our interest in determining Pauls mean-

ing from the context of the letter itself, glory clearly occurs with the

language of incorruption and honour rather than radiance.

While glory language occurs with various terminologylife (2.7; 6.4), incor-

ruption (1.21; 2.7; 8.21; 9.23), and honour (2.7, 10; 9.22-23)incorruption

33. Albrecht Oepke notes that in the lxx tradition the concepts qa&natoj, a3|dhj,a)pw&leia etc. are all used together for [perishing or destruction], being oftenpersonified as mans worst enemy (1964: I, 396). Cf. Nicomachean Ethics 4.1

1120a, where Aristotle uses a)pw&leia and fqora&synonymously.34. Byrne writes, Implicit in both contexts, however, would seem to be the idea

that glorywhether thought of as glory of God or glory of Christis ultimately

likeness to God and as such that which confers a share in his immortal life (Wis.

2.23) (1979: 125-26).

35. With Christ and the Spirit serving as divine agents revealing and enabling

humans to experience Gods glory, this serves as a possible allusion to the return of

Gods glorious presence associated with the tabernacle and temple. See 1 Cor. 3.16-17,

6.19 and the background texts of Exod. 34, Ezek. 1, 10, 43 (cf. Brockington 1955:

1-8; Odell and Strong 2000).



14/25


language only occurs in contexts with do&ca (1.21; 2.7; 8.21; 9.23). Paulsprimary terminology for soteriology is clearly that ofzwh& and its cog-

nates, which occurs some 37 times in Romans. Do&ca only appears twicein immediate contexts with zwh& language (2.7; 6.4), but thematically do&cafunctions as the culmination of the life of the new age described through-

out the letter (e.g., 1.17; 5.21; 6.23; 8.10-11). While life may only denote

physical resurrection or moral enablement, glory incorporates new life as

well as the additional nuance of elevated status. For, in addition to its asso-

ciation with a)fqarsi/a, Paul also uses do&ca synonymously with timh/ inontological contexts (2.7, 10; 9.22-23). To summarize, in these ontological

contexts glory denotes the honourable status of incorruption, and in its ver-

bal form it denotes the divine action of granting incorruption with honour

to believers in their physical resurrection.36 Thus, honour and incorruption

are mutually constitutive: incorruption constitutes an honourable status

and an honourable status constitutes incorruption.

3.3 Glory and Righteousness

We also find a number of passages where righteousness and glory are

clustered together.37 This association could be a study in itself, but I

will only briefly explore the key passages where glory and righteous-

ness occur together: 1.18-32; 2.5-11; 3.23-24; 5.1-5; and 8.17-30. In a

description of Gods wrath on all impiety (a)se/beia) and unrighteousness(a)diki/a), Paul notes how believers have exchanged the glory of God(1.23). This is not merely a repetition of their not glorifying God in 1.21

but rather a loss of the presence of the immortal God which resulted from

their unrighteousness.38 In 2.5-11 those who follow unrighteousness

(a)diki/a) experience wrath and anger rather than eternal life and glory

for doing good. Similarly, sin and a lack of glory in 3.23 are the problemthat is resolved by Gods setting believers right (dikaio&w) in 3.24.39 Onthe other hand, in 5.1-5 Paul speaks of glory as the result of being set

right: Therefore, because we have been set right (dikaio&w) by faith, wehave peace with God ... and we boast in the hope of the glory of God

36. While our focus is upon Romans, this gloryincorruption association also

shows up in other Pauline letters, for example 1 Cor. 15.42-43; 2 Cor. 4.175.5;

Phil. 3.10-11, 19-21. Also, I noted above many ancient Jewish texts that note a

glorious eschatological existence, but texts that explicitly reflect this association are

4Ezra 7.97; CD 3.20. Cf. 4QpPsa (4Q171) 3.1-2.

37. Cf. GLAE 20.1-2 and 2 Bar51.1-12.

38. See n. 31 above.

39. See the discussion below regarding the connection between 3.23 and 3.24.



15/25


(5.1-2). This hope in a (future) experience of glory then is based upon

being set right, but the present experience is one characterized by suf-

fering. Paul returns to this combination of suffering, glory and being setright in 8.17-30. Again, suffering is the present state of believers, while

they await future glory. In his golden chain in 8.29-30 Paul describes

the soteriological process orchestrated by God: God foreknows, predes-

tines, calls, sets right and glorifies believers. Like 5.1-2, glory stands as

the result of Gods setting believers right.

Accordingly, we must ask what association there is between glory

and righteousness. We see that humans lose glory because of sin and

unrighteousness (1.18-32; 3.23). At the same time, being set right stands

as the implicit (3.23-24) and explicit (5.1-2; 8.29-30) means to a new

experience of glory. Paul does not use glory and righteousness synony-

mously as he does with honour and incorruption. Rather, based on their

close association we can say that righteousness is a necessary condition

for experiencing glory.

3.4 Glory: Status and Ontology

From this analysis of the term do&ca throughout the letter, we see thatthe categories of status and ontology come together to form its semantic

domain. Through its co-occurrence with honour and incorruption ter-

minology, I concluded that glory denotes both honour and/or incorrup-

tion depending on its context. Certain cluesdifferences in context and

lexical form (noun vs verb)help us determine if Paul is referring to

honour alone or honour and incorruption together (see Table 1).40

Table 1. Summary of uses ofdo&caand its cognates in Romans40

Object of verb/focus of phrase

Human God

Verb Noun Verb Noun

A. Honour 1.21; 4.20; 3.7; 11.36;

15.6, 9 15.7; [16.27]

B. Honour and 8.17, 30 2.7; 2.10; 5.2; ? 1.23; 6.4;

incorruption (and 8.18; 8.21; 9.4?; 9.23a

radiance) 9.4?; 9.23b

40. This table excludes Rom. 11.13, where the object of the verb is Pauls ministry

and the verb clearly relates to honour alone.



16/25


The verb (sun)doca&zw has different meanings depending on theexplicit or implicit direct object, as Table 1 makes clear. With God (or an

impersonal object) as direct object, honour alone (A) appears to be thecentral aspect, though we cannot make a definitive determination with

regard to the role of incorruption: 1.21; 4.20; 11.13; 15.6, 9.41 Similarly

honour (A) is the sole focus of those nominal forms that are found in

doxological statements or in contexts where the immediate context is

praising God: 3.7; 11.36; 15.7; [16.27]. On the other hand, when humans

are the direct object of a verbal form, incorruption is clearly evident (B):

8.17, 30. With regard to the nominal forms, the remaining passages are

clearly in contexts of life and incorruption (B): 1.23; 2.7; 2.10; 5.2; 6.4;

8.18; 8.21; 9.4; 9.23 (twice).42

Thus, we find glory terminology in two contexts where it character-

izes status (alone) or status and ontology. In contexts of status alone,

glory denotes the possession of a position of honour among a commu-

nity. In contexts related to ontology, glory denotes a state of being char-

acterized by both incorruption (and radiance) and honour. While Paul

does not explicitly associate glory with splendour in the letter to the

Romans, the comprehensive tradition related to radiance and light and

the co-occurrence in other Pauline letters provide strong evidence forreading it in ontological contexts in Romans.

4.Romans 3.23 and the Glory of God

Although the wider socio-cultural, Jewish theological, and immedi-

ate ethical contexts have been helpful for understanding Rom. 3.23,

41. A firm decision cannot be made as to whether incorruption plays a role in thedoxological uses of glory for God. Paul explicitly cites Gods incorruption as the basis

for his having glory in 1.23. In addition, the activity of God giving new life in ch. 4

is the basis of Abraham glorifying God (4.20). Other doxological statements mention

his glory lasting forever (ei0j tou\j ai0w=naj; 11.36; [16.27]). However, so as not tooverstate the case, I have assigned them to the Honour category. Interestingly, just as

idolatry in Rom. 1 is a turn towards mortality, Wis. 15 also discusses mortality in light

of idolatry and proper worship. In particular, in Wis. 15.3 the writer associates proper

worship with immortality: to know your power is the root of immortality.

42. While 5.2 does not have life or incorruption in its immediate context, it clearlyserves as part of an inclusio formed between 5.1-5 and 8.17-30. Accordingly, we

can safely determine that this hope of glory (5.2) is the same glory hoped for in

8.18-25. In addition, the singular use ofh9 do&ca in 9.4 can either be attributed toGods divine presence (as in Exodus) or to a human experience of eschatological

glory (parallel to h9 ui9oqesi/a, which also occurs in 8.15, 23). Either way, it includesan incorrupt state of being.



17/25


we have found the context of Pauls letter itself to be decisive for our

understanding of glory. Accordingly, Jewetts exhortation to take Pauls

honour discourse seriously has been a necessary challenge to interpret-ers, but it does not capture the ontology of the terminology. Likewise,

those focusing on the Jewish theological contexts have not only placed

their emphasis in the wrong placeradiancebut also ignored the

social significance of Pauls language. Also, recognizing the ethical dis-

course in the immediate context is important, but neglects the larger

themes of honour and incorruption. From my analysis ofdo&ca and itscognates, however, we can now address various questions about 3.23.

4.1 What Does it Mean to Lack the Glory of God?

We have determined that Paul uses glory language in Romans in two

ways: focusing on honour alone or honour and incorruption. I inten-

tionally left 3.23 out of Table 1 in order not to presuppose a conclusion

about whether incorruption plays a role in 3.23. However, two points of

evidence strongly support an ontological interpretation of 3.23. First, as

we can see in Table 1 all the nominal forms ofdo&ca include ontologicalaspects, except for those in clearly doxological contexts, and 3.23 clearly

does not follow the standard doxological formula. Second, all occur-

rences relating to humans include the idea of incorruption and new life.

Individually, these two pieces of evidence each give compelling weight

towards seeing 3.23 as an ontological statement related to incorruption

and life, but with both pieces together this reading is almost certain.

If the human experience of the glory of God is a participation in

divine incorruption, the lack of glory signifies the condition of cor-

ruption and mortality. Thus, in 3.23 Paul associates universal sin with

universal mortality.43 Carrez comes to a similar conclusion regardingthe verse: Death and deprivation of glory are two simultaneous conse-

quences of the appearance of sin among men, with death resulting from

the disappearance of glory (1964: 50). This association between sin and

death is clear in several passages in the letter, but especially chs. 58:

5.12, 14, 21; 6.16, 23; 7.5, 13; 8.2, 10.44 In particular, Rom. 5.12 has

43. Interestingly, Byrne, who has noted the association of glory and incorruption

in later parts of the letter (1979: 107, 125-26; 1996: 261), does not use that reading

to interpret the loss of glory in 3.23.

44. Building upon the tradition of Gen. 3.19, of Jewish writings that associate sin

and death, some mention Adam (e.g., GLAE19-21; 4Ezra 3.7-10; 7.116-26; 2Bar

17.3; 19.8; 23.4; 54.15-19 [note the contrast between death and glory]; 56.5-6) and

others do not (e.g., Wis. 1.13-16; 2.23-24) (cf. Dunn 2008: 122-24).



18/25


direct relevance to our verse (cf. Wilckens 1978: I, 188). There we see

repetition of the initial clause in 3.23pa&ntej h3marton. Paul explicitly

states in 5.12 that death (qa&natoj) is the result of that sin: all sinned andtherefore all died. This is the exact logic of 3.23, though Paul speaks

more figuratively in 3.23 by use of glory, where not only death, but also

shame is the result of sin.

4.2 What Can we Say about Adam Traditions in this Text?

This connection between 3.23 and 5.12 gives further weight towards

seeing Adam-associations in 3.23. Focusing on universal sinfulness

rather than mortality, Douglas Campbell highlights the role of Adam:

This precise recapitulation of 3.23 in 5.12 is almost certainly more than

coincidental. It would seem that, as for much of Judaism, Adam and the

universality of sin were ideas linked closely in Pauls mind. Consequently,

within a brief retrospective aside concerning the theme of universal sin and

culpability, he makes an allusion to Adam in elliptical form (1992: 173).

If Paul associates Adams sin with the introduction of mortality and this

is characterized as a loss of glory, Paul might have been in contact withtraditions that associated the fall with losing glory (and eschatological

salvation as a return to glory as the experience of divine life). Levison,

in particular, argues strongly for a shared tradition between Romans and

the GreekLifeof Adam and Eve. By comparing GLAE14.2 and 21.5,

he shows that Adam and Eves loss of glory is correlated to their experi-

ence of mortality (Levison 2004: 527). He then argues that this pattern of

exchanging glory for mortality is central in both the GLAEand Romans,

but, interestingly, Levison does not mention this in relation to Rom. 3.23.

We must remember one note of caution: Paul explicitly associates thisglory with God and Christ and only implicitly with Adam (cf. Dunn 1989:

106).45 Accordingly, while Paul is probably drawing from this tradition,

he makes clear that humanity lost participation in Gods incorruption. In

the same manner, the restoration to glory is not a return to Adams glory

as characterized by the three texts preserved in Qumran (1QS 4.22-23;

CD 3.19-20; 1QHa 4.14-15 [17.14-15]), but rather a participation in the

glory of Christ. In fact, this glorification is predetermined before crea-

tion (8.29), and so it predates creation and Adams loss of glory. Thus, asa model of the instantiation of glory, Christ is the better place to focus.

45. See Pate 1991 as a model of one who often allows Adam to control the discus-

sion instead of Christ.



19/25


In addition, though unexplored in this article, Gods presence as glory

in the Old Testament is likely very formative for Pauls usage of glory

(cf. Newman 1992).46

4.3 What Does this Tell us aboutu9stere/w?Interpreters debate the translation ofu9stere/w since the form of the verbcould be middle or passive. Major English translations (KJV, NRSV,

NASB, NIV) and some interpreters translate u9stere/w as fall short of,reading the verb as middle (Moo 1996: 226; Wilckens 1972: VIII, 596 n.

21).47 As such, they tend to focus upon the fact that humans do not reach

their goal of glorification as described in Rom. 8.17-30 (Kuss 19631978:I, 114). On the other hand, some focus more on the loss and opt for lack

as the translation, reading the verb as passive (Cranfield 1975: I, 204-205;

Dunn 1988: I, 167; Barrett 1991: 74; Witherington and Hyatt 2004: 102;

Scroggs 1966: 73 n. 42). The latter reading corresponds more directly to

the experience of mortality and shame associated with Adams sin.48 The

emphasis here is on the problem as it presently stands; therefore, lack is

probably the better translation. However, we should not make a false dichot-

omy between the present and future because Paul is clearly developing a

present problem whose solution is a future restoration of glory like Christs.

Accordingly, Dunn rightly gives this assessment: Paul probably refers here

both to the glory lost in mans fall andto the glory that fallen man is failing

to reach in consequence (1988: I, 168). Also, Jewetts (2007: 280) focus on

the social significance of the term lack corresponds well with the conclu-

sions of this study, in that this language reinforces the connection between

dishonour and sin.

46. The focus of this article is on the anthropological experience of glory, which leads

to an emphasis on the role of Adam. However, were we to focus on the related issue of

glory as the mediation of Gods presence, Old Testament themes related to the Temple

and Moses reception of the law would need to be explored. The correlation between wor-

ship and the experience of Gods presence is clear (e.g., 1.23; 5.2). Accordingly, we cannot

simply disaggregate Adam and Temple themes in the letter, and particularly in 1.23.

47. However, Moo (1996: 226 n.33) says it is passive, but with a following geni-

tive it means to fall short.

48. Paul never makes explicit whether Adam had immortality and lost it or if

Adam only had the potential for immortality and never achieved it.



20/25


5.Implications and Conclusion

In addition to shaping our understanding of 3.23, this new point of

view has implications for both the immediate context and Pauls wider

theology. A common difficulty in the interpretation of 3.23-24 is deter-

mining the relationship of the participle dikaiou&menoi in 3.24 to whatprecedes it. Some treat 3.22b-23 as a brief aside with the main argu-

ment resuming in 3.24 with the participle dikaiou&menoi (Sanday andHeadlam 1902: 85-86; Michel 1966: 149). Others, following this line of

thought, still maintain a break between 3.23 and 3.24, but concede that

dikaiou&menoi is grammatically associated with pa&ntej in 3.23 (Cranfield

1975: 205; Moo 1996: 227). Campbell (1992: 90-95, 171-76) recentlychallenged this segregation of the two verses, arguing that the paren-

thesis continues into 3.24. We concluded that righteousness is a neces-

sary condition for glory. Accordingly, the lack of glory and justification

standing beside each other gives evidence for seeing the two verses

as closely related.49 In 3.23 we see then that sin leads to mortality and

shame, and God provides justification as a remedy for those problems in

3.24. In the same way that justification leads to new life (e.g., 1.17; 5.17,

18, 21; 8.10), it also leads to glorification, which is a life of incorruption

(5.1-2; 8.30). Thus, the righteousnessglory association provides further

evidence that Paul understands justification as the means for rectify-

ing human mortality arising from sin, as well as rectifying the broken

relationship arising from guilt and characterized by shame. This speaks

against separating participationist and forensic categories but unites

them in the act of setting believers right, which brings new life.

Like righteousness, glory is a relational and ontological term, and it

is quite flexible for Pauls purpose in addressing both Greco-Roman and

Jewish issues. Jon Lendon (1997) and James Harrison (forthcoming:ch 6, esp. 6.5) have adeptly detailed the search forgloria in ancient

Rome. Thisgloria was instantiated in many ways and was often medi-

ated through relationships with those of a higher status. Jewett rightfully

notes that in the competition of status within the church, both Jews and

Gentiles find themselves at a universal place of dishonour because of

their problem with sin. Neither group has a place for power or status

over the other. The restoration of honour is situated in their relationships

with Christ rather than in their own struggles for position.

49. This relationship between righteousness and glory is strongly represented

in German scholarship, but virtually ignored in Anglo-American scholarship.

Ksemann writes: dikaiosu&nh qeou= and do&caqeou= are used synonymously (1980: 95;cf. Jervell 1960: 180-83; Michel 1966: 149).



21/25


While Paul uses this glory language in his honour discourse, the lan-

guage also resounds with Jewish traditions that hold out the hope of

glory for the righteous, as noted above in 2.2. In particular, this gloryserves as a vindication for those who have suffered at the hands of the

unrighteous. As a brief example, Wisdom recounts the hope of the right-

eous to find vindication in incorruption. This immortality is character-

ized as an ontological state for the righteous (Wis. 2.21-24) but also of

a sociological state of being remembered within the community (Wis.

34, esp. 4.1, 79, 1819). However, that author does not explicitly

combine the two, as Paul does here. And this is where the language of

glory is so fruitful for Paul, in that it can combine that hope of immortal

honour and incorrupt life within one term.

Accordingly, Paul both subverts and fulfils Roman striving forglo-

ria and redefines Jewish hopes for glory and immortality through the

crucified and risen saviour. As in Rome, this honour is mediated down-

ward, but it is no mere temporal gain from a human patron, but an escha-

tological grant of honour and incorruption by the eternal God. At the

same time, the role of suffering shows thatgloria is not achieved through

success but through the christoform life empowered by the Spirit.

Accordingly, Paul calls the Romans from an anthropocentric quest to atheocentric, or ratherchristocentric, quest for glory (cf. Harrison forth-

coming: 6.5-6.6).

In this article I have charted the narrative of glory as told by Paul.

Humanity turned from Gods glory through sin and thus experienced

mortality and shame. God graciously grants gloryhonour and immor-

talitythrough the agency of Christ and the Spirit to believers through

the process of justification. While this investigation has focused upon

the lack of glory, the experience of glory as a participation in divine life

has a variety of implications. In particular, it impacts the burgeoning area

of research regarding the question of theosis in Paul (e.g. Finlan 2008;

Litwa 2008; Gorman 2009). As a central tenet of Orthodox theology,

recent ecumenical interactions have prodded the West to consider the-

osis as a soteriological category, as with the New Finnish Interpretation

of Luther (Braaten and Jensen 1998). Notions of deification encompass

a variety of ideas which developed over time (Russell 2004; Gross 2002

[1938]), but a primary aspect within this complex of ideas is that believ-

ers, while maintaining the creatorcreature distinction, participate in thedivine attributes of incorruption and holiness. Believers do not become

gods themselves, but rather they become like God through a participation

in him, such that they reflect divine attributes. For example, Maximus

the Confessor, an early Byzantine writer who helped synthesize earlier

http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


22/25


thoughts about theosis, uses the imagery of a sword placed in the fire as

an illustration: the sword remains iron, but it also takes on the proper-

ties of light and heat from the fire by its participation (Ambiguum 7, cf.Opuscule 16). Since Paul presents the culmination of human salvation

as a sharing in the life of God, that is the glory of God, perhaps some

boundaries imposed on Pauls letters between the human and divine

may need rethinking. At the same time, Pauls particular soteriological

emphasis is that believers are conformed to Christs suffering and glory

(e.g., Rom. 8.17-30). As such, christosis may be a better term to describe

Pauls theology, but that is another article in itself.

References

Anderson, Gary A. and Michael E. Stone (eds.)

1994 A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (Atlanta: Scholars Press).

Barr, James

1961 The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press).

Barrett, C.K.

1991 The Epistle to the Romans (2nd edn; BNTC, 45; London: A. & C. Black).

Berquist, Millard J.

1941 The Meaning of Doxa in the Epistles of Paul (PhD dissertation, Southern

Baptist Theological Seminary).

Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson (eds.)

1998 Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Brockington, L.H.

1955 The Septuagintal Background to the New Testament use ofDo&ca, in D.E.Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels (Oxford: Blackwell): 1-8.

Byrne, Brendan

1979 Sons of God Seed of Abraham (AnBib, 83; Rome: Biblical InstitutePress).

1996 Romans (Sacra Pagina, 6; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

Calvin, John

2003 Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (trans. John

Owen; Calvins Commentaries, 19; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Campbell, Douglas A.

1992 The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26(JSNTSup, 65; Sheffield:

JSOT Press).

Carrez, Maurice

1964 De la souffrance la gloire: De la Doca dans la pense paulienne(Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl).

Charlesworth, James H.

1985 History of the Rechabites, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old

Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday):

443-49.



23/25


Coppens, J.

1970 La gloire des croyants daprs les lettres pauliniennes,ETL 46: 389-92.

Cranfield, C.E.B.

1975 Romans 18 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

Davila, J.R.

2005 The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?

(JSJSup, 105; Leiden: Brill).

de Jonge, M.

2003 Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The

Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam

and Eve (SVTP, 18; Leiden: Brill).

DeSilva, David Arthur

1999 The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

Dodd, C.H.

1932 The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder & Stoughton).

Dunn, James D.G.

1988 Romans (2 vols.; WBC, 38A-B; Dallas: Word).

1989 Christology in the Making(2nd edn; London: SCM Press).

2008 Adam in Paul, in Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth (eds.),

The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins (London: T&T Clark): 120-35.

Finlan, Stephen

2008 Can we Speak ofTheosis in Paul?, in Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A.Wittung (eds.),Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development

of Deification in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker): 68-80.

Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T.

2002 All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls

(Leiden: Brill).

Gorman, Michael J.

2009 Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls

Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Gross, Jules

2002 [1938] The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers (Anaheim,CA: A&C Press).

Harrison, James R.

forthcomingPaul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the

Conflict of the Ideology of Rule (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Jervell, Jacob

1960 Imago Dei: Gen. 1.26f. im Sptjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den pauli-

nischen Briefen (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Jewett, Robert

2007 Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).

Ksemann, Ernst

1980 Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Kittel, Helmut

1934 Die Herrlichkeit Gottes: Studien zu Geschichte und Wesen eines neutesta-

mentlichen Begriffs (Gieen: Alfred Tpelmann).



24/25


Kuss, Otto

19631978 Der Rmerbrief(3 vols.; Regensburg: F. Pustet).

Lange, A.

1995 Weisheit und Prdestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prdestination

in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill).

Lendon, Jon E.

1997 Empire of Honor: The Art of Government in Ancient Rome (Oxford: Oxford

University Press).

Levison, John R.

1988 Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup, 1;

Sheffield: JSOT Press).

2004 Adam and Eve in Romans 1.18-25 and the GreekLife of Adam and Eve,

NTS50: 519-34.

Litwa, M. David

2008 2 Corinthians 3.18 and its Implications forTheosis,JTI2: 117-33.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida (eds.)

1989 GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains

(2nd edn; New York: United Bible Societies).

Malina, Bruce J.

1993 The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (rev. edn;

Louisville: Westminster/John Knox).

Meeks, W.A.

2003 The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul(2nd edn;New Haven: Yale University Press).

Michel, Otto

1966 Der Brief an die Rmer(KEK, 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Moo, Douglas J.

1996 The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Cambridge: Eerdmans).

Morris, Leon

1988 The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Moxnes, Halvor

1988 Honour and Righteousness in Romans,JSNT32: 61-77.

Newman, Carey C.1992 Pauls Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69; Leiden:

Brill).

Nickelsburg, George W.E.

2006 Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism

and Early Christianity (expanded edn; HTS, 56; Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press).

Nida, Eugene A.

1972 Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship,JBL

91: 73-89.

Odell, M.S. and J.T. Strong (eds.)2000 The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives

(Atlanta: SBL).

Oekpe, Albrecht

1964 a)pw&leia, TDNT, I: 396-97.



25/25


Pate, C. Marvin

1991 Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of

2Corinthians 4.75.21 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).

Ramsey, A.M.

1967 The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ(London: Libra).

Russell, Norman

2004 The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford Early

Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxfoed University Press).

Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam

1902 Romans (ICC, 45; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

Schlatter, Adolf von

1995 Romans: The Righteousness of God(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Schlier, Heinrich1963 Doxa bei Paulus als heilsgeschichtlicher Begriff, in Studiorum Paulinorum

Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961 (Chicago: Loyola University

Press): 45-56.

Schneider, Johannes

1932 Doxa: Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Studie (Gtersloh: C. Bertelsmann).

Schreiner, Thomas R.

1998 Romans (BECNT, 45; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Scroggs, Robin

1966 The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Oxford: Blackwell).

Silva, Moiss1983 Biblical Words and their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics

(Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books).

Sprinkle, Preston

2007 The Afterlife in Romans: Understanding Pauls Glory Motif in Light of

the Apocalypse of Moses and 2 Baruch, in Michael Labahn and Manfred

Lang (eds.), Lebendige Hoffnung ewiger Tod?!: Jenseitsvorstellungen

im Hellenismus, Judentum, und Christentum (Leipzig: Evangelische

Verlagsanstalt): 201-33.

Stuhlmacher, Peter

1994 Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox).

Wilckens, Ulrich

1972 u9stere/w, TDNT, VIII: 596-98.1978 Der Brief an die Rmer(3 vols.; ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener).

Witherington, III, Ben and Darlene Hyatt

2004 Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

blackwell b.c.- immortal glory and the problem of death in romans 3,23 (jsnt 2010)

Documents