Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5.

1 (2011) 13-34

Romans:
The First Christian Treatise on Theosis

M ic h a e l J . G o r m a n
S t . M a r y ’s S e m in a r y a n d U n i v e r s i t y

Abstract — Building on renewed interest in theosis generally, and par-

ticularly with respect to Paul, this essay argues that Romans is the first
Christian treatise on theosis, an elaboration of the embryonic passages
about theosis, including the “interchange” (Morna Hooker) texts, found
in 2 Corinthians. Earlier work on theosis in Paul suggests that it means
transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God
through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resur-
rected/glorified Christ. This essay traces Paul’s soteriology of restoring
human dikaiosynë and doxa—fundamental elements of theosis—in Ro-
mans. For Paul, this restoration is accomplished by participation in the
death and resurrection of the obedient and faithful Son. It is manifested
in “righteoused,” cruciform communities of Christlike Godlikeness in
which Gentiles and Jews glorify God together as a partial and proleptic
foreshadowing of the final glory of God and, at least implicitly, as a coun-
terpoint to the pseudo-glory of Rome.
Key Words — Christosis, cruciformity, glory, image o f God, interchange, partici-
pation, Pauline soteriology, Romans, 2 Corinthians, theosis

“C h rist becam e w h at we a re —'*adam—in o rd er th a t we m ight share in

w hat he is —nam ely th e tru e im age o f G o d .‫ ״‬C h rist “becam e like hum an
beings, so th a t we w ould be like him .” “C h rist becom es w hat we are, th a t
we th ro u g h his d eath m ay becom e w hat he is.” T hese th ree quotation s do
n o t com e from th e C hu rch Fathers Irenaeus o r A thanasius, n o r are th ey
m odern statem en ts o f th e E astern C hristian do ctrine o f salvation. R ather,
each one is a sum m ary o f Paul’s soteriology from th re e great in terp reters

Author’s note: I wish to thank my graduate students Susan Jaeger and Kurt Pfund for their re-
search assistance in the preparation of this article, as well as Beverly Gaventa, Bob Jewett, and
especially Richard Hays for their spontaneous but insightful oral responses when this paper
was delivered at the session on Romans as Christian Theology at the 2009 Annual Meeting of
the Society of Biblical Literature, Theological Hermeneutics of Christian Scripture Group.
14 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2011)

o f Paul: M orna H ooker, D ie tric h B onhoeffer, and W ilhelm W rede, respec-

tively.1 T h e q u o tatio n from M orna H o o k er is specifically h e r sum m ary o f
R om 5-8. T h e h e a rt o f R om ans, in o th e r w ords, is about w hat th e E astern
ch u rch (especially) calls theosis. A dditionally, in The Deliverance o f God,
largely a study o f R om ans, D ouglas C am pbell im plies on tw o occasions
th a t “theosis‫ ״‬m ay well describe Paul’s soteriology.2
In an essay published in 1990, Frances Young argued th a t R om ans
needs to be read in light o f 2 C orinthians, for Rom ans develops som e o f
th e core them es o f Paul’s defense o f his m in istry sen t to C o rin th . 3 For
th ose in te re sted in theosis, th is insight is particularly significant, because
2 C orinthians includes tw o explicitly “th e o tic ” texts. 2 C orinthians 3:18 has
b een called th e “th e m o st frankly th e o tic passage in Paul” 4 : ‘A nd all o f
us, w ith unveiled faces, seeing th e glory o f th e L ord as th o u g h reflected
in a m irror, are being transform ed in to th e same im age from one degree
o f glory to another; for th is com es from th e Lord, th e S pirit.” A nd 2 C or
5:21—“For o ur sake he m ade him to be sin w ho knew no sin, so th a t in him
we m ight becom e th e righteousness o f G o d ”—was id en tified by M orna
H oo k er as a key to Paul’s soteriology o f “in terchange,” w hich corresponds
to th e p a tte rn o f theosis as it has b een historically u n d ersto o d in th e C hris-
tian trad itio n . 5 (I am aware th a t N . T. W righ t and o th e rs read th e “w e”
o f 5:21b as an apostolic reference, b u t th a t w ould alm ost require th e im -
possible re strictio n o f G o d ’s salvific actio n m en tio n ed in 5:21a to Paul and
colleagues. 6) T h is tex t is also highly significant because it contains th e Ian-
guage o f b o th tran sfo rm atio n (“so t h a t . . . we m ight becom e,” htna hêmeis

1. “Christ became what we are ... image of God” is from Morna D. Hooker, From Adam
to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 19. On the previous
page, she writes, in reference to Rom 8, “Christ became what we are, in order that (in him)
we might become what he is.” Hooker finds the same soteriological pattern throughout Paul,
especially also in Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Christ “became like human beings ... like him”
is from D ietrich Bonhoeffer, Disciplesbip (trans. Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss; Dietrich
Bonhoeffer Works 4; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 285. “Christ becomes what we are
... what he is” is from Wilhem Wrede, Paul (trans. Edward Lummis; London: Green, 1907), no.
2. Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance o f God: A n Apocalyptic Rereading o fJustification in
Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 211, 265.
3. Frances M. Young, “Understanding Romans in the Light of 2 Corinthians,” SJT 43
(1 9 9 0 ): 433 - 4 6 .
4. Stephen Finían, “Can We Speak of Theosis in Paul?” in Partakers o f the Divine Nature:
The History and Development o f Deification in the Christian Traditions (ed. Michael J. Christensen
and Jeffery A. W ittung; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 68-80 (p. 75).
5. I mean this in two senses: that interchange is the fundamental semantic and theolog-
ical pattern of theosis and that the resulting human transformation into the image of Christ
(“Christosis”) is transformation into the image of God (“theosis”).
6. See N. T. Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness o f God: 2 Corinthians 5:21,” in
Pauline Theology, vol. 2:1 & 2 Corinthians (ed. David M. Hay; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
1992), 200-208. The view proposed here is similar to that o f A. Katherine Grieb, “‘So That in
Him We Might Become the Righteousness of God’ (2 Cor 5:21): Some Theological Reflections
on the Church Becoming Justice,” Ex Auditu 22 (2006): 58-80 (p. 66).
 G o r m a n : The F irst Christian Treatise on Theosis 15

ginömethä) and justification ( n r s v : “righteousness,” dikaiosym ), seam lessly

interw oven. A n o th er sim ilar te x t is 2 C or 8:9 (“For you know th e generous
act {<charin, “grace”} o f our L ord Jesus C hrist, th a t thoug h he was rich, yet
for your sakes he becam e poor, so th a t by his poverty you m ight becom e
,rich”), w hich shows how practical this “d o ctrin e ” o f interchange is for Paul
as he uses it to p ro m o te generosity, specifically as a sign o f G entile-Jew ish
.harm ony (th at is, for th e Jerusalem collection) at C o rin th
In this essay, I will argue th a t R om ans is th e first C h ristian treatise
-on theosis, a theological extension o f th e em bryonic th eo tic, o r tra n sfer
.national, them es o f justification and glorification found in 2 C o rin th ian s !
T h e subject o f R om ans is sôtêria\ G o d ’s re sto ra tio n o f righteousness and
glory to unrighteous and glory-less hum anity. Paul’s soteriology o f hum an
dikaiosym and doxa m eans p a rticip atio n in th e divine dikaiosym and doxa
by p articip atio n in th e d eath and resurrection o f th e M essiah Jesus, G o d ’s
righteous and now glorified Son. Paul offers this in te rp re ta tio n o f söteria
,explicitly as th e fulfillm ent o f Israel’s hope for söteria, dikaiosym , and doxa
extended now to th e G entiles, and, at least implicitly, as th e tru e gospel o f
.G od in co n trast to th e pseudo-gospel o f R om e’s sôtëria, dikaiosym , and doxa
T h is argum ent extends th e w ork o f W rede, B onhoeffer, H ooker, and
C am pbell already n oted, plus th a t o f A nn Jerv is . ‫ י‬-Jervis argues th a t th e p u r
pose o f discipleship in antiquity, for b o th Jew s and G entiles, was “to achieve
likeness to G o d .” 8 M ore recently, R ich ard H ays has said th a t th e study
o f Paul’s p articip atio n ist soteriology needs to look E ast, in th e d irectio n
o f theosis, thou gh he does n o t use th a t w ord. 9 In addition, th ere is great
in terest in Paul and theosis in em erging scholars such as Ben Blackwell and
,D avid L itw a.10 Blackwell, for instance, has w ritten an essay, independently
w ith a thesis th a t is quite com patible w ith th e claim o f this paper . 11

-L. Ann Jervis, “Becoming Like God through Christ: Discipleship in Romans,” in Pat .7
-terns o f Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerd
mans, 1996(, 143-62.
Jervis, “Becoming Like God,” 144. She shows how in Paul this desire for Godlikeness .8
merges the “mystical” (her term, meaning participationist) and the juridical dimensions of
,Paul’s theology. Similar language, though less developed, can also be found in Udo Schnelle
Theology o f the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2009 (, 261-62,342-44 .
Writes Hays: “My own guess is that {E. P.] Sanders’s insights {about participation in .9
-Paul} would be supported and clarified by careful study of participation motifs in patristic the
ology, particularly the thought of the Eastern Fathers” {The Faith o fJesus Christ: The Narrative
-Substructure o f Gal3:1-4:11 {2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002}, xxxii). In the same con
-text (p. xxix), Hays also expresses his attraction to the Eastern theological interest in “recapitu
.lation” (starting with Irenaeus), over against most Western atonement theories
See, e.g., Ben C. Blackwell, “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans .10
JS N T 32 (2010): 285-308; and M. David Litwa, “2 Corinthians 3:18 and Its Implications ”,3.23
for Theosis,”J T I 2 )2008(: 117-34.
-il. Ben C. Blackwell, “Righteousness and Glory: New Creation as Immortality in Ro
mans” (delivered at the International SBL meeting, summer 2009). We differ on whether
16 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2011)

In spite o f such significant established and em erging voices, th e title

and thesis o f th is article m ay concern certain readers, and th a t on tw o
counts. First, som e m ay say som ething like, “R om ans is an occasional let-
ter, n o t a theological treatise. T h is in te rp re ta tio n is backtracking several
decades, if n o t ce n tu ries—perhaps to M elan ch th o n .”
Second, o th e rs m ay say th a t, even if R om ans is considered to be, in
certa in respects, a theological essay, how does one justify using th e term
“theo sis” to characterize it? W h y n o t justification o r rectificatio n by faith,
salvation m ore generally, G entile and Jew ish harm ony in C hrist, th e apoca-
lyptic deliverance o f G od, hope, o r resurrection? T hese all m ake sense and
sound very Pauline. O th e rs have argued th a t th e them e o f R om ans is one
o r th e o th e r o f these. B ut theosis? T h a t sounds, at th e v ery least, anachro-
nistic, b e tte r used o f a treatise by Irenaeus o r A thanasius or th e E cum eni-
cal P atriarch.
T h us, th e title and, th erefo re, th e im plicit thesis o f m y article m ay
seem b o th inaccurate and anachronistic, w ith resp ect to b o th th e term
treatise and th e term theosis. So we will begin by addressing these concerns.

T r e a t is e a n d T h e o s is :
T h e F orm an d T h em e o f R om ans

Even an in tro d u c to ry tre a tm e n t o f th e com plex issues involved in

identifying th e in te rre la te d subjects o f th e form and purpose, and thus
also th e them e, o f R om ans is beyond th e scope o f th is essay. R egarding
th e form o f Rom ans, it m ust suffice to say th a t th e overreaction to M el-
an ch th o n has caused th e pendulum to swing too far. R om ans m ay n o t be
a “com pendium o f C hristian d o ctrin e,‫ ״‬b u t n e ith e r is it your everyday let-
ter, n o t even an everyday Pauline pastoral letter. A fter th e form al address
in 1:1-15, f° r eleven chapters th e re are few if any u n d isp u ted explicit ref-
erences to th e com m unity/ies a t R o m e—a m arked difference from every
o th e r Pauline letter. T hus, R o b e rt Je w e tt, in his com m entary, keeps re-
m inding us to m ake connections betw een each section o f R om ans and th e
overall purpose o f th e le tte r in light o f th e situ atio n in Rom e as he (Jew ett)
understands i t .12 Strategies such as these are needed because Paul him self
does n o t m ake those explicit connections. A nd w hy not? In p art, at least,
because his le tte r—for w hatever reason(s)—has th e m arks o f a sustained
treatise. H ans-Josef K lauck rightly n otes th a t R om ans “can be com pared
w ith th e d o ctrinal letters o f E picurus o r w ith th e long pieces in th e later

“glory” is only future (so Blackwell), meaning immortality, and whether “the story of glory”
ends in ch. 8 (so Blackwell) or ch. 15. “The story o f glory” is from ms. p. 12.
12. Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), e.g., pp. 203-4,21^,
235·
 G o r m a n : The F irst Christian Treatise on Theosis 17

books o f Seneca’s M oral Epistles. Yet over against these w orks Rom ans still
rem ains m ore anchored to a particular situ atio n .” ^
In o th e r w ords, R om ans is a peculiar k in d o f treatise. I t is indeed a
sustained, co h eren t tre a tm e n t o f a subject, b o th argum entative and nar-
rative (w ith a p lo t and a variety o f characters) in form . B ut ultim ately, o f
course, th e co n te n t o f th e treatise is in ten d ed for and applied to th e Ro-
m an house churches. T h e question is, W h a t is th e subject m a tte r o f this
“trea tise”?
Some will surely respond th a t th ey know w h at th e them e o f R om ans
is because Paul h im self tells us, e ith e r in 1:16-17 (the gospel as th e pow er
o f G o d for salvation, or th e righteousness o f G od), o r in 1:3-4 (Jesus th e
resurrected and royal Son o f G od), or, in bookend-fashion, in 1:5 and 16:26
(if this verse is from Paul)—“th e obedience o f faith.” W h ich ev er o f these
is identified as th e th em e o f Rom ans, one m ight argue, we do n o t n eed to
im p o rt a foreign and anachronistic te rm such as theosis to replace Paul’s
ow n w ords.
T h eo sis is a theological term , largely E astern -C h ristian in its usage,
th a t is increasingly in vogue am ong W estern theologians and even a few
biblical scholars. So w hat is theosis, know n also as theopoiesis, deification,
and d iv in iz atio n ?^ T h e sh o rt answ er is “becom ing like G o d by partici-
p atin g in th e life o f G o d ,” w ith th e caveat th a t th e te rm and th e reality
it describes always m aintain th e creatu re -C reato r d istin ctio n , even w hen
a phrase like “becom ing gods” is used to describe theosis. T heosis, th en ,
m eans taking on certain divine attrib u tes. T h e seventh-century B yzantine
theologian M axim us th e C onfessor illustrated theosis by com paring it to
th e placing o f an iron sw ord in a fire, such th a t it rem ains an iron sw ord b u t
also takes on certain p ro p erties o f th e f ir e - lig h t and h e a t—by “p articipât-
ing” in it. 15 Less m etaphorically, b u t m ore famously, Irenaeus sum m arizes
th e do ctrin e o f theosis in his o ft-quoted words: “H e becam e w hat we are,
so th a t we m ight becom e w hat he is.”16

I
13. Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Ex-
egesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 304.
14. I am not here distinguishing, as some do, between theosis and divinization or deifica-
tion. Nor am I suggesting that we need to define these terms in precisely the same way that
particular theologians and spiritual writers, past or present, have done. Instead, I am starting
with a rather generic understanding of theosis and will then demonstrate its specifically Pau-
line formulation.
15. Ambiguum 7; cf. Opuscule 16. 1 am grateful to Ben Blackwell for this reference.
16. This is something of a compilation of various specific quotations. In Against Heresies
5.preface.1, Irenaeus says that the “Lord Jesus C h rist. .. did, through his transcendent love,
become what we are, that he might bring us to be even what he is himself.” See also Athana-
sius, Incarnation o f the Word 54. The two authors express the same basic theological conviction
in various ways.
18 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1(2011)

T h ree fu rth e r b rie f p o in ts ab out theosis are needed before we consider

R om ans . 1‫ י‬First, th ere is debate about w hich divine a ttrib u te s hum ans can
-take on, b u t it is generally agreed th a t these include holiness and im m ortal
ity. Second, theosis is norm ally seen as a continuous process from earthly
in cep tio n to eschatological com pletion, b u t it clearly has tw o stages, or
-dim ensions: th e tem p oral and th e eschatological. T h ird , because C h ris
tians believe in th e incarnation, theosis o r deification can also be called
C hristificatio n, or even C hristosis. For Paul in particular, I have argued in
Inhabiting the Cruciform God, theosis should be defined as “transform ative
-p articip atio n in th e kenotic, cruciform ch aracter o f G o d th ro u g h Spirit
enabled con form ity to th e incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified
C h rist . ‫ ״‬18
T h o u g h theosis is n o t a specifically Pauline term , using it to describe
th is transform ative p a rticip atio n is no less ap p ro p riate th a n using o th e r
-foreign” term s to describe Pauline theology, such as participatory, narra “
tive, o r even apocalyptic. As B akhtin w isely said, “sem antic p h en o m en a
-can exist in concealed form , potentially, and be revealed only in sem an
tic cultural co n tex ts o f subsequent epochs th a t are favourable for such
disclosure .” 19
Theosis, th en , should be seen n o t as anachronistic b u t as retrospectively
appropriate. Now, I w ould add th a t it should also be seen as retrospectively
accurate. 20
For th e m om ent, le t us suppose th a t each o f th e tex ts nam ed above
I:5; and 16:26) co n trib u tes to th e them e o f Romans,, b u t let ;1:3-4 ;1:16-17(
us also focus on th e one th a t Paul seem s to underscore by virtue o f its place
in th e letter: at th e beginning (1:5) and possibly also th e end (16:26) o f th e
-letter: “th e obedience o f faith .” In terp re te rs o f Paul have differed signifi
cantly on th e tran slatio n and m eaning o f th is phrase. D oes it signify th e
obedience th a t com es from faith, th e obedience th a t is inseparable from

On theosis see, inter alia, the following collections of essays: Michael J. Christensen .17
-and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds., Partakers o f the Divine Nature: The History and Development o f Dei
fication in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007); and Stephen Finían
and Vladmir Kharlamov, eds., Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick,
2006(.
Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in .18
Paul's Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009 (, 162.
M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (Austin: University of Texas Press .19,
1986(, 5.
Space does not permit a discussion of the broader theological question o f concern to .20
some, namely, the appropriateness of speaking of theosis at all. W hen I have used this term
in reference to Paul—or even more generally—I have on occasion received private or public
responses ranging from disinterest to scorn to opposition, the last on the grounds that the
-word and concept can generate dangerous feelings of idolatrous self-aggrandizement, espe
cially among the politically powerful. I would contend that the solution for suchJegitimate
concerns is to define and explain theosis properly, not to do away with the concept or term ,
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 19

faith, faithful obedience, believing fidelity or allegiance, or som ething else?

N o m a tte r how we translate it, we m ust certainly recognize its connection
to C hrist, w hom Paul characterizes as th e obedient one (5:19) in co n trast to
disobedient Adam. A nd if we w ho argue for th e subjective-genitive read-
ing o f pistis Christou are correct, th e n Paul also characterizes C h rist as th e
fa ith fu l one, b o th here in Rom ans (3:22,26) and elsew here . 211 w ould subm it
th a t “th e obedience o f faith” is a soteriological term coined by Paul from
his C hristological convictions: life in C h rist m eans fundam entally sharing
in th e obedience and faithfulness o f C hrist.
T h a t is to say, “th e obedience o f faith” is, essentially, C hristlikeness.
Paul’s m ission was to bring abou t “th e obedience o f faith,” resem blance to
th e ob ed ien t and faithful Son o f G od, am ong th e nations. B ut as we will
sho rtly see m ore fully, this C hristlikeness is sim ultaneously G odlikeness.
T h u s enters, appropriately and accurately, th e term theosis. B ut o f course
for Paul (as I have just noted), G od, and thu s theosis, can only be under-
stood Christologically; Paul’s theosis is cruciform theosis, and it is corpo-
rate, or com m unal, because it is by com m on inco rp o ratio n in to C hrist.
T h us, we can describe Paul’s m ission by paraphrasing Jo h n W esley’s
stated goal: to “spread scrip tu ral holiness th ro u g h o u t th e land .” Paul’s
m ission, I suggest, was to spread com m unal cruciform theosis, th e divine
dikaiosynë and doxa, th ro u g h o u t th e w orld, m eaning th e e m p ire .22 In th e
case o f Rom e itself, his goal was to expand th e presence o f th a t dikaiosym
and doxa th ro u g h o u t th e existing R om an house churches. T h e fullness o f
this sôtêria awaits th e (im m inent) arrival o f th e eschatological age, b u t it
is realized partially and proleptically now in “righteoused ” 23 com m unities
o f G entiles and Jew s w ho glorify G od and practice cruciform faith, hope,
and love to g eth er w ith a spirit o f harm ony in th e m idst o f diversity. They
are communities o f Spirit-enabled Christlike Godlikeness, o f righteousness and
(cruciform ) glory in an ticip atio n o f G o d ’s final glory.
Finally, a b rie f n o te on “glory” is also in ord er before we p roceed to
Rom ans itself. B en Blackwell has surveyed various studies o f glory in Paul
and suggests th a t th e re are tw o related kinds, “social or relational statu s”
(“h o n o r”), p a rt o f Paul’s honor-discourse; and “ontological experience,” or
“state o f being,” w hich is “related to th e divine presen ce .” 24 W h e n Paul
connects hum ans w ith divine glory, he “denotes th e {human} experience o f

21. Gal 2:16 (twice); 2:20; 3:22; Phil 3:9. Cf. Eph 3:12.
22. Paul almost certainly saw his mission as part of the fulfillment of the prophetic
promises that God’s glory would one day be universally spread and recognized.
23. Although I do not like neologisms and apologize for this one and its upcoming cog-
nates, this approach is one way to keep the dik- family of words together in English and stress
the moral or transformative side of the dik- language.
24. Blackwell, “Righteousness and Glory,” ms. p. 2.
 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 2 0 $.1 )2011(

divine life,” specifically (at least according to Blackwell) as im m ortality . 2*

-Blackwell cites C. F. Evans in su p p o rt o f th is claim: glory is “an eschato
logical te rm w hich com es n earest to d en o tin g th e divine life itself,” th e
fo retaste o f w hich, says Evans, is life in th e S p irit . 26
T h e “glory” o f G od, th e n , refers to th e etern al splend or and h o n o r
th a t G o d has and th à t G o d deserves sim ply by virtue o f being G od. It is a
central conviction o f th e Jew ish and C h ristian Scriptures th a t G o d already
-shares this glory in lim ited ways w ith hum an beings, w hile th e eschatologi
cal ho pe o f b o th T estam ents is for hum ans to share in th is divine glory in
.ways h ith e rto unexperienced and even unim agined

R e r e a d in g R o m a n s a s a T r e a t is e o n T h e o s is

T h e rem ain d er o f th is article will offer a rereading o f R om ans from

.th e p e rsp e ctiv e o f th eo sis, h ig h lig h tin g som e p a rts m o re th a n o th e rs
W ill th is sou n d like an old p e rsp e ctiv e , a new p e rsp e ctiv e , o r a fresh
perspective? % s —and no. A m ong o th e r thin gs, reading Paul w ith th e
,q u estio n o f theosis in m ind w ill transcen d, and perhaps even break dow n
.certain categories

The H um an Condition: Lacking Righteousness and Glory

Romans( 1:18—$:20(

Rom ans 1:18—3:20 is a creative rereading o f G en 3, W is 12-14, Exod 32,

Ps 89, and several o th e r psalm s, plus additional texts, th ro u g h th e prism o f
salvation, righteousness, and glory in C hrist. D esp ite th e p ro testatio n s o f
D ouglas C am pbell , 2‫ י‬it co n stitu tes Paul’s dep ictio n o f th e hum an co n dition
,outside o f C h rist, w hich is one o f “fru stratio n ” o r “futility” {emataiöthesan
n o t fulfilling th e p urpose G o d in tended. 29 T h a t purp ose can be —) 1:2128
described, im plicitly, as harm ony and p ro p e r relations betw een hum anity
and G od, w ith in h u m anity itself, and b etw een hum anity and th e re st o f
creation. T h e language o f “im age o f G o d ” is a t least in th e background
homoiömati eikonos{, 1:23(.

25. Ibid., passim (quotation from ms. p. 2).

26. C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament (London: SCM, 1970), 160, cited in
Blackwell, “Righteousness and Glory,” ms. p. 4 n.8. According to Blackwell, Evans says that
“{T}he present possession of spirit, which is all there is, is a foretaste and promise of some-
thing further, which is the full life of ‘glory.”’
27. In The Deliverance o f God (esp. pp. 519-600), Campbell argues that the bulk of this
section of Romans represents the perspective of Paul’s opponent, the Teacher, not Paul.
28. A condition now shared by the rest of creation (8:20).
29. See James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38Α; Dallas: Word, 1988), 71, 470, 487-88.
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 21

M ore specifically, this section o f Rom ans e ith er asserts or im plies th a t

hum ans are to give thanks and glory/honor to G o d (1:21), do good (2:7) by
acting justly and righteously tow ard th e ir fellow hum ans, and (at th e very
least) n o t glorify th e creature instead o f th e creato r (1:22,25). F urtherm ore,
according to 2:7-10, hum anity is in ten d ed ultim ately for glory (doxa, twice),
h o n o r {time, tw ice), peace, im m ortality, and eternal life, th is being th e in-
te n d e d and n atural result o f th e norm al hum an life o f doing good, ra th e r
th a n unrighteousness/injustice {adikia) and evil, th a t G o d intended. T hus,
dikaiosynë and doxa, m eaning p re se n t righteousness/justice and future glory
{(doxa), are tw o key term s th a t sum m arize Paul’s und erstanding o f human■*
ity ’s raison d ’être.
H u m an ity is cu rren tly ch aracterized , how ever, by th e o p p o site o f
these divine intentions. Paul supplies us w ith num erous term s and phrases
to describe this co ndition, som e perhaps geared prim arily tow ard G entiles
and o th ers tow ard Jew s. A m ong th e m are:
• 1:18: ungodliness and unrighteousness/injustice {asebeia and adikia, the
latter m entioned twice 3°)
• 1:21: failing to glorify {edoxasan, from doxazö31) and thank G od
• 1:21-22: futile thinking, darkened minds, foolishness
• 1:23,25,28: “exchang{ing} the glory {doxari) o f the im m ortal G od
for images (homoiömati eikonos) resembling a m ortal hum an being”
or animals; aexchange{ing} the tru th about G od for a lie and
worship{ing} and serv{ing} the creature rather than the C reator”; not
“acknowledg{ing] God)
• 1:24,26: “im purity” and “degrading passions”
• 1:29-31: every {kind of} unrighteousness/injustice [adikia\ n r s v
“wickedness”}, evil
• 1:32: the just divine decree {dikaiöma\ n r s v “decree”) th at practitioners
o f these things (all the forms o f asebeia and adikia) deserve death
• 2:23: “dishonoring] G od by breaking the law”
• 3:3: faithless (cf. 1:31)
• 3:9: “under the power o f sin”
• 3:10-11: “There is no one who is righteous [dikaios], not even one; there
is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks G od”
• 3:23: “all have sinned and fall short o f the glory {doxës) o f G od.”
D espite th e freq u en t failure o f th e n r s v , especially in 1:18-32, to show th e
in terco n n ectio n s am ong key phrases and betw een th ose phrases and 1:17

3 0 . The n r s v , N i v , and n a b unfortunately obscure a key linguistic and theological link in

Paul generally, and in Romans particularly, by translating adikia as “wickedness” rather than
as “unrighteousness” or “injustice.”
31. The n r s v (though not the n i v or n a b ) once again obscures an im portant linguistic
and theological connection in Romans by translating the verb “glorify” as “honor.”
22 Journal o f Theological Interpretation y .i (2o n )

(dikaiosynë), Paul insists th a t th e com m on hum an pro blem revolves around

th e referents o f th e w ords dikaiosyne and doxa. A dikia leads n o t to doxa, to
glorious life, b u t to death. H um an beings have becom e som ething o th e r
th a n w hat th ey w ere in ten d ed to becom e, and th e ir fate is som ething o th e r
th a n th e ir in ten d ed telos. “E xchange”—o f rig ht relations w ith G od, w ith one
another, and w ith all c re a tio n —has becom e th e o rd er o f th e day (1 :2 3 ,2 5 ,2 6 ).
In such a situ ation, hum ans do n o t need m erely a w ord o f forgive-
ness w ith th e chance for a new start, m uch less a legal fiction; they need a
m eans o f undoing th e exchange, a m eans o f becom ing th e righteousness o f
G od th a t G od intended, a m eans o f attaining th e glory th ey lack. Paul, o f
course, believes th a t this happens in C hrist. T h e W est’s fixation on sin and
guilt has som etim es ham pered us from seeing how central to Paul’s an th ro -
pology and soteriology are th e them es o f glory, life, and im m o rtality —b o th
th e ir absence in A dam and th e ir resto red presence in C hrist.
C h risto p h er Bryan w rites th a t w hen Paul says hum anity falls sh o rt o f
th e glory o f G od, he is speaking o f “th a t very {divine} glory w hich, by being
w hat it is, w ould also be our g lo r y .” 32 If we re tu rn to R om 1, we learn m ore
specifically w hat losing o r lacking th e glory o f G od now m eans. H um anity
was created to glorify G o d and to live honorably w ith o th e r hum an be-
ings; instead, th e hum an race has failed to glorify G od, has descended in to
sham e in relations w ith o th ers, has expressed its enm ity tow ard G o d and
o th ers in all sorts o f creative b u t tragic ways, and has learned th a t d e ath is
th e ultim ate and natural consequence o f this dow nw ard spiral (its “w ages,”
according to 6:23). It is a sto ry o f sin and sham e and d e a th . 33
T h e solution to th e hum an p red icam ent, as m any Jew s o f Paul’s day
th o u g h t, is re sto ra tio n to g lo ry . 34 For Paul specifically, th a t will m ean to
reverse th e headlong, sin-filled descent in to d eath by m eans o f som ething
th a t liberates from b o th Sin and D eath , th a t restores hum anity to a place
o f glorifying G o d and honoring others, th a t creates a com m unity o f pistis
and dikaiosyne ra th e r th a n apistia/asebeia and adikia. W h a t hum anity needs
is a p rese n t G odly and G odlike life free o f sin and a future, etern al life
free o f death. In o th e r w ords, hum anity needs to share in th e divine moral
ch aracter and th e divine eternal character. T h a t is, hum ans are in need o f
righteousness and im m ortality, th e c h ief characteristics o f G od associated
w ith theosis.

32. Christopher Bryan, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural
Setting (New !fork: Oxford University Press, 2000), 84. Dunn suggests that Paul means that
humans have both lost (because of Adam) and now fail to attain God’s glory (Romans 1-8,108).
33. See Blackwell, “Immortal Glory.” Blackwell argues that in Romans “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” (abstract, 285).
34. Dunn, Romans 1-8,168.
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 23

The D ivine Solution: The G ifts o f Righteousness and

Glory (Romans 3:21-8:59)

For Paul, th e solution to th e hum an co n d itio n o f sin and d eath, o f

unrighteousness and un-glory, is new and etern al life by p a rticip atio n in
C hrist. T his p a rticip a tio n effects th e ethical and eschatological tran sfer-
m atio n th a t hum an beings need. In C h rist, hum ans begin sharing in th e
righteousness o f G o d and even begin th e process o f sharing in G o d ’s
glory. T h is is because G o d ’s righteousness and glory are found in C hrist,
and those w ho are in C h rist are being transform ed (12:1-2) and conform ed
in to th e im age o f C h rist (8:29; cf. 2 C o r 3:18), w ho is th e tru e im age o f
G o d (2 C or 4:4), b o th as divine Son and as last and tru e Adam. In M orna
H o o k e r’s w ords q u o ted earlier: “C h rist becam e w h at we a re —'adam — in
o rder th a t we m ight share in w hat he is —nam ely th e tru e im age o f G o d . 35 ‫״‬

Faith and Participation (3:21-4:25)

In R om 3:21-26 Paul explains th a t G o d has provided th e solution to
th e hum an crisis o f sin and death: forgiveness (3:25, “expiation”) and libera-
tio n (3:24, “red em p tio n ”) for those w ho share in th e faith o f C h rist (3:26;
cf. 3:22). G o d ’s gracious gift is explicitly described as th e “righteousing” o f
hum ans (3:24, 26) and im plicitly described as th e ir resto ratio n to th e glory
th ey have lost (3:23). T h e hum an role in this ispisteueinlpistis (3:24,26) tradi-
tionally translated “believe” and “faith,” b u t Paul’s n o tio n o f faith is m uch
m ore p articip ato ry th a n is o ften thought. In fact, 3:21-26 should be read in
co nnection w ith ch. 6, w hich does n o t describe a supplem ent to “justifica-
tio n by faith” b u t ra th e r depicts justification as an experience o f d eath and
resurrection.
C h a p ter 4, I w ant to suggest, offers A braham as a p ro to ty p e o f this
d eath and resurrection w ith C hrist. 36 If this is correct, th e n A braham serves
as an exem plum o f Paul’s unique ¡participatory understand in g o f justifica-
tio n by faith as co-crucifixion and co-resurrection w ith C h rist (4:16-17). 37
T h e basic argum ent here is ra th e r simple: because A braham him self was
functionally dead (4:19a)—along w ith his w ife’s w om b (4:19b)—his faith
was th a t G o d could bring life o u t o f his death, could transform his deadness
in to life. In o th e r w ords, his faith was com pletely self-involving and par-
ticipatory. T h a t he was ju stifie d by faith m eans n o t th a t he was fictitiously

35. Hooker, From Adam to Christ, 19, summarizing Rom 5-8.

36. I will develop this thesis more fully in a forthcoming article, “Abraham: Our Proto-
type of Participation in Romans 4.”
37. “Prototype” and “exemplum” are not quite sufficient to describe Abraham’s role; he
is the parent, the source, but of course he is this w ithout displacing Christ, God the Father,
or the Spirit.
24 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2011)

considered just o r righteous b u t th a t he was gran ted th e gracious g ift o f

new life o u t o f death, w hich was concretely fulfilled in th e b irth o f a de-
scen d an t—a very Jew ish n o tio n o f life and resu rrectio n ro o ted in biblical
stories like th e one to w hich Paul appeals in R om 4 . 38 T h is resu rrectio n life
is actualized, n o t m erely in th e b irth o f Isaac, b u t in th e subsequent reality
o f m any descendants (4:16-18). T h is foreshadow s and signals th e reality o f
new and etern al resu rrectio n life provided by G o d in th e resu rrectio n o f
Jesus, w hich to o k place for our justification (4:24-25), th a t is, our resurrec-
tio n to life. In retro sp ect, from Paul’s ow n p o sitio n o f having died and been
resu rrected in C h rist, A braham ’s experience is prospectively analogous to
w h at Paul says about all b ap tized believers in R om 6: th e ir justification by
faith m eans a p articip ato ry experience o f resu rrectio n o u t o f death. T hus,
A braham ’s righteousness and his eternal life—his glory, so to speak 39 —are
inseparable.

The Present and Future o f Theosis (5:1-8:39)

C hapters 5 th ro u g h 8 o f R om ans p rese n t n o t a narrative sequence o f
th e believer’s life in C h rist b u t a set o f various explanations o f th e m eaning
o f p articip atin g in th e narrative o f C h rist, th a t is, salvation as C hristlike
dikaiosym and doxa, o r cruciform theosis. D ouglas C am pbell rightly insists
in The Deliverance o f God th a t th e m aterial c o n te n t o f R om 5-8 is tran sfer-
m atio n o r sanctification d r "ontological re co n stitu tio n ” and th a t it is n o t
supplem ental to th e gospel o r to justification b u t co n stitutive o f them . 4 °
A nd R ichard H ays rightly argues th a t “{ujltimately, being united w ith Christ
is salvific because to share his life is to share in the life o f G o d ”*1 Following an
overview in 5:1-11 th a t depicts salvation in all its dim ensions (justification,
reconciliation, hope, final glory), Paul p resen ts life in C h rist in term s o f
th ree pairs o f antitheses. 4 2
In 5:12-21, th e first antithesis, Paul co n trasts th e righteousness and life
th a t com e fro m C h rist w ith th e unrighteousness and d ea th th a t p roceed

38. See Kevin J. Madigan and Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection: The Power o f Godfo r Chris-
tians andJews (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 107-20. They speak of the barren
womb and the bereavement o f progeny as the functional equivalent of death (p. 112) and birth
and progeny as “the reversal of death” and thus “to a large degree the functional equivalent of
resurrection (or afterlife in general)‫( ״‬p. 113). “In these stories, it is not death but birth that is
God’s last word” (p. 113).
39. Unlike humanity in Rom 1, Abraham “gave glory to God” (4:20), a sign, for Paul, of
restoration to and participation in God’s own glory See the discussion of Rom 15 below.
40. Campbell, The Deliverance o f God, 185 (and elsewhere).
41. Hays, The Faith o fJesus Christ, xxxiii; emphasis added. For the narrative character of
salvation and participation in Paul, see the entirety of Hays’ The Faith o f Jesus Christ and his
article “Christ Died for the Ungodly: Narrative Soteriology in Paul?” H B T 26 (2004): 48-69.
42. On this interpretation of Rom 5-8, see my Apostle o f the Crucified Lord: A Theological
Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 363-79.
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 25

from Adam. In 5:18-19, he describes C h rist’s d eath as an act o f obedience

and righteousness th a t effects righteousness, justification, and life for all
w ho are in him . T h is act is juxtaposed to th a t o f Adam , an act o f disobe-
dience and unrighteousness th a t effected co ndem nation and d e ath for all
w ho are in him . Im plicitly, th e co n tra st is betw een th ose w ho do, and will,
share in G o d ’s glory (righteousness and eternal life) n o ted in 5:2, and those
w ho do n o t and will n o t share in it.
In 6 : i 7 : 6 ‫ ־‬, th e second an tith esis, Paul co n trasts slavery to sin w ith
slavery to righteousness. H e (explains th a t p articip atio n in C h rist’s d eath
(his act o f obedience and righteousness) and resu rrectio n bring new life
and th erefo re righteousness and obedience in th e presen t, plus eternal life
in th e future. As I have argued a t length elsew here, th is should be under-
sto o d as justification/righteousness/life by m eans o f co-crucifixion. 43 As
D aniel K irk has persuasively argued, Paul sees new life in C h rist as p resen t
p articip atio n in C h rist’s resurrection, w ith eternal life, obviously, as future
p a rticip a tio n in his resurrection. 44 W e should therefo re see p resen t new-
ness o f life and future eternal life w ith m ore co n tin u ity th a n discontinuity;
th ey are tw o dim ensions o f one p articip a to ry soteriological reality, theosis.
In th e early p a rt o f ch. 6, Paul affirm s th a t we are b aptized in to C h rist’s
d ea th and raised to new life. T h ree im p o rtan t things em erge here:
• Baptism is transfer into Christ.
• Baptism is participation in C hrist’s death, th at is, his act o f obedience
and righteousness (linking ch. 6 back to 5:12-21).
• Baptism is participation in C hrist’s resurrection, b oth now (as new life;
6:4,6-7,11) and later (as eternal life; 6:8).
In th e re st o f ch. 6, Paul describes m ore fully how th is p a rtic ip a tio n in
C h rist m eans taking o n th e qualities o f C h rist’s d ea th and resurrection,
th a t is, life and eternal life.
T h us, in R om 6 Paul p resen ts th e divine goal for hum anity: th a t in
C h rist, we m ight becom e like C h rist in em bodying b o th his righteous-
n ess—“th e obedience o f faith ”—and his resu rrectio n life. F u rtherm ore,
because C h rist em bodied th e righteousness and faithfulness o f G o d and
because his life-out-of-death was effected by “th e glory o f th e F ath er” (6:4)
so too our cu rren t w alking in new ness o f life is a p roleptic and partial, b u t
very real, p articip atio n in th a t divine glory, a sharing in th e very life o f G od.
It is glory regained, glorification now. 45 T h e hope o f final and full glory is
still precisely th a t—a hope. M oreover, as Paul will indicate especially in

43. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 40-104.

44. J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification o f God (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 107-17. See also my Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 40-104.
45. Similar is Paul’s claim in 2 Cor 5:17 that new creation is (partially and proleptically)
now.
26 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2o n )

chs. 8 and 1 2 -1 5 , a n y p resen t resu rrection or glory is always and necessarily

cruciform .
In 7 7 -8 :9 , th e th ird antith esis, Paul co n trasts life in th e flesh w ith life
in C h rist and th e Spirit, th e form er characterized by sin and death, th e lat-
te r by righteousness (8:4) and life (8:2, 6) A 6 Paul sum m arizes this co n trast
nicely in 8:10 and th e n indicates in 8:11 th a t th e p resen t and future dim en-
sions o f salvation are closely related as tw o aspects o f p a rtic ip atio n in th e
life o f th e Spirit: “If th e Spirit o f him w ho raised Jesus from th e dead dwells
in you {present}, he w ho raised C h rist from th e dead will give life to your
m ortal bodies also thro u g h his Spirit th a t dwells in you { fu tu r e }.47 ‫״‬
Indeed, R om 8 as a w hole concerns th e p rese n t and fu tu re dim en-
sions o f salvation. E ach is inseparable from cruciform existence. P resen t
righteousness, w hich receives m ore a tte n tio n early in th e chapter, requires
“put{ting} to d e ath th e deeds o f th e body” (8:13), w hile future co‫־‬glorifica‫־‬
tion , th e focus o f th e later p a rt o f th e chapter, requires p rio r co-suffering
(8:17). 4 8 T h e tw o dim ensions o f th e narrative o f salvation are still closely
related, even in th e second half o f th e chapter, as th e phrase “we w ere saved
in h o p e” (8:24) clearly dem onstrates.
Paul in th is co ntext also tells us th e ultim ate telos o f hum an existence:
experiencing th e “freedom o f th e glory (doxa) o f th e children o f G o d ” (8:21)
and conform ity to C h rist th e Son o f G od (8:29; symmorphous tes eikonos tou
huiou autou). Is th e conform ity m en tio n ed in 8:29—“those w hom {God}
foreknew he also p red estin ed to be conform ed to th e im age o f his Son”—
an ethical (present) or an eschatological conform ity, o r both? T h e em phasis
here is probably on th e eschatological, th o u g h th e som ew hat sim ilar lan-
guage o f 2 C o r 3:18 {metamorphoumetha) and R om 12:2 (metamorphousthe) will
n o t p erm it us to rule o u t an ethical transform ation. 49 T h e question, how-
ever, presen ts a false dichotom y; conform ity to C h rist is b o th p resen t and
future. R om ans 8:29 is th e eschatological co u n terp a rt o f 8:3-4: uF °r G od
has done w hat th e law, w eakened by th e flesh, could n o t do: by sending his
ow n Son in th e likeness o f sinful flesh, and to deal w ith sin, he condem ned
sin in th e flesh, so th a t th e just requirem ent o f th e law m ight be fulfilled in
us, w ho w alk n o t according to th e flesh b u t according to th e S pirit.” T h is

46. Sin: 7:8-9, il, 13,14,17, 20, 23, 25; 8:2; death: 7:10,11,13, 24; 8:2, 6.
47. See also 8:12-13, which shows the same continuity, as well as its converse: the conti-
nuity between present life according to the flesh and future death.
48. Cf. Blackwell, “Righteousness and Glory,” ms. p. 4: “In chapter 8 the death-life dia-
lectic is cen tral. . . and my contention is that the glory-suffering dialectic in the second half
o f the chapter repeats that death-life contrast through different terms.‫״‬
49. So also, e.g., Jewett, Romans, 528-30. Even if 2 Cor 3:18 is referring only to apostolic
transformation (which is unlikely), then Frances Young is right to say that in Romans Paul is
“generalising his own sense of vocation” (“Understanding Romans,” 438).
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 27

passage, in tu rn , is an echo o f 2 C o r 5:21, th a t fundam ental tex t o f inter-

change or, as we have suggested, theosis. 5°
T h e re is a sense, o f course, in w hich ethical conform ity precedes and
is th e prerequisite for eschatological conform ity, b u t th e tw o are related,
indeed, inseparable: tw o dim ensions o f th e same reality, th e same narrative,
p articip a to ry salvation. Paul has already clearly indicated this inseparable
co n n ectio n in 8:17: “and if children, th e n heirs, heirs o f G o d and jo in t heirs
w ith C h rist—if, in fact, we suffer w ith him so th a t we m ay also be glorified
w ith h im .” T h e narrative p a tte rn o f C hrist, from suffering to glory, from
d e ath to resu rrectio n , becom es o u r p a tte rn . In o th e r w ords, C hristlike-
ness now —faithful obedience even to th e p o in t o f suffering and d e a th —
becom es C hristlikeness la te r—glory. T h e process is seam less and m ay be
term ed “C hristosis.”*1
B ut th a t term , th o u g h accurate, is insufficient. Paul avers th a t G o d ’s
etern al plan is to create a fam ily o f siblings w ho resem ble th e firstb o rn
and definitive Son, namely, Jesus. W h a t Paul does n o t state explicitly is th e
obvious: th a t th e Son is like th e F ather and th a t th e siblings will ultim ately
be like th e F ath er because th ey are like th e Son. C hristosis, th erefo re, is
ultim ately theosis. 52
T h is divine purpose indicated in 8:29—p re d e stin a tio n to conform ity
to C hrist, m eaning ultim ately to G o d —is fu rth e r elaborated in 8:30. In this
verse, a series o f verbs, p resen ted in stairstep fashion, n arrates th e saving
activity o f G od: predestined, called, justified, glorified. T h is series is often
taken as a reference to th e ordo salutis, th e o rd er o f G o d ’s saving acts tow ard
th e individual. But, in context, th e last th ree verbs are m ore precisely an
elaboration o f w hat G o d has done to create a fam ily o f C hristlike (w hich
is to say G odlike) siblings. Paul’s p o in t is n o t to define an ord er so m uch as
to stress th e effectiveness and to tality o f G o d ’s saving action. M ore th a n
a desire (predestination/election), m ore even th an a sum m ons (call), G o d ’s
salvation m eans “righteousification” and re sto ra tio n to rig h t covenant re-
lations (justification) and p articip atio n in th e glory o f G od (glorification).
T h e absence o f “sanctification” betw een “justification” and “glorification”
has som etim es puzzled in terp reters. It now becom es clear w hy it is n o t
there: Paul does not conceive o f sanctification as a stage o f salvation between ju s-
tification and glorification. R ather, righteousification and glorification, new
life and eternal life, dikaiosynê and doxa, are tw o inseparable dim ensions o f
G o d ’s overall salvation project.
T h is brings us to th e use o f th e aorist verb glorified in 8:30. M any com -
m en tato rs argue th a t it does n o t refer literally to a p ast event or experience.

50. Young says that 2 Cor 5:21 “surely explains” Rom 8:3 (“Understanding Romans,” 440).
51. Blackwell’s preferred—or at least cautious—term (“Glory and Death,” 305).
52. See my Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 9-39.
28 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2011)

T h ey stand on an apparently firm foundatio n o f texts such as 5:2 (“o ur hope

o f sharing th e glory o f G o d ”) and 8:17-18 (“so th a t we m ay also be glorified
w ith h i m . . . th e glory abo ut to be revealed to us‫) ״‬. T hus, th ey offer several
different in terp retatio n s o f th e aorist:
• a proleptic, futuristic, or prophetic aorist: a future action is so certain
th at it may be narrated in the past tense
• a properly theological use o f the aorist: a future action is already
complete from the timeless, eternal perspective o f God
• an ahistorical use o f the aorist: like “predestined,” “glorified” expresses
a view o f salvation events th at occur outside o f tim e as we know it,
unlike “called” and “justified,” which refer to events w ithin tim e
• a punctiliar/nontem poral aorist: an action is perceived and described
w ith respect to its aspect (one-time or com pleted character), not its
tem porality
• a liturgical aorist: an act celebrated in baptism or worship, the language
for which is borrowed by Paul but not representative o f his theology. 53
W h ile each o f these in te rp re ta tio n s could m ake sense o f th e tex t in isola-
tio n o r in co n n ectio n only w ith texts th a t clearly refer to th e future experi-
ence o f glory, th e re are at least five reasons to th in k th a t Paul believes th a t
th e glorification o f hum anity in C h rist has already begun. 54
First, th is is th e im plicit argum ent o f R om ans to th is p o in t. Because
resu rrectio n and glory are inseparable, th e p artial and p ro lep tic resurrec-
tio n experience described in ch. 6 im plies th a t believers already have a fore-
taste o f th e com ing glory.
Second, and similarly, th ere exists in R om 8 a “dialectic” o f “p rese n t/
h id d e n —future/revealed” th a t is articu lated in term s o f b o th “sonship
[being “children o f G o d ”; n r s v ] and g l o r y .” 55 Because o f th e Spirit, being
G o d ’s children is b o th a p rese n t reality (8:14-15) and a reality still to be
revealed and expanded (8:19-21). T h e situ atio n is th e sam e w ith glory (8:18,
21 versus 8:30). T h e certain ty o f future glorification is n o t only th a t C h rist
has b een glorified b u t also th a t our glorification has already been “set in
m o tio n .” 56
T h ird , Paul will indicate in chs. 14 and 15 th a t th e renew ed com m unity
o f G entiles and Jew s in C h rist em bodies (or should em body) th e glory o f
G od, as we will see below.

53. For example, Dunn 0 Romans 1-8,485-86) leans toward the first and the third; Leander
Keck (Romans {ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005}, 217-18, prefers the second. The terms for
the types of aorists are partly my own.
54. So also, w ith some similar arguments, Jewett, Romans, 530.
55. Andrzej Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30: *Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory”(At-
lanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 280.
56. The phrase is from the heading o f Gieniusz’s discussion (ibid., 278-81).

V
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 29

-F ourth, m oving outside R om ans, in 2 C o r 3:7-11,18 we see Paul speak

ing o f a p resen t glory, tho ugh he does so, as in R om 8, only in co nnection
w ith cruciform existence (2 C o r 4:8-12) and th e future “etern al w eight o f
glory beyond all m easure” (2 C o r 4:17(.
-Finally, looking b ehind Rom ans, we n o te th a t Isa 55 describes th e p eo
:p ie’s glorification, in th e p ast tense (!edoxasen), as follows
Incline your ear, and come to me; listen, so th at you may live. I will
make w ith you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for
-Da vi d. . . . See, you shall call nations th at you do not know, and na
tions th at do not know you shall run to you, because o f the L o r d your
God, the Holy O ne o f Israel, fo r he has glorified [edoxasen] you. Seek e
the L o r d while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; let
the wicked forsake their way, and the unrighteous their thoughts; let
them return to the L o r d , th at he may have mercy on them , and to our
God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isa 55:3, 5-7, emphasis added ( *7

H ere glorification is linked specifically to them es we see in Rom ans: G o d ’s

love, w itnessing to th e nations, forgiveness o f sin, and th e tran sform ation
-o f th e unrighteous. I w ould suggest th a t this tex t has influenced Paul’s u n
.derstanding o f glory
T h is p resen t reality o f glorification does not, o f course, elim inate th e
-future fullness o f glory. P resent glory is partial, proleptic, a n d —paradoxi
cally—cruciform . G lory is G od’s redem ptive purpose for humanity. As D unn
p u ts it, referring back to R om 1: “It is a finely conceived reversal th a t th e
doxazein [glorifying] th a t m an failed to give to his C reato r in th e beginning
is finally resolved in G o d ’s doxazein [glorifying] o f m an .” *8

Righteousness and Glory fo r Israel (Romans 9-11(

-A t th e risk o f being accused o f u n d erestim ating th e role and im por

tance o f R om 9-11 in th e letter, we will need, for reasons o f space, to tre a t
it very briefly. T h is is n o t inappropriate, because Paul does n o t substantially
-develop his view o f th e content o f righteousness and glory in these chap
ters. R ather, Paul argues prim arily th a t G o d ’s irrevocable gift and prom ise
to Israel ( 1 1 : 2 9 ) mean th e ir ultim ate receip t o f th e righteousness they
-previously lacked (9:31; 10:3; cf. 11:31) and th e glory th a t was th e ir ow n h eri
-tage (9:4). For th is reason, Paul in tu rn gives glory to th e G o d o f in scru
table, universal riches and m ercy (11:33-36). T h is act o f praise anticipates
\

‫׳‬Cf. also the universal summons to salvation and the promise of Israel’s glorification .5 7
,in the context (Isa 4 5 : 2 0 - 2 5 ) of a text (Isa 4 5 :2 3 ) that Paul uses in Rom 14:11; Isa 4 5 :2 3 reads
In the L o r d all the offspring o f Israel shall triumph and glory.” See also Isa“ 4 6 : 1 2 - 1 3 .
Dunn, Romans .5 8 1-8 , 4 8 5 .
30 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2011)

th e descrip tio n o f G entiles and Jew s u n ite d in C h rist to glorify G o d th a t

follows in chs. 12-15.

Communities o f Righteousness and Glory: Spirit-Enabled Christlike

Godlikeness (Romans 12-15)

R om ans 12-15 answers th is question: W h a t does theosis look like in

everyday life? W h a t does th e “D aybreak E th o s” 59 look like on th e ground?
W h a t does it m ean to be a com m unity o f dikaiosynê and doxa th a t partici-
pates in th e life o f th e Triune G od, th e life o f Father, Son, and Spirit w hose
activity has been narrated in chs. 5-8 and extended explicitly to b o th Jew s
and G entiles in chs. 9-11?
T h e overarching answ er is provided in th e in tro d u c to ry ex h o rtatio n o f
12:1-2. T h e echoes o f R om 1 (“bodies,‫ ״‬sömata\ cf. 1:21; “w orship,” latreian\
cf. 1:25, elatreusan) and R om 6 (“p re se n t,” parastësal·, cf. 6:13, 16, 19) reveal
th a t Paul w ants th e R om an com m unities in C h rist to becom e th e a n tith -
esis o f A dam ic h um anity d ep icted in chs. 1-3 and to em body concretely
th e “en‫ ־‬C h risted ,” righteoused hum anity he says in ch. 6 th a t th ey have
becom e. T h e language o f non conform ity (me syschematizesthe) and transfor‫־‬
m ation (metamorphousthé) are key aspects o f theosis. Paul im plies th a t th ere
is a standard, a p a tte rn , o th e r th a n “th e w orld” o r (better) “this age.” Al-
though Paul does n o t specifically nam e C hrist, th e use o f th e verb conformed
Csyschematizesthe), w hich is sim ilar to “conform ed (symmorphous) to th e im age
o f his Son” in 8:29, m akes it clear th a t th e tran sfo rm atio n he has in m ind
is increasing conform ity to C hrist. T h e passive voice suggests th a t this is
th e w ork o f G od, probably specifically th e Spirit, and is rem iniscent o f
th e several occurrences o f th e passive voice in ch. 6 (6:3-6), confirm ing th e
suspicion th a t th is tran sfo rm atio n is th e result o f th e ongoing p articip atio n
in C h rist th a t begins in baptism . T h e goal o f th e transform ation, discern-
ing and doing “th e will o f G o d ,” m eans th a t Spirit-enabled conform ity to
C h rist is in fact th e will o f G od. Because G o d ’s will m ust be in line w ith
G o d ’s ow n character, Paul im plies once again th a t confo rm ity to C h rist is
conform ity to G od.
T h e re are several ways in w hich Paul w ants “becom ing like G o d /
C h rist” to be m anifested in th e R om an house churches.
• As “one body in C hrist” (12:5), they m anifest their confession th at God
is one (3:30).

59. Keck’s eloquent characterization of Rom 12-15 (Romans, 289). On the “practices” of
participation, see also Richard B. Hays, “W hat Is ‘Real Participation in Christ’? A Dialogue
with E. P. Sanders on Pauline Soteriology,” in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Iden-
titles: Essays in Honor o f Ed Parish Sanders (ed. Fabian E. Udoh et al.; Notre Dame, IN: Univer-
sity of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 335-51.
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 31

• As practitioners of love and the good who show honor to others

(12:9-10), they embody the image o f C hrist the new Adam, reversing
the consequences o f life in Adam depicted in Rom 1-2.
• As those who are prayerful, hopeful, and patient in suffering (12:12),
they renarrate the pattern o f Jesus, who suffered prior to glorification.
• Inasmuch as they are hospitable to strangers and strive to live in peace
w ithout practicing evil or revenge (12:13-21), they express the character
o f the O ne who graciously loved and righteoused us while we were still
sinners and enemies o f G od (5:1-11), allowing us to participate in the
peace (5:1; 14:7) o f “the G od o f peace” (15:33).
• As those who practice humility in the service o f unity, they put on the
mind o f Christ (12:16, echoing Phil 2:1-5 anticipating 15:1-56°).
T h ere is, o f course, m ore, all sum m arized in th e great adm o nition to par-
ticipation: to be clothed in th e L ord Jesus C h rist (13:14).61 T hese practices
o f p a rtic ip a tio n ,62 o f C hristosis/theosis, com e to g e th e r in th e issue to
w hich Paul devotes th e m ost a tte n tio n at th e end o f Rom ans: harm ony in
th e m idst o f diversity. 63 C ertainly one (and perhaps th e chief) pastoral and
rhetorical goal o f Rom ans com es to expression in chs. 14 and 15. Paul w ants
th e R om an believers to share in C h rist’s love for th e w eak, w hich is simul-
taneously G o d ’s im partiality, love, and h o sp itality —all o f w hich Paul has
touched on briefly in th e tw o preceding chapters.
A strong “th erefo re ” (dio) indicates a rheto rical clim ax in 15:7-13:
W elcome one another, therefore (dio), just as C hrist has welcomed
you, for the glory o f God. For I tell you th at Christ has become a ser-
vant o f the circumcised on behalf of the tru th o f G od in order that he
m ight confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that
the G entiles m ight glorify G od for his mercy.. . . May the G od o f hope
fill you w ith all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in
hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

T h is adm onition is, in turn, p redicated on th e sto ry o f C h rist ren arrated in

15:1-6, w hich sum m ons th e strong to ex hibit regard for th e w eak (w. 1-4)
as a theological and practical requirem ent for th e fulfillm ent o f G o d ’s pur-
pose: th a t all live in harm ony and glorify G o d w ith one voice (w. 5-6). Para-
doxically, because hum ans always rem ain creatures, th ey share in th e glory
o f G o d only w hen they give glory to G od.

60. In all three passages, a form of the phrase to autophronein appears: Rom 12:16; 15:5;
Phil 2:2.
61. The one way believers are not to resemble God is in the practice of punishing evildo-
ers, which is a divine, eschatological “reserved power” (12:19-21).
62. See also Hays, “W hat Is ‘Real Participation in Christ’?”
63. See especially Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting o f Paul’s
Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
32 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2011)

T h is pow erful em bodim ent o f w elcom e and w orship, th is com m unity

o f G entiles and Jew s in m utual h o sp itality and in com m on glorification
o f G od, is said, in effect, to be th e very m ission o f C h rist as th e agent o f
G o d (w. 8-9). T h a t is, w hat G o d w anted C h rist effected. A t th e sam e tim e,
however, Paul im plies th a t C hristlike regard for o th ers (v. 7; cf. v. 3) can be
replicated in th e churches (w. 1-2, 5) only by th e grace and action o f G od,
so Paul m akes th a t his prayer (w. 5-6.13). In other words, w hat God wanted
is w hat Christ did, and w hat Christ did is w hat God now does. I f we w ish to
coniuse things still further, we can go back to ch. 8 and see th a t w hat G od
now does m ust som ehow be related to w hat C h rist does, w hich is w hat th e
S pirit does.
All o f th is is to say th a t th e Christological im perative and paradigm o f
ch. 15 is ultim ately a theological (divine) im perative and paradigm . T h e cruci-
form hospitality to w hich Paul sum m ons th e church is ultim ately w illed and
effected by th e F ather w ho sen t his Son in to th e w orld. To be like C h rist is
to be like G od: to share G o d ’s desires and to do G o d ’s will.
T h is is n e ith e r theologically in c o h e re n t n o r u n expected in Rom ans.
For one thing, Paul can tell us th a t believers experience b o th th e love o f
G od (5:5,8) and th e love o f C h rist (8:35), and th a t these loves are in fact one
divine love, “th e love o f G o d in C h rist Jesus our Lord8:39) ‫) ״‬, po u red in to
our h earts in th e presence o f th e H oly Spirit (5:5). For another, C h rist is
th e Son o f G od, w hose Sonship m eans his sharing in th e royal character o f
th e Father, w hich for Paul will m ean also in G o d ’s ju stice—his restorative,
reconciling action. T h ird , if we accept th e subjective-genitive reading o f
pistis Christou in R om 3:21-26, th e n Paul associates th e faithfulness o f G od
w ith its m anifestation in th e faithfulness o f C hrist. T h a t is, th ere is a close
association in Rom ans betw een God's love, righteousness, and faithfulness
and Christ's love, righteousness, and faithfulness,
Paul w ill n o t allow us to in te rp re t th e experience o f th is divine life
individualistically. W h a t will m ake th e R om an com m u nity tru ly th e an-
tith esis o f R om 1-2, and a credible exem plum o f w hat G o d in te n d e d for
hum anity, is th e co m m unity’s gathering to g eth e r to glorify G od.

T h e o s is i n R o m a n s a n d t h e P o l it ic s o f R o m e

Space p erm its only a b rie f m en tio n o f th e im portance for theosis vis-à-
vis th e politics o f Rom e th a t m ay be addressed by Paul, w h e th er im plicitly
o r explicitly, in Rom ans. R om e m ade certain claim s th a t are clearly (even
if only im plicitly) challenged, and indeed m ade void, by th e vision o f th eo -
sis—salvation, righteousness, and g lory—in Paul’s letter:
1. that the Roman Empire is the source o f salvation and the locus o f glory
2. that emperors either are divine or can become divine by apotheosis and
th at they are w orthy o f titles such as lord, savior, and son o f God
 G o r m a n : The First Christian Treatise on Theosis 33

3. that the Roman value o f seeking more and more honor for self is the
m ost natural human pursuit
4. th at Roman justice is true justice, indeed, the justice o f G od
Paul m ay n o t address these claims head-on, b u t it is clear th a t anyone w ho
accepts his gospel will be unable to affirm th e R om an pseudo-gospel and
its claims. It is also clear, at least to m e, th a t th e R om an pseudo-gospel is
n o t lim ited to first-century Rom e.

C o n c l u s io n

O u r study suggests th a t th e various them es and purposes o f R om ans

th a t have b een trad itio n ally id en tified w ork to g e th e r to serve a larger
theological agenda: th e desire o f G od in C h rist to save and shape a Spirit-
em pow ered C hristlike/G odlike people, a people o f dikaiosynë and doxa. “Jus-
tificatio n is G o d ’s act o f new creatio n .” 64 T heosis, specifically cruciform
com m unal theosis, c o n stitu tes th e rh etorical, pastoral, and theological
th em e and purpose o f Rom ans. Paul’s deeply th eo c e n tric —b u t also th ereb y
C h risto cen tric and a n th ro p o c e n tric —goal is th a t th e R om an com m unity
o f diverse com m unities w ould becom e m ore like th e im partial G od w ho
justifies ungodlyjew s and G entiles alike and form s th em in to one covenant
people. Rom ans narrates w hat G o d has been up to in “salvation h isto ry ” so
th a t his R om an auditors will know w h at G o d is up to in Rom e itself, th e
h ea rt o f th e Em pire: th e creation o f a new hum anity in C hrist, em pow ered
by th e Spirit to tre a t o th ers in G odlike ways and to glorify G o d together,
w ith th e hope th a t th is will spread also now to Spain. T h is so rt o f com -
m unity, as p a rt o f th e new hum anity, is on its way to being resto red to th e
original glory for w hich it was created b u t th a t has b een lo st for a very
long tim e. T h a t glory will be finally realized only in th e eschaton, b u t it is
experienced partially and proleptically in com m unities th a t glorify G o d and
love o th ers as G o d has loved them . x
N o t long ago, I a tten d ed th e d ed ication o f Jubilee A rts C enter, th e
m ost rec en t endeavor o f N ew b o rn H olistic M in istries in th e Sandtow n
area o f B altim ore. N ew born has reclaim ed its urban co rner from drug ad-
diets, having first b uilt a halfway house for w om en on one corner, th e n con-
stru c te d long-term housing for th e m diagonally opposite, th e n renovated
green space and a fountain, and now transform ing a dilapidated building
in to a beautiful arts ou treach center. A fter an h o u r o f speeches, prayers,
and enthu siastic ren d itio n s o f “T h is L ittle L ight o f M in e” and “A m azing
G race,” th e culturally and racially diverse crow d o f 200 or so to u red th e
new facility. As th e final prayer ended, a w om an said to m e, “T h is is w hat
th e kingdom o f G o d looks like.”

64. Blackwell, “Righteousness and Glory,” ms. p. 13.

34 Journal o f Theological Interpretation 5 .1 (2011)

Paul w ould agree. T h is is a culturally diverse co m m unity o f believers

glorifying th e Triune G od, caring for one another, anticip ating th e libera-
tio n o f creation, and reaching o u t to strangers, for
the kingdom o f G od is not food and drink but righteousness and peace
and joy in the Holy Spirit. T he one who thus serves C hrist is accept-
able to G od and has hum an approval. Let us then pursue w hat makes
for peace and for mutual upbuilding. (Rom 14:17-19)

A p a rt o f Sandtow n has b een transform ed from R om 1 to R om 8 and 15.

T heosis has been at w ork, a foretaste o f th e glory to com e.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.