Blackwell B.C. - Immortal Glory and The Problem of Death in Romans 3,23 (JSNT 2010)

http://jnt.sagepub.
com/
Testament
Journal for the Study of the New
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X09357674
2010 32: 285 Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Ben 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 Testament Additional services and information for
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/32/3/285.refs.html Citations:
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from

JSNT 32.3 (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 3.23
1
Ben C. Blackwell
Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, Abbey House, Palace Green,
Durham, DH1 3RS, UK
b.c.blackwell@durham.ac.uk
Abstract
Paul 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 nd 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.
Keywords
Death, deication, 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 reafrms
humanitys universal sinfulness in Rom. 3.23 and describes its prob-
lem as a lack of the glory of God (q oo ou tou ). Various attempts
have 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 uotpto 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.
286 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)
aspects of the verse. Since the meaning of uotpto is highly dependent
upon what the glory of God means, we will focus primarily on glory.
2
In the search for the referent of this glory, interpreters must decide
what the proper context for understanding this language is. Some see
the socio-cultural context as most informative for understanding Pauls
language, particularly because oo 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 oo in Jewish
traditions in such a way that glory relates to a luminous state of being
(e.g., Craneld 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 (oopovo) and righteousness (i|oioo) (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 means
to 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 Greek oo had the meaning of opinion or reputation, and
in 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 (ooo) signied the process of granting or
ascribing 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, oo is a fundamentally
2. I translate uotpto 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.
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 all fall 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 of
honor 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 reects 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 ou tou as an objective genitive
glory 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 nd several uses in
distinctly ontological contexts where Paul uses it to describe human and
divine 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 other
ancient Jewish writings, o o 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.
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 o o
language 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 Craneld exemplies this view when he writes:
By the oo ou tou is meant here that illumination of mans whole
being 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 nally 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: Greek Life of Adam and
Eve 20-21; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Gen. 2.25; 3.7; 3 Baruch (Greek)
4.16; Genesis Rabbah 12.6; and Apocalypse of Sedrach 6.5.
11
GLAE 20.1-2: [Eve speaking] At that very moment my eyes were opened
and 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
GLAE 21.6: 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 oivo (to shine), ooqp (star, splendour),
oopov (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; 4QpPs
a
3.1-2 [on Ps. 37.19-20]; and
Latin Life 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 Greek Life 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.
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 g and made for
themselves girdles.
3 Bar. (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 for
themselves eternal re.
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 GLAE may be the
earliest, with a possible date from the rst century,
14
but the texts range
in possible dates from the rst to the sixth centuries. Scholars argue that
though these texts are later, they reect earlier traditions upon which
Paul would draw (e.g., Dunn 1988: I, 178). On the other hand, some
never mention the difculties of the time difference (e.g., Craneld
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 GLAE probably dates from between the
late rst 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 inuence in this work.
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 without
mention of his glory but then discuss the issue of eschatological glory for
the righteous: 4 Ezra 7.116-31; 2 Bar. 15.119.8; 54.13-21. In contrast
to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch 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;1QH
a
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 afrm 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) and Md)-Nb, whereas the lxx tradition reads ovpoo, and
uio, ovpoou 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), which
is 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. 4QpPs
a
(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
(ti|ov) 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 nor ti|ov are explicitly mentioned in this text,
reading Adam through an implied ti|ov here is possible but speculative.
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; 1QH
a
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 qualies
this glory with a genitive phraseou tou . If Adams experience is in
the background here, it is not Adams 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 a
denition 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 1 En. 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.
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 a
loss 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 ts, as we will see.
2.4 Summary
We see from the variety of interpretationsrelational status, divine
splendour, 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 of Alice 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-down
argument 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 of o o language throughout the letter.
3. Glory in Romans
With 22 occurrences throughout the letter, the role of glory has received
less attention than one might expect.
24
J.D.G. Dunn (1988: II, 533-34)
24. In fact, Cranelds suggestion (cf. Newman 1992: ix) that work be done has
been neglected until the last couple of years.
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 Preston
Sprinkle (2007: 201-33) and James Harrison (forthcoming: ch. 6) that
look specically 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, oo 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 oo synonymously with terms such as honour
(iq)e.g., 1.23-24; 2.7, 10; 9.22-23and praise (toivo,)e.g.,
15.6-9with little noticeable difference in meaning.
27
We see that the
sociological use of oo primarily governs the divinehuman relation-
ship, describing its breakdown and restoration. Paul often expresses
this relationship through the verbal form ooo, which, when directed
towards God, refers specically 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 oo and iq (87.4) and
ooo and ioo (87.8) in pairs, showing their synonymity in certain contexts
relating 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).
(ooo) and benefaction (tu_opioto) 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 shameoioo (1.24), oiio (1.26), and oo|io,
(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 of oo in associa-
tion with iq. Based on their experience of oiio in ch. 1, humans are
in search of oo and iq as synonymous goals in 2.7-10, along with
incorruption, 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 (iq) and dishonour (oiio). These
two states are then further described as glory (oo) and destruction
(ooitio), respectively. In both passages, oo and iq are set together
synonymously, 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 ndings regarding
honour: in settings of social relationships oo denotes the possession
of 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,
ooo 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 of o os
semantic 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 glorication is a hope, yet unseen (8.24),
we can surmise that the glory hoped for will be visible in the eschaton.
Paul repeatedly associates o o 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
the glory (oo) of the
immortal (oopo,) God
the likeness of mortal
(opo,) images
8.17-18
suffer with Christ (ouo o_o)
... present sufferings
(oq oo)
gloried with Christ
(ouvooo) ... glory (oo)
about to be revealed
8.21 the slavery of corruption
(opo )
the freedom of the glory (oo)
of the children of God
9.22-23 vessels of his wrath, prepared
for ruin (o o itio)
vessels of mercy, foreordained
for glory (oo)
In 1.23 glory characterizes the immortal (oopo,) God in contrast to
mortal (opo,) images.
31
The antithesis of suffering and glorication
with 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
conrmed in 8.21 where we see freedom of glory as the solution to the
problem of corruption/mortality (opo), 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 opo shows,
oo in this passage carries in very strong measure the sense of immor-
tality (1979: 107).
32
In ch. 9, Paul contrasts destruction (ooitio) and
30. While Paul uses cognates of oopoio exclusively in Romans, rather than
oovooio (cf. 1 Cor. 15.53-54), he regularly describes humanitys problems as one
of ovoo, (e.g., 5.12; 6.23; 7.5, 10; 8.2).
31. Rather than an afrmation of Gods ontology, the glory ou oopou tou
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 oo can express a verbal idea. However, the fact that oo ou oopou tou
antithetically parallels the noun phrase ooioo ti|ovo, speaks against this reading
in 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.
glory (oo) as the two ultimate destinies of humans, and this reects
the deathlife destinies noted earlier in the letter (5.21; 6.23).
33
With
each antithesis, glory is either synonymously identied 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 (o o), honour (iq ) and
incorruption (o opoi o) receive eternal life (oq oi o vio,). In addition
to being understood as elevated status or honour with iq , the thrust
of the verse is ontological. Thus, o o synonymously designates the
eschatological experience of incorruption (o opoi o) and eternal life
(oq oi o vio,). Second, in 6.4 Paul describes Christ as raised by the
glory of the Father so that believers may walk in new life (oq ). As
the personied agent of God, glory not only brings new life to Christ,
but also to believers. Third, the experience of glorication ([ouv]oo o)
described in 8.17, 30 clearly describes the experience of resurrection life,
culminating in being gloried 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, oo represents Gods state of being
and stands as the culmination of human soteriology, as believers are
conformed 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 ovoo,, oq,,
ooitio etc. are all used together for [perishing or destruction], being often
personied as mans worst enemy (1964: I, 396). Cf. Nicomachean Ethics 4.1
1120a, where Aristotle uses ooitio and opo 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).
language only occurs in contexts with o o (1.21; 2.7; 8.21; 9.23). Pauls
primary terminology for soteriology is clearly that of oq and its cog-
nates, which occurs some 37 times in Romans. Lo o only appears twice
in immediate contexts with oq language (2.7; 6.4), but thematically o o
functions 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 o opoi o, Paul also uses o o synonymously with iq in
ontological 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 nd a number of passages where righteousness and glory are
clustered together.
37
This association could be a study in itself, but I
will only briey 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 (oottio) and unrighteousness
(oi|io), 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
(oi|io) 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 problem
that is resolved by Gods setting believers right (i|oioo) in 3.24.
39
On
the other hand, in 5.1-5 Paul speaks of glory as the result of being set
right: Therefore, because we have been set right (i|oioo) by faith, we
have 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 reect this association are
4 Ezra 7.97; CD 3.20. Cf. 4QpPs
a
(4Q171) 3.1-2.
37. Cf. GLAE 20.1-2 and 2 Bar 51.1-12.
38. See n. 31 above.
39. See the discussion below regarding the connection between 3.23 and 3.24.
(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 set
right 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 glories 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 oo throughout the letter, we see that
the 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 of oo and its cognates in Romans
40
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.
The verb (ouv)ooo has different meanings depending on the
explicit or implicit direct object, as Table 1 makes clear. With God (or an
impersonal object) as direct object, honour alone (A) appears to be the
central aspect, though we cannot make a denitive 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 nd 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 for
reading 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 rm decision cannot be made as to whether incorruption plays a role in the
doxological 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 (ti , ou , oi o vo,; 11.36; [16.27]). However, so as not to
overstate 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 clearly
serves 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 of q oo in 9.4 can either be attributed to
Gods divine presence (as in Exodus) or to a human experience of eschatological
glory (parallel to q uiotoio, which also occurs in 8.15, 23). Either way, it includes
an incorrupt state of being.
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 signicance 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 of oo and its
cognates, 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 of o o include ontological
aspects, 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 signies 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 regarding
the 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., GLAE 19-21; 4 Ezra 3.7-10; 7.116-26; 2 Bar
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).
direct relevance to our verse (cf. Wilckens 1978: I, 188). There we see
repetition of the initial clause in 3.23ovt, qopov. Paul explicitly
states in 5.12 that death (ovoo,) is the result of that sin: all sinned and
therefore all died. This is the exact logic of 3.23, though Paul speaks
more guratively 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 with
traditions 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 Greek Life of Adam and Eve. By comparing GLAE 14.2 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 GLAE and Romans,
but, interestingly, Levison does not mention this in relation to Rom. 3.23.
We must remember one note of caution: Paul explicitly associates this
glory 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; 1QH
a
4.14-15 [17.14-15]), but rather a participation in the
glory of Christ. In fact, this glorication is predetermined before crea-
tion (8.29), and so it predates creation and Adams loss of glory. Thus, as
a 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.
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 about uotpto?
Interpreters debate the translation of u otpt o since the form of the verb
could be middle or passive. Major English translations (KJV, NRSV,
NASB, NIV) and some interpreters translate u otpt o 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 glorication 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 (Craneld 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 and to the glory that fallen man is failing
to reach in consequence (1988: I, 168). Also, Jewetts (2007: 280) focus on
the social signicance 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.
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 difculty in the interpretation of 3.23-24 is deter-
mining the relationship of the participle i|oioutvoi in 3.24 to what
precedes it. Some treat 3.22b-23 as a brief aside with the main argu-
ment resuming in 3.24 with the participle i|oioutvoi (Sanday and
Headlam 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
i|oioutvoi is grammatically associated with ovt, in 3.23 (Craneld
1975: 205; Moo 1996: 227). Campbell (1992: 90-95, 171-76) recently
challenged 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 justication
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 justication as a remedy for those problems in
3.24. In the same way that justication leads to new life (e.g., 1.17; 5.17,
18, 21; 8.10), it also leads to glorication, which is a life of incorruption
(5.1-2; 8.30). Thus, the righteousnessglory association provides further
evidence that Paul understands justication 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 exible 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 for gloria in ancient
Rome. This gloria 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 nd 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: i|oioou vq tou and o o tou are used synonymously (1980: 95;
cf. Jervell 1960: 180-83; Michel 1966: 149).
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 glory
serves 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 nd 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 fulls Roman striving for glo-
ria and redenes Jewish hopes for glory and immortality through the
crucied 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 that gloria is not achieved through
success but through the christoform life empowered by the Spirit.
Accordingly, Paul calls the Romans from an anthropocentric quest to a
theocentric, or rather christocentric, 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 justication. 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 deication 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 the
divine 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 reect divine attributes. For example, Maximus
the Confessor, an early Byzantine writer who helped synthesize earlier
thoughts about theosis, uses the imagery of a sword placed in the re as
an illustration: the sword remains iron, but it also takes on the proper-
ties of light and heat from the re 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 of Loo, 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 Institute
Press).
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; Shefeld:
JSOT Press).
Carrez, Maurice
1964 De la souffrance la gloire: De la Loo 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.
Coppens, J.
1970 La gloire des croyants daprs les lettres pauliniennes, ETL 46: 389-92.
Craneld, 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 of Theosis in Paul?, in Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A.
Wittung (eds.), Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development
of Deication 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, Justication, 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.
forthcoming Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the
Conict 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).
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;
Shefeld: JSOT Press).
2004 Adam and Eve in Romans 1.18-25 and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve,
NTS 50: 519-34.
Litwa, M. David
2008 2 Corinthians 3.18 and its Implications for Theosis, JTI 2: 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, JSNT 32: 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 ooitio, TDNT, I: 396-97.
Pate, C. Marvin
1991 Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of
2 Corinthians 4.75.21 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).
Ramsey, A.M.
1967 The Glory of God and the Transguration of Christ (London: Libra).
Russell, Norman
2004 The Doctrine of Deication 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, Heinrich
1963 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, Moiss
1983 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 uotpto, 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)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Blackwell B.C. - Immortal Glory and The Problem of Death in Romans 3,23 (JSNT 2010)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

http://jnt.sagepub.

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Вам также может понравиться