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 3.231

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 humanity’s 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 Paul’s ethi-
cal discourse. To interpret this passage, this article utilizes the literary context of glory
language throughout the letter. From this we find that glory denotes not only elevated
honour, but also incorruption. Thus, the lack of glory in 3.23 refers to mortality and
shame as the result of sin. In addition, this study of glory has implications for the bur-
geoning interest into the question of theosis with regard to Pauline theology.

Keywords
Death, deification, glory, honour, incorruption, resurrection

1. Introduction
As the initial elucidation of Paul’s soteriology in Romans, Rom. 3.21-26
rightfully captures much attention. Within this passage Paul reaffirms
humanity’s universal sinfulness in Rom. 3.23 and describes its prob-
lem as a lack of ‘the glory of God’ (h9 do&ca tou= qeou=). 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 u9stere/w should be read as ‘lack’ or ‘fall short of’.
Noting the variety of interpretations offered for the verse, Leon Morris
concludes that ‘commentators tend to read their own meaning into the
passage’ (1988: 177 n. 111). While the situation is not as dire as Morris
claims, scholars are divided about how to understand the different

1. I would like to thank Professor John Barclay, Kevin Hill and Mark Mathews
for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.
286 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

aspects of the verse. Since the meaning of u9stere/w 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 Paul’s
language, particularly because do&ca plays such a central role in the hon-
our discourse of ancient Mediterranean cultures (e.g., Jewett 2007: 280).
However, others emphasize the theological context of do&ca in Jewish
traditions in such a way that glory relates to a luminous state of being
(e.g., Cranfield 1975: 260). I categorize these two options as ‘sociologi-
cal’ and ‘ontological’ readings, respectively.3 In contrast to those who
focus upon larger social and theological contexts, a third group focuses
upon the immediate context within the verse, particularly the use of ethi-
cal terms relating to sin (a9marta&nw) and righteousness (dikaio&w) (e.g.,
Dodd 1932: 50-51). Which, then, of these three contexts best informs
our understanding of Paul’s 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 do&ca 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’ (doca&zw) signified 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, do&ca is a fundamentally

2. I translate u9stere/w as ‘lack’ throughout this article, though my primary conclu-

sions are not dependent on this reading.
3. The use of ‘sociological’ is self-evident because of its use in honour discourse.
By ‘ontological’ I am referring to a state of being, which for those advocating this
reading is characterized primarily by luminosity. Based on Wayne Meeks’s (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 divine–human relation-

ship (vertical) or human–human 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:

Paul’s 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’ reflects the pre-
vious exchange of the glory of God in 1.21. As such, the two verses ‘are
synonymous for a ruptured relationship’ with God (cf. Schreiner 1998:
187). In this manner, he interprets tou= qeou= as an objective 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 find 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 God’s Radiance

With its association with dwbk by means of the lxx tradition and other
ancient Jewish writings, do&ca comes to represent God’s radiant divine

4. See also Moxnes 1988: 61-77 for a partial discussion of Paul’s 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.
288 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

presence (e.g., Exod. 16.7; Isa. 60.1-2; Ezek. 1.28).6 Through thier rela-
tionship with God, both angels (e.g., Dan. 10.5-6) and humans (e.g., Exod.
34.29-35; Dan. 12.3) are also attributed this divine radiance, though do&ca
language itself may not be used.7 Seeing the lxx and other ancient Jewish
traditions as determinative for Paul’s language, the majority of commenta-
tors understand glory in 3.23 as relating to conceptions of divine radiance
or brightness.8 Charles Cranfield exemplifies this view when he writes:

By the do&ca tou= qeou= is meant here that illumination of man’s whole
being by the radiance of the divine glory which is man’s true destiny but
which was lost through sin, as it will be restored ... when man’s redemp-
tion is finally consummated at the parousia of Jesus Christ (1975: 260).

In this same line of thought, others also associate this loss of divine
illumination with Adam’s 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 God’s visible,
mobile divine presence’ (Newman 1992: 190). See also Harrison forthcoming: §6.4.
  7. Related terminology includes fai/nw (to shine), fwsth&r (star, splendour),
a!stron (star), etc.
  8. Cf. Isa. 35.2; 43.7.
  9. See Pate 1991: 33-76 for a discussion of key texts.
10. The following texts have also been mentioned but, in my opinion, offer lit-
tle or no relevant evidence: Sib. Or. 3.282-83; 4QpPsa 3.1-2 [on Ps. 37.19-20]; and
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.
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 289

Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 2.25: ‘And the two of them were wise, Adam and his
wife; but they did not remain in their glory.’13

Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 3.7: ‘Then the eyes of both of them were enlightened
and they knew that they were naked, because they had been stripped
of the clothing of beauty in which they had been created, and they saw
their shame, so they sewed for themselves leaves from fig and made for
themselves girdles.’

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 fire.’

Gen. Rab. 12.6 on 2.4: ‘He [Adam] passed the night in his glory, but at
the termination of the Sabbath He deprived him of his splendour and
expelled him from the Garden of Eden ... Though these things [his lustre,
his life, his height, the fruit of the earth, the fruit of trees, and the lights]
were created in their fulness, yet when Adam sinned they were spoiled,
and they will not again return to their perfection until the son of Perez
[i.e., Messiah] comes.’

Apoc. Sedr. 6.5: [God speaking about how Adam wasted his gifts] ‘The
father then, seeing that the son has forsaken him (and gone away), dark-
ens his heart and going away, he retrieves his wealth and banishes his son
from his glory because he forsook his father.’

The narrative progression from sin to the loss of glory in Rom. 3.23
appears to parallel these texts where Adam’s 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 first century,14 but the texts range
in possible dates from the first to the sixth centuries. Scholars argue that
though these texts are later, they reflect earlier traditions upon which
Paul would draw (e.g., Dunn 1988: I, 178). On the other hand, some
never mention the difficulties of the time difference (e.g., Cranfield
1975: 204-205).
In addition to these texts that explicitly mention Adam’s 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 first century ce to the third century ce, but it is important to note that both de
Jonge (2003) and Davila (2005) have argued for Christian influence in this work.
290 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

refer to Adam with regard to his (created) glory—Ps. 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 Adam’s fall without
mention of his glory but then discuss the issue of eschatological glory for
the righteous: 4 Ezra 7.116-31; 2 Bar. 15.1–19.8; 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;1QHa 4.14-15 [17.14-15].20 At the same time,
a glorious Adam observes the eternal destinies of his descendants in
T. Ab. 11.8-9. From these many texts, we can easily affirm that Adam
was associated with glory in a variety of ancient Jewish texts and that
in some traditions his sin is associated with a loss of glory, which easily
parallels Paul’s 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 a!nqrwpoj and
ui9o\j a)nqrw&pou for ‘man’ and ‘son of man’ (Ps. 8.6 lxx).
16. According to James Charlesworth (1985: 444), chs. 19–23 of the History of
the Rechabites are thought to be a later Christian addition.
17. b. B. Bat. 58a provides a parallel discussion of Adam’s 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 3.13–4.26), 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. 4QpPsa (4Q171) 3.1-2, where the writer uses ‘all the inheritance of Adam’
(Md) tlxn lwk) to describe salvation. For associations between Adam and glory in the
DSS, see Fletcher-Louis 2002: 91-98.
21. In addition to the traditions, some scholars postulate that we can see an
implicit association with Adam in Rom. 3.23 because of the conjunction of ‘image’
(ei0kw&n) and glory in Paul’s 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 ei0kw&n are explicitly mentioned in this text,
reading Adam through an implied ei0kw&n here is possible but speculative.
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 291

example, Moses (Exod. 34; 2 Cor. 3) and Noah (1 En. 106) are asso-
ciated with glory. Several texts mention future glory or radiance for
the righteous, but have no mention of Adam: Dan. 12.1-3; 1 En. 50.1;
62.13-16;22 104.1-6; 108.11-15; 1QHa 15.22-25; 1QS 4.6-8; Mt. 13.43;
T.  Benj. 10.6-8; 4  Ezra 7.38-42, 75-101 (esp. 95-98); 8.51-54; 9.31-
37; 2 Bar. 48.49–51.12; 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 Newman’s caution, the similarity of 3.23 and the Adam
tradition with regard to sin and a fall from glory is striking. Other con-
textual clues support seeing Adam in the background here, but this will
become clear later. While the focus of this discussion is upon Adam
and his experience of glory, we should remember that Paul qualifies
this glory with a genitive phrase—tou= qeou=. If Adam’s experience is in
the background here, it is not Adam’s glory that humans lack, but rather
God’s glory. Accordingly, the future experience of glory is not a return
to Adam’s glory but a participation in God’s 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
definition 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.
292 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

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 fits, as we will see.

2.4 Summary
We see from the variety of interpretations—relational status, divine
splendour, and ethical likeness—that 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. Ramsey’s use of Alice through the Looking
Glass by Lewis Carroll to note the ambiguity of glory is appropriate:

[Humpty Dumpty to Alice] ‘There’s glory for you.’ ‘I don’t know what
you mean by glory,’ Alice said. ‘I meant “There’s a nice knock-down
argument for you.”’ ‘But glory doesn’t 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 mean—neither
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 Paul’s use of do&ca 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, Cranfield’s suggestion (cf. Newman 1992: ix) that work be done has
been neglected until the last couple of years.
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 293

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
Paul’s 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 specifically at glory in Romans.26 These works are quite helpful,
but they explore different questions from ours. Accordingly a fresh
analysis of Paul’s language throughout the letter will help us situate our
reading of 3.23. Heeding James Barr’s (1961) caution against confus-
ing words and concepts, we will pay close attention to other terminol-
ogy used in conjunction with glory language, noting how these terms
‘are conditioned by their co-occurrence with other lexical units’ (Nida
1972: 86). In particular, my approach here searches for lexical meaning
based upon the ‘literary context’, as opposed to the ‘context of situation’
that drives the status and divine radiance readings outlined above (Silva
1983: 138-48).

3.1 Sociological Glory: Glory as Honour

Paul uses a range of terms in his honour discourse, and as Jewett and oth-
ers have noted, do&ca stands at the centre of the vocabulary he employs
(DeSilva 1999: 9, 124-27; Malina 1993: 59; cf. Moxnes 1988: 61-77).
In Romans Paul uses do&ca synonymously with terms such as honour
(timh&)—e.g., 1.23-24; 2.7, 10; 9.22-23—and praise (e1painoj)—e.g.,
15.6-9—with little noticeable difference in meaning.27 We see that the
sociological use of do&ca primarily governs the divine–human relation-
ship, describing its breakdown and restoration. Paul often expresses
this relationship through the verbal form doca&zw, which, when directed
towards God, refers specifically to ascribing honour or worship to
him—1.21; 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 1963–1978: II, 608-18, and Carrez 1964. See also
Schneider 1932, Schlier 1963 and Coppens 1970.
26. Harrison’s study is comprehensive in that he explores texts from both Roman
and Jewish traditions and argues convincingly that Paul’s glory language has key
points of contact with both.
27. Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida (1989) list do&ca and timh& (§87.4) and
doca&zw and tima&w (§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).
294 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

(doca&zw) and benefaction (eu)xariste/w) in 1.21, Paul accuses unbeliev-

ers in 1.18-32 of not glorifying God as one would expect in a proper
patron–client relationship (DeSilva 1999: 11-12). Paul, accordingly,
speaks of the shame—a)tima&zw (1.24), a)timi/a (1.26), and a)do&kimoj
(1.28)—associated with God’s 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 do&ca in associa-
tion with timh&. Based on their experience of a)timi/a in ch. 1, humans are
in search of do&ca and timh& as synonymous goals in 2.7-10, along with
incorruption, eternal life and peace. The contrast of glory and dishonour
returns in Paul’s discussion in 9.19-24, where he uses the analogy of
clay vessels destined for honour (timh&) and dishonour (a)timi/a). These
two states are then further described as glory (do&ca) and destruction
(a)pw&leia), respectively. In both passages, do&ca and timh& 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 findings regarding
honour: in settings of social relationships do&ca 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,
doca&zw denotes a recognition of honour in or grant of honour to another,
primarily in worship of God.

3.2 Ontological Glory: Glory as Incorruption

Just as its association with honour language gives a clear indication of do&ca’s
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 Paul’s language in this letter (Berquist 1941: 82-83).29 Rather,

29. Two pieces of evidence support visibility as part of Paul’s meaning: the
repeated association of ‘glory’ with visibility in ancient Jewish texts (cf. Newman
1992: 15-153) and Paul’s 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 God’s invisible attributes
seen through creation (1.18-21). But, as glorification is a ‘hope’, yet ‘unseen’ (8.24),
we can surmise that the glory hoped for will be visible in the eschaton.
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 295

Paul repeatedly associates do&ca with incorruption and life.30 This connection,
which has not received its due place from most commentators, stands at the
centre of Paul’s 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 (do&ca) of the the likeness of mortal

immortal (a!fqartoj) God (fqarto&j) images
8.17-18 suffer with Christ (sumpa&sxw) glorified with Christ
... present sufferings (sundoca&zw) ... glory (do&ca)
(paqh&mata) about to be revealed
8.21 the slavery of corruption the freedom of the glory (do&ca)
(fqora)& of the children of God
9.22-23 vessels of his wrath, prepared vessels of mercy, foreordained
for ruin (a)pw&leia) for glory (do&ca)

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

mortal (fqarto&j) images.31 The antithesis of suffering and glorification
with Christ in 8.17-30 builds upon the death–life contrast central to ch. 8
(cf. 8.2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13), and the suffering–glory dialectic in the second
half of the chapter continues the death–life contrast through different
terms (cf. Dunn 1988: I, 463-64; Jewett 2007: 502-503). This reading is
confirmed in 8.21 where we see ‘freedom of glory’ as the solution to the
problem of corruption/mortality (fqora&), which is exactly like 8.11,
where life is the solution for the mortality of the body. Based on these
readings, Byrne writes, ‘As the contrastive parallel with fqora& shows,
do&ca in this passage carries in very strong measure the sense of “immor-
tality”’ (1979: 107).32 In ch. 9, Paul contrasts destruction (a)pw&leia) and

30. While Paul uses cognates of a)fqarsi/a exclusively in Romans, rather than
a)qanasi/a (cf. 1 Cor. 15.53-54), he regularly describes humanity’s problems as one
of qa&natoj (e.g., 5.12; 6.23; 7.5, 10; 8.2).
31. Rather than an affirmation of God’s ontology, the glory tou= a)fqa&rtou qeou=
could be read as an objective genitive, so that the phrase refers to humans not glo-
rifying God. An objective genitive requires the head noun containing a verbal idea,
and do&ca can express a verbal idea. However, the fact that do&ca tou= a)fqa&rtou qeou=
antithetically parallels the noun phrase o9moi/wma ei0ko&noj 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.
296 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

glory (do&ca) as the two ultimate destinies of humans, and this reflects
the death–life destinies noted earlier in the letter (5.21; 6.23).33 With
each antithesis, glory is either synonymously identified with incorrup-
tion or antonymically opposed to corruption.
Three other passages also directly connect glory and life/incor-
ruption. First, in 2.7, those who seek glory (do&ca), honour (timh/) and
incorruption (a)fqarsi/a) receive eternal life (zwh\ ai0wn& ioj). In addition
to being understood as elevated status or honour with timh/, the thrust
of the verse is ontological. Thus, do&ca synonymously designates the
eschatological experience of incorruption (a)fqarsi/a) and eternal life
(zwh\ ai0wn& ioj). Second, in 6.4 Paul describes Christ as raised by ‘the
glory of the Father’ so that believers may ‘walk in new life’ (zwh&). As
the personified agent of God, glory not only brings new life to Christ,
but also to believers. Third, the experience of glorification ([sun]doca&zw)
described in 8.17, 30 clearly describes the experience of resurrection life,
culminating in being glorified like the resurrected Christ (8.29-30; cf.
8.10-11, 23).34 In each of these three instances, Paul presents the experi-
ence of immortal, resurrection life in conjunction with glory language.
In these ontological contexts, do&ca represents God’s 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 Paul’s 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 terminology—life (2.7; 6.4), incor-
ruption (1.21; 2.7; 8.21; 9.23), and honour (2.7, 10; 9.22-23)—incorruption

33. Albrecht Oepke notes that in the lxx tradition ‘the concepts qa&natoj, a3|dhj,
a)pw&leia etc. are all used together for [perishing or destruction], being often
personified as man’s worst enemy’ (1964: I, 396). Cf. Nicomachean Ethics 4.1
1120a, where Aristotle uses a)pw&leia and fqora& synonymously.
34. Byrne writes, ‘Implicit in both contexts, however, would seem to be the idea
that “glory”—whether thought of as glory of God or glory of Christ—is 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 God’s glory, this serves as a possible allusion to the return of
God’s 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).
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 297

language only occurs in contexts with do&ca (1.21; 2.7; 8.21; 9.23). Paul’s
primary terminology for soteriology is clearly that of zwh& and its cog-
nates, which occurs some 37 times in Romans. Do&ca only appears twice
in immediate contexts with zwh& language (2.7; 6.4), but thematically do&ca
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 a)fqarsi/a, Paul also uses do&ca synonymously with timh/ 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 find a number of passages where righteousness and glory are
clustered together.37 This association could be a study in itself, but I
will only briefly explore the key passages where glory and righteous-
ness occur together: 1.18-32; 2.5-11; 3.23-24; 5.1-5; and 8.17-30. In a
description of God’s wrath on all impiety (a)se/beia) and unrighteousness
(a)diki/a), Paul notes how believers have exchanged ‘the glory of God’
(1.23). This is not merely a repetition of their not glorifying God in 1.21
but rather a loss of the presence of the immortal God which resulted from
their unrighteousness.38 In 2.5-11 those who follow unrighteousness
(a)diki/a) experience wrath and anger rather than eternal life and glory
for doing good. Similarly, sin and a lack of glory in 3.23 are the problem
that is resolved by God’s setting believers right (dikaio&w) 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 (dikaio&w) 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 glory–incorruption association also
shows up in other Pauline letters, for example 1 Cor. 15.42-43; 2 Cor. 4.17–5.5;
Phil. 3.10-11, 19-21. Also, I noted above many ancient Jewish texts that note a
glorious eschatological existence, but texts that explicitly reflect this association are
4 Ezra 7.97; CD 3.20. Cf. 4QpPsa (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.
298 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

(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 glorifies believers. Like 5.1-2, glory stands as
the result of God’s setting believers right.
Accordingly, we must ask what association there is between glory
and righteousness. We see that humans lose glory because of sin and
unrighteousness (1.18-32; 3.23). At the same time, being set right stands
as the implicit (3.23-24) and explicit (5.1-2; 8.29-30) means to a new
experience of glory. Paul does not use glory and righteousness synony-
mously as he does with honour and incorruption. Rather, based on their
close association we can say that righteousness is a necessary condition
for experiencing glory.

3.4 Glory: Status and Ontology

From this analysis of the term do&ca throughout the letter, we see 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 clues—differences 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 do&ca and its cognates in Romans40

Object of verb/focus of phrase
Human God
Verb Noun Verb Noun
A. Honour – – 1.21; 4.20; 3.7; 11.36;
15.6, 9 15.7; [16.27]
B. Honour and 8.17, 30 2.7; 2.10; 5.2; ? 1.23; 6.4;
incorruption (and 8.18; 8.21; 9.4?; 9.23a
radiance) 9.4?; 9.23b

40. This table excludes Rom. 11.13, where the object of the verb is Paul’s ministry
and the verb clearly relates to honour alone.
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 299

The verb (sun)doca&zw 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 definitive determination with
regard to the role of incorruption: 1.21; 4.20; 11.13; 15.6, 9.41 Similarly
honour (A) is the sole focus of those nominal forms that are found in
doxological statements or in contexts where the immediate context is
praising God: 3.7; 11.36; 15.7; [16.27]. On the other hand, when humans
are the direct object of a verbal form, incorruption is clearly evident (B):
8.17, 30. With regard to the nominal forms, the remaining passages are
clearly in contexts of life and incorruption (B): 1.23; 2.7; 2.10; 5.2; 6.4;
8.18; 8.21; 9.4; 9.23 (twice).42
Thus, we find glory terminology in two contexts where it character-
izes status (alone) or status and ontology. In contexts of status alone,
glory denotes the possession of a position of honour among a commu-
nity. In contexts related to ontology, glory denotes a state of being char-
acterized by both incorruption (and radiance) and honour. While Paul
does not explicitly associate glory with splendour in the letter to the
Romans, the comprehensive tradition related to radiance and light and
the co-occurrence in other Pauline letters provide strong evidence 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 firm decision cannot be made as to whether incorruption plays a role in the
doxological uses of glory for God. Paul explicitly cites God’s incorruption as the basis
for his having glory in 1.23. In addition, the activity of God giving new life in ch. 4
is the basis of Abraham glorifying God (4.20). Other doxological statements mention
his glory lasting ‘forever’ (ei0j tou\j ai0wn= aj; 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 h9 do&ca in 9.4 can either be attributed to
God’s divine presence (as in Exodus) or to a human experience of eschatological
glory (parallel to h9 ui9oqesi/a, which also occurs in 8.15, 23). Either way, it includes
an incorrupt state of being.
300 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

we have found the context of Paul’s letter itself to be decisive for our
understanding of glory. Accordingly, Jewett’s exhortation to take Paul’s
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 place—radiance—but also ignored the
social significance of Paul’s 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 do&ca 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 do&ca 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 signifies the condition of cor-
ruption and mortality. Thus, in 3.23 Paul associates universal sin with
universal mortality.43 Carrez comes to a similar conclusion 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. 5–8:
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).
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 301

direct relevance to our verse (cf. Wilckens 1978: I, 188). There we see
repetition of the initial clause in 3.23—pa&ntej h3marton. Paul explicitly
states in 5.12 that death (qa&natoj) is the result of that sin: all sinned and
therefore all died. This is the exact logic of 3.23, though Paul speaks
more figuratively in 3.23 by use of glory, where not only death, but also
shame is the result of sin.

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

This connection between 3.23 and 5.12 gives further weight towards
seeing Adam-associations in 3.23. Focusing on universal sinfulness
rather than mortality, Douglas Campbell highlights the role of Adam:

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

coincidental. It would seem that, as for much of Judaism, Adam and the
universality of sin were ideas linked closely in Paul’s 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 Adam’s 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 Eve’s 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 God’s incorruption. In
the same manner, the restoration to glory is not a return to Adam’s glory
as characterized by the three texts preserved in Qumran (1QS 4.22-23;
CD 3.19-20; 1QHa 4.14-15 [17.14-15]), but rather a participation in the
glory of Christ. In fact, this glorification is predetermined before crea-
tion (8.29), and so it predates creation and Adam’s 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.
302 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

In addition, though unexplored in this article, God’s presence as glory

in the Old Testament is likely very formative for Paul’s usage of glory
(cf. Newman 1992).46

4.3 What Does this Tell us about u9stere/w?

Interpreters debate the translation of u9stere/w since the form of the verb
could be middle or passive. Major English translations (KJV, NRSV,
NASB, NIV) and some interpreters translate u9stere/w as ‘fall short of’,
reading the verb as middle (Moo 1996: 226; Wilckens 1972: VIII, 596 n.
21).47 As such, they tend to focus upon the fact that humans do not reach
their goal of glorification as described in Rom. 8.17-30 (Kuss 1963–1978:
I, 114). On the other hand, some focus more on the loss and opt for ‘lack’
as the translation, reading the verb as passive (Cranfield 1975: I, 204-205;
Dunn 1988: I, 167; Barrett 1991: 74; Witherington and Hyatt 2004: 102;
Scroggs 1966: 73 n. 42). The latter reading corresponds more directly to
the experience of mortality and shame associated with Adam’s 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 Christ’s.
Accordingly, Dunn rightly gives this assessment: ‘Paul probably refers here
both to the glory lost in man’s fall and to the glory that fallen man is failing
to reach in consequence’ (1988: I, 168). Also, Jewett’s (2007: 280) focus on
the social significance of the term ‘lack’ corresponds well with the conclu-
sions of this study, in that this language reinforces the connection between
dishonour and sin.

46. The focus of this article is on the anthropological experience of glory, which leads
to an emphasis on the role of Adam. However, were we to focus on the related issue of
glory as the mediation of God’s 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 God’s 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.
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 303

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 Paul’s wider
theology. A common difficulty in the interpretation of 3.23-24 is deter-
mining the relationship of the participle dikaiou&menoi in 3.24 to what
precedes it. Some treat 3.22b-23 as a brief aside with the main argu-
ment resuming in 3.24 with the participle dikaiou&menoi (Sanday 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
dikaiou&menoi is grammatically associated with pa&ntej in 3.23 (Cranfield
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 justification
standing beside each other gives evidence for seeing the two verses
as closely related.49 In 3.23 we see then that sin leads to mortality and
shame, and God provides justification as a remedy for those problems in
3.24. In the same way that justification leads to new life (e.g., 1.17; 5.17,
18, 21; 8.10), it also leads to glorification, which is a life of incorruption
(5.1-2; 8.30). Thus, the righteousness–glory association provides further
evidence that Paul understands justification as the means for rectify-
ing human mortality arising from sin, as well as rectifying the broken
relationship arising from guilt and characterized by shame. This speaks
against separating participationist and forensic categories but unites
them in the act of setting believers right, which brings new life.
Like righteousness, glory is a relational and ontological term, and it
is quite flexible for Paul’s 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 find themselves at a universal place of dishonour because of
their problem with sin. Neither group has a place for power or status
over the other. The restoration of honour is situated in their relationships
with Christ rather than in their own struggles for position.

49. This relationship between righteousness and glory is strongly represented

in German scholarship, but virtually ignored in Anglo-American scholarship.
Käsemann writes: ‘dikaiosu&nh qeou= and do&ca qeou= are used synonymously’ (1980: 95;
cf. Jervell 1960: 180-83; Michel 1966: 149).
304 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

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 find vindication in incorruption. This immortality is character-
ized as an ontological state for the righteous (Wis. 2.21-24) but also of
a sociological state of being remembered within the community (Wis.
3–4, esp. 4.1, 7–9, 18–19). However, that author does not explicitly
combine the two, as Paul does here. And this is where the language of
glory is so fruitful for Paul, in that it can combine that hope of immortal
honour and incorrupt life within one term.
Accordingly, Paul both subverts and fulfils Roman striving for glo-
ria and redefines Jewish hopes for glory and immortality through the
crucified and risen saviour. As in Rome, this honour is mediated down-
ward, but it is no mere temporal gain from a human patron, but an escha-
tological grant of honour and incorruption by the eternal God. At the
same time, the role of suffering shows 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 God’s glory through sin and thus experienced
mortality and shame. God graciously grants glory—honour and immor-
tality—through the agency of Christ and the Spirit to believers through
the process of justification. While this investigation has focused upon
the lack of glory, the experience of glory as a participation in divine life
has a variety of implications. In particular, it impacts the burgeoning area
of research regarding the question of theosis in Paul (e.g. Finlan 2008;
Litwa 2008; Gorman 2009). As a central tenet of Orthodox theology,
recent ecumenical interactions have prodded the West to consider the-
osis as a soteriological category, as with the ‘New Finnish Interpretation
of Luther’ (Braaten and Jensen 1998). Notions of deification encompass
a variety of ideas which developed over time (Russell 2004; Gross 2002
[1938]), but a primary aspect within this complex of ideas is that believ-
ers, while maintaining the creator–creature 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 reflect divine attributes. For example, Maximus
the Confessor, an early Byzantine writer who helped synthesize earlier
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 305

thoughts about theosis, uses the imagery of a sword placed in the fire as
an illustration: the sword remains iron, but it also takes on the proper-
ties of light and heat from the fire by its participation (Ambiguum 7, cf.
Opuscule 16). Since Paul presents the culmination of human salvation
as a sharing in the life of God, that is the glory of God, perhaps some
boundaries imposed on Paul’s letters between the human and divine
may need rethinking. At the same time, Paul’s particular soteriological
emphasis is that believers are conformed to Christ’s suffering and glory
(e.g., Rom. 8.17-30). As such, christosis may be a better term to describe
Paul’s 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 Do&ca’, in D.E.
Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels (Oxford: Blackwell): 1-8.
Byrne, Brendan
1979 ‘Sons of God’ – ‘Seed of Abraham’ (AnBib, 83; Rome: Biblical 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; Calvin’s Commentaries, 19; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Campbell, Douglas A.
1992 The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26 (JSNTSup, 65; Sheffield:
JSOT Press).
Carrez, Maurice
1964 De la souffrance à la gloire: De la Doca dans la pensée paulienne
(Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé).
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.
306 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

Coppens, J.
1970 ‘La gloire des croyants d’après les lettres pauliniennes’, ETL 46: 389-92.
Cranfield, C.E.B.
1975 Romans 1–8 (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 Deification in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker): 68-80.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T.
2002 All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Leiden: Brill).
Gorman, Michael J.
2009 Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s
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
Conflict of the Ideology of Rule (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Jervell, Jacob
1960 Imago Dei: Gen. 1.26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den pauli-
nischen Briefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Jewett, Robert
2007 Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).
Käsemann, Ernst
1980 Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kittel, Helmut
1934 Die Herrlichkeit Gottes: Studien zu Geschichte und Wesen eines neutesta-
mentlichen Begriffs (Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann).
 Blackwell  Glory and Death in Romans 3.23 307

Kuss, Otto
1963–1978 Der Römerbrief (3 vols.; Regensburg: F. Pustet).
Lange, A.
1995 Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination
in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ, 18; Leiden: Brill).
Lendon, Jon E.
1997 Empire of Honor: The Art of Government in Ancient Rome (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Levison, John R.
1988 Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup, 1;
Sheffield: JSOT Press).
2004 ‘Adam and Eve in Romans 1.18-25 and the 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 Greek–English 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 Römer (KEK, 4; Göttingen: 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 Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69; Leiden:
Brill).
Nickelsburg, George W.E.
2006 Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism
and Early Christianity (expanded edn; HTS, 56; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
Nida, Eugene A.
1972 ‘Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship’, JBL
91: 73-89.
Odell, M.S. and J.T. Strong (eds.)
2000 The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives
(Atlanta: SBL).
Oekpe, Albrecht
1964 ‘a)pw&leia’, TDNT, I: 396-97.
308 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.3 (2010)

Pate, C. Marvin
1991 Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of
2 Corinthians 4.7–5.21 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).
Ramsey, A.M.
1967 The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (London: Libra).
Russell, Norman
2004 The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford Early
Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxfoed University Press).
Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam
1902 Romans (ICC, 45; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Schlatter, Adolf von
1995 Romans: The Righteousness of God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Schlier, 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 (Gütersloh: 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, Moisés
1983 Biblical Words and their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics
(Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books).
Sprinkle, Preston
2007 ‘The Afterlife in Romans: Understanding Paul’s 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 Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/
John Knox).
Wilckens, Ulrich
1972 ‘u9stere/w’, TDNT, VIII: 596-98.
1978 Der Brief an die Römer (3 vols.; ΕΚΚ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener).
Witherington, III, Ben and Darlene Hyatt
2004 Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).