I’m a bit behind in posting this, but here is the abstract of the paper I will be giving in Rome this summer:
Righteousness and Glory: New Creation as Immortality in Romans
In the search for the meaning of righteousness language in Romans, studies rightfully focus upon the relationship of this language to other key concepts in the letter: faith, works, Law, and covenant, to name a few. However, one important terminological companion of righteousness has been neglected–that of glory (δόξα and its cognates). Accordingly, this paper, after a brief exploration of the glory motif, will analyze how Paul intertwines these two concepts in the letter. I argue that Paul presents justification as the means to immortal life, signified by glory. My argument consists of three points. First, although Paul uses glory language sociologically in his honour discourse, he frequently uses it ontologically in reference to the experience of immortal life. Thus, when humans lack glory, they experience mortality, and when they later experience glory, they experience the resurrection life of Christ. Second, throughout the letter Paul presents righteousness as the means to new life. Third, Paul similarly presents righteousness as the means to glory. Thus, the righteousness-glory association provides further evidence that Paul understands justification as the means for rectifying human mortality arising from sin. Accordingly, we can conclude that in Romans 1) justification, among other things, is God’s act of new creation and therefore fits within God’s larger plan of cosmic restoration and 2) Paul does not separate participationist and forensic categories but unites them in the act of justification which brings new life.
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 11:46 am
Do you relate glory to the understanding in the Tenakh as Shekinah and the movement in Second Temple Judaism Alan Segal suggests this was where Paul was coming from ,that is a Shekinist movement see his `Paul the Convert`. Secondly do you relate glory in Paul`s writings to theosis which is much more than immortality but closer to the Johannine understanding of eternal life being in the present.
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 5:43 pm
I’m aware of a book that might provide some exegetical support: http://cli.gs/3pZUv8 …
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 6:35 pm
That sounds awesome Ben! And the fact that you get to present it in Rome is great!
Question: What implications does your study have for the new covenant/creation community? If the church is not merely a functional arm of the Kindgom, but in fact has an eschatological-ontological basis, might Paul’s language of glory shed light on how the community corporately moves towards new creation and away from immortality. Or is Paul’s focus primarily on the individual? Does Paul’s use of glory help us understand new things about the PEOPLE of God? Hope these questions are clear…
-Clint
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 1:54 am
Congrats on your opportunity to present this theme in Rome. Rather “poetic” wouldn’t you say?
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 8:22 am
Andrew,
The Shekinah question is one of the next steps for me. Now that I think I’ve got a decent handle on the way Paul is using it, where did he get the idea from? Tom Wright and I have talked about it some and there seem to be some good links to that idea. I just haven’t taken time to track down to see if they’ll stand up to analysis.
On the theosis angle, it is the easiest route to that that I can think of. Glory like nothing else is divine in origin and the fact that humans participate in it is striking. The fact that it’s a participation means that believers don’t become God but they sure look like him, as mediated by Christ. I’m more of a fan of the term christosis rather than theosis for that reason.
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 8:27 am
Daniel, yes, that’s on my reading list. I’ve skimmed it but an office mate has it and I plan to work through it before presenting the paper.
Clint,
The individual-community question is important. I’m focusing particularly on individuals, which I think Paul’s language allows for but doesn’t end there. I think new creation is quite communal in nature but is characterised by individuals participating in God’s immortality. I think I’m more on the side that justification has very strong and direct communal implications, but horizontal relationships are not necessarily the primary focus, so I’m sure this flavours the way I look at the justification-glorification relationship.
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 12:15 pm
In using christosis do you not feel you may be going down a little a Christomonist route using theosis implies participation in the life of the Trinity rather than just in Christ. Paul I would suggest looks at a participation in the Father, Christ and Spirit.
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 12:17 pm
In looking solely at individuals how do you relate this to Paul`s understanding of Corporate Personality.
Monday, 13 April 2009 at 8:33 pm
Ben, the more serious comment was that this looks fascinating. I think the question about shekinah glory is important: it seems that Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 3-4) has at least one idea of “glory” that’s tied to the idea of God’s face shining on the people (Moses, cf. the priestly benediction), but which is mediated and realized in Christians in a surprising way through the crucifixion of Jesus.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009 at 12:57 pm
Sorry that this is a late reply Andrew…got tied up in all that housing business that still seems to be holding on.
On the Christomonist comment, it is definitely a weakness of that term, but at the same time when it comes to the shape of human soteriology, Christ’s morphe/eikon are consistently the goal to which believers are headed for. I wouldn’t want this to be interpreted in a non-trinitarian fashion, as friends can attest around here that I am big on the Spirit’s role in Paul’s letters.
On the corporate personality, my research has focused just on the individual experience of this so I’m not as polished on my corporate side. However, I believe Powers’ Salvation Through Participation says that corporate personality isn’t as viable a category as it’s made out to be, although he essentially ends up using it anyway. I’m not against it, but the responses to it that he notes make me cautious to do much with it. I do intend to return to the participation issue more fully later and hope to figure it out then.
Friday, 10 July 2009 at 9:18 pm
[…] the initial reason I went was to give my paper Righteousness and Glory: New Creation as Immortality in Romans. I think it went well. Here in the office we have been debating about how fast to give a paper, […]