One With Divinity-Theosis in Evangelical Christian Thought

ONE WITH DIVINITY: THEŌSIS IN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

by

D. Joshua Pruden

Submitted to Dr. André Gazal in fulfillment of the requirements

for Masters Thesis

Northland School of Graduate Studies Dunbar, Wisconsin

15 July 2015

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Literature Review....................................................................................................................6

Historical Survey.................................................................................................................6

Contemporary Survey........................................................................................................10

Contribution to the Discussion ..............................................................................................12

Methodology.........................................................................................................................13

Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................................15

1 Corinthians 15:45-49..........................................................................................................15

Paul’s Argument ...............................................................................................................15

‘Putting on’ Language .......................................................................................................20

Old Testament Background...................................................................................................22

Genesis 2:7........................................................................................................................22

Daniel 7:13-14 ..................................................................................................................24

Implications for Theōsis ........................................................................................................30

Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................31

Matthew 17:1-8.....................................................................................................................32

Context .............................................................................................................................32

Transfiguration: A Man of Dust Bearing the Image of the Man of Heaven ........................41


Chapter 3 ..................................................................................................................................47

John 10:34-38 .......................................................................................................................48

Jesus’ Claim to Divinity ....................................................................................................49

Jesus’ Use of Psalm 82:6...................................................................................................51

2 Peter 1:3-4..........................................................................................................................55


Chapter 4 ..................................................................................................................................59

Created in God’s Image.........................................................................................................61

Creation Ideal....................................................................................................................62

The Fall: Image Marred.....................................................................................................63

Mediator: Image Restored .................................................................................................63

Union with Christ..................................................................................................................65

Regeneration .....................................................................................................................66

Justification.......................................................................................................................66

Progressive Restoration .....................................................................................................68

Sacraments........................................................................................................................68

Beatific Vision ......................................................................................................................72


Conclusion: Theōsis in Evangelical Christian Thought? ............................................................74

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................79

1

ONE WITH DIVINITY: THEŌSIS IN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

Introduction

The terms theōsis, deification, and divination1 when spoken to a crowd of typical

evangelical, reformed congregants will likely elicit looks of confusion, consternation, and quite

possibly even gasps of shock. However, for a large part of the life of the Church these terms, and

the ideas associated with them, have been quite common, even – in the case of the Eastern

Orthodox Church – central to discussions of theology. The West has not always been a stranger

to this language either; however, Western theology has tended to shy away from such

terminology, and instead to favor concepts of justification in the forensic sense. So are the terms

theōsis, deification, and divination even useful in evangelical parlance? Or, should more familiar

phrases such as progressive sanctification or union with Christ be used exclusively?

First, we must define the terms. Theōsis does not mean that humans can become one in

essence with God. Western mysticism has confused things in this regard. While mysticism

teaches a total absorption into the essence of God, this is an aberration from the traditional view

of Eastern theology. As Michael Horton defines it theōsis “is deification without pantheism,

union without fusion.”2 The illustration of marriage has often been given as a correlation to the

relationship between God and the believer in theōsis. Just as a husband and wife become “one”

1These terms will be used interchangeably throughout the paper, although theōsis will be preferred.

2Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 269.

2

in the marriage union but remain as two distinct individuals, so proponents of theōsis say that the

believer becomes one with the divine, yet the ontological distinction between the two

participants remains. As Justin Martyr explains, “That which participates in anything is distinct

from that which it participated in.”3 Theōsis understands the purpose of God’s creating the world,

and humanity specifically, to be the communication of God’s glory outside of himself that his

creation might then reflect that glory back to him.4

Additionally, theōsis has to do with the renewal of the image of God in humanity through

“the transformation of believers into the likeness of God.”5 Renewal, because Genesis informs us

that humanity was originally created in the image of God.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.6

God’s intention in creation was to be united to it, which he was going to accomplish, by

his sovereign design, through creating humanity to image him.7 However, by chapter three of

Genesis the image had been marred. The serpent questioned the trustworthiness of God’s word

(3:5). Instead of trusting that they had been created like him to be made one with him, Adam and

3Norman Russell, Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2004), 113.

4Two passages of Scripture are pertinent here: Hab 2:14 – “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” 1 Cor 15:28 – “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” These passages seem to indicate that the ultimate end of the world is union of the divine and the created.

5Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theo#sis: Deification in Christian Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2006), 1.

6Gen 1:26-27. Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

7Andrew Louth, “The Place of Theosis in Orthodox Theology,” in Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds., Partakers of the Divine Nature (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 36.

3

Eve attempted to achieve theōsis on their own terms (3:6). While mankind was made to image

God in his eternality and holy character, at the Fall humanity came under the curse of the second

death and original sin. The image is not lost,8 but as Calvin said, humanity’s will has been

distorted so that its desires are wicked and need to be restored.9

Not just humanity’s spirit, or will, needs to be restored, but his whole person including

his body. 1 Corinthians 15:49 says that “just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we

shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” Two aspects of Christ’s divine work illustrate

this. First, when Christ took on flesh he made it possible for humanity to be unified with God,10

fulfilling what our first parents could not. Some, especially Alexandrian, church fathers saw the

incarnation as so closely related to the concept of theōsis that they used this understanding as an

argument against Arianism.11 The logic was that if the Son were not fully divine but, as the

Arians claimed, of a different substance than the Father then humanity would not be able to be

deified. Irenaeus said that Christ “would make His salvation visible to all flesh; so that he would

become the Son of man for this purpose, that man also might become the son of God.”12 This

“happy exchange,” as it is called, means that Christ exchanged his glorified condition for our

human one, so that he might not only pay the penalty by his atoning work on the cross, but that

he might also communicate his righteous state to us. Secondly, Christ made theōsis possible for

us through his death and resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 teaches us that Christ’s

8Gen 9:6.

9John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, edited by John T. McNeill (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 1.15.8; 2.2.12, 26.

10See Phil 2:5-11.

11Russell, Doctrine of Deification, 7-8.

12Irenaeus, Against Heresies, in Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 3.10.2.

4

resurrection makes our resurrection possible; as verse twenty-two says, “For as in Adam all die,

so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Our resurrection, Paul goes on to say in verse forty-

four, gives rise to our spiritual bodies. “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If

there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” According to Bernard of Clairvaux, while a

measure of theōsis takes place in this life, the only way to permanently achieve perfect love

(union with God) is in the spiritual body.13

While the image of God is genuinely restored in the believer at the point of regeneration,

we still await the final result, and thus the Christian life is a constant onward march of becoming

more like Christ. Clement of Alexandria put it this way: “There is nothing intermediate between

light and darkness. But the end is reserved till the resurrection of those who believe; and it is not

the reception of some other thing, but the obtaining of the promise previously made.”14

According to Romans 8:29, this promise is that we are being conformed to the image of Christ.15

In being conformed to the image of Christ, according to Colossians 1:1516 and Hebrews 1:3,17 we

are being conformed to God’s image. Eastern Orthodoxy speaks of an ontological change into a

restored human purpose. This does not mean that we somehow lose our humanity or our

personhood, but like a statue is chiseled out of a block of stone, so the image of God becomes

manifest in us when our old man falls away.18 The image that was distorted at the Fall is being

13Dennis E. Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard, Columbia

Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 67.

14Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, in ANF, 1.6.

15“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.”

16“[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

17“[The Son] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”

18Louth, “The Place of Theosis in Orthodox Theology,” 39-40.

5

restored, or as Basil of Caesarea put it, the “Royal Image” is being cleaned and restored to its

ancient form.19 But theōsis does not happen passively; it is a divine-human activity. “Divine life

is a gift, but also a task which is to be accomplished by a free human effort.”20 While change into

Christ’s likeness is spoken of in Scripture as a definite result in the life of a believer,21 it must not

be spoken of as simply an automatic result of the change in the status of the Christian – from

condemned to justified. Indeed, other passages of Scripture speak of change into Christlikeness

in imperatives.22 It must then be concluded that the process of recovering the image of God in

humanity is both a work of the Holy Spirit in our lives and willing participation on our behalf.

As Clement reminded us, theōsis is not something that takes place instantaneously or

even in this life. However we do look forward to the day that assimilation into Christ’s likeness

will be a reality. Peter calls it participation in the “divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). The apostle John

reminded his readers, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet

appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as

he is.”23 Being exposed to the glory of God will instantaneously make us perfect, just as he is,

our whole persons being glorified. Paul told the Corinthians that the Spirit mediates to us in this

life “visions” of Christ. “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are

19Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, in NPNF2, 9.23.

20Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification, Unitas Books (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004), 20.

211 Cor 15:49 “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” 1 Cor 6:17 “But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” Rom 8:29 “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.”

22Mat 5:48 “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Eph 4:24 “Put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” Eph 5:1 “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.”

231 Jn 3:2.

6

being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from

the Lord who is the Spirit.”24 How much more will actually beholding our savior in his glory

change us into his likeness?25

Now that the topic has been clarified, the first task is to survey both historical and

contemporary opinions and themes in the discussion. In doing this we will answer the question,

“Are these terms foreign to orthodox Christian thought?” Second, a biblical and theological

explanation will be given that will give clarity to the origin of the concept. This will answer any

objections to the usefulness or biblical veracity of such terminology.

Literature Review

While historical studies will not provide the ultimate answer to this question, a sampling

of historical and contemporary viewpoints will provide a general understanding of the state of

the discussion. This is only a representative survey, and as such will focus more on those in favor

of using the terms, as the goal is to discover if using deification in the life of a believer is

appropriate in or foreign to evangelical Christian thought.

Historical Survey

As early as the church father Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies (c. 175-85) the

concept of theōsis has been espoused. Irenaeus’ most famous statement on this topic being: “Our

Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might

bring us to be even what He is Himself.”26 This statement clearly sets forth the idea of

242 Cor 3:18.

25Col 3:4 – “When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”

26Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5, Preface, in ANF, 1.526.

7

deification, yet even with this language the early church fathers were almost always careful to

clarify that theōsis did not involve a sharing or confusing of essence between God and humanity.

This can be seen in Basil of Caesarea’s analogy in De Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit). “Just

as when a sunbeam falls on bright and transparent bodies, they themselves become spiritual, and

send forth their grace to others. Hence comes…abiding in God, the being made like God, and,

highest of all, the being made God.”27 While Basil does not shy away from the language of

deification, he makes sure to differentiate between the essence of God (the sun) and his energies

(the sunbeam). The believer is transformed completely into the likeness of God, radiating the

same glory, yet he or she does not become God in essence.

Additionally, Gregory of Nazianzus discusses revelatory knowledge of God that results in

illumination, or salvation. In doing so Gregory picks up on Basil’s sunbeam imagery, again

making sure to distinguish between the sun and its effects. He goes on to say that “whoever has

been permitted to escape by reason and contemplation…and to hold communion with God, and

be associated, as far as man’s nature can attain, with the purest Light, blessed is he, both from his

ascent from hence and for his deification there…through the unity which is perceived in the

Trinity.”28 Clement of Alexandria put it this way: “There is nothing intermediate between light

and darkness. But the end is reserved till the resurrection of those who believe; and it is not the

reception of some other thing, but the obtaining of the promise previously made. For we do not

say that both take place together at the same time – both the arrival at the end and the

anticipation of that arrival.”29

27Basil, De Spiritu Sancto in NPNF2, 8.15-16.

28Gregory of Nazianzus, On the Great Athanasius 21.2, in NPNF2 7.270.

29Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.6, in NPNF2 , 216.

8

In the Middle Ages the French scholar Jean Gerson said, “Mystical theology is

experiential knowledge of God attained through the union of spiritual affection with Him.

Through this union the words of the Apostle are fulfilled: ‘He who clings to God is one spirit

with Him (1 Cor. 6:17).’”30 Calvin expounds this and makes even more explicit statements in his

Institutes. “Therefore, relying on [the incarnation], we trust that we are sons of God, for God’s

natural Son fashioned for himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from our

bones, that he might be one with us. Ungrudgingly he took our nature upon himself to impart to

us what was his, and to become both Son of God and Son of man in common with us.”31

According to Calvin the soul is “an immortal yet created essence…. In short…something divine

has been engraved upon it.”32 Conversion to righteousness, then, involves the restoration of the

will: “It is changed from an evil to a good will.”33 This happens through more than simple

knowledge of God, according to Calvin. “What help is it, in short, to know a God with whom we

have nothing to do?”34 In his commentary on the Catholic Epistles Calvin says, “Let us mark that

the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to

deify us [quasi deificari].”35 Dennis Tamburello clarifies that Calvin’s conception of this union is

“a union of spirit (or will) and not of essences.”36

Some, especially the New Finnish School, see deification in Luther’s theology in his

30Jean Gerson, Selections from “A Deo exivit” 64-65, quoted in Tamburello, Union with Christ, 11. 31Calvin, Institutes, 2.12.2.

32Ibid., 1.15.2.

33Ibid., 2.3.6.

34Ibid., 1.2.2.

35John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 371.

36Tamburello, Union with Christ, 40.

9

understanding of our participation with Christ through faith. Tuomo Mannermaa, one of the

leaders of the school, quotes Luther from Sermo de duplici iustitiae (1518), “Thus the

righteousness of Christ becomes our righteousness through faith in Christ, and everything that is

his, even he himself, becomes ours…and he who believes in Christ clings to Christ and is one

with Christ and has the same righteousness with him.” Mannermaa goes on to conclude, “Thus

Luther teaches by means of philosophical analogy that the essence of the relationship to God is a

community of being.”37 Luther sees faith as analogous to the vows performed at a wedding, thus

uniting the believer with Christ in a “one flesh” marriage. This enables Christ to endow on his

bride all that is his.38

Work has been done recently that serves to show that divine participation was also central

in the theology of the English reformers such as John Jewel and Richard Hooker.39 Not only is

this the end of salvation in the theology of these reformers, but union with Christ is seen to be

effected by means of the sacraments in their theological construct. So it seems that a historical

study proves to be not only insightful but also positive for the doctrine of theōsis in Christian

thought. However, it seems that Western Christianity has largely neglected, or at the very least

sidelined, the topic since the reformation.40

37Tuomo Mannermaa, “Why is Luther So Fascinating?: Modern Finnish Luther Research,” in Carl E.

Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 6.

38Helmut T. Lehmann and Harold J. Grimm, eds., Luther's Works: Career of the Reformer, vol. 31 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), 351-53.

39See André Gazal, “‘Appareled in Christ’: Union with Christ in the Soteriology of John Jewel” in Sin and Salvation in Reformation England Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom, 26-28 June 2013. And Gazal, “‘By Force of Participation and Conjunction in Him’: John Jewel and Richard Hooker on Union with Christ,” Perichoresis 12 (June 2014): 39-56.

40Exceptions to this statement do exist, of course. Jonathan Edwards, for example, in his Dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World says that “the chief end of the world is the glory of God through salvation of man and God’s emanating his glory to them.” Jonathan Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1834), 117.

10

Contemporary Survey

This neglect has been felt and expressed by many, including the New Finnish School as

mentioned earlier. Yet the academic community is divided on whether this is a good thing or not.

Some would urge for resurgence in the use of the term, others would rather retire it, and others

think to replace it with “progressive sanctification” or “justification by faith.”41

Those in favor of retaining or reinstituting the terms theōsis and deification want to see a

continuity of thought from earliest church history until now. They often see Reformation

language as insufficient for a proper understanding of the biblical data.42 According to Michael J.

Christensen, the language of theōsis is “a significant and enduring contribution to a centuries-

long conversation on what it means to become god.”43 Christensen’s premise is that theōsis

should be retained, while he urges for a clear understanding of the concept and terms involved.

Christoforous Stavropoulous senses urgency in discussing the doctrine so that we do not neglect

clear themes in Scripture: “God speaks to us human beings clearly…‘You are gods, sons of the

most high – all of you’ (Ps 82:6 and John 10:34)…. As human beings we each have this one,

unique calling, to achieve Theosis.”44 Michael S. Horton notes that the convergences of

Reformed theology and theōsis should be explored, for the good of both sides.45 Horton’s

treatment of the topic in Covenant and Salvation “highlights a theme that does not appear to me

41Finlan and Kharlamov, Theo#sis, 8.

42Ibid.

43Michael J. Christensen, “The Problem, Promise, and Process of Theosis,” in Christensen and Wittung, Partakers of the Divine Nature, 29.

44Christoforous Stavropoulous, Parkakers of Divine Nature (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1976), 17-18, quoted in Kärkkäinen, One with God, 17.

45Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 272-77.

11

to be as prominent as it once was in Reformed faith and practice.”46

Yet not everyone is as eager to accept this terminology back into the vernacular. John

Frame, for example, says, “This terminology is quite obscure and, in my opinion, somewhat

dangerous.” When discussing the significance that the incarnation has to theōsis Frame reiterates

his sentiments: “This language creates confusion and suggests that we are saved primarily by

Jesus’ incarnation.”47 Michael Bird, in discussing some passages of Scripture that support

theōsis, states that the Bible contains the “ingredients for a doctrine of theosis or something like

it,” but then goes on to say that the concept is “rather slippery.”48 Neither Reymond nor Berkhof

mention the concept in their systematics, and Erickson, thinking it unwise to use theōsis,

recommends substituting it with union with Christ.49 Donald Fairbairn in his monograph Life in

the Trinity posits that the early church did a better job uniting the concepts of theology and the

living of the Christian life in the doctrine of theōsis. Yet, in saying this Fairbairn also says,

“Because this concept is so central and so crucial, and yet the word used to describe it is so easy

for contemporary Christians to misinterpret, I will normally not use the word theōsis or

deification in this book.”50 Although Fairbairn makes this negative statement about the word

theōsis, the main premise of Life in the Trinity is that the idea of theōsis is central to theology

and Christian life. Constantine Campbell, in his book Paul and Union with Christ, has

reservations about using terms like theōsis. “The question is raised as to whether the term

46Ibid., 267.

47John M. Frame, Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2013), 1012 n888.

48Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 576.

49Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 904.

50Donald Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 11.

12

‘divination’ is actually helpful or if it dies the death of a thousand qualifications.”51 Yet in saying

this, Campbell in no way downplays the idea of the doctrine, as indeed it is the topic of the book.

Later, Campbell says that in defining union with Christ we must include the concepts of union,

participation, identification, and incorporation.52

Contribution to the Discussion

It seems from the survey of viewpoints that while there is historical precedence for using

the term theōsis and including the concept in our treatment of theology, many Reformed,

evangelical Christians would rather not include it as a topic in a systematic theology course.

Many are satisfied that the loci of union with Christ, progressive sanctification, and final

glorification are sufficient to explain the passages of Scripture and theological realities

associated with theōsis. I, however, am not. For one, union with Christ is too narrow to be

commensurate with theōsis. Union with Christ is the means by which theōsis is possible, not

synonymous. Progressive sanctification is the process by which theōsis, the recovering of the

image of God in man, takes place, but as a substitute lacks the force that theōsis carries. And

while glorification is the end, the not yet to the already of union with Christ and sanctification, it

too fails to account fully for the richness of the doctrine of theōsis.

In relatively recent church history the term theōsis, or deification, has fallen into disuse,

and even distain, in much of Western theology. Not only does this disregard centuries of church

history, a failure to teach and discuss theōsis misses a grand and beautiful theme of Scripture –

God’s reconciling of the world to himself. The imagery of the restoration of the image of God,

the poetic beauty of the incarnation, the glorification of believer’s bodies, the beatific vision, and

51Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 366.

52Ibid., 412-14.

13

participation in the divine nature are all bolstered by a proper understanding of theōsis. It should

not be dismissed out of hand and it most certainly should not be replaced with more

“Reformation friendly” terms. The effects of epistemological modernism are self-evident in this

regard. As a result, many express Christianity as a system of thought rather than as a way of

salvation.53 However, if Christianity is indeed the way to salvation, then theōsis in the life of a

believer is the absolute design of human salvation to be anticipated, not an ancillary doctrine to

be brushed aside. Theōsis should be taught properly and discussed regularly so that there will be

no need to qualify it and no reason to fear it.

Methodology

This paper will prove the aforementioned assertion in four chapters. Chapter one will

explore the implications of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:49: “Just as we have borne the

image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” This chapter will

first examine the place of the verse in the argument of the passage as a whole. Next, chapter one

will examine the language of “bearing the image” in the context of the “putting on language” of

the Pauline corpus. This study will serve to prove the nature of what it means to bear the image

of both the man of dust and the man of heaven. The conclusion of chapter one will be an

exploration of two Old Testament passages that give context for the titles “man of dust” and

“man of heaven.” These will be Genesis 2:7 and Daniel 7:13-14, respectively. 1 Corinthians

15:49 is significant as it both recollects the believer’s original state and looks forward to the

believer’s future.

Next, chapter two will look at a passage of Scripture that brings both the aspects of the

53Calvin would disagree with this estimation of Christianity. “We are quickened by the true partaking of him…in order that no one should think that the life that we receive from him is received by mere knowledge.” Institutes, 4.17.5.

14

man of dust and the man of heaven into one person in one moment of time – Matthew 17:1-8.

The transfiguration is a foretaste – the firstfruits – of the glory that Christ, the man from heaven,

will display when he returns for the second time in triumph and victory with all things subjected

to him. However, as a human Jesus also represents the man of dust. This means that the

transfigured Christ is a prototype of what we can expect as we humans, men and women of dust,

bear the image of the man of heaven. Chapter two will end with a discussion of the implications

that this has for the doctrine of theōsis.

Chapter three will answer the question, “Is speaking of believers in terms of deification

appropriate?” To answer this the chapter will first discuss another New Testament passage, John

10:34-38, which this time is a direct quotation of a verse in the Old Testament, Psalm 82:6. In

addressing this passage we will look first at Jesus’ use of the Old Testament in his quotation of

Psalm 82:6, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?” Next, in light of this, we will

examine Jesus’ defense of his divinity in using Psalm 82:6 to answer the charge that his

opponents made against him: “You, being a man, make yourself God.” Secondly, chapter three

will continue to defend the use of the term theōsis by referring to 2 Peter 1:3-4. Specifically, the

language of being “partakers of the divine nature” will be examined. In summary, chapter three

will discuss the implications that John 10:34-38 and 2 Peter 1:3-4 have for the terminology of the

doctrine of theōsis.

Finally, the fourth chapter will be a case study of sorts. In it the theology of a prominent

Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, will be examined. In doing so, this chapter will determine

whether or not influences of theōsis can be seen in Calvin’s theology. Answering in the

affirmative, chapter four will go on to show how the “motif” of theōsis can rightly be said to be

Protestant, evangelical, and biblical. In doing such a case study, this chapter will both display

15

what it looks like for a person to integrate theōsis into his or her theology and more importantly

will show how far reaching the idea truly is. Theōsis is less a topic of study within theology and

more a way of looking at theology as a whole, something of a key to place over one’s theological

map that connects the dots and determines the outcome and purpose of the journey.

Chapter 1

If, in the doctrine of theōsis, Eastern Orthodoxy is right to assume that regeneration is an

ontological change to a restored human purpose, then what was humanity created for and, as

believers, what will our redemption lead to? According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:49, “Just as

we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”

According to Paul, it would seem that believers are on a trajectory that culminates in a definite

state of being. To understand what Paul means by this statement and its implication for theōsis,

this chapter will first examine the place of verses forty-five to forty-nine in the argument of the

passage as a whole. Next, chapter one will determine what is meant by bearing the image of the

man of dust and the man of heaven by exploring the “putting on” language of the Pauline corpus.

Chapter one will conclude with Genesis 2:7 and Daniel 7:13-14, the two Old Testament passages

that give context for the titles “man of dust” and “man of heaven.” This study will be important

as it will recall humanity’s original state and, as 1 Corinthians 15:49 says, it will anticipate what

believers can expect for their future.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49

Paul’s Argument

For the purposes of this paper the context of Paul’s argument, which culminates in 1

Corinthians 15:49, begins in 15:35. In verse thirty-five Paul anticipates two corresponding

questions: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” He then answers

16

the first question in verses 36-44 and the second question in verses 45-49. Apparently the

Corinthian church was baffled over the notion of a resurrection of the physical body of believers.

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Fee argues that the Corinthians believed that they had

already entered into the heavenly or spiritual realm by partaking of the Holy Spirit.54 If this were

the case, the Corinthians reasoned, then all that remains for the believer is to slough off his or her

physical body in death and they would be free from anything holding them back from spiritual

fulfillment. Garland, on the other hand, disagrees with Fee’s take on the situation in Corinth and

instead posits that what the Corinthians were struggling with was not an over-realized sense of

their own spirituality, but were mystified by the notion of a terrestrial body becoming a celestial

one.55 Either way, the question of a resurrected body was seen as either unnecessary or

impossible in the eyes of the Corinthian believers. Paul sets out to correct their misconceptions

and explain the nature of a resurrected, or spiritual, body.

First, Paul answers the “how” by asserting that it is not only possible, it is, in fact,

necessary for our bodies to be changed from a natural body, sw/ma yuciko,n56, to a spiritual body,

sw/ma pneumatiko,n57 (v. 44). What Paul’s concern is in contrasting the “physical” body with the

“spiritual” body is not to somehow differentiate between the essences of the bodies, as though

one were made of physical stuff while the other is made of heavenly stuff.58 Instead, Paul is

54Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New

Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 778.

55David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 735.

56BDAG defines yuciko,n as physical in contrast to spiritual. In Jude 19 it is used to refer to people who are “devoid of the Spirit.” Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1100.

57BDAG: “having to do with the (divine) spirit,” 837.

58Thiselton presents two views that would propose something along these lines. The first view is that the

17

contrasting the two ways of living or modes of existence.59 In Calvin’s commentary on 1

Corinthians he describes the difference between the two bodies as animation versus inspiration.60

In other words, a merely physical body is a person who has been given physical life,61 while the

spiritual body is a person who has spiritual life and is living under the influence of the Spirit.

Ciampa and Rosner explain how 15:36-49 leads up to 15:50 which says, “I tell you this, brothers:

flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, Ciampa and Rosner say, it is

necessary for our bodies to experience this transformation from natural to spiritual because in our

present state, the natural body, we cannot live in or inherit the kingdom.62

Paul explains that this is how God has ordered the universe – different bodies are meant

to live in different modes.63 He illustrates the physical/spiritual distinction by using examples

from nature including plants, animals, and planets. In using these illustrations Paul highlights

that the difference between the bodies is the amount or type of glory that each possesses.64 In

verse forty Paul states it explicitly: “There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory

of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.” This understanding

helps underscore the continuity of the body while also showing that the change, while not in

pneu/ma represents a “heavenly light substance,” or the composition of the body. The second view is that Paul is talking about a nonphysical body. Representatives of the first view include Otto Pfleiderer, Johannes Weiss, and Dale Martin. Proponents of the second view include Louw and Nida. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1276-78.

59Ibid., 1276.

60 Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 20, 51.

61As in Gen 2:7.

62 Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 827.

63Fee, Corinthians, 786.

64Ibid., 777.

18

essence, will be substantial. It is fitting that Paul uses the heavenly bodies as an illustration for

the resurrection as probably the clearest passage on bodily resurrection in the Old Testament is

Daniel 12:2-3, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to

everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Those who have insight will

shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to

righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” This Old Testament background shows that the

splendor of the luminaries corresponds with the glory that will be assigned to the spiritual

body.65

Next in his argument, Paul answers the second question: “What kind of body is it?” He

does this by employing “a kind of midrashic interpretation of Gen. 2:7 in light of the resurrection

of Christ.”66 He contrasts the nature of the first or prototypical man, Adam, with that of the last

or ultimate man, Christ. In Genesis 2:7 God gives life to Adam and in 5:3 we see that those who

were descendants of Adam were born with Adam’s characteristics. Paul then applies this to

Christ in a greater sense by emphasizing that those who are begotten by Christ have spiritual life.

Christ can share his life with others because of his resurrection (15:20), so the Corinthians can be

assured that the kinds of bodies the dead will receive will resemble Christ’s and the way they

will receive this is, like Christ, through resurrection.67 Life begets life, as illustrated in Genesis

when God gave Adam physical life and the ability to reproduce after his kind. Those who have a

physical body necessarily resemble Adam. Resurrection begets resurrection, and those who

resemble Christ will receive spiritual bodies. So the kind of body that Paul describes to the

65Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians, 810.

66Fee, Corinthians, 788.

67Ibid., 789-90.

19

Corinthians is a resurrection body, modeled after and made possible by Christ.

The next logical question, not explicitly stated but answered implicitly, is, “How does

one get a body like this?” We have already seen that it is brought about ultimately in

resurrection, but Paul explains what that looks like by using the phrase in verse 49, “Just as we

have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”

Before we explore what it means to bear the image of both the man of dust and the man of

heaven, we must interact with the textual issue of the phrase, “we shall bear.” The majority of the

manuscript evidence holds to the aorist subjunctive “let us bear,” compared to the future

indicative “we shall bear.”68 However, the majority of translations including the ESV, NIV, KJV,

ASV, HCSB, NASB, RSV, and Young’s Literal Translation choose the indicative, many of them

including a note about the subjunctive reading. The NET, Douay-Rheims, and Weymouth Bibles

all favor the subjunctive, along with many scholars including Fee, Tischendorf, von Soden, and

Findlay.69 However, the reason most translators opt for the future indicative when the external

evidence is largely in support of the aorist subjunctive is that the internal evidence, that is the

context of the passage, would lend itself to an indicative rendering of the phrase.70 Paul’s

argument in this passage is eschatological – Christ is the prototype of what believers can expect

for the future. This means that a reading of the passage that indicates a command left up to the

will of the believer would weaken the emphasis that Paul is placing on the certainty of future

resurrection. Instead, this should be seen as something that is going to happen. We will conform

to the nature of Christ just as we share in the nature of Adam. When this happens the image of

68See Ciampa and Rosner, 824 n310; Fee, 787 n5; Garland, 738; Thiselton, 1288-89.

69See Fee 787 n5 and Findlay, 939. Fee, commenting on the UBS committee’s decision to favor the indicative, says “The USB committee abandoned its better text-critical sense here.”

70Ciampa and Rosner, 824 n310; Garland, 738; Thiselton, 1289; Calvin, 341.

20

God will be restored in its fullness, both body and soul.71

‘Putting on’ Language

This brings us to explore what Paul means in this passage by using the image of bearing

or, it could be said, wearing the image.72 To do this a look at the use of this imagery in the

Pauline corpus is necessary. Most often this imagery is seen in Paul’s use of “put on.”73

According to Constantine Campbell, Paul uses this language in three main ways: the current and

permanent state of believers, the adopting of certain behavioral characteristics, and the

transformation of mortal bodies into immortal ones.74 These three, while admittedly different

from one another, provide a full picture of what is meant by this imagery. A passage that

illustrates the first usage is Galatians 3:27. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have

put on Christ.” This implies a statement of fact concerning the state of a believer.75 He or she has

put on Christ having been baptized into Christ. Colossians 3:9, which says, “Do not lie to one

another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices,” implies that this is not only

the current state, but also a permanent state for believers. Romans 3:14, on the other hand,

illustrates the second usage of the picture. “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no

provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.” This passage implies a choice of behavior and

71Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 20, 341.

72Fee, Corinthians, 794 n34; Jung R. Kim, “The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus,” PhD dissertation (The University of Glasgow, 1998), 22. The word here in Greek is fore,somen and comes from fore,w, which can be translated bear but has connotations of constancy and regularity, hence wear as translated in Js 2:3 and Jn 19:5. This is different from fe,rw which is often translated bear or carry as in lifting or movement (BDAG, 1064, 1053).

73The passages associated with the putting on or clothing imagery in Paul’s writings include Rom 13:12-14, 1 Cor 15:49-54, 2 Cor 5:1-4, Gal 3:26-27, Col 3:9-12, Eph 4:20-24, Eph 6:11, and 1 Thes 5:4-8.

74Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 320-21.

75Ibid. 315.

21

leaves open ended the matter of permanence.76

Kim demonstrates the reconciliation of the two ideas by stating that the first usage

illustrates a change in the believer’s nature (from the old self [Adam’s nature] to the new self

[Christ’s nature]) that works itself out in ethical change in the practical life.77 This metaphor is

not only a symbol for union with Christ in salvation, but it also entails ethical injunctions to act

accordingly in conformity to Christ.78 The final usage of this symbol is what our passage, 1

Corinthians 15, illustrates. That is, Paul uses this imagery in an eschatological manner, looking

forward specifically to the resurrection. “Paul’s clothing imagery…is associated with his strong

assurance that believers will experience a great change in their existence at the Parousia.”79 Kim

goes on to show that in Jewish thought clothing imagery can indicate a change in mode of

existence, which would fit with Paul’s use of the image in 1 Corinthians 15.80

In conclusion, the putting on language in the Pauline corpus would lead us to assume that

Paul’s use of fore,somen in 1 Corinthians 15:49 entails the union of the believer with Christ in

regeneration and progressive sanctification, focusing specifically on the future outcome of that

union that involves a change from the natural body to the spiritual body. While this union is

inaugurated in this life, believers can expect the fullness of the promise when Christ returns and

restores the image of God in humanity. What exactly that looks like and its implications for the

doctrine of theōsis must be explored further. Specifically, what does Paul mean by the “man of

dust” and the “man of heaven” in verses 47-49?

76Ibid. 311. For a historical perspective on this passage see Gazal, “Appareled in Christ,” 7-10.

77Kim, “Clothing Imagery,” 260-61.

78Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 323.

79Kim, “Clothing Imagery,” 257-58.

80Ibid., 258.

22

Old Testament Background

Genesis 2:7

To understand the implications of what Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 15 we must look at

the Old Testament background that he was relying on. The first passage is apparent, as Paul

quotes Genesis 2:7 in verse forty-five, “The first man Adam became a living being.” Paul adds

first to emphasize the distinction between two men he is comparing,81 but he obviously has

Genesis 2:7 in mind. The phrase “living being,” or “living creature” in Genesis 2:7 simply refers

to the fact that Adam was an animate being.82 The phrase is used elsewhere in Genesis to denote

animal life as well (1:20, 2:19, 9:9).83 The implication is that Adam received life that is suited for

life in this world. Paul continues to borrow from this Old Testament background as he points out

in verses 47-49 that Adam is suited for life on this earth because he is made from the dust of the

earth.

Calvin says that God created humanity from the dust so that they would have no room for

boasting.84 Gregory of Nyssa says that God molded Adam’s flesh from the ground to show that

he is nothing.85 God’s creative work in fashioning humanity out of dust resembles the work of a

potter making a pot out of clay86 and connotes both sovereignty and intimacy. God purposely

81Paul makes a similar contrast in Romans 5 when talking about the one man, Adam and the one man,

Christ.

82Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 1, 112. This goes back to the distinction that Calvin makes between animation and inspiration in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. See note 60 above.

83Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Milton Keynes: Authentic Publishing, 1995), 60.


85Andrew Louth, ed., Genesis 1-11, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, vol. 1 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 51. Gregory contrasts the creating of Adam’s flesh by saying that God made from nothing Adam’s soul; hence in the human person we have both nothingness and greatness.

86Wenham, Genesis, 59. Although the differences are notable – a potter would never use dust – the

23

stooped down from heaven to the earth and, figuratively speaking, got his hands dirty. The play

on words is lost in English, but it could be translated something like, “God formed an earthling

from earth.”87 Ultimately, the context of Genesis 2:7 underscores the point of his argument. Man,

while set apart from the rest of creation in being made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-28), is

nonetheless still earthly in origin. He is neither divine nor is he heavenly.88

While Paul’s point in referring to Genesis 2:7 is to highlight the earthly nature of

humanity’s existence, it is also important to understand another aspect of the original state of

humanity. Humanity was made from the dust of the earth, but humanity was also made in the

image of God, according to Genesis 1:26-28. This fact gives dignity and a sense of royalty to all

humanity.89 God modeled humanity after himself and in this gave authority, dominion, goodness,

and immortality. However, if this were the case, then why would Paul say that the outcome of

humanity is to bear the image of another other than our father Adam?90 Inherent in Paul’s

reference to the image of the man of dust is not only the physical body, the sw/ma yuciko,n,, but

the reality that humanity did not remain in the state in which God created Adam and Eve.

Genesis chapter three tells the dramatic story of the Fall of humanity as Eve disbelieves God and

craftsmanship, intricacy, and hands-on nature of the creation of man compared to that of the previous creation is aptly pictured in the intimate art of pottery. In fact, the present participle of the word formed (ESV) is used in Jer 18:2 and is translated potter, so the allusion is valid.

87Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 159. In Hebrew it is ha’adam…min-ha’adamah.

88John H. Sailhammer, “Genesis,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 2, Genesis – Numbers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 41.

89Hamilton, Genesis, 135.

90Honorius of Autun in his Book of Eight Questions on Angels and Humanity brings up an interesting point relevant to this discussion. In it he states that Christ would have necessarily become incarnate regardless of the Fall. In other words, the state in which humanity was created (the man of dust) was never intended to be final. Rather, it was the Father’s plan for humanity to be deified, a state made possible only by the Son’s incarnation. Importantly, then, Christ’s incarnation was not a result of sin, but of the predestination of human deification. See “Honorius of Autun on the Cause of the Incarnation,” in Alister E. McGrath, ed., The Christian Theology Reader (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 243-44.

24

disobeys his command and Adam stands by and allows Satan to usurp the creation order as the

serpent takes dominion over the man. It is because of this that the image of God was defaced,

although not destroyed, in humanity and for this reason that life in the image of the man of dust

is not the final end of believers.91 As Genesis 5:3 says, Adam passed on his image to his son,

Seth, and therefore the image is passed on from generation to generation. However, all Adam

could pass on was the image distorted by the Fall.92

Daniel 7:13-14

The second Old Testament passage that Paul relies on is less obvious than the first;

however, it is not a stretch to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It was noted above93 that 1

Corinthians 15:40-41 resembles Daniel 12:2-3. Paul uses the illustration of the sun, moon, and

stars to describe resurrection bodies just as in Daniel’s vision heavenly bodies are used as a

metaphor for the resurrection. We can see that Paul relies at least to some extent on the book of

Daniel for his understanding of the resurrection. However, the exact phrase “man of heaven” in

15:49 appears nowhere in the Old Testament, nor does it appear anywhere else in Paul’s writings

or the rest of the New Testament, for that matter. While it is clear from the context of 1

Corinthians 15 that the “last Adam” is synonymous with Christ, so we can assume that the man

of heaven is meant to represent Christ as well, what is not as apparent is where Paul gets this

nomenclature. It could be simply stated that Paul was doing nothing more than providing an

antithetical identity to the man of dust. The man of dust pertains to what is natural so the man of

91Calvin, Institutes, 1.15.4.


93Pg 17.

25

heaven pertains to what is spiritual.94 However, there is precedence for assuming that there is

indeed an Old Testament background for a person who is of, or from, heaven.

Not only has Paul already alluded to the book of Daniel in supporting the nature of the

resurrection, the book of Daniel also contains a reference to a man who pertains to or comes

from heaven. Daniel 7:13 says, “Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of

man.” This could be a coincidence, but Barrett argues not only that this could be the basis for

Paul’s use of the phrase, but also that there is precedence in early Jewish literature for a man of

heaven based on Daniel 7:13.95 1 Enoch96 includes a vision of a man in heaven and 4 Ezra97 has a

man flying on clouds of heaven. This would mean that not only in Paul’s mind, but also in the

minds of his readers there was a category for an eschatological man from heaven, probably

influenced by Daniel’s vision in chapter seven.98

In Daniel 7 God gives Daniel a vision. He first sees four great beasts in verses four

through eight. The first beast is said to be like a lion, the second like a bear, the third like a

leopard, and the fourth beast was unlike the others, great and terrifying. These beasts, according

to verse seventeen, are four kings representing four kingdoms. These kingdoms are wicked

nations who oppress Yahweh’s people and oppose Yahweh’s rule. The vision continues in verses

94Thiselton, Corinthians, 1287.

95C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Durham: Harper & Row, 1968), 375-76.

961 Enoch 46:1 “And there [in heaven] I saw One who had a head of days, and His head was white like wool, and with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.”

974 Ezra 13:3 “In my dream, a wind came up out of the sea and set the waves in turmoil. And this wind brought a human figure rising from the depths, and as I watched this man came flying with the clouds of heaven.”

98Thiselton disagrees with Barrett, and thus this paper, with the background of Paul’s man of heaven and sees the allusion to Dan 7:13 as “fraught with complexity.” Thiselton, Corinthians, 1287. However, Thiselton does not provide a more satisfactory alternative, and given the influence of Daniel on the earlier verses, it is likely that Dan 7:13 is the Old Testament background for the man of heaven.

26

nine through eleven with the Ancient of Days judging the fourth beast and taking away dominion

from the evil rulers. The vision climaxes in verses thirteen and fourteen with the inauguration of

a fifth kingdom. Daniel is given a front row seat at the coronation of a new king, but contrasted

with the beasts of the first four kingdoms this one is like a son of man.99 This fifth ruler is further

contrasted with the beasts as his origin is heavenly while the beasts come from the sea, the place

where evil resides.100 At the inauguration ceremony Yahweh gives all authority and dominion to

this anointed one. The vision is one of deliverance and vengeance.

The identity of this fifth ruler is debated. Some have argued that this heavenly being is

angelic, possibly Michael or Gabriel, and that the “saints of the Most High” in verses eighteen

and twenty-two represent the angelic host.101 Others, citing the corporate personality of Israel,

stipulate that this figure could represent national Israel receiving the kingdom in fulfillment of

God’s promises to his people in retribution over her enemies.102 Proponents of this view argue

that as the first four beasts in the vision represented kingdoms, this humanlike figure represents

the people of Israel as a whole. A third view is that this one like a human being represents the

long awaited Messiah, the anointed one from the line of David.103 While each view has its

strengths and problems, the first two can be ruled out relatively easily. First, no such dominion

99John E. Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 153, 155.

Goldingay presents a chiastic structure of the vision of Daniel 7 with verses 2-3, “four creatures appear” corresponding with verses 13-14, “a manlike figure appears.”

100James M. Hamilton, God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 199.

101See Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman), 1994, 207 and Goldingay, Daniel, 171-72. Proponents include J.J. Collins and L. Dequeker.

102See Miller, 208-09 and Goldingay, 169-71. Proponents include J.A. Montgomery, A. LaCocque, and S.R. Driver.

103See Miller, 209-10; Goldingay, 170; and Andrew Steinmann, Daniel, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis: Concordia), 2008, 357. This is the oldest and most documented view, going back to pseudepigraphal works. See notes 92 and 93 – these figures were messianic.

27

and authority has ever been promised to angels nor are angels depicted suffering the persecution

that the saints face as in verses twenty-one and twenty-five. Second, while corporate solidarity is

a theme throughout the Old Testament, especially in the prophets, this does not exclude the

important role that the Messiah plays in the future of Israel. In fact, without the Messiah figure

working on behalf of and ruling over the people, there would be no hope for corporate Israel.

This one like a son of man is meant to point to a specific individual, namely the Messiah.

The term son of man is not foreign to the Old Testament, and most commonly refers to a human

being, especially in the book of Ezekiel and in the Psalms.104 While this does not have to mean

that an individual human is in view here,105 the personal pronouns that are used as well as the

coronation setting seems to point in this direction. This individual is seen coming from heaven to

earth. This is obvious as the vision is located on earth and the one like a son of man is seen riding

on clouds from heaven, signifying his heavenly origin.106 Clouds often have divine connotations

in the Bible, representing either God’s glory or a theophany.107 However, not only does this

humanlike character originate from heaven, he also is given sovereignty and authority that

resembles God’s, and indeed is given to him by God. These divine nuances signal that this one

like a son of man is no mere human.

Calvin says that the purpose of this vision was to enable the faithful to expect the

redeemer in their time.108 This redeemer embodies the enthronement of the Messiah that is

104Goldingay, Daniel, 150. E.g. Eze 33:2; Ps 8:4.

105The beasts of the first four kingdoms certainly are not meant to be taken as literal animals.

106Ibid., 167.

107Miller, Daniel, 208-09.


28

spoken of in Psalms 2 and 110.109 Even the Jews in Jesus day, it would seem, equated this figure

with the Messiah.110 In John 12 Jesus predicted his death on the cross. At this the people in the

crowd balked, saying, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can

you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up?” In using “Christ” and “son of man”

interchangeably, the crowd discloses that it was common knowledge that the son of man in

Daniel 7 is one and the same as the Messiah, God’s anointed one. Revelation also speaks of one

like a son of man.111 In Revelation 1:13 he is standing in the midst of the lampstands, glorious

and radiant in appearance, with white hair reminiscent of the appearance of the Ancient of Days

in Daniel 7:9. In Revelation 14:14 the son of man is seated on a cloud, judging the earth.

This humanlike figure of a heavenly origin who is God’s anointed king and has divine

attributes is none other than Jesus, the Son of God. Steinmann says that the hypostatic union is

implicit in this vision of this fifth kingdom leader.112 No other person could be said to possess

such God-like authority and glory and yet be in the likeness of a human. Jesus explicitly applies

Daniel 7:13-14 to himself in Mark 14:62, and it was for this that he was accused of blasphemy

and condemned to death. While in the minds of Daniel’s readers, and presumably Daniel

himself, the specific identity of this man was unclear, we have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight

vision. From Daniel’s vision we perceive immense theological significance concerning the

person of Jesus of Nazareth. As a son of man we see an intimation that Jesus was to take on

human flesh. This was necessary because as Calvin says, “If we were required to seek God

109Steinmann, Daniel, 359.

110Miller, Daniel, 209.


112Ibid., 358.

29

without a Mediator, his distance would be far too great, but when a Mediator meets us, and offers

himself to us in our human nature, such is the nearness between God and us, that our faith easily

passes beyond the world and penetrates the very heavens.”113 Secondly, we not only see his

humanity, but we see his divinity as well. While in his earthly ministry Jesus’ divinity was

largely hidden, this vision makes his union with the Father conspicuous.114 As Jerome rightly

points out, all that transpires in these two verses makes plain to the “reverent mind” that the Son

of God is truly equal with God.115

We also see a final premonition in this vision that anticipates the ministry of Jesus, the

Son of Man. Steinmann points out “the ‘now’ but ‘not yet’ tension that characterizes all biblical

eschatology.”116 While this vision prefigures Christ’s incarnation, it also looks past that to his

second coming; this time he will come not as the savior of our souls but as the king of a literal,

physical kingdom when we, his saints, will live under his reign for all eternity. Calvin wrote that

this vision was a picture of Christ’s ascension when he went to heaven to obtain supreme power

that he might be our mediator in human flesh.117 Cyril of Jerusalem notes that the aspects of

judgment and authority in Daniel’s vision befit Christ’s second coming.118 The kingdom of

heaven that John the Baptist prepared the way for was inaugurated at Jesus ascension, but the full

realization of the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ (Rev 11:15-19) with judgment for the evil


114Ibid., 43.

115Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Glerup, eds, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, vol. 13 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008), 238.


117Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 13, 42, 44.

118Stevenson and Glerup, Daniel, 236.

30

ones and reward for the saints is yet to come. So this vision enables us too, like the first readers,

to expect the redeemer in our time.

Implications for Theōsis

“Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the

man of heaven.” This statement is packed full of implications for the doctrine of theōsis. In it we

have a roadmap, not just of where we have come but also where we are going as our final

destination. God fashioned the first man, Adam, out of dust from the earth, thus giving him a

body suitable for this world. God then breathed into Adam the breath of life, infusing his body

with a soul and making him a living person. Humanity was created in innocence in the image of

God. This image, as God’s, consisted of goodness and immortality. Yet when tempted, our first

parents failed to obey and believe God. The result of Adam and Eve’s failure was the distortion

of the image of God and an evil will. As God gave Adam and Eve the ability and mandate to

produce offspring in their likeness, all those who descend from Adam share in his image – one

that is suited for life in this world yet unable to give us life in the Kingdom of God.

However, although all is lost in the first man, hope is offered in the last man. The last

man pertains to and comes from heaven. He is the image of the invisible God, crowned with

glory and authority. He is a mediator, fully human and fully divine, and as such is able to bring

those who are far from God, due to the Fall, near to God, due to his resurrection. This new image

of the heavenly man is given to believers by the Holy Spirit through union with Christ, exercised

in obedience throughout the believer’s life, and fully realized at Christ’s second coming. “We

shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.”119 As descendants of the spiritual man we

1191 Jn 3:2.

31

are able to share in the spiritual qualities of the resurrection body, a body that is fitted for

spiritual life. It is then that the vision of Daniel 7:13-14 will be fully realized as all nations bow

their knees in submission to the authority of God’s anointed and Christ’s kingdom is established

on the new earth where his saints will reign as vice-regents in perfection with spiritual bodies.

Thus, the end of human salvation is in bearing the image of the man of heaven, restoring and

exceeding in the last Adam what was lost in the first.120 It is then that we can truly say we are

one with God.

Chapter 2

Chapter one, in exploring Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:49, forecasted the telos of

believers; that is, the restoration of the image of God in humanity. At this point it is appropriate

to ask the question, “What will it look like for humanity, men and women of dust, to bear the

image of the man of heaven?” Does this refer to an amalgamation of humanity with divinity?

Will it be physical in some way or purely spiritual? Will we lose our personhood? Chapter two

will answer this question by looking at an event in the life of Jesus: the Transfiguration. This

passage (Mt 17:1-8) displays in one person, in one moment of time, what it is for a man of dust

to bear the image of the man from heaven. As Christ is displayed in all of his divine glory while

retaining, without confusion or distortion, all of his humanity, the Transfiguration is a foretaste

of what humanity can expect when they bear the image of the man of heaven. Humanity, while

remaining ontologically separate from the divine essence of the Godhead, will be partakers of the

divine nature, sharing in and reflecting God’s glory. Chapter two will end with a discussion of

the implications that the Transfiguration has for our understanding of the doctrine of theōsis.


32

Matthew 17:1-8

Context

While the event of the Transfiguration is recounted in Matthew 17:1-8,121 it is appropriate

to start the investigation of the passage back in Matthew 16:24, as the event prior to the

Transfiguration is inherently related to and thus essential for understanding the significance of

the latter. At this point it is necessary to simply mention in passing the events leading up to verse

twenty-four in Matthew 16. Matthew employs the use of conjunctions and adverbs extensively in

the narrative sections of his gospel to both move the action along and make logical and

sequential connections for his readers. This is illustrated in this passage with its short narrative

phrases and logia.122 Two observations should be made regarding these verses. First, in verses

thirteen to twenty Matthew recounts Peter’s confession.123 Inherent in the confession that Jesus is

God’s Son and the long awaited Messiah is the expectation of the Day of the Lord. Apparently,

what Jesus’ followers were expecting in identifying him with the Christ was for an

eschatological breaking in from another world and the vindication of God’s special people.124

This is apparent from Peter’s response to Jesus’ prediction in verses twenty-one to twenty-three.

In this passage Jesus foretells his death and resurrection, which is the opposite of what his

disciples were expecting. Because of the unexpected, and in his mind ludicrous, nature of such a

121The parallel passages in the other Synoptic Gospels are Mk 9:2-8 and Lk 9:28-36. This chapter will assume that Matthew was reliant on or at least had access to Mark when writing his gospel (the “two source” hypothesis) and as such will interact with Mark’s account to some extent in an attempt to understand where and why Matthew differs from Mark. For a quick survey of the interdependence and priority of the synoptic gospels as well as a good source for primary sources on the discussion, see D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 91-103.

122W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 668.

123Mat 16:16.

124Deut 4:29-31; Dan 7:9-18; Micah 5; Joel 2:30-3:16; Mt 16:22; 26:51; Lk 22:38.

33

statement Peter vehemently scolds Jesus for even thinking that such treatment was fitting for the

Messiah. At this Jesus rebukes Peter for having such a worldly mindset and then goes on starting

in verse twenty-four to explain to his disciples the nature of discipleship and in so doing

redefines their expectations for the Day of the Lord.

One of the first differences that we see between Matthew’s gospel and Mark’s is that

Jesus addressed his disciples in Matthew, while Mark presents Jesus addressing the crowds.125

The reason that Matthew presents a change in the audience is that Jesus is making demands of

those who call themselves a disciple of Christ that he would not make of anyone else.126 What

this entails is a complete reversal of expectations. Instead of rising up against the Romans in

revolt and vengeance, Jesus tells his disciples that following the Messiah means submitting to a

Roman cross. The idea of bearing one’s cross has lost considerable significance since the time

that Jesus spoke these words. Today, when someone says, “We all have our crosses to bear,” it is

usually in the context of an annoyance or a setback.127 Maybe they have to put up with a difficult

spouse or maybe they have a physical ailment to deal with. The force of Jesus’ words here is

considerably stronger.128 Being a follower of Jesus will, not might, include suffering. Jesus is

calling on his followers to willingly give up their lives – to count themselves as already being

dead.129 Such a mindset necessitates complete self-denial, the opposite of self-promotion.

Probably the most familiar story of denial in the New Testament is Peter’s denial of Jesus the

125Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 482.

126Davies and Allison, Matthew, 670.

127Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 431.

128We might say, “Put your neck in the noose.”

129 John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 691.

34

night he was taken to the chief priest. When Jesus says that his disciples must deny themselves,

he is talking about this kind of attitude.130 Not only does Jesus redefine his purpose in verse

twenty-one, but he also makes it clear that his disciples are to follow him in that kind of suffering

so that they might find vindication in the future kingdom.131

Verse twenty-five is seemingly quite paradoxical. Jesus says that the attitude of self-

preservation that his followers were portraying will end up leading to the loss of everything that

they fought for. It is interesting to note that Jesus does not scold his disciples for wanting to save

their lives. Instead, he tells them that they way they are going about it is futile. If a person seeks

to preserve his or her physical, temporal life, they will end up losing their true self and the only

life that really matters.132 On the other hand, Jesus says that if his disciples give up their lives for

his sake they will find life that lasts. Now, this is not some kind of radical, reckless disregard for

safety or carelessness. Neither is Jesus referring to “some masochistic activity; he is not referring

to someone who has such a poor self-esteem that his life crumbles.”133 However, if for Jesus’

sake a person considers this earthly life of low esteem, being willing to suffer even to the point

of death, they will find that their lives have actually been saved. This person truly knows the

nature of what it is to live.

Jesus adds clarity to his statement in the following verse. Even if it were possible for a

mortal to gain the power of and control over the whole world,134 nothing that this world could

offer would be able to save him or her from death. Ultimately, striving for everything can only


131Ibid., 690.


133Morris, Matthew, 431.

134Ironically this is what Satan tempted Jesus with in Mt 4:8.

35

yield nothing.135 There is no physical reality that can be substituted for the soul of a person.136

The significance of this fact is highlighted in verse twenty-seven. While his followers were

expecting the Messiah’s first advent to be the occasion of divine judgment that is spoken of in

the prophets, Jesus surprised his disciples by looking forward to another day that is coming in the

future. At this advent the Son of Man will come in glory and judgment, rewarding each for their

works; no amount of accumulated wealth, security, or prestige will be of any value at this point.

“Thought of God’s future should encourage acts of discipleship in the present, for it is only the

final judgement and the final state that count.”137 Because this world is passing away and the Son

of Man is coming, believers are to die to their preconceived notions of justice and follow the

Messiah in self-denial.

The advent spoken of in verse twenty-seven has dual implications. First, for those who

attempted to find their lives by striving for and holding on to them, this judgment will be

relentless. They will find that what they have done has earned them eternal loss. In trying to find

significance in themselves and in their own way of living they have missed the meaning of life.

On the other hand, this judgment will be glorious for those who “loved not their lives even unto

death.”138 Those who find themselves in this group will be repaid with everlasting life to the

fullest. For those who live for themselves and for the riches of what can be gained in this world

this day elicits fear and anxiety. For those who deny themselves by giving up their lives to follow

Jesus this day promises great joy and expectation.

135Hagner, Matthew, 484.

136Ibid., 433.


138Rev 12:11.

36

However, in saying all of this Jesus is doing more than just challenging the mindset of his

followers. He is also making implicit statements about himself that both confirm and challenge

what his disciples, with Peter as their representative, had just affirmed about him. The term “Son

of Man” is a favorite designation of Jesus for himself in Matthew’s gospel. Many reasons have

been given for why this is the case, but with the proximity of the previous chapter and its

discussion of Daniel 7:13-14 at least one reason should be fresh on the reader’s mind. At the very

least in Jesus’ claiming this title he is associating himself with the Father in an intimate

relationship. At the most he is claiming divine status.139

Matthew makes the divine nature of the Son of Man even more evident when he

attributes the heavenly host not to the Father but to the Son. In Mark’s gospel the Son of Man is

said to come “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”140 While the referent is ambiguous

in the Markan account, a short survey of scripture would serve to show that it would be expected

that the angels belong to the Father. 141 However, Matthew unambiguously ascribes the angels to

the Son, thus heightening the perception of divinity of the Son of Man.142 Adding to this is the

glory that the Son of Man will come in. This picture of the Son of Man coming in glory recalls

the one like a son of man arriving with the clouds of heaven and the glory that is inherent in such

a mode of transportation.143 However, this instance is slightly different from the Daniel 7

139A quick review of the previous chapter’s material will prove to show that the latter is probably the case.

See also Nolland, Matthew, 693-94.

140See Hagner, Matthew, 482 for the differences between Mark’s gospel and Matthew’s in this section.

141Deut 33:2; Job 15:15; Zech 14:5.

142D.A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 379.

143Nolland, Matthew, 694. Typically, the glory of God is associated with his special presence (Ex 16:7, 10; 24:17; 40:34; Ps 63:3; Is 60:1; Rev 15:8; 18:1; 21:23).

37

account. Instead of coming to be judged by the Ancient of Days, the Son of Man is coming as the

judge.144 This glory alludes to the unity of the Father and the Son.145

Again, at the end of verse twenty-seven the Son of Man is pictured doing that which is

usually only ascribed to the Father. While it is typical in the Old Testament to speak of Yahweh

giving due reward for one’s actions, and indeed in Revelation we see God in this role, Matthew

ascribes this action of reward and punishment to the Son of Man.146 It is without a doubt that

Matthew’s purpose in saying all of this is to affirm Peter’s confession of Jesus’ divinity in 16:16.

However, he is at the same time juxtaposing that with Peter’s rebuke of Jesus. Peter understood

that Jesus is the Messiah who will make everything right. What he missed was the way that this

was to be accomplished. Jesus will come a second time as a judge, but this time he has come as

the suffering servant. Consequently, glory awaits the believer also, but only after suffering.147

Jesus goes on in verse twenty-eight to heighten the expectation of this event. Not only is

this coming of the Son of man a thing to fear for those who are wrongly related to him and a

thing to anticipate for those who are rightly related to him, this coming is immanent. To properly

understand what Jesus is referring to, this chapter must analyze what is meant by the two

phrases: “there are some standing here who will not taste death” and “until they see the Son of

Man coming in his kingdom.” In breaking down this statement into these two phrases this section

of the paper will further elucidate the meaning in light of what was just discussed and its

implications for what comes after.

144R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 639.


146Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12; Rev 20:11-15. Nolland, Matthew, 694.

147Craig Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 261.

38

It would seem that Jesus is referring to a specific group of people when he makes the

statement, “There are some standing here.” While it may seem obvious to the careful reader to

whom this designation is directed, several suggestions have been given as to who actually was

referenced. One postulation that has been made is that Jesus is referring here to spirits.148 The

reasoning goes that what Jesus says next does not actually happen in the lifetime of his disciples,

so he must be referring to the spirits of saints who have already departed who will observe the

events. There is no space nor is there any need to interact with this hypothesis other than to say

that such a misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying evidences logical gymnastics that does

not befit the natural reading of the text.149 A second suggestion is that the referent was not the

disciples themselves, but the “generation” as a whole. In other words, the Parousia would occur

during the church age, the current generation, and those who remain standing (steadfast) will see

the kingdom.150 While this view, like the previous one, interprets the language of the Son of Man

coming in his kingdom in a way that is straight forward and natural, what it fails to do is to

account for the natural rendering of “some standing here.” While plausible, this does not have to

be what was intended.

A third option is to take this phrase to mean that Jesus was indeed referring to some in the

group of his disciples. This option is further divided into three further opinions. One group

would say that when Jesus said that they would not taste death he was meaning that they would

not taste the second, spiritual death. In other words, “Some of you will follow me and because of

that when the Son of Man comes a second time to judge the small and the great you will not

148See Carson, Matthew, 380-81. Bruce Chilton offered this novel interpretation.

149Again, see Carson for a thorough refutation of this suggestion.

150Davies and Allison, Matthew, 681, although they favor this interpretation “very tentatively.”

39

experience the second death but you will experience the resurrection.”151 This option is

problematic because the phrase “taste death” seems to imply an actual physical death,152 and

possibly even a violent one at that.153 A second group says that while Jesus was referring to some

of his disciples and he was referring to the Parousia, he was mistaken about the timing of his

Second Coming.154 However, this view is not very convincing since there is no way Christ would

make either an untrue statement or a statement that sounds so sure but could not be sustained. A

third subgroup of this third option, and the position of this paper, states that a (partial) fulfilment

of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is what is in view here, thus Jesus is right in stating

that some of his disciples will indeed see the event referenced. Jesus makes it a point elsewhere

(Mt 24:36) to state that he is not interested in predicting the timing of the Parousia, so it would

be inconsistent for him to make a prediction of his Second Coming at this point.155

This leads into a discussion of the second phrase, “until they see the Son of Man coming

in his kingdom.” Again, several options have been suggested as to what is in view here. As was

alluded to in the previous discussion, some take this to be referring solely and specifically to the

Parousia. The language of the phrase has strong eschatological inferences, thus the Second

Coming must be in view.156 Another option is that what is being referred to is not the Parousia

but Christ’s resurrection and ascension.157 Others suggest that what is in view is Pentecost and/or

151Morris, Matthew, 434 n67.

152Hagner, Matthew, 486.

153Nolland, Matthew, 695.

154See Blomberg, Matthew, 261


156See Hagner, 485.

157Davies and Allison, Matthew, 678-79.

40

the subsequent expansion and growth of the kingdom evidenced by the spread of the gospel.158

R.T. France, in exploring the other allusions to Daniel 7:13-14 in Matthew’s gospel,159 believes

that it cannot be the Parousia since Christ has obviously not come back yet. Instead, he sees this

coming as “a coming to God to receive power and glory, not a coming to earth.”160

However, a final suggestion has been given that will be allowed more space, since it is

the position of this thesis. This view states that the fulfilment of verse twenty-eight occurs

immediately following in the narrative at the Transfiguration. While proponents of this view

would say that the language of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is typical of the Parousia,

the fulfilment of the kingdom can be seen in progressive stages. “Partial fulfilment created the

expectation of a future, more adequate fulfilment.”161 Or, others would say that the

Transfiguration is a foretaste of the Parousia, and thus is the fulfilment in the sense of

foreshadowing.162 2 Peter 1:16-18 reinforces this view. Peter tells his audience that the message

he is preaching is reliable because he was an eyewitness of the majesty of the Son when he

received glory and honor from the Father on the holy mountain, thus connecting Matthew 16:27-

28 with the Transfiguration. Whether in partial fulfilment or foreshadowing, this view tries to

take the natural understanding of what it means for the Son of Man to come in his kingdom, what

was said previously about those standing there seeing it, and the nature of inaugurated

eschatology.163 That being the position of this paper, we will now turn to Matthew 17:1-8 to see

158Carson, Matthew, 382.

15910:23; 24:30, 34; 26:64; 28:18.

160France, Matthew, 637.


162Blomberg, Matthew, 261.

163Already/not yet aspects of fulfilment as well as typological fulfilment, with which Scripture is rife.

41

how the Transfiguration is a fulfilment of Matthew 16:28 and why it is placed at this point in the

narrative.164

Transfiguration: A Man of Dust Bearing the Image of the Man of Heaven

Matthew includes at the start of the chapter the time marker “after six days….”165 This is

unusual for Matthew’s gospel, as he is usually unconcerned about the exact timing of Jesus

ministry, until of course the Passion Week.166 This is probably meant to tie the events previous

even more closely to what follows. About a week after Jesus informed his disciples of the high

cost of discipleship, Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to the top of a high mountain so that

they might be alone. The text does not tell us if they had stopped and engaged in conversation or

if they had just made it to the top when suddenly Jesus was “transfigured” in front of his three

apostles’ eyes. The word metamorfo,w means “to change in a manner visible to others.”167 This

implies that this was not an allusion or a dream but an actual change that the three perceived. 2

Corinthians 3:18 might shed some light on the nuance of the word. “And we all, with unveiled

face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one

degree of glory to another.” While Jesus presumably retained his form, he was enhanced in his

glory.168

The change consisted of the alteration of the skin of Jesus’ face and his clothing so that

164It is interesting to note that all three Synoptics have the sequence: Peter’s confession; Jesus’ prediction of

his death; Call to discipleship; and the Transfiguration.

165Mark agrees, while Luke says “about eight days.” These are probably expressions to indicate that about a week had passed.


167BDAG, 639. The common usage of the English word, metamorphosis, in an insect or amphibian is the process of transformation from an immature form to an adult form. This recalls the discussion of 1 Cor 15:42-44.


42

they shone “with dazzling brilliance and whiteness, suggesting glory, sovereignty, and purity.”169

The most familiar event in Old Testament history involving a shining face is the shining of

Moses’ face after being exposed to the glory of God. The difference here is that Moses’ face

shone as a result of being exposed to the glory of Yahweh, while the glory emanating from Jesus

came from himself.170 There is also a striking resemblance to the man of Daniel’s vision in

Daniel 10 whose face was “like the appearance of lightning.”171 Jesus’ bright clothing evokes

imagery of God’s clothing of splendor and majesty in Job 37:22 and the Ancient of Days whose

clothing was white as snow in Daniel 7:9.172 “The visible alteration of Jesus demonstrates that he

is more than a merely human teacher.”173

Then, appearing with Jesus the apostles recognized Moses and Elijah, who were talking

with him. The significance of each has been debated, but we can offer at least a couple of

suggestions. Most obviously, the connections between Moses and Jesus are legion in this

account. First, the fact that this occurred on a mountain recalls Mt. Sinai where Moses received

the law. Also, the cloud that appears later in the account is reminiscent of the Shekinah glory that

covered the top of the mountain at Sinai.174 Finally, while it is not picked up on in Matthew’s

gospel, Luke records the topic of Jesus’ conversation with Moses and Elijah – his “departure” or,

literally, “exodus.”175 All of these correspondences, and many more, point to the significance of




172Ibid., 701.

173France, Matthew, 642-43.


175Luke 9:31 says that they were speaking about e;xodon auvtou// - “his exodus.”

43

the presence of Moses on the mountain.176

As far as Elijah is concerned, several suggestions can be given as to why he appeared.

The most important, however, is Elijah’s eschatological significance. In Malachi 4 Yahweh

prophesied that a day would come when his people would remember the Law of Moses177 and

return to obedience. In that day, the Day of the Lord, Yahweh would come with vengeance over

Israel’s enemies and give victory to his people, turning their hearts back to their God. Before that

day came, however, Yahweh would send the prophet Elijah who would act as a harbinger and a

sign for his people of the coming salvation. Like Moses, Elijah was something of a suffering

servant – a faithful but rejected prophet. Elijah was also connected to Moses in that he was

responsible for a revival the Law. Moses was the lawgiver and Elijah was the prophet who called

Israel back to obedience. Moses and Elijah were, in Jewish tradition, both “deathless” ones.178

While we do have the record of Moses’ death in the Old Testament, it became common in

Judaism to think of Moses in terms similar to Elijah as both of their bodies were “transported”

from the view of their contemporaries. Jesus, however, is even greater than these two in that

while he died, he was the only one to come back permanently from the dead.179

Peter, presumably speaking for the other two, suggested that the three’s presence at this

moment was a good thing. Why this was a good thing Peter does not explain, but possibly his

next statement was at least part of the reason: “If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for

176Other suggested correspondences include the six days of preparation before Moses received the law (Ex

24:16), a select group of companions (Ex 24:1, 9), and the role as deliverer of God’s people.

177Another connection to Moses.


179Other connections could be made, including that Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets, both were connected with periods of Old Testament miracles, both went up to a mountain to see God, both faced rejection and hostility, both met strange ends, and both were expected to return at the end of time.

44

you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” The word for “tent” is skhnh, which in the Septuagint

was the translation of the Hebrew word mishkan, translated in most English translations as

“tabernacle.” This is significant because of the Jewish feast Sukkot, or the Feast of the

Tabernacles.180 This feast was to remind the people of the time when Yahweh dwelt in their

midst in the wilderness as well as to cause them to look forward to the fulfilment of the promise

that Yahweh would again tabernacle with his people.181 Apparently Peter mistook this event for

the real thing.182 He was certain, again, that suffering was not in the plan for the Messiah, but

that this was his time for glory and conquering. Mark and Luke both point out that Peter’s

statement was made in ignorance.183

Suddenly, a bright cloud184 enveloped them, and a voice cut off Peter in the middle of his

sentence. The scene recollects Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:17 and the same voice repeats what

was said then, this time exclusively for the benefit of the three apostles: “This is my beloved

Son, with whom I am well pleased.” In affirming the Son, the Father is doing at least two things.

One, he is confirming Peter’s confession. While Peter often gets a bad rap, and most of the time

rightfully so, what he said about Jesus in 16:16 is met with God’s seal of approval in 17:5. Even

though the disciples misunderstood the nature of Christ’s mission, what they affirmed about the

person of Christ was without a doubt veracious. Secondly, the Father is not only confirming the

sonship of Jesus, he is also granting his divine seal of approval on his mission, as he did at the



182Nolland, Matthew, 703

183Mk 9:6; Lk 9:33.

184As on Sinai, the cloud represents the divine glory and presence (Ex 34:29-35; 40:34-38).

45

beginning of his ministry.185 If it is true that the Transfiguration is a foretaste of what is coming

in the Parousia, coupled with what Jesus previously told his disciples about his immanent death,

then the Father is confirming that the road to glory is through suffering.186

This is reinforced by what the divine voice from the cloud adds to the baptismal

statement: “Listen to him.” This is yet another point of contact with Moses.187 In Deuteronomy

18 when Moses is recounting the Law to the people before his death, preparing them to enter the

land, he tells them that Yahweh had purposed to raise up a prophet like Moses who would speak

Yahweh’s words to the people. To this Yahweh adds, “It is to him you shall listen…. And

whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of

him.” The Father is intentionally connecting Jesus with this prophet, informing the disciples that

even if their expectations are not met, what Jesus told them about the path to glory is not only

correct, it is Yahweh’s plan.

At this Peter, James, and John fell on their faces, a response typical of encounters with

divine beings.188 Then Jesus, resembling the angelic figure of Daniel 10 and Revelation 1, came

to his disciples and comforted them, touching them and telling them not to be afraid. When they

looked up the vision had passed, and Jesus was alone on the mountain, his physiognomy restored

to its pre-glory condition. What Peter had mistaken for a permanent situation was not the fullness

of the kingdom that they were expecting, but a foretaste – a preview – of what was to come. This

was for their benefit and the confirmation of Jesus’ mission. Ironically, they probably would not


186Nolland, Matthew, 704


188Gen 17:3; Lev 9:24; Num 20:6; Jos 5:14; Jud 13:20; Eze 1:28; Dan 10:9.

46

fully understand the significance of what they saw until after the resurrection.

While it is human nature to want to avoid suffering and to long for glory, in Jesus’

kingdom this is not the way. If a person desires to share in the glory of the Son of Man, they are

first to follow Jesus in self-abasing devotion. Humanity was created to be in union with God –

we were created in his image to be made like him. However, in the Garden Adam and Eve

became dissatisfied and ungrateful with the state in which they were created and desired to be

like God in their own way by their own means. Because of their disobedience, God’s image in

humanity was marred, almost beyond recognition. Ever since that time humanity has attempted

to make a name for itself,189 grasping and longing for the glory that was lost at the Fall. In the

Transfiguration we learn that God’s program for the restoration of humanity to a right

relationship with himself to share in his glory will not come by expected means nor on our terms.

Instead, the one who would be like Christ must also first suffer with him.190


The Transfiguration, however, is not just placed in the narrative for the purpose of

correcting the perceptions of Jesus’ followers regarding the mission of the Messiah and the

Second Coming of the Son of Man. Nor is it simply the fulfilment of Jesus’ prediction in

Matthew 16:28. The importance of discussing the Transfiguration is that this is the point in

history when what is later predicted in 1 Corinthians 15:49 for believers is prefigured here in the

person of Jesus Christ.191 Traditionally, the place of emphasis for the Transfiguration has been

189Gen 11:4.

190Rom 8:17.

191Davies and Allison, Matthew, 696. “It may not be irrelevant to keep in mind the expectation that the bodies of the righteous will, in the end, undergo a transformation, for the transfigured Jesus is probably intended to show forth what believers will become.”

47

placed either on Christ’s humanity or on his divinity. For the Hesychasts of Byzantium, however,

these two aspects are correspondent.192 The glory that belongs to God alone transforms human

beings into what, through divine participation, humanity is destined for.

While Jesus was God and man for his entire human life, up until this point in his ministry

his divine person had been veiled.193 It is at the Transfiguration that the covers are pulled back

and the full effulgence of the divine glory emanated from the dust-bound human, thus displaying

what it looks like for humanity to be united with deity. This transformation was “from an earthly

form into a supraterrestrial…. Before the eyes of His most intimate disciples the human

appearance of Jesus was for a moment changed into that of a heavenly being in the transfigured

world.”194 The man of dust meets the man from heaven on the mountain and it is here that God’s

plan for the ages is made manifest. Jesus’ purpose in coming to the earth was to restore what was

lost in Adam by uniting humanity with God; and one day we too will stand with Jesus, our

forerunner, on Zion’s hill – one with God. The Transfiguration is both a glimpse of Christ’s

coming resurrection and what can be expected for the faithful at his Parousia.195

Chapter 3

Thus far this paper has shown first, the end of salvation in the recovery of the image of

God in humanity through Christ and second, the prototype of that end in the Transfiguration. The

two chapters previous have shown that the concept of theōsis is a biblical one, but now it is the

burden of this third chapter to prove the usefulness of the term. The destiny of believers is being

192Ibid., 705.

193Hagner, Matthew, 489-90.

194J. Behm, quoted in Morris, Matthew, 438-39.


48

conformed to the image of God, recovering both the eternality and righteousness that was lost at

the Fall. However, is it appropriate or even biblical to talk about this predominant biblical theme

with terms like theōsis or deification? First, chapter three will explore Jesus’ use of the Old

Testament as he quotes Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 to defend his claim to be God’s Son. Then,

chapter three will discuss Peter’s language of “partaking of the divine nature” in 2 Peter 1:3-4.

This will lead to the implications that these passages of Scripture have for using the term theōsis.

John 10:34-38

In John 10:24 some Jews gathered around Jesus during the Feast of the Dedication and

demanded that he tell them if he were truly the Messiah, God’s anointed servant. Jesus’ response

in verse twenty-five was terse: “I told you, and you do not believe.” Through his miracles,

claims, and teaching, Jesus had made “plain” to both his disciples and the crowds, including the

indignant Jewish leaders, that the question of his identity could only be answered by affirming

his divine calling as Israel’s Messiah. But the Jews were not asking this question out of sincerity;

if they were they would have already come to the correct conclusion. Jesus goes on in verses

25b-29 to show that his works confirm his personage. He explains that his followers (sheep) hear

his voice and in following him are given eternal life. This eternal life that is gifted by Jesus is

guaranteed because Jesus’ hand is impervious to sheep bandits. At this point the Jews are

probably disgruntled by Jesus’ claim to grant eternal life; however, what Jesus says next is what

infuriated them the most. “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one

is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” Verse thirty is the

climax of the passage as Jesus makes the explicit claim that the Jews were hoping for. Why they

were so furious becomes clear in verse thirty-three when the Jews charge Jesus with blasphemy.

Technically, the definition of blasphemy according to Sanhedrin 7:5 (c. AD 200) is pronouncing

49

the Tetragrammeton; however, not all Jewish leaders agreed on such a specific definition.196

Other definitions include either ascribing to God qualities that are incongruous with his character

or else ascribing qualities to others that are only rightly ascribed to God.197 The latter is in view

here as what Jesus says about God is completely appropriate – the Father is the guarantor of

eternal security. What is blasphemous, in the Jews’ minds, is that Jesus ascribed the same

attribute to himself immediately preceding. In claiming to do the same work as the Father, Jesus

is at the least claiming equality with God and conceivably even claiming to be God. Such a

claim, for a mere human, would indeed be blasphemous.

Jesus’ Claim to Divinity

What Jesus meant by “I and the Father are one” is not unambiguously clear. Some

commentators198 take this statement to refer to the actions of the Father and Jesus; that they are

one in deed. Since the noun is neuter, personhood is not being referred to but unity of work and

purpose.199 Others, however, disagree, citing the charge leveled by the Jews against Jesus.200

While Jesus does prove that his work is one with the Father, he is claiming much more than just

that. Claiming to be in unison with the works of God is one thing; claiming to be in union with

God’s person is quite another.201 Either way, Jesus makes a claim that is inappropriate for a mere

196D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester:

Apollos, 1991), 396.


198Ridderbos and Michaels; see Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 312.

199Carson, John, 394.

200Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 523.

201It is not unheard of elsewhere in the Gospel of John to talk about union with the Father in terms that are not to be taken ontologically. John 17:22 is the perfect example of this where Jesus prays that his followers be one

50

human to make, which is why the Jews in verse thirty-one picked up stones to put him to death.

Jesus’ defense against this charge of blasphemy is compelling. Instead of defending his

claims by attempting to prove his identity, Jesus challenges the Jews’ commitment to Scripture

and in so doing refutes their slander.202 “Is it not written in your Law?” By framing the question

in this way Jesus emphasized the importance that the Jews claimed to place on the Old

Testament Scriptures,203 which sets the stage for his challenge to their approach to God’s Word.

Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6204 where individuals who were less than divine are addressed as “gods”

and “sons of the Most High.” The identity of these individuals is debated. Some say that Jesus is

referencing Israel at Sinai, the judges in the nation at the time of the writing of the Psalm, or

principalities and authorities.205 In Scripture, the phrase “those to whom the word of God came”

is always used in reference to human beings and often of those who speak in God’s name as in

Genesis 15:1, 1 Samuel 15:10, 2 Samuel 7:4, 24:11, 1 Kings 12:22, Ezekiel 37:15, Luke 3:2, and

many others.206 Most likely this phrase refers either to Israel at Mount Sinai or to the judges in

Israel who act on God’s behalf.207 Either way, Jesus, arguing in a Rabinic lesser to greater

fashion,208 makes the point that if Scripture is right to call gods those “to whom the word of God

just as the Son and the Father are one. Obviously the Son is not completely identified with the person of the Father (Sabellianism), but definitely he is one in a more complete way than you or I. See Carson, John, 395.


203Köstenberger, John, 314 n82.

204It is not unusual that Jesus referred to this passage in the Psalms as “Law,” as it was common practice to refer to the entire Old Testament by referring to the first part, the Torah.

205Carson, John, 397-98; Köstenberger, John, 315. See below, Jesus’ Use of Psalm 82:6, for a more thorough discussion of the identity of those being addressed.

206Köstenberger, John, 315.

207Carson (John, 398) takes the former opinion and Calvin (Commentaries, vol. 17, 419) and Morris (John, 525) take the latter position.

208Köstenberger, John, 315.

51

came,” then how much more can the Messiah209 rightfully be called the Son of God? Thus Jesus

shows that “this Scripture proves that the word ‘god’ is legitimately used to refer to other than

God himself.”210 Because the Scripture cannot be broken, or “emptied of its force by being

shown as erroneous,”211 Jesus is challenging the Jews to not set it aside because it is

inconvenient at that time.212 Again, at the end of Jesus’ response he points to his works, not

because believing in the works themselves is important, but because believing in the works that

he did will lead a person to an accurate understanding of who he was: one with the Father.213

Jesus’ Use of Psalm 82:6

It was mentioned above how Jesus’ response to the Jews was unique in that he did not

attempt to prove his identity, but rather established precedence for referring to beings other than

God with the term god, thus challenging the Jews’ view of Scripture. As this is the case, it would

be appropriate to examine the context of the verse that Jesus referenced so that a better

understanding of what he meant can be reached and its implications for this paper can be

discovered.

The setting of the Psalm is not a unique one in Scripture. In Job 1:6-12 there is a similar

situation where the sons of God present themselves before Yahweh with Satan as their

209Jesus used the term “consecrated” which possibly refers back to his baptism when the Father spoke from

heaven and placed his divine seal of approval on the Son. In this way Jesus was consecrated for service. This might be a reference to the time of year that it was as this interchange took place during the Feast of the Dedication. Like the temple was dedicated as the place for the special presence of God on earth during its tenure, now, during his earthly ministry, Jesus was designated as the presence of God among humanity.


211Morris, John, 526.


213Morris, John, 528.

52

spokesperson.214 The wording of verse one in Psalm 82, “the divine council,” might make it

sound like this is a place for consultation, but the rest of the Psalm makes it clear that they are

assembled to be judged, not consulted.215 Although the title can refer to both the true God and

the subordinate gods,216 there is no confusion in the Psalm who is Elohim. Yahweh is the only

one worthy to stand in judgment.

However the question is, who are these “elohim” that God is judging? As was mentioned

in the discussion above, the identity of these individuals is unclear. If we take Job 1 as our rule

then it seems logical to assume that the gods are spiritual authorities or demonic forces.

Additionally, elsewhere in Scripture lesser heavenly beings are called elohim.217 However,

according to John 10, Jesus seemed to take these elohim to be human.218 Jewish Midrashic

interpretation takes the designation elohim in this passage and others like it to refer to Israel’s

judges.219 There is a possible solution to this dilemma that involves taking the Midrashic

interpretation and the seemingly plain understanding of the Psalm together. In Daniel 10:10-14

an angel is sent to comfort Daniel and help him understand the visions and prophecies that he

was trying to discern. However, the angel’s arrival was apparently delayed, which he explains to

Daniel in verses 13-14. “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but

Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,

214Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, World Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 335.

215Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), 297.

216John E. Goldingay, Psalms, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 561.

217Ibid. E.g. Ps 86:8; 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9.

218Based on the phrase “those to whom the word of God came” which most likely referred to Israel at Sinai or the human judges.

219Kidner, Psalms, 296.

53

and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days.” Then in

verse twenty-one the angel told Daniel that Michael is “your prince.” It is probable that what was

going on was spiritual, angelic warfare between the angels that represent the kingdom of Persia

and the angels that represent the nation of Israel. It seems that the nations, and conceivably the

individual rulers of each nation, are assigned angelic powers that act representatively on behalf

of the rulers themselves. So the Midrashic interpretation is taking the title elohim to refer to the

thing represented, the rulers, rather than the representatives, the angels. With this in mind it

would be appropriate to take either interpretation of the referent for elohim.

The problem that is addressed in verses 2-5 is that these rulers, human or angelic, are not

seeing to it that justice is being meted out. Instead, the poor and needy are being oppressed and

the powerful wicked are being favored. In God’s economy, he ordains rulers to oversee that

justice is being maintained and that those who are not able to help themselves are being taken

care of.220 When this is not being done the result is verse five: “They have neither knowledge nor

understanding, they walk about in darkness; all of the foundations of the earth are shaken.” There

is disorder, chaos, and confusion where God has ordained order and justice. It is for this reason

that the rulers must be judged. Verse six explains the condition in which the gods were

created,221 “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” At their creation, the angelic forces

were made by God and ordained as his divine ministers, messengers on his behalf to carry out his

program in the earth. In a sense God is sharing his glory with these powers. However, if these

rulers truly were sons they would bear more of a family resemblance.222 Verse seven then

220Goldingay, Psalms, 563. Tate, Psalms, 336. See also Job 29:12-13, 15-17.

221Tate, Psalms, 338.

222Goldingay, Psalms, 567.

54

describes the fall of the gods from the glory with which they were created.223 “Nevertheless, like

men224 you shall die, and fall like any prince.” This fall seems to be reminiscent of the fall from

grace that the rebellious angels experienced who followed Satan in his rebellion (Rev 12:4) and

foreshadowing the eventual demise of the devil and his followers in Revelation 19:19-20 and

20:7-10.225 The Psalmist ends this description of the abuse and failure of the ordained powers

with an expectant call on God, the only God that truly has power to do what is right, to stand up

and judge rightly the affairs of the earth.226 All of the nations are under his command and when

he comes to judge all things will be made right.

So Jesus’ purpose in quoting Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34 is two-fold. First he wanted to

prove to the Jews that his taking the name “Son of God” was appropriate because it is God who

designates who is to share in his glory. At Jesus’ baptism the Father spoke from heaven, “This is

my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” If God was right in Psalm 82 to call them gods

who were less than God, then he is right to call his Son, who is himself divine, the Son of God.

And second, Jesus wanted to remind the Jews that their ancestors were, in a sense, called gods.

As representatives on the human level of Yahweh, Israel was to live in a way that was worthy of

their designation. They were to maintain justice and love those whom God loves, and in doing so

will rightly represent their Father and in a sense earn the title “gods.” Cyril of Jerusalem in his

Catechetical Lectures warns his catechumens not to be like the Jews who were given the law but

did not understand that in Psalm 82 they were being prepared for the one who would be called

223Tate, Psalms, 338.

224This is another reason why it seems that the gods in Psalm 82 are not human judges but spiritual beings who represent and are responsible for human leaders.

225See also the casting out from the divine council of Satan and his followers that occurs at Christ’s victory on the cross in Revelation 12:7-9 and 20:1-3. Also Romans 8:38-39; Colossians 1:15-16; 2:15; and 1 Peter 3:22.

226Kidner, Psalms, 298.

55

the God-Man.227 God was anticipating the unbelief of the Jews, and in love and mercy gave them

a passage like Psalm 82:6 so that they would be able to respond rightly to John 10:30. Sadly, the

Jews in John 10 missed the purpose of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 1:3-4

It seems that sharing in God’s glory, even his name, is something that God ordains;

therefore if becoming one with God is a biblical topic then scoffing at it or being afraid of it is

due to one’s disregard for or confusion regarding Scripture, not a problem with the topic itself.

However, from the discussion previous, it is only apparent that using the term “god” or “son of

god” is appropriate and no comment on the idea of humans being one with God was made. So is

it appropriate to speak of the Christian life as participation in divinity as theōsis proposes? It is at

this point that the chapter will turn to a discussion of 2 Peter 1:3-4.

Peter starts off his second epistle with a short introduction as is typical of epistolary

literature. He then dives right into the meat of the book with a mini sermon that spans verses 3-

11.228 Verse three gets immediately to the heart of the letter.229 The heart of this section, and the

letter, is the benefits of knowing Jesus. But before he gets to that, Peter identifies some necessary

prerequisites to entering into a relationship like that. First, it is by his (that is, Jesus’) divine

power. The language that Peter uses here comes from a Hellenistic religious background.230 In

other words, Peter is using concepts that his audience would understand and, as we shall see,

227Quentin F. Wesselschmidt, ed., Psalms 51-150, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers

Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 146.

228Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter and Jude, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 40.

229Actually, Peter already alluded to it in verse two, although it was simply that, an allusion.

230Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 177.

56

redefining or clarifying them. According to Hellenistic dualism, divination is the process of

moving away from the material, or corruptible, and moving towards the spiritual, or immortal.231

The divine power that Peter is talking about, however, does not come from adding to something

that is within a person, as in the divine spark in Platonism,232 nor does it come from taking away

something from a person, as in dualism. This divine power comes from a person, Jesus Christ,

and it is through this divine power, the same power that we experienced at conversion, that we

have been given everything that we need to live godly lives and have hope for the future.233

How this divine power is available to believers Peter explains next. “Through the

knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence.” It is through this knowledge

that we are able to partake of the blessings that God has promised us.234 Here we come to the

very core of what it is to be a Christian. The way for a person to be converted and then continue

on as a Christian in living in a way that pleases God is not through doing. Rather, it is through

knowing. Eternal life and godly living is obtained through an intimate and personal knowledge

of Jesus Christ who is, according to Peter, the one who called us. This elective and effective

calling is not based on anything we do or anything we are but is “[by] his own glory and

excellence.”235 We are elect because of Jesus’ glory, to glorify him, and because of his moral

excellence, not our own. In fact, if it were up to our abilities rather than his divine power, we

231Ibid., 180.

232Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 173.

233 Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 22, 367; Bauckham, 2 Peter, 179.

234Davids, 2 Peter, 169.

235Ibid., 369.

57

would all certainly fail.236

Additionally, it is through his divine power and by his glory and excellence that we have

obtained and will obtain all of the promises that pertain to eternal life, righteousness, and

knowledge of God. It is to one of those promises that Peter goes next; that is, partaking of the

divine nature. Going back to the Hellenistic and pre-Christian Jewish understanding, we see that

Peter’s readers would have already had a notion of what it is to partake of the divine nature.237

According to several Hellenistic Jewish sources, the idea of participation in the divine has to do

with taking on the characteristics that distinguish deity, not a pantheistic absorption.238

Summarily, this would be immortality and incorruptibility – not essence but quality.239 Calvin

says of this communion of attributes, “We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that

God, then, should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be

sufficiently conceived by our minds.”240 Through this participation the image of God is being

and will be restored in humanity.

Peter explains this further as he adds, “Having escaped from the corruption that is in the

world because of sinful desire.” This is where Peter’s conception of corruption diverges from the

dualistic background to which he is writing. The source of corruption in dualism is the material

world. According to Peter, believers have escaped not from the world but from the corruption

that is in the world; specifically, sin.241 To sum up what Peter is saying here, it is through

236Ibid., 367-68.

237Bauckham, 2 Peter, 180,

238Ibid.


240 Ibid.

241Bauckham, 2 Peter, 183.

58

knowledge of Jesus that his divine power enables us to live lives that are pleasing to God, and in

so doing we are becoming and one day will fully become partakers of God’s nature. We will be

like God. While this transformation commenced at conversion, believers are being brought,

through righteous living enabled by his power through union with Christ and the Holy Spirit,

more and more into fellowship with God.242 Then, one day we will finally escape corruption, that

is, death and the sin that is characteristic of worldliness.243 It is then that believers will finally

look like our Father, re-imaging him in his immortality and righteousness.244 This line of

reasoning leads naturally to the moral exhortation in verses 5-11.


The point of this chapter was to determine if the term theōsis is appropriate in discussions

of evangelical Christian theology. The preceding chapters proved the validity and biblical

precedence for the concept, which most biblical scholars will concede. What not all scholars will

agree with, however, is the usefulness of the term. In John 10 and Psalm 82 we saw that God

ordained rulers who he called gods and sons of the Most High. In doing this God delegated

responsibility and charged others with the accountability of representing him. At first blush it

seems blasphemous to refer to any other being as god; however, Scripture does it in Psalm 82.

Jesus pointed out in John 10 that we either say that Scripture is wrong for doing so, or we adjust

our conception of what is appropriate or inappropriate. The same could be said for the topic of

theōsis. Since it is a biblical concept to refer to individuals other than God with similar

242Moo, 2 Peter, 44.

243Thomas R. Schreiner, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 296.

244Davids, 2 Peter, 176.

59

terminology and since it is clear in Scripture that the end of salvation is union with God, it is

appropriate to say that salvation is the process of theōsis; one day believers will be like God and

will be one with God. Additionally, in the second chapter of his epistle, Peter refers to the

process of growing in knowledge of the Son and in godliness as partaking of the divine nature.

As this is the governing principle of theōsis, it seems not only appropriate but also biblical and

necessary to talk about salvation in these terms. Davids comments, “If 2 Peter were written

today, many would consider him ‘new age.’”245 If there is something dangerous or confusing

about theōsis, yet the Bible speaks in these terms, then the problem is not with the concept, but

with our understanding of it. While some choose to be afraid of and disregard the discussion, it is

the position of this paper that theōsis, far from being a threat to theology, is the undergirding

theme of Christian theology. If explained properly and taught frequently, theōsis will not be

something that is feared, but embraced and explored thoroughly.

Chapter 4

After having discussed what theōsis is, what it means for believers, what it looked like in

the life of Jesus and in turn will look like in the future for believers, and the appropriateness of

the terminology, it is now time for this paper to examine what it might look like for an

evangelical believer to integrate an appropriate understanding of theōsis into his or her theology.

Chapter four will do this by examining theōsis in the theology of John Calvin.

There has been considerable discussion as to whether or not John Calvin’s theology

reflects the eastern notion of theōsis or if his theology, in fact, excludes such themes.246 Some

245Ibid., 172.

246For a short survey see Tamburello, Union with Christ, 1-3. Also, J.V. Fesko, Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517-1700), Reformed Historical Theology, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, vol. 20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 13-28.

60

see theōsis as the basis of his theology,247 others see theōsis as integral for parts of his

theology,248 and some see little to no mysticism in his theology at all.249 Some contend that it is

not a significant component of his thought since Calvin does not devote an entire work or even a

single chapter to discussing the topic of theōsis or mystical union.250 A.J. Ollerton offers a

helpful insight regarding this, stating that while this is the case, the “motif” shows up extensively

throughout his works.251 Disregarding theōsis in Calvin’s theology for this reason would be

analogous to minimizing the role of the Holy Spirit in Calvin’s theology.252

Another major pitfall in coming to a consensus on the topic is that often each side ends

up talking past the other when both defining theōsis and interpreting Calvin on the topic. One

example of this will suffice. In his Evangelical Theology Michael Bird, in discussing theōsis,

provides a working definition and scriptural support for the doctrine. He then proceeds to cite

passages from Calvin’s Institutes that are commonly used to support theōsis. Finally, he quotes

Todd Billings253 saying that Calvin’s theology would not stand up to the later Byzantine notion

247See Lucien J. Richard, The Spirituality of John Calvin (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974), 1, 8-9. Richard

does not use the term theōsis, rather referring to “spirituality” in Calvin’s works; however he defines spirituality as “the personal assimilation of the salvific mission of Christ by each Christian.” He goes on to say, “It is my contention that the works of John Calvin circumscribe such a spirituality.”

248For example, in his doctrine of justification or sanctification. Proponents include T.F. Torrance, J. Todd Billings, and Dennis Tamburello.

249E.g. Georgia Harkness and Albrecht Ritschl.

250E.g. Thomas Wenger.

251A.J. Ollerton, “‘Quasi Deificari’: Deification In The Theology Of John Calvin,” WTJ 73 (Fall 2011): 240-41 n17.

252In all of Calvin’s works there is neither a monograph nor is there even an entire chapter devoted exclusively to the Holy Spirit. However, Calvin discusses the role and person of the Holy Spirit as he relates to various aspects of theology constantly throughout his works.

253J. Todd Billings, “Calvin, Participation and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ,” ThD dissertation, (Harvard Divinity School, 2005), 20-21.

61

of theōsis, resting his case that theōsis is not supported by Calvin.254 What he fails to mention is

that Billings goes on to say that while the Byzantine conception of theōsis is not found in

Calvin’s theology, it is not the only definition of theōsis and therefore it cannot be said that

theōsis is absent from Calvin’s thought.255 With blunders like Bird’s misreading of Billings it is

no wonder that some respond to the question of whether theōsis is commensurate with Calvin’s

thought with, “Yes, it is,” while others respond, “No, it cannot be.”256

It is the goal of this chapter, being careful not to foist foreign ideas or terminology, to

discover if the concept of theōsis fits with Calvin’s theology and which aspects of it, if any, are

found in his doctrinal constructs. It will become apparent that while Calvin is careful not to go

past the vocabulary of Scripture, he does present a view of theology that is commensurable in

many respects with the concept of theōsis. This can be seen specifically in the anthropological,

Christological, and soteriological themes of Calvin’s theology. This chapter will first examine

Calvin’s understanding of the image of God in humanity, then union with Christ, and finally the

beatific vision, comparing and contrasting these with theōsis.

Created in God’s Image

The first argument that could be used against seeing theōsis in Calvin is the vast

distinction that Calvin, rightly, presents between God and fallen humanity. Calvin’s immensely

high view of God coupled with what seems to be his perpetually negative view of human nature

might preclude any notion of a real union of God with humanity. But is this how Calvin views a

proper understanding of human depravity? It is interesting to note that when discussing original

254 Bird, Evangelical Theology, 577-78.

255Billings, “Calvin,” 71-72.

256Ollerton, ‘Quasi Deificari,’ 238.

62

sin Calvin bolsters his understanding of the egregiousness of sin, and thus the separateness of

God from humanity, by referencing how far our first parents fell from their original place of

honor and dignity in being created in the image of God.257 This knowledge of ourselves

emphasizes the gap between God and humanity while simultaneously pointing us back to where

we came from, which was, according to Calvin, close to God.258 In meditating on our primordial

dignity we realize that, while we were created in God’s image – and as his image-bearers were

the closest to him and the mediators of creation – we have no way on our own to regain what we

have lost.259 Recalling our greatness in being created like God reminds us of our nothingness

without him.260 So far the picture is rather abysmal.

Creation Ideal

The key in understanding the importance that Calvin placed on a proper conception of

self, and thus a contemplation of original sin and human depravity, is that Calvin juxtaposed this

negative part of anthropology with the extremely positive creation ideal. This creation ideal was

that God’s glory would shine in creation through humanity as they come to knowledge of God.261

In creating Adam and Eve, God engraved on them something divine: that is, his very image.262

Humanity’s intellect, ability to distinguish good from evil, freedom of will, and eternal nature all

reflect the creator in the created.263 This image was predominately spiritual, but rays of God’s

257Calvin, Institutes, 1.1; 1.2.1; 2.1.

258Ibid., 1.1.

259Ibid., 2.1.3.

260Ibid., 3.2.25.

261Ibid., 1.2.1; 1.13.7.

262Ibid., 1.15.2.

263Ibid., 1.15.8.

63

glory extended to their bodies as well.264 Humanity was to bask in the rays of the image of God

and in doing so grow in righteousness and immortality.265 As God is the only one who is truly

good and eternal, it is obvious that Calvin believed that humanity’s destiny was to be united with

God by becoming like God.

The Fall: Image Marred

However, instead of remaining content with basking in God’s glory, humanity desired to

be equal with God on their own terms and in turn chose rather to annihilate the glory of God.266

While not completely destroyed, the image of God in humanity became defaced and marred.267

Billings describes this loss as resulting in the “powerlessness of the human to move toward the

good telos of creation.”268 Although created with a conscience, immortality, and the impression

of divinity, all this was lost.269 Now, humanity is unable to achieve theōsis even if they wanted

to.270

Mediator: Image Restored

After having lost divine favor, humanity was in need of a mediator.271 We lost wisdom,

264Ibid., 1.15.3; 2.12.7.

265Ibid., 2.1.1.

266Ibid., 2.1.4.

267Ibid., 1.15.4.

268J. Todd Billings, “United to God through Christ: Calvin on the Question of Deification,” Harvard Theological Review 98 (July 2005): 317.

269Calvin, Institutes, 1.15.

270Billings, “United to God,” 318.

271Ollerton, “‘Quasi Deificari,’” 242.

64

virtue, justice, and truth.272 However, Calvin reminds us that there was one who possessed this

kind of righteousness and eternal life.273 Christ became a son of man that we might become

children of God. He received what is ours to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his

by nature become ours by grace.274 Calvin presents Christ as a mediator who is qualified by his

humanity to not just stand in our place as God’s obedient Son, but to bring us with him into

God’s presence and glory by his divine nature.275 It is through the incarnation that mediated

righteousness becomes a reality.276 But Christ’s mediating function not only fills up what we are

lacking and in doing so restores us to our original glory; Christ’s incarnation makes theōsis

possible. The hypostatic union, that Christ possesses two natures in his one person, shows us

how humanity can be united to God without confusion or mixture.277 Also, in holding divine

simplicity, Calvin argued that there is no way, contra Servetus, that God’s essence could be

divided up into various members of creation and no way, contra Osiander, that God’s substance

could be passed directly into humanity.278 Christ’s incarnation solves this apparent problem by

mediating the divine nature through Christ to those who are united with him.279 It is this

mediation of Christ’s hypostatic union by agency of the Holy Spirit that humanity is made one

with the divine nature without mixture or confusion.280 Ollerton reminds us that Calvin’s


273Ibid., 2.1.6.

274Ibid., 2.12.2.

275Ibid., 1.13.26; 2.12.3.



278Ibid., 1.13.22; 1.15.5.

279Ibid., 1.15.5.

65

explanation of mediated deification renounces the pagan notion of unmediated deification that so

many people are afraid of, and rightly so.281

Union with Christ

This next topic answers how it is possible for Christ to be our mediator and for us to

partake of and enjoy the benefits that come from that union. It also accounts for much of the

New Testament, especially Pauline, literature regarding the nature of our relationship with

Christ. Calvin says that by faith we embrace Christ, not at a distance or in imagination, but in

reality and in union.282 This is the doctrine of union with Christ and it encompasses the whole of

the Christian life and a prominent place in Calvin’s theology. Specific to the doctrine of theōsis,

the reality of union with Christ is essential in Calvin’s theology of regeneration, justification,

progressive restoration, and the sacraments. According to Ollerton, Calvin’s doctrine of union

with Christ is theōsis.283 Union with Christ, Calvin says, is like marriage. Two become one, each

posses the other, and all that was peculiar to each is now shared in common.284 Again, Calvin is

clear in describing this union as being by the agency of the Spirit, with no confusion of

essence.285 Yet at the same time Calvin asserts that the union is so real that one cannot separate

believers from Christ without dividing him.286

280Ibid., 1.13.14. Calvin here borrows Basil’s sun and beam analogy to distinguish he essence from his

energies.





285Ibid., 3.11.5.

286Ibid., 3.25.3.

66

Regeneration

Regeneration is the reversal of the death that took place at the Fall. Calvin describes it as

the renewal of the image of God in humanity that restores what was lost, namely righteousness

and true holiness.287 Regeneration is accomplished when the flesh is put to death and the spirit is

brought to life.288 When the old nature is put away then new life and repentance are present.289

At the same time, the process of regeneration is only fully terminated at death.290 This flesh

mortification and spirit quickening happens only through our union with Christ.291 As humanity

is lifeless, faithless, and condemned we have no hope of achieving regeneration or recovering

salvation on our own without being united to Christ. It is for these reasons that God, as an

indulgent Father, gives Christ to us by faith.292

Justification

As the concept suggests, righteousness is necessary for justification. Humanity, however,

is full of depravity. This means that imputed righteousness through union with Christ is the only

means to justification.293 While not unique to him,294 Calvin applies the concept of a happy or

wonderful exchange in which Christ takes what is ours, including the weight and result of our

sin, and gives to us what is his, including his righteousness and obedience.

287Ibid., 3.3.9.

288Ibid., 3.3.5.

289Ibid., 3.3.8.

290Ibid., 3.3.9.

291Ibid.

292Ibid., 3.11.1.

293Ibid., 3.11.3.

294In fact, Luther taught a similar concept and was possibly the source of Calvin’s exposure to the idea.

67

This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, becoming Son of man with us, he has made us sons of God with him; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.295

As this quote from Calvin makes clear this exchange is not simply a re-designation from

unjust to just, but it is an intimate communion made possible by Christ’s incarnation by which

our union with him is made possible. Justification is not simply a decree, but is something that

occurs in Christ.296 However, the concept of justification is necessary because without

propitiation imputation would be impossible.297 In other words, it is not possible for us to be

united to God in theōsis without having the righteousness that only Christ possesses. This goes

back to Calvin’s conception of the gulf that is fixed between God and humanity and dismisses

any idea of humanity becoming one with God in a pantheistic sense. This is seen explicitly in

Calvin’s writing when he attacks Osiander’s view of unmediated deification.298 Ollerton says

that “The difference between Calvin and Osiander is not deification – it is how it happens.

Calvin takes the mediated position, while Osiander says that divinity is infused in us.”299 If the

result of the Fall is the loss of wisdom, virtue, and goodness, then that is what is restored to the

believer through union with Christ in justification.300

295Calvin, Institues, 4.17.2.

296Ibid., 3.11.4.

297Ibid., 2.16.3.

298Ollerton, “‘Quasi Deificari,’” 242; Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.


300Calvin, Institutes, 2.1.

68

Progressive Restoration

While this paper is treating the concepts of justification and progressive restoration

separately, the concepts are inseparably linked.301 Calvin says, “Whomever, therefore, God

receives into grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption, by whose power

he remakes them to his own image.”302 While righteousness is given to us in justification we still

struggle with our fallen nature and as such must constantly be in the process of renouncing sin

and growing in likeness to Christ. While some may fear that faith and works are incongruous,

Calvin says that justification by faith goes hand in hand with justification by works because the

works are not our own, but Christ’s.303 Justification can be thought of as full and final while

sanctification is the lifelong process of living out Christ’s righteousness.304 Thus we can be

confident when we say with Calvin that Christ’s presence is in the world through us.305 Christ

has engrafted us into his body and daily we grow closer and closer until we become one with

him.306 Calvin says in his commentary on the Catholic Epistles, “Let us then mark, that the end

of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify

us.”307

Sacraments

If we are to be deified, as theōsis poses, and if we must do this through participation in

301Ibid., 3.11.4.

302Ibid., 3.11.6.

303Ibid., 3.11.2.

304Ibid., 3.11.11.

305Ibid., 4.17.26.

306Ibid., 3.2.24.


69

Christ, then how does this happen? According to Calvin’s theology union with Christ happens by

means of the sacraments with the agency of the Holy Spirit.308 The sacraments are a testimony of

God’s divine favor confirmed by an external sign.309 Consequently, there is no such thing as a

sacrament devoid of a promise; instead, the signs confirm and seal the promise.310 While the

thing is distinguished from the sign, they are received in tandem.311 So what is mediated is not

the water or the bread and the wine themselves but Christ himself.312 To be sure, God can and

does affect union with Christ apart from the sacraments, but in ordaining secondary means as

God does he has chosen these modes for communicating Christ to us. Additionally, the

sacraments are means of union not only with Christ but also with Christ’s body the Church.

“Calvin argues that just as believers have a vertical participation in the body and blood of Christ,

they simultaneously have a horizontal participation in the church as body.”313 So theōsis has a

corporate dimension that is also addressed by Calvin’s sacramental theology.

Specifically, the believer is admitted to the fellowship of the church and engrafted into

Christ through baptism.314 Baptism is also the way that God ordained by which we participate in

Christ’s death.315 As was discussed under the topic of regeneration, mortification is made

possible for the believer only by being united with Christ in his death. This mortification begins


309Ibid., 4.14.1.

310Ibid., 4.14.3.

311Ibid., 4.14.14-15.

312Ibid., 4.14.16.

313Billings, “United to God,” 330. Billings quotes Calvin in his commentary on 1 Cor 10:17.

314Calvin, Institutes, 4.15.1. Ollerton, “‘Quasi Deificari,’” 251.


70

at baptism and continues until death, and is finally realized at the resurrection, according to

Calvin.316 Additionally, baptism tells us that we are washed and cleaned. Just as water washes

and purifies objects that are dirty, so immersion into Christ’s life inaugurated by baptism washes

away our sinfulness and replaces it with his purity.317

As for the second sacrament, it is through the Lord’s Supper that, gradually, we reach

immortality as we experience the mystery of secret union with Christ.318 By the Lord’s Supper

we participate in Christ as one substance as he shares with us his body and his blood.319 The

Lord’s Supper convinces us that the happy exchange is actually taking place.320 Importantly, the

Lord’s Supper makes sense of the connection between the incarnation and our participation with

Christ. Calvin explains that at the incarnation Christ made himself available for participation and

it is through the Lord’s Supper that we have access to this life.321 We participate in his body and

in doing so benefit from the hypostatic union as we are made members of both his body and his

spirit.322 Going back to the image of a marriage, as we are made one with him we participate in

all of the blessings that are his, including his union with divinity.323 If we do not participate in

Christ in reality, but reduce the Supper to a mere remembrance, then we have reduced Christ’s

body to a phantom and disregarded the importance of the incarnation.324 In rejecting the

316Ibid., 4.15.11.

317Ibid., 4.14.22.

318Ibid., 4.17.1.

319Ibid., 4.17.3; 4.17.5. Ollerton, “‘Quasi Deificari,’” 251.


321Ibid., 4.17.8.

322Ibid., 4.17.9.

323Ibid., 4.17.11; 3.1.3.

71

Lutheran view of real physical presence Calvin concedes, “But, when these absurdities have

been set aside, I freely accept whatever can be made to express the true and substantial partaking

of the body and blood of the Lord.”325

Imperative in Calvin’s theology is that it is the Holy Spirit who applies these awesome

benefits of the sacraments to us. This is made clear when one understands Calvin’s definition of

a sacrament. A sacrament is “a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward

sign, with mutual attestation of our piety [faith] toward him.”326 The sacrament cannot be

separated from the promise, as it is the purpose of the sign to seal and confirm the thing being

signified.327 This is where the Holy Spirit factors in. Calvin says that the sacraments themselves

bestow no grace, but instead God performs what he promises through the agency of the Holy

Spirit.328 We are engrafted into Christ’s body through baptism not by the waters themselves, but

by the Holy Spirit’s uniting us to Christ. Participation in the immortal life of Christ is the work

of the Holy Spirit, not the bread and the wine themselves. This helps explain how, in the Lord’s

Supper, we are united to Christ’s body. According to Calvin’s theology Christ is present in

heaven, while we are present on earth. He rejects trans- and consubstantiation therefore we do

not partake literally of his flesh and blood. Therefore, it is by the Spirit’s mediation that in the

Supper we, who are on earth, participate in Christ, who is in heaven.329 At this point that Calvin

stops to appreciate the mystery of it all:

324Ibid., 4.17.7.

325Ibid., 4.17.19.

326Ibid., 4.14.1.

327Ibid., 4.14.3.

328Ibid., 4.14.17. Ollerton, ‘Quasi Deificari,” 252. It is the Spirit, not the sign, that performs the sacrament.

329Ibid., 4.17.10.

72

We say Christ descends to us both by the outward symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and of his blood. He who does not perceive that many miracles are subsumed in these few words is more than stupid. For nothing is more beyond the natural than that souls should borrow spiritual and heavenly life from a flesh that had its origin from earth, and underwent death. There is nothing more incredible than that things severed and removed from one another by the whole space between heaven and earth should not only be connected across such a great distance but also be united, so that souls may receive nourishment from Christ’s flesh.330

Additionally, the mediation of the Spirit in the sacraments ensures that the non-elect

cannot participate in the benefits that are reserved for believers.331 In summary, Calvin’s

sacramental theology only makes sense when seen in light of his theology of deification.332 In the

sacraments that we are presented a picture of the essence of theōsis. As we partake of the

elements Christ comes to us, picturing the incarnation, and we are brought to Christ, picturing

deification.333 This aspect prefigures what will be discussed next, the beatific vision.334

Beatific Vision

According to Plato, the ultimate good is found in union with the Form of the Good,335 as

creation longs to be restored to perfection.336 Calvin recognized that Plato was on the right track,

but then qualified his statements by showing that happiness, the summum bonum, is in being one

with Christ, of course being careful not to portray a mixture of essence.337 For Calvin, Billings

says, “The fullest manifestation and final end of humanity are found in union with God through

330Ibid., 4.17.24.

331Ollerton, “Quasi Deificari,” 252 n83.

332Ibid., 252.

333Ibid., 253.

334Ibid., 252.

335Later thinkers, including Calvin, took the “Form of the Good” to be God.


337Ibid., 3.25.10.

73

Christ.”338 Calvin believed that the kingdom of God will be fully inaugurated when God is all in

all. This occurs when believers are exposed to a direct vision of the Godhead. When this happens

the need for Christ’s mediatory office will be obsolete, for when we see God’s glory and behold

it in its fullness, humanity and deity will be unified and Christ will have no more need of his

human nature.339 Thus the beatific vision is the end of theōsis. Ollerton says, “For Calvin,

‘complete union’ only occurs when mortal flesh is transferred into the immediate presence of

God and there transfigured to be like him.”340 While Calvin often speaks of the knowledge of

God in terms of accommodation, at this point in humanity’s relationship with God no

accommodation will be necessary.341 This is what the apostle John means when he says in 1 John

3:2, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we

know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” Of course

Calvin is careful to maintain the creature/creator distinction when discussing the beatific vision.

In his comments on 2 Peter 1:4 (“So that you may become partakers of the divine nature”),

Calvin says that we will be “one with God as far as our capacities will allow.”342 Believers will

truly be united with God, but not so as to lose their personhood.


The main tenant of theōsis – that man is becoming one with God through a progressive

and superior restoration of the image of God lost at the Fall – is how Calvin views the end of

338Billings, “United to God,” 317.


340Ollerton, “Quasi Deificari,” 250.

341J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 80-86.


74

human salvation.343 That Christ took on humanity so that humanity might put on divinity is

essential for theōsis and affirmed in Calvin. The motif in Calvin’s works of union with Christ

shows explicitly that mystical union with God is the foundation for all aspects of the Christian

life. The mortification of the flesh and the quickening of the spirit are only made possible by

partaking of Christ’s death and life. While imputation is necessary for justification, in Calvin’s

theology it is not a detached doctrine that puts Christ and the believer facing one another handing

off their respective robes. Instead, imputation is achieved by means of participation; and thus in

justification, by means of union with Christ, it can truly be said that the believer possesses

Christ’s righteousness. In progressive sanctification it can be said that salvation is both of faith

and works because neither are the individual’s, but Christ’s. The means by which theōsis is

possible for the believer can be seen in Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments. All of this, according

to Calvin, is mediated to believers by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, theōsis is finally

accomplished when we, the children of God, see him and are made like him. While Calvin does

not use the term theōsis,344 and it can be said that Calvin’s theology does not fit with every

interpretation of the doctrine,345 it is safe to say that Calvin’s theology and the doctrine of theōsis

are compatible. In fact, a comprehensive assimilation of John Calvin’s theology would lead one

closer to, not farther away from, a proper understanding of theōsis.

Conclusion: Theōsis in Evangelical Christian Thought?

The goal of this paper was to determine first if the concept of theōsis is compatible with

evangelical Christian thought. The main tenet of theōsis is union with God through participating

343Ibid.

344Although Calvin does speak of deification (Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 22, 370-71).

345E.g. we cannot confuse Calvin’s theology with Byzantine theōsis. Billings, “United to God,” 328-30.

75

in his divine attributes and the progressive restoration of the image of God in humanity by means

of union with Christ culminating in the beatific vision. The first two chapters showed that this is

not only the tenet of theōsis, but also the over-arching story of redemption. Through examining

the nature of what it means to experience the bodily resurrection of believers at Christ’s Second

Advent, chapter one proved that the nature of bearing the image of the man of heaven is in union

with Christ. This union is made possible by Christ’s incarnation and bodily resurrection. It is

progressively being made a reality throughout the life of the believer but will only be fully

realized at the Resurrection. This general trajectory, however, is not unique to the New

Testament. From the very beginning of the Old Testament these themes are introduced. With the

creation of humanity in God’s image it is apparent that God’s design was to mediate his divine

nature and glory throughout all of creation by means of his image-bearers. After the Fall in

Genesis chapter three, the longing for the restoration of this relationship is seen throughout the

rest of the Old Testament. Glimpses of an appointed human servant who would mediate between

God and humanity show up in many places, some subtle and others more apparent. The vision of

Daniel 10 gives a foreshadowing of what is to come in a human-like being who is given divine

authority. While the identity of this one is ambiguous in the context, it becomes apparent in the

New Testament that this one is Jesus, the Son of God, who will mediate between divinity and

humanity by taking on a human nature so that humans might share in his divine nature through

his efficacious obedience and triumph over death.

Chapter two then showed how Jesus as mediator not only makes theōsis possible, but also

modeled it on the Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17. This idea of the divine being united

with the human is not simply theoretical, it is possible. In fact, Jesus, in calling his disciples to

follow him in self-abasing self-denial and humility, proves that such humility is the God-

76

ordained road to exultation. The Father confirms this for the three apostles on the mountain as

they are given a glimpse of what it looks like for a man of dust to bear the image of the man from

heaven. Yet they are not simply spectators; they are told to listen to him and in listening to him

to follow his example and humility that they might participate in his glory and divinity when he

comes again to bring judgment and restoration. The major themes that are brought forth in these

two chapters go to show that God is in the process of uniting himself to humanity through his

Son. When all of this is finally accomplished theōsis will be realized.

The second goal of this paper was to prove the usefulness and biblical precedent for the

terminology of theōsis. The reason this needs to be argued is that some do not like or are afraid

of the word, even if they concede that the concept is biblical. Some might say that theōsis

implies that believers can become gods, as in Mormonism, or that humans can share in God’s

essence, as in Pantheism. However, Peter’s discussion of participation in the divine nature in 2

Peter 1 seems to fit with the concepts that constitute theōsis. This participation is not a dualistic

moving away from the material towards the spiritual. Nor is it a pantheistic absorption into the

divine. Rather, if seen through the lens of theōsis, participation in the divine nature is the

ultimate end of human salvation and the greatest good in the universe. Instead of explaining

away or qualifying what Scripture says we must define theōsis properly and talk about it

regularly. If this is the case then it will cease to be a point of confusion and rather become an

understandable part of our vocabulary. Additionally, the motivation for good works is make even

more poignant when living a godly life is understood partly as the means by which, through

Jesus’ divine power, we obtain the promises that his calling has secured for us, including

participation in the divine. According to Jesus’ use of Psalm 82 in John 10, if God were to call

someone god or call believers sons and daughters of the Most High, who are we to argue with

77

him? One must either reinterpret Scripture or change what they think about a topic, whatever it

might be, when they come across difficult passages in Scripture. Although the individuals who

were addressed in Psalm 82 failed in their divinely appointed stations, we are given hope that

Christ, as God’s Son, will succeed and in so doing will give us also the right to be called sons

and daughters of God.

Finally, as chapter four illustrated, theōsis is not just a topic within theology or an

ancillary doctrine. Rather, theōsis touches every part of theology. In addition, chapter four served

as a model for how theōsis could be implemented into an evangelical conception of theology. It

was apparent in John Calvin’s theology that the concepts underlying theōsis were present in

much of his theology. As a Protestant Reformer and one of the most influential theologians in

Western theology, seeing theōsis in his theology should calm the fears of those who think that

theōsis is opposed to concepts of forensic justification, progressive sanctification, or justification

by grace alone. In fact, a better understanding of Calvin’s theology will lead to a clearer

understanding of theōsis.

In conclusion, the discussion of the topic of theōsis is both biblical and rewarding. Not

only does theōsis clarify much of the purposes and trajectory of Scripture, but it also motivates

the believer to knowledge and good works. There is also a future aspect of theōsis that inspires

hope and challenges the convictions of a believer. While there will always be those who deride

the concept, a biblical approach to theōsis is that of acceptance and a desire to understand it more

fully and talk about it more often. A topic that has traditionally been so central to discussions of

theology in the life of the Church such as theōsis should only be discarded if there is sufficient

evidence in Scripture against it. However, both a survey of historical theology as well as a survey

of Scripture will prove that theōsis is not a made up human idea, but central to the theology of

78

the Bible. Whether it is imputation, union with Christ, growth in good works, the sacraments,

final glorification, or divine participation, all of Scripture is saturated with the concepts

explained in theōsis. If theōsis is to be taken seriously, then a beautiful motif of Scripture, indeed

of God’s reconciling the world to himself, will be rediscovered. Humanity was created in God’s

image to reflect and enjoy him. Although our first parents failed, the restoration that is found in

Christ, mediated to us by his human nature, results in an even better state than humanity was

created in. In the end, salvation for believers will result in humanity being one with God,

creation finally one with divinity.

79

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. Clement of Alexandria: A Project of Christian Perfection. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

Athanasopoulos, C. and Christopher Schneider, eds. Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2013.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Durham: Harper & Row, 1968.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936-1977.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Beale, G.K. and D.A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Beilby, James K. and Paul R. Eddy, eds. Justification: Five Views. Spectrum Multiview Books. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Billings, J. Todd. “Calvin, Participation and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ.” ThD dissertation. Harvard Divinity School, 2005.

______. “John Calvin and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper: A Contemporary Appraisal.” In Restoration through Redemption: John Calvin Revisited. Studies in Reformed Theology, ed. Henk van den Belt. Vol. 23. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

______. “United to God through Christ: Calvin on the Question of Deification,” Harvard Theological Review 98 (July 2005): 315-334.

______. Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.

Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson, eds. Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation

80

of Luther. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries. 22 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.

______. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John T. McNeill. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.

Campbell, Constantine R. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

Carson, D.A. Matthew. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Volume 8. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

______. The Gospel According to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Leicester: Apollos, 1991.

Carson, D.A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Christensen, Michael J. and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds. Partakers of the Divine Nature. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Ciampa, Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Clendenin, Daniel B. “Partakers of Divinity: The Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (September 1994): 366-80.

Collins, Paul M. Partaking in Divine Nature: Deification and Communion. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

Crisp, Oliver D. Revisioning Christology: Theology in the Reformed Tradition. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011.

Danker, Frederick W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Davies, W.D. and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.

Edwards, Jonathan. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1834.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

81

Fairbairn, Donald. Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009.

______. “Patristic Soteriology: Three Trajectories.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (June 2007): 290-311.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Fesko, J.V. Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517-1700). Reformed Historical Theology, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis. Volume 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.

Finlan, Stephen and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds. Theo#sis: Deification in Christian Theology. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2006.

Frame, John M. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2013.

France, R T. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Gazal, André. “‘Appareled in Christ’: Union with Christ in the Soteriology of John Jewel.” In Sin and Salvation in Reformation England Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom, 26-28 June 2013.

______. “‘By Force of Participation and Conjunction in Him’: John Jewel and Richard Hooker on Union with Christ.” Perichoresis 12 (June 2014): 39-56.

Gibson, Michael D. “The Beauty of the Redemption of the World: The Theological Aesthetics of Maximus the Confessor and Jonathan Edwards.” Harvard Theological Review 100 (January 2008): 45-76.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

______. Psalms. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.

Hamilton, James M. God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

82

Horton, Michael S. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Unitas Books. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004.

Kharlamov, Vladimir, ed. Theo#sis: Deification in Christian Theology. Volume 2. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012.

Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73-150. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975.

Kim, Jung R. “The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus.” PhD dissertation, The University of Glasgow, 1998.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Lehmann, Helmut T. and Harold J. Grimm, eds. Luther's Works: Career of the Reformer. Luther's Works. Volume 31. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1957.

Louth, Andrew, ed. Genesis 1-11. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament. Volume 1. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Lucas, Sean Michael. God's Grand Design: The Theological Vision of Jonathan Edwards. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Christian Theology Reader. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter and Jude. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

______. The Gospel According to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. The Expositor's Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Ollerton, A.J. “‘Quasi Deificari’: Deification In The Theology Of John Calvin.” Westminster Theological Journal 73 (Fall 2011): 238-55.

83

Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Osborn, Eric. Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Rakestraw, Robert V. “Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine Of Theosis.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (June 1997): 258-70.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Richard, Lucien J. The Spirituality of John Calvin. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. 10 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Russell, Norman. Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Sailhammer, John H. “Genesis.” In Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 2, Genesis - Numbers. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 2 Peter, Jude. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

Steenberg, Matthew C. Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Steinmann, Andrew. Daniel. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2008.

Stevenson, Kenneth and Michael Glerup, eds. Ezekiel, Daniel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament. Volume 13. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008.

Tamburello, Dennis E. Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary. Milton Keynes: Authentic Publishing, 1995.

Wesselschmidt, Quentin F., ed. Psalms 51-150. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms: From Biblical Text—to Contemporary Life. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

One With Divinity-Theosis in Evangelical Christian Thought

Documents

Transcript of One With Divinity-Theosis in Evangelical Christian Thought