I was assigned to read Gorman's book and write a critical review for a Romans exegesis course. This is it - note that all the parenthetical citations refer to _Inhabiting the Cruciform God_, while all other works are noted).
In his book Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology, Michael J. Gorman is looking for continuity, and attempts to find continuity within the process of theosis. Within theosis lie several ideals such as: kenosis (as portrayed in Phil 2:5-11, as well as in the life of Paul), justification (with particular interest given against a plurality in Pauline soteriology), and holiness (or co-crucifixion as an ongoing endeavor). Gorman confidently finds the continuity of these terms, and explains how we, as having adopted a cruciform Christian nature, are to live in light of this continuity.
First, Gorman finds continuity within the realm of theosis in general. In arguing for his definition of theosis, he states
For Paul, to be one with Christ is to be one with God; to be like Christ is to be like God; to be in Christ is to be in God. At the very least, this means that for Paul cruciformity - conformity to the crucified Christ - is really theoformity, or theosis. (4)
and theosis "... is transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ." (7) To be cruciform is also to adapt to various cruciformal qualities, including "... faithfulness, love, power, wisdom, and so forth." (Gorman, Cruciformity, 18n29) The continuity that Gorman seeks is not necessarily housed within the realm of what is done, but conversely, is housed within what is not done that becomes something done (the counterintuitive position). The basis of Gorman's argument here lies in the understanding of Phil 2:6 as concessional and causal. A concessional understanding would render verse six "although he was in the form of God" while a causal understanding would render the same verse as "because he was in the form of God." (10) Gorman finds resolution between these two different renderings by explaining the usage typical of Paul in these concessive/causal situations. By highlighting 1 Thess 2:6-8 and 1 Cor 9:12-18 Gorman explains that,
... when Paul says he did not exercise his apostolic authority or rights he is saying that he acted in this way (1) although he had certain rights by virtue of his status as an apostle, and (2) in spite of normal expectations of apostles, but also (3) because he is an apostle of the self-giving and loving crucified Lord... Paul is acting in character, not out of character as an apostle. (23-24)
Gorman elaborates on the kenosis of Christ, particularly that "Kenosis, therefore, does not mean Christ's emptying himself of his divinity, but rather Christ's exercising his divinity, his equality with God." (28) As John J. Collins notes, this is indeed unique behavior for one of divine status: "... an important cultural context for such imagery is traditions about the typical ruler who is violent and who presumes to take a divine role. Verse 6, therefore, means that, although Christ had a divine form, he did not attempt to make himself equal to God, unlike the typical arrogant ruler." (Collins, King and Messiah, 115) This also seems to argue against the typical "Son of Man" figure attested in Second Temple Jewish literature. As found in The Similitudes of Enoch, the Enochic Son of Man was glorified, given divine status, then, in a sense, de-glorified, after his appointed time was over. In our case here, the opposite is occurring: Christ de-glorified, de-exalted himself. God was in fact God's agent for renewal. Concerning this point further, Gorman notes a short-fall of the typical Son of Man status: "... we must especially avoid the conclusion that God the Father is here portrayed as "promoting" Jesus by virtue of his self-emptying and self-humbling." (30) Gorman argues well for a modified explanation of kenosis, and how it is directly involved in God's cruciformity, and Christ's theosis.
In his book Paul: A Very Short Introduction, E.P. Sanders makes a startling claim: "One sees that it is impossible to derive from Paul's letters anything approaching one single doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ." (Sanders, Paul, 96) Sanders cites two passages, which in concert, seem to prove his point. The first is Rom 1:1-6, which has been an aching backbone of Adoptionist Christologies:
For most believers, [sonship] entailed a different level of existence... For them, Christ was himself divine. Other Christians, however, rejected this claim and argued that Christ was a flesh and blood human being... adopted by God to be his Son and to bring about the salvation of the world. (Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 47)
The second verse Sanders cites is Phil 2:5-11, which draws sharp contrast to Adoptionism, and boasts of a Christ exercising "... voluntary self-humbling... verses 6-8 assert Christ's equality with God and narrate, both positively and negatively, his disposition toward that equality and the action he takes regarding it." (16) But, do these two accounts find a corollary in Paul's soteriology? If Jesus was in a sense adopted by God, it seems that a heavier emphasis would be related to the "works of Christ," rather than the theosis that Gorman argues for, emphasizing the "faith in/of Christ." Regarding these two soteriological notions, Gorman cites Tannehill and presses a singularity in Pauline Soteriology: "Although Tannehill does not use the precise language of co-crucifixion and co-resurrection, he clearly sees Paul articulating justification "from faith" in terms of participating in Christ's death and resurrection. Faith itself is being defined in a unique way as participation in Christ's death." (68) Thus, all the more important becomes Gorman's understand of justification as "... a rich, and potentially costly, experience of participating in Christ's resurrection life that is effected by co-crucifixion with him." (163) Gorman draws continuity between justification and theosis, because justification is theosis, and can accurately be described with one word: Holiness.
Thus far, we have followed Gorman as he has addressed theosis by way of kenosis and justification. If kenosis shows (remembering Collins and Collins) an antithetical ruling figure in Christ, and justification is the experience of JCC, then holiness is how we live in light of this new perspective. Holiness is the way in which the covenant will be maintained by God's covenant people (that is, those participating (justification) in the cruciformity of God/theosis of Christ). Gorman's Trinitarian participation is completed considering that the power of the Holy Spirit enables us to be cruciform. Further, justification finds room within holiness, and ultimately, you guessed it, holiness is theosis: "... holiness, or sanctification, is not an addition to justification but its actualization," (111) and even further defined, "Holiness is not a supplement to justification but the actualization of justification, and may be more appropriately termed theosis." (2)
Gorman has developed a strong argument for the Christ likeness of God (theosis), as well as the Godlikeness of Christ (cruciformity). I find fault with Gorman's fourth main chapter, that being nonviolence, and that theosis is exemplified in a nonviolent existence. If indeed nonviolence is an element of theosis, I wonder what we are to do with the Conquest Narratives and genocide. It seems that, all too often, these accounts (cf. The Book of Joshua) are provided undue padding. My initial response would be to see a limit on theosis. We cannot distance ourselves from the Hebrew Bible, nor can we distance ourselves from selected aspects therein. If cruciformity and theoformity are two sides to the same coin, I would like the cruciformity side to be facing up.
Overall, Gorman has argued in fine fashion that Christ (especially according to Phil 2:5-11) was a participant in theosis, and that in the same way, God was a participant in cruciformity. Our theosis is dependent upon our cruciformity, that, as we continue to participate in co-crucifixion, we will be co-resurrected as the Holy Ones of God. As Gorman notes, "That the Messiah, God's Son, was sent by God to be crucified, and then raised by God, meant that somehow God and the cross were inextricably interrelated." (Gorman, Cruciformity, 9)
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the authors
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
This item: Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology
$22.70 ($76.92/kg)
Get it as soon as Friday, May 9
In Stock
+
$33.47
Get it as soon as Friday, May 9
In Stock
+
$23.88
Get it as soon as Friday, May 9
In Stock
Total price: $00
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews. Please reload the page.
- Reviewed in the United States on October 29, 2010
- Reviewed in the United States on January 18, 2010
Top reviews from other countries
- G K C ReaderReviewed in the United Kingdom on April 10, 2014
Best and most coherent exposition of Paul's Teaching i've ever read.
