Over the last few years, biblical and theological investigations into the meaning of imputation have produced an increasing amount of literature, which is rather overwhelming at times if you ask me. I first began to examine the subject a couple of years ago (my last semester at SEBC), and as of recently, according to a divine appointment, I am taking a class on justification here at GCTS where the issue and meaning of imputation is closely connected. Therefore, you have to thank class notes and required reading for this posting and I hope you enjoy it.
The growing interest concerning imputation is due to recent controversies regarding the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), which views the matter much differently than it had been previously. Therefore, without interacting directly with that modern understanding, I would simply like to express some thoughts I have on the topic, which will hopefully give cause to either affirmation, constructive disagreement and conversation in order that further details and reasons for alternate persuasions can be brought forth and evidence weighed. Lastly, you will find me assuming a great deal here, but the assumptions are intentional and where the comments so lovely enter the picture.
Let’s jump right into it! I understand imputation within the traditional evangelical view of a great exchange taking place between Christ and humanity. That is, I view our sins being imputed to Christ who pays our penalty on the cross, and Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us. On a side note, I know that I have assumed a particular model of the atonement, and again due to another divine appointment, I am taking a class on the atonement as well and would be delighted in discussing this issue further.
Now concerning the details of the great exchanged (as mentioned above), I find 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 to be of great benefit. There is much to be commented on in these short three verses, but for a conversation starter I will restrict my comments to the verses that follow, which seem to be most relevant for our present discussion: “[I]n Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself by not counting their trespasses against them. . .he made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Before I remark on the language of the exchange, I would like to make a quick observation or two in order to establish a foundation before I move forward. First, the world is the object of God’s reconciliation, and can be summed up by his canceling of the sinner’s debt (cf. Col. 2:13-14). The method of doing so is through the person and work of Christ (2 Cor 5:19), as Christ was made a representative for sinners just as Adam was a representative for humanity (cf. Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22), which results in the sinner becoming the righteousness of God. Quickly, the semantics of my statements that ‘God’s object of reconciliation is the world’ and ‘Christ is a representative of sinners’ might suggest a change of mind. However, for those who know me too well, I would like to affirm that such a tragedy has not befallen me as I am still a card carrying Calvinist (or Biblicist, hahaha). My apologies to some, and to others rest assured that the phraseology does not indicate a change from good thinking ;) and only gives us more questions to contemplate and answers to communicate.
Now as I move onto the language of the exchange, I must first address a linguistic issue of the text. Namely, God is “not counting” our sins against us and Christ is being “made” a sinner, rather than being “counted as” a sinner. In other words, the counting is applied in one direction (humanity) and missing in the other (Christ); however, I find a certain consistency in the passage, which suggests that the exchange has the same conceptual elements working in both directions. Namely, our unrighteousness is counted towards Christ and Christ’s is righteousness counted towards us.
Given such a statement, the burden for me is to explain how the elements of the exchange work. In order to do so, I will quickly restate the parts of the exchange: Our sins are counted (in some way and I’ll explain further in a second) towards Christ (“He [was] made…to be sin”), and Christ’s righteousness (“the one who did not know sin”) is counted towards us (“to be sin on our behalf”). Now you might be rightly asking, “How does the first part of the exchange work?” In other words, if Christ was only made sin, then how can I claim that our sins were counted towards Christ (remember that the language of counting is missing in that direction)? Well, it seems likely to view it as our sins being transferred and thus they are “counted” as belonging to Christ. But again you might ask, “How does this transferring work?” In conceptualizing such a transfer, it seems logical to understand it as counting something for what it is not (i.e. exchange) rather than understanding it as counting something for what it is (i.e. recognition). Furthermore, in order to provide greater explanation, the language of “forensic” rather than “transformative” enters into the discussion. If the judgment is “forensic” or God declaring something to be what it is not, then the notion that how our sins are counted to Christ finds its explanation and logical support. Therefore, it cannot be “ethical” or God recognizing something for what it is, because Christ was not sinful.
Now the explanation of later element of the exchange (Christ’s righteousness counted towards us) follows quite nicely. In the same fashion as our sins were counted to Christ, so too was his righteousness counted to us. In other words, it was transferred to us as Christ is our representative and brings about the effect or result of one becoming the righteousness of God. This is the traditional evangelical view of imputation: God declares something to be what it is not (i.e. forensic imputation) in both cases (Christ and humanity), as he reconciles the world back to him through the person and work of Christ, resulting in the person becoming the righteousness of God.
I will conclude with a comment concerning this divine declaration or action that one is just who is not just. First of all, such an action is a gracious one, and implies that God grants us just even though we were unjust. Moreover, God counts someone righteous despite who they are, and on the basis of who he is by definition (Rom 4:5, 17). Once more, God’s divine activity is the basis for this counting, not the activity (i.e. faith) of the unrighteous. Again it is not an ethical issue, or God recognizing something for what it is, but a gracious issue based upon a divine prerogative (Rom 9: I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy). In other words, I find there to be no injustice upon God concerning this act or declaration. Also, the forensic understanding of imputation is helpful as it gives further clarity to the justice of God's action or declaration.
This should do for now, as I know that this shot across the bough will give my opponents more than enough cause to fire back. The NPP has much to say about all of these issues, so it would be good to hear them. Lastly, I know that I’ve made mention to some side and irrelevant issues, so for now let’s try to discuss matters regarding the 2 Cor text, imputation, and justice or injustice of God, and then move onto my snide remarks (hahaha).
Be Blessed,
Nick
I have to go to class. I will type up some of my thoughts later when I have a chance. In the meantime, Nick, I believe there's a deficiency in the presentation primarily because there is no discussion concerning our union with Christ. "So that we might become the righteousness of God 'in him'". That 'in him' is very important. If you have a chance before I do, I'd like to see you factor that element into your explanation. ttyl
ReplyDeleteDallas,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment and I look forward to reading your fuller thoughts. Also, please to do not let what follows deter you from doing so (as it ever would…right?). I would still like to hear your reflections on the matter and would benefit greatly from them.
Yes, a fuller discussion on the union with Christ is very important and again thanks for pointing that out. Now as you have rightly directed us to end of the passage, which includes a particularly important prepositional phrase “so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.” So the question would be, “How are we in him?” However, before I seek to answer this question I would like to ascribe meaning to the prepositional phrase “for us” (in v.21a) as it expresses the thought of representation. Moreover, the prepositional phrase “in Christ” (in v.19a) also suggests some sense of unity or representation concerning Christ as God is reconciling “the world” to him. Therefore, I think this statement I made earlier can be most helpful, “[righteousness] was transferred to us as Christ is our representative and brings about the effect or result of one becoming the righteousness of God.” In other words, we are united in Christ as he is our federal head, leader, or representative (cf. Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15:21-22 which both compare and contrast Christ’s representation to Adam’s representation).
Now there are some who claim (Bird in particular here) that since the language of imputation is not explicitly mentioned here, and only the language of not imputing something, which Bird states is not he same thing. It is interesting to note, as I am placing Bird within a particular context, that he is trying to find a happy median between the Gundry and Carson/Piper debate on imputation. Bird’s thinking above is something that you will find in Gundry’s presentation (the non-explicit language). However, he does not fully side with Gundry and diverts from him when he suggests that the result of being made the righteousness of God, is from our unity and/or representation in Christ. I think Bird is on the right track here, but still how is the one ‘not counted or imputed’ and another one ‘made’?
Bird has an answer here. He first states that ‘being made’ is not a reference to imputation (however, he was quick to state that it does not deny it, which I found interesting) but I think it could be if one understands it in light of a forensic declaration from God. He then prefers to understand the phrase ‘being made’ as a reference to Christ being sent by God ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom 8:3) and ‘became cursed for us’ (Gal 3:13). But still the question remains for Bird theologically, “How is Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh and become cursed?” It is not that he is actually sinful and cursed, but that God has made a pronouncement of something which it is not (forensic imputation), and yes in light of unity and representation, in order to bring about one becoming the righteous of God. It would be bad theology to suggest that God recognizes one as being what they are, because neither Christ nor humanity (respectfully) is actually sinful and sinless, and this is my basis for forensic imputation.
Bird still disagree with me and claim that I have sought to imposed a conception of imputation here based upon Rom 4; however, the former passage is not all we have on the subject and also the isolation that Bird is suggesting is not how we do a Canonical-Theological interpretation. It is how we immediate exegesis, but the canonical context is far too over looked in this subject matter. The thought here is that we take into consideration the relevant passages within the Pauline corpus (Scripture interpreting Scripture).
I Hope this helps and again I look forward to your thoughts,
Nick
My phrase "it is how we immediate exegesis" makes no sense to me and I have no idea why I said it. For the love! Therefore, disregard it and focus on the later part of that sentence.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really settled on this issue, so I can't offer much of a conclusion. I will say, though, I believe Phil 3:9 is a much clearer passage for imputation.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mainly wanted to say concerned union with Christ. If we are to explain imputation correctly, union with Christ must be emphasized. When we speak of imputation as God taking Jesus' righteousness and giving it to us, and God taking our sin and giving it to Christ, we present imputation in such a way as to portray imputation almost like a game of catch. The pitcher is Jesus, the ball is his righteousness, and we are the catcher. God takes the ball (Jesus' righteousness) and places it in our glove. Or just consider the bank account illustration. God takes the money (Jesus' righteousness) and puts it into our account and now we have money (Jesus' righteousness). This portrays imputation in such a way as to keep the giver and recipient separate. When Paul speaks about a gift of righteousness, however, he always speaks in terms of it being in Christ. So for example in Phil 3:9, however we understand 3:9c,d, what is clear is that the righteousness which Paul desires to be found with apart from the law is a righteousness only to be had "in Christ (3:9a)." What this should mean regarding imputation is that our righteousness is not this separate entity which is given to us; rather, it is something we receive by virtue of being united with Christ. We were "crucified with him (Rom 6:6)," we "died with him (Rom 6:8)," we were "made alive with him (Eph 2:5)," and "seated with him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6)." It is because on the cross we were united with him that our sins have been dealt with, and it is because when Jesus was raised, we were raised with him for our justification. Hence, "he who was delivered over on account of our transgressions and was raised on account of our justification (Rom 4:25)." We shall be found, like Paul, with righteousness apart from law because we shall be found in Christ. Our redemption is "in Christ (Rom 3:24)," those who are "in Christ" are not condemned (Rom 8:1), we are a new creation "in Christ (2 Cor 5:17)," we are reconciled "in Christ (2 Cor 5:19)," etc. If we do not emphasize this aspect of imputation, then we will fall prey to making statements that are either blatantly unbiblical or severely inadequate. Anyways, that's all I wanted to say. Like I said before, I don't feel completely competent at this point to deal with 2 Cor 5:21, as I am still working through it. I just wanted to add that critique, or point of emphasis, as it is something I have had to be more aware of lately. ttyl
Dallas,
ReplyDeleteThese are some good comments, and I would like to hear your thoughts on the 2 Cor passage when you can. Also, any proponent of a different persuasion is more than welcome to jump in whenever you might have something to say.
Now Dallas to respond to your thoughts. Yes, the idea of incorporated righteousness (again to cite Bird as he has coined the phrase), that is the biblical teaching that we are united or incorporated into Christ is what Protestants have been saying all along. I am more than willing to talk about it, since, as you pointed it, to not do so would be unbiblical; however, I would only like to place it in its right theological place (which is gleaned exegetically from the text). The purposes of my comments above were to demonstrate how we are incorporated into Christ, and I feel that the idea of forensic imputation and the idea that Christ is our representative are crucial for it's theological explanation. Moreover, the idea of God declaring something to be what it is not is based upon who he is ("the God who justifies the ungodly"), which gives further insight into the theological workings of such thinking. Furthermore, the talk of God graciously bestowing righteousness gives my previous thinking the ground and support needed. The status we have is not because we did something, but because God did something. He did in Christ, and Christ being our representative we are united with him and receive the reward. All I wanted to do with imputation was to show it as a declaration, given by God, that one is not what they are. Therefore, the basis for such a process is the divine prerogative, and forensic imputation, representation, unity and righteousness are all the result of a God doing what he wants to do (Rom 9).