2 Corinthians 5:19-21, Imputation, and the Divine Declaration

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

The Purposes of the Church

I'm giving a talk tonight about the purposes of the church, and thought for those of you who won't be there I thought I'd post my speak up here so you can read it. It's for a combined youth event held at my church, and I hope it reads well enough as it's more less my manuscript this even.

. Introduction
b. This night is about who we (as the body of Jesus Christ) are. As we are even gathered together this evening, we are demonstrating in some way who we are and what we are supposed to do (or be). Our characteristics find their root and fruit (in other words, the reason or foundation and products of our efforts) in who God is and what he has done for us. You see it is not without certain reservations that we can even begin to approach the goal of identity and purpose. Therefore, I find it is necessary to talk about what the church must do. The true church is the household of God and includes all people groups. The church is to uphold the truth of the Gospel by teaching, guarding, proclaiming and demonstrating the truth of God.
c. Transition
i. On a Sunday in November 2008, hundreds of protesters who support same-sex marriage marched outside a church in southern California. They were there to protest the pastor’s appeal to his congregation to vote in favor of Proposition 8. Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to legally define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The protesters believed that the church had no right to impose their moral beliefs and views on the greater society. Many view the beliefs of the pastor and church members on this issue as being hateful and discriminatory.
ii. Do the protesters have a good point? Do you think the pastor was right or wrong for encouraging his congregation to vote on this issue? Should the church simply concern itself with Christians and their views and behavior? Does the church have a role to play in issues that involve people of other diverse beliefs? If yes, what is that role?
iii. Tonight I would like to define and communicate to you what the main job of the church is.
. The Church is to Uphold the Truth
a. Illustration
i. Ephesus was an important city during NT times. One of the reasons for its importance was the presence of the temple of Artemis. The temple was huge! More than 400 ft long, 250 ft wide (bigger than the Pat’s football field) and 60 ft high! There were more than 100 massive stone pillars supporting its roof, and people would travel from all over the world to come and see it. The temple was built in honor of the Ephesus goddess Artemis, and thus the people came there to worship her and the temple was filled with gold and silver and other artwork for her honor, glory and fame.
b. But this temple was also a scene of protest. In Act 19, the apostle Paul had been preaching the truth of the gospel in and around Ephesus. Paul had been proclaiming that salvation is in Jesus Christ alone, and as a result, many people in and around Ephesus were turning away from idolatry and placing their trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. This of coursed angered certain people and a riot breaks out as Paul declares that gods are not made by human hands. But the point that I am making here is that Paul had to confront the lie of Artemis worship, and by confronting the lie with truth a riot breaks out. Was it right for Paul to speak out like this? Should Paul just have minded his own business?
c. Read Acts 4:12- And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
d. Paul confronts this false religion of the time, because the result of their belief was deadly. For apart from the truth of the gospel, no one can be saved.
e. Transition
i. There was another temple during that time which Paul found it important to mention (Read 1 Tim 3:14-15). Paul writes these words to a young man named Timothy. Timothy lived in the city of Ephesus and probably walked by the temple of Artemis multiple times. Paul was writing to Timothy to give him instructions about this other temple in Ephesus. The temple is of course the church and he is not necessarily referring to an actual building, but what? A family. A family of God which included all those who trusted in Jesus alone for salvation. The family or household of God is all Christians, everywhere in the world, but also specifically those that live in a particular community: such as the believers in Ephesus.
ii. And these gathering of believers are to have a certain purpose in the world. What purpose is it? Well, look at verse 15. The church is a pillar of truth, and what does a pillar do? It upholds or supports something. So the church is to uphold the truth of the Bible. This is what Paul was doing in Ephesus. He was upholding the truth (Read 1 Tim 2:4-5 as another example of Paul upholding a particular truth of the gospel).
iii. My main point here is that the church is to uphold the Gospel of Jesus, and by upholding the truth we teach the truth.
. The Church is to Teach the Truth
a. (Read Titus 2:1) Doctrine is what the Bible teaches about a specific topic. Sound doctrine refers to true doctrine (i.e., the truth about what the Bible teaches). If God’s people are to know what the truth is, they must be taught that truth from one generation to the next. And most important doctrines for us to know, understand, believe, and teach are those concerning the Gospel.
b. On a side note, do you know what has to happen before the truth of the Gospel can be believed? God has to remove our blindness. In other words, he must enable us to see the truth (2 Cor 4:3-4, 6). This is why salvation is called a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9) for it is something that only God can do.
c. I think the main points of the Gospel are this
i. Jesus is fully God and fully man, and lived a sinless life (John 1:1, 14; 2 Cor 5:21).
ii. He is the only way to God (John 14:6).
iii. He died on the cross and received the punishment that we deserved (1 Peter 2:24; Matt 20:28; Matt 26:28) and then rose again (John 11:25).
iv. He has promised to forgive sin and grant eternal life for those who repent of their sin and trust in Him alone for salvation (Mk 1:15; Matt 26:28; Rom 6:23).
v. And salvation is a free gift from God, and cannot be earned through any merit or effort of our own (Eph. 2:8-9).
d. Transition
i. Therefore, in teaching the truth we guard the truth from outside threats.
. The Church is to Guard the Truth
a. (Read Titus 1:9) This verse was written specifically for the elders of the church, those responsible for leading, and they were commanded to guard the truth from any errors in its interpretation.
b. Illustration
i. When you kids, did any of you ever play the Telephone game? One person whispers a message into the ear of another person and then that person whispers it into the ear of the next and so on and so forth until you get to the final person and what should they be able to do? Say out loud what message they heard and see how messed up it got right? And sometime the two are not the same right? The reasons for such a difference are many, but sometimes there could be someone who just wanted to sabotage the game and purposefully tell someone the wrong message.
ii. Well, as God’s truth is taught form one person to the next it to can get changed and distorted if one is not careful enough to know and thus guard God’s truth from anyone who wishes to challenge it.
c. Transition
i. As we uphold, teach and guard the truth we also must proclaim the truth,
. The Church is to Proclaim the Truth
a. (Read 1 Peter 2:9) I think there are three ways in which the church can proclaim the truth:
i. Proclaim the truth back to God in worship (worship of God)
ii. Proclaim the truth to each other in the church (building up the body)
iii. Proclaim and demonstrate the truth to non-Christians (evangelism/missions)
b. Would it have been easier for Paul to have kept his mouth shut in Ephesus? Would it have been less disruptive to the city life if he would just quietly kept preaching to and within the church itself? Wouldn’t it have been easier for the pastor of the church in California to keep his views about marriage to and within the Church and not encourage his people to vote these views into state law?
c. (Read John 14:6) The church as the unique privilege of sharing the only way of salvation with others. The Gospel is of supreme value and proclaiming it is not always easy, but a privilege because the message of the Gospel is the most important message in the world!
d. Transition
i. As I mentioned, one of the ways that the church can proclaim the truth is by demonstrating it to non-believers.
. The Church is to Demonstrate the Truth
a. Read Phil 2:14-15 What does it mean to demonstrate the truth? Live a life as an obedient child of God. If you live out God’s truth, you will stand out as being different.
b. Conclusion
i. The true church is the household of God, every Christian, living out the truth of the Gospel. The church is the pillar of truth in a world that too often distorts the truth. Therefore, we are to uphold the truths of the Bible by teach it, guarding it, proclaiming it, and demonstrating it by living it out for the whole world to see, in hopes that others might come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.
ii. Let me encourage you to do the same. This is our calling, purpose and identity.
 

Greek Verbal Aspect and Revisiting my Question for Arminianism

In my first blog post I raised a question for my Arminian bothers.  There I asked: How is it that you ascribe to God the work of salvation, yet at the same time claim that man has the ability to say yes or no to God’s gracious gift? It is at this juncture that I made the statement that it at least seems that you have marginalized God’s work in Christ. For your salvation is not salvation until you decide, thus making you (the human individual) the final component that completes the work that God has done for us. I find this objection (if it is a valid one) to be quite problematic for one’s theology proper, and also problematic for certain biblical texts.

Given this, it seems relevant that we address the meaning of Jesus’ final words on the cross. On a side note, it is often our first impression and final impression that will remain with people that we come in contact with as the lasting impression and thus the most memorable trait(s). I think the same is true concerning the study of Jesus, and his final impression, which he gives us just before he dies, can be quite telling concerning everything that he did before that moment. As you might remember I briefly addressed the meaning and implications of Jesus’ words on the cross in my second post. There I said something to the affect that Jesus’ work is not finished, if in fact the Arminian objection I raised is valid. Therefore, I have asked my Arminian brothers to tell what is meant by the phrase, “It is finished” (John 19:30).

In addition to my comments I original made on that passage, I would like to add a discussion concerning Greek verbal aspect and its relevance for John 19:30. I know that aspect is heavily debated, so if you would like to discuss it further I would be more than willing to do so; however, for argument sake I will simply assume it and thus we can go from there. Now for those of you who do not know what I mean by verbal aspect I’ll try to slowly bring you into such a difficult subject matter.

The Greek verb system expresses five concepts: Tense, Voice, Mood, Person and Number. However, tense is the only concept that is relevant for our study of John 19:30. In Greek, tense carries two connotations: Time (when the action of the verb occurs) and Aspect (the duration of the action). It is the latter connotation, aspect, that will be of specific importance, and is perhaps the most difficult concept to grasp in Greek verbs, and yet the most important and most misunderstood concept of Greek verbs. To reiterate my point a bit more, the genius of the Greek verb system is not only its ability to describe when the action occurred, but also what type of action is occurring, and again this is what Greek grammarians call aspect. Another way of seeing how aspect is expressed is through understanding how the action of the verb is viewed within the duration of time.

This brings us to the three types of Greek verbal aspect: Continuous, Undefined, and Perfective (or Competed) aspect. The most pending type of verbal aspect for our discussion of John 19:30 is the final one I mentioned: Perfective (or Competed) aspect, which can be understood in duration as often being a past completed action with an ongoing present state or effect. To complicate matters, the ambiguity of the perfective aspect is a bit high as it combines the notion of undefined and continuous aspect. Undefined aspect is a past undefined action being presented as a whole and continuous aspect is an action within present duration. Therefore, the ambiguity of how to exegete and translate the perfective aspect is where to place the emphasis. Do you put emphasis on the past completed action, or on its continuous present effect? However, though our translation of the Greek aspect can never fully grasp its actual Greek expression, we can have both in mind as we do our exegetical and translational work.

Now this brings us back to Jesus’ words in John 19:30. There Jesus says, “It is finished” or “It has been completed”. The Greek verb is Tetelestai (here I have transliterated it), and it is in the Perfect tense. The time again is quite ambiguous, but the aspect is rather clear. Jesus has fully done the work God the Father sent him to do. Moreover, based upon this reality Paul spends all of Romans 5 discussing the implications of our salvation being sure and complete as a result of Christ effectively being our representative and totally (or completely) defeating the effects of Adam’s sin. Furthermore, the effect (or going state) of Christ’s work is presently continuous for believers throughout salvation history.

Therefore, if the Arminian understanding is correct, wouldn’t it follow that Jesus’ work was not finished? Yes he has done all he was sent to do in providing the possibility of salvation, but I it seems that the perfect aspect does not express such a notion nor does Paul’s discussion in Romans 5. Is humanity potentially sinful? No, the depravity humanity is far too real, and so is the effectiveness not the potentiality of Christ’s work. Again, the work is done or completed, not the possibility or implications of the past action. Moreover, the on going affect is one of assurance, not possibility. 

I hope I have been clear as I am discussing a very difficult subject. I would welcome any thoughts on the matter.

Be Blessed,

Nick

A Compatibalistic Response and (brief) Critique of Libertarianism

My dear friend, Alex Marshall, has most recently written quite extensively on the idea and meaning of human freedom. His lengthy article (published in a Yale journal) critiquing determinism, and his most recent blog post critiquing compatibalism, are both rather thought provoking. I would like to thank Alex for his thoughtful remarks and will now provide a response to his latter criticism of compatibalism. The purpose of this post is to demonstrate why the compatibalist understanding of freedom is the best option from both a psychological and philosophical standpoint, and then to draw an implication of libertarianism that I think all will find relatively shocking. It might be helpful to keep in mind the description of Creed Thoughts, as I hope it will lighten the mode. Now…off to the races!  

The psychological side I feel directly addresses one of the key motivations of compatibalism. We have many inclinations in choosing and even many outside factors, which also play a role in anyone’s decision making. For example, when I was deciding on what school to attend for graduate studies I took into consideration which school would best prepare you for ministry, which school was the best financial option, which school would better suit Andrea’s (my wife) need to be closer to her family, and so on and so forth (my point here is that people have many factors pressing upon which form the strongest inclination); however, at the moment of choice (this is important as both the libertarian and compatibalist affirm) an individual always acts in accordance with their strongest inclination. However, my problem with the libertarian understanding of freedom is that they affirm that one could have done otherwise. I interpret (as well as many scholars) that the will is simply the mind choosing (as I think all would say) and therefore to assert that we could have done the contrary is saying this: I could have acted contrary to the strongest inclination at the moment of choice. To me this seems absurd! How could one do it? If one acts contrary to the strongest inclination at the moment of choice, would not that contrary choice then be that strongest inclination at that moment of choice? Moreover, how can one have two equally strong inclinations? One could never live out such a belief. The impractical nature of such a libertarian notion can be illustrated by the donkey problem or commonly called Buridan’s Ass. If the donkey had an equally strong desire for oats and corn, then he would stand between both and starve to death.

Also, the libertarian notion of freedom presupposes that man spontaneously acts apart from a sufficient cause. In other words, people’s strongest inclination is not the sufficient cause for their actions and thus libertarians presuppose that they can act otherwise and one’s strongest inclination is only a necessary cause. However, as I’ve demonstrated people cannot practically live out such a presupposition. For if they did one of two things would happen: Either 1) They would never be able to make a choice to act on their equally strongest inclinations (see the donkey illustration) or 2) Their motivations for doing anything would be completely random and arbitrary (and this latter implication delivers many problems for morality). In other words, if they could have truly acted to the contrary, then what is the reason for doing so? On a side note, it most recently has been bought to my attention that some forms of libertarian freedom answer the latter implication, but I would still like to hear about it.

My point again is that people simply do not act in a random or arbitrary matter. People make choices every day (I know I do anyways) and they have motivation for doing so. However, how can their motivation for their strongest inclination at the moment of choice not be the sufficient cause (It seems to me anyways that it has to be)? Remember that I am not saying that we do not have many other inclinations, but what I am saying is that someone can only have one strongest inclination, which is the sufficient cause, at the moment of choice.

In hopes of proving further proof that people act as a result of a strongest inclination I would now like to critic the libertarian concept of agent causation. However, first I would like to quickly state the emphasis that the compatibalist is making, and the short coming of the libertarian: The psychological and philosophical implications that people act or make a choice as a result of motivation and thus their motivation is grounded in two places: 1) People acted in accordance with their strongest inclination and 2) People’s strongest inclination is grounded in a causation by a transcendent cause (or unmoved mover). In other words, my critique of agent causation will rest on the belief that it is guilty of infinite regression and cannot be the cause of human choices.

However, just before I offer a critique of agent causation, I would like to clarify the two statements above as somehow being compatible with one another. Now I know that some of you might be thinking, SOMEHOW? But yes somehow. Somehow Jesus is both God and Man. Somehow Scripture is both the work of God and Man. Somehow evil exists while a truly good and benevolent God exists. Somehow God is three and one (note he’s not three in the same way that he is one, but I think that you get my point). And yes, somehow both the statements of there being a transcendent cause for our actions or strongest inclinations and humans being able to still be free as they act in accordance with their strongest inclination are compatible! Just as compatibalists and libertarians alike give logical arguments for how each of the above “somehow” statements are true, they all admit at some point that neither system is without any fault.

Now my next motivation for accepting compatibalism is based upon philosophical and logical reasoning which will in turn be my critique of agent causation. However, I would quickly like to bring us into this part of the discussion by asking a question: Why do I need to ground human choices with a transcendent cause? Well, in order to avoid an infinite regression of causes. How is one guilty of such infinite regression in the libertarian sense? Because a libertarian has no answer to give that truly grounds one’s reasons for discussion making. I know that libertarians wish to avoid such an objection by asserting that their reason for acting is grounding in the cause of the agent (or agent causation). However, this is highly question begging: Who or what caused the agent causation?

Keep in mind that, as I stated earlier, under the libertarian notion lays the idea that one’s strongest inclination is only necessary for making choices and not sufficient for making choices, and as I’ve noted I find that to be extremely problematic as it comes to determining why we do what we do and also the issues of such as they relate to infinite regression. As you remember those two points I would like to draw your attention to the reason why I am indebted to Flew and Hartley concerning this objection; because Flew nailed Craig concerning the latter point that I just made in a debate and Hartley includes a further discussion of it in his book.

The point imposed to Craig, by Flew, was simply this: How can you (Craig) be consistent in claiming that you hold to the idea that the universe has a transcendent cause (God creating it), while at the same time claim that your own human choices have no transcendent cause and it’s simply a “brute fact”? Now Craig’s reason or cause for human choices was agent causation, but how does that not become guilty of an infinite regression. It is important to keep in mind that Flew wished to attack Craig’s famous kalam cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe had a transcendent cause in order to escape certain Atheistic implication that if the world did not have a transcendent cause (or unmoved mover) then it would be meaningless to speak of time in the past, present, or even future tenses. Therefore, under the same rubric, is not libertarianism guilty of any infinite regression, as we can now speak meaningfully about the time and history of humanity and the choices they make (such a dilemma carries with it huge implications for morality as I believe I mentioned before)?

      

Moreover, here are some of Hartley’s comments. “In short, one (the theist) cannot demand that this universe has a transcendent cause based on the effect (the universe) because the opponent of atheism (libertarian proponent) proposes human choices that arise without a sufficient cause too.” Furthermore, the point I’m making (or Flew or Hartley) is that one cannot claim that our choices just happen as a result of “brute fact” and then be consistent in claiming that the universe had a transcendent cause.

Please note that I am not saying that libertarianism is atheism, but I am drawing attention to the notion that libertarianism relies on the same premise as atheism. Atheists say the universe is a "brute fact" needing no sufficient cause. Atheists say that the cause-and-effect within creation is somehow not applicable to an outside agent as the sufficient cause of the effect of creation. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, for an effect must have a definite cause…right? Likewise, the libertarian says free choices are without sufficient cause and could be otherwise and simply a “brute fact.”

Now I know that some libertarians would be fine with rejecting to the kalam argument, and I see no problem with that; however, I still have the need for the libertarian to answer for the “brute fact” concerning why people act of as a result of motivation and the strongest inclination (sufficient or necessary). Finally, how is agent causation not guilty of an infinite regression?

I hope I have spoken with clarity and please let me know what needs further clarification (as I'm sure there are many spelling and grammar mistakes to be found here) and/or anyone’s thoughts or response.

Be Blessed,

Nick

ANE Suzerian-Vassal Treaties, The Creation Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3), and the Adamic Covenant

These are just some recent thoughts as they relate to a class I’m taking this semester on the theology of the Pentateuch. My prof., Dr. Niehaus, has done quite a bit of work with ANE themes in the OT, and his studies have lead to the material that I would like to share with you now.

Within certain Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) systems you begin with a god as a Great King (GK). The technical term for such a king is Suzerain, which would also mean emperor. The Suzerain is the king of kings, and everyone under him is in a vassal state. These foundational principals are very important for our (Christian) study of the Bible when we see the creation account as it parallels to an ANE treaty.

The form most relevant for us was used by the Hittites in the 2^nd millennium BC. They had treaties of two sorts. One was a Parity treaties, which would have been give to an equal rivaling country, such as Egypt. The other is the one most important for our study and my thesis: Creation as a Suzerain-vassal treaty.

This form begins with a title that identifies a GK, and the treaty is interestingly enough the words of the GK. On a side note, this can be quite significant for our biblical studies as we see God creating by his words. The next element of the treat is an Historical Proloque, which tells of the good things that the king has done. The treaty then speaks of certain stipulations; namely, if I (one of their pagan gods) have done something, then you must do something. There is a deposition of the treaty that is then placed in the temple and there is a regular reading of treaty by the kings. It seems to have been placed in the temple because their gods were in charge of it, and there was a regular reading of the treaty done by the king so that he would not forget its elements as he lead and often functioned as a representative for the people. Lastly, there are witnesses of the treaty, which seemed to be normally deities, and there were blessings and curses for the vassals if they obeyed or disobeyed.

Now how might any of this be important for our study of creation as it fits into the plans and purpose as God would have wished to use such things in order to structure the world in such a way as it relates to him as such? Well, like I’ve alluded to, I do see a pattern of these elements of a Hittite Suzerain-vassal treaty communicated in Gen 1:1-2:3. I’ll list them below.

I.                   We see God identified in Gen 1:1

II.                Historical Prologue in vv.2-29

III.             Stipulations in 1:28 [2:16-17a]-the later is not particular to our passages, but it is germane to it.

IV.             There is neither a deposition nor regular reading because we don’t have a written treaty; however, I think one could quite easily make the case for Eden being the temple, and Adam and Eve functioning as the rulers and representatives of creation (for when they fell all of creation fell). Therefore, all of these speculations seem to make some case for Adam and Eve failed to regularly remind themselves of the Historical Prologue, stipulations, blessings and cursing of God’s treaty with creation.

V.                Witnesses in 1:31 [2:1]

VI.             Blessings in 1:28; 2:3

VII.          Curses in [2:17b]

I would like to begin to conclude that the notion that Gen. 1:1-2:3 represents and provides proof for support of the existence of an Adamic Covenant. Many people use the words treaty and covenant interchangeably, but my point is that the elements that one would attribute to another covenant in the bible are paralleled and used here is Genesis. Another biblical covenant most clearly paralleled with the Adamic is the Noahic Covenant. Some have label the Adamic as a Covenant of Works and Noahic as a Common Grace Covenant; however, I would insist on labeling both of them as Common Grace Covenants as they are given to everyone who are born under these same arrangements. On a side note, the differences between the first two covenants I’ve mentioned and all the other Covenants of Grace or Special Grace Covenants is that the later group was given to or established with certain people (God’s chosen elect).

Lastly, the support I finds for proof that the Adamic and Noahic Covenant are similar (and thus the former truly being a covenant) can be found in comparison between Gen 1:28 and Gen 9:1-3. In both texts God blessed the human representatives and commands them to be fruitful and multiply. Moreover, I find that the Noahic is a renewal of the Adamic, and thus making the Adamic and Noahic one legal package and finally I find it helpful (canonically and theologically) to understand them has having such a relationship. Now these parallels do not mean that there are no differences between the two, but the diversity does not mean that there is no unity between them. A great example of parallels and close relationships between other covenants is the Sinai and the Moab Covenant (Dt 29:1). Together, they form one legal package. In other words, the later is a renewal or restatement of the former. I think then you could say that both of these, taken together, form the Old Covenant.

Justification, The Righteousness of God, and N.T. Wright on Romans 1:16-17 (Lengthy)

This new post is not too removed from the topic of my last two, but I have skipped over a discussion of many different issues that would have ultimately lead me to addressing the implications of the meaning of justification as it relates to certain issues of salvation. Most of what I will say comes from comments concerning one of Alex Marshall’s blog posts a while back, so if you would like to read more on this visit this link http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/2010/12/responding-to-interlocutor.html; however, I have included some new thoughts, critique and corrections to what I said earlier on Alex’s blog. Also, I have been motivated by some to exegete a particular text, so here you’ll find it.

Quickly, I would like to apologize for the length of such a post; however, if you’ll stick it out with me, then I know certain claims or statements I make will give us more than enough things to talk about. Now…off we go!

My need to even write such a post and thus clarify my position comes as a result of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). One of the quarrels I have with the NPP (namely N.T. Wright here) is their strict emphasis on the justification language only referring to God’s declaration that one is in the covenant. As a result, Wright has made justification primarily ecclesiological and not soteriological. So my most basic question is: Is that primarily the force of justification?

Next, I will offer a brief critique of such a limitation of the justification language so that we can discuss it in greater detail. However, I first find it crucial to state that the meaning of the ‘righteousness of God’ and the justification language are closely related issues, but they are not the same thing. The importance or centrality of both are debated of course, but the vigorous discussion surrounding these terms have widely been affirmed to be key for Paul’s understanding of salvation. However, I hope to establish my affirmation of the later sentence as I do believe these two terms are primarily related to soteriology; however, this will take some number of words and pages to do, so again bear with me if you can. I hope and pray that my thoughts result in a furthering of discussion…if you have time or would like to of course.

I will some Greek grammatical analysis later on, but I feel that my main argument for understanding ‘righteousness of God’ is grounded solely upon the grammatical genitive construction. Therefore, for those of you reading this who don’t know Greek I am going to attempt to slowing and gently bring you into such a heavily language based and highly debated discussion.

First of all, in hopes of keeping everyone on the same track or page, I must make a note concerning Greek nouns. The Greek noun system uses case endings in order to express the function of words in a sentence; thus making Greek an inflected language, because words will often change in form. We have these cases in English, but again they are expressed in the Greek through case endings. Among the Greek noun cases, the genitive case functions as showing possession. The Greek phrase dikaiosynē theou, is constructed in the genitive case, thus meaning that it shows, in some way, possession. Then, when you translate the phrase into English you get the ‘righteousness of God’ or ‘God’s righteousness’ and thus hopefully see the possession being expressed.    

However, the debate concerning the phrase is about how the genitive is understood or shows possession, and this is where the discussion becomes quite difficult. Is the genitive construction a subjective genitive, a genitive of source or a possessive genitive? The subjective sense of the genitive refers to God’s act or declaration that makes righteous or justifies those who believe; the genitive of source option refers to the righteous status being given to believers as a result of God’s justifying activity; and the possessive genitive understanding refers to the attribute of God himself, namely his own righteousness, or his being (he is righteous), and/or his action (he is just). I wish to quickly point out that Wright prefers to speak in absolute terms and understand the genitive construction as only possessive genitive. However, I see no good reason to only see in that way.

In hopes of shedding light of the grammatical debate I would like to provide some etymological support for establishing the meaning of justification as primarily soteriological and see how such a standing is brought about as a result of who God is. I find it helpful to see the connection between the verbs to save (sw÷zw) and to justify or vindicate (dikaiovw), while still claiming that they are not the same thing. The verb to save refers to one being delivered or rescued whereas the verb to justify refers to one being declared in the right before God (whether one is acquitted or condemned, pardoned or found guilty). Therefore, I take these verbs refer to how God restores humanity to himself (soteriology), thus connecting them to the rescuing of humanity by God from their current state and eschatological condition or doom. Therefore, these verbs are primarily soteriological terms, with ecclesiological implications following. We are part of God’s people, because he has done something. Also, I find that the texts allow this most effective understanding in order to move on to matters of ecclesiology (which sufficiently follow I might add). Moreover, we are God’s people as a result of him saving us, and therefore we are called to do something and to be something. This is the ecclesiology implication of being saved, redeemed, reconciled, etc. by God. You cannot have the former without the later…or can you? Such a methodology is highlighted in other arenas of systematic/biblical theology; namely everything one believes theologically stems from their beliefs concerning theology proper.

My understanding the term justification as it is primarily associated with issues of soteriology, seems to shed some light on understanding ‘the righteousness of God’ as being associated or related to God’s act or declaration to save, deliver, or rescue his people (those who believe in him) from eschatological destruction. Therefore, I would primarily adapt the subjective sense of the genitive; however, I am not rejecting that there is neither a nature of God being rendered or expressed in the phrase (the genitive of source option), nor am I saying that no righteous status is given to believers, who “live by faith” as a result of God’s justifying activity (the genitive of source option). Therefore, I would agree with Wright that the ‘righteousness of God’ refers to God’s faithfulness to his covenantal promises; however, is that all it refers to? Yes the righteousness of God is his character and covenantal faithfulness, but I also understand it as reference to how God saves and justifies the ungodly. In his book, Justification, Wright tended to speak in absolute terms and I don’t believe that texts allow that at all.

I would like to direct us now to Wright’s interpretation of Romans 1:16-17, as I best think it highlights the issue I am taking concerning Wright’s understanding of ‘the righteousness of God’. Also, I have chosen this passage because Wright has spent a great deal of time on this verse (See mainly his commentary on Romans in The New Interpreter’s Bible and his book titled Justification).

Based on my thinking pertaining to the meaning of both justification and ‘the righteousness of God’, it seems that Romans 1:16-17 has to do with soteriological matters. The point Paul makes throughout the book of Romans is not that one is saved by their works of the Law (or via the Law), but by faith. Therefore, the righteous ones live or are identified by faith not works (v.17). It is from my understanding that one’s salvation is a soteriological issue, and thus connected to a reference of the eschatological condition of the individual, that the meaning of the word salvation in v.16 refers to one being saved or delivered from ultimate destruction. Moreover, following one’s understanding that God has acted and saved his people from this ultimate destruction, one sees the importance of a systematic theological methodology, which is first and foremost concerned with who God is, and then focused on and influenced by how, or the way this God has renewed, reconciled and redeemed creation back to him. Again, this is soteriology, with ecceliological, Christological, anthropological, and eschatological implications.

Now we have come to Wright’s argumentation in support of his understanding of ‘God’s righteousness’ being his faithfulness to the covenant. Wright provides support with three statements: 1) Rom 1:16-17 does not define the gospel, but speaks about the effects of the gospel; 2) Both Jews and Gentiles are ones who are saved; and 3) The use of Hab 2:4 in v. 17 refers to divine judgment which is grounded in divine faithfulness (Justification, 181-82).

I am not for sure how his first two statements contribute to his view, but he third is most clear. As a result, I will spend most of my time here looking into the meaning and reference of Hab 2:4 in it original context, the Septuagint (LXX), or the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, and that of Rom 1:17.

I feel that Wright’s exegesis of Hab 2:4 plays a bit fast and loose with the text. As you know, he argues that Hab contends for faith among God’s people, and that 2:4 is referring to God’s faithfulness. However, where is this faithfulness mentioned in Hab 2? It might seem best for Wright to base his argument on the LXX; however, does the LXX mean what Wright thinks it means? Furthermore, is Wright basing his understanding of the Pauline reference in light of the LXX text? Moreover, what text is Paul basing his argument on?

As you might know the issue involved here is the difference between the Hebrew text (MT), the LXX and Paul’s treatment in Romans. The MT states “The righteous [man] shall live by his faith.” As you can see the MT speaks to the faithfulness by which the righteous live, but does not necessarily refer to the divine faithfulness that Wright speaks of (if you will again allow me to end with a preposition). The MT should be in effect restating Lev. 18:5 (“the one who does them shall live by them”). In other words, it indicates what the righteousness of the covenant member was: It was by his faith or faithfulness that he observed the Law and lived by it. Now how does man faithfully observe the Law and live by it? Well it comes from the fact that God has declared someone to be righteous (subjective genitive again).

Also the LXX differs from the MT and thus reads “The just shall live by my faith.” As I stated earlier, this text might provide Wright with the best support for his argument, but does it clearly refer to God’s faithfulness? It could mean “faith in me” (that is God), and get more complicated wicked fast when you try to decide how to take the genitive construction. Is it subjective genitive, genitive of possession, or genitive of source (see above for a fuller treatment of this common grammatical construction)? Therefore, I do not believe that the issue is as clear cut as Wright wishes it were, or states that it is.

As for Paul’s citation in Rom he has left out both the third person indicator found in the MT and the first person pronoun my (mou) found in the LXX and simply states “The righteous shall live by faith” (ek pistewV). Therefore, it seems best that Paul’s basis for his argument brings out an aspect of the gospel and something in Hab that was overlooked: Faithfulness to YHWH can only come about by faith in YHWH. One is not faithful to God unless they believe, trust, have faith in him (see the meaning of the verb pisteuw). As a result, I do not find any evidence concerning the MT, the LXX, and the Pauline text in that there is a reference to the faithfulness of God toward his covenant people. It is important to state that there is a difference in the nuance between Hab and Paul (namely Hab is referring to the faithfulness of man, while Paul is referring to the faith of man), but I do not see either one primarily speaking of God’s faithfulness.   

Remember that the point in all of this was to show how the ‘righteousness of God’ is not always limited to God’s faithfulness to his covenant (which highlights an attribute that God has and thus he cannot be anything other than faithful, righteous, or just). Also remember that I am not saying that this aspect of God’s righteousness cannot be found in Paul, but it’s simply not as limited as Wright claims it to be.

It is important to note that this is in no way an exhaustive treatment, and there is much one can object to. Also, in this post I have purposely left out crucial points of discussion; namely the impartation or imputation of Christ’s righteousness, or talk of his faithfulness, which is how the gift of a juridical standing or status, or even new nature is distributed. I have also left out a discussion of ‘Christ’s faithfulness’ or ‘faithfulness in Christ’ (a debate concerning the objective vs. the subjective genitive), therefore you have much to look forward to as I seek to tackle these and many other questions which surround such a debate.

So…what are your thoughts? Do you have any suggestions which would be helpful in understanding Paul’s usage of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17? Is there a better way to understand ‘the righteousness of God’?

If you’ve made it to this point, then I am more than thankful that you have spent your time reading this post.

Be Blessed,

Nick

The Gospel, Salvation, and Faith and Works

I’d like to keep the thread open on the previous blog, in case someone would still like to comment, but I would like to move onto unpacking one particular issue raised in that discussion: Namely, what is the role of the human individual in salvation?

First of all, I would like to make an obvious remark. Through such an age old debate as Calvinism vs. Arminianism, I find that the issue is not a neglect or disregard for Scripture (for proponents on both sides of the debate seem to have a high view of Scripture and just like there are those that do not on either side), but an issue of interpretation. Moreover, it should be noted here that a high view of Scripture has not led to a consensus concerning the understanding of interpretation and meaning of relevant texts. This goes without saying, but there are considerable differences on “how” to interpret certain texts; however, the positive side of such a debate is that either persuasion feels that they must take texts and apply them to their life. In other words, what both seem to do is actually defining the Christian life as a result of God’s revelation.

With that said, let’s seek to unpack and define this issue. First, here’s a quick statement regarding the hinge of the Gospel: The Gospel refers paradigmatically to the death of Christ on the cross. This is the focal point of all of salvific history in that it (salvific history) is illuminated by the death of Jesus. It is a climatic and theologically episode that holds the Gospel together. However, such a paradigm still leaves us with questions to answer: What is it that Christ has done for us? What does it mean that we are justified? How does our understanding of Christ’s work on the cross help us understand what justification means? The questions on the meaning of the Atonement and Justification is one that I will visit more fully in future post, along with the question regarding their relationship, but hear I desire to focus on one question raised as a result of the paradigm above (and stated in the first paragraph): What role to we play in the Gospel?

From the paradigm above, if such the statement is true, then does the Gospel claim that Jesus is solely sufficient for our salvation? Is there nothing leftover to do for salvation? How do you interpret Christ’s claim on the cross that "it is finished"? What is finished? Then, if Christ has done “everything”, what is left for us to do? Do we add anything to salvation? What would you (Arminians) and you (Calvinists) say to such a statement? We are saved by grace alone through faith alone apart from works, but in what way is “faith” not a work? Or is it a work?

Lastly, have I perhaps stated with a wrong paradigm in seeking to answer these questions? Is there a better way of looking at and ascribing meaning to salvific history? How should be better define our role as a result of Christ’s role?