Michael Bird's excellent short book 'A Bird's Eye View of Paul' is really a very good piece of work - especially to a non-Pauline-specialist like me. Pauline studies has really suffered from a plethora of disagreeing experts in the last twenty years, which leaves trials of confusion.
One area on which I have felt particular disorientation is that of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. In the teaching of a John Piper, this teaching becomes a crux. But, as NT Wright points out - where is the NT on this subject? Where is it explicitly taught? Even if we decide that imputation is a necessary inference from the theology of the NT, it is surely the case that it can't be as focal as Piper seems to make it.
Anyhow, here's Bird:
...what about the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the basis of justification? That is the notion that God imputes the obedience and merits of Jesus to believers and in turn imputes their sins to Jesus on the cross. Well, the fact of the matter is that we cannot proof-text imputation. If we think we can cite 2 Cor 5:21, Rom 4:1-5, 1 Cor 1:30, Phil 3:6-9 and find the entire package of the imputation of Christ's active obedience and the imputation of our sin to Christ embedded in all of these texts, we are sadly mistaken...
At the level of the text, then, Paul argues that we are justified by union with Christ through what I have called 'incorporated righteousness.' Jesus is justified in his resurrection, and by faith we have union with him so that we share in his justification. Through incorporation into Christ by faith, what is his becomes ours and what is ours becomes his...
The imputation of Christ's righteousness is a necessary and logical inference to make, as it allows us coherently to hold together a number of ideas and concepts in Paul's story of salvation. Although no text explicitly says that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, nonetheless, without some kind of theology of imputation a lot of what Paul says about justification does not make sense. Imputation is a synthetic way of holding together a number of themes...
I concur with Leon Morris, who said that imputation is a corollory of the identification of the believer with Christ. (p. 96-8)
20 comments:
I am wondering how often Paul and others refer to the notion of adoption. Could this be the actual sense in which a notion of imputation is present in the apostolic writings?
I am wondering how often Paul and others refer to the notion of adoption. Could this be the actual sense in which a notion of imputation is present in the apostolic writings?
It's interesting to think about important theological concepts that are given little or obscure space in Scripture. For example the disappearance of Eden or the glory leaving the temple and the curtain tearing, effectively the two part conclusion of the Old Testament, yet hardly a mention elsewhere. Another interesting thing to think about is the space given to genealogies, massive and often at the beginning of a book, which we generally regard as important and yet they don't figure in our theology. Maybe the upshot of all this is to pay more attention to the theological texture or theological topography of Scripture.
Michael,
Thanks for your kind words on BEVP. The next time I'm being indicted as a heretic by certain North American denominations (see http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf n. 85-86) I'll be sure to call you as a witness for the defence!
I wouldn't worry too much Michael, Keller gets a bit of a roasting in their review of The Reason For God (http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=193). For what it's worth Michael & Michael, I think you're right!
"Even if we decide that imputation is a necessary inference from the theology of the NT, it is surely the case that it can't be as focal as Piper seems to make it."
Surely? Why surely?
Aren't many "focal" theological doctrine actually inferences?
(eg Hypostatic union, doctrine of Scripture, ecclesiology)
Imputation is a great test of your understanding of your atonement theology, I reckon.
Surely? because when Paul himself comes to explain how we receive the righteousness from God - ie, how we are justified - he doesn't seem to go there. Or, goes there in parts. Odd don't you think?
Explain why imputation is such a great test etc... why is there such heat on this subject?
Here is a great example Michael J., of an important doctrine with little Scriptural "airtime." The doctrine of Original Sin and it's imputation to us (admittedly the form of that imputation is disputed) is found probably only in Rom 5, with support from a few other places such as Gen 3 and I Cor 15:21-22. You've asked a great question but couldn't we put imputation of Christ's righteousness along with the imputation of Adam's sin? If Nygren is right about Romans, which I think he is, then Romans is already about righteousness and so we read various bits such as Romans 5:12-21 with righteousness (or the lack of it) already in mind.
Well I am not sure what you mean, and I don't know my Nygren. I think the 'form of that imputation' is pretty crucial to the discussion, isn't it?
The text of Romans 5 most certainly does not speak of a righteousness belonging to Christ that is passed on to the believer. It speaks of Christ's act of righteousness as a means of our justification. Rom 5:19 doesn't speak of 'imputing' sin or righteousness - it is stronger than that. In Adam, we really ARE sinners, yes? And again: Christ's obedience is the means by which we will be made righteous, but it is not Christ's righteousness that we are made righteous with. Or at least, that's what the text says...
1. I like the way you've expressed that; "we ARE Adam." I may be out of my league here but imputation seems to be to be a word used to describe how we are are Adam and how we *are* Christ. The point of comparison seems to be the bond best described as "imputation." Couldn't imputation be a word strongly implied in Romans 5b to compare and contrast those two bonds?
2. "The text of Romans 5 most certainly does not speak of a righteousness belonging to Christ that is passed on to the believer." I'm confused. What then does the text mean when it says "the gift of righteousness" in verse 17 or "reign through righteousness" in verse 21? (2 Cor 5:21 says "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God," which seems to imply our righteousness is an extension of God's righteousness.) What then is this righteousness in Romans 5 if it does not belong to Christ?
3. Tangently I'm with Mikey on this point; there are several doctrines, themes without much explicit "textual airtime" given to them.
1. imputation would be a very ill-suited word for the job, is all.
2. look at the text. You'll find the righteousness there is God's, not Christ's.
I think 2 Cor 5:21 is actually about the apostolic mission - or at least, I do at the moment. That reading fits the context very well.
Once again - in all these texts you might be able to import the imputation of Christ's righteousness TO them, but unless read with one eye closed you won't get it out of them.
3. Sure, I teach doctrine, I am hip to the whole 'not much text thing'. But still - it should give us pause: have we really got the doctrine right? I think Reformed thinkers have made many mistakes on this front - the controlling grid drives the exegesis again and again, and leaves the whole system vulnerable to a decent reader of the text.
Hi Michael, thanks for your careful and kind responses in this thread. I'm not meaning to convey 'heat' in my replies, sorry if that's coming across.
I agree that imputation is not neatly and swiftly drawn from any of the proof texts, but I think a case can be made that they are still teaching imputation. RoG = apostolic mission is also very difficult to establish conclusively in 2Cor 5:21.
In my mind imputation safeguards doctrines like completion and finality of the salvation received upon conversion, the just conduct of God, and yes union with Christ.
Thanks Mikey - I am not reading any heat from you. In another thread on imputation, on Craig Schwarze's blog, a participant actually prayed against any discussion of the issue! So feeling apparently runs high!
If there is a case to be made that these texts teach the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I am yet to see it made. I hear it asserted a lot, because it defends and safeguards various aspects of doctrine: but that isn't enough to substantiate it, is it? Actually, union with Christ substantiates imputation, not the other way around. That is crucial.
well out of my depth but isn't the argument that 2 Cor 5 is about apostolic mission the question of "we" v "you"? I wonder if the same would extend to 1 Corinthians 1v30?
A recent realisation for me in my own reading of Paul was how much Paul himself was a big deal, a turning point - So Romans is saying a whole new epoch has arrived by the will of God, through Paul's apostleship to the nations.
Once I'd started seeing this "we" "you" thing, it started popping up everywhere
- Ephesians "we (jews/saints) who were the first to hope in christ...you also (gentiles) were included"
- 2 Corinthians "we (apostles) urge you (corinthians) be reconciled to God"
- 1 John "if we (apostles) claim we have no sin the truth is not in us (apostles)...we write this to you (christians) so that you will not sin..his blood is the propitiation for our sins & not only ours (apostles) but of the whole world"(others)
?
Hey,
Is this "imputation?"
Philippians 3:4b-11 (TEV)
If anyone thinks he can trust in external ceremonies, I have even more reason to feel that way. I was circumcised when I was a week old. I am an Israelite by birth, of the tribe of Benjamin, a pure-blooded Hebrew. So far as keeping the Jewish Law is concerned, I was a Pharisee, and I was so zealous that I persecuted the church. So far as a man can be righteous by obeying the commands of the Law, I was without fault. But all those things that I might count as profit I now reckon as loss, for Christ’s sake. Not only those things; I reckon everything as complete loss for the sake of what is so much more valuable, the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have thrown everything away; I consider it all as mere garbage, so that I might gain Christ, and be completely united with him. No longer do I have a righteousness of my own, the kind to be gained by obeying the Law. I now have the righteousness that is given through faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God, and is based on faith. All I want is to know Christ and to experience the power of his resurrection; to share in his sufferings and to become like him in his death, in the hope that I myself will be raised from death to life.
Only if we think in accounting terms about righteousness I think. Note the priority (logically) of being completely united with Christ and having the power of his resurrection of course.
What exactly does Paul 'have'? He has a right standing with God which is not his own by law but given through the faithfulness of Christ ... ie, won on his behalf by Christ, given to him through faith. Note that the righteousness he has is from God and is God's, not strictly speaking Christ's.
What exactly does Paul 'have'? He has a right standing with God which is not his own by law but given through the faithfulness of Christ ... ie, won on his behalf by Christ, given to him through faith. Note that the righteousness he has is from God and is God's, not strictly speaking Christ's.
Sorry to barge in Michael. I've been following Michael Bird's blog for a while and he has linked to your comment. (Plus having moved to Sydney I'm trying to learn how Aussies think!)
You've made a fair point about Romans 4 - 5. I think it is a pretty tight case that it is the righteousness of God that is credited to the believer.
However, what difference does this make to this particular debate? Are you divorcing the righteousness of the Father from the Son? ('get your own righteousness will yer, this is MINE!')
Likewise isn't it entirely legitimate to describe this righteousness as the crediting of 'Christ's righteousness' to make it clear that it comes from God through Christ alone?
It seems to fit the flow of the text of Romans 4-5. The righteousness is God's, but the gift is brought about by the one act of righteousness by Jesus. To carry on the fiscal model started in chapter 4 can't we say that the righteousness is Christ's gift because he earned it, and therefore in that sense it is Christ's righteousness?
Or does my argument need as much rebuilding as the Aussie cricket team?
"Bird's eye view of Paul"...I just got it. Clever.
Doug Wilson's comments about N.T. Wright on imputation explain what I was trying to say about Adam, Christ and imputation very well. It's short and the last paragraph packs a punch.
http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6303
I am with Michael (both of them).
Isn't it telling that in Roms 3 :21-26 where Paul develops what the righteousness of God in the gospel is he never says a word about IAO. It would have been so easy to do so and so appropriate if correct. But he doesn't. He roots God's righteousness firmly and unambiguously in the propitiatory death of Christ. This is is consistent practice and that of other NT writers. The cross and resurrection of Christ is the focus of the righteousness of God and of justification.
Roms 8 How can we be sure there is no accusation, no charge? Because Christ's life is imputed? No because Christ died and rose again.
We are justified in scripture by grace, blood, resurrection, faith and works but never by IAO. Surely this gives cause for hesitation over making IAO a test of orthodoxy.
Post a Comment