Imputation of Christ's Righteous?

[By Grace]

Hi By Grace, would you tell me what your source is for your parsing for the word 'believed'?
I've looked at two sources and both say it's in the active voice rather than passive.

4 ἐργαζομένῳ ptc -ζομαι: ὁ ἐ. the one who habitually works, the worker §371. μισθός wage. λογίζεται pass. κατὰ χάριν as a favour. ὀφείλημα a due, debt.

Zerwick, M., & Grosvenor, M. (1974). A grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament (p. 467). Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

ἐλογίσθη (Root: λεγω, LN: 57.227; verb, aorist, passive, indicative, third person, singular)
to count, to credit
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Finite verb

Words That Modify ἐλογίσθη
• conjunctive relation: The word ἐλογίσθη is modified by καὶ (conjunction) in Ro 4:3, word 11 (καὶ is outside of the current clausal unit).
• prepositional relation: The word ἐλογίσθη is modified by εἰς (preposition) in Ro 4:3, word 14 (εἰς is outside of the current clausal unit).


Lukaszewski, A. L., & Dubis, M. (2009). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament: Expansions and Annotations (Ro 4:3). Logos Bible Software.

I do not expect you to read or understand Koine Greek so I highlighted the words in blue.

Both the sources are very good, and are what the Bible students and pastors in seminaries use.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Oh boy. I have quite a bit to catch up on here. Not a bad topic. I would like to weigh in on this discussion as well.


First may we clear something up? Let's determine whether we believe that Jesus took our own sins upon himself first, before we determine if anything went the other direction from Christ to us. Call this imputation, exchange, transfer, or whatever you want but I will stick with "imputation" for now unless you beg to differ. The Scripture teaches that our sin was "imputed" to Christ, placed upon him, for which he actually (not theoretically) suffered and died on our behalf.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13 ESV)

Notice the vicarious "for us" statement here. It was in our stead that he hung condemned.

Even stronger:

"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21 NKJV)

As for this last verse in particular we may soundly say that here (however we may take the relation): sin is to Christ, as righteousness is to us. That is a fair parallel. But in what way is sin to Christ as righteousness to us? Shall we call the relational action to its object imputation? If not then what? Does it matter what we call it as long as we understand that there is indeed a divine exchange with mankind that went in both directions?

Christ's vicarious sacrifice, known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement is something I don't really have a problem with. I just don't see the idea of us receiving his righteousness for our sins, but rather we die to sin with him and then by the Holy Spirit's power rise to newness of life in him, and that is what empowers us to fulfill what was the righteous requirement of the law, which is to love.

I don't necessarily disagree that in some places righteousness implies God's just faithfulness to covenant, but we cannot therefore apply such a meaning across the board to all occurrences of the word as Paul uses it.

Which I why I pointed out in Romans in particular where he uses a law court framework.

I have seen you several times so far refer to how Paul, as a 1st century Jew, and how that would have had an impact on his thought. This I do not doubt, and modern scholarship has done much to illuminate for us 1st century Judaism, and help us better understand the times and the interpretations of the Jewish leaders in their traditions that later went into the Talmud and Mishnah. Yet focus on such research (as always in scholarship) runs the risk of placing the exegetical key to scripture outside of scripture itself and not within its own pages.

I suppose this is an objection derived from Sola Scriptura?

My point is that these were real people within history who wrote these words, and I am guessing you support verbal plenary inspiration which means they wrote as themselves. Paul was a Jew of Jews, and his writings very much so represent that and the Old Testament supports much of what I am claiming about what 1st Century Jews believed, though they had some pagan influences at this time due to the Hellenization of the region.

Don't get me wrong though. It is very useful to understand 1st century Judaism and its influences on the NT writers and has helped illuminate many things for us but we need to take Paul on his own terms. I just want us to understand that we cannot bank on "what 1st century Jews" thought as a key to the gospel or the NT writers thinking. They were informed by God the Holy Spirit in them, far beyond their earthly learning, upbringing, and education.

I think it's imperative that we understand the historical occasion for the writings and what motivated these men to say what they said. To say we have to deal with Paul on his own terms is to cut him off from his place in history, a 1st Century Jew who became an Apostle to the Gentiles and therefore spent much of his time writing a justification of his ministry. Also, how God is still faithful despite Israel's rejection of the Messiah.

If we ignore the historical context, then we will simply contextualize the text in another light, which Protestants (mainly those who are reformed) make the mistake of keeping the arguments in the 16th Century and the reformation.

Now, let us not forget that Paul did not merely convert his pro-Judaism thinking and zeal into a Christian version of that (as perhaps might be said of Apollos - not to demean the genuineness of his conversion) but rather Paul removed himself to Arabia where he says he learned the Gospel of Jesus Christ from no man and it was there that his doctrine was not only shaped but also overturned all his previous thinking, such that he counted his previous thinking as worthless in comparison to the truth shown to him. Thus inPhilippians 3:4-6 he cites his impeccable Hebrew, Jewish credentials but then proceeds to say that he counts it all loss for the sake of Christ.

I don't think he up and discarded all his knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, but rather had his heart and mind enlightened to see Christ within their pages and now was drawing on how Jesus the Messiah has fulfilled God's promises. Not just any promises, but those given to the people of Israel in Abraham.

If you don't have the understanding that Paul is a converted Jew, with a ministry to the Gentiles, then you will simply read him wrong.

Peter Enns, as much as I disagree with his interpretation of Paul, I think is right about one thing: Paul while he learned the gospel from Jesus for three years came back with a completely revolutionary understanding of the origins of sin and its undoing through Christ. Paul (from a human perspective) "invented" the doctrine of original sin (really this is attributable to divine revelation), and how Jesus' sacrifice went far beyond the requirements of the law but even to touch upon the very origin of sin itself.

The discussion of original sin is for another time.

Enns points out the novelty of this understanding of sin and how it completely parts from contemporary Jewish thought (such that Enns says that Paul was mistaken).

Yeah, Enns insistence on that interpretation was to prove the idea that Paul was wrong. Sometimes I believe these scholars attempt to be "controversial," just for the sake of being controversial and ignore the work of other scholars.

Paul had a very unique understanding of Jesus' sacrifice that led him to write such a magisterial work as Romans which has some teachings not found at all in the non-Pauline epistles,

Such as?

and even Peter said that some of the things that Paul taught were hard to understand.

Hence, all the disagreement surrounding his writings.

So I would not be too quick to fit Paul's thought exclusively into contemporary 1st century Jewish thought.

Not exclusively, as he embraced the Messiah which takes a twist on that 1st Century Jewish thought, but that is where you begin and then after that he rethinks all of these things within the Messiah. This isn't his invention though, but as he said, it was revelation from the Lord.

"As to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (vs 6-9)

This is a VERY biased interpretation. They translate the Genitive Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην as "the righteousness from God," rather than the standard understanding of it being the "righteousness of God," that is on the basis of faith. It's not the Christ's righteousness versus the Righteousness on the basis of the law, rather it is Righteousness via works of the law versus Righteousness on the basis of faith.

This text in particular is one of the KEY texts for the doctrine of imputation and I think we should spend some time to focus on this text in particular.

Continued...

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Take a look at what Paul says. First he claims to have been blameless as to the "doing" kind of righteousness according to the law. But then he says he counted that all as loss and then says that he seeks to attain a righteousness not that he could claim as his own (not according to his doing) but rather the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ.

Yes, but you're understanding this all in the context of 1st Century Judaism being a works based religion, as if they believed you needed to be righteous enough to get to heaven. Rather, he is responding to the group known as the "circumcision" who were going around telling Gentile Christians that they ought to live like Jews if they were to be the people of God. Yet, it isn't on the basis of his being faithful to the Mosaic Law that validates him as part of the people of God, but rather it is on the basis of the Messiah Jesus and faith in him.

This is a personal righteousness to be gotten for one's self that does not have the (only occasional) divine covenantal sense but rather a right standing before God (comparable to the early "blamelessness"), and such as is only attained by personal faith.

One has right standing with God only via the Covenant, and to separate it simply into "right standing before God," is to completely ignore what Paul is addressing and also misunderstand the term "righteousness of God." To argue that it only occasionally has a divine covenantal sense is very wrong.

Go throughout his writings and look at it in this light, even with the law court symbolism in Romans, it illuminates the text amazingly.

This is a very individualistic interpretation and foreign to Jewish thinking. The idea of how I individually can be right with God, although that is in there, it is more so about how can I be a part of God's Covenant People and on what basis do I have confidence of that.

It's not about how do I have confidence that I am going to heaven, but rather how do I have confidence that I am a part of God's people on Earth now and in the future New Creation.

We don't seek after our own righteousness through our own attainment, but rather righteousness from God that comes through faith in Christ. This is imputation (justification) according to God's righteousness and not our own by any count.

God reckons us Righteous on account of our faith, just as he did Abraham who was reckoned righteous prior to the coming of the Messiah. That means the active righteousness that Jesus gained in his life couldn't have been imputed to him as the reformed doctrine teaches.

I do not disagree that we stand within the Covenant and are right with God on the basis of what Christ has done for us on the Cross and in his resurrection. However, it is not because we then receive the literal virtue of another being as if it were done by us. Scripture is clear that we will be held accountable for our OWN actions and deeds, not someone else's.

We will have to evaluate Romans 5:17 in more depth later, since scripture cannot contradict itself our standing before God must fall along the lines that Paul mentioned inPhilippians 3 as well.

Here is a question for you. If works only obtain what is our due, then why are we justified through the works of another? Faith is only then the receiving mechanism for a works righteousness salvation, is it not?

Here we would be helped by specific scripture references, but I think you misunderstand the two judgments that will take place.

I see no actual Scriptural basis for there being two judgments, people misrepresent Paul as demonstrating a separate judgment because of the terminology he uses compared to John's writings.

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. Romans 2:6-11 (ESV)

To those who do good and those who do evil, God will render to each according to their own works. (Note the "his" is not God's works, but the individuals own works)

One shall be for eternal life or eternal death, and then those who receive the gift of eternal life shall also be judged for their deeds done in the body whether good or evil and may suffer loss, but this is in terms of reward.

This awkward doctrine is created because of the doctrine of imputation, in Matthew 25 we see the righteous and wicked being judged together and it was on the basis of the lives they lived.

Jesus in his parable spoke about different magnitudes or "folds" (e.g. 100-fold) of reward, and this even in John's epistles he says "Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward." (2 John 1:8). This deals with partial vs. full rewards.

I do not deny that there are rewards given at the final judgment, I just don't see there being some kind of second judgment that happens. Rather, we have one judgment and one judge, who will judge all mankind including believers and will render according to their works.

This has the beginnings of a very good discussion and I hope we can continue to delve into this. That is all I can reply to for now. I look forward to your thoughts.

God Bless,
Josh

I imagine what I just said might need to be deeply clarified as it sounds as if I believe in a works righteousness salvation, but it is much more nuanced than that, rather it is like you trying to make sense of what the texts say in a way that represents all of them to the best I can.

Enjoying the discussion.

Blessing in Christ,
DI

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well, that's a good question. I could list the secular definitions and/or synonyms but i would be at risk of loosing certain Biblical (Jewish/Greek) aspects of the word. Potentially, anyway. But to answer as straightforwardly as I can, I believe it means "to count" or "to credit" or "to ascribe" or "to view" or "to reckon". That type of verb. And yes it likely does have its root in a judicial setting. All the more supportive when we recognize Jesus as our Judge, no?

Okay, that's how it is usually understood.

Thanks!

What difference does it make that you've never seen these passages used for studying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers? Are you suggesting I'm not capable of some originality?

I am not saying that, you're well studied and very clever so I don't doubt it. I was just stating that there are verses from which it is easier to argue for your case.

I also want to note that I don't have any personal aversion towards this doctrine and held to it for some time before giving it some honest questioning, I'm not 100% certain that I am right so these dialogues are really helpful.

Even if I concede points in my mind I still want to challenge them as it is part of the learning process for me.

I could easily copy/paste someone else's thoughts here. But I don't use CFNet that way.

You're more than capable of coming up with good arguments, no need to.

I agree. I'm from the south. We say "i reckon" all the time. Which pretty much just means "I think", I recken so, anyway.

I'm from the Northwest, but I still think it best represents the language and also is much more frequently used rather than "imputed."

Are u sure the nuance we both agree on does nothing toward my case? When Paul says "in His name" does not "in His name" include His righteousness too?

For me, that's a LOT packed into "in His name." Sounds more like an allusion to union with Christ to me.

You mentioned you believe we have "union with Christ". What verse has this phrase in it?

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. Romans 6:5 (ESV)

But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 1 Corinthians 6:17 (ESV)

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 1 John 4:13 (ESV)

And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 2 Corinthians 1:21 (ESV)

These are just a few verses that teach this doctrine, not to mention ALL the texts that talk about being "in Christ," as representing the union we share. This is absolutely integral to his theology.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I've read through this post carefully several times and 'slept' on it. I find nothing in it I disagree with. Very excellent points IMO. You seem to me to be someone who has studied Paul's writings in great detail. Especially Romans.

Thanks, I first fell in love with Paul's writings as a new believer so I have been on a journey you could say of trying to figure out much of what he has said.

With that said, how does any of your points about Paul's apostolic ministry to the Gentiles conflict with my use of 2 Cor 5:21for support of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to a Gentile believer?

Because it is not about receiving the righteousness of God, but it is about us becoming the righteousness of God. You used the terminology of becoming in your first representation, which is not imputation language. Imputation is about giving credit from one individual's account to another, and this verse is about a group of people becoming something.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Who is the we/our in this verse referencing?

I would say the "we" is all believers.

 

[cyberjosh]

I am on a short lunch break so I will have to return to the rest of this later, but I will address what I can. Please understand my sincerity in this discussion.

Christ's vicarious sacrifice, known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement is something I don't really have a problem with. I just don't see the idea of us receiving his righteousness for our sins, but rather we die to sin with him and then by the Holy Spirit's power rise to newness of life in him, and that is what empowers us to fulfill what was the righteous requirement of the law, which is to love.

You didn't address my rather clear indication of the parallelism though in the verse. I said that sin is to Christ as righteousness is to us. The relationship must be similar in kind since it is connected in thought. Please sincerely try to understand the point I made and let me know your thoughts on it.

Which I why I pointed out in Romans in particular where he uses a law court framework.

Fair enough.

I suppose this is an objection derived from Sola Scriptura?

Not as a motivating factor, no. Whew... how to say this in only a few words...? Well, let me put it this way (partly addressing also what you might have - incorrectly - thought of as a dismissal on my part of historical context as well [it is not a dismissal at all however]): When you appeal to 1st century Jewish understanding this is a hermeneutical appeal. As we probably both know, hermeneutics is a broad discipline and you can take entire classes just on how to approach it, well before you even apply it. My argument sits in the pre-application phase of consideration to try to preempt any faulty grounds for "trying to fit Paul into a convenient [ivory-tower] box known only to the scholarly intellegensia".

I am a huge proponent of historical application and context, but it always needs a balance. One of my litmus tests is: if an atheist thinks that they can apply a hermeneutical methodology of choice to the Bible and then, having used it, thereafter declaring to then "understand it all", then the hermeneutic lacks something (since God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise - and spiritual things are only spiritually discerned). I object to spiritually void interpretations of scripture in my article here where I write: "All this was performed to the end effect that one could claim to have "mastered the Bible" with this "instrument of inquiry". This is the cold scalpel and etherized discipline that I refer to above." The atheists' approach (and believe it or not, Biblical scholarship in Ivy League schools has been overtaken by "interested" non-believers) is what I call a "cold scalpel" hermeneutic. They don't know (or acknowledge) that the Word of God is living and active, and rather treat it as a text only to be dissected.

At Beeson Divinity School the Professor of Evangelism Lyle Dorset (a big C.S. Lewis scholar BTW) once told me that young "upstart" (my words) students at divinity schools often want to get their degree so that they can learn to "exercise their exegetical tools" (his words - as best as I can remember/paraphrase them) upon the text. When he said that he straightened his hand and fingers like a blade and moved it from top to bottom of a page in this open Bible as he leaned over it (symbolizing - I took it - "exegesis as dissection" with "your own" authority). "But", he said as he lifted the Bible up over his head and sunk down in his chair slightly to look up at it, as standing over him, "until you learn to submit yourself to the authority of scripture and let IT exegete YOU, then you have missed the entire point of the Word of God." We must treat Scripture as spiritually powerful and active and sharper than a two edged sword.

But, lest you think I am directing this at you, let it be known that I am merely trying to lay a groundwork that rejects not only secular approaches to the Bible, but also so-called "liberal Christian" approaches to the Bible which reject (for example) inerrancy, and what not, and rather take up "historical inquiry" (here this could be, "of 1st century Judaism") as their hermeneutical "salvation" and key-to-it-all.

Now, I have no reason to believe you are liberal in any way, and in fact so far have sensed a deep reverence for Scripture, so I only wanted to say the above to clarify and address that I was only trying to combat uneven-handed approaches to Scripture, that place men's fleshly knowledge (which Paul says "puffs up") above a spiritual understanding from God's Holy Spirit. I will emphasize that again, and again, and again until blue in the face. For a theoretical question: Which missionary would be more effective to win souls in need on the mission field: one preaching from the Bible, or one preaching from a dry, scholarly tome on the New Perspective on Paul? Just saying.

So anyway, that was "to set the stage" for the remainder of the discussion. Later I may draw upon the New Testament scholar and professor Frank Thielman for his very balanced approach in engaging with the NPP in a constructive manner but retaining the traditional Reformed understanding of Christ's relationship to us, and what he accomplished for us. Thielman as I indicate in my amazon review of his book does some great historical and contemporary cultural scholarship which he mixes masterfully into his theological analysis, in addition to his already awesome biblical theology + systematic theology approach (which he calls "a synthetic approach"). I have both his books "Paul and the Law" and "New Testament Theology" (Zondervan). If you care to watch it I did a video book review here of Theilman's NT Theology book.

Sorry to link you outside of this discussion but there are a lot of things at play in this discussion and I don't have enough time or space to pack them in conveniently otherwise.

My point is that these were real people within history who wrote these words, and I am guessing you support verbal plenary inspiration which means they wrote as themselves. Paul was a Jew of Jews, and his writings very much so represent that and the Old Testament supports much of what I am claiming about what 1st Century Jews believed, though they had some pagan influences at this time due to the Hellenization of the region.

As for your first sentence: I always get confused when people talk about those "big words" for describing views of inspiration, which is ironic since I often am a user of big theological words, but despite my attempts to attend a seminary only what I have self-taught myself have I been formally "trained" in. I believe The Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors but allowed their personalities play in what they wrote. I suspect you would agree, otherwise whether Paul was influenced by 1st Century Judaism or not would be a moot point, since it would then be only the Holy Spirit's words using Paul as a completely passive vessel.

As for your second sentence: Again, I agree Paul was influenced by 1st century Judaism. Let's call a truce of friendship on this point. I only wanted to "temper" the arugment by saying "Granted that Paul indeed believed these contemporary things, let us also not forget the unique revelation he recieved from Jesus through the Holy Spirit". How much of each affected Paul's understanding and usage of terms in any given epistle? 80% 1st century Judaism, and 20% Holy Spirit revelation? Or was it 70/30%, 50/50%, 25%/75%, or 10/90%? I'm asking an unanswerable question to make a point. All I want is to not use a "cookie cutter" hermeneutic where we can mechanically extract the meaning if we "find the key", and thus would be a "so simple an atheist could do it" approach to hermenutics (which would be 100% on the 1st century Judaism interpretation and 0% on the Holy Spirit - who they don't believe exists - therefore Paul must be analyzed by every other secular discipline EXCEPT theology: psycology, sociology, and Hellenistic philosophy perhaps).

I think it's imperative that we understand the historical occasion for the writings and what motivated these men to say what they said. To say we have to deal with Paul on his own terms is to cut him off from his place in history, a 1st Century Jew who became an Apostle to the Gentiles and therefore spent much of his time writing a justification of his ministry. Also, how God is still faithful despite Israel's rejection of the Messiah

.

Now the OT expectations are of tremendous importance, which is where I will wholeheartedly agree with you there. Just don't be so quick to dismiss imputation of righteousness to us just yet though. We have only begun discussing this.

I will have to check in later. My break is over now.

God bless,
Josh

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I am on a short lunch break so I will have to return to the rest of this later, but I will address what I can. Please understand my sincerity in this discussion.

Understood.

You didn't address my rather clear indication of the parallelism though in the verse. I said that sin is to Christ as righteousness is to us. The relationship must be similar in kind since it is connected in thought. Please sincerely try to understand the point I made and let me know your thoughts on it.

I see 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it said that Jesus was made to be "sin," as "sin-offering," we can discuss that a bit more if you'd like and why I translate it that way. I simply disagree on the other end of the parallelism. I don't see an exchange, I see a picture more so made by Paul of us coming into union.

Not as a motivating factor, no. Whew... how to say this in only a few words...? Well, let me put it this way (partly addressing also what you might have - incorrectly - thought of as a dismissal on my part of historical context as well [it is not a dismissal at all however]): When you appeal to 1st century Jewish understanding this is a hermeneutical appeal. As we probably both know, hermeneutics is a broad discipline and you can take entire classes just on how to approach it, well before you even apply it. My argument sits in the pre-application phase of consideration to try to preempt any faulty grounds for "trying to fit Paul into a convenient [ivory-tower] box known only to the scholarly intellegensia".

I am a huge proponent of historical application and context, but it always needs a balance. One of my litmus tests is: if an atheist thinks they can apply the hermeneutical methodology of choice to the Bible and then declare to "understand it all" then the hermeneutic lacks something. I object to spiritually void interpretations of scripture in my article here where I write: "All this was performed to the end effect that one could claim to have "mastered the Bible" with this "instrument of inquiry". This is the cold scalpel and etherized discipline that I refer to above. " The atheists approach (believe it or not Biblical scholarship in Ivy League schools has been overtaken by "interested" non-believers) is what I call a "cold scalpel" hermeneutic. They don't know that the word is living and active, and treat it as a text to be dissected.

What does the description of the Scriptures being "living and active," mean to you? I have often seen this as an argument for the text being more fluid in it's meaning, or use this to attempt to justify a "spiritual" interpretation.

I see it as the power of the Holy Spirit's work through the Scriptures, that these aren't just words on a page but that they have the power to strike our hearts and convict us, etc.

I don't see it necessarily as a principle of hermeneutics.

At Beeson Divinity School the Professor of evangelism Lyle Dorset (a big C.S. Lewis scholar) once told me that young "up-start" (my words) students at divinity schools often want to get their degree so that they can learn to "exercise their exegetical tools" (his words - as best as I can remeber/paraphrase them) upon the text. When he said that he straightened his hand and fingers like a blade and moved it from top to bottom of a page in this open Bible as he leaned over it. "But", he said as he lifted the bible up over his head and sunk down in his chair slightly to look up at it, "until you learn to submit yourself to the authority of scripture and let IT exegete YOU, then you have missed the entire point of the Word of God." We must treat Scripture as spiritually powerful and active and sharper than a two edged sword.

Yes, which is why we have to provide proper exegesis or it becomes the tyranny of the conscience. If I do not know what Scripture teaches then how can I submit to it? We must do our best to put our allegiance in Christ alone and let the Spirit guide and inform, but also recognize that God has spoken through real people at different times. It can greatly help our ability to understand what God has spoken through these men then by understanding the men whom he spoke through, because of how verbal plenary inspiration works.

I think we are in agreement, it just seems like you think I am reaching too far in my efforts to draw on scholarship for 1st Century Jews and it's implications on the meanings of terms Paul used. I disagree that it is a stretch.

But, lest you think I am directing this at you let it be known that I am trying to lay a ground work that rejects not only secular approached to the Bible but also so-called "liberal Christian" approaches to the Bible which reject (for example) inerrancy and what not, and take up "historical inquiry" (here this could be 1st century Judaism) as their hermeneutical salvation.

Now, I have no reason to believe you are liberal in any way, and in fact so far have sensed a deep reverence for Scripture, so I only wanted to say the above to clarify to address that I was trying to combat uneven-handed approaches to Scripture, that place men's fleshly knowledge (which Paul says "puffs up") above a spiritual understanding from God's Holy Spirit. I will emphasize that again, and again, and again until blue in the face. Which missionary would be more effective to win souls in need on the mission field: one preaching from the Bible or one preaching from a dry, scholarly tome on the New Perspective on Paul? Just saying.

I certainly fall into the "New Perspective on Paul" camp, but I don't think it's a dry scholarly tome as you have characterized it to be. My passion is to know the truth that Scripture teaches, and I have been very grateful for the scholarship of teachers like James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright. In these conversations it is often described in a way that seems "scholarly" and maybe a bit dry and I can understand that. However, I think it is amazing how much it reveals the faithfulness of God in such a deep way, and how God stresses community to such a degree which to me is such a breath of fresh air in this individualistically based western culture.

All Christians embrace those things, but this perspective really brings it out in a new light.

At the end of the day, it is the one who is able to portray the glory of God in the face of the crucified and risen savior who will be more successful, as the gospel is the power unto salvation for all who believe.

So anyway, that was "to set the stage" for the remainder of the discussion. Later I may draw upon the New Testament scholar and professor Frank Thielman for his very balanced approach in engaging with the NPP in a constructive manner but retaining the traditional Reformed understanding of Christ's relationship to us, and what he accomplished for us. Thielman as I indicate in my amazon review of his book does some great historical and contemporary cultural scholarship which he mixes masterfully into his theological analysis, in addition to his already awesome biblical theology + systematic theology approach (which he calls "a synthetic approach"). I have both his books "Paul and the Law" and "New Testament Theology" (Zondervan). If you care to watch it I did a video book review here of Theilman's NT Theology book.

Sorry to link you outside of this discussion but there are a lot of things at play in this discussion and I don't have enough time or space to pack them in conveniently otherwise.

Thanks for sharing, I have a busy weekend with it being Easter, but if I am able I will give it a watch.

As for your first sentence: I always get confused when people talk about those "big words" for describing views of inspiration, which is ironic since I often am a user of big theological words, but despite my attempts to attend a seminary only what I have self-taught myself have I been formally "trained" in. I believe The Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors but allowed their personalities play in what they wrote. I suspect you would agree, otherwise whether Paul was influenced by 1st Century Judaism or not would be a moot point, since it would then only the Holy Spirit's words using Paul as a completely passive vessel.

You seem to be theologically informed, hence the term was used which is short hand for everything you wrote. The authors retain their personality, Paul talks like Paul.

Have to head out to lunch now!

 

[cyberjosh]

Understood.

Thanks for sharing, I have a busy weekend with it being Easter, but if I am able I will give it a watch.

Definitely, let's talk after Easter. I will be spending Easter with family out of town. As for Thielman, I like his middle ground approach between the NPP and the traditional Reformation approach. My amazon review is a bit more detailed than the video, but I talk about Thielman's biblical + systematic theology approach in the video. I met Thielman once and got to tell him I liked the book. I was told (though I have not read it) that Douglas Moo's new commentary (November 2013) on Galatians draws frequently on Thielman: http://www.amazon.com/Galatians-Baker-Exegetical-Commentary-Testament/dp/0801027543/.

 

[cyberjosh]

What does the description of the Scriptures being "living and active," mean to you? I have often seen this as an argument for the text being more fluid in it's meaning, or use this to attempt to justify a "spiritual" interpretation.

I see it as the power of the Holy Spirit's work through the Scriptures, that these aren't just words on a page but that they have the power to strike our hearts and convict us, etc.

I don't see it necessarily as a principle of hermeneutics.

Oh one last thing while I can slip it in. I agree with your take which I highlighted in bold above. I say as much in this article (if I may cheat again): The Affecting Force of Scriptures.

I don't mean it is fluid in meaning, only that we should treat it as a spiritually inspired text (albeit as you point out via "plenary verbal inspiration") and not simply the words of men. Thus while men's words have some power to uncover some things in our heart, only God has the ultimate power to "search out the hidden things" of our heart and soul, as it were. My argument is one of deference to authority by acknowledging a spiritual source, which will guide hermeneutics to an extent. Personally, if I find myself leaning too much (which is somewhat hard to quantify - but our consciences can inform us) on external research and arguments (say interpretation of archaeological findings for example - which can be quite fluid over time) to try to illuminate a text in order to make a doctrinal statement from those extra-biblical interpretations, I will be careful to say "I don't know for sure, but this is my informed opinion" rather than saying "Scripture teaches...". This is kind of like Paul's "not from the Lord, but I say" exemptions when speaking of his own self. In that sense it impacts hermeneutics.

God bless,
~Josh

 

[By Grace]

Hi By Grace, would you tell me what your source is for your parsing for the word 'believed'?
I've looked at two sources and both say it's in the active voice rather than passive.

MEA CULPA!!

Indeed, the verb "believed" is active and indicative

Where I erred is that I then went over to the verb "reconed" (λογίζομαι) and that is passive and indicative. Then to compound my error in rushing, I went back to that verb, (λογίζομαι ) and I used it to answer your question. Of course that is a different verb than "believe".

I was in a hurry to finish. That is an explanation, not an excuse. Sorry if I confused you, or anyone else.

 

[Deborah13]

MEA CULPA!!

Indeed, the verb "believed" is active and indicative

Where I erred is that I then went over to the verb "reconed" (λογίζομαι) and that is passive and indicative. Then to compound my error in rushing, I went back to that verb, (λογίζομαι ) and I used it to answer your question. Of course that is a different verb than "believe".

I was in a hurry to finish. That is an explanation, not an excuse. Sorry if I confused you, or anyone else.

Oh I'm glad to hear this, Not that you were pressured for time, but I was just thinking yike, maybe I can't always trust the sources. Phew.....

 

[chessman]

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. Romans 6:5 (ESV)

But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 1 Corinthians 6:17 (ESV)

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 1 John 4:13 (ESV)

And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 2 Corinthians 1:21 (ESV)

These are just a few verses that teach this doctrine, not to mention ALL the texts that talk about being "in Christ," as representing the union we share. This is absolutely integral to his theology.

I believe the doctrine itself.
My only point was that there's no verse that has the precise phrase "union with Christ". I would agree those are all verses that teach us this concept/doctrine though using slightly different words. Yet we know what Paul and John meant and I'm cool with calling it Union With Christ.

That's what I'm saying about 2 Cor 5:21 (and others). They seem to be teaching the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to me a believer in Christ.

I still don't see your counter point to my take on 2 Cor 5:21 but that's fine. That is, I don't understand what you mean, much less agree or disagree.

Because it is not about receiving the righteousness of God, but it is about us becoming the righteousness of God.

This point, I just don't understand what you mean. Are you saying imputation (meaning: to reckon, to view, to think) is something that only happens in the future with God?

Imputation is about giving credit from one individual's account to another, and this verse is about a group of people becoming something.

here, I think I understand your point, but maybe not.

I noticed you quoted the ESV above but most often use the LEB. Your comment on the significance of the difference between the ESV and LEB with Rom 6:5, i would appreciate:

Romans 6:5 (LEB) For if we have become identified with him in the likeness of his death, certainly also we will be identified with him in the likeness of his resurrection,

Is there one more accurate than the other to the Greek or is this pretty much just a choice of the translators? They seem a little different to me.

Is this the type of distinction you are making (your disagreement) with using a phrase like "imputation of Christ's righteousness" for a believer? That is, it's fairly obvious that believers (even the best of the best) aren't literally sinless (or righteous) for 33 minutes, much less 33 years? And therefore, don't think imputation is a word that matches the concept Paul and others present?

Or is your disagreement more about the group versus individual thing? Or both?

Imputation is about giving credit from one individual's account to another, and this verse is about a group of people becoming something.

A group of individual believers, sure. And the "something" we become is the righteousness of God (Christ).

2 Corinthians 5:21 He made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf, in order that we could become the righteousness of God in him.

Again, I do not really see how you said I just inserted an imputation of Christ's righteousness into this text. Frankly, I don't see how you get around it other than:

1. It doesn't actually use the word imputation or Christ.
2. you think Paul didn't mean individual believers but rather a group of them.
3. The righteousness he speaks of is only a future tense righteousness.
4. All of the above.
5. None of the above.

Which is it?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Definitely, let's talk after Easter. I will be spending Easter with family out of town. As for Thielman, I like his middle ground approach between the NPP and the traditional Reformation approach. My amazon review is a bit more detailed than the video, but I talk about Thielman's biblical + systematic theology approach in the video. I met Thielman once and got to tell him I liked the book. I was told (though I have not read it) that Douglas Moo's new commentary (November 2013) on Galatians draws frequently on Thielman: http://www.amazon.com/Galatians-Baker-Exegetical-Commentary-Testament/dp/0801027543/.

I have read some of Michael Bird's Progressive Reformed perspective that is kind of a middle approach, are you familiar with that and is it similar?

Let's talk more after Easter!

 

[cyberjosh]

I have read some of Michael Bird's Progressive Reformed perspective that is kind of a middle approach, are you familiar with that and is it similar?

Let's talk more after Easter!

Hello Doulos,

Just logging on briefly before I go to bed tonight. This conversation has prompted me to dust off Thielman's books from my shelves and pack them in my suitcase for the weekend while I'm out of town. Haha. I have read more of Thielman's NT Theology than his "Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach" (the latter of which is however the more relevant of the two to this conversation). Actually, I have not heard of Michael Bird's book so I cannot compare it unfortunately. But I can say that Thielman's book "Paul and the Law" was important, being published in 1994, in that it was one of the earlier and most comprehensive responses to the NPP up to that time since it had become more widespread, and it was a quite scholarly response. Here is a (composite) description from the back of the book copy that I have and the description on Amazon:

"No issue in contemporary Pauline studies is more contested than Paul's view of the law. Headline proponents of the "new perspective" on Paul, such as E.P. Sanders and J.D.G. Dunn, have maintained that the Reformational readings of Paul have led to distorted understandings of first-century Judaism, of Paul and particularly of Paul's diagnosis of the Jewish situation under the law. Others have responded by arguing that while our understanding of Paul needs to be tuned to the clearer sounds now emanating from Jewish texts of the apostle's day, the basic Reformational insight into Paul's analysis of the human plight remains true to the apostle. Paul was opposing works righteousness.

Paul & The Law is a careful attempt to assault this crucial interpretive problem with a new strategy. Rather than taking a systematic, topical approach, Frank Thielman examines Paul's view of the law in context: the context of Judaism, the context that gave birth to each letter, and the context of each letter's language and argument. While many studies have focused on Paul's explicit statements about the law, Thielman goes further in investigating those contexts where Paul's language is allusive and his view implied. The result is an illuminating and significant contribution to Pauline studies. Paul & the Law clarifies our understanding of Paul's perspective on the law in the light of his gospel of Jesus Christ, and it reaffirms the coherence and integrity of Pauline theology as it relates to this pivotal axis of his thought."

There are reviews on the back of the book from Robert Jewett, Richard B. Hays, and Douglas J Moo.

Douglas Moo writes: "The last two decades have seen an explosion of new approaches to Paul's theology and especially to his theology of the Old Testament and Judaism. This so-called new perspective on Paul has demanded response from various theological traditions. Frank Thielman's book on Paul and the law is the most thorough response to these issues to date. Not everyone will agree with all of his perspectives and conclusions, but his book forms a fine starting point for further dicussion on these matters."

I think that since you seem to side with the NPP that you might even like this book, if you don't mind reading something that is actually an answer (or "checks & balances" response) to the NPP from a conservative perspective. I personally differ with Frank Thielman in my eschatology, for example, but I was so impressed by his candor, scholarship, and writing style that I had to give his later NT Theology book five stars on Amazon. I described that book as being written with "vitality" because I felt it not only lift my intellect but also felt it lift my spirit too, and I felt like I understood the early church so much more after having read his book.

So even though I haven't read all of "Paul & the Law" (which is now sitting right in front of me - so I may perhaps remedy that) I have no trouble believing Douglas Moo's review at all. Theilman has been a pleasure and delight to read, and I love his contextual approaches epistle-by-epistle. So with that I think I will officially recommend the book to you as well. Here is the link to it on Amazon: Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach.

Edit: P.S. I noticed that one of the reviews on Amazon for that book says this about the second chapter: " In chapter two, Thielman argues that Paul approached his view of the Law through his first century Jewish background. He argues that the Jews (with references from intertestamental writings, Josephus, and the Gospels) during the Second Temple period believed that they were still receiving the covenant curses for disobedience--which is exile under Roman domination (N. T. Wright). This is a provocative thesis considering that most Protestant scholars believe that the Jews of that time did not hold to this view (the Jews thought they were "right" with God again)."

God bless & have a blessed Resurrection Sunday!
Josh

 

[By Grace]

Oh I'm glad to hear this, Not that you were pressured for time, but I was just thinking yike, maybe I can't always trust the sources. Phew.....

Yeah, Thank God that Jesus covered sins like that!

 

[Deborah13]

Divine Exchange

Ante-type
2Co 5:21 for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

Type
Lev 4:32 `And if he bring in a sheep for his offering, for a sin-offering, a female, a perfect one, he doth bring in,
Lev 4:33 and he hath laid his hand on the head of the sin-offering, and hath slaughtered it for a sin-offering in the place where he slaughtereth the burnt-offering.
Lev 4:34 `And the priest hath taken of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and hath put on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering, and all its blood he poureth out at the foundation of the altar,
Lev 4:35 and all its fat he turneth aside, as the fat of the sheep is turned aside from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, and the priest hath made them a perfume on the altar, according to the fire-offerings of Jehovah, and the priest hath made atonement for him, for his sin which he hath sinned, and it hath been forgiven him.

The sin of the man being transferred to the innocent leaving the man innocent.
The unrighteousness of the man being transferred to the righteous leaving the man righteous.

Heb 10:8 saying above--`Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and concerning sin-offering Thou didst not will, nor delight in,' --which according to the law are offered--

Heb 9:28 so also the Christ, once having been offered to bear the sins of many, a second time, apart from a sin-offering, shall appear, to those waiting for him--to salvation!

I believe that when we fail to see that Christ was made sin for us we fail to understand the idea of the perfect man being sacrificed for us.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hello By Grace, would you be able/willing to post some of your exegetical resources (as you have above) for two verses that seem to be key to this discussion? The two verses are 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:9. I have a feeling that we will need to delve into the Greek a bit, and especially the genitive constructions.

I am no expert in Greek but I do know that genitives can be taken in several different ways and relations, most of which are noted on this page: http://www.lectionarystudies.com/syntax/syntaxgen.html.

On another page that discusses Greek genitives (although I wish they had argued why their reading of Philipians 3:9 was like it was), under the "Genitives of Association" section they say:

"Now the third chapter of Philippians, just before Paul told us to imitate him and other mature Christians, said that these men were those who ere "not putting confidence in the flesh" (v. 3), "not having righteousness out of the law" (v. 9), that is, because they were not able to obey the law. Instead, their righteousness was "through faith, the righteousness out of God [i.e., God is the direct source from which righteousness comes] based upon faith" (v. 9). In this chapter, Paul also claimed he had "not already received [the power to make him like Christ in all things] or [had not] already been perfected" (v. 12). So our examples, whom we are told to imitate, did not have strong wills in themselves, to make themselves righteous, but were weak like us. They were not "holy saints" according to the humanistic model of the Roman Catholics or humanistic Protestant churches. They were not greater than us, but merely sinners who learned that "we should not be those having confidence upon ourselves, but upon God" (II Cor. 1:9)." [from: http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/gencase.htm]

They read the genitive as a source ("out of"/"from") association. This is not inadmissible as a possibility for Greek genitives, but the question is which genitive usage (of the half dozen or so in Koine Greek) is meant in this passage?

But any way, if you might be so kind (if you have the time) as to supply us with some of your comments from your Logos Bible Software that would be wonderful!

God bless,
Josh

 

[Butch5]

What has historically been called the "wondrous exchange," the doctrine of imputation has been seen as one of the integral parts of the gospel message and what Christ accomplished for us on the Cross.

Even though I count myself among the "Protestant" side, I do not accept the doctrine of imputation for several reasons, and this thread will serve as an opportunity to discuss the Biblical case or against this doctrine.

Here are a couple general talking points regarding the doctrine of imputation.

Christ's Active and Passive Obedience. Often preachers will talk about this standard of righteous that had to be achieved on our behalf, a perfect obedience that the Law commanded. Christ, they will argue, achieved this perfect righteousness for us in his life (why else did he live 33 years for, they argue) and now offered it up for our sins on the Cross.

The Problem: No one is justified by the Law, but it was always by faith that made one regarded as "righteous" before God, as Paul argues in Galatians. This aspect makes it so that Christ vicariously achieves a righteousness through the Law and then offers it to us by faith, which in effect makes faith only the means to receive justification via works of the Law.

Christ's Righteous. This phrase is found no where in the New Testament, when rather it talks about "the Righteousness of God," and that in 2 Corinthians 5:21 this is something that we "become," rather than receive.

There are several other aspects that I hope we will discuss, and I wanted to wait before I provided any exegesis so as to keep my OP shorter.



Hope you are all able to participate!

Blessings,
DI

Hi DI,

I agree with you. The righteousness that is imputed is the persons faith. Paul said that it was Abraham's faith that was imputed to him for righteousness.

 

[Deborah13]

4 ἐργαζομένῳ ptc -ζομαι: ὁ ἐ. the one who habitually works, the worker §371. μισθός wage. λογίζεται pass. κατὰ χάριν as a favour. ὀφείλημα a due, debt.

Zerwick, M., & Grosvenor, M. (1974). A grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament (p. 467). Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

ἐλογίσθη (Root: λεγω, LN: 57.227; verb, aorist, passive, indicative, third person, singular)
to count, to credit
Contained in: Segment Clause
Syntactic Force: Finite verb

Words That Modify ἐλογίσθη
• conjunctive relation: The word ἐλογίσθη is modified by καὶ (conjunction) in Ro 4:3, word 11 (καὶ is outside of the current clausal unit).
• prepositional relation: The word ἐλογίσθη is modified by εἰς (preposition) in Ro 4:3, word 14 (εἰς is outside of the current clausal unit).


Lukaszewski, A. L., & Dubis, M. (2009). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament: Expansions and Annotations (Ro 4:3). Logos Bible Software.

I do not expect you to read or understand Koine Greek so I highlighted the words in blue.

Both the sources are very good, and are what the Bible students and pastors in seminaries use.

Thank you By Grace, good thing you highlighted ! So being in the passive, Abraham was the receiver of the righteousness?

I'd like to add this verse. Young's Literal Translation
Rom 4:5 and to him who is not working, and is believing upon Him who is declaring righteous the impious, his faith is reckoned--to righteousness:

 

[By Grace]

Thank you By Grace, good thing you highlighted ! So being in the passive, Abraham was the receiver of the righteousness?

Indeed so! Most simply it goes like this :
Belief (intellectual assent) + imputation of righteousness (placed upon the one believing by God) results in eternal salvation.
What could more simple, and concurrently most profound?

I'd like to add this verse. Young's Literal Translation
Rom 4:5 and to him who is not working, and is believing upon Him who is declaring righteous the impious, his faith is reckoned--to righteousness:

That is good because Young expands the Greek to include the totality of one's sinful nature, meaning that there is no sort of works or "doing" by which we "merit salvation" but it is 100% by grace that anyone is saved. That is why there is only two religions in the world: grace and works. To make the difference more profound, there are only two sorts of religions in the world: Christianity and everything else. Those persons who are in "everything else" share the fact that they have to "do something" in order to get to their "Nirvana, or Paradise".

Since ALL of them have different "to do lists" to merit heaven", and the descriptions of their "Never-never Land are each different, they each contradict each other, Therefore, they are all false.