The Traditional Protestant position teaches that Christ was legally imputed our sins and that we are legally imputed his righteousness. But is there any basis for this teaching in the Bible? I believe that there is a strong basis for this in 2 Corinthians 5:21, it reads:
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
How should we understand this passage? Did Jesus actually sin or was it merely legal?
From this scripture verse we can develop the following argument
P1: Jesus becoming sin is either actual or legal
P2: It is not actual
C: Hence, it is legal
There are two reasons for supposing the truth of Premise 2. The first reason is biblical: the bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that Christ did not actually sin (Heb. 4:15). The second reason is philosophical: God being the greatest possible being it is rather impossible that such a being would be united with a sinful human nature. For if God could be united to such a sinful nature then we could think of a greater being, a being that was not united to a sinful nature. And then God would no longer be God, a clear contradiction. Thus, we are forced to conclude that the transaction is legal.
There is further Biblical evidence that the redemption event was legal in Colossians 2:13-14:
"13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."
Given that the sin that Christ recieved was only legal in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and not actual then it is only reasonable to suppose that the righteousness spoken of in this context is legal as well. Thus, what we have here is a glorious transaction between sinner and a righteous man. A transaction that is only compatible with Protestant theology and not with Rome and Orthodoxy. We as sinners are as piles of dung covered in the snow of the glorious righteousness of Christ.
Nate--
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "legal" in this post? Do you think that Rome and the East deny that the righteousness whereby we are righteous in justification is legal? What theory of law are you expositing here?
What do you mean when you say a "sinful nature"? Are you saying that human nature sins and is guilty? Would you then deny that Christ is human, because his nature sins if He is human? Or is he human in a different way than we are (which sounds like he's *not* human, and implies He did not enter into our condition)?
To say that natures are agents that can be praised or blamed is to identify them as personal or hypostatic. This, of course, implies a Nestorian Christology. For where there are two natures, there would be two persons. So if Christ is two natures, He must be two Hes. Your assumption that Christ's having a "sinful nature" would make him a sinner seems to imply some unacceptable Christological presuppositions. It seems you must choose between a Nestorian Christology or denying that Christ taking on our corruption implies he is a sinner.
Couldn't the same reasoning you use to argue that God couldn't be united to a "sinful nature" be used to argue that it is impossible for God to die, or to have guilt imputed to Him? I can imagine a "greater" possible being (according to purely a priori conceptualizing about God and goodness) than a God who takes on the guilt of the world, or a God who dies.
Have you engaged with St. Maximus' thoughts on this subject? He gives a standard Orthodox read of the passage. See my quotation of his exegesis on woq. Why is his exegesis of this text implausible?
Is the righteousness whereby we are righteous in justification a created, meritorious, human righteousness, or God's uncreated, divine righteousness?
It seems to me like Paul is talking about Christ being *constituted* sin, and us being *constituted* righteous. Hence the language of "made". How do you make sense of the fact that this text does not speak of imputation or reckoning? My read makes sense of this fact by acknowledging that Christ is actually constituted sin (ie. corruption) because He takes corrupt humanity into himself. We become righteous because human nature gets put to rights in Christ, so we become the righteousness of God in Him. It seems to me that you cannot affirm that we become God's righteousness, and that you cannot affirm that Christ becomes sin, instead of just having sin reckoned to him. The older exegesis of this text--the one that is neither Roman nor Protestant, but Orthodox and patristic--is preferable.
Hello MG,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "legal" in this post? Do you think that Rome and the East deny that the righteousness whereby we are righteous in justification is legal? What theory of law are you expositing here?
Response: The sort of legal that Romans 4 discusses. This is a law that allows God to justify the ungodly and to cancel the legal debt they have by Christ’s death. I think Rome and the East deny that God can justify sinners and the ungodly. They would call this sort of justification a “legal fiction”.
What do you mean when you say a "sinful nature"? Are you saying that human nature sins and is guilty? Would you then deny that Christ is human, because his nature sins if He is human? Or is he human in a different way than we are (which sounds like he's *not* human, and implies He did not enter into our condition)?
Response: Well I would argue that human nature is not essentially sinful but accidentally so. Thus, Christ can be human and not be actually sinful or have a disposition to sin. If I speak of human nature I referring to the fact that ever since the fall man has a disposition to be sinful and will in fact sin if he continues to live. Furthermore, I would say when I speak of sinful human nature I refer to the extrinsic legal properties that make man viewed as guilty on account of Adams sin which is imputed to us. That is what I mean by that.
To say that natures are agents that can be praised or blamed is to identify them as personal or hypostatic. This, of course, implies a Nestorian Christology. For where there are two natures, there would be two persons. So if Christ is two natures, He must be two Hes. Your assumption that Christ's having a "sinful nature" would make him a sinner seems to imply some unacceptable Christological presuppositions. It seems you must choose between a Nestorian Christology or denying that Christ taking on our corruption implies he is a sinner.
Response: I believe a person is a nature that unites that the two natures of Christ in the substance of God so I do not think this argument actually entails a Nestorian Christology.
Couldn't the same reasoning you use to argue that God couldn't be united to a "sinful nature" be used to argue that it is impossible for God to die, or to have guilt imputed to Him? I can imagine a "greater" possible being (according to purely a priori conceptualizing about God and goodness) than a God who takes on the guilt of the world, or a God who dies.
Response: No, I do not think this same sort of reasoning can be used against historic understanding of the incarnation. I think that God being the greatest possible being will be necessarily gracious rather than not. And this gracious entails that he will redeem us and I believe the only sort of redemption that is possible for a gracious and just being is that described in the Bible. All of this entails an incarnation of human nature. Now since God is gracious he has to be incarnate in a human nature and since he is the greatest possible being he will choose a human nature that is not given actual sin rather than a human nature that has actual sin.
Have you engaged with St. Maximus' thoughts on this subject? He gives a standard Orthodox read of the passage. See my quotation of his exegesis on woq. Why is his exegesis of this text implausible?
ReplyDeleteResponse: No, if any of his arguments are good, please, feel free to use them now.
Is the righteousness whereby we are righteous in justification a created, meritorious, human righteousness, or God's uncreated, divine righteousness?
Response: The former rather than the later. But I do not really think that righteousness is a thing or a stuff that can be created or uncreated.
It seems to me like Paul is talking about Christ being *constituted* sin, and us being *constituted* righteous. Hence the language of "made". How do you make sense of the fact that this text does not speak of imputation or reckoning? My read makes sense of this fact by acknowledging that Christ is actually constituted sin (ie. corruption) because He takes corrupt humanity into himself. We become righteous because human nature gets put to rights in Christ, so we become the righteousness of God in Him. It seems to me that you cannot affirm that we become God's righteousness, and that you cannot affirm that Christ becomes sin, instead of just having sin reckoned to him. The older exegesis of this text--the one that is neither Roman nor Protestant, but Orthodox and patristic--is preferable
Response: I think that the orthodox explanation cannot make sense of the phrase “knew no sin”. If Christ was actually given our sinful corruption then it seems like he would “know sin”. I would say from Romans 3 and 4 we know that righteousness is something that is imputed to us by the sole instrument of faith. It also seems that the orthodox understanding is incompatible with Anselmian perfect being philosophy because it makes God united with corruption which is something that is very counter intuitive. I think that you can make someone legally guilty or innocent so I do not think that the use of poieo is a problem.
God Bless,
NPT
Nate—
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
“Response: The sort of legal that Romans 4 discusses… They would call this sort of justification a “legal fiction”.”
What is the theory of law and justice that Paul teaches in Romans 4? Where does he teach the Reformed understanding of justice in Romans 4?
On the contrary, the East does teach that God justifies sinners and the ungodly. We just think God actually makes things right, because our justification is a participation in God’s own justice—a perfect and divine justice which we have access to in Christ’s humanity. And we think that Christ actually cancels and forgives our legal debt, giving us a life of everlasting personal fellowship with God. It seems like Reformed and Roman theology would not say the debt was forgiven and cancelled, but that it was paid. That sure doesn’t seem to be what Paul is saying in Romans 4 or Colossians.
You wrote:
“Response: Well I would argue that human nature is not essentially sinful but accidentally so... That is what I mean by that.”
If guilt is not something that all human beings share in common, how can it be an aspect of human nature?
You wrote:
“Response: I believe a person is a nature that unites that the two natures of Christ in the substance of God so I do not think this argument actually entails a Nestorian Christology.”
So would you say the person of Christ exists because of and in the union of the divine and human natures?
Would you say that Christ has three natures? And say that Christ is not of one nature with the Father and Spirit?
Would you agree that natures are agents, and that there are two (three?) agents in Christ?
You wrote:
ReplyDelete“Response: No, I do not think this same sort of reasoning can be used against historic understanding of the incarnation… since he is the greatest possible being he will choose a human nature that is not given actual sin rather than a human nature that has actual sin.”
If Scripture taught that Christ took on a corrupted human nature, or if it could be shown to be necessary for the salvation of mankind, then would you say that this implies that the greatest possible being is capable of having a corrupted human nature?
Also, is death a kind of corruption?
You wrote:
“Response: No, if any of his arguments are good, please, feel free to use them now.”
It seems preferable when trying to assess the claims of a tradition to know in detail what that tradition teaches. That’s the kind of respect I pay to the Reformed tradition, by reading Reformed scholarship about justification, ecclesiology, etc.
You wrote:
“Response: The former rather than the later. But I do not really think that righteousness is a thing or a stuff that can be created or uncreated.”
If it is created, then how is it not a creature, and an intermediary that God uses to save us? Would you deny that God directly saves humanity?
Would you deny that God has righteousness? Is righteousness not a divine quality?
You wrote:
ReplyDelete“Response: I think that the orthodox explanation cannot make sense of the phrase “knew no sin”... I think that you can make someone legally guilty or innocent so I do not think that the use of poieo is a problem.”
Actually, as Maximus teaches, the Orthodox explanation is based off of the fact that Christ knew no sin. It is with respect to his person that He remains sinless. He performs no sinful actions (nor can he), nor does He personally identify with the disease of his natural corruption. So Christ is made sin (constituted as having a corrupt human nature) but knows no sin (is not personally a sinner, and is therefore not guilty for any sin).
Where do we get the idea from in Romans 3-4 that righteousness is imputed apart from any change in the qualities that constitute a thing?
And where do we get the idea from in Romans 3-4 that it is by faith alone that this righteousness is imputed?
Also, where do we get the idea in Romans 3-4 that faith is an instrumental cause, devoid of any moral worth, that serves as the arbitrary condition under which God imputes righteousness?
To declare someone guilty is different than making them guilty. If you make them guilty, then it follows that they have actually done wrong. Are you saying Christ did something wrong?
I’m still curious how we get God’s righteousness on your view. Do you deny that we become the righteousness of God by our union with Christ? Sure seems like Paul is not talking about believers being imputed a created, meritorious, extrinsic quality here—unless one affirms that God’s righteousness is an externally-related, earned, creaturely quality.
Hey Michael,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your good questions and your interesting ideas. I have really learned a lot from our discussions. Keep the good questions coming!
You Said: What is the theory of law and justice that Paul teaches in Romans 4? Where does he teach the Reformed understanding of justice in Romans 4?
Response: The Reformed conception of justice is that a person can transfer his earned righteousness to another and that person can choose also to have another’s guilt transferred to him. In which case the person who was transferred the righteousness is now viewed as righteous and the person who was transferred the guilt is now viewed as guilty.
Romans 4:5 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
The Greek word “dikaioo” for to justify means to make righteous in the sense of already declaring that one is intrinsically righteous or to declare someone righteous when he is not. Clearly in Romans 4:5 it is not the former but the latter since God justifies the ungodly. Dikaioo never means inwardly or subjectively transforming to person so that he can be righteous but rather it is a declaration of what already is or declaring something that is ungodly righteous.
You Said: On the contrary, the East does teach that God justifies sinners and the ungodly. We just think God actually makes things right, because our justification is a participation in God’s own justice—a perfect and divine justice which we have access to in Christ’s humanity. And we think that Christ actually cancels and forgives our legal debt, giving us a life of everlasting personal fellowship with God. It seems like Reformed and Roman theology would not say the debt was forgiven and cancelled, but that it was paid. That sure doesn’t seem to be what Paul is saying in Romans 4 or Colossians.
Response: The Greek word Dikaioo can never mean what you described. It never means to be inwardly transformed righteous or to participate in God’s real justice. The Reformed position is that the legal debit is canceled on the basis of Christ payment. So I do not see how the use of cancellation is a problem for the Reformed position.
You Said: If guilt is not something that all human beings share in common, how can it be an aspect of human nature?
Response: I meant all human beings that are in Adam are legally guilty. But Adam prior to the fall and Christ were not legally guilty or had a sinful disposition.
You Said: So would you say the person of Christ exists because of and in the union of the divine and human natures?
ReplyDeleteResponse: Yes, I would agree with that.
Would you say that Christ has three natures? And say that Christ is not of one nature with the Father and Spirit?
Response: I would say that Christ has two natures and that he is of the same substance of the Father and the Spirit. I make a distinction between substance and nature. A nature being a property set that is exemplified in a substance and a substance being something that has properties and property sets (natures).
Would you agree that natures are agents, and that there are two (three?) agents in Christ?
Response: I would say that personal natures have agency. And that the person of Christ has two wills one human and the other divine.
You Said: If Scripture taught that Christ took on a corrupted human nature, or if it could be shown to be necessary for the salvation of mankind, then would you say that this implies that the greatest possible being is capable of having a corrupted human nature?
Response: Then I would have to either conclude that 1) scripture is mistaken, 2) my understanding of it is mistaken, or 3) my intuition about the greatest possible being is mistaken. I would think that probably the later two would probably be the case if such a scripture or argument were provided.
Also, is death a kind of corruption?
Response: I would say Death is the result from taking on the guilt of either imputed sins or actual sins. Christ takes on the former but not the latter.
And how would you understand this verse of Christ:
Acts 2:29-31 29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see *corruption*.
You Said: It seems preferable when trying to assess the claims of a tradition to know in detail what that tradition teaches. That’s the kind of respect I pay to the Reformed tradition, by reading Reformed scholarship about justification, ecclesiology, etc.
Response: Oh well I am glad you do that.
You Said: If it is created, then how is it not a creature, and an intermediary that God uses to save us? Would you deny that God directly saves humanity?
ReplyDeleteResponse: I would say our righteousness is earned by Christ’s human will and human nature. I would say the other members of the trinity are directly involved with the covenant making process before creation to save humanity and the Spirit directly helps Jesus in earning our salvation. The Father gives him commands to the son to fulfill on our behalf and the Father gives the wrath to the Son so that we can be saved from it. So I would say that God and Christ’s humanity jointly redeem us. So I would say that Christ’s humanity and person and the Divine nature saves us. This is why Christ had to take on a created nature because only through the human and the divine can we be saved.
You Said: Would you deny that God has righteousness? Is righteousness not a divine quality?
Response: I would affirm that God has righteousness and that it is a property that God has. I do not believe that we can have the same property of righteousness that God has.
You Said: Actually, as Maximus teaches, the Orthodox explanation is based off of the fact that Christ knew no sin. It is with respect to his person that He remains sinless. He performs no sinful actions (nor can he), nor does He personally identify with the disease of his natural corruption. So Christ is made sin (constituted as having a corrupt human nature) but knows no sin (is not personally a sinner, and is therefore not guilty for any sin).
Response: I must admit that is very interesting. My problems with Maximus understanding of this text is the following two points: 1) he makes a distinction between the person and nature, which is not found in this text, nor is it a biblical distinction to begin with. 2) It says that Christ became sin or he became sin who knew no sin. It does not say his nature knew no sin or something Christ has had knew no sin. I think for these two problems the Reformed understanding ought to be preferred.
You Said: Where do we get the idea from in Romans 3-4 that righteousness is imputed apart from any change in the qualities that constitute a thing?
Response: I believe I answered this above.
And where do we get the idea from in Romans 3-4 that it is by faith alone that this righteousness is imputed?
Response: Good question. Paul defines grace as something that cannot be compatible with or mixed with works otherwise it would not be grace (Rom. 11:6). Paul even goes on to say that the only thing that would be compatible with grace is faith (Rom. 4:16). It says in Romans 3 and in other places that we are justified by grace (Rom. 3:24). So it has to be faith otherwise it would no longer be of grace. And therefore, it cannot be of works because it we would no longer be justified by grace. Hence, Justification by faith alone.
It also says in Ephesians 2:8-10 that we are saved not by our own doing because faith and grace are not of us.
You said: Also, where do we get the idea in Romans 3-4 that faith is an instrumental cause, devoid of any moral worth, that serves as the arbitrary condition under which God imputes righteousness?
ReplyDeleteResponse: I would not say it is arbitrary because it is based on Christ. I would get this from the Greek word justify and how God justifies the ungodly can never mean that God morally transforms the ungodly.
You Said: To declare someone guilty is different than making them guilty. If you make them guilty, then it follows that they have actually done wrong. Are you saying Christ did something
wrong?
Response: The word do or make in the Greek “poieo” can mean that you do an action or make something so. I believe God choose to do an action or make a deliberation such that this action lead to him imputing sins to Christ for our behalf. This is what I think the verse is referring to in 2 Corinthians.
You Said: I’m still curious how we get God’s righteousness on your view. Do you deny that we become the righteousness of God by our union with Christ? Sure seems like Paul is not talking about believers being imputed a created, meritorious, extrinsic quality here—unless one affirms that God’s righteousness is an externally-related, earned, creaturely quality.
Response: I do deny that we are made righteous by virtue of being in union with Christ. I do not believe we get God’s righteousness but rather the righteousness from God. The genitive case by used by way of source rather than someone’s actual righteousness. Thus, I think these theological considerations are perfectly compatible with Paul thinking here.
Thank you for your time Michael.
God Bless,
NPT