How to relate the great doctrines of justification by faith – the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to those who have faith – and the atonement?
Paul’s answer is as clear as it is powerful – union with Christ.
It is Rom 5.12-21 that lay the foundations for this vital theological move for Paul. In-Adam-ness is paralleled with, but actually overwhelmed by (the free gift is not like the trespass – v. 15; the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin – v. 16) in-Christ-ness, so that just as sin exercised dominion in death (in Adam), so grace might exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (v. 21).
It is Rom 6 that unfolds this reality. Union with Christ – an inner and spiritual reality which takes the outward and physical form of baptism (Rom 6.3), the public confession of faith – means that his history becomes our history: his death is our death, so that we have died to sin in him; his resurrection is our resurrection, so that we are alive to God in him. And Paul’s summary of this is 8.1-4: no condemnation (justification) for those in Christ Jesus. Why? Because God has already executed condemnation of sin in Christ Jesus – sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin offering (atonement) – so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. In Christ, the condemnation of sin that he bore is also the condemnation of our sin. We are justified without righteousness; rather, we are justified by condemnation / atonement, in him.
It seems to me that the idea of imputation of the righteousness of Christ is a way of trying to get at this reality, but fails to precisely map the contours of Paul’s thought at this point. Instead of understanding us-in-Christ, it posits something of Christ in us. This is just not how Paul expresses it. Note in particular that Paul doesn’t say, ‘there’s no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, because there’s nothing to condemn, since they have the required righteousness, Christ’s righteousness.’ This (or something like it) is what he should have said, had he been operating with the category of ‘the righteousness of Christ’, imputed to us. But he doesn’t, because the structure of his thought is different. In other words, it seems to me that in the case of the ungodly, justification is not the recognition of (an alien) righteousness, but justification despite the absence of righteousness, precisely since the condemnation that sin deserves has already been executed, and so counts for those who are in the ‘place’ where that fire of condemnation has burned. As Mark Seifrid (in his book Christ, our Righteousness, and co-editor of the 2 volume Justification and Variegated Nomism) comments, after affirming the intent of the doctrine of imputation but critiquing its form, “It is not so much wrong to use the expression ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ’ as it is deficient.” (p. 175)
What are its deficiencies? It seems to me that there are two (apart from the fact that the phrase never appears in Paul):
- What the concept of union with Christ is able to do (which the concept of imputation is not able to do) is make an organic link between the start of the Christian life and progress in the Christian life. In Christ we have died to sin, and have been made alive to God – hence (as an organic consequence) we are exhorted to not let sin reign in our mortal bodies but to present our members to God as instruments of righteousness. (Rom 6.12-14). Imputation has been caricatured as making obedience in the Christian life unimportant (if we already have a perfect righteousness on our account, why bother?) – and this is a caricature – but at the same time, it seems to me that it struggles to articulate an organic link to the ongoing Christian life. Paul is more integrated (without of course, ever making justification a product of sanctification).
- What the concept of union with Christ is able to do (which the concept of imputation is not able to do) is to make an organic link between the personal and individual start of the Christian life (faith enacted in baptism) and the corporate character of the Christian life. As in one (human) body we have many members, and not all members have the same function, so we who are many are one body in Christ, and individually, we are members one of another. (Rom 12.4-5). Union with Christ works itself out also as the proper basis for a doctrine of the church. Because of the individual (perhaps even individualistic?) nature of the imputation scheme, it again struggles to articulate an adequate Pauline doctrine of the church.
The Christian life and the church – next week’s posts. For now, three final thoughts.
First, does it matter whether you adopt a justification by atonement, or justification by imputation, scheme? At one level not really. As Lionel mentioned, it is an intra-evangelical discussion, both attempting to think through the deep theological structure of the work of Christ “for us”. However, at another level it does matter, at least in terms of the significant issue of evangelical method. There are always real costs to departing from the precise contours of the Bible’s thought-forms, and I think the imputation scheme does run into what you might call ‘integration problems’, as indicated above.
Second, when I said a few posts ago, that my entire new-perspectiveness was at that point on the table, that was in fact true. The outline of my doctrines of justification, atonement and their relationship is now clear, and is straightforwardly evangelical. I have never thought or taught any differently from this – much of the previous posts are copied-and-pasted from essays and talks written 15 years ago. Whatever the problems of the NPP idea of justification – and there are plenty – they are not my problems!
So third, how did the gossip and slander of which I have been complaining start? On reflection, I think it was partly my own naivete, and partly the tribalism that permeates our culture.
- I was foolishly naive. I thought that some things written about the NPP inaccurately represented it, and said so. I may have been right about that, I may have been wrong. But either way, it never occurred to me that because I said (say) that NT Wright didn’t teach X in one of his books (where X is a false teaching), that anyone would read that as me therefore affirming X. So I didn’t clarify that. In the Christian scene from which I came, that kind of clarification wasn’t necessary. But I was naive in not doing so.
- Because at the same time, we are part of a tribal city, and that tribalism infects us in the church as well. Tribalism is an approach to life which says, ‘unless you are from my sub-group, you’re not really to be trusted’. I wasn’t from a particular tribe; and that meant ‘guilty until proven innocent’. And because of my foolish naivete, I didn’t worry too much about proving my innocence. And so it began – guilty!
I am no longer naive! This series is part of trying to undo that foolishness on my part.
And just maybe also undoing something of the tribalism as well. But tribalism is far deeper than merely a cultural issue, it really is a function of our understanding of the Christian life and the church, which is where we head next.
Thanks Katay, really enjoying what you are writing and appreciate your unpacking of the union with Christ/imputation discussion.
Just a quick question, what do you mean by ‘organic link’ and how is this different to a ‘non-organic’ link? Is it the fact that it is linked to our “life” now, or something deeper? (I take it this has nothing to do with the level of synthetic fertilizers!)
Hey John,
by organic, I’m trying to get at the idea that there is an intrinsic link between two concepts – in this case, the start of the Christian life and the ongoing / corporate character of the Christian life. .
It seems to me that in Paul’s thought there is such an intrinsic link – via the concept of union with Christ. But I don’t think there’s an intrinsic conceptual link when the idea of imputation is introduced.
Hi Andrew, thanks for the posts and pushing our thinking.
I was just wondering whether you could further unpack what you mean when you describe imputation as, ‘Instead of understanding us-in-Christ, it posits something of Christ in us.’ Could you give examples?
While recognising that even within those who do hold to imputation there is a manifold emphasis, isn’t the idea of imputation that it is a righteousness outside of the believer, that is, to use Luther’s phrase, ‘an alien righteousness’?
Cheers.
Dan,
the something of Christ in us, as I understand the idea of imputation, is an extrinsic and alien righteousness of Christ, imputed to the believer. This is important, because it guards against the Roman Catholic error or an intrinsic ‘proper’ (ie. of the person themselves) righteousness, that is imparted to the believer.
My understanding is that it is ‘outside of the believer’ in the sense that it comes from outside the believer. To defend against the Roman Catholic charge that what was involved here was a ‘legal fiction’, a ‘real’ imputation to the believer was necessary.
What I’m suggesting is that the cost of this move, while guarding against those Roman errors, is to sever the link to the doctrines of the Christian life (sanctification) and the church.
The contours of Paul’s thought neither supports the Roman Catholic errors, nor separates our justification from our sanctification ecclesial identity (nor of course making justification a function of either sancification or ecclesial identity).
Hmm. You just raised an idea that had never occurred to me before…that imputation might precede and act as the ground of our righteousness! I’ve always read it as a thing subsequent (at least, logically if not chronologically) to justification. Will have to think some more about hina+subjunctive in 2 Cor 5:21 now! Ta.
Anthony,
as I understand it, that is the whole point of the imputation scheme! And it is precisely because it is required by the idea that God justifies the righteous – either those who are righteous in themselves (no one before him) of those who are righteous with the righteousness of Christ.
But, so the argument goes, the only way God justifies someone is on the basis of, the ground of, righteousness.
I’m suggesting this is not how Paul’s thought proceeds.
Make sure that when you ponder 2 Cor 5.21, you don’t read ‘righteousness of Christ’!
but by “imputation” we don’t mean a transfer of righteousness, we mean a counting or crediting of righteousness don’t we?
My understanding of the imputation way of explaining it is that imputation definitely precedes justification, but not in a we-become-righteous way, but rather God counts our faith in Christ’s faithfulness as righteousness and therefore declares us righteous. (Rom 4.9)
APK – I had a friendly discussion I had last week with someone who was pushing me to read the ‘gift’ and ‘receive’ language in Romans 5 as indicating that here was indeed a ‘transfer’ term in precisely the manner you would deny. That is, something here appears to be ‘given’. The person proposing this view acknowledge that nothing was literally ‘given’ here – it is a metaphor – but still wanted to hold that there was a transfer implied in these terms… ie, that righteousness was ‘reified’ in this usage.
Mike,
it seems to me that the gift language of Rom 5 relates pretty directly to the gift language of Rom 3.24 – yes, justification is a gift, but not in the sense of an imputing of an alien righteousness to our account; rather, in the whole sense of ‘justification through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a sacrifice of atonement – is all a gift.
Michael, isn’t the gift Christ himself, not any righteousness that exists apart from him?
Or perhaps ‘in distinction from him’?
yup, that’s clearer..
Andrew, very interesting series of posts – I’ve been reading closely, so thanks very much.
I guess my question is, doesn’t Rom 4.25 emphasise both the “no condemnation” angle of justification and the “new life in the resurrected Christ” angle of justification? So justification is more than not guilty because the punishment is paid, it’s completely righteous because we share in Christ?
I’m currently writing a talk for a kids camp on Rom 5.1-2. I’m being forced to articulate my understanding of justification-in-Christ very simply. For simplicity I’ve focused our blamelessness because we are in Christ rather than his sin-bearing. I’ve chosen this angle in order to make sense of the “grace in which we stand”.
Here’s the section from my talk. Is this the misconceptions behind imputation by the backdoor? How would you tweak to bring out your point of justification by atonement and set us up to understand the 2 big implications of justification outlined in 5.1-2? [square brackets are bits i’m debating whether to mention!]
God will judge everyone.
We haven’t obeyed God, so instead of being declared to be good, or just people, if God is a just judge he’ll have to declare us ‘guilty’.
That’s what justify means. To be declared innocent or guilty by a judge.
Jesus obeyed God. [even to the point of dying on a cross]
In God’s court-room he is declared innocent.
If we have faith in him, we get to be in the dock with him and judged with him as our leader.
And declared innocent because he is innocent.
[means that we don’t need to be punished because our punishment taken by Jesus.]
Means when God returns to judge we won’t be found guilty.
God looks at us with the favour he looks on his Son with.
Sam,
the ‘kids talk’ test is a really good one, because it brutally forces clarity and simplicity!
I guess the question I would have about this scheme is the introduction of the idea of the obedience of Jesus (to death on the cross), apart from its sin bearing, sacrifice of atonement content.
As the flow of the talk stands, it’s (just) possible to imagine that, say, had it not been the will of the Father for Jesus to be handed over to death, he could have been fully obedient without the cross, and that would still work for our salvation, since God would declare him righteous, and by faith we would share in him and therefore that declaration. But I don’t think that will work.
So in the end, I think it probably does share the same basic shape of the imputation scheme that I am critiqueing.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks, it sounds like your posts are generating some fruitful and helpful discussion amongst the commenters!
In your previous post, you referenced my series of articles on justification, said that you generally agreed with the first five, and implied that you disagreed with the article about imputation. So I can only assume that when you write here against imputation, you (at least partially) have my article in mind. Hence it’s very important for your readers to understand that what you say about the relationship between imputation and Union with Christ (“UWC”) does not represent the point or the substance of my article at all.
You seem to be forcing us to make “either-or” choice. You seem to be implying that EITHER we should go with UWC, OR with imputation. This assumes that imputation is an alternative to UWC. This is very unhelpful. Calvin, whom I quoted, saw UWC near the centre of soteriology, and imputation as one important implication that flows from UWC. The citation in my original article on imputation shows the way in which Calvin opposed an inferior view of imputation which operates outside UWC, yet affirmed a view of imputation based on UWC. He called it a “fellowship of righteousness” (which is a great way of talking about imputation!). I agree that imputation makes no sense without the more fundamental concept of UWC, and that there are things that UWC does that imputation doesn’t do. However, none of this constitutes an argument against the Reformed doctrine of imputation.
You imply that imputation doesn’t follow “Pauline contours”. Just because the exact phrase “righteousness of Christ” doesn’t appear in Paul does not mean that imputation doesn’t follow Pauline contours. Paul doesn’t say “union with Christ”, either; but we rightly infer UWC from Paul’s varied use of the phrase “in Christ”. The idea of the “righteousness of Christ” operates at the same level. Here are two examples of Pauline contours which lead to imputation, presented as a question to you:
You say “we are justified without righteousness” but rather by atonement (as if they are alternatives). So: what is the “righteousness from God” that Paul receives “in Christ” that is not his “own” if not a righteousness related directly to Christ’s death and resurrection? (Phil 3:9). Furthermore, what is the “righteousness by faith” which the Gentiles have obtained if not a righteousness related to Christ and his atoning sacrifice? (Rom 9:30).
There are, at present, two answers to these questions. The first answer is imputation (based on UWC). The second answer involves the claim that “righteousness” here means something else, i.e. “vindication”. The Reformers took the former view, because they read “righteousness” as “righteousness”. The latter view is based on a more recent claim that lacks exegetical or lexical support. That’s why imputation seems to be the best solution. Do you have any lexical or exegetical support for the alternative view? Or do you have another answer which deals with these particular Pauline contours?
Hi Andrew – I assume you’d still like us to abide by your rule (and therefore you don’t want any comments on your final six paragraphs)?
Well, I guess I’ve broken the rule, so it would be a bit unfair to stop others!
OK, well I’m still trying to reconcile the following two statements from you:
1. “Whatever the problems of the NPP idea of justification – and there are plenty – they are not my problems!” (from this post)
2. [After summarising your view on imputation:] “Not only do I think this is what the NT says. As it turns out, this is a large part of NT Wright says, and is a crucial key to understanding what he teaches about justification. Without coming to grips with this issue, Wright wil always remain obscure. Much more importantly, so will the NT.” (From the Syd Ang forum you and I were involved with a few years ago)
Please discuss.
Fairly straightforwardly, since the problems with the NPP (or more particularly NT Wright’s) idea of justification don’t have to do with the (correct in my judgment) distinction between justification and atonement, and the critique of the notion of imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
OK thanks, I let myself be led astray with the phrase “a large part”. Sorry about that.
Hi Andrew,
Terrific stuff!
Can you please say some more about how you think we’re united with Christ (or, to put it another way, what kind of union we have with Christ)?
That is, are you thinking of it being a Spirit-effected/post-resurrection thing — so that it’s only Christians who have any union with Christ? Or as an incarnation thing — so that, because of his identifying with humanity (‘sharing our flesh and blood’) it applies somehow (ie. representatively?) to all?
I guess I’m asking because some passages seem to read more naturally one way than the other.
Hey Chris,
really interesting thought.
In Rom 6 being united to Christ is described in terms of baptism – into his death and his resurrection. In Romans at least, the incarnation functions (implicitly) in the parallel with Adam (5.12-21), and therefore legitimates the “just as … so” framework that Paul sets up; and then again in 8.3, as, if you like, landing Christ in the ‘right’ place – the likeness of the flesh of sin literally – so that he could serve as a sin offering, and be the ‘place’ where the sin was condemned in the flesh, enabling there to be no condemnation for those in him.
Perhaps, then, incarnation is necessary but not sufficient for union with Christ would capture it?
Lionel,
you’re quite right, that I have set it up as an either-or. There are 2 reasons for that.
First, the imputation scheme posits righteousness (the righteousness of Christ) as an ‘input’ to a divine decision to justify the sinner. And that is an either/or moment – either God justifies on the basis of (an imputed) righteousness, or he justifies despite the absence of any righteousness, but on another basis. I am suggesting that it is the latter, on the basis of the sacrifice of atonement – we are justified by his blood (Rom 5.9). Or again, and this is a foundational moment in the argument, (Rom 6.7) – “whoever has died is justified from sin”. It is the sin-bearing death, not an imputed righteousness, which is the basis of God justifying us.
That leads to the second reason – once you have union with Christ, there is no need for imputation – it is an unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses! What work is there left for the concept to do if there is already union with Christ? Especially since neither the concept nor the phrase ever appears!
By the way, I don’t think it’s quite right to say that Paul doesn’t use the concept of union with Christ – Rom 6.5 has it at the crucial point – as a way of understanding being baptised into Christ, and therefore dying with Christ and being raised with Christ.
Phil 3 actually makes my point! We are found ‘in him’ (union with Christ), not having a righteousness of our own but one that comes through the faithfulness of Christ. Of course it’s related to the death and resurrection of Christ! But at precisely this point Paul doesn’t say that the righteousness from God is an input into a decision that God makes. Why can it not be understood as the right standing that the person found in Christ has as a consequence of their union with Christ?
The same applies to Rom 9:30 – righteousness through faith (the faithfulness of Christ).
I guess to push back, I’m not sure that inventing a concept that Paul doesn’t actually ever use at key moments is any more likely than my suggestion. And this is especially the case when the vocabulary was there if he wanted, and the argument invited it if it was appropriate – and yet he never says it. Why not? Was he trying to be obscure? Or perhaps the unique situation of God justifying the ungodly meant that unique usage for righteousness language was appropriate? This doesn’t strike me as so unlikely. In fact, it seems to me that Rom 6.7 states this fairly explicitly – when you are in sin (ungodly) what justifies you is death, not righteousness – in Christ, we have died.
So perhaps a question back to you – why is the imputation scheme so conspicuously absent in Rom 6.1-11 and Rom 8.1-4, when of all places, if was ever to appear, it would be in those places?
Hi Andrew,
You asked: “Why can it [i.e. righteousness in Phil 3:9 and Rom 9:30] not be understood as the right standing that the person found in Christ has as a consequence of their union with Christ?”
Answer: because the word “righteousness” means “righteousness”. It never means “right standing” anywhere else (do you have any evidence otherwise?).
You asked: “why is the imputation scheme so conspicuously absent in Rom 6.1-11 and Rom 8.1-4?”
Answers:
1. The question of Rom 6:1 is one that is best answered with the more fundamental concept of UWC.
2. In Calvin’s imputation scheme (which I followed in my own post on imputation), the righteousness of Christ is inextricably linked with his atoning death and his resurrection. They’re not two different things. This is very deep stuff – somehow the just condemnation of sin in Christ followed by resurrection produces a righteousness in Christ that can be shared with those “in him” (Phil 3:9); hence when God justifies us on the basis of Christ’s death he is also acting as a “righteous” judge (Rom 3:26), i.e. his character is not different from that revealed in Exod 23:7 and 1 Kings 8:32. This is why Calvin argues that the δικαιώμα of Rom 8:4 is a reference to imputation (Inst. 3.11.23) – which is a consequence of the atonement. I’m still mulling over the details of this word δικαιώμα, but I can see Calvin’s point.
(PS Rom 6:5 – check the Greek, it’s not “united with him” but “identified with the likeness of his death”)
Lionel,
re the first question – isn’t it true that words have meanings in contexts, especially sentences? Here is a sentence where the meaning of the word righteousness doesn’t makes sense as ‘a moral quality to be assessed by a judge as the ground of his verdict’. Plug that meaning in and the sentence, and paragraph, don’t make sense; or at least, if that’s what Paul was trying to say, he’s done it very badly.
I’m suggesting that the uniqueness of the case – the justification of the ungodly – means that language is likewise deployed in new ways. Otherwise, unique things can never be said.
I’m also suggesting that importing a concept, and a phrase, that in fact never once appears in Paul – and what’s more, as the foundational concept of the whole scheme – is no less unique, and in fact, is far less acceptable. If Paul had this concept at the center of his thought, you would expect he would state it at least once! I don’t think you’ve really grappled with the significance of this.
What’s more, in Rom 6.7, he makes it clear that there is another path to justification rather than righteousness – death! Does this not undo the imputation scheme?
(I did check the Greek of 6.5 – sumphutos – isn’t it something like planted together, grown together, united with)
OK, thanks. I’m not convinced, but I’m happy to leave it there. I just want to clarify that I never said that Paul had the ROC at the centre of his thought, nor that it is the foundational concept of the justification scheme. Rather that atonement and UWC (which are the foundational concepts) also imply imputation given Paul’s use of language drawn from the OT.
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for this series.
You said: ‘It is Rom 6 that unfolds this reality. Union with Christ – an inner and spiritual reality which takes the outward and physical form of baptism (Rom 6.3)’
I’m not sure how to interpret this. Is that we have the union with Christ inwardly, and that our subsequent baptism shows that this is the case? Or is it that the inner reality and outward physical action are somehow simultaneous (like the mind/ body relationship in Descartes’ conception of human action)? Or is it something else?
You seem to be ruling out the understanding that baptism is the means by which the inner and spiritual reality is brought about. Or do I have the wrong end of the stick?