INCORPORATED RIGHTEOUSNESS: A RESPONSE TO RECENT EVANGELICAL DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS IN JUSTIFICATION

Bird, Michael F

I. INTRODUCTION

In the last ten years biblical and theological scholarship has witnessed an increasing amount of interest in the doctrine of justification. This resurgence can be directly attributed to issues emerging from recent ProtestantCatholic dialogue on justification and the exegetical controversies prompted by the New Perspective on Paul. Central to discussion on either front is the topic of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, specifically, whether or not it is true to the biblical data. As expected, this has given way to some heated discussion with salvos of criticism being launched by both sides of the debate. For some authors a denial of the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the sole grounds of justification amounts to a virtual denial of the gospel itself and an attack on the Reformation. Others, by jettisoning belief in imputed righteousness, perceive themselves as returning to the historical meaning of justification and emancipating the Church from its Lutheranism. In view of this it will be the aim of this essay, in dialogue with the main protagonists, to seek a solution that corresponds with the biblical evidence and may hopefully go some way in bringing both sides of the debate together.

II. A SHORT HISTORY OF IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS SINCE THE REFORMATION

It is beneficial to preface contemporary disputes concerning justification by identifying their historical antecedents. Although the Protestant view of justification was not without some indebtedness to Augustine and medieval reactions against semi-Pelagianism, for the most part it represented a theological novum. The primary characteristics of the Reformation understanding of justification were as follows. (1) justification refers to the believer's legal status coram Deo, not his moral state. (2) A distinction is made between justification (a divine declaration of righteousness) and sanctification or regeneration (inner transforming work of the Spirit). (3) The formal cause of justification is the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers. The chief contribution of Martin Luther that helped cultivate this articulation of justification was his contention that justification ensues because of the iustitia Christi aliena (alien righteousness of Christ).1 Commenting on Titus 1:14, Luther declares, "Our faith depends solely on Christ. he alone is righteous, and I am not; for His righteousness stands for me before the judgment of God and against the wrath of God ... for a foreign righteousness has been introduced as a covering."2 When expositing Romans 4, Luther's faith and scholarship merge with poignant effect:

He has made His righteousness my righteousness, and my sin His sin. If He has made my sin to be His sin, then I do not have it and I am free. If he has made His righteousness my righteousness, then I am righteous now with the same righteousness as He. My sin cannot devour Him, but it is engulfed in the unfathomable depths of His righteousness for he himself is God, who is blessed forever.3

It was in Melanchthon, however, that Lutheran ideas about imputed righteousness began to crystallize and the distinction between justification and sanctification was engraved in Protestant thought. he writes, "If we believe on the Son of God, we have forgiveness of sins; and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, so that we are justified and are pleasing to God for the sake of Christ."4 Soon thereafter Melanchthon comments, "By are justified he means this comfort in the midst of true anguish, forgiveness of sins received through faith . . . But the renewal that follows, which God effects in us, he calls sanctification, and these two words are clear and distinct."5

John Calvin argued with equal vigor for the imputed righteousness of Christ as constituting the material cause of justification:

A man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.6

Yet in the same chapter of Institutes Calvin also underscores the Christocentric nature of justification and intimates his awareness of its relationship to union with Christ:

For though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and the only way in which we are righteous is by participating with him, yet as by our unhappy revolt we are alienated from his righteousness, it is necessary to descend to this lower remedy, that Christ may justify us by the power of his death and resurrection.7

You see that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; that the only way in which we become possessed of it is by being made partakers of Christ, since with him we possess all riches.8

It is little known that the imputation of Christ's righteousness was not advocated universally amongst the Reformers as the central tenet of justification. The Augsburg confession states, "This faith God imputes for righteousness before him."9 This stands in stark contrast to the Westminster confession which reads, "Those whom God effectually called he also freely justified . . . not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them."10

Likewise, late seventeenth-century Puritans themselves disputed the notion of justification comprising the imputation of Christ's righteousness, with Richard Baxter, Christopher Cartwright, John Goodwin, and Benjamin Woodbridge instead holding to the imputation of faith as the formal cause of justification.11 John Owen and Richard Baxter in particular exchanged some vehement criticism over this doctrine.12 Suffice it to say, belief in the imputation of faith appears entirely consistent within the domain of Reformation thought. One encounters other variations within the Reformed tradition. Although Richard Hooker was committed to imputed righteousness, his understanding of justification interfaces with a strong sacramentalism.13 Martin Bucer held to a double justification, the first stage being the iustificatio impii ("justification of the ungodly") and the second comprising the iustificatio pii ("justification of the godly").14

John Wesley's view of justification has been scrutinized endlessly to determine whether or not the founder of Methodism really believed in forensic justification. One finds in Wesley a host of conflicting statements. For instance, in his sermon entitled "Justification by Faith" he states that "the very moment that God giveth faith (for 'it is the gift of God') to the 'ungodly,' 'that worketh not,' that 'faith is counted to him for righteousness.'"15 Regarding imputation Wesley wrote, "Do not dispute for that particular phrase 'the imputed righteousness of Christ.' It is not scriptural."16 Interpreters of Wesley have long noted that such remarks arise from a suspicion that imputed righteousness could potentially foster antinomianism and stifle the pursuit of righteousness.17 However, under a barrage of criticism Wesley attempted to assuage his reformed critics in his sermon "The Lord our Righteousness" where he asserts, "To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not."18 Traditionally, belief in imputation is something upon which both Calvinistic and Arminian theologians have generally agreed.19

In view of such heritage it is no surprise that Reformed systematic theologies, from Beza to Berkhof, have regarded the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ as the defining mark of justification for Protestantism. At this point we may draw two conclusions about the place of imputation in Protestant theology. First, it has functioned largely as a boundary marker to delineate Protestants (especially evangelicals and Reformed) from Catholics. Second, the imputed righteousness of Christ has been foremost in shaping Protestant theology, worship, and spirituality. John Bunyan's poignant image in Pilgrim's Progress of Christian being clothed with the righteousness of Christ20 and Charles Wesley's hymns such as "And Can It Be" are all permeated by belief in imputed righteousness. Consequently, to challenge the biblical integrity of imputed righteousness is to seriously question what has been part of the foundation of Protestant self-identity and piety. In the words of E. Wolf, this understanding of justification constitutes the "centre and boundary" of all theology.21 Thus, contemporary evangelicalism has far more invested in this doctrine than mere adherence to an ongoing exegetical tradition. It is with this in mind that we may direct our attention toward current debates within evangelicalism which revolve around imputed righteousness.

III. A RECKONING OVER IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS

Robert H. Gundry, reacting to what he sees as the overemphasis on imputed righteousness in the document The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration,22 contends that such a doctrine flies in the face of the biblical testimony. He parades the usual textual suspects that are said to imply imputed righteousness (Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; 1 Cor 1:30; Phil 1:11; 3:9; Gal 3:6; Rom 1:17; 3:21-31; 4:6-24; 5:12-21; 10:3-4) and contends that "[n]othing is said about a replacement of believers' sins with the righteousness of Christ."23 Consequently, Gundry advocates that the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ should be abandoned as unbiblical.

It is no accident, then, that in New Testament theologians' recent and current treatments of justification, you would be hard-pressed to find any discussion of an imputation of Christ's righteousness . . . The notion is passe, neither because of Roman Catholic influence nor because of theological liberalism, but because of fidelity to the relevant biblical texts. Thus New Testament theologians are now disposed to talk about the righteousness of God in terms of his salvific activity in a covenantal framework, not in terms of imputation of Christ's righteousness in a bookkeeping framework.24

Mark A. Seifrid has written two substantial monographs on justification and in the course of his research has been a vocal critic of the New Perspective on Paul. Seifrid's contributions to the subject include the following. (1) He acknowledges that understanding justification as the "non-imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness" is indeed a reasonable way of understanding the forensic nature of justification over against a view of infused or imparted righteousness. The problem with the term "the imputed righteousness of Christ" is not that it is wrong but that it is deficient. (2) An emphasis on imputation treats God's justifying verdict as an isolated gift without relating it to Paul's Christ-centered theology. Consequently, it reduces justification to an abstract event that occurs in the believer rather than seeing it as taking place in Christ. Seifrid states, "It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen." (3) The Protestant tendency to view salvation in terms of a series of consecutive ideas (justification, sanctification, glorification) fails to grapple with Paul's conception of justification as comprehensive and holistic term relating to redemption, forgiveness of sins, peace, resurrection, and the gift of the Spirit. Thus justification is not merely the erasure of our failure supplemented by an alien righteousness, but emerges as the supreme act of God in Christ for our salvation. Furthermore, its Christocentric dimension means that the imperatives of continuing love, faith, and obedience are never isolated from justification itself. (4) According to Seifrid, the justification of the believer cannot be separated from the justification of God in his wrath towards human evil. Imputation momentarily detracts from the theocentric quality of justification, for there can be no justification of the believer without the simultaneous justification of God.25

N. T. Wright, in his book What Saint Paul Really Said, advocates that justification is juridical (in a Jewish sense), covenantal, and eschatological. Furthermore, it is not about "getting in" but "telling who is in." Thus justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology.26 In doing so, Wright implies that a reckoned righteousness becomes tantamount to "legal fiction."27 In defending his position against criticism of Australian NT scholar Paul Barnett,28 Wright appears to have modified his view slightly in affirming that justification is both forensic and ecclesiological. "'Justification' is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham."29 Elsewhere he argues that in justification God creates a new people with a new status.30

By contrast, several scholars have attempted to respond to these developments by restating the traditional arguments for imputed righteousness, including R. C. Sproul, Wayne Grudem, James White, and Philip Eveson.31 By far the most capable and rigorous defense of imputed righteousness in recent times has come from John Piper.32 Piper commences by awakening our attention to the pastoral significance of the doctrine of justification. Using Gundry as his foil, Piper then develops his argument that an external righteousness, namely Christ's righteousness, is imputed to believers rather than their own faith being reckoned as righteousness. He also rejects the notion that justification is transformative and is a category espousing liberation from sin's mastery.

What is highly significant is that the exegetical validity of imputed righteousness is being questioned by both those who are within the trajectory of the New Perspective but also by evangelicals (Seifrid and Gundry) who themselves have been highly critical of the New Perspective.33

IV. CLARIFYING THE DEBATE

Due to the tenor with which the debate has been conducted and several ensuing misunderstandings, it is vital to clear the deck on some important issues. First, an obvious starting point is for the rhetoric to be toned down. There is little gain in suggesting that one either assents to the imputation of Christ's righteousness as exemplified in Reformed confessions or else must be tagged a semi-Pelagian legalist. This is an unfair caricature, and there is no reason to think that these are the only two games in town.34 Likewise, those who are critical of the traditional Lutheran interpretation of justification need to pay closer attention to Luther's context and the finer points of his exegesis.35 According to one former New Perspective proponent, Francis Watson, a fundamental pillar of the New Perspective is the travesty of the Lutheran interpretation.36 However, as Carl Trueman has pointed out, those who consider Luther to be a revisionist who projected the debates of his own day into Paul's epistles are themselves presenting a revisionist account of Luther.37 Instead, modern exegetes should acknowledge the rich heritage of biblical exegesis that we have inherited from the Reformation. As Stephen Westerholm humorously states, "[S]tudents who want to understand Paul but feel they have nothing to learn from a Martin Luther should consider a career in metallurgy. Exegesis is learned from the masters."38 By the same token, criticism should not be vented against scholars on the grounds that they are departing from Reformation theology. (1) We should keep in mind that the Reformers and Puritans themselves differed on the finer details concerning righteousness and justification. (2) Alister McGrath notes that those who have criticized Wright for holding a non-Reformed view of justification are surreptitiously sweeping in a new basis of authority: tradition.39 To use Reformation theology as a litmus test for theological accuracy represents a departure from the Reformers themselves and places them upon a pedestal which they would not otherwise care to sit on.

Second, it needs to be spelled out exactly how the gospel stands in relation to justification. I remain unconvinced that, providing one retains the forensic dimension of justification, a denial of imputation necessarily draws one into denying the gospel. On the one hand, there are those who see the gospel as being justification by faith with the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the cornerstone of justification, therefore making imputation almost synonymous with the gospel. That is, to be sure, a miscalculated logic. To equate the gospel as consisting of the doctrine of imputed righteousness makes about as much sense as saying that the gospel is the pretribulation rapture. Furthermore, if we look at the most concise summaries of the gospel in the NT (e.g. Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 15:3-8; 2 Tim 2:8), justification language is entirely absent. It comes as no surprise, then, that in one instance Luther defined the gospel as "[t]he gospel is a story about Christ, God's and David's Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. This is the gospel in a nutshell."40 Indeed, Luther's definition here (with no reference to imputed righteousness) resonates with Wright's suggestion of the gospel as the declaration of Jesus' messiahship.41 Of course, Wright commits the opposite error in Saint Paul by dislocating justification too far from the gospel. Yet, in Galatians, Paul fervently warns this church that they are in danger of departing from the gospel (Gal 1:6-9), and what follows in the succeeding chapters are a concerted defense of justification by faith without Torah observance. Again, in Rom 1:16-17 Paul sees the righteousness of God as revealed in the gospel, and in Gal 3:8 the apostle believes that the justification of Gentiles was prefigured in the gospel promise given to Abraham. Thus, the gospel and justification are conceptually closer than Wright first admitted.42 I am inclined, then, to think that although justification by faith is not strictly identifiable with the gospel, it remains nonetheless the most concrete theological expression of its meaning and application.43

Third, the notion of "imputation" is entirely legitimate within the field of systematic theology as a way of restating the forensic nature of justification over and against alternative models.44 However, it is not the language of the NT. What is proposed below is that justification is forensic, eschatological, effective, and covenantal. The basis of justification lies exclusively in Jesus the Messiah, who is our substitute and representative, whereby God's verdict against us is transformed into God's vindication of us and culminates in God's cosmic unification of believers in the last day.45 Moreover, justification consists of an alien righteousness. But how is that righteousness apprehended? Imparted righteousness is to be rejected for sure, but in the words of G. E. Ladd, "Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers."46 What is set out below is that believers are incorporated into the righteousness of Christ. The matrix for understanding justification is union with Christ. It is the contention of this study that several passages in the Pauline corpus support this perspective.

V. INCORPORATED RIGHTEOUSNESS

1. Romans 4:1-25. A critical matter is how one understands the idea of "reckon" or "impute" ([lambda][omicron][gamma][iota][zeta][omicron][mu][alpha][iota]) in Romans 4. According to Gundry, it is faith that is reputed/reckoned as righteousness.47 Piper counters that: (1) By quoting Gen 15:6, Paul thinks of God's justifying work in terms of imputing or crediting the work of God.48 (2) Paul does indeed employ a book-keeping metaphor and "faith being credited for righteousness" is shorthand for, "faith being the way an external righteousness is received as credited to us by God-namely, not by working but by trusting him who justifies the ungodly?"49 (3) The citation of Ps 32:1 clarifies what it means that God credits righteousness apart from works, namely, he credits righteousness to the ungodly. God's justifying act in verse 5 parallels God's crediting righteousness apart from works.50 (4) The parallels between Rom 3:28 ("a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law"), Rom 4:6 ("God credits righteousness apart from works") and Rom 4:5 ("justifies the ungodly") highlight that Paul "thinks in terms of righteousness being imputed to us rather than our faith being recognized or considered as our righteousness." Thus, faith imputed for righteousness and righteousness imputed apart from works are synonymous.51 (5) In Rom 4:11 the "seal of the righteousness of faith" is not a righteousness which consists of faith, but rather "imputed righteousness received by faith," since the design of Abraham's faith was that righteousness would be imputed to those who believe.52 (6) Piper also cites Rom 10:10 and Phil 3:8-9 in support, where faith is instrumental to attaining righteousness but is not equivalent to righteousness.53

In seeking a solution, Romans 4 must be seen in light of the preceding context, where in Rom 3:21-26 Paul locates God's righteousness as revealed in the death of Christ.58 This righteousness is manifested apart from the Law and yet standing in continuity with it and, importantly, availing for both Jews and Gentiles. That leads into Rom 3:27-31 where Paul begins his exposition of verses 21-26(59) and draws the immediate application as comprising the end of Jewish boasting of national privileges (esp. v. 29). The midrashic exposition of Abraham in Romans 4 is meant to highlight the example of God justifying the ungodly and doing so beyond the confines of law observance. On one level Paul can appeal to Abraham by arguing that Abraham was justified prior to the giving of the law. On a second horizon, Abraham stood in the position of a Gentile when God entered into a covenant with him and reckoned his faith as righteousness.

Paul opens in verses 1-2 by reasoning that if Abraham had been justified by works, then he had grounds for boasting. It is genuinely tempting to say that "works" refers to acts of personal righteousness completed prior to the giving of the law, rendered plausible by the contrast of gift and debt in verses 4-5.60 But that is only half the story, for in Paul's epistles "law"61 and "works of the law"62 ordinarily signifies the Mosaic legislation.63 Moreover, Paul is perhaps refuting the view that Abraham was justified by keeping the law in protological form,64 constructing his argument along redemptivehistorical lines (cf. Gal 3:17) rather than offering an atemporal treatise of why good deeds cannot save. A specific work in mind is probably circumcision, since Paul appeals to Abraham's not-yet-circumcised-state in Gen 15:6; the preceding references in 3:27-31 pertain to boasting in Jewish identity which circumcision epitomized;65 circumcision was a sign of the Mosaic covenant (Gen 17:11; Acts 7:8; Jub 12:26-28; m. Ned. 3:11); and references to circumcision buttress the passage in 3:30 and 4:9-12. Furthermore, circumcision was regarded as the very means of entering Israel for Gentiles (Jdt 14:10; Esth 8:17; m. Shab. 19:3) and in several second Temple texts a necessary component for salvation (Jub. 15:25-34; CD 16:4-6; T. Levi 6:3; cf. Acts 15:1). Mark Seifrid argues that circumcision was understood in ethical terms denoting faith and piety.66 It is thus the social and soteriological function of the law (which circumcision supremely represents) that Paul confronts as demonstrative of his thesis: justification by faith alone. The question that permeates Romans 4 is, "Who are the people of God and on what condition shall they be justified?" Paul's argument aims to disclose that righteousness and law are to be now understood in light of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Notably, the direct object of the verb [lambda][omicron][gamma][iota][zeta][omicron][mu][alpha][iota] varies. (1) In verses 3, 5, 9, faith is reckoned as righteousness (implicitly for vv. 10, 22, 23). (2) In verse 4 wages are not credited. (3) For verses 6, 11 (and implied in v. 24) righteousness is credited, while (4) in verse 8 there is the non-crediting of sin. A uniform translation of "imputed" as applied by Piper does not fit the verses where faith is the subject, since it is odd to think of faith being imputed. As Garlington observes, "If righteousness is imputed by faith, then how can faith itself be imputed? It would seem that Piper has arrived at a double imputation, that of righteousness and of faith." By the same token, Garlington's insistence on the translation "consider as being" does not hold in verse 4 since the commercial accounting metaphor dictates a sense of "credit" (cf. Phlm 18).67

This raises two further questions. First, in what sense can faith be reckoned as righteousness? Piper is adamant that it simply is not. Gundry and Garlington think that righteousness consists of faith. Garlington further unpacks that as meaning that righteousness is, analytically, "conformity to the covenant relationship; it consists of a faithful obedience to the Lord whose will is enshrined in the covenant." Faithfulness begins with faith which leads to righteousness (cf. Rom 10:10).68 Granted that [pi][iota][sigma][tau][iota][final sigma] can denote both faith and faithfulness, yet the idea of righteousness as covenant faithfulness is problematic. If faith is reckoned as righteousness (and righteousness = faithfulness to the covenant), it means that faith is reckoned as faithfulness. But that amounts to a tautology. Furthermore, the issue at hand is, what forms the grounds of Abraham's righteousness before God? In contemporary Jewish interpretation it was Abraham's faithfulness and obedience that constituted his righteousness (combining Gen 15:6 with 17:4-14 and 22:1-19). For Paul, the contrast is not between faith (trust) and faithfulness (fidelity), but faith (trust) and works (Mosaic legislation).

Christ's righteousness is simply not mentioned, so what is the origin of this credited righteousness? Paul provides the answer in 4:25.73 There Paul employs a traditional Christological formula that states the grounds of justification: Christ's death and resurrection. The parallelism between the two prepositional [delta][iota][alpha]-clauses should not be dogmatically retained so as to effect a translation of "he was handed over because of ([delta][iota][alpha]) our sins and raised because of ([delta][iota][alpha]) our justification" (e.g. NASB).74 Granted that the resurrection vindicates Christ's sin-bearing death (cf. Acts 2:24, 32-33; 3:15; 5:30; Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:5-11), but it seems strange to think of justification as causing Christ's resurrection. Rather, the second [delta][iota][alpha]-clause should be understood as being prospective, i.e. "he was raised for (the purpose of) our justification." What stands behind this passage is Isa 53:11. There, the Servant of the Lord suffers and is justified in the heavenly courtroom upon seeing "the light of life."75 The result of the Servant's own resurrection-justification is that he will "justify many." Hence, justification is primarily a function of Christ's resurrection.76 Without driving a wedge between Christ's death and resurrection, the rhetoric of the verse suggests that Christ's resurrection does something which his death does not. The death of Christ constitutes the divine verdict against sin, whereas the resurrection transforms that verdict into vindication.77 While Christ's resurrection is the "first-fruits" of the general resurrection (cf. Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 15:20-22; Col 1:18), similarly his justification through resurrection comprises the initial execution of the justifying verdict. Through faith, believers are incorporated or identified with the risen and justified Messiah, and they are justified by virtue of their participation in him (cf. Col 2:12; 1 Cor 15:17). Along this line Morna D. Hooker comments,

Paul spells out this idea there: just as the verdict pronounced on Adam is shared by those who are "in Adam," so the verdict pronounced on Christ at the resurrection is shared by those who are "in him." It is because Christ is acknowledged as righteous that those who are "in him" are also reckoned to be righteous-and will be reckoned to be such on the Last Day.78

In sum, Romans 4 does not assert that one is justified because of the imputed righteousness of Christ or that God reckons faith as covenantal conformity. Instead, God regards faith as the condition of justification (reckons faith as righteousness) and justifies believers (credits righteousness) because of their union with Christ (raised for our justification).

2. Romans 5:18-19. The coming of Jesus Christ elicits an epochal transformation for believers who are no longer identified with the transgression and condemnation of the first Adam but with the righteousness and justification of the second Adam. The juxtaposition of Adam's sin and condemnation with God's gift, grace, righteousness, and life manifested in Jesus Christ dominates Rom 5:12-21 in particular. It is on Rom 5:18-19 that arguments for imputed righteousness largely depend.

In verse 18 Paul resumes the argument broken off in verse 12 concerning the contrast of the reign of the first and second Adam. In distinction to Adam's trespass and the ensuing condemnation, Christ's "act of righteousness" issues in "justifying life." The thought is repeated in different terms in verse 19 by contrasting Adam's disobedience and many being constituted as sinners with Christ's obedience and many being constituted as righteousness. Thus we are confronted with two sets of terms to explain: (1) Christ's "act of righteousness"79 and "obedience." Although some scholars contend that Christ's entire life of obedience to God is the referent, the contrast with "transgression" more readily suggests that Christ's obedience and submission to God in going to the cross are in view (cf. Phil 2:6-8; Heb 5:8).80 (2) The phrases "justifying life" and "many will be constituted as righteous" denote the saving effect of Christ's obedience. The [delta][iota][kappa][alpha][iota][omega][sigma][iota][nu] [zeta][omega][eta][final sigma] (lit. "justification of life") could be a genitive of result ("justification resulting in life")81 or epexegetical ("justification consisting of life").82 Here one should avoid either/ or equations, as both may be in mind.83 In the final reckoning, God's justifying verdict cannot be separated from its vivifying outcome (cf. Rom 1:17 [Hab 2:4; Gal 3:11]; 2:7; 4:17; 14:9). Hence, Paul speaks in 5:21 of "righteousness leading to eternal life." In Rom 5:19 the word [kappa][alpha][tau][alpha][sigma][tau][alpha][theta][eta][sigma][omicron][nu][tau][alpha][iota] ("will be constituted") is a real future as opposed to a logical future.84 Since 5:1-9, Paul has shifted his attention from the realized component of justification to its eschatological dimension. Based on usage in Matt 24:45, 47; Luke 12:14; Acts 6:3; 7:10; Titus 1:5, Piper opts for a meaning of "appointed" which then becomes tantamount to imputation.85 However, the word appears to be both forensic and refer to an actual state of affairs.86 As Schreiner comments, "One cannot separate the representative and constitutive roles of Adam and of Christ in these verses."87 Thus the forensic should not be overemphasized at the expense of the real change wrought at the terminus of the salvation event. The constitution has in mind, not the completion of sanctification in becoming morally righteous, but the eschatological re-constitution of humanity at the resurrection. As Seifrid argues, the resurrection of the ungodly comprises the incarnation of their justification. It is the formal enactment of that verdict in their own resurrection.88

Wright offers a fitting summary: "Christ's dikaioma in the middle of history leads to God's dikaiosis on the last day."89 Piper is similar: "Adam acted sinfully, and because we are connected to him, we are condemned in him. Christ acted righteously, and because we are connected to Christ we are justified in Christ. Adam's sin is counted as ours. Christ's 'act of righteousness' is counted as ours."90 The objection I have is that Piper wants to move from "connected" to "imputed," which is more than the text says. Of course, nothing in the text denies the notion of imputation, but it hardly proves it. Gundry states that "the verse does not say that this making sinful and this making righteous happened by means of imputation; and like the verb 'were made' the preceding language of giving and receiving a gift, though it would be compatible with imputations, neither demands it nor equates with it."91 Inevitably, the notion of representation and participation may be more accurate than imputation regarding how this righteousness is applied to believers. Christ, the representative of believers, has demonstrated his righteousness in his sacrificial death and has been vindicated as righteous in his resurrection, and it is exclusively by connection with him that believers apprehend a righteous status in God's eyes. I contend that once more Isa 53:11 lies in the background with the frequent allusion to the "one" justifying the "all/many."92 Similarly, the resurrection may tacitly be in view given the concept of being saved "through his life" in 5:10 and the fact that here justification is a function of the second Adam, significantly, a role Christ has only by virtue of his resurrection.

3. 1 Corinthians 1:30, Philippians 3:8-9. In 1 Cor 1:18-31, Paul opposes the Corinthians in their preference for pneumatic and acculturated wisdom and instead extols Christ as the locus of God's wisdom and salvific power. Paul states that Christ became our "righteousness" and this is frequently taken as evidence of imputed righteousness.93 Alternatively, Wright states:

It is the only passage I know where something called "the imputed righteousness of Christ" . . . finds any basis in the text. But if we are to claim it as such, we must also be prepared to talk of the imputed wisdom of Christ; the imputed sanctification of Christ; and the imputed redemption of Christ.94

4. 2 Corinthians 5:21. In 2 Cor 5:17-6:2, Paul notes that the result of his ministry has been the inauguration of people who are a "new creation," products of God's reconciliation proclaimed through his ambassadors of reconciliation. However, those who reject God's message and his messengers should not presume upon his mercy and instead are to be reconciled to God. At this point Paul incorporates some traditional material into his plea (vv. 19-21) in order give content to his gospel of reconciliation.

According to Gundry, the passage does not mention Christ's righteousness but God's. Christ's not knowing sin is set in contrast to his being made sin, highlighting his innocence. Additionally, nothing is mentioned pertaining to the imputation of Christ's sinlessness or righteousness. Imputation is mentioned but only in the sense of "not counting" the world's transgressions. Gundry declares, "Apart from the imputation of transgressions to Christ, Paul uses the language of union, reconciliation, being made and becoming rather than the language of imputation."103 Piper replies that Gundry's language concerning union with Christ is in "vague terms." Instead, Piper advocates that there is nothing contrived about seeing a reference to the imputation of God's righteousness in the words "become the righteousness of God," since it seems the reverse side of Christ's becoming sin, which he takes to mean the imputation of sin. He states, "We 'become' God's righteousness the way Christ 'was made' our sin."104 More specifically Piper, following Charles Hodge and G. E. Ladd, contends that the righteousness that is imputed to believers is Christ's righteousness.105 He notes that the passage does not explicitly say this, but "the absence of doctrinal explicitness and systematization in Paul may be no more problematic for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness than it is for the doctrine of the Trinity."106 He substantiates this importation on the grounds that: (1) The combination of divine righteousness becoming ours is the same way that sin became Christ's; (2) the divine righteousness is ours only "in Christ"; and (3) the close parallel with Rom 5:19, where through the obedience of the One many will be appointed as righteous.107

Several things can be said by way of response. First, Gundry's bifurcation between God's righteousness and Christ's righteousness is too pedantic, particularly in view of what Paul says in verse 19 that "God was in Christ,"108 not to mention the trinitarian benediction found in 2 Cor 13:14.

VI. CONCLUSION

The ferocity of the debate concerning the imputation of Christ's righteousness will continue while those within the evangelical camp persist in questioning its biblical integrity. It is no surprise, then, that Gundry has opened a can of worms and some suppose he is attempting to undo Luther's courageous stand at the Diet of Worms, resulting in some strongly-worded argumentation. Nevertheless, whether for or against, Gundry and Piper have performed a sterling service in forcing evangelicals to return to the text of the NT to weigh and assess the relevant passages to see if they really are proof texts for imputed righteousness. In my estimation, they are not. Furthermore, the notion of imputation fails to grapple with Paul's "in-Christ" language that gravitates more towards the concepts of incorporation, substitution, and representation. Given the supremely Christocentric ingredient in Paul's formulation of justification, it is far more appropriate to speak of incorporated righteousness, for the righteousness that clothes believers is not that which is somehow abstracted from Christ and projected onto them, but is located exclusively in Christ as the glorified incarnation of God's righteousness.123 In my judgment this term represents a reasonable description of what is happening at the exegetical level in the Pauline corpus regarding how the believer attains the righteousness of Christ.

Additionally, I think much of this debate is spurred on by a profound failure to grapple with two things. (1) The first is the crucial role of the resurrection in procuring justification. The resurrection is more than a divine apologetic, since God's justifying verdict is intimately bound up with the raising of the crucified (Rom 4:25; 5:10; 1 Cor 15:17). This facet of justification was lost on neither Jonathan Edwards nor Karl Barth, both of whom were aware of its importance.124 Without diminishing the centrality of the cross, it is important that this component of justification be recovered. (2) The second element is the forensic dimension of union with Christ. Since Albert Schweitzer, and more recently with E. P. Sanders, it has become common to divide Paul's soteriology into "participationist" and "juridical" categories (while admitting that Paul himself did not make this distinction) and assert the centrality of participationist elements. Justification is subsequently removed to the periphery of Paul's thought and, according to Schweitzer, justification by faith is reduced to a "fragment," "subsidiary crater" and is "incomplete and unfitted to stand alone."125 Yet as soon as an understanding of union with Christ is divided as forensic and issuing forth in a transformed status, such a bifurcation becomes a grossly inadequate generalization. Justification cannot be played off against union with Christ, since justification transpires in Christ. To be sure, union with Christ is not something that is entirely synonymous with justification. Yet neither is union with Christ an ancillary concept subsumed under justification or vice versa.126 Rather, union with Christ comprises Paul's prime way of talking about the reception of the believer's new status through incorporation into the risen Christ by faith.127

It still remains fitting within the discourse of systematic theology, for the sake of the historical continuity with Reformation thought, and when stressing the forensic nature of justification against an infused righteousness, to speak of imputed righteousness. Yet in more finely nuanced discussions of the topic, especially in preaching, teaching, and exegesis, we must be prepared to use language that more readily comports with Paul's concept of justification.

Finally, it is my sincere hope that evangelicals on both sides of the debate would be able to unite and sing, "When he shall come with trumpet sound, O may I then in Him be found, Dressed in His righteousness alone, Faultless to stand before the throne."128

MICHAEL F. BIRD*

* Michael Bird is a doctoral student at the University of Queensland, St. Lucia QLD 4072, Australia.

Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Jun 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved