Category: Reformed
Reformed Bitterness
In my short life time I have known many people who have gone through difficult, dehumanizing, demoralizing events. These people should be given the room to talk about their experiences in order to heal. When you see progress it is very uplifting. Likewise, when someone reverts back into a cycle of bitterness and a victim’s mentality about life it can be disheartening.
I must say to some of my Reformed brothers and sisters that when I read what you write about Catholics, Orthodox, and even some fellow evangelicals (e.g. Arminians) that don’t share your view on secondary issues, you sound similar to these types of people. It is as if the Council of Trent concluded yesterday. Listen, you have the right to disagree with Rome on this or that. You have the right to say Azusa was misleading this way and that way. That being said, stop whining!
If predestination is stronger than Arminians and “soft” Calvinist make it so be it. God is the one who does the saving work, right? If the Pope is misleading people you have the right to say where but stop acting like all Catholics are beast. It only makes you look sad and small. I believe you can do better.
“Imputation” in 2 Corinthians 5.21?
Recently, as I was reading through 2 Corinthians 5-6, it became evident that critiques of the traditional Reformed reading of 2 Corinthians 5.21 have some merit. In v. 21 Paul wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that we in him might become the righteousness of God.” I have read v. 21 as referring to Christ becoming sin in exchange for us as we become the righteousness of God. In other words this is a form of substitutionary atonement soteriology. Christ takes on our sins; we take on his righteousness. While I still strongly affirm substitutionary atonement it is not apparent that this passage is referring to such a thing.
The one thing that stands against the Reformed reading of this verse is that contextually the first person plural has been referring to Paul and his coworkers in the gospel. Since 4.1 Paul has spoken of his partners in ministry. Whenever he refers to the Corinthians it seems to be in the second person plural. The Corinthians are not brought over to Paul’s side of things until about 6.11. Therefore, when he says “that we might become the righteousness of God” in v. 21 it appears he would need to shift “us” language from referring exclusively to himself and his coworkers to referring to the Corinthians as well only to shift back into “us” and “you” language, excluding the Corinthians once again, in 6.1.
N.T. Wright understands “righteousness” to refer to “covenant-faithfulness”. Therefore, according to Wright, Paul is saying, “…in the Messiah, we might embody God’s faithfulness, God’s covenant faithfulness, God’s action in reconciling the world to himself.” [1] This would explain, in part, why the righteousness would refer to Paul and his coworkers and not the Corinthians if indeed we cannot read the Corinthians as being included in “we”. Nevertheless, I am not sure if his reasoning suffices.
For those who see this passage as referring to imputation why do you continue to read the passage this way? For those who see it as Wright sees it why do you agree with his reading? If you have another understanding of 5.21 please share.
____________________
[1] Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, 163. Elsewhere in this book as well as some other books, lectures, and so forth, Wright gives his arguments for understanding “righteousness” to refer to covenantal faithfulness. I will not try to reproduce those here.
