Vickers Jesus' Blood and Righteousness

Paul's Theology of Imputation
1. Auflage 2010
ISBN: 978-1-4335-1838-6
Verlag: Crossway
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 0 - No protection

E-Book, Englisch, 256 Seiten

The question of whether Paul teaches that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer has been debated for roughly four hundred years. Some of the questions that arise are: What is the connection between Adam and the rest of the human race? How did Christ fulfill the role of the second or new Adam? How can the 'ungodly' stand before a righteous God? In Jesus' Blood and Righteousness, Brian Vickers investigates the key Pauline texts linked historically to the topic of imputation. Though Vickers spends a good deal of time on the particulars of each text, he keeps one eye on the broader biblical horizon; like any doctrine, imputation must be investigated exegetically and synthetically. This book, and its conclusion that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a legitimate and necessary synthesis of Paul's teaching, is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on imputation.

Brian J. Vickers (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament interpretation and biblical theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the assistant editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. He is actively involved in leading short-term mission trips and teaching overseas. He is also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Institute for Biblical Research.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Vickers, Brian

Leseproben

ONE

Tracing Trajectories: The History of Imputation

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION is not, historically speaking, cut and dry. This may come as a surprise to some readers since lately we are used to hearing that someone either affirms or denies imputation. Like most things, it all has to do with how we define our terms. The term “imputation,” is a fairly specific, almost technical term for the traditional Reformed view of justification consisting of the forgiveness of sins and the counting of Christ’s active obedience (his positive righteousness) to the believer. We cannot, however, limit ourselves historically only to those authors who use the word “imputation.” For this reason, if we want to do justice to the historical background, the best way to approach the subject is to focus as much as possible on the interpretation of the texts commonly associated with imputation. When we come at imputation from this angle, we can interact not only with those who hold explicitly to the traditional doctrine, but also with theologians who hold a more-or-less traditional view but do not use the word “imputation.” We can also interact with those who seem to avoid the term because they want to discuss the texts apart from “systematic” categories, and with those who do not so much deny imputation as seem not to have it on their horizon at all, and also with those who reject the doctrine outright. The best way to get started in the discussion is to follow loose trajectories through theological traditions. Along the way we will hear not only from well-known theologians, but also at times from some lesser-known scholars whose work sheds light on the various debates in our own day.

REFORMATION TRAJECTORIES

Luther

There is considerable debate over Luther’s teaching on imputation, or whether he held to anything like the later Reformed and Lutheran understanding of the doctrine.1 Though such a discussion runs the risk of asking anachronistic questions, it is essential that we consider Luther in the debate. While it is difficult to see in Luther a developed idea of both the negative and positive elements of imputation, as spelled out so precisely in later Lutheran and Reformed theology, the selections included here contain some of the necessary elements of the later formulation.

Imputation language is prevalent in Luther’s treatment of Romans 4:18. This is hardly surprising, since Paul’s argument hinges on the quotation from Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and God reckoned it to him as righteousness.” For instance, Luther asserts that people “are righteous only when God imputes righteousness to them.”2 Believers are righteous “outwardly” (i.e., in the eyes of God), “solely by the imputation of God and not of ourselves or of our own works.”3 A central element of Luther’s view of righteousness is his understanding of believers being equally righ 1 teous (before God) and unrighteous (in their own eyes). He can even say that “in their [believers’] own sight and in truth they are unrighteous, but before God they are righteous because He reckons them so because of their confession of sin.”4 The emphasis here is on the continuance of sin in the lives of believers even though God has imputed righteousness to them.5

A second emphasis, and important for the issue at hand, is the central role of forgiveness. Luther’s discussion of this text clearly focuses on the connection between the imputation of righteousness and forgiveness. It is indeed the righteousness of Christ that is in view here, but Luther speaks specifically of Christ’s righteousness that covers sin.6 This covering righteousness of Christ does not inhere in the believer but lies outside; it is imputed to the believer.7 There is no emphasis given to Christ’s fulfillment of the law which in turn is imputed to the believer.8 At least in his interpretation of Romans 4:1-8, Luther does not view the imputation of righteousness and the non-imputation of sin as two distinct elements but rather as synonymous concepts. Commenting on Psalm 32:12, Luther says: “Thus the man to whom these two evils (evil deeds and sin) are forgiven, behold, he is the man whom God regards as righteous. Hence it follows, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity.’” Luther adds: “It is the same thing, whether we say, “to whom God imputes righteousness’ or, ‘to whom the LORD does not impute sin,’ that is, unrighteousness.”9 Thus God imputing a person as righteous is, in this text, the same thing as God forgiving a person’s sin.

Commenting on Romans 5:12, Luther emphasizes that sin “enters into men” even though “they do not commit it.”10 Thus while the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race is implied, as Luther continues through the passage the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in terms of his active obedience is less obvious. When, however, Luther comes to 5:14, he states that “the likeness of Adam’s transgression is in us because we die as if we had sinned in the same way he did. And the likeness of Christ’s justification is in us, because we live, as if we had produced the same kind of righteousness that he did.”11

He goes on to say that the gift, “by the grace of that one Man” (5:15), is “by the personal merit and grace of Christ.”12 Luther’s use of the term “merit,” and his statement that when we are justified it is “as if” we ourselves had done “the same kind of righteousness,” bear similarities with the later Protestant formulations of the imputation of positive righteousness, but we must be careful not to import all the later distinctions back into Luther.

The same tendency to come short of asserting positive imputation explicitly is seen also in Luther’s other writings.13 For instance, in “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” Luther states that, “through faith . . . Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours, rather he himself becomes ours.”14 Here the emphasis on Christ’s righteousness becoming ours is thought of more in terms of union than imputation. More accurately, Luther’s concept of imputation is tied closely to his understanding of union. Luther goes on to say that “he who trusts in Christ exists in Christ; he is one with Christ, having the same righteousness as he.”15 Again, as in Romans, Luther emphasizes the “alien” nature of this righteousness we have in Christ—it is Christ in us that is our righteousness, not anything that we have, even as gift, that becomes intrinsically our own.16

Similarly, in “The Freedom of the Christian,” it is union with Christ that Luther emphasizes:

By the wedding ring of faith he [Christ] shares in the sins, death, and pains of hell which are his bride’s. As a matter of fact he makes them his own and acts as if they were his own as if he himself had sinned; he suffered, died, and descended into hell that he might overcome them all. . . Thus the believing soul by means of the pledge of its faith is free in Christ, its bridegroom, free of all sins, secure against death and hell, and is endowed with the eternal rights, life, and salvation of Christ its bridegroom.17

Note that Luther does emphasize the imputation of sins to Christ, but he is more apt to emphasize forgiveness (as evident above) and union with Christ, rather than the imputation of positive righteousness.18 In a sermon on Galatians 3 Luther says in regard to imputation that “it is of pure grace that God reckons not to us our sins, yet he would not so forgive were not his Law and his standard of righteousness already completely satisfied.”19 Here the fulfillment of the law and imputation are linked although, again, the emphasis is on the resulting forgiveness. Here, however, the imputation of a positive righteousness is explicit. This is particularly true in regard to the law being fulfilled on our behalf. Luther develops this idea further when he states: “It is impossible for us to purchase forgiveness; God ordained in our stead one who took upon himself all our deserved punishment and fulfilled the Law for us, thus averting from us God’s judgment and appeasing his wrath.”20 Here the language is quite similar sounding to later Protestant teaching. Jesus, in our place, bears our sin and obeys the law of God on our behalf, with the result that God’s justice is met and we are free from his wrath.

It seems, then, that Luther does indeed understand justification as including both forgiveness and the imputation of Christ’s obedience to God’s “standard of righteousness.” What we see in Luther may not be the same explicit, systematic formulation of imputation that marks later Protestantism, but the raw material, so to speak, is there. We do need to recognize the primary role of forgiveness in Luther’s theology of justification, but this emphasis is hardly surprising since Luther was facing issues such as the Roman Catholic view of the propitiation of divine wrath through penance.21 Perhaps this is the background for Luther’s statement that “it is impossible for us to purchase forgiveness.” Certainly Luther’s statements and emphases must be read ultimately in light of his historical context. In short, Luther’s underscoring of...