One of the fiercest debates about the new perspective, from the old perspective angle, is the issue of double imputation and whether there are "two principles" at work in the human soul: the principle of works (self-merit) and the principle faith (no self-merit). Tom Wright's Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision
next section (pp.210-216) takes both on through the lens of Romans 3:27-28. I'll quote that text, quote Wright, and then ask a question: Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle [Greek: nomos or Torah] ? On that of observing the law? No, but on that [nomos/Torah] of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
The translation of "nomos"/law with "principle" is a much-disputed translation, and one Wright does not agree with. Wright believes the people of God keep the Torah through faith vs. those who aren't who keep the Torah through works.
Here is Wright on double imputation, which is worked into this text by the Reformers:
Now the questions: Do you think there is any NT text that teaches double imputation? Do you think there are texts combined that teach double imputation? Is double imputation something the Reformers developed or something that can be found prior to the them? Is it a development of the NT or part of the NT?
"Imputed righteousness is a Reformation answer to a medieval question, in the medieval terms which were themselves part of the problem." More: "The idea that what sinners need is for someone else's 'righteousness' to be credited to their account simply muddles up the categories, importing with huge irony into the equation the idea that the same tradition worked so hard to eliminate, namely the suggestion that, after all, 'righteousness' here means 'moral virtue,' 'the merit acquired from lawkeeping' or something like that. We don't have any of that, said the Reformers, so we have to have someone else's credited to us, and 'justification' can't mean 'being made righteous,' as though God first pumps a little bit of moral virtue into us and then generously regards the part as standing for the whole."For Wright, righteousness/justification means the status of those who have been found in favor by the judge.
Now the questions: Do you think there is any NT text that teaches double imputation? Do you think there are texts combined that teach double imputation? Is double imputation something the Reformers developed or something that can be found prior to the them? Is it a development of the NT or part of the NT?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
David (#7), the boasting was not by Jews who thought they *kept Torah* (as if they were meriting salvation) and therefore were righteous, but by Jews who were boasting that they *possessed Torah* and the Gentiles didn't. Because the Jews had Torah, they felt superior to Gentiles. *That* boasting is what is decimated by Paul's logic. They failed in the faith of Abraham who was blessed to create a nation that would be a blessing to all nations. The Jews failed miserably in that purpose. Jesus--the true Israelite--fulfills his nation's purpose. Because it was a failure of purpose, then it was also a failure of merit...all sinned and fall short of God's glory.
Whatever the *theological* basis for double imputation, we need more clarity on the legal fiction created by the Reformers. Pastorally, to inform people that Jesus was permeated with the sin of all human beings--past, present and future--and people who believe i Jesus are "credited" with Jesus' righteousness by mere assent that these things are true, is dangerous. It translates to "the bar-code gospel" (ala Dallas Willard) or "fire insurance." It is the equivalent of Jewish men showing their circumcision to God and who are thus ushered into paradise. As NT Wright stresses: the OPP does very little with the Holy Spirit in the justification of human beings.
John W Frye (#18) Thanks for trying to help, John. You seem to be saying that the Jews failed to be faithful and that meant they were sinning. That doesn't look to me what Paul is saying. I read Paul as that it was their sinning that was their failure: if they hadn't sinned, they wouldn't be failing, and they would be being faithful. Paul quotes Moses as saying that you are justified by the law by keeping it, not by just having it. So, it seems to me you have things back to front.
Wright makes a lot of verse 29, claiming it means "if justification were by the works of Torah rather than by faith - then it would mean that God was the God of the Jews only" (p.186, GB). I read it differently, as saying since justification is not by Torah, then it is by faith for Jews, and for any man (anthropos), so for gentiles. My reading says it is Jews who are the second class citizens, if any, and they need to come out from under Torah to be able to join gentiles who are not hampered by it. One might go so far as to say it means that God is God of the gentiles and Jews can join in if they are prepared to join on the same basis as gentiles, faith. Wright has got things back to front.
Scot,
that's exactly what I was going for. I definitely was not defending imputation, just stating that there is definitely something there, as you mentioned. I'm not a believer in imputation as it is held to, and agree with Wright on the issue (you also).
"the gospel is not double imputation." - So true, and what an empty Gospel that would be.
I just really like what you did in Community Called Atonement. I feel like too often some people (like NTW) seem to say lots of great things, and correctly argue against imputation, but too often they don't talk about where it needs to go... you did that in that book, and it was incredibly refreshing.
I remember when I first came across the autobiography of Charles Finney and ripping into a lot of his sermons. Finney seems to be much hated these days, but his writing had a huge impact on me.
Several of his sermons dealt with imputation of righteousness (http://www.gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/lptc05_just_by_faith.htm for example)
Finney's approach was usually systematic rather than exegetical, but it made sense to me at the time. I mention this simply because it re-enforces that this is not a new debate.
While I'm not a Finney fanboy, I think he makes sense when he discusses righteousness being an issue of morality, as opposed to justification being a change in legal status. It doesn't make logical sense to say that you can transfer one person's moral status to another, but it does in terms of their legal status.
I seem to remember, in a discussion about this with a friend, that the issue was confused by the same greek word being able to refer to both "righteousness" and "justification". But that was a long time ago and I don't have my dictionary with me to look that up now.
#19 David Yates
I think you should re-read Paul. There is no hint in Paul that Jews are second class citizens, or that Gentiles have a more direct route to God. It sounds to me like you are coming from a very legalistic understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism (particularly 1st Century) which could be easily corrected by reading from the various 2nd Temple works available. Doing so would make it very clear that the average Jew was in no ways legalistic as is commonly understood in most Protestant (and particularly Reformed) thinking. However, they were very interested in the boundaries of the "true people of God". This is clear from reading the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarian works, the works of Philo, and even the early Rabbinic writings. (This is, by the way, how the New Perspective got started.
Second, you really should pay attention to what Jesus has to say about Torah and Law (Matt. 5:18-19), what he has to say about salvation (John 4:22), what Paul has to say about the Law (Rom. 2:13 - "the doers of the Law who WILL BE justified", I could add others, but you probably have a concordance or at least access to one), what Paul has to say about the Jews (Rom. 3:1-2, Rom. 11:2, 11:17-32), etc.
The question I would ask you is, why then, did God choose Israel (and by inclusion, the Jews)? Simply to reject them? Show me the passage which teaches this. As it is, this seems to be to be exactly in the vein of Traditional Christian anti-semitism that has marred the history of the church since at least the time of Justin Martyr, and has made outreach among the Jews very, very difficult.
Jaime
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.