The Case For Covenant Communion -- A Review

Rayburn, et al. The Case For Covenant Communion. Edited by Gregg Strawbridge. Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2006. 210 pp. with foreward, appendix, and Scripture index. $14.95 (paper) ISBN 0-9753914-3-7.

CFCC presents a forceful case that covenant children within the church should be allowed to participate in communion. The case presented here is grounded in Scripture, history, and covenant theology, and is in general well-argued. Though the various arguments are not entirely dispositive, they are nevertheless the ones to be reckoned with by those who think about communion in Reformed Churches.

The book consists of a series of essays by various contributors. The first article, by Robert Rayburn, sets forth the framework of the argument. As Rayburn sees it, children should be admitted to the table because (pp. 14-15)

* Children of believers have always participated in covenant meals and been nourished thereby,
* The theology of covenant children demands participation,
* The sole argument against paedocommunion, from 1 Cor 11, is based on a misreading, and
* Paedocommunion was the practice of the early church.

The articles that follow then flesh out Rayburn's skeleton. Jordan demonstrates that children participated in Passover and the other OT feast meals; Leithart explores the theology of those meals. Gallant, Sutton, and Lusk argue for childrens' participation in communion as a necessary consequence of covenant theology. Meyers and Strawbridge deconstruct the objections to paedocommunion. The article by Blake Purcell attempts to demonstrate that paedocommunion was practiced as early as the first century.

These articles are followed by a fascinating reprint of Rayburn's article in Presbyterion 22.2 of the development of the Presbyterian theology of covenant children, which includes details about the 1857 controversy between Charles Hodge and Thornwell concerning the status of unbelieving covenant children. Included are a set of excellent questions and objections by V. Philips Long which were part of the original Presbyterion article.

The book's case is stimulating and persuasive, but not finally compelling. Meyer's argument helped me to rethink the current communion practices at our church and to strongly consider a lower age for the communion table. Jordan's argument is speculative at points, but his central claim, that children did partake of the Passover, is quite well-established and demolishes Murray's contention that only adults participated. On the other hand, Purcell's attempt to push the date of paedocommunion to the first century is strikingly unpersuasive, as the evidence prior to Cyprian (AD 250) is simply too thin to bear the weight he wishes to place on it.

In the end, the central issue appears to be one's reading of 1 Cor 11.

If in fact 1 Cor 11.28 means "examine yourselves", then all of the other arguments can be seen in other lights. Perhaps the Passover has been modified in the New Covenant to require evidence of the circumcision of the heart. Or perhaps the children that participated in Passover were young, but not infants. Perhaps the theology of covenant children demands that we prepare children to partake, rather than give them communion as early as possible. These hypotheses are but examples of the routes one is compelled to take if 1 Cor 11.28 is indeed a command to be followed by all who partake.

But if on the other hand 1 Cor 11.28 is directed solely at the misbehaving Corinthian adults (so Rayburn), or means "prove yourselves" (so Meyers), then the objections to paedocommunion evaporate entirely.

This point needs to be discussed further. The current weight of translation work lies heavily on the side of self-inspection; yet Rayburn's argument that the command is directed towards the miscreants at Corinth is compelling. Whatever the case, we can be grateful to the authors for bringing the discussion to the fore and providing substantial food for thought.

One question that I brought to the book was its degree of entanglement with Federal Vision theology. Since so many of the contributors are also signatories to the Federal Vision Statement, and since that same statement explicitly advocates paedocommunion, I found myself approaching the book wondering to what extent I would have to evaluate its arguments without the benefit of accepting or understanding all of the Federal Vision.

To my pleasant surprise, I found that the arguments stand more or less on their own. The case for paedocommunion is argued almost entirely within the bounds of theology that is common to the Reformed community.

An experienced churchman might ask, "Why revisit the issue at this time, since both the PCA and OPC have considered and rejected paedocommunion in the past?" The answer appears to be this: even if paedocommunion is not the answer, the unacceptably long period of time that our children wait to take communion is a problem. This book serves as a stimulus to reconsider that problem afresh.

JRC

For further reading:
1987 OPC report on Paedocommunion
1988 PCA report on Paedocommunion.
Read more...

The Role of Love in Debate

Eph. 4.14-16

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Here in Ephesians, Paul pronounces the eschatological destiny of the church: to grow up.

What is notable is that the growth occurs by means of speaking the truth in love and working to build itself up in love.

Here, "in love" is adverbial; it is the manner in which we speak and work. Love is the motive that supplies the context for our speech and actions, and only that motive will suffice to cause growth (cf. 1 Cor 13).

Love is the frame in which our truth rests. Without that frame, our "truths" are not Truly True.

It's that simple: speak the truth *outside* of a motive to love, and you've failed to tell the whole truth.

And so we have

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. (4.25-27)

and again,

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (4.29, and 30-31 prob. relevant as well)

At some point in the future, I'd like to explore here the connections between speech and love in the context of theological debate. I need to explore, for the sake of my soul, the ways in which I fail to frame my "truths" in love -- and hence fail to tell True Truth.

At issue are passages like 1 Cor 13 and 14, James 3, and the odd connection of phrase between James 5.19-20 ("whoever turns a sinner from his ways ... will cover over a multitude of sins") and 1 Peter 4.8 ("Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.") Perhaps other passages will surface also.

JRC
Read more...

The Obedience of Christ in Hebrews

As I've tried to wrap my mind around the food fight known as "The Federal Vision Controversy", one point stands out. Some who identify themselves with The Federal Vision believe that it is a mistake to speak of Christ's active obedience imputed to us:

We deny that faithfulness to the gospel message requires any particular doctrinal
formulation of the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ.” What matters is that we confess that our salvation is all of Christ, and not from us. FV Statement 6

In my reading, I have understood their reluctance to stem from a controversy between Kline and Murray concerning the appropriateness of the term "Covenant of Works" to describe Adam's covenantal situation in the Garden: Do Adam's and Christ's works "merit" damnation and salvation, respectively, OR do Adam's and Christ's statuses secure damnation and salvation? That's probably an oversimplification, and for those who don't know the inside baseball (I'm a novice!), the appropriate question is probably "Who cares?!"

In any event, the argument has then proceeded on systematic lines. IF we abandon active obedience, the Kline camp urges, then we abandon the gospel. No, IF we allow for Adam to "merit" something in the Garden, then we make God beholden to His creation, say the Murrayites. Part of this discussion can be found here and here.

Hold the phone...here is a discussion in which Anthony Cowley examines precisely the passages I was thinking about in worship this morning. But he goes in a different direction with it, so I'll keep writing.

Anyways, what I wanted to say is this: I think the book of Hebrews provides a sufficient basis for a legitimate use of the phrase "Imputation of Active Obedience of Christ."

And here's the case:

During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Heb. 5.7-10.

Important to the writer of the Hebrews is this point: though Jesus already had the status of Son, he went beyond this status and actively obeyed God, reaching some state of "perfection" or "completion." What that state is and how it goes beyond being the eternal son of God (Heb 1.2-3), the author doesn't say. But his obedience is needed in order for him to have the status of our high priest.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. Heb 7.23-28

Here, our salvation is necessarily contingent on Jesus' particular characteristics: ever-livingness, holiness, blamelessness, etc., down to being exalted above the heavens. Notably, he is appointed because he had previously been made perfect, which connects back to his obedience from chapter 5.

...How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. Heb 9.14-15.

Here, the author develops the idea of our salvation. We are saved (a) because our consciences have been cleansed, because (b) Jesus the unblemished sacrifice -- connecting back to the language of ch. 7, which in turn rests on ch. 5 -- offered himself for us.

And then finally,

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "

First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb. 10.5-10

Here the author makes explicit that Jesus' obedience to God's will not only qualifies him to be our sacrifice (as developed in ch. 5-->7-->9), but also that his sacrifice makes us holy.

What can we conclude from this? First, that Jesus' righteousness includes, as one aspect, his active obedience to the Father. Above and beyond his nature as the second person of the Trinity, above and beyond his status as Messiah (Phil. 2.9), he also acted in a way that resulted in his worthiness as our sacrifice.

Second, that Jesus' righteousness becomes ours and makes us holy.

Put it together, and we have this: Jesus' active obedience becomes a part of the package by which I am reckoned -- logizomai -- to be holy.

Hence, in this sense at least, Christ's active obedience is imputed to me.

Does this answer the question of mechanism? No. Does it settle the dispute over merit? No.

But what is clear from the Scriptures is that there is a legitimate sense in which Christ's active obedience is imputed to me. For those who dislike an Anselmian sense of merit, or a Thomistic sense of merit, or a Klinian sense of merit -- here's your antidote: Affirm the IAOC in the sense that the author to the Hebrews affirms it.

JRC
Read more...

The magisterial authority of Rome?

Fellow blogger Bryan, a Covenant grad and now member of the Roman Catholic church, has challenged some of us Presbyterians with the notion that we cannot escape the Gnostic mentality if we refuse the magisterial authority of Rome.

While I do not agree with this concept, I am willing to listen. Bryan, are you willing to grace this blog with your thoughts?

JRC Read more...

Paedocommunion -- A Modest Proposal

No, it isn't what you readers of Jonathan Swift are thinking.

It's just this: as I've been thinking about the issue of paedocommunion in regard to Federal Vision and whatnot, I've been struck by the case of my own three-year-old daughter.

One of her recent questions: "Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for me?"

Now it strikes me that at a developmentally appropriate level of understanding, she's a believer. I honestly feel uncomfortable with the fact that she doesn't receive communion when it is served (when I help distribute it, no less!).

First question: what do the standards have to say about it?

BCO 12-5:

The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual
government of the church, for which purpose it has power:
a. To inquire into the knowledge, principles and Christian conduct of
the church members under its care; to censure those found
delinquent; to see that parents do not neglect to present their children
for Baptism; to receive members into the communion of the Church;
to remove them for just cause; to grant letters of dismissal to other
churches, which when given to parents, shall always include the
names of their non-communing, baptized children;

BCO 57:

57-1. Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially those
dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under the care of
the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to obey and serve the
Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand the Gospel, they should
be earnestly reminded that they are members of the Church by birthright, and
that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, to confess Him
before men, and to seek admission to the Lord’s Supper.
57-2. The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel cannot
be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the Session, whose
office it is to judge, after careful examination, the qualifications of those who
apply for admission to sealing ordinances...

57-4. It is recommended, as edifying and proper, that baptized persons,
when admitted by the Session to the Lord’s Supper, make a public profession
of their faith in the presence of the congregation. But in all cases, there
should be a clear recognition of their previous relation to the church as
baptized members.

BCO 58:

58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's
Supper.

Larger Catechism:

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

So what are the underlying Scriptural arguments here? The PCA position paper outlines the primary lines of thought. On the one hand, as per the majority position, the Reformed theologians have traditionally insisted that children be capable of fulfilling Paul's command to examine oneself:

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions. 1 Cor 11.17-33 NIV

The majority felt simply that young children are incapable of examining themselves.

The minority responded unsuccessfully that the parallel between Passover and Communion is strong enough to require parallel practices also. Since children were admitted to Passover, they should be admitted to Communion also. (Aside: Murray denies that children were admitted to Passover in a footnote in Christian Baptism that I don't have in front of me, stressing the 'you' in Ex. 12.26, "why do you do this?" That argument seems thin to me.)

The second majority argument, developing out of Calvin's theology of communion, was that communion is not effective ex operato, but only through faith. Thus, communion (unlike baptism) requires an active response of faith.

(It is this argument that no doubt led to Wilson's rude title of one of the articles in Credenda, "Give 'em the bread, you lumpy anabaptists!")

What to make of this in light of 1 Cor 11?

First, it will not do to argue that all kids, regardless of expressed faith or otherwise, should have communion. To so argue makes light of Paul's warning, "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." If this warning has any force as a warning, it must mean that we make some effort to fence the table from the "ignorant and scandalous"; else, we are like the man in Proverbs who sees danger and fails to warn of it. Children unable to express faith of any sort should probably not receive communion.

But second, it will not do to deny believing children access to communion for up to 10 years of their lives just so that we can verify that they really are Jacobs instead of Esaus. That's an unacceptably long time of "covenantal probation."

So here's the proposal: allow sessions, as per BCO 12-5, to develop developmentally appropriate examination questions for kids, to be asked prior to admitting them to communion. And then keeping examining them every two years, again with developmentally appropriate questions, so that they can continue to see that they are in the faith. Or not, which is a kindness as well.

As I read it, this proposal is in line with the standards, fulfills the requirements of 1 Cor 11, and also fulfills Jesus' command to let the little children come to Him in Mark 10.13-16.

JRC
Read more...

Who v. whom in the courtroom of justification?

One of the striking and welcome features of Wright's theology is his insistence that Paul's Christianity was a fulfillment and realignment, rather than a rejection, of his former Pharisaism.

In particular, Wright lays out the case that Saul of Tarsus was a Shammaite Pharisee whose hope for Israel was an eschatological one, rooted in a future justification of Israel over against the pagan nations:

What happens, then, when we put the covenantal meaning of God's righteousness together with the metaphorical level drawn from the lawcourt scene? God, of course, is the judge. Israel comes before him to plead her case against the wicked pagans who are oppressing her. She longs for her case to come to court, for God to hear it, and, in his own righteousness, to deliver her from her enemies. She longs, that is, to be justified, acquitted, vindicated. And, because the God who is the judge is also her covenant God, she pleads with him: be faithful to your covenant! Vindicate me in your righteousness! (WSPRS 98-99)

So for Wright, Saul's idea of justification, identical to the ideas expressed in other 2nd temple sources like the War Scroll, was a law-court status of "vindicated!", delivered eschatologically. The plaintiff was Israel; the defendants were the pagans; the judge was God.

But now, says Wright, Saul's world is turned upside down by his encounter with the resurrected Lord on the Damascus road. This one event immediately causes the realization that Jesus has been vindicated in the face of his enemies:

The significance of Jesus' resurrection, for Saul of Tarsus as he lay blinded and perhaps bruised on the road to Damascus, was this. The one true God had done for Jesus of Nazareth, in the middle of time, what Saul had thought he was going to do for Israel at the end of time. Saul had imagined the YHWH would vindicate Israel after her suffering at the hand of the pagans. Instead, he had vindicated Jesus after his suffering at the hand of the pagans. (WSPRS 36)

(This quote, BTW, is my favorite Wrightism)

Wright now connects Paul's idea of justification organically to that of his former self. What remains in Paul's theology is the covenantal, law-court, and eschatological character of justification. What has changed is the realization that the Jew-and-Gentile wall is leveled, so that all are justified by participating in the Messianic victory of Jesus:

Within this context [of Romans 2-3], 'justification', as seen in 3:24-26, means that those who believe in Jesus Christ are declared to be members of the true covenant family; which of course means that their sins are forgiven, since that was the purpose of the covenant. They are given the status of being 'righteous' in the metaphorical law court...it means that they are declared, in the present, to be what they will be seen to be in the future, namely the true people of God. (WSPRS 129)

...those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his poeple, his elect, 'the circumcision', 'the Jews', 'the Israel of God'. They are given the status dikaios, 'righteous', 'within the covenant' (Paul, 122)

This is a fascinating way of framing justification, and I am grateful to Wright for bringing out the connections between Paul's theology of justification and Saul's (who is assumed by Wright to be consistent with 2nd Temple Shammaite Pharisees).

Wright's speculations about Saul's hope for Israel rings true on many levels: what Paul himself says (cf. Rom. 11); the OT hopes for Israel found in Psalms and the prophets; the distinctions made by the Pharisees between Jews and Gentiles as 'sinners' in Galatians and the Gospels; and the little I know of non-Scriptural 2nd Temple works such as the apocrypha all converge on a picture of justification that agrees with Wright's.

But here's the thing: I don't think Wright goes far enough in understanding how Paul's picture of justification changes on the Damascus road.

Come back again to Saul's picture: Israel is in court against the pagans. God renders righteous judgment against the pagans; Israel is justified.

Now on the Damascus road, Paul realizes that Jesus is the one who is justified. But who else is in the court? Wright would have it that the pagans continue to be the other party in the complaint.

I don't think so. Rather, I think that Paul's understanding of the courtroom is entirely overturned: formerly, he had believed himself to be on the "justified" side. Now, in an instant, he realizes that he's been on the wrong side -- the "pagan" side -- and that God himself is the accuser (as well as the judge) in this courtroom.

What leads to this conclusion?

First, this is the clear polemic thrust of Romans 2 and 3, 4, and 9 - 11. Paul is anxious to communicate that Israel has imagined herself to be on God's justified side, when in fact it stands condemned by the very law she professes (Rom. 2.17-29, esp. 3.9, 3.20, 4.12-16, esp. 9.6-8 and 30-31). Israel is not what she imagines, but instead has been leveled to the status of 'condemned' along with pagans who do not keep the law.

Second, this polemic thrust derives from (Rom. 9.6-13, 25-29; 10.19-21; 11.2-5) a common theme in Israel's redemptive history: that those who thought themselves justified were in fact rejected and judged by God himself. We might think also here of Acts 28.25-28, in which the Israelites are cast off. Importantly, in prophets such as Hosea and Amos, God is both judge and plaintiff at the same time.

Third, Paul's polemic thrust is entirely consistent with Jesus' prophetic ministry to the Jews, especially the Pharisees. In the parables of the vineyard (Matt. 21.28-32, 33-46) Jesus makes the point that in the eschatological judgment, his (unrepentant) hearers will be found on the wrong side. This is all about justification -- and the Pharisees won't be justified. The same message occurs in the living parable of the fig tree (Mark 11.12 - 25, which Wright brilliantly links to the temple judgment event in JVG 413-428). And most explicitly, Jesus says this:

"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8.39-44 NIV

Compare to John's the Baptist's warning:

John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." Luke 3.7-9 NIV

This is eschatological language; this is court-room language; this is covenantal language. This a warning about the coming crisis of justification for those who believed themselves on the righteous side, but are not.

Fourth and finally, it is worthwhile to reconsider Paul's statement about himself:

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 1 Tim. 1.15 NASB

I had always read this verse primarily in moral terms, thinking of Saul's murderous rampage on the church and his blasphemy towards Christ. All of that is still true. But Wright has sensitized us a bit to the racial implications of this claim: who were the sinners in the mind of Saul of Tarsus and his fellow Pharisees? The Gentiles. In identifying himself as a sinner, Paul is declaring solidarity with the Gentiles. In like fashion, he levels all men to the status of Gentile sinners in Romans 3.9.

From all of this, it seems fair to conclude that more happened on the Damascus road than Wright allows. The courtroom scene changes entirely: God remains as righteous judge, but he displaces Israel as the plaintiff. Israel's status is reversed; she is moved over from the plaintiff's bench and lumped together with the Gentiles as defendants. Chief witness for the prosecution is Moses, in whom she trusted. And the chief of this sorry crew in the dock is Saul himself.

Justification now is seen in terms of Christ identifying himself with the accused, so that those accused who identify with him by faith are vindicated "in him." He acts in the courtroom both as an intercedent for the whole and also as faithful covenant Lord of Israel, herself stained with sin.

What's the prize in seeing justification in this way? It appears to provide a bridge between classic Reformed theology and Wright's version of the "New Perspective". Speaking out of the Reformed tradition, I've been very happy to read Wright's insistence that justification is covenantal, based on inclusion in Christ, and eschatological in outlook.

But I've been very uncomfortable with Wright's apparent stubborn refusal to associate justification with our moral guilt before God, to insist instead that it's all about membership status in God's people, with forgiveness as a secondary outcome of covenant membership.

Moral guilt seems to be sufficiently connected in Romans, Galatians, and Colossians to justification to merit a primary rather than secondary connection to that topic. Moral guilt seems also to be an incredibly prominent theme in the prophets with regard to "who's in and who's out" of God's people. I can't escape the notion that justification's primary referent in Paul is vindication before God, not before pagans like Caesar.

I think that bridge is found here, in Saul's sudden recognition that the courtroom is reversed, and he himself is in the dock.

Sources:

WSPRS - What Saint Paul Really Said
Paul - Paul: In Fresh Perspective
JVG - Jesus and the Victory of God
Read more...

The righteousness of God in 2 Cor 5.21

Have you read the introduction?

2 Cor 5.18 – 21 is one of the five (or six) passages in which Paul uses the phrase "righteousness of God" (Rom 1.17, Rom. 3, Rom 10.3, 2 Cor 5.21, 2 Cor 9.9; arguably in Eph. 4.24). Wright exegetes this passage in a way that supports his idea that the "righteousness of God" in Paul refers to God's covenant faithfulness, rather than a quality of righteousness that is given to men. A close reading of the passage reveals, however, that Wright's exegesis is unlikely. Whatever the "righteousness of God" might mean in 2 Cor 5.21, it is certainly a quality conferred to us in some way as a solution for the problem of sin.

Central to Wright's repackaging of the term "justification" is the insistence that Christendom has misunderstood Paul's phrase "righteousness of God" since the time of Augustine. Rather than a phrase referring to an abstract moral quality or status, either possessed by or conferred by God, Wright understands the "righteousness of God" to mean "God's covenant faithfulness." That is, God is righteous because he faithfully executes the covenant promises he has made, first to Israel and then also to the Gentiles included in the scope of the Abrahamic covenant (WSPRS, chap. 5 and 6). Wright's case for reunderstanding the "righteousness of God" is built on an exegetical survey of the passages in which this phrase is used by Paul. One of these is 2 Cor 5.18 – 21, which Wright addresses in a separate essay.

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor 5.18 – 21 ESV

ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι' ἡμῶν: δεόμεθα ὑπέρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάυητε τῳ θεῳ. τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτοῦ. 2 Cor 5.20 - 21 (BibleWorks Greek, apparently Nestle-Aland 27).

Historically, Luther focused on the first half of v. 21, that Christ became sin for us (Commentary on Gal., 3.13). Calvin on the other hand drew out the parallelism:

We may now return to the contrast drawn in this verse between righteousness and sin. How can we become righteous before God? In the same way as Christ became a sinner. For He took, as it were, our person, that He might be the offender in our name and thus might be reckoned a sinner, not because of His own offences but because of those of others, since He Himself was pure and free from every fault and bore the penalty that was our due and not His own. now in the same way we we righteous in Him, not because we have satisfied God's judgment...but because we are judged in relation to Christ's righteousness which we have put on by faith, that it may become our own. (Calvin, 5.21)

Wright believes that this way of reading 2 Cor 5.21 was a mistake on the Reformers' part.

His understanding is that v. 21 is connected not to a discussion of justification but rather to a discussion of the covenantal character of Paul's ministry. It is Paul and his fellow ministers who "become the righteousness of God."

Paul is not talking about justification but his own apostolic ministry; that he has already described this in chapter 3 as the ministry of the new covenant; that the point at issue is the fact that the apostles are ambassadors of Christ, with God making his appeal through them; and that therefore the apostolic ministry, including its suffering, fear, and apparent failure, is itself an incarnation of the covenant faithfulness of God. (WSPRS 104 – 105)

The reasons he gives for rejecting Calvin's analysis are four:

(a) that once again Paul never actually says this anywhere else; (b) that here it is God’s righteousness, not Christ’s, that “we” apparently “become”; (c) that there seems to be no good reason why he suddenly inserts this statement into a discussion whose thrust is quite different, namely, a consideration of the paradoxical apostolic ministry in which Christ is portrayed in and
through the humiliating weakness of the apostle (4:7-6:13); and (d) the verse, read in this way, seems to fall off the end of the preceding argument, so much so that some commentators have suggested that the real break in the thought comes not between 5:21 and 6:1 but between 5:19 and 5:20 (BRG 3).

Wright's exegesis raises two questions. First, what is the set of people in 5.21 who "become the righteousness of God"? Second, what is the relationship of 5.21 to the surrounding context?

Wright's answer to the first is that Paul and the apostles, those involved in the ministry, are the ones who embody God's covenant faithfulness. His ground is the answer to the second question: 5.21 must refer to Paul's ministry, else "…[i]f you insist on reading 2 Corinthians 5:21 with a meaning … [like] 'imputed righteousness' – you will find, as many commentators have, that it detaches itself from the rest of the chapter and context, as though it were a little floating saying that Paul threw in here for good measure." (WSPRS 105). In other words, surrounding context forces Wright into his reading.

As far as it goes, at least two of Wright's points are sound. Certainly 2 Corinthians 5 is a continuation of the discussion of the character of Paul's ministry carried out in chapter 3 (indeed, beginning as early as 1.8), and the point at issue in chapter 5 is certainly that the apostles are the suffering ambassadors proclaiming God's gospel. None of this is subject to serious dispute, and it connects in a delightfully organic way with the entire argument of 2 Corinthians that culminates in chapters 10 - 12: that the suffering of Paul validates his ministry over against the ministry of the superapostles.^[*]

However, it is important to see that there are actually two strands of dialogue going on in chapters 4 and 5 of 2 Corinthians. The first, occupying the majority of the text, is Paul's description of the character of his ministry. Wright correctly identifies this with the discussion of the covenants in chapter 3. The second strand, which surfaces in 4.5, 4.14, 5.14 - 15, 5.17, and most explicitly in 5.20, is the content of Paul's ministry, his ambassadorial appeal: "Be reconciled to God."

In weaving these two strands together, Paul reveals his motivation for his appeal. The need for reconciliation is caused because men are in the process of perishing (4.3). They are perishing because of the guilt of their sin, which will result in an unfavorable verdict on the day when they appear before the judgment seat of God to receive according to what they have done, whether good or bad (5.10). Thus, people are naturally at enmity with God. The enmity requires that ambassadors such as Paul must be sent with a message of reconciliation.

At this point, it is clear that justification is precisely in view in Paul's mind. He is thinking of the eschatological verdict that must be rendered at the final judgment, in which the verdict of "righteousness" is required in order to belong to God's people. The coming crisis of justification or lack thereof leads to the need for Paul's ministry.

Hence, Wright is correct in claiming that the overall thrust of chapter 5 is Paul's covenantal ministry; he is incorrect to assume that therefore justification is not in view. The content of Paul's ministry is entirely wrapped up in offering men the opportunity to change the eschatological verdict pronounced upon them at God's judgment.

In light of this, the flow of thought of 5.18 – 20 is clear:

• Paul himself has been reconciled (5.18a)
  
• And has therefore been given the ministry of reconciliation (5.18b)
  
• Which consists of God's reconciling the world to himself, NOT counting their sins against them (5.19a),
  
• And which ministry he has committed to Paul (5.19b).
  
• Thus, he is an ambassador as if God were pleading through him (5.20a):
  
• "Be reconciled to God" (5.20b).
  

Notably, 5.20b is the explicit content of Paul's reconciliation proclamation. It is the ambassador's speech itself.

Where does 5.21 fit into this context? NTW believes that 5.21 is a restatement of Paul's explanation of his ministry, and that therefore the clause "that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" means that Paul in his ministry is becoming the embodiment of the covenant faithfulness of God, offering reconciliation to the world.

Wright's reading therefore comes to this: "God sent Jesus to the cross, taking on the sin of us apostles, so that we might have a ministry that embodies the covenant faithfulness of God (which includes the offer of reconciliation just mentioned in 5.20)."

This is an unsatisfactory train of thought. The "righteousness of God" in 5.21b is in clear opposition to the sins of men in 5.21a. God's purpose in making men the righteousness of God has directly to do with reversing the problem of sin, accomplishing this by making Jesus to become sin on their behalf.
In this light, it seems clear that 5.21 is a continuation of the ambassador's speech. The punctuation should read thus:

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: "We implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Paul's train of thought is made much clearer on this reading. He has a message of reconciliation: Be reconciled to God (v. 20). But that sentence is insufficiently clear on its own, and so needs a follow-on in verse 21. How can one be reconciled? Answer: You can be reconciled by becoming God's righteousness in Christ. Verses 5.20b - 5.21 are the content of Paul's ambassadorial speech.

What features demand this reading over against Wright's? First, as above, a clear parallel exists between Christ's becoming sin in order that "we" might become the righteousness of God. It is most natural for the set of people who become the righteousness of God to be the same set as those for whom Christ became sin, and whatever reading we adopt must account for the fact that becoming God's righteousness is parallel to Jesus' becoming sin.

Second, the repetition of the phrase "in Christ" in connection with the content of the reconciliation message strongly suggests that 5.21 also concerns the content of the reconciliation message:

• Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! (5.17)
  
• ...that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.(5.19)
  
• God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.(5.21) NIV

These two features appear to me to sufficiently answer the two questions, "Who are the set of people who become God's righteousness?", and "What is the relationship of the passage to its surrounding context?"

Wright's analysis, on the other hand, relies too much on the overall covenantal reading without paying attention to the features mentioned above:

In the light of this exegesis of chaps. 3-5, and this reading of 5:11-20 in particular, the thrust of 5:21 emerges into the light. It is not an aside, a soteriological statement thrown in here for good measure as though to explain how it is that people can in fact thus be reconciled. It is a climactic statement of the whole argument so far. The “earthen vessel” that Paul knows himself to be (4:7) has found the problem of his own earthiness dealt with, and has found itself filled, paradoxically, with treasure indeed: “for our sake God made Christ, who did not know sin, to be a sin-offering for us, so that in him we might become God’s covenant-faithfulness.” The “righteousness of God” in this verse is not a human status in virtue of which the one who has “become” it stands righteous” before God, as in Lutheran soteriology. It is the covenant faithfulness of the one true God, now
active through the paradoxical Christ-shaped ministry of Paul, reaching out with the offer of reconciliation to all who hear his bold preaching. What the whole passage involves, then, is the idea of the covenant ambassador, who represents the one for whom he speaks in such a full and thorough way that he actually becomes the living embodiment of his sovereign — or perhaps, in the light of 4:7-18 and
6:1-10, we should equally say the dying embodiment. Once this is grasped as the meaning of 5:21, it appears that this meaning fits very well with the graphic language of those other passages, especially 4:10-12. (BRG 4-5)

At the same moment, Wright wants the righteousness of God to be "reaching out with a message of reconciliation" on the basis of Christ's sin offering, yet he wants the "righteousness of God" to be the quality that Paul and his ambassadorial friends embody in their ministry of suffering and dying. The set of people who become God's righteousness is confused in Wright's analysis.

Contrary to Wright's assertion, reading "the righteousness of God" as a quality that He imparts to men is not "an aside, a soteriological statement thrown in for good measure." Rather, it is the content of the ambassadorial speech, made necessary by the paradoxical nature of the gospel message. We appeal to you, be reconciled to God -- not by the natural way of changing your behavior to please him, but through the great exchange of your sin for Christ's and his righteousness for yours.

Luther and Calvin, as it turns out, were on the right track. And therefore in this instance, the "righteousness of God" is indeed a quality that God imparts to men (all for whom Christ became sin) so that they "become" it.

So what of Wright's four objections above? Clearly, (a), that Paul never mentions becoming the righteousness of God anywhere else, is a matter of considerable debate. In my view (influenced by Luther and Calvin), 5.21 is simply a rephrasing of the argument in Galatians 3, in which we become righteous not through works of the law but through faith in Christ who became a curse for us. Similarly, I find it impossible to read Romans 10.3-4 without seeing the "righteousness of God"
as a quality which the unbelieving Jews have failed to become or receive. Objection (b), that "we" are becoming God's righteousness rather than Christ's (and thus that imputation is impossible here), seems hair-splitting in light of Paul's ready switching back and forth between persons of the Trinity (cf. Romans 8.9). And objections (c) and (d), that reading "God's righteousness" in a soteriological sense causes verse 21 to become disjoint from the rest of the argument, are based on a false choice stemming from Wright's failure to discern the two threads of dialogue in chapters 4 and 5. Verse 21 as a soteriological statement is not a non-sequitur but rather joins 5.20b as a succinct statement of Paul's ambassadorial appeal.

None of this denies that "God's righteousness" includes his covenant faithfulness, or that 5.21 is integrally related to Paul's larger argument about his ministry. Rather, it simply makes the point that the set of those who become the righteousness of God is the set of those for whom Christ became sin, not Wright's more limited set of apostles, or perhaps ministers of the gospel. The immediate context demands a reading of 'becoming righteousness' that relates clearly to the reading of 'becoming sin.'

Finally, this argument does not address the question of whether the righteousness in view is one that is imputed forensically per Luther or imparted by infusion per Trent, or both or neither. The only point is to demonstrate that in this instance, at least, the "righteousness of God" is a quality imparted to us in a salvific sense.

^[*]
Here I take the view, argued elsewhere, that 2 Corinthians forms a whole argument that culminates in chapters 10 - 12.

Sources:

WSPRS - What Saint Paul Really Said
BRG - On Becoming the Righteousness of God
Calvin - Calvin's Commentaries, II Corinthians, ed. Torrance.
Read more...