I recently came across this meme promoting Reformed soteriology via an appeal to 2 Cor 5:21:
Apart from being lousy artwork, it is also lousy exegesis and theology. Let us examine the eisegesis contained in this meme and other Reformed appeals to this text to support forensic justification.
In 2 Cor 5:21, we read that the Father “made [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This verse is a couplet, and what is said about the first half is mirrored by the second, viz. that the Father made (γινομαι), not merely forensically declared, the Son to be “sin” (i.e. a sin-sacrifice), and as a result, believers “become” (γινομαι) the righteousness of God “in” Christ.
That we “become” righteousness, and not merely declared to be righteousness based on an imputation of righteousness from an alien source can be seen in Rom 5:19:
The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:
Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.
Some may appeal to Phil 3:9 as “proof” of monergism:
The Greek reads:
Some argue that this verse proves that Paul did not believe any righteousness within him will avail anything of God, but instead, he teaches reliance upon an imputed righteousness. However, what Paul is actually teaching is that the source of his (intrinsic, not imputed) righteousness which will avail before God will not come from the Law/Torah, but from his faith in Christ (or “the faithfulness of Christ”; the translation of the Greek term πιστεως Χριστου is debated in many circles and won’t be discussed here). Paul is not teaching monergism nor is he teaching that he will be declared “justified” based on the imputation of an alien righteousness.
This can be seen when one examines the literature contemporary with Philippians, including the following:
For Paul, he is concerned about the origins of the righteousness within him. He is not teaching an alien imputation of forensic righteousness in this text nor 2 Cor 5:21.
Secondly, with respect to the meaning of the preposition υπερ in 2 Cor 5:21, note the following scholarly discussion showing it does not necessitate a forensic model of justification and atonement:
Finally, that the Reformed understanding is nonsensical can be seen in the fact that, if the Reformed understanding of the first part of 2 Cor 5:21 were true, that is, Christ was a penal substitute who had the sins of the elect imputed to him in their stead, then, taking the logic of penal substitution to the second half of v.21, one would have to conclude that the elect become the righteousness of God in the stead of Christ(!) Of course, such is a nonsense reading, but it does show the eisegesis Calvinism requires people to engage in to prop up such a theology.
Another Reformed "proof-text" bites the exegetical dust.
Apart from being lousy artwork, it is also lousy exegesis and theology. Let us examine the eisegesis contained in this meme and other Reformed appeals to this text to support forensic justification.
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 5:21 ESV)
In 2 Cor 5:21, we read that the Father “made [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This verse is a couplet, and what is said about the first half is mirrored by the second, viz. that the Father made (γινομαι), not merely forensically declared, the Son to be “sin” (i.e. a sin-sacrifice), and as a result, believers “become” (γινομαι) the righteousness of God “in” Christ.
That we “become” righteousness, and not merely declared to be righteousness based on an imputation of righteousness from an alien source can be seen in Rom 5:19:
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (δικαιος).
The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:
Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made (καθιστημι) ruler over this household, to give them meat in due season? . . . Verily I say unto you, That he shall made (καθιστημι) ruler over all his goods. (Matt 24:45, 47)
And delivered [Joseph of Egypt] out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him (καθιστημι) governor over Egypt and all his house . . .But he that did his neighbour wrong trust him away, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge over us? . . .This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge? The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts 7:10, 27, 35)
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained (καθιστημι) for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb 5:1)
For the law maketh (καθιστημι) men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:28)
Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.
Some may appeal to Phil 3:9 as “proof” of monergism:
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.
The Greek reads:
καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει
Some argue that this verse proves that Paul did not believe any righteousness within him will avail anything of God, but instead, he teaches reliance upon an imputed righteousness. However, what Paul is actually teaching is that the source of his (intrinsic, not imputed) righteousness which will avail before God will not come from the Law/Torah, but from his faith in Christ (or “the faithfulness of Christ”; the translation of the Greek term πιστεως Χριστου is debated in many circles and won’t be discussed here). Paul is not teaching monergism nor is he teaching that he will be declared “justified” based on the imputation of an alien righteousness.
This can be seen when one examines the literature contemporary with Philippians, including the following:
My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency (δικαιοσυνη) was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt (Dan 6:22 [6:23, LXX])
"For you were found righteous (δικαιος) before God, and he did not permit you to enter here, otherwise you see the evil that happened to the people by the Babylonians. (4 Baruch 7:25)
Noah was found perfect and righteous (δικαιος); in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange [for the world;] therefore was he left as a remnant unto the earth, when the flood came. (Sirach 44:17)
For Paul, he is concerned about the origins of the righteousness within him. He is not teaching an alien imputation of forensic righteousness in this text nor 2 Cor 5:21.
Secondly, with respect to the meaning of the preposition υπερ in 2 Cor 5:21, note the following scholarly discussion showing it does not necessitate a forensic model of justification and atonement:
There are various considerations which weigh against the interpretation of υπερ as αντι (“instead of”) in [2 Cor 5:14-15] . . . [one such example] is the Pauline addition of the aorist passive participle εγερθεντι at the end of verse 15. Using the ινα clause to express purpose rather than result, Paul notes that Christ died for all so that they might no longer live for themselves but for him who died and was raised for them (αλλα τω υπερ αυτων αποθανοντι και εγερθεντι). According to J. Bernard, the substitutional rendering of υπερ is “excluded by the fact that in the phrase υπερ αυτων αποθανοντι και εγερθεντι, υπερ αυτων is governed by both participles” . . . [I]f the participle is not related to the phrase τω υπερ αυτων, then “the flow of the sentence is broken, leaving us with a translation ‘he died for them and rose’ (for his own benefit). This breaks up the logic of Paul’s argument.” Since it is more natural to see both participles as being associated with τω υπερ αυτων so that Paul’s argument remains intact, the idea of substitution must be absent. (Daniel G. Powers, Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology [Leuven: Peeters, 2001], 62, 63).
Finally, that the Reformed understanding is nonsensical can be seen in the fact that, if the Reformed understanding of the first part of 2 Cor 5:21 were true, that is, Christ was a penal substitute who had the sins of the elect imputed to him in their stead, then, taking the logic of penal substitution to the second half of v.21, one would have to conclude that the elect become the righteousness of God in the stead of Christ(!) Of course, such is a nonsense reading, but it does show the eisegesis Calvinism requires people to engage in to prop up such a theology.
