Wednesday, November 6, 2024

Note on Luther's Designation of Two Kinds of Faith

  

Reinhard Schwartz points to Luther’s designation of two kinds of faith, a fides acquisita and a fides infusa, in which his marginal comments on Peter Lombard’s Sentences (1509/10). The latter is never separated from justifying grace, whereas the former has nothing to do with it. Schartz argues that this distinction of two kinds of faith represents a break with the entire medieval tradition, insofar as Luther collapses unformed and acquired faith and unites infused with with love (Fides, Spes und Caritas biem jungen Luther. Unter besondern Berücksichtigung der mittelalterlichen Tradition, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 34 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962], p. 42; compare Martin Luther, WA 9: 90.24-34). In exploring the origin of the fides historica in Zwingli, Gestrich notes that this term appears with any frequency in Luther’s works only after 1531; he points out also that Luther, in his distinction to Zwingli’s use of the term, uses it primarily to cover the scholastic fides acquisita and fides informis. Gestrich concludes that Zwingli most likely derives his understanding of fides historica from Melanchthon, and he quotes the 1531 version of the passage just cited (Zwingli asl Theologe, pp. 29-31, note 36) (Barbara Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in its Exegetical Context [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 173 n. 17)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck on Memory

  

MEMORY

 

What does it mean to “remember” something? Psychologists who study memory have developed several approaches for thinking about the workings of the human memory system. Despite numerous views on how memory works, a common feature of most models is that memory is a “constructive” rather than a reproductive enterprise. That is, memories are not simply passively recorded by our senses, then stored in their natural form in a brain bin that preserves their initial quality; not are memories mechanically accessed in their original state at the time of remembering. Rather, because of the constructive nature of memory, reports may be inaccurate because of a number of factors that intrude at the time of the initial recording (encoding) of the event, during the storage of the event, or at the time of the retrieval of the event.

 

One of the primary factors that affects the quality of memories is our previous knowledge, our assumptions, and our biases about the world. The classic demonstration of this relationship was provided over 60 years ago by Sir Frederick Bartlett of Cambridge University. He demonstrated that when individuals are asked to remember interesting but unusual episodes, they often refashion these so that they make sense to them, given their values and expectations (Bartlett, 1932). For example, adults read a story about North American Indians called “War of the Ghosts” and then were asked to recall the story several times. Bartlett’s European subjects changed certain features of the passage that were inconsistent with their prior expectations and understanding. For example, his subjects omitted a supernatural aspect of the story, and recalled canoes as boats. Bartlett’s study, and hundreds of demonstrations since then, showed that what one remembers is in part influenced by one’s emotional as well as cognitive perspective of the event. Thus, current conceptualizations of memory underscore the fact that it does not resemble a tape recorder or camera—devices that store and retrieve information veridically. Instead, our memory system is an active part of a larger cognitive and social system that constantly interacts with what we know and expect. As long as experiences are in accord with our expectations, there is usually no problem. But when there is a mismatch between what we expect and what we actually experience, it is not uncommon for this to be resolved by the former intruding into our recollection of the latter.

 

The likelihood that we can remember an event from our past depends on the skill with which we execute a complex set of processes, initially during the event in question, then later at the time of its retrieval. Psychologists who study human memory usually discuss these processes in terms of a flow of information from one stage of the memory system to another. The three main stages of the system are encoding, storge, and retrieval. These are briefly described below. For a more detailed view, the reader should consult any one of a number of excellent treatises on the human memory system (e.g., Baddeley, 1990; Klatzky, 1980; Schneider & Pressley, 1989; Zechmeister & Nyberg, 1982).

 

Encoding

 

The first phase of the memory system is called encoding. This refers to the process by which a trace of an experience becomes registered in memory. There is selectivity in what gets encoded into the storage system in the first place. In part, this selectivity reflects the limited attentional resources of the human organism; we cannot attend to everything at one time, and as a result, she may have no attentional capacity left over to attend to peripheral information such as what songs were played on the radio or what signs were posted along the side of the road. Thus, not everything that is “out there” gets attended to. And nothing gets stored in permanent memory unless it is first attended to.

 

There are a number of factors that can potentially influence what enters the memory system, and these same factors may also influence how strongly a trace becomes encoded. These include the amount of prior knowledge about the events (usually, the more knowledge the more easily events are encoded), the interest value or salience of the events, the duration and repetition of the original event, and the stress level at the time of encoding the original event . . .

 

Storage

 

In the second phase of the memory system, encoded events enter a short-term memory store. Not all the memories survive the short- term memory’s limited storage capacity, but those that do survive enter a long-term memory store. At one time, this stage was assumed to be passive; the contents of an encoded event were thought to be dormant in storage until such time as they were retrieved. This view is almost surely wrong, and we now have some good evidence that encoded information can be transformed, fortified, or lost while it resides in storage (Brainerd, Reynard, Howe, & Kingma, 1990).

 

The passage of time, the number of times that the event has been re-experienced, and the number and types of intervening experiences, which have also become encoded and stored, can have a strong impact on the strength and organization of the stored information. Thus, memories can increase or decrease in strength as a function of how long they have been stored (usually shorter delays result in better recall) and of the number of times that the original event has been recalled (in some cases, repeated recall strengthens the memory; at other times it weakens it). It is also true that knowledge and expectancies can change the composition of memory during the storage phase, thus transforming the trace to make it more consistent with one’s attitudes and expectations. Finally, intervening experiences may at times serve to solidify the initial memory (when these are congruent with the initial trace); at other times these experiences may compete with and interfere with the stored memory if they are inconsistent with the original encoded event.

 

There have been challenges to some of these general claims. Of importance for our topic is the claim that certain types of memories, specifically those of emotionally arousing events, are not subject to many of the general principles just cited. Some argue that these memories are highly resistant to decay, whereas others argue that there may be repression of memories that are terrifying. . . .

 

Retrieval

 

The final step in remembering involves the retrieval of stored information. It is not necessarily the case that there is perfect retrieval of stored memories. In fact, there are times when the contents of the memory system are simply not retrievable. A variety of cognitive as well as social factors influence the retrievability of stored memories, although the nature of their influences is not static: Some of these factors at times enhance recall, whereas at other times the same factors may decrease the accuracy of the recall. We will now consider some of these factors.

 

The condition of the original memory trace is important; traces that have undergone some decay will be harder to retrieve than those that retain their original strength. In some cases, retrieval of a memory may be facilitated when the conditions for retrieval parallel those of encoding. One of the better examples of this principle is provided by Godden and Baddeley’s study of state-dependent learning (1975). Deep-sea divers were asked to learn (encode) lists of words while they were beneath the sea. Their later retrieval of those words was better when they were beneath the sea compared with when they were on land. In recent replications of this work, it has been shown that divers retrieve lists encoded on dry land better when they are put back on dry land, and they retrieve lists encoded under water better when they are put back under water (Martin & Aggleton, 1993).

 

An extension of this finding is that when an interviewer provides cues that may reinstate the encoding context, accuracy of recall improves. There are various types of cues that can be given. Some involve reminding the subject about parts of the actual event, whereas other types of cues may involve inducing emotional or cognitive states at retrieval that match those present at the time of encoding. Although these techniques may facilitate the recall of actually experienced events, they may promote false recall if an event was never experienced . . .

 

There are also may constructive factors that enter into the retrieval stage. For example, when asked to recall a faded event, we may use our knowledge about what “typically” happens to fill gaps in our memory. A more specific term for this phenomenon is script-based knowledge, which refers to our expectations and predictions of how events in the world are sequenced and related to each other. According to Hastie (1981), “The memorability of an event increases when the event is relevant to expectations and beliefs about hat event.” But . . .the relationship between script-based knowledge and retrieval is not straightforward. If an event is highly congruent with our script-based knowledge, then it is likely to be retrieved. However, if an event is highly incongruent with our script-based knowledge, it is also likely to be retrieved—presumably because of its bizarreness.

 

Finally, there are a number of higher-level (consciously deployed) factors that influence how well children and adults can recall events. These include a number of intuitively obvious factors as the degree to which the individual is motivated to retrieve old memories, the degree to which the individual wishes to cooperate with the examiner, and the degree to which a person understands what is important to recall. (Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck, Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony [Washington D. C.: American Psychological Association, 1995], 40-44)

 

Further Reading:

 

Steven C. Harper, First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Notes on Luther's Theology of the Priesthood from Voss, "The Priesthood of All Believers" (2016)

  

The Source of Luther’s Spiritual Priesthood

 

A common misunderstanding assumes that the doctrine begins with 1 Pet 2:5-9, but this passage is not the most foundational for Luther. Like the NT authors, the source of Luther’s doctrine is the identification of Jesus, the Anointed One (Christos), with the eschatological Melchizedekian Priesthood described in Ps 110:4. Luther’s understanding grew from his exegesis of Psalm 110 and its treatment in Hebrews. (Hank Voss, The Priesthood of All Believers and the Missio Dei: A Canonical, Catholic, and Contextual Perspective [Princeton Theological Monograph Series; Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2016], 135-36)

 

 

According to Luther, verse four [of Psa 110] unites “the kingly and priestly functions in one person.” (LW 13:305) It indicates that Christ’s eschatological priesthood will be entirely different from the Levitical priesthood. (LW 13:306) It finds its proctology in the Melchizedekian royal priesthood described in Genesis 14 (LW 13:309-15) and in the oath given by God to Abraham in Gen 12:3. (LW 13:308) For Luther, the pope set up “his own priestcraft” (Pfafferey) in opposition to the Melchizedekian office of Christ. (LW 13:315) IN contrast to Rome’s mass-priests (Mess Pfaffen), Luther expounds upon three functions of Christ’s royal priesthood . . . (LW 13:315-29) He concludes with “some remarks about the way in which we Christians, too, are priests.” (LW 13:29; see 29-34) This 1535 sermon provides the clearest statement of Luther’s doctrine. For Luther, the only true priesthood is Christ’s Melchizedekian priesthood, in which disciples participate through the new birth and baptism. (Ibid., 136-37, emphasis in original)

 

 

SEEDS AND SIBLINGS OF THE PRIEST KING:
THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD OF BELIEVERS

 

Luther’s claim has two implications for baptized believers: 1) Believers are ordained to royal priesthood at their baptism; 2) All believers are called to priestly discipleship. Furst, Luther teaches that baptism represents a new birth whereby we enter the priestly family of Christ as his children and siblings. God works through “the Gospel and Holy Baptism” to make those born of him “true children of a priest [Priesters Kinder]” who “Inherit the same name from their father. Consequently every baptized Christian is a priest already. (LW 13:329)

 

During the medieval period, the power and wonder of baptism had gradually been overshadowed by emphasis on penance and the Eucharist. Luther recovered a sense of the awe felt by early Christians when they discussed their baptism. (Luther, Large Catechism, Baptism 42) Luther repeatedly emphasized that there is only one priesthood (Christ’s) and only one priestly ordination (Baptism). “We are all consecrated priests through baptism” LW 44:127. See also LW 30:63; 40:19)

 

All Christian priesthood finds its source in baptism, because that is where the believer is united with Christ’s baptism. (WA 51:111)

 

IF baptism both units believers with Christ and ordains them for service in the royal priesthood, this is because both actions are closely tied to justification by faith. Faith makes a Christian a priest, not simply baptism.

 

For faith must do everything. Faith alone is the true priestly office. It permits no one else to take its place. Therefore all Christian men are priests, all women priestesses, be they young or old, master or servant, mistress or maid, learned or unlearned. Here there is no difference unless faith be unequal. (LW 35:101; 12:289) (Ibid., 137-38)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Michael J. Gorman on Faith, Baptism, and Justification in Galatians 2 and Romans 6

  

Repentance and Justification

 

Many interpreters of the letter’s theologically and rhetorically powerful chapter 6 think Paul has left the subject of justification behind and is now describing the process of sanctification, of becoming more and more holy, or Christlike. Although we do find the language of holiness or sanctification in this passage (6:19, 22), it is a mistake to separate sanctification from justification.

 

Paul, in fact, has not left justification in the dust but is further explaining its significance by once again stressing the transition from death to life that has occurred for believers. To do this, he draws on his discussion of justification from the letter to the Galatians. Paul depicts justification in Galatians and baptism in Romans within the same framework: participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. (The connection of baptism in which his disciples would share; Mark 10:38-39.) The following table shows the similarities between justification according to Galatians and baptism according to Romans

 

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN GALATIANS 2:15-21 (JUSTIFICATION) AND ROMANS 6:1-7:6 (BAPTISM)

 

FEATURES

GALATIANS 2:15-21
JUSTIFICATION

ROMANS 6:1-7:6
BAPTISM

Transfer into Christ

“we have come to believe in [Gk. eis; “into”] Christ Jesus” (2:16); “justified in Christ” (2:17); cf. Gal 3:27

“baptized into [Gk. eis] Christ Jesus” (6:3); “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11); “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (6:23).

Death to the law/law and Sin

“through the law I died to the law” (2:19)

“you have died to the law through the body of Christ” (7:4); cf. “died to Sin” (6:2); “so that the body of Sin would be destroyed, and we would no longer be enslaved to Sin” (6:6); “dead to Sin” (6:11)

Co-crucifixion (expressed in the passive voice), death of self

“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live” (2:19-20)

“baptized into [eis] his death” (6:3); “buried with him by baptism into death” (6:4); “United with him in a death like his” (6:5); “our old self was crucified with him” (6:6); “we have died with Christ” (6:8)

Resurrection to new life

“so that I might live to God. . . . And the life I now live in the flesh” (2:19-20)

“just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (6:4); “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11); “those who have been brought from death to life” (6:13); “died to the law . . . the new life of the Spirit” (7:4, 6).

Present and future dimensions

Present: see 2:19-20
Future: “no one will be justified” (2:16)

Present: throughout
Future: “we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (6:5b); “eternal life” (6:2, 23)

Participation with Christ and “go” God

“so that I might live to God . . . it is Christ who lives in me” (2:19-20)

“alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11); “so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God” (7:4)

Faith and love (Christ’s and ours); that is, proper covenantal relations with God and others

“faith of Jesus Christ . . . faith of Christ” (2:16); “we have come to believe in [eis; “into”] Christ Jesus” (2:16); “I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me and giving himself for me” (2:20 MJG).
Cf. Gal 5:6 for believers’ faith and love explicitly

“No longer present our members to Sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness [/justice]” (6:13); “you . . . have become slaves of righteousness [/kjustice]” (6:18; cf. 6:19b); “the advantage you get is sanctification” (6:22)
Cf. Rom 5:19; 8:34-35 for Christ’s faith/obedience and love explicitly.

 

In 6:1-7:6, then, Paul is depicting the same sort of reality he describes in Gal 2:15-21: namely, a participatory experience of co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Christ. (The only two occurrences of the verb “co-crucify” in Paul’s letters are in Gal 2:19 and Rom 6:6. Paul has apparently borrowed the word used in the gospel tradition referring to those literally crucified with Jesus [Matt 27:44; Mark 15:32; John 19:32]) Justification is like baptism, and vice versa. More precisely, justification and baptism are two sides of the one coin of entrance into Christ and his body through dying and rising with him. Both faith and baptism involve transferal into Christ by means of dying and rising with Christ. The result is life: being “alive to God” now (6:11) and one day having “eternal life” (6:22-23). And this means that in Christ, we are meant to become like Christ. (Michael J. Gorman, Romans: A Theological and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022], 165-67)

 

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Isaiah 51:19 in the Great Isaiah Scroll reading שׁתים המה vs. MT שׁתים הנה

The following image is taken from The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition, ed. Donald W. Parry and Elisha Qimron (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 86:




On this, see:


The Great Isaiah Scroll Text of Isaiah 51:19: Potential Light Shed on 2 Nephi 8:19


 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Monday, November 4, 2024

Michael J. Gorman on the Transformative Nature of Justification in Romans

  

Justification, God’s Glory, and the Spirit

 

It is important, therefore, to stress the transformative and restorative substance of what God does, for justification is even more than a powerful legal pronouncement or act of pardon. Romans 3:24 implies that justification solves the problem of humans missing out on the divine glory (3:23). Justification means, in part, restoration to the glory we once possessed—to true humanity that renders glory to God as the essence of true humanity, experiencing the presence of God individually and in community. Justification is the beginning of a new reality that will reach its ultimate goal in eternal life and final glorification (5:2; 8:18).

 

Yet another key phrase in Rom 3:23 has been understood in several different ways. Does Paul say “we fall short of the glory of God” (NRSV, NIV, NET, RSV, NASB, ESV) or we “lack God’s glory” (NJB; cf. NAB “are deprived of”)? Despite the answer expressed in multiple translations, it is best to understand this verse in the second sense. That is, we are (or were, prior to justification) lacking God’s glory. The basic meaning of glory (Gk. Doxa) here seems to be divine presence, as in the glory of the Lord that filled the tabernacle and the temple.

 

Lacking that glory is one way, then, of describing the fundamental human predicament of life apart from God, when we have turned our backs on God and become un-godded. At the same time, then, what humans need, is precisely the glory of God. In justification, doxa is restored to humans who have been characterized by lacking doxa. This is likely what Paul means in  8:30 when he says believers have been “glorified” by God. (At the same time, it must be remembered that full and final glory is in the future [5:2], and that whatever glory believers experience now by virtue of the presence of the Spirit is stamped with the pattern of the cross [see esp. 5:3; 8:17]. We can refer to the present experience of the Spirit as cruciform glory and as resurrection infused, or resurrectional, cruciformity)

 

Paul asserts that divine glory was one of the blessings God gave to Israel (9:4). We see this glory especially in the experience of Moses and the children of Israel at Sinai and in the wilderness, particularly at the tabernacle, or tent meeting (e.g., Exod 29:43-46; 40:34-35), and later in association with the temple (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Chron 7:1-2). As a Jew, Paul of course also believes that not only his fellow Jews, but all human beings, were created in the image of God and given the breath of life from God (Gen 1:27; 2:7). As such, they were both to give glory (honor and praise) to God and also to be—individually and corporately—an ongoing representation of God and God’s presence on earth. (Paul would also affirm with the Scriptures that the whole earth is full of God’s glory [e.g., Isa 6:3] and that salvation consists of seeing and experiencing that glory—which is something for “all flesh” [Isa 40:1-5]) God’s glory is to be displayed in God’s people (Isa 49:3).

 

We see this clearly when Paul designates both the church (1 Cor 3:16) and individual believers (1 Cor 6:19) as the temple of the Holy Spirit. When he speaks of lacking God’s glory, he may once again have in mind the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel spoke of God’s glory leaving the temple and God’s people (e.g., Ezek 10:18-19; 11:23), but he also promised that God’s glory would return (Ezek 43:4-7) to dwell, by the Spirit, in the people (Ezek 36:25-28) and also in a rebuilt temple (Ezek 40-48). (Michael J. Gorman, Romans: A Theological and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022], 121-22)

 

 

Justification: Vertical and Horizontal

 

This aspect of justification as involving becoming God’s temple, individually and corporately, also helps us settle another debate about justification that has been important especially in recent years. Is justification (1) about how an individual is restored to right relationship with God (a “vertical” understanding of justification) or (2) about who, and how, all people—especially gentiles—are included in the people of God (a “horizontal” understanding of justification)?

 

The answer to this question is “Yes.” Once again, we are faced with a false either-or. Justification is about both the individual and the community; when we are justified, we are transferred into Christ, into the people of God, into the community of the just/righteous. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, the justified share in the holiness, faithfulness, and righteousness/justice of God (2 Cor 5:21).

 

The idea that God’s saving act of justifying sinful human beings includes remaking them into the temple of the Holy Spirit, individually and corporately, is not an aspect of justification that has received sufficient attention. Paul only hints at this truth here, when he implies that those lacking God’s glory will now possess that divine glory. This sharing in God’s glory will be only partial in the present, but full in the eschatological future. The apostle refers to this glorious future reality in 5:2-5 and then puts all of its significance on display in chapter 8. We were made to be temples of God’s glory, indwelt and transformed by God’s Spirit, serving God in service to the world. That is why justification is inseparably connected to justice/righteousness—to holiness in living. Human adikia is being undone. Sin is being interrupted and replaced with the divine presence. Christ’s death makes all of this possible (see also Gal 3:1-5). (Ibid., 123)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Sunday, November 3, 2024

Kevin George on 2 Corinthians 5:21

  

This is perhaps the primary text that is commonly used to claim that Jesus paid for our sins and that the righteousness of Christ is transferred to us. The typical PSA proponent reads this verse as if it says something like this, “For our sake God put our sin on Christ’s so that we would have the righteousness of God transferred to our account.”

 

This reading and understanding is seriously incorrect for the following reasons:

 

1.     This verse says, “. . . so that in him we might become the righteous of God,” not “from him.” To be “in” Christ is a Greek way of saying “In his group,” or “on his team,” or “linked to him,” or “in his sphere of influence.” The Greek word “en,” which is the English “in” has to do with our identification with Christ, not about something being passed from him to us. “In” is a word that involves association, not a transfer.

2.     Righteousness is a virtue like love, patience, gentleness, etc. There are also anti-viruses like hate, bitterness, impatience, etc. Neither virtues not anti-virtues can be transferred. I cannot transfer some at my patience or love to you. Right living is also virtuous living. Righteousness is not something that can be transferred to delegated. Neither can wickedness. This passage says nothing about the righteousness of God or of Jesus actually being transferred to us. It is by being “in “ Christ that we can have God’s righteousness, which is about following Christ as our leader, living and behaving as he did. Righteousness is what we do because we are associated with Christ. It is not delegated or assigned to us.

3.     The phrase, “we might become the righteousness of God.” It is more literally translated as, “that we might be becoming the righteousness of God.” This is about transitioning from a condition of unrighteousness, toward righteousness. Becoming righteous is not a status or a position or a transfer, or a declaration. Becoming righteous is a movement, a transition. So, properly understood, this phrase has nothing to do with God transferring righteousness to us, but of us transitioning from our unrighteous behavior toward godly, righteous behavior. It is similar to, “that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” in 1 Peter 2:24.

4.     The greater context of verse 21 is also problematic because the entire passage is about Christ reconciling us to God. If we claim that verse 21 teaches that God transfers Christ’s righteousness to us, we would have a false or reverse reconciliation. The context pleads with us to be reconciled to God. It is us being relationally reconciled to Him, not Him being reconciled to us because someone else paid Him to delete our record of sins in heaven or because He is blinded by a covering of Christ’s righteousness. We have offended God. We must stop offending Him if reconciliation is going to occur. If somehow some external righteousness is transferred to us, and this is called reconciliation in total disregard of our actually ceasing to offend God, then is being bribed or blinded by Christ, and no genuine reconciliation has occurred. The plea of Paul is that WE be reconciled TO God. What Christ did was not a divine maneuver for God to be reconciled to us! The first step in any process of reconciliation is to stop offending. Until the offenses case, there can be no genuine reconciliation. So, to read this passage with the idea that we are not required to stop offending and that reconciliation occurs due to an imparting righteousness from a third party destroys the very intent of the passage, which is that we be reconciled TO God. If a transfer of righteousness is occurring without us ceasing to offend, this would be reconciliation in reverse, a fake reconciliation, if you can even imagine God agreeing to such a thing!

5.     Now let’s focus on the phrase “to be sin.” Sin is an action that takes place in time, and therefore cannot be transferred to another time or another actor, nor can something or someone become literally sin. Sin is not an object or a substance that can be moved or transferred, bought or sold. Some may say that Christ became legally sin in our place. This idea would mean that Christ merely accepted a temporary legal label called “sin.” But a mere label called “sin” does noting at all to motivate us to live righteously, and the verse flatly states that “ . . . he made him to be sin who knows no sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Simply having Jesus become temporarily labelled as a legal sinner provides no motivation of any significance that would move us toward righteous living and genuine reconciliation. Claiming that God labelled Jesus as “sin” in order to effectuate atonement is to have God agree to a fraudulent scheme that you would expect from a shady lawyer or politician. Nevertheless, various prominent preachers have thundered this very idea from their pulpits.

6.     If Jesus was literally “made sin,” then he would not have been an acceptable sacrifice to God. A polluted sacrifice offered as a reconciliational gift would be an insult, not a gift comparable to a husband giving old, wilted flowers to his wife after apologizing for an offense. The prophet Malachi railed against such an idea in Malachi 1:7-9 “By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORDS’s table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. 9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts.”

7.     Using verse 21 as a means of transferring Christ’s righteousness is a denial of being made a new creature as stated in verse 17. A transfer of righteousness is a legal fiction, and has no immediate bearing on our behavior. Being labelled “legally righteous” does not make us new, where old things have passed away. We would merely have a new fictional legal status called “the righteousness of Christ.” This is functionally equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig—where we are the pig. It makes a mockery of us actually becoming new, and discards God’s demand that we sop sinning and be becoming righteous.

 

Now that we have examined that the verse does not say, what then is it saying? “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

The word “to be” in the phrase “to be sin” are not in the Greek. Without these extra words the text says “ . . . he made him sin . . .” In what sense was Jesus made sin for our sake? This is probably a reference, a picture, an illustration, of what sin looks like—the agony, the cruelty, the wickedness, all put on public display with the intended end result being, “ . . . so that in him we might be becoming the righteousness of God.” We see the innocent Son of God tortured, suffering and dying, knowing that it is because of our collective sinful actions and attitudes. Our sin, our unrighteousness, is the cause of this story, and we should recoil in shock and run away from evil and toward righteousness.

 

This should bring Isaiah 53:4-5 to mind, “Surely he has endured our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced because of our transgressions; he was crushed because of our iniquities.” A careful reading of the text shows that we wrongly esteemed, wrongly concluded, that God caused the suffering. Instead, his suffering is our fault! We should reflect on this and be shocked and horrified that our sins led to this degree of unrighteousness, and then flee from our unrighteousness and toward God’s righteousness by stopping all sin and doing what God considers right living. The very Son of God was nailed to a cruel cross because of our sin. What a shame. May we flee from all sin so that his suffering will not be in vain. If we do this and become a follower of Christ, we will then have as the text says, “the righteousness of God” and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. This fits the context perfectly and fulfills its author’s intent. (Kevin George, Atonement and Reconciliation: On what basis can a holy God forgive sin? A search for the original meaning, contrasted with Penal Substitutionary Atonement [2023], 164-67)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Blog Archive