“so that in him we
might become the righteousness of God.”
- How could a imperfect human attain the perfect righteousness of God through their own imperfect actions (past,present, and future) ? It would also change the source of righteousness to us instead of Christ? It would beg the question are we “not knowing the righteousness of God, and their own righteousness seeking to establish, to the righteousness of God they did not submit.” roman 10:3 Also saying “we might become” leaves room for doubt in Gods salvation of those whom are believing. This only causes worry and fear. And as we know perfect love casts out all fear. If we are in fear we have not been perfected in love for our God.
“The righteousness does indeed remain God’s; but this “righteousness” never leaves
behind the all-important sense of covenant faithfulness”
- Of what covenant? The old covenant was only to Israel. And they couldnt and didnt complete their covenantal faithfulness which is why the kingdom was postponed. At what point would we realize if they couldnt do it for many many years that its just humanly impossible and rest in Christs righteousness? And if we are currently in the new covenant what is new about it if its the same law and pardon as before?
“And the difficulty with this, despite its being enshrined in a good many
hymns and liturgies, as well as in popular devotion, is (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””
- This i find this a bit odd, Gods righteousness dwelled in Christ. Thus it could be said both that it is Gods righteousness as well as Christs. Further more Paul, often though he does reiterate points of interest, doesnt need to reiterate it again to make it true. Also Id say romans 10:3 is a close parallel of reiteration.
“. 3 in
particular he has done so in relation to the new covenant which God has established in
Christ and by the Spirit”
- Again id have to ask whats new about it? there was laws and pardons and scape goats in the old covenant. If the new covenant is just more of the same could it be called “new”. Likening Christ as just a one time scape goat I dont think is a radical change to call it new. And doesnt give enough glory, imo, to what Christ ACTUALLY did which is justify those whom are believing on Him alone for our salvation.
“Paul’s whole activity its specific focus:
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the
ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself,
not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of
reconciliation to us.”
- This brings up a good point. How would God be conciliating us with our own unrighteousness before Him, UNLESS His (and Chists) righteousness is being imparted to us. How are we REconciled if we are still at odds with Gods favor and trying to still earn it and falling short because the law is infirm through the flesh.
“on behalf of the Christ in whom God was reconciling the world”
- I would argue how would God reconcile the whole world if most do not even try and establish their own righteousness and that is how we are to get “the righteousness of God”? Unless Christs righteousness be imparted to them at a later time (the consummation of the ages).
“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. ”
- That is not what is stated in a literal translation. Hes putting in his own words to make an argument. And therefor holds no more merit than a king james who justifies its translation of gehenna sheol hades and tartarus as hell based on their theological assumptions. I feel before this point the author was trying to justify his changing of the literal translation to fit his theological outlook on justification and likening justification as pardon and forgiveness and human merit. Point 2 is where he introduces this idea then circles back around to it to make his point. I, personally, would consider this circular reasoning in a sense.
“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”
- Id argue it does. And I give thanks to Christ for that gift. Knowing I havent, couldnt, and therefor never would attain the perfect righteousness of God. And it could ONLY be imparted, not earned.
"… the “minister of the new covenant,” the
one who has “become the righteousness of God.”
- How could one “become” the righteousness of God if it is actively being attained by human merit? One could say becoming but become is past tense as in done not doing.
I got all the way to the conclusion but I got to go finish making this sweet tea
I enjoyed the read but I heavily disagree with the implications.
Just thought, even if you dont agree or I missed something in the article which may make some of my points invalid, that Id share my thoughts.
Ive always been a theosophical kind of guy so I always try to see reason and logic in scripture.
And to me us attaining Gods righteousness, even just as a positional standing, by our own selves and merit seems illogical.