A Misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21

Preamble

An influential evangelical pastor/author has written a book in which he defends what I have called the standard evangelical story.  In chapter 11 (and 3) of that book he criticizes a certain interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (see especially pp. 174-180).  I intend here to defend the interpretation that this author criticizes in part by showing that his interpretation is false and a disaster for Christianity.  It will turn out that the verses he thinks support his case actually undermine it.   


The Basic Issue

His basic error is to assume that for Paul salvation leaves the Christian "ungodly" and that the righteousness we receive "is not the moral quality of our souls" (he is quoting here Charles Hodge).  In other words, he continues to defend imputation as a legal fiction and sees 2 Corinthians 5:21 as a classic statement of that doctrine.

2 Corinthians 5:21

The one not knowing sin he made sin on behalf of us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

His contention is that Christ is made sin (as a legal fiction--for he knew no sin) so that we are made righteous (as a legal fiction--for we are not really righteous).  He highlights this by italicizing the verse as follows:

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 problem for him is that one would have expected on his interpretation something like this: "he made him sin so that we would be made righteous."  But that is not what we read.  The puzzle for his interpretation is the addition "of God".  Why did Paul talk of the righteousness of God when on his reading it is with Christ's righteousness we are clothed? 

The Interpretation Criticized

According to the interpretation I wish to defend, the "righteousness of God" is not Christ's righteousness (which in his case would be a genitive of origin), but is the power of God to set things right (see Romans 1:16-17 where the "power of God" is parallel to the "righteousness of God").  In other words, the phrase "the righteousness of God" is a subjective genitive or a possessive genitive (if righteousness is an attribute of God, but an attribute that pertains to action).  So, what 2 Corinthians 5:21 is saying is that Paul and his fellow evangelists are becoming the righteousness of God in the sense that they are God's ambassadors in carrying out God's saving activity, which for Paul is primarily resurrected life (both figurative and literal).  In other words, 2 Corinthians 5:21 has nothing to do with the legal fiction of imputation. He realizes this (see his p. 175), hence his attack.

Point #1

He seems to want to discredit the target interpretation because of its novelty ("unprecedented" is the word he prefers).  However, he ought to be aware by now that there are others who share the target interpretation other than N.T. Wright (his main opponent).  Morna Hooker gave a lecture in which she supported the alternative interpretation.  This lecture was given in honor of C.K. Barrett, the same person he quotes in approval of the standard interpretation ("The root of the thought is forensic: man is arraigned in God's court, and is unable to satisfy the judge unless righteousness, which he cannot himself produce, is given him.... Christ himself becomes righteousness for him (2 Cor. 5:21), and God the judge views him not as he is in himself but in Christ").  Douglas Campbell follows Wright and Hooker in supporting the alternative interpretation (see his The Deliverance of God: an Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, pp. 912-13).  He knows that just because this reading has not been the dominant one does not mean it is not true (see his p. 115).  However, he seems overly interested in conforming to Reformed tradition instead of the Truth (see the title of his chapter 8).  The question why God allowed a faulty interpretation to last so long is a different issue but that issue is not solved by adhering to a faulty interpretation despite the claim to "tradition" (see Mark chapter 7!).

Point #2

His definition of the  righteousness of God is constructed by him to allow the possibility that God's righteousness can be passed to the Christian.  However, as N. T. Wright has responded in his Justification (p. 66):

...it is not at all clear how [his] idiosyncratic definition of "God's righteousness" works out within the scheme of imputation that lies at the heart of his own reading.  If "God's righteousness" is "God's concern for God's own glory," what does it mean to suggest that this is imputed to the believer?  It could only mean "the believer's concern for God's own glory."  But concern for someone else's glory is not the same as concern for one's own.

 Wright's basic thrust is that it does not make sense for the judge to impute anything to the defendant.  Our author is clearly making a category mistake.

Point #3

Our author criticizes Wright for thinking that the traditional interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 makes that verse a "throw in".  He points out that Christ's death is for Paul "squarely underneath his apostolic ministry as its foundational, controlling impulse" (p. 176).  He points to 2 Corinthians 5:14:

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore we all have died.

He ties this verse to 5:21.  He also ties verse 5:21 to verse 5:17 ("If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation").  He thinks that the phrase "become the righteousness of God" is analogous to "become a new creation" (p. 177). 

His logic here undermines his case!  Morna Hooker, in her lecture advocating the interpretation he is against, pointed out that in 5:14-15, 18 and 21 Paul give summaries of the Gospel.  However, Hooker posits that he did so in order to apply them to his own ministry.  She also argues contra our author that the contrast between God's righteousness and our own as seen in Romans 10:3 and Philippians 3:9 simply is not relevant here.  See my blog on Resurrection in 2 Corinthians where I give an argument totally in line with  Hooker's contentions.  In that blog, I point out that Paul defends his ministry by noting that it follows the template of Jesus.  I will return to this point below, especially in regard to the resurrection--a point totally lost on our author.

His quote of 5:14 works against him.  The verse says that Christ died for all, therefore we all have died.  Note that it says we died, not the Christ died in our place.  That is a crucial difference (noted by Hooker).  We died to sin so that we might live to him (note "resurrection" talk seeping in here).  In my blog mentions above I noted that though Paul bases his ministry on the template of Jesus, there is no analogue to Jesus' death as a sacrificial animal.  Instead, the resurrection of Jesus is the what is always on the other side of the equation of Jesus's (or Paul's or the believer's) death.  The death is a death to sin so that real righteousness can flow from the believer.  The new creation (which for me is "resurrection talk") mentioned in 5:17 is just that!  The believer is created new to evidence the real righteousness that the believer did not evidence before the Gospel came.

He goes on to quote 5:18 as proof that we are being told how people are reconciled (p. 177):

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation... 

He seems oblivious that his quote undermines his case.  The analogue to "we become the righteousness of God" in 5:21, is "gave us the ministry of reconciliation" in 5:18 and "entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" in 5:19.  We are ambassadors of God to do what God does.  Note the similarities between the "power of God" and the "weapons of righteousness" in 6:7.  The righteousness of God is an active power, not something that is transferred from a judge to a defendant.

Theological Upshot

Our author's take on 2 Corinthians 5:21 reminds me of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, a desperate measure by the losing side.  It comes down to radically different interpretation of Christianity.  A weak, sinful humanity or a resurrected and transformed humanity.  That is the choice.  It is utterly amazing to me how little he discusses the resurrection, which for Paul is decisive!