Ben. Calvin has always struck me as the most exegetically grounded and systematically clear of these three Reformers, however much I might differ from him on this and that. In some cases, he appears to be cleaning up some of the mess Luther left behind because he wasn’t consistent. At the end of the day, what do you see Calvin really adding to the conversation about justification, Christ’s righteousness, sanctification, the free will of human beings that we have not... Read more

Ben. The discussion by Luther and Melanchthon on the meaning of ‘en auto’ in 2 Cor. 5.21 is interesting. ‘en’ (plus the dative) can mean many things other than ‘in’. It can mean for example ‘by’. Furthermore, ‘auto’ can mean it rather than him. So for example in Rom. 1.17 it probably means the righteousness of God is revealed in it (i.e. in the Gospel), not ‘in him’. And in 2 Cor. 5.21 it could certainly read ‘and the one... Read more

Q. Of the three Reformers you focus on, the one who seems nearest the mark to understanding Paul, in my view, is Melanchthon. He talks about both the forgiveness of sins associated with ‘justification’ and also the real change in the believer worked by the Holy Spirit. But even he gets confused it seems when he thinks of the former in terms of legal language. So let’s be clear— being pardoned is not the same thing as being declared righteous.... Read more

Ben. Have you read Chad Thornhill’s excellent book The Chosen People? In it he shows how Paul should be situated within the early Jewish discussion of election, which is one thing, and salvation which is another. Election is a corporate concept ‘in Israel’ and then ‘in Christ’ and does not guarantee the salvation of particular individuals. And furthermore, often election is just about being chosen for a particular historical purpose like Cyrus ‘my anointed one’ in Isaiah. It says nothing... Read more

Q. One of the major confusions of the Reformers, it seems to me, is making the mistake of equating initial ‘justification’ with ‘final justification’ at the return of Christ. And the reason for this mistake is that there is a nearly complete failure to recognize that in Paul there are three tenses to salvation— I have been saved, I am being saved (working out my salvation as God works in me to will and to do), and I shall be... Read more

Ben. Let’s deal with a terminological issue briefly. Erasmus got his forensic or imputation idea about dikaiosune from reading the Greek in light of reading the Latin Vulgate, not from profound study of the semantic field of the Greek. Calvin in particular, being a lawyer, fell right in line with this law court use of the language. But the word dikaiosune means righteousness, over and over again in Greek literature. It normally has a moral not a juridical sense and... Read more

Ben. It seems clear at least to me that when Calvin says our sin was imputed to Christ and his righteousness was imputed to us, based on a (mis)reading of 2 Corinthians 5, and when he also talks about us putting on the robe of Christ’s righteouseness, that he is saying something Paul himself is not saying. Early Jews didn’t talk about imputed righteousness, they talked about actual righteousness. When Dan. 12.1-3 speaks about the righteous getting the good resurrection... Read more

Ben. Let’s talk about the misunderstandings by the New Perspective on Paul advocates of the Reformers. The flash point seems to be justification, with various readers thinking Luther and Calvin had a forensic view of justification, involving perhaps a legal fiction. Why is this view wrong, and what is wrong with it? Is this just later misinterpretations of the Reformers predicated of them in some cases by their latter day advocates? Or is it only partially wrong? You seem to... Read more

Ben. I would maintain that the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’ which is a major theme from the outset of Rom. 1 has to do with ‘the righteousness of God’, his character. This is made very clear from the next argument in Rom. 1.18-32 where one expression of the righteousness of God is his ‘orge’ against sin now revealed in the world. It does not have to do with ‘covenant faithfulness’ nor does it have a direct connection with ‘the... Read more

Ben. It is a great irony to me that those who most trumpet covenantal theology don’t seem to understand either the ANE ways of looking at covenants, much less the early Jewish ones. And what I mean by this is that in that world when a sovereign made a treaty or a covenant, and the people broke it, the sovereign was not obligated any longer to keep that covenant. He could end the relationship, he could invoke the curse sanctions... Read more