45011 total results

Abstract reads : "‘Chapter 1: Introduction: Definitions & Issues’ clarifies the systematic-¬‐theological terms ‘active’ and ‘passive’ obedience of Christ, in the light of the recent interaction between exegetes and systematicians in the debates about imputation. The recent interpretation of Romans 5:18-¬‐19, particularly dikai,wma, differs markedly to that which pertained historically. Some advocates of imputation adopt an exposition of Romans 5:18-¬‐19 that is vulnerable to criticism. Reasons for re-¬‐examining Romans 5:18-¬‐19 are provided. Chapters 2 to 3 provide an analysis of important exegetical matters that partly have arisen from the recent debates about imputed righteousness and partly from trends in NT scholarship. They provide necessary preparation for the main contentions of this thesis. ‘Chapter 2: Genesis 15:6 and the meaning of righteousness (dikaiosu,nh)’ analyses the key text (Genesis 15:6MT/LXX) which uses the language of ‘imputation’ (logi,zomai) and ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosu,nh). It investigates whether dikaiosu,nh has an habitual moral or ethical connotation. ‘Chapter 3: Paul’s appropriation of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4’ analyses the Pauline usage, informed by a parallel construction in Romans 2:26. Chapters 4 to 8 form the heart of the thesis. These chapters not only test and apply insights from NT scholarship to Romans 5:16-¬‐19, but also extends the application of some recent Pauline scholarship, and challenges other exegetical decisions of modern scholars, whether ‘Reformed’, ‘broadly Evangelical’ or ‘NPP’. Chapter 4: Receiving and possessing the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17)’ exegetes Romans 5:17 in context, and argues that the text ‘those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness’ (oi` th.n perissei,an th/j ca,ritoj kai. th/j dwrea/j th/j dikaiosu,nhjlamba,nontej), in the light of Philippians3:9 and Romans 9:30-¬‐10:6, provides a corrective for those who assert that ‘righteousness’ cannot be given or possessed. It also discusses the relationship of imputation of righteousness with the motif of union with Christ. Chapters 5 to 8 engage in detailed exegesis of Romans 5:16, 18-¬‐19in context, with discussion of the key terms dikai,wma and dikai,wsij. ‘Chapter 5: The Meaning of dikai,wma and dikai,wsij and the motif of resurrection in Romans 4’, consists of a broad usage survey of dikai,wma and dikai,wsij in the Graeco-¬‐Roman corpus, theLXX, the non-¬‐Pauline NT, and Paul’s usage prior to 5:16, 18 and 8:4, and closes with exegesis of Romans 4:25 in context. The motif of resurrection (Romans 1:4, 4:17, 24-¬‐25; cf 1:17; 2:8)brings the resurrection of Christ into relationship with Paul’s doctrine of justification. ‘Chapter 6: The Resurrection in Romans 5 and the Meaning of dikai,wmain Romans 5:16’ continues the analysis of the motif of resurrection into Romans 5, determines the probable referent of e`no,j in verses 12, 15-¬‐19, and assesses the recent suggestion of J R D Kirk, that dikai,wmameans in Romans 5:16, ‘judgment’, ‘penalty’, or ‘reparation’, and not ‘justification’,1against the modern consensus. 1Kirk, ‘Reconsidering Dikaiōma’ (2007), 787-¬‐92. ‘Chapter 7: Thee`no.j dikaiw,matojof Romans 5:18’ argues that dikai,wma in Romans 5:18 should be rendered ‘sentence of justification’, as it is in Romans 5:16, against the modern exegetical consensus. The phrase ‘the justification of the one’, refers to the resurrection of Christ as his divine judicial vindication, which then produces the ‘justification of life’ for those in Christ. Support for this contention is found in Isaiah 53:11 LXX and 1 Corinthians 15:21-¬‐22, 45-¬‐49, and the arguments of some modern NT scholars. Imputation’s modern advocates will find that if they accept these arguments, which simply re-¬‐institute the accepted understanding of dikai,wma from Augustine to the start of the 20th Century, they will have a sound foundation for the exegetical grounding of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in Romans 5:19, subject to the findings of Chapter 8. ‘Chapter 8: The referent of th/j u`pakoh/j tou/ e`no.jand the action of kaqi,sthmi (Romans 5:19)’finds firstly that ‘the obedience of the one’ refers to the whole course of Christ’s obedience, and there is no reason why any of Christ’s obedience should be excluded from its reference. Second, after a survey of Graeco-¬‐Roman, LXX and NT texts, the conclusion is drawn that kaqi,sthmiin Romans 5:19 means ‘judicially establish’ (cf Susanna 1:60LXX), and does not connote ‘transformative righteousness’. Thus Romans 5:19 teaches that through the obedience of Jesus Christ, being his entire life of obedience to the precept of the Mosaic law, and any other intratrinitarian command received by him, the many will in the future be judicially established as righteous before the tribunal of God. Further, against a number of proposals, both the ground and instrument of initial and final justification is seen to be the same, the ground being the active and passive obedience of Christ, and the instrument being faith. Justification’s beginning, continual progress, and consummation is by fiduciary faith, not works (however categorised). The final chapter ‘Chapter 9: Beyond Romans 5: Re-¬‐evaluating dikaio,win Romans 6:7 and dikai,wma in Romans 8:4’ provides an initial sounding which works outthe implications of the exegesis offered in Chapters 4 to 8 to two key texts in justification debates. First, in Romans 6:7, (‘For the one who died has been justified from sin’), it is suggested that Paul is speaking primarily about Christ’s own experience of death and resurrection, the latter of which was his justification, and secondarily about the believer’s union with Christ in that justification, in which both Christ’s death (Romans 3:21-¬‐26; 4:25) and resurrection (Romans 4:25, 5:18-¬‐19; cf Romans 5:9-¬‐10) bring about the believer’s justification. The justification spoken of is forensic. Second, another key text(Romans 8:3-¬‐4), thought by many to say nothing regarding imputation, is considered in context, especially the key phrase to. dikai,wma tou/ no,mou plhrwqh/| evn h`mi/n(8:4). After providing an account of Paul and the law in Romans 1-¬‐7, and especially looking at Paul’s apology for the law in Romans 7:7-¬‐25, an account of Christ’s coming‘ in the likeness of the flesh of sin and for sin’ entails that Christ fulfilled the law’s precept and bore the law’s curse. The polyvalent genitive to. dikai,wma tou/ no,mou firstly refers to the justification of the Mosaic law, the topic of Romans 7:7-¬‐25, which comes by the justification of the Christ, who received court-¬‐approved righteousness (Romans 5:18), and secondly refers to ‘the justification that the law requires’. It is fulfilled evn h`mi/n by God because the theatre of sins operations was ‘in us’ (Romans 7:14-¬‐25), and because Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Galatians 2:20-¬‐21; Ephesians 3:16-¬‐17)" Chapter 1: Introduction: Definitions & Issues Chapter 2: Genesis 15:6 and the meaning of righteousness (dikaiosu,nh) Chapter 3: Paul’s appropriation of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4 Chapter 4: Receiving and possessing the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17) Chapter 5: The Meaning of dikai,wmaand dikai,wsij, and the motif of resurrection in Romans 4 Chapter 6: The Resurrection in Romans 5 and the Meaning of dikai,wmain Romans 5:16 Chapter 7: Thee`no.j dikaiw,matojof Romans 5:18 Chapter 8: The referent of th/j u`pakoh/j tou/ e`no,jand the action of kaqi,sthmi(Romans 5:19) Chapter 9: Beyond Romans 5:Re-­‐evaluating dikaio,win Romans 6:7 and dikai,wma in Romans 8:4 Re-­‐evaluating ‘The one who died has been justified from sin’(Romans 6:7) Chapter 10: Conclusion