translating the single word group “dikaios” with the single word group of “legitimate” may help english readers interpret/grasp what new testament witnesses had in mind with what we have alternately called “righteousness” and “justification.”

I mention this because in the comments above the concept of “status” seemed to be of some importance and “legitimate” more effectively communicates “status” I think. Consider a representative dictionary entry:

*le·git·i·mate adj.

Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.

Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.

Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.

Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.

Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.

tr.v. le·git·i·mat·ed, le·git·i·mat·ing, le·git·i·mates (-mt)

To make legitimate, as: a. To give legal force or status to; make lawful. b. To establish (a child born out of wedlock) as legitimate by legal means. c. To sanction formally or officially; authorize. d. To demonstrate or declare to be justified.

le·giti·mate·ly adv.
le·giti·mate·ness n.
le·giti·mation n.
le·giti·mator [ -mtr ] n. *

I found this to be helpful as I studied Luke and Acts with some friends and I have presented this suggestion to a handful of scholars, some of whom recieved it warmly.

To see a full listing of the passages in Luke-Acts with “dikaios” translated as “legitimate,” see the end of my note linked here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcjvgcp2_6dcb9vp

The legitimacy of God is evident. Jesus is the legitimate One. We are legitimate in Christ.

But is this a legitimate tranalation of “dikaios?”

Denny, thanks for the great post.

Jeff

Thank you so much for taking the time to make such a lengthy response. I look forward to reading your book in the near future. Praise the Lord for raising up men who continue to defend these foundational truths!

rafe,

I sympathize with what you are saying, and it is good to be reminded of the integral place that the “in Christ” relationship sustains to the Christian’s salvation (including justification). I was reminded of this quote from Calvin, which was quoted (with approval) by John Piper in his book Counted Righteous in Christ:

Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our
heart—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves
from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on
Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with
him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1960), 3:11:10.

gh

First of all I want to express my thanks to all of you who have taken the time to comment. Let me address Garrett’s question. Yes, I do think, and I argue as much in the book, that imputation is both, “positive” and “negative” i.e., through union with Christ the believer is declared not guilty and is made to hold (not fictionally!) the status “righteous” before God. Ironically, and this is a point I make more than once, critics of imputation make a finer distinction between “active” and “passive” obedience than many, or even most, in the Reformed tradition. The point I make is not new: “active” and “passive” are two parts, or “aspects” as a friend said to me yesterday, of the same obedience. Hodge says,
“As Christ obeyed in suffering, his sufferings were as much a part of his obedience as his observance of the precepts of the law. The Scriptures do not expressly make this distinction (active and passive), as they include everything that Christ did for our redemption under the term righteousness or obedience. The distinction becomes important only when it is denied that his moral obedience is any part of the righteousness for which the believer is justified, or that his whole work in making satisfaction consisted in expiation or bearing the penalty of the law.”
My aim in the book is not to defend Hodge, but to show simply that there is no driving a wedge between “active” and “passive” obedience. I think a good example is found in John when Jesus says “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (6:38), and “No one takes it (my life) away from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father” (10:18). Here Jesus speaks of the cross in terms that we could describe as both “active” and “passive.”
Finally (sigh of relief), I stress over and over that Christ, as the second, and true, Adam, obeyed the Father-not only to secure our forgiveness but to attain for us a positive (not neutral) status. He did what the true Adam is meant to be doing. This obedience (“I always do what pleases my Father”) is not just rendered at the cross, but of course there is no separating Jesus’ life of obedience with his death on the cross. For us, this is where union with Christ is so vital to the discussion. My quote of Jeremiah (and Luther) at the end of the book sum it up. But you can read all about my view of that in the book.
I hope all of you will check out Mike’s book. I had the opportunity to meet and get to know Mike last Fall, and I’m really looking forward to reading the book. Thanks for the added comment, Dan. And Scot, I hope we have the chance to meet sometime.
I would like to add that as those who believe we are saved by faith, by grace, and through Christ alone, let’s continue to carry on the discussion (and all discussions) as those who speak knowing that all we have we have received as a gift. Let’s pursue Christ-likeness in our speech.
Blessings,
Brian

Also, Scot is right to side with Gundry on logizomai (and I would add Don Garlington, Leon Morris, and G.E. Ladd), that no single text explicitly spells out justification as Christ’s imputation righteousness. At the exegetical level we are justified by virtue of being united with Christ whereby we participate in the justification of the justified Messiah! I call this “incorporated righteousness”. I think justification is more about participating in Jesus’ vindication than his frequent flyer points being credited to us. Certainly Jesus’ active and passive obedience are involved here as the basis of his vindication which saves us.

“Reformed theology folks . . . just might be right.” Is that really you, Scot? I think Ligon Duncan just hijacked your computer!

Seriously, I think you are right. You can’t read the full-blown doctrine into the single word LOGIZOMAI, though imputation is an implication of the totality of Pauline teaching on righteousness (especially in Romans 5, as Vickers argues).

Thanks,
Denny

Wright doesn’t spell some things out I’d like to see him spell out.

But this one thing is sure, and I don’t know how it is not at minimum imputational: if 1 Cor 1 tells us that Christ is our “righteousness,” how can we not think that everything we have is in Christ (and due to his merits)?

Some of the Reformed theology folks have tried to spell this out a little too neatly and clearly; they just might be right. (Mark that down, Denny, cuz I don’t say that very often.) But (and I say this more often) they might be saying more than what the Bible says.

Having said that, I think Vickers by and large gets it right: our righteousness is Christ’s. Call it what you want; I call it imputation.