The middle portion of chapter 6 in Wright’s book is on Corinthians or, to be more precise, on two particular passages in both extant letters to the Corinthians. Not a great deal rides on the first passage, but it is worth a few comments.
Given how Paul is simply referring to this in passing, such an approach is difficult to argue with either way. Wright says that “Paul is not here trying to make a precise theological statement about what exactly it means that the Messiah has ‘become for them’ any of these things” (p. 133). My only rejoinder to that would be why does it have to be precise? Could it not be general, and still be substantive? The obvious issue is that we are not the point of origin for any of these things, and Jesus is. And He is “made unto us” all of those things. I glory in the wisdom of another, the righteousness of another, the sanctification of another, and the redemption of another. In that glorying, which is an act of faith, they all become mine.
The other passage is this famous one:
This portion is the climax of that line of reasoning, and is the place where Pauls says, in effect, “We are made ambassadors — we do the work of ambassadors by pleading with men to be reconciled. He did this so that we could become the embodied covenant-faithfulness of God as we preach the gospel.” He takes it as a clear parallel of v. 18: “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (v. 18).
The problem is not with Wright’s description of Paul’s defense of his ministry — that description is very astute, and right on the money. But why does the climax of this have to be a restatement of Paul as the minister of covenant faithfulness? The content of his message is very much in the discussion as well. Paul has just finished saying that he pleads with the world to be reconciled to God. But on what basis? The traditional reading of v. 21 fits with Paul’s defense of his ministry and with this glorious statement of the message right at the heart of that ministry. This fits neatly with the beginning of chapter six as well, contra Wright’s assumption that a traditional reading would represent an abrupt change of subject before going right back to his defense of his ministry.
The problem for Wright’s approach is the internal structure of the verse itself. Before discussing that, let me use an illustration of the same kind of thing from another part of Scripture. I was once discussing with a non-Calvinist God’s foreordination of all things in the first chapter of Ephesians, and he argued that only the apostles were involved in that predestination (vv. 5,11). The pronoun throughout is we, not you. But then such special pleading vanishes in verses like v. 7. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” Of course, everybody gets forgiveness because that is a happy thing and not an icky thing like predestination.
In a similar way, if we wanted to follow Wright’s suggestion in 2 Cor. 5:21, what do we do with the first part of the verse?
Now Wright acknowledges the force of this interpretation. Even though he rejects it, he sees the power of its appeal.
He calls it a powerful and appealing tradition (p. 135). But he wants to reject the exegesis while keeping what he deems to be the real truth beneath this claim.
But let’s pretend for a moment that this verse is saying exactly what it looks like it is saying (to me at least). Christ the sinless one was made or reckoned to be sin so that anyone who hears the apostolic preaching might receive the righteousness of Christ in this best of all possible transactions. Christ was not made to be a sinner; He remained sinless throughout. But He was deemed to be, treated as if He were, reckoned to be responsible for all the evil that we have ever done. Our sin was imputed to Him, and not to us.
If this were the case, would it have any relevance to Paul’s previous discussion? Would it inform his commendation to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (4:2)? Would such a truth help to shine the light into darkened minds (4:3-4)? Is the message of this great transaction a light that shines in the darkness of our hearts (4:6)? Would this help to persuade men in the fear of the Lord (5:11)? To ask such questions is to answer them.
This understanding also helps to reveal the nature of the double blessing in v. 14. “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.” If one died for Smith, then Smith also died in his representative. This is imputation. And if one rose for Smith, then it is still imputation. And if a sinless one had to die for other sinners, this is because imputation is going the other way. In short, the great transaction does not just pop up for the first time in v. 21. It is one of the themes that Paul is weaving into this particular tapestry.
It is quite striking that Wright does not discuss God’s merciful refusal to impute (logidzomai) trespasses to sinners (v. 19), and has instead committed the message of reconcilation to the apostles. And what is that message? The first half is that God is not imputing our sins to us, but rather has imputed them to Christ. And then — and I am utterly inadequate to make this sound as glorious as it actually is — God doubles back on us, and imputes something other than our trespasses to us instead. And what is that? It is the righteousness of God manifested in the full obedience of Jesus Christ. I am not saved simply because God neglects to impute my sins to me, leaving me naked and shivering. No, He clothes me in a clean garment — He doesn’t just take the dirty one away.