[Email to L. Gonzaga and forwarded to R. Sungenis]
Hi,
I was wondering if Sungenis could address Romans 4:4 and how it uses the Greek word logizomai. From the way I see logizomai used in 4:4 (sandwiched between the important 4:3 and 4:5), the Protestant notion of 'impute' appears to be solidly contradicted.
Could you ask Robert about this? If my argument is true, then he could really hammer James White in a debate on 'imputation of Christ's righteousness', because logizomai isn't being used that way.
God Bless,
Nick
R. Sungenis: Nick, we addressed logizomai in my book Not By Faith Alone. Starting at page 302 in the 2nd edition, I've copied and pasted the relevant paragraphs for you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
“And it was Credited unto Him as Righteousness”
We must now investigate one of the most popular Protestant arguments for the concept of imputed righteousness. This matter concerns the use of the Greek word logizomai, translated as: “reckoned,” “credited,” “accepted,” “counted,” “considered.”[1] The lexical definition carries several meanings as well: reckon, calculate, take into account, put on someone’s account, estimate, evaluate, look upon as, consider, think, dwell on, believe, be of the opinion of.[2] Protestant exegesis, especially that of Romans 4 where the Greek word appears twelve times, has consistently understood the word in the sense of “credited.” As noted earlier, the analogy drawn to describe the righteousness credited to Abraham in Romans 4 is that of an accountant giving a “credit” to Abraham’s ledger book, a credit that was secured completely by the work of Christ in the atonement. Abraham is understood as one who has “something to his credit” so that when God looks at his ledger book, as it were, he sees that, in accounting terms, Abraham is in the black. Evangelical Joel Beeke comments on this verb:
This verb most often indicates “what a person, considered by himself, is not, or does not have, but is reckoned, held or regarded to be, or to have. It is clear then that when Abraham was justified by his faith, the righteousness which was reckoned or “charged to his account” was a righteousness not his own but that of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ.[3]
Unfortunately, this analysis presents a false premise which leads to a false conclusion. First, the Greek verb logizomai does not “most often indicate” what someone or something is merely “considered” to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing.[4] In only a few instances is the word possibly used as a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality.[5] Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that the word “credited” denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it. In the case of Abraham, for example, we can understand the phrase “his faith is reckoned as righteousness” in Rm 4:5 such that God is recognizing or viewing Abraham’s faith as righteousness, or that God interpreted the faith Abraham demonstrated as righteousness, or both. This is very different from saying that God merely “credited” Abraham with righteousness as if to say that Abraham was not really showing any righteous qualities when he demonstrated his faith but that God, because of the alien righteousness of Christ, merely gave him the label of righteousness.
The Protestant failure to understand the word logizomai as including a recognition of the inherent righteousness of the individual has led to some fallacious criticisms of Catholic theology. Protestant theologians have given such a limited spectrum to the Catholic view of justification that they have erroneously divorced certain elements from the definition that are vital to its complete understanding. This attempt is evident in the “proof texts” that Protestant theologians amass to show that “to justify” does not mean “to make righteous.” We have already seen an example of this in the writings of one major Protestant theologian who claimed that Augustine misinterpreted the Hebrew and Greek words for “to justify” by using the Latin word justificare to translate them.[6] Other attempts have used similar etymological and linguistic arguments. The effort is to divorce any declaratory dimension from the Catholic concept of justification in an attempt to reserve such language for the Protestant viewpoint. This tends to put the Catholic concept of justification in a theological vacuum, isolating it so that it can be attacked. For example, in his 1841 work on the Protestant concept of justification, Charles Hodge gathered twelve passages that he believed provided the definitive proof that “justified” and its derivatives did not mean “to make righteous,” rather, “to declare or pronounce righteous.” Hodge’s thesis attempts to create a false dichotomy in the reader’s mind between something that God declares and something that He recognizes within the individual.
To prove his case, Hodge points out the following passages: Dt 25:1 (“If there be a controversy between men, and they come into judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked”); Ex 23:7 (“I shall not justify the wicked”): Jb 32:2 (“because he justified himself rather than God”): Ps 51:4 (“that you might be justified when you speak”); Pr 17:15 (“He that justifies the wicked is an abomination to the Lord”); Is 5:23 (“which justify the wicked for reward”); Mt 11:19 (“wisdom is justified of her children”); Lk 7:29 (“All the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God”); Lk 10:29 (“He wishing to justify himself”); Lk 16:15 (“You are they which justify yourselves before men”); Gl 2:16 (“A man is not justified by works of the law”); Gl 5:4 (“Whosoever of you are justified by the law you have fallen from grace”). In reference to these passages, Hodge concludes:
The word expresses a judgment, whether of the mind, as when one justified another for his conduct, or officially of a judge. If such be the established meaning of the word, it ought to settle all controversy as to the nature of justification. We are bound to take the word of Scripture in their true and established sense. And, therefore, when the Bible says, “God justifies the believer,” we are not at liberty to say that it means that he pardons, or that he sanctifies him. It means, and can mean only, that he pronounces him just.[7]
Here Hodge makes the same mistake that Beeke had made in the understanding of the Greek work logizomai (“credited”), yet in the reverse direction. Hodge admits that “to justify” can refer to the occasion when “one man justifies another for his conduct,” which shows that he is aware that to call one “justified” means that the designator recognizes rightful “conduct” in the individual. This understanding is precisely what we found in critiquing Beeke’s use of logizomai. As noted above, Beeke failed to see that logizomai referred not only to considering something as existent that was not really so, but considering it as existent because one recognizes that the quality which one has “considered” actually exists within the object observed. Using Hodge’s words, we can say that man pronounces the other man “just” because he observes that the other man possesses and has demonstrated just behavior. In many of the “proof texts” that Hodge cites to show that “to justify” means “pronounce,” upon critical examination the passages reveal that what is “pronounced” is what is actually existent. For example, in Dt 25:1, the man who has actually exhibited justice is only then justified by the judges. Hence, it is not valid for Hodge to use such a verse to support the Protestant concept that one is “pronounce” just who is not righteous intrinsically. The Protestant view fails to see that God can “pronounce” someone justified because God see that the person has exhibited good “conduct.” If anything, the Scripture’s use of “to justify” supports the Catholic view since Scripture does not ascribe the word to an individual who has not shown righteous qualities.
Hodge’s other “proof texts” exhibit the same problem. Most of the passages Hodge picks are negative in character, i.e., they portray the attempt of one party to falsely justify himself or another party, e.g., Jb 32:2; Is 5:23; Pr 17:15; Lk 10:29; 16:15. These do not prove his point, however. They merely show that it is invalid to apply the term “justified” or “righteous” to someone who is inherently evil or who has performed evil actions. If anything, the use of the term “justified” in these passages proves that the word can only be used when a righteous quality is recognizable in the individual observed. The remaining passage Hodge cites speak of God being justified, e.g., Ps 51:4; Jb 32:2; Lk 7:29. But again, the same critique can be applied: God is justified because he has the quality of justice within him, or because he is the subsisting source of all goodness and thus of all justice. This use of justified is in direct opposition to the Protestant conception. If anything, recognizing that God is justified in what he is and does proves the Catholic view of justification, not the Protestant view.
Evangelical James White uses the same argument as Hodge. He adds that there is a “legal” context in view when the word “justify” appears. After quoting Dt 25:1 (“If there be a controversy between men, and they come into judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked”), White states, “Note the context: a law court. To justify the righteous obviously means to give a legal, forensic declaration regarding a person’s proper standing before the law.”[8] First, it is very misleading to support the notion of forensic imputation by appealing to the “courtroom” context of Dt 25:1 for the simple fact that the Old Testament also used the word “justify” in many non-courtroom situations. Thus it is not its use in the courtroom that makes the word legal. In reality, because of the general meaning of the word “justify” it can be used in many different contexts, most having nothing to do with the courtroom or anything of a legal nature.
Following this, White makes a further remark on Dt 25:1:
This is clearly seen here by the term that is paralleled with the act of justifying: to condemn. Neither involves a subjective change of the individual; the righteous man was righteous inwardly even before the declaration of his righteousness, just as the guilty man was guilty before the proclamation of his guilt and condemnation. This is the source of Paul’s understanding of justification in the New Testament. Paul’s use of the terms demands that this be so. The conjunction of the two terms “impute” and “to justify” in Paul’s teachings clearly show that the Protestant understanding of God’s declaration of the righteousness of the believer is the biblical one.[9]
Here White tries to turn the tables but in the end he traps himself. It is granted that there is no “subjective change” on the individual in this courtroom scene. White’s diagnosis of the verse is correct when he says, “the righteous man was righteous inwardly even before the declaration of his righteousness.” But White fails to see two things in this admission: (1) there is no need for a “subjective change” specifically because the individual was already subjectively righteous; (2) that the term “justify” is being used to recognize this subjective righteousness. In other words, the term “justify” is not being assigned to an individual who lacks inwardly righteous qualities. He is being given the term “just” precisely because that word best describes his inward condition. No one, especially not judges, should designate as “just” someone who is not intrinsically just in the matter at hand. This is a real problem for the Protestant position for it holds that in the imputation of righteousness there is neither a subjective change nor a recognition of inward righteousness in the individual. To the Protestant, it is necessary to give the individual the label “righteous” precisely because there is nothing righteous about him. We know that agrees with this position because in the following pages (pp. 156-158) he supports Luther’s analogy of the dunghill covered with snow. But if Dt 25:1 is, as White says, “the source of Paul’s understanding of justification,” then Paul should be using the term “justify” not as a label for someone who is still unrighteous but for one in whom he recognizes righteous qualities. Hence, for White, Dt 25:1 simply proves too much. For Catholicism, there is no problem with Dt 25:1 because in assigning the word “justified” to an individual she sees either the making righteous or the recognition of that inward righteousness. This is possible because justification is not solitary and static but is fluid.
White then attempts to support his theory by referencing a usage of the Greek logizomai in Lv 17:4 of the LXX. White quotes a portion of the verse with the words,
Any man who did not bring an animal he had slaughtered to the door of the tabernacle as an offering to the Lord, as the Scripture says, “bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man.” Surely this guilt is not infused into the man, but he is legally declared guilty of blood.
Here White reveals a fatal flaw in his analysis. First, in failing to quote the remainder of the verse he hides from the reader the very reason the man was reckoned as “bloodguilty.” The verse actually reads, “…the man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood and must be cut off from his people.” We notice here that the man is “considered guilty of bloodshed” precisely because “he has shed blood.” In other words, he contemplated shedding blood in his heart, it was an intrinsic part of his thought and his nature, and he finally committed the very act he is accused of doing. He is not being legally labeled for something he did not do, or that was not in his nature, but for precisely for what he did do from his nature. This use of logizomai presents a fundamental problem for the Protestant theory of imputation since such a theory proposes that a man can be forensically declared righteous who has neither done a righteous act nor is righteous in his own nature. White then tries to support his theory by citing the use of the Hebrew equivalent of logizomai, the word bvj (chashab) used in Genesis 3:15. White states:
In Genesis 31:14-15, Rachel and Leah, Jacob’s wives, speak of their father and the treatment they have received at his hand. They say, “Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father’s house? Are we not reckoned (hasav) [sic] by him as foreigners?” Of course, Rachel and Leah were not foreigners, but they were reckoned as such by their father.
White’s analysis is faulty on several counts. First, he again fails to quote the remainder of the passage in question. It reads, “Does he not regard us as foreigners? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us.” Rachel and Leah are speaking of their father Laban who took payment from Jacob as dowry for the right to have both Rachel and Leah as wives. Rachel and Leah recognize that Laban had actually “sold” them to Jacob and subsequently squandered all the wealth leaving nothing for his daughters. It is to these actions that Rachel and Leah view themselves as “foreigners” in Laban’s eyes – precisely because Laban was treating them as one would treat a foreigner who had no rights and was subsequently cheated out of money. Practically speaking, they were foreigners in Laban’s eyes. He treated them the same as foreigners, upon which they decided to take back what they determined he stole from them. After taking Laban’s possessions, they left with their husband Jacob for another land (Gn 31:16-21). We can apply the same principle to other issues of life. For example, if a wife commits adultery against he husband and he subsequently calls her a “whore,” it is not because she necessarily has caroused in the streets enticing men to her rented apartment. The wife is a “whore” because she has acted, at least in one instance, as a whore would act – she fornicated with another man. She has not only acted like a whore but has exhibited, to whatever degree, the intrinsic qualities of a whore. Similarly, Rachel and Leah were treated as “foreigners” by their father because of the financial position in which he put them, were upon they disowned him and terminated the familial bonds. Although they were still connected by blood ties, they cut themselves off from Laban and made themselves “foreigners” to him and even went to live in a foreign land. Again, they considered themselves foreigners because of the reality of being treated as foreigners, not because they thought Laban was just calling them names.
In addition to the above analysis we might also point out that White does not address the preponderance of instances in the LXX in which logizomai refers to the actual reality and existence of the thing or matter in view.[10] In fact, of the over one hundred times logizomai is used in the LXX it is rarely, if ever, used other than to actualize the reality of the matter or object it has in view.
In regards to imputation versus infusion, after citing Paul’s reference to David in Romans 4:6-8, White inquires:
Note the parallels that Paul presents: the imputation (reckoning) of righteousness and the non-imputation (“will not take into account”) of sin are likened to forgiveness of those sins, and to their “covering.” Where is the subjective change taught by Roman Catholic theology? It does not find support in the Scriptures because it doesn’t exist there.[11]
We hope that the information already supplied in this chapter will help in seeing where Scripture teaches justification by infusion. But in respect of White’s specific reference to David, let us investigate more thoroughly how Scripture explicitly portrays the concept of infusion. First, we can begin by citing the entire verse of Ps 32:1. David declares: “Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.” Notice that in connection to being “forgiven,” “covered,” and “sin...not counted against him,” David speaks of one “in whose spirit is no deceit.” This statement is speaking of the inner quality — the spiritual essence — of the person as he is being forgiven. His spirit has no deceit. It is not merely a legal covering given to David but a restoration or recognition of his inner nature. Lest we be confused about this additional dimension to David’s justification, he reiterates these same terms even more vividly in the companion passage of Psalm 51, a passage which is concerned with the same sin of David. In Ps 51:9-12, David writes of himself:
Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity. Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit to sustain me.
As we learned in chapter 4, Paul is using David’s experience in Psalm 32 and its companion passage of Psalm 51 as the reference point and definition for justification. In other words, what happened to David in Psalms 32 and 51 is what happens when one is justified. His sins are blotted out, but in addition, David speaks of his inner nature being changed. He wants God to create a “pure heart” and “renew a steadfast spirit” within him. He asks that God not take his “Holy Spirit” from him and desires that God will grant a “willing spirit” to sustain him. What clearer language could there be to describe the subjective change of the one whose sins are blotted out and covered? Similarly, statements such as “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin” in Ps 51:2 and “Surely you desire truth in the inward parts; you teach me wisdom in the innermost place” in Ps 51:6 show the convergence of God’s mindful forgiving of sin at the same time that he changes the inner essence of the person he forgives. The two events are simultaneous and it is Paul who is combining the simultaneity under the exclusive term justification in Rm 4:5-8, not the Protestant notion of sanctification.
[1] The Greek word logivzomai is transliterated logizomai.
[2] Lexicons by BAGD, pp. 475-476; Liddell and Scott, abridged version, p. 416.
[3] Joel Beeke, Justification by Faith Alone, p. 56.
[4] Lk 22:37; Rm 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1Co 4:1; 13:5, 11; Ph 3:13; 4:8; Hb 11:19, et al.
[5] Rm 2:26; 2Co 12:6.
[6] Alister McGrath in Iustitia Dei. See Appendix 2 for a refutation of McGrath’s thesis.
[7] Hodge, Justification by Faith Alone, p. 48.
[8] The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 154.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Lv 27:23; Dt 2:11, 20; 3:13; 2Sm 4:2; 14:13, 14; 19:19, 43; 1Kg 10:21; 2Ch 5:6; 9:20; Jb 31:28; 34:37; Ps 34:4, et al.
[11] The Roman Catholic Controversy, pp. 154-155.
Recent Comments