Abided Knowing

This is my essay for a hermeneutics seminar. In it, I attempt to render some insightful meaning from the supposed self-maledictory oath in Genesis 15. Feel free to download it, but please don’t plagiarize it (ha! as if?).
Narrative Critique & Genesis 15

EDIT: Having now received feedback on this essay from Dr. Bayer, the main concern is that I cast too great an antithesis between ‘grammatical-critical’ and ‘historical-critical’. This is fair and rereading it in light of those comments made me aware of the caricaturisation that I made of GC and the conflation of the two criticism. That said, I think the thesis still holds, if you consider that there is more to the GC/HC divide than I present in the paper.

Imputative movement, as it has been explored here, always centers on changes in a relationship. The implications for these findings are that whenever we see this pattern exhibited beyond the Pentateuch, we must be careful to name the constituent parts and generating hermeneutical considerations. This essentially means that identifying the two parties involved is crucial, as well as focusing attention on the outcomes of imputative movement. In particular, we will always be tempted to look at the imputative action as the lynchpin of interpretation, and certainly it is not trivial.

However, the foci of imputative movement holds the three elements (action and two parties) in tension with the specific epistemic adjustment as the outcome of the movement. Without these three and the outcome as necessary parts, we lose the motif that is plainly here to some extent in the Pentateuch. These are the core implications for any further application of this motif.

You can download the entire essay in one pdf here: imputativemovementpent.pdf

‘Imputation’ has a lengthy theological pedigree. This thesis has not been to engage the current dialogue concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. However, because of Paul’s citations in Romans, Abram’s righteousness must be considered in any discussion of imputation in the Pentateuch. The goal of this section will be to assess Genesis 15 in light of the above analysis. Once more, this is precisely why we sidelined a discussion of the historically prior account in Genesis. But now that the motif of imputative movement has been fleshed out with its constituent parts, we can assess the fit of Genesis 15 within the above motif.

In light of the discussion thus far, we will have to reject Abram’s Continue reading ‘IM Part 7: What about Genesis 15:6?’

The majority of occurrences do not lean as heavily toward an impartative explanation. This leads us to the formula of the Levitical sacrifices. The formula that is begun in Exodus and repeated in Leviticus is: “He shall lay his hand on the head of….” We should note up front that the formula, like the imputative action it describes, yields no guarantee of acceptance from God. But it can be no clearer in the Pentateuch than this particular use of imputative movement. The formula is used in the purification of the priests , with the burnt offerings, sin offerings, peace offerings , and the Continue reading ‘IM Part 6: Interpreting Imputative Movement’

Because of the Torah’s investment in this particular arrangement of imputative movement, we will have to distinguish two separate possibilities. First, there are instances of imputative movement that resemble impartation and those need to be considered with special emphasis on epistemological effect. Second, there is a Continue reading ‘IM Part 5: Appearances of Impartation’

****This is an extended discussion (with pictures too)****

The first occasion of imputative movement begins with the Fall itself. Because of the imputative action (re taking the fruit), the relationship between man and himself, his spouse, creation and the creator have fundamentally and metaphysically changed. It should be noted at the fore that the action does not appear to be the actual agent of imputative movement. Rather, the action of eating fruit reflected an internal disposition toward their Creator. This will be important as we look toward sacramental actions in the rest of the Pentateuch.

The elements of the movement, then, are the dispositions that lead to the actions, that in turn made our first parents reckoned differently. The parties involved are God and the couple. The imputation of unrighteousness must be side-barred for this current discussion. Although Paul is vitally interested in developing this theme, Continue reading ‘IM Part 4: Instances in the Pentateuch’

We now need to justify imputative movement in terms of ‘movement’ rather than a particular lexical group. Although we will scrutinize Genesis 15 later, that account leads us to the same mode of interrogation. In looking for a motif, we are simply asking the question begged by Genesis 15:6 itself: What changed between YHWH and Abram? Was something transferred, reconsidered, or was divine judgment now under a new dispensation with Abram (i.e. Was Abram now legally righted?)? Again, the text of Genesis 15 simply will not render answers to these questions. This either means that, according to the text, these inquiries are irrelevant to what is happening or (judging by Paul’s reification of the story into the Messianic narrative) Abram’s righteousness-reckoned is part of some grander program. This bifurcation need not be exclusive, but at this point, we would like to posit the latter as a working lens within which we might view all imputative actions.

To be clear, imputative movement is where some action (re imputative action) fundamentally changes the relationship between two or more persons. It creates a triad Continue reading ‘IM Part 3: Imputative Movement as a Construct’

“And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” Genesis 15:6 is often found to be the mantle piece of imputation with which all Christians must contend. It is the mainstay of Paul’s argument in Romans 4. But this essay questions whether the notion of imputation is most accurately portrayed in Genesis 15:6 and its Pauline echos, more specifically, the ‘reckoning’ of righteousness. At this moment, we will ask the reader to ignore Genesis 15:6 as the starting point toward a compatible view of imputation and agree with N.T. Wright, for now, that this phrase from Genesis is “cryptic and almost unparalleled”.

For our purposes, we will begin by looking at to-from movement as paradigmatic for imputation. To-from movement is imputative in that we see the shift of relationship function with the result of a new vista between the parties of imputative movement. The reason for this different purview, while not obvious, is that ‘reckon’ (logizomai), as used by the Septuagint and NT quotations, has some breadth in its semantic domain. This has led to gratuitous analysis of its uses. However, at the unfolding of redemptive history up to Genesis 15, it is difficult to assess exactly what has changed prior to and after verse six. Paul’s citation of logizomai in Romans chapter four does not necessarily clarify the nature of a new ontological/theological reality; a reality where God’s relationship to Abram fundamentally shifts after verse six. In fact, Paul’s discussion appears to mysteriously gloss verse seven and following in favor of what is happening up to verse six; i.e. everything up to the new reckoning of righteousness. Continue reading ‘IM Part 2: A Decidedly Non-Pauline Analysis’

“…there are those who see the gospel as being justification by faith with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the cornerstone of justification, therefore making imputation almost synonymous with the gospel.”

-Michael Bird.

The current discussions of righteousness, justification, and their respective objects are rife with debate over semantic domains and the perlocutionary force of Pauline phraseology. In attempting to understand how the victory of Jesus is efficacious towards his flock, the discussion has centered on language and authorial intent. But while the current dialogue has focused largely on Paul, his corpus, its sitz im leben, and his multiply-horizoned first century weltanschauung, there appears to be some neglect of ‘imputation’ as a developing motif in the Tanach.

What we mean by this is that imputation, currently considered, could mean several things. But if it is to mean something specific, like ‘the reconsideration of God’ or an ‘impartation of righteousness’, then we expect that movement from unrighteousness to righteousness to be present in the history of redemption. Otherwise we must consider the notion of imputation to be a new and alien form of God’s redemptive action revealed in the Messiah and/or Pauline literature. No one in the current debate adheres to imputation as a radical and new form of redemptive action and this is evidence by the near ubiquitous references back to what is meant by ‘reckoned’ (השב)

Continue reading ‘Imputative Movement (IM) Part 1: ~(imputation)’