-------------------
We think the author complicates and confuses simple concepts. Jesus' death on the cross was sacrificial, not something akin to a financial or legal transaction. There was no exchange, there was spilled blood, the agent of forgiven sin:
We think the author complicates and confuses simple concepts. Jesus' death on the cross was sacrificial, not something akin to a financial or legal transaction. There was no exchange, there was spilled blood, the agent of forgiven sin:
He. 9:22 ...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Jesus' sacrificial death overcame sin (1Co. 15:56-57), and His victorious resurrection overcame death (Ro. 6:9). We needed both.
DEFINITION
The doctrine of imputation teaches that while Adam’s sin is imputed to us because he is our natural federal head, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of those redeemed to Christ. (This definition is a truly spectacular example of the error of Calvinists/Reformationists. We count at least four errors in this.
The doctrine of imputation teaches that while Adam’s sin is imputed to us because he is our natural federal head, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of those redeemed to Christ. (This definition is a truly spectacular example of the error of Calvinists/Reformationists. We count at least four errors in this.
- Adam's sin was not imputed to us. We are dead because of Adam's sin
- Righteousness has not been imputed to us. Jesus's blood has washed us clean and made us alive, so we are deemed righteous.
- Jesus' suffering at the hands of men was prophesied, but does nothing for us.
- Our sins were never imputed to Christ. He carried our sin to the cross like a burden to be delivered. The Father did not punish Him or forsake Him.
We will flesh out these ideas as they come up below.)
SUMMARY
The doctrine of imputation teaches that while Adam’s sin is imputed to us because he is our natural federal head, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of the redeemed to Christ. Imputation is based on Old Testament sacrificial structures seen in places such as the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people are transferred to a scapegoat. The prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah provide even clearer foundations for the doctrine, upon which the NT authors build. The apostle Paul provides the bulk of the NT teaching on imputation, clarifying three ways in which imputation functions: (1) Adam’s sin imputed to all of humanity; (2) the Christian’s sin imputed to Christ; and (3) Christ’s righteousness imputed to Christians. The latter two of these imputations Martin Luther famously called the “glorious exchange,” our sin for Christ’s righteousness. Such truth is a balm to the Christian who fears standing in the presence of a holy God wearing nothing but sin-stained garments.
The doctrine of imputation teaches that in the doctrine of justification, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of those redeemed to Christ. The 16th century Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, called this double imputation the “glorious exchange.” What is ours becomes Christ’s and what is Christ’s becomes ours. This doctrine has roots in the Old Testament and fully flowers in the New, especially in the letters of the apostle Paul.
Old Testament Teaching
The Old Testament provides several important passages that constitute the foundation of the doctrine. One of the most important is Leviticus 16 and the Day of Atonement. On this day of days, the high priest was supposed to offer a sacrificial bull on his own behalf, to ensure that he was ceremonially pure and free from defilement so that he could enter the Holy of Holies and offer the necessary sacrifices on behalf of the nation (Lev. 16:6). In addition to the sacrificial bull, the high priest took two goats: he sacrificed one and then performed a hand-laying ceremony on the other: “And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22). In this hand-laying ceremony three things stand out: (1) Aaron lays his hands on the head of the goat, which signified the transfer of something (cf. Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9; 1 Tim. 4:14); (2) in this case, the high priest transferred the sins of the nation to the scapegoat, evident by the fact that he confessed Israel’s sins as he laid his hands on the goat; and (3) the goat bore the sins of the people and carried them outside the camp. (Interestingly, the author properly explains the scapegoat as bearing Israel's sins outside the camp, but he misunderstands because of his doctrinal assumptions.
SUMMARY
The doctrine of imputation teaches that while Adam’s sin is imputed to us because he is our natural federal head, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of the redeemed to Christ. Imputation is based on Old Testament sacrificial structures seen in places such as the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people are transferred to a scapegoat. The prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah provide even clearer foundations for the doctrine, upon which the NT authors build. The apostle Paul provides the bulk of the NT teaching on imputation, clarifying three ways in which imputation functions: (1) Adam’s sin imputed to all of humanity; (2) the Christian’s sin imputed to Christ; and (3) Christ’s righteousness imputed to Christians. The latter two of these imputations Martin Luther famously called the “glorious exchange,” our sin for Christ’s righteousness. Such truth is a balm to the Christian who fears standing in the presence of a holy God wearing nothing but sin-stained garments.
The doctrine of imputation teaches that in the doctrine of justification, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of those redeemed to Christ. The 16th century Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, called this double imputation the “glorious exchange.” What is ours becomes Christ’s and what is Christ’s becomes ours. This doctrine has roots in the Old Testament and fully flowers in the New, especially in the letters of the apostle Paul.
Old Testament Teaching
The Old Testament provides several important passages that constitute the foundation of the doctrine. One of the most important is Leviticus 16 and the Day of Atonement. On this day of days, the high priest was supposed to offer a sacrificial bull on his own behalf, to ensure that he was ceremonially pure and free from defilement so that he could enter the Holy of Holies and offer the necessary sacrifices on behalf of the nation (Lev. 16:6). In addition to the sacrificial bull, the high priest took two goats: he sacrificed one and then performed a hand-laying ceremony on the other: “And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22). In this hand-laying ceremony three things stand out: (1) Aaron lays his hands on the head of the goat, which signified the transfer of something (cf. Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9; 1 Tim. 4:14); (2) in this case, the high priest transferred the sins of the nation to the scapegoat, evident by the fact that he confessed Israel’s sins as he laid his hands on the goat; and (3) the goat bore the sins of the people and carried them outside the camp. (Interestingly, the author properly explains the scapegoat as bearing Israel's sins outside the camp, but he misunderstands because of his doctrinal assumptions.
He assumes that "bear" means to take on something as a characteristic. But he never bothered to look up the Hebrew word for "bear." It is nasa or nasah, to lift, carry, take. The scapegoat was simply the vehicle by which the sins of Israel were transported out of the camp. The scapegoat was never punished, regarded as guilty, or imputed with Israel's sins.)
The protocols of the Day of Atonement hint at the sacrifice of the coming Messiah and the manner by which he would redeem his people. The more the Old Testament progresses, the more the shadows give way to the dawning light of the Messiah. The prophecy of the Suffering Servant is one place where the darkness gives way to greater light. Language evocative of the Day of the Atonement marks Isaiah’s prophecy: the Messiah “has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53:4). ("Nasah" again.)
“He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). (Again the author errs. "Upon" is al, upon, above, over. It wasn't that Jesus was punished for our sins, it's that He carried the hardship, mistreatment and pain as a burden so that He could accomplish His great work on the cross.)
The protocols of the Day of Atonement hint at the sacrifice of the coming Messiah and the manner by which he would redeem his people. The more the Old Testament progresses, the more the shadows give way to the dawning light of the Messiah. The prophecy of the Suffering Servant is one place where the darkness gives way to greater light. Language evocative of the Day of the Atonement marks Isaiah’s prophecy: the Messiah “has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53:4). ("Nasah" again.)
“He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). (Again the author errs. "Upon" is al, upon, above, over. It wasn't that Jesus was punished for our sins, it's that He carried the hardship, mistreatment and pain as a burden so that He could accomplish His great work on the cross.)
These two statements echo the language of Leviticus 16:21–22, particularly, the fact that the scapegoat bore Israel’s sins, and in similar fashion the Suffering Servant carried the griefs, sorrows, sins, and punishment that would bring Israel peace. These general statements find greater clarity in Isaiah 53:11–12, which states: “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.” Isaiah highlights the fact that the Suffering Servant would “make many to be accounted righteous,” and conversely, he would “bear their iniquities” and be “numbered with the transgressors.” The Suffering Servant was not himself sinful but would nevertheless be counted among sinners. (No, He was not counted as a sinner, He hung on the cross between two sinners.)
Yet, stunningly, the sinners would be “accounted righteous;” (Well, actually, "justified.")
that is, the law would have no claim on them because the Suffering Servant would give to them his perfect law-keeping status (cf. Deut. 6:25; Lev. 18:5). (Let's quote:
De. 6:25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.
Le. 18:5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
Unfortunately, these verses do not tell us what the author said. There is nothing in either Isaiah 53 or these two verses that indicate anything about Jesus giving us perfect law-keeping status.)
The Suffering Servant is not inherently sinful and the sinners are not inherently righteous, yet by God’s grace the Servant bears the sin of sinners and accounts them righteous. Isaiah clearly propounds the doctrine of imputation—the glorious exchange. (We must have missed it. We read Isaiah 53 carefully and found no such exchange.)
One of the more powerfully vivid pictures of imputation appears in the Zechariah when the prophet has a vision of Joshua the high priest standing in the presence of God wearing excrement-stained priestly garments (Zech. 3:1; cf. Deut. 23:13–14; Isa. 28:8, 36:12; Ezek. 4:12). Joshua’s filthy garments were the polar opposite of what he was supposed to wear (Lev. 16:4). God had every reason to condemn him and, yet, in a striking reversal, he showered Joshua in his mercy and grace. He directed the angels to remove his soiled garments and to give him “pure vestments” (Zech. 3:4). Within the vision Zechariah explains that the soiled garments represented Joshua’s sin and their removal signaled God’s forgiveness: “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you” (Zech. 3:4). If the removal of the soiled garments results in the forgiveness of sins, then the investiture in pure garments signifies the imputation of righteousness. (The author jumps to the conclusion. But remember that the author previously claimed that Jesus exchanged His righteousness for our unrighteousness, and the bore our sins and was imputed with our guilt. So where in the Zechariah passage does the Lord put on Joshua's excrement-stained garment?)
One of the more powerfully vivid pictures of imputation appears in the Zechariah when the prophet has a vision of Joshua the high priest standing in the presence of God wearing excrement-stained priestly garments (Zech. 3:1; cf. Deut. 23:13–14; Isa. 28:8, 36:12; Ezek. 4:12). Joshua’s filthy garments were the polar opposite of what he was supposed to wear (Lev. 16:4). God had every reason to condemn him and, yet, in a striking reversal, he showered Joshua in his mercy and grace. He directed the angels to remove his soiled garments and to give him “pure vestments” (Zech. 3:4). Within the vision Zechariah explains that the soiled garments represented Joshua’s sin and their removal signaled God’s forgiveness: “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you” (Zech. 3:4). If the removal of the soiled garments results in the forgiveness of sins, then the investiture in pure garments signifies the imputation of righteousness. (The author jumps to the conclusion. But remember that the author previously claimed that Jesus exchanged His righteousness for our unrighteousness, and the bore our sins and was imputed with our guilt. So where in the Zechariah passage does the Lord put on Joshua's excrement-stained garment?)
What Zechariah implicitly sees in his vision Isaiah makes explicit: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels” (Isa. 61:10). Zechariah’s new righteous status was not native to him but alien—it came from God, not by his own efforts. (Indeed, but where is the other part of the exchange, with the Lord being regarded as filthy?)
New Testament Teaching
These Old Testament images, shadows, and statements all point to Jesus in the New Testament and the glorious exchange that we receive through the redemption that comes through him. When the apostle Paul explains the nature of salvation, he tells the church in Corinth that he and the other apostles are ambassadors for Christ through whom God makes his appeal. The message of reconciliation that he and the apostles herald is: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). God makes Christ sin in the same manner that we become the righteousness of God, namely, through imputation. (This difficult verse has been debated for centuries. Since we reject imputation we have another idea.)
New Testament Teaching
These Old Testament images, shadows, and statements all point to Jesus in the New Testament and the glorious exchange that we receive through the redemption that comes through him. When the apostle Paul explains the nature of salvation, he tells the church in Corinth that he and the other apostles are ambassadors for Christ through whom God makes his appeal. The message of reconciliation that he and the apostles herald is: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). God makes Christ sin in the same manner that we become the righteousness of God, namely, through imputation. (This difficult verse has been debated for centuries. Since we reject imputation we have another idea.)
Paul’s formulaic statement arguably rests on the bedrock of Isaiah 53, which has its foundation in the protocols of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. (That is, if one agrees with the author's interpretation...)
Christ bears our sin and we receive Christ’s righteousness, his perfect law-keeping accredited to us. The apostle uses this same language in his discussion of the doctrine of justification in Romans 4 when he quotes Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). Paul explains imputation in the following manner: “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:4–5). Abraham’s righteousness was not native to him; in fact, Paul says he was “ungodly.” So how did God consider him righteous? Because Abraham laid hold of Christ’s righteousness by faith. God therefore imputed Christ’s righteousness to Abraham. Paul further explains the nature of imputation by appealing to David: “David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin’” (Rom. 4:6–7). Again, God “counts” righteousness to the ungodly sinner who looks to Christ by faith apart from works and conversely does not count his sin against him. (The author repeatedly jumps to his conclusions without examining his assumptions. The word "credited" ["imputed" in the KJV] is the Greek word logizomai, to take into account, to make account of. So this means that God took into account Abraham's faith and declared him righteousness. There is no indication that Abraham was imputed with righteousness yet still remained otherwise unchanged. Paul tells us this righteousness is not only for Abraham, but also for us. So God takes into account our faith as righteousness just like Abraham's.
It's a matter of faith, not legality. The English word "imputed" does not correspond to the Greek meaning. Nothing is imputed to us as if somehow our condition otherwise remains unchanged. "Credited" is also a lacking translation. There is no transaction of any kind. That is, no imputation. Rather, we are justified as righteous because God takes our faith into account when He considers us:
Paul also expounds the glorious exchange between Christ and believers in Romans 5:12–21, (No exchange here, merely a series of contrasts.)Ph. 3:9 ...and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
He doesn't impute anything. He simply considers us righteous because of faith.)
but he adds another imputation, namely, Adam’s imputed guilt. Paul explains that sin came into the world through one man and that death spread to all people because all sinned (Rom. 5:12). (Let's quote:
Ro. 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned —
We discover the author is misrepresenting the verse. Death did not "spread," it became real for all of creation due to the sin of Adam. Let's look at Ro. 5:16:
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
The result of Adam's sin is condemnation. We didn't inherit Adam's sin, we inherited the condemnation which comes from Adam's sin. Jesus said that very thing:
Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
We were born into condemnation. We were born dead. Sinning is what dead people do:
1Co. 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
Condemnation and death is the problem Jesus solved, giving us new life for death by washing our sins away. That's why Paul wrote:
Ro. 8:1-2 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
Our condemnation, which came from Adam's sin, which has been lifted in Christ making us free f from the effects of law [see vs. three and four]. The problem is not original sin, it is original death.)
But how, precisely, can Paul say that all people sinned because of Adam’s one sin? Adam and Christ serve as representative, or federal, heads for those who are in them: Adam represents all humanity and Christ represents only those who are in him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20–28). Each federal head acts, disobediently in the case of Adam and obediently in the case of the last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45): “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be constituted righteous” (Rom. 5:19, translation mine). Because of the respective (dis)obedience of Adam and Christ, God constitutes or appoints people into each category. Paul does not say that God considers people sinful because they sin; he does not say that people imitate Adam’s sin and therefore God classifies them as sinners; he does not say that people receive their sinful status by virtue of being born as sinners. Rather, God appoints or constitutes (katestathēsan) them as sinners and as righteous based on their relationship to their respective federal heads. (Wow, a lot of words to state a simple concept. Adam's sin brought death, but Jesus brought life. Adam doesn't represent us, his disobedience caused our death.)
Conclusion
This exegetical survey (The author flatters himself...)
Conclusion
This exegetical survey (The author flatters himself...)
of the Old and New Testaments leads to the theological conclusion that the Bible teaches a threefold imputation: God imputes Adam’s sin to all people, the sins of the redeemed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness to the redeemed, to those who are in Christ. The implications of this threefold imputation are profound. The doctrines of imputation and justification are inextricably linked. God does not justify, or declare righteous, sinners on the basis of their own good works (Eph. 2:8–9), but on the basis of the obedience and suffering of Christ received through imputation and grasped by faith alone. This scriptural teaching stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that God justifies sinners on the basis of inherent, rather than imputed, righteousness. In other words, a person must actually be holy in order to receive the verdict of righteous before the divine bar. Yet, such an opinion conflicts with Paul’s testimony that God justifies the “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5). The ungodly person can only receive the verdict of righteous by a gracious imputation. Question 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) asks, “How are you righteous before God?” It then responds: “Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments, of never having kept any of them and of still being inclined toward all evil, nevertheless, without any merit of my own, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, and as if I had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me. All I need to do is accept this gift with a believing heart.” Such truth is a balm to the trembling soul who fears standing the presence of a holy God wearing nothing but sin-stained garments. By God’s grace he freely gives us Christ’s robe of righteousness so that we stand holy in his sight.
FURTHER READING
Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation
John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin
John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ? Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?
V. Fesko, Death in Adam, Life in Christ: The Doctrine of Imputation
John Piper, Sermon: “Faith and the Imputation of Righteousness”
R. C. Sproul, Sermon: “The Doctrine of Imputation”
Thomas Schreiner, A Brief Look at John Calvin on Imputation
FURTHER READING
Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation
John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin
John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ? Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?
V. Fesko, Death in Adam, Life in Christ: The Doctrine of Imputation
John Piper, Sermon: “Faith and the Imputation of Righteousness”
R. C. Sproul, Sermon: “The Doctrine of Imputation”
Thomas Schreiner, A Brief Look at John Calvin on Imputation
No comments:
Post a Comment