Imputation of Christ's Righteous?

[Doulos Iesou]

What has historically been called the "wondrous exchange," the doctrine of imputation has been seen as one of the integral parts of the gospel message and what Christ accomplished for us on the Cross.

Even though I count myself among the "Protestant" side, I do not accept the doctrine of imputation for several reasons, and this thread will serve as an opportunity to discuss the Biblical case or against this doctrine.

Here are a couple general talking points regarding the doctrine of imputation.

Christ's Active and Passive Obedience. Often preachers will talk about this standard of righteous that had to be achieved on our behalf, a perfect obedience that the Law commanded. Christ, they will argue, achieved this perfect righteousness for us in his life (why else did he live 33 years for, they argue) and now offered it up for our sins on the Cross.

The Problem: No one is justified by the Law, but it was always by faith that made one regarded as "righteous" before God, as Paul argues in Galatians. This aspect makes it so that Christ vicariously achieves a righteousness through the Law and then offers it to us by faith, which in effect makes faith only the means to receive justification via works of the Law.

Christ's Righteous. This phrase is found no where in the New Testament, when rather it talks about "the Righteousness of God," and that in 2 Corinthians 5:21 this is something that we "become," rather than receive.

There are several other aspects that I hope we will discuss, and I wanted to wait before I provided any exegesis so as to keep my OP shorter.

Hope you are all able to participate!

Blessings,
DI

 

[veryberry]

What has historically been called the "wondrous exchange," the doctrine of imputation has been seen as one of the integral parts of the gospel message and what Christ accomplished for us on the Cross.

Even though I count myself among the "Protestant" side, I do not accept the doctrine of imputation for several reasons, and this thread will serve as an opportunity to discuss the Biblical case or against this doctrine.

Here are a couple general talking points regarding the doctrine of imputation.

Christ's Active and Passive Obedience. Often preachers will talk about this standard of righteous that had to be achieved on our behalf, a perfect obedience that the Law commanded. Christ, they will argue, achieved this perfect righteousness for us in his life (why else did he live 33 years for, they argue) and now offered it up for our sins on the Cross.

The Problem: No one is justified by the Law, but it was always by faith that made one regarded as "righteous" before God, as Paul argues in Galatians. This aspect makes it so that Christ vicariously achieves a righteousness through the Law and then offers it to us by faith, which in effect makes faith only the means to receive justification via works of the Law.

Christ's Righteous. This phrase is found no where in the New Testament, when rather it talks about "the Righteousness of God," and that in 2 Corinthians 5:21 this is something that we "become," rather than receive.

There are several other aspects that I hope we will discuss, and I wanted to wait before I provided any exegesis so as to keep my OP shorter.

Hope you are all able to participate!

Blessings,
DI

I'll bite. I'm interested to see your view.
Roms 5:17 - For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, JesusChrist.)

Roms 4:6 - Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

 

[chessman]

Often preachers will talk about this standard of righteous that had to be achieved on our behalf, a perfect obedience that the Law commanded. Christ, they will argue, achieved this perfect righteousness for us in his life (why else did he live 33 years for, they argue) and now offered it up for our sins on the Cross.

The Problem: No one is justified by the Law, [see my feedback, #1] but it was always by faith that made one regarded as "righteous" before God, as Paul argues in Galatians. This aspect makes it so that Christ vicariously achieves a righteousness through the Law and then offers it to us by faith, which in effect makes faith only the means to receive justification via works of the Law.

Christ's Righteous. This phrase is found no where in the New Testament, when rather it talks about "the Righteousness of God," [see my response, #2]

DI

[#1] I agree. I think that's abundantly clear not just in Gal, but Gen-Rev. But your OP title is not imputation through The Law, it's thru Christ...The Word...The Christ (God)

[#2]. I agree. But Scripture does speak of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, IMO. That is, to those that believe, The Word, The Christ is God. Here's a couple:

1 Corinthians 6:9, 11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ...
And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified ... [How?] in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

And one guess who the "He" is (Jesus Christ).

And John clarifies further:

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Sounds like imputation of Christ's righteousness to me. But I agree, Christ didn't earn His righteousness in 33 years through a sinless life. He just evidenced His righteousness in that way, among other ways.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I'll bite. I'm interested to see your view.
Roms 5:17 - For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, JesusChrist.)/quote]
Let's break this down a bit.

There are a lot of assumptions in this text regarding what this "gift of righteousness" is, when it comes to those who interpret it to support the doctrine of Imputation. Namely, they assume that this "righteousness" is Christ's own righteousness that has been imputed to us, so that we could be justified. I argue that it is on the grounds of faith alone apart from works of the law that we are justified, even if the works of the law are performed by someone else and then credited to our account.

This idea comes out of a Medieval understanding of righteousness, which arose from the Latin Vulgate's translation where we get the word "justice" from. All we see is forensic language, yet the Jewish usage of the word δικαιοσύνη is much more nuanced than that. While I will admit that Paul uses it within a law court framework here in Romans at several points, I will argue that the primary meaning of the term "righteousness of God," is in reference to God's faithfulness to his Covenant. Namely, the promise given to Abraham now fulfilled in Christ and that inheritance is now given according to the promise, not the law (the inheritance CAN'T come through the law as it was promised beforehand; Read Galatians 3). This verse now resonates with that promise as it alludes to the idea of reigning in life because of this gift of righteousness, which I view to be Covenant membership in Christ, and while that includes the idea of standing before God as righteous.. it is not on the basis of someone else's deeds being credited to our account.

The Bible consistently states that we will be held accountable on the final judgment for our OWN deeds done in the body, not what someone else did.

Going back to the idea of this being derived from a Medieval understanding, this debate has been stuck in the 16th Century for far too long, rather than addressing Paul as a 1st Century Jew and dealing with this doctrine in that historical context. So many have this concept of there being almost a bank account balance that we need in order to get to heaven, and the currency we need is righteousness. The Catholic Church at the time had a doctrine of indulgences, where loved ones could have righteousness from the "treasury of righteousness" that the Church had the keys to (so to speak), which contained the righteousness of all the Saints and Jesus.

Luther then argued in opposition to this doctrine that it is in fact Christ's own righteousness through faith alone, not the sacraments or actions of the church, that offered us presently once and for all righteous and justified before the courtroom of God. The entire debate has been founded on a grounds that is anachronistic.

Roms 4:6 - Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

I also believe in what is called "future justification," that God reckons a man righteous presently (drawing on law court terminology) and that anticipates the decision of God in the future on the final judgment where God will render the verdict of justified on the basis of the life lived by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. In other words, this stance of "justified" is telling us who will be God's people in the age to come, and they are now given status to operate and be apart of that age to come in the present via the down payment of that inheritance, the Holy Spirit.

In other words, justification isn't about how one gets to heaven, rather it is more about who are God's people in the present and future, and how heaven is breaking into earth setting the whole of creation right.

The word "logizomai," here translated by the KJV as imputeth, simply means "to reckon, or count," not necessarily implying the idea of a transaction taking place.

 

[chessman]

Here's another passage I feel speaks to this question:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

God made Him to be sin (i.e. To God, sin means death separation. Christ Jesus wasn't sinful, ever, but He became the sacrifice for sin for me and you. For our sake!


In Him (Jesus) we (believers) become the Righteousness of God. Again, sounds like imputation to me. Paul Doesn't use the exact phrase, but that seems to be the meaning of it. But once again, none of this Law keeping mentioned.

Christ's death and resurrection sure is mentioned though. And our belief (here our "conclusion") is as well.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

For our sake - He died!
For our sake - He was raised!
For our sake - we MIGHT (the believer) become the righteousness of God!

For the love of Christ controls us? Our what? Choice of pizza toppings? Not so much. Choice in our "conclusion"? Not so much as it says WE have concluded...

So what does Christ's love control, exactly?
Our becoming the righteousness of God, that's what. IMO

 

[Doulos Iesou]

[#1] I agree. I think that's abundantly clear not just in Gal, but Gen-Rev. But your OP title is not imputation through The Law, it's thru Christ...The Word...The Christ (God)

Historically, the reformed doctrine of imputation holds that Christ's righteousness, obtained through his perfect obedience in life is imputed or credited to our account when we come to faith.

It is not imputed through the law, but through faith in Christ and then his righteousness is imputed to the believer. That's how it has historically been put.

[#2]. I agree. But Scripture does speak of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, IMO. That is, to those that believe, The Word, The Christ is God. Here's a couple:

We shall see.

1 Corinthians 6:9, 11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ...
And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified ... [How?] in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

I definitely don't see it here, nor have I in discussions and debates on the matter had this text really come up to support that position in particular.

Could you perhaps point out where imputation is taking place in this verse?

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
And one guess who the "He" is (Jesus Christ).

No disagreement here, Jesus is the one who cleanses us from all unrighteousness. Though I don't see imputation in the language here, I do see the forgiveness of sins which is different from imputation. If our sins were imputed to Christ, then they weren't forgiven, he took the punishment and we weren't regarded according to our sins but his righteousness.

Scripture paints a different picture. We are forgiven for our sins, and come into union with Christ and share in his death burial and resurrection, dying to sin and rising to newness of life.

And John clarifies further:

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
Sounds like imputation of Christ's righteousness to me. But I agree, Christ didn't earn His righteousness in 33 years through a sinless life. He just evidenced His righteousness in that way, among other ways.

This isn't imputation, Christ is not taking the sins upon himself and offering his righteousness to us, he is advocating for us as our high priest when we do sin. Why would we need to have him as an advocate for our sins, if he took them all?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Here's another passage I feel speaks to this question:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

God made Him to be sin (i.e. To God, sin means death separation. Christ Jesus wasn't sinful, ever, but He became the sacrifice for sin for me and you. For our sake!


In Him (Jesus) we (believers) become the Righteousness of God. Again, sounds like imputation to me. Paul Doesn't use the exact phrase, but that seems to be the meaning of it. But once again, none of this Law keeping mentioned.

Christ's death and resurrection sure is mentioned though. And our belief (here our "conclusion") is as well.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

For our sake - He died!
For our sake - He was raised!
For our sake - we MIGHT (the believer) become the righteousness of God!

For the love of Christ controls us? Our what? Choice of pizza toppings? Not so much. Choice in our "conclusion"? Not so much as it says WE have concluded...

So what does Christ's love control, exactly?
Our becoming the righteousness of God, that's what. IMO

Notice, the words are "we might become the righteousness of God." And remember this deals with the idea of what does the "righteousness of God," truly mean? I see the forensic idea of law court terminology in Romans, but elsewhere Paul seems to employ it as a 1st Century Jew. Namely, that the righteousness of God is a reference to God's faithfulness to his Covenant, not that he merely does good things but he is a God who stays faithful to what he has promised.

Now with that in mind, let's look at this text within it's context.

The wider context is that Paul is addressing his apostleship, talking constantly about his "ministry," that is that he is an apostle to the Gentiles. That in this position as an ambassador for the New Covenant, he has become the living embodiment of the dying savior, and we are to join him in this mission. That Christ died for our sake, and became a sin-offering, in order that God's Covenant faithfulness might be revealed in us.

I believe that Paul's writings only make sense if you put them in that 1st Century Jewish framework, that he was expecting a Messiah who would fulfill God's promises to restore Israel. Yet, Israel refused God, but in that refusal the gospel passed to the Gentiles (as it had been foretold!) so as to make the Israelites jealous and one day turn to the risen Messiah Jesus. This is about God's promise to restore humanity and creation through Christ and we as his ambassadors are his hand and feet on earth to do this good work for him.

This text is not some random bit of atonement theology thrown into Paul's writings (no where is that done), it is tied directly to the surrounding context which is Paul's apostolic ministry of reconciliation.

 

[chessman]

1 Corinthians 6:9, 11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ...
And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified ... [How?] in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Could you perhaps point out where imputation is taking place in this verse?

First, I don't find it any more significant that "imputation" doesn't appear here than the fact that Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible. Or that "Bible" doesn't appear in the Bible. Or that "we come into union with Christ" doesn't either. I get the fact that "imputation" doesn't appear here.

But, to answer more, By Paul saying we WERE unrighteous i find it acceptable to take that to mean we are no longer that way. Which to no longer be unrighteous means righteous, does it not? You seem to agree that a believer is somehow viewed as righteous (even though we know we aren't really righteous or at least we were once unrighteous). You say below it's Jesus that does cleanse us of all unrighteousness, so I don't see what else needs explaining.

We were unrighteous.
We are no longer.
Our righteousness occurred via Christ and H.S.

I.e. "Imputation of Christ's righteousness".

Jesus Christ is the righteous one (always was and will be). We believe in His name (by the HS) and poof, we are washed, cleansed, sanctified and justified and no longer unrighteous. How is this not the very definition of imputation of Christ's righteousness to us?

And Paul tells us how this change from being unrighteous to righteous occurs.
It occurs through the washing, sanctification and justification by the Trinity yet it is ascribed to us. It sounds like imputation to me.


1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
To which, you say:

No disagreement here, Jesus is the one who cleanses us from all unrighteousness. Though I don't see imputation in the language here,

What definition are you using for imputation? I don't find it necessary or significant that the word "imputation" doesn't appear here. Is not the very principle of it implied here, especially reading on into chapter 2.

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

The reason i mention this verse was not so much the advocate part (though it does speak to imputation, IMO, without using the word itself) but the fact that John says Jesus is the righteous. This seems to imply to me (via the English) that Jesus didn't arrive at His righteousness after 33 years of sin-free living, but rather simply/basically IS righteous. You would know better than I via the Greek verb tense.

We are forgiven for our sins, and come into union with Christ...

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you know a Scripture that states we "come into union with Christ", or are you getting this language from a broader message within Scripture(s)?

Kind of like the "imputation of Christ's righteousness" is.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

1 Corinthians 6:9, 11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ...
And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified ... [How?] in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.



First, I don't find it any more significant that "imputation" doesn't appear here than the fact that Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible. Or that "Bible" doesn't appear in the Bible. Or that "we come into union with Christ" doesn't either. I get the fact that "imputation" doesn't appear here.

I think we should be careful with this kind of argument, we can easily begin to justify all kinds of things on this basis that aren't contained within the Bible. While I think it is a bad idea to dismiss just because the exact phrase isn't there, I certainly think it makes it harder to demonstrate. The Trinity is simply a historical way to regard the triune nature of God.

But, to answer more, By Paul saying we WERE unrighteous i find it acceptable to take that to mean we are no longer that way. Which to no longer be unrighteous means righteous, does it not?

I agree so far.

You seem to agree that a believer is somehow viewed as righteous (even though we know we aren't really righteous or at least we were once unrighteous). You say below it's Jesus that does cleanse us of all unrighteousness, so I don't see what else needs explaining.

We were unrighteous.
We are no longer.
Our righteousness occurred via Christ and H.S.

I.e. "Imputation of Christ's righteousness".

The conclusion on your part as to how one became righteous is completely inserted out of nowhere though and is not stated in this text. The Bible says that one is reckoned as "righteous" on account of their faith, and that is my position. There is cleansing and sanctifying and that is a part of being conformed into the image of Christ who we came into union with and now share in his resurrection life via the same power of the Holy Spirit that rose him from the dead.

As John said, he who PRACTICES righteousness is righteous.

Jesus Christ is the righteous one (always was and will be). We believe in His name (by the HS) and poof, we are washed, cleansed, sanctified and justified and no longer unrighteous. How is this not the very definition of imputation of Christ's righteousness to us?

The conclusion is not stated, it is assumed so far on your part.

I'll address the rest once I get home. Enjoying this dialogue so far!

 

[chessman]

The conclusion on your part as to how one became righteous is completely inserted out of nowhere though and is not stated in this text.

So, you agree Paul's talking about our righteousness and then the text goes on to say it comes ..." in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

And you say my conclusion is completely inserted. I didn't insert by Christ and the H.S. Paul did.

The Trinity is simply a historical way to regard the triune nature of God

umm, "simply"? You sure there's not various texts to support The Trinity?

I think we should be careful with this kind of argument, we can easily begin to justify all kinds of things on this basis that aren't contained within the Bible.

Me too.

 

[By Grace]

So, you agree Paul's talking about our righteousness and then the text goes on to say it comes ..." in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

And you say my conclusion is completely inserted. I didn't insert by Christ and the H.S. Paul did.

umm, "simply"? You sure there's not various texts to support The Trinity?

Me too.

IMHO it is always best to begin with Scripture, especially when the first instance of imputation happens.

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.​

Paul explains this further in Romans 4:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
​

When we look at the context of the Hebrew (remembering that every verse ripped from its context becomes a pretext) we see that this is the prologue to the Covenant, which God makes with Abraham. In the mind of God, a covenant is a "one sided contract" whereby God says, "I will do this, and you do that, but I know you will fail"-- and that is because you are a sinner needing my grace.

Notice that there are three parts to this covenant, God offers it, Abraham accepts or believes it, then God acts to declare Abraham righteous based solely upon his belief (not works) and then rewards Abraham with righteousness. Since it is evident that God alone first offers the covenant to Abraham we will skip to what Abraham did in response to the presentation of the covenant: He believed.

Looking further at the Hebrew word "believed" we can see that the verb is a simple hiphil stem, meaning past, and since the vav (and) is consecutive with it the verb becomes a perfect past tense action. The depth of the meaning of that verb is amazing:

539 אָמַן, אָמַן [ʾaman /aw·man/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 116; GK 586 and 587; 108 occurrences; AV translates as “believe” 44 times, “assurance” once, “faithful” 20 times, “sure” 11 times, “established” seven times, “trust” five times, “verified” three times, “stedfast” twice, “continuance” twice, “father” twice, “bring up” four times, “nurse” twice, “be nursed” once, “surely be” once, “stand fast” once, “fail” once, and “trusty” once. 1 to support, confirm, be faithful. 1A (Qal). 1A1 to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish. 1A1A foster-father (subst.). 1A1B foster-mother, nurse. 1A1C pillars, supporters of the door. 1B (Niphal). 1B1 to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm. 1B1A to be carried by a nurse. 1B1B made firm, sure, lasting. 1B1C confirmed, established, sure. 1B1D verified, confirmed. 1B1E reliable, faithful, trusty. 1C (Hiphil). 1C1 to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in. 1C1A stand firm. 1C1B trust, believe.

Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

There can be no sense of wavering in the fact that Abraham (father of many) BELIEVED

As to what he placed his faith in, it is YAHWEH (Tetragrammaton)

ה, יְהוִה [Yâhovah /yeh·ho·vaw/] n pr dei. From 1961; TWOT 484a; GK 3378; 6519 occurrences; AV translates as “LORD” 6510 times, “GOD” four times, “JEHOVAH” four times, and “variant” once. 1 the proper name of the one true God. 1A unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136. Additional Information: Jehovah = “the existing One”.

Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

The verb "counted" does not mean enumeration, but rather it is akin to having a debit card that never runs out of righteousness as its "currency"
חָשַׁב, חֹשֵׁב

[chashab /khaw·shab/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 767; GK 3108 and 3110; 124 occurrences; AV translates as “count” 23 times, “devise” 22 times, “think” 18 times, “imagine” nine times, “cunning” eight times, “reckon” seven times, “purpose” six times, “esteem” six times, “account” five times, “impute” four times, “forecast” twice, “regard” twice, “workman” twice, “conceived” once, and translated miscellaneously nine times. 1 to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count. 1A (Qal). 1A1 to think, account. 1A2 to plan, devise, mean. 1A3 to charge, impute, reckon. 1A4 to esteem, value, regard. 1A5 to invent. 1B (Niphal). 1B1 to be accounted, be thought, be esteemed. 1B2 to be computed, be reckoned. 1B3 to be imputed. 1C (Piel). 1C1 to think upon, consider, be mindful of. 1C2 to think to do, devise, plan. 1C3 to count, reckon. 1D (Hithpael) to be considered.

Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
This verb is in the Qal stem, and it is a present imperfect. It means that the action of the verb has a point of origin, but that its effects are on going.

i To express an incomplete action denoted by the controlling verb, which could be at the moment or after the action of the verb;
ii. To express a repetitive or habitual action; it does not express the time or the moment of the action of the verb, that is, the moment when the action of the verb takes place, hence the time of the action of the controlling verb could be in the past, the present or the future
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30081211/Chapter-Nine-The-Imperfect-Tense
​

The ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1901) explains imputation thus:

The word "imputation," according to the Scriptural usage, denotes an attributing of something to a person, or a charging of one with anything, or a setting of something to one's account. This takes place sometimes in a judicial manner, so that the thing imputed becomes a ground of reward or punishment. The word is used in the King James Version a number of times to translate the Hebrew verb chashabh and the Greek verb logizomai. These words, both of which occur frequently in Scripture, and which in a number of instances mean simply "to think," express the above idea. That this is the case is clear also from the other English words used in the King James Version to translate these Hebrew and Greek words, as, for example, "to count," "to reckon," "to esteem." Thus chashabh is translated in the King James Version by the verb "to impute" (Le 7:18; 17:4; 2Sa 19:19); by the verb "to reckon" (2Sa 4:2); by "to count" as something (Le 25:31 English versions). The verb in 1Sa 22:15 is sim. Similarly, logizomai is translated by the verb "to impute" (Ro 4:6,8,11,22,23,24; 2Co 5:19; Jas 2:23); by the verb "to count" (Ro 2:26; 4:3,5); "to account" (Ga 3:6); and by the verb "to reckon" (Ro 4:4,9,10). In the Revised Version (British and American) the word used to render logizomai is the verb "to reckon."

These synonyms of the verb "to impute" bring out the idea of reckoning or charging to one's account...
​

What this all comes down to is the fact that because Abraham believed, God imputed His Own Righteousness unto Abraham. By extension EVERY Christian has that happen to him/her forever.

I don't know about you, but after digging that up, and doing a short exegesis, I want to shout PRAISE GOD!! HE HAS GLORIOUSLY SAVED ME!! FOREVER HE KEEPS ME!!!!

 

[By Grace]

PART TWO

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.​

I will not attempt to reinvent the wheel, so I will only focus on the verb "believed" λογίζομαι in the Greek, or transliterated "logizomai" This verb is even better in the Greek!
It is parsed as "aorist PASSIVE indicative, third person singular. The last three words refer back to Abraham, himself, so that is relatively unimportant. In Greek verbs, it is not like English verbs in that the tense is most important, rather it is the mood and voice where the emphasis is.

The tense is aorist, and it is a simple past tense, just like the Qal in Hebrew. To my way of thinking, it is the passive mood that stands out. That is because the passive voice demonstrates not that the subject of the sentence is acting, but rather that an outside force is acting upon the subject.

This is where it REALLY gets cool! The indicative mood is the mood of assertion (by the speaker) and it is unconditional. That is there are ZERO extenuating circumstances whereby things can be changed. therefore it is non-conditional, and this is the most frequent usage of the mood. We see the same Greek construction in John 1:1 and throughout Acts, where Peter went up to a roof top to pray, there was this jailer in Philippe for example.

In other words, you cannot quibble about the historicity of a Greek verb in the indicative mood in the Bible. It happened as the speaker stated it, end of story.

Now to give an over all understanding of "imputation" in Scripture. There are three different imputations in Scripture:

1. Imputation of Adam's Sin to His Posterity
2. Imputation of the Sins of His People on to Christ
3. Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to His People

Due to the "heaviness" of the subject of imputation, I have only dealt with the last of the 3 imputations, but without keeping the other two in mind, it is impossible do really and deeply understand how great is your sin and mine, understand the horrible remedy required whereby a just and r4ighteous Son of God took upon Himself all of your sins and mine and bore them on the cross, atoning for them when He gave up His life.

Butit is this Sunday that we celebrate the Resurrection of our Savior, and because of that, ALL of us who believe and trust Jesus in the same manner as did Abraham, have the righteousness of God the Sin charged over to out account forever and without any conditions attached.

HAPPY EASTER!!!
HE IS RISEN!
HE IS RISEN INDEED!!!

 

[Doulos Iesou]

And Paul tells us how this change from being unrighteous to righteous occurs.
It occurs through the washing, sanctification and justification by the Trinity yet it is ascribed to us. It sounds like imputation to me.


1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
To which, you say:

I'm curious, how do you define imputation. These are texts that I never see used to defend imputation.

What definition are you using for imputation? I don't find it necessary or significant that the word "imputation" doesn't appear here. Is not the very principle of it implied here, especially reading on into chapter 2.

I think the word "reckon" is a better representation of the Greek, but imputation is used in the KJV and is drawn from a 16th understanding of the term, which is to credit to a person. At the time, the idea of righteousness being a commodity that could be credited to an account (to represent the idea). Hence the thought of imputation is used and I would say abused, rather than it being about God reckoning us as being righteous on account of our faith.

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

The reason i mention this verse was not so much the advocate part (though it does speak to imputation, IMO, without using the word itself) but the fact that John says Jesus is the righteous. This seems to imply to me (via the English) that Jesus didn't arrive at His righteousness after 33 years of sin-free living, but rather simply/basically IS righteous. You would know better than I via the Greek verb tense.

That fact that Jesus is righteous regardless of the life he lived is something I fully support and agree with. This would however simply be a nuance to your particular view, and does nothing to demonstrate that Christ's righteousness is imputed, credited to a believers account.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you know a Scripture that states we "come into union with Christ", or are you getting this language from a broader message within Scripture(s)?

Kind of like the "imputation of Christ's righteousness" is.

Union with Christ is VERY explicit and very often taught, while people try to support the doctrine of imputation through implication of what certain verses say while ignoring the context and historical occasion for such writings.

 

[cyberjosh]

Oh boy. I have quite a bit to catch up on here. Not a bad topic. I would like to weigh in on this discussion as well.

There are a lot of assumptions in this text regarding what this "gift of righteousness" is, when it comes to those who interpret it to support the doctrine of Imputation. Namely, they assume that this "righteousness" is Christ's own righteousness that has been imputed to us, so that we could be justified. I argue that it is on the grounds of faith alone apart from works of the law that we are justified, even if the works of the law are performed by someone else and then credited to our account.

First may we clear something up? Let's determine whether we believe that Jesus took our own sins upon himself first, before we determine if anything went the other direction from Christ to us. Call this imputation, exchange, transfer, or whatever you want but I will stick with "imputation" for now unless you beg to differ. The Scripture teaches that our sin was "imputed" to Christ, placed upon him, for which he actually (not theoretically) suffered and died on our behalf.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13 ESV)

Notice the vicarious "for us" statement here. It was in our stead that he hung condemned.

Even stronger:

"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21 NKJV)

As for this last verse in particular we may soundly say that here (however we may take the relation): sin is to Christ, as righteousness is to us. That is a fair parallel. But in what way is sin to Christ as righteousness to us? Shall we call the relational action to its object imputation? If not then what? Does it matter what we call it as long as we understand that there is indeed a divine exchange with mankind that went in both directions?

While I will admit that Paul uses it within a law court framework here in Romans at several points, I will argue that the primary meaning of the term "righteousness of God," is in reference to God's faithfulness to his Covenant. Namely, the promise given to Abraham now fulfilled in Christ and that inheritance is now given according to the promise, not the law (the inheritance CAN'T come through the law as it was promised beforehand; Read Galatians 3).

I don't necessarily disagree that in some places righteousness implies God's just faithfulness to covenant, but we cannot therefore apply such a meaning across the board to all occurrences of the word as Paul uses it.

I have seen you several times so far refer to how Paul, as a 1st century Jew, and how that would have had an impact on his thought. This I do not doubt, and modern scholarship has done much to illuminate for us 1st century Judaism, and help us better understand the times and the interpretations of the Jewish leaders in their traditions that later went into the Talmud and Mishnah. Yet focus on such research (as always in scholarship) runs the risk of placing the exegetical key to scripture outside of scripture itself and not within its own pages. Don't get me wrong though. It is very useful to understand 1st century Judaism and its influences on the NT writers and has helped illuminate many things for us but we need to take Paul on his own terms. I just want us to understand that we cannot bank on "what 1st century Jews" thought as a key to the gospel or the NT writers thinking. They were informed by God the Holy Spirit in them, far beyond their earthly learning, upbringing, and education.

Now, let us not forget that Paul did not merely convert his pro-Judaism thinking and zeal into a Christian version of that (as perhaps might be said of Apollos - not to demean the genuineness of his conversion) but rather Paul removed himself to Arabia where he says he learned the Gospel of Jesus Christ from no man and it was there that his doctrine was not only shaped but also overturned all his previous thinking, such that he counted his previous thinking as worthless in comparison to the truth shown to him. Thus in Philippians 3:4-6 he cites his impeccable Hebrew, Jewish credentials but then proceeds to say that he counts it all loss for the sake of Christ.

Peter Enns, as much as I disagree with his interpretation of Paul, I think is right about one thing: Paul while he learned the gospel from Jesus for three years came back with a completely revolutionary understanding of the origins of sin and its undoing through Christ. Paul (from a human perspective) "invented" the doctrine of original sin (really this is attributable to divine revelation), and how Jesus' sacrifice went far beyond the requirements of the law but even to touch upon the very origin of sin itself. Enns points out the novelty of this understanding of sin and how it completely parts from contemporary Jewish thought (such that Enns says that Paul was mistaken). Paul had a very unique understanding of Jesus' sacrifice that led him to write such a magisterial work as Romans which has some teachings not found at all in the non-Pauline epistles, and even Peter said that some of the things that Paul taught were hard to understand. So I would not be too quick to fit Paul's thought exclusively into contemporary 1st century Jewish thought.

Now, that being said consider the rest of what Paul said in Philippians 3:

"As to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (vs 6-9)

Take a look at what Paul says. First he claims to have been blameless as to the "doing" kind of righteousness according to the law. But then he says he counted that all as loss and then says that he seeks to attain a righteousness not that he could claim as his own (not according to his doing) but rather the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ. This is a personal righteousness to be gotten for one's self that does not have the (only occasional) divine covenantal sense but rather a right standing before God (comparable to the early "blamelessness"), and such as is only attained by personal faith. This scripture could not be more explicit. We don't seek after our own righteousness through our own attainment, but rather righteousness from God that comes through faith in Christ. This is imputation (justification) according to God's righteousness and not our own by any count.

This verse now resonates with that promise as it alludes to the idea of reigning in life because of this gift of righteousness, which I view to be Covenant membership in Christ, and while that includes the idea of standing before God as righteous.. it is not on the basis of someone else's deeds being credited to our account.

We will have to evaluate Romans 5:17 in more depth later, since scripture cannot contradict itself our standing before God must fall along the lines that Paul mentioned in Philippians 3 as well.

The Bible consistently states that we will be held accountable on the final judgment for our OWN deeds done in the body, not what someone else did.

Here we would be helped by specific scripture references, but I think you misunderstand the two judgments that will take place. One shall be for eternal life or eternal death, and then those who receive the gift of eternal life shall also be judged for their deeds done in the body whether good or evil and may suffer loss, but this is in terms of reward. Jesus in his parable spoke about different magnitudes or "folds" (e.g. 100-fold) of reward, and this even in John's epistles he says "Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward." (2 John 1:8). This deals with partial vs. full rewards.

This has the beginnings of a very good discussion and I hope we can continue to delve into this. That is all I can reply to for now. I look forward to your thoughts.

God Bless,
Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Sorry, I made several edits to expand the above post. If you read it before the timestamp on this post, please reread it. Sorry again...

 

[cyberjosh]

The edit time window expired, but I will put one last expansion inline in the following quote (marked in red for clarity):

This is a personal righteousness to be gotten for one's self that does not have the (only occasional) divine covenantal "faithfulness of God" sense, but rather a right standing before God (comparable to the early "blamelessness"), and is such as is only attained by personal faith. This scripture could not be more explicit as to the source of our righteousness. We don't seek after our own righteousness through our own attainment, but rather righteousness from God that comes through faith in Christ. This is imputation (justification) according to God's righteousness, and not our own, by any count.

 

[Deborah13]

Good post Josh. Thank you again.

 

[Deborah13]

PART TWO

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.​

I will not attempt to reinvent the wheel, so I will only focus on the verb "believed" λογίζομαι in the Greek, or transliterated "logizomai" This verb is even better in the Greek!
It is parsed as "aorist PASSIVE indicative, third person singular. The last three words refer back to Abraham, himself, so that is relatively unimportant. In Greek verbs, it is not like English verbs in that the tense is most important, rather it is the mood and voice where the emphasis is.

The tense is aorist, and it is a simple past tense, just like the Qal in Hebrew. To my way of thinking, it is the passive mood that stands out. That is because the passive voice demonstrates not that the subject of the sentence is acting, but rather that an outside force is acting upon the subject.

This is where it REALLY gets cool! The indicative mood is the mood of assertion (by the speaker) and it is unconditional. That is there are ZERO extenuating circumstances whereby things can be changed. therefore it is non-conditional, and this is the most frequent usage of the mood. We see the same Greek construction in John 1:1 and throughout Acts, where Peter went up to a roof top to pray, there was this jailer in Philippe for example.

In other words, you cannot quibble about the historicity of a Greek verb in the indicative mood in the Bible. It happened as the speaker stated it, end of story.

Now to give an over all understanding of "imputation" in Scripture. There are three different imputations in Scripture:

1. Imputation of Adam's Sin to His Posterity
2. Imputation of the Sins of His People on to Christ
3. Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to His People

Due to the "heaviness" of the subject of imputation, I have only dealt with the last of the 3 imputations, but without keeping the other two in mind, it is impossible do really and deeply understand how great is your sin and mine, understand the horrible remedy required whereby a just and r4ighteous Son of God took upon Himself all of your sins and mine and bore them on the cross, atoning for them when He gave up His life.

Butit is this Sunday that we celebrate the Resurrection of our Savior, and because of that, ALL of us who believe and trust Jesus in the same manner as did Abraham, have the righteousness of God the Sin charged over to out account forever and without any conditions attached.

HAPPY EASTER!!!
HE IS RISEN!
HE IS RISEN INDEED!!!

Hi By Grace, would you tell me what your source is for your parsing for the word 'believed'?
I've looked at two sources and both say it's in the active voice rather than passive.

 

[chessman]

I'm curious, how do you define imputation. These are texts that I never see used to defend imputation.

Well, that's a good question. I could list the secular definitions and/or synonyms but i would be at risk of loosing certain Biblical (Jewish/Greek) aspects of the word. Potentially, anyway. But to answer as straightforwardly as I can, I believe it means "to count" or "to credit" or "to ascribe" or "to view" or "to reckon". That type of verb. And yes it likely does have its root in a judicial setting. All the more supportive when we recognize Jesus as our Judge, no?

What difference does it make that you've never seen these passages used for studying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers? Are you suggesting I'm not capable of some originality?

I could easily copy/paste someone else's thoughts here. But I don't use CFNet that way.

I think the word "reckon" is a better representation of the Greek, but imputation is used in the KJV and is drawn from a 16th understanding of the term, which is to credit to a person..

I agree. I'm from the south. We say "i reckon" all the time. Which pretty much just means "I think", I recken so, anyway.

That fact that Jesus is righteous regardless of the life he lived is something I fully support and agree with. This would however simply be a nuance to your particular view, and does nothing to demonstrate that Christ's righteousness is imputed, credited to a believers account.
.

Are u sure the nuance we both agree on does nothing toward my case? When Paul says "in His name" does not "in His name" include His righteousness too?

Union with Christ is VERY explicit and very often taught, while people try to support the doctrine of imputation through implication of what certain verses say while ignoring the context and historical occasion for such writings.

You mentioned you believe we have "union with Christ". What verse has this phrase in it?

 

[chessman]

Notice, the words are "we might become the righteousness of God." And remember this deals with the idea of what does the "righteousness of God," truly mean? I see the forensic idea of law court terminology in Romans, but elsewhere Paul seems to employ it as a 1st Century Jew. Namely, that the righteousness of God is a reference to God's faithfulness to his Covenant, not that he merely does good things but he is a God who stays faithful to what he has promised.

Now with that in mind, let's look at this text within it's context.

The wider context is that Paul is addressing his apostleship, talking constantly about his "ministry," that is that he is an apostle to the Gentiles. That in this position as an ambassador for the New Covenant, he has become the living embodiment of the dying savior, and we are to join him in this mission. That Christ died for our sake, and became a sin-offering, in order that God's Covenant faithfulness might be revealed in us.

I believe that Paul's writings only make sense if you put them in that 1st Century Jewish framework, that he was expecting a Messiah who would fulfill God's promises to restore Israel. Yet, Israel refused God, but in that refusal the gospel passed to the Gentiles (as it had been foretold!) so as to make the Israelites jealous and one day turn to the risen Messiah Jesus. This is about God's promise to restore humanity and creation through Christ and we as his ambassadors are his hand and feet on earth to do this good work for him.

This text is not some random bit of atonement theology thrown into Paul's writings (no where is that done), it is tied directly to the surrounding context which is Paul's apostolic ministry of reconciliation.

I've read through this post carefully several times and 'slept' on it. I find nothing in it I disagree with. Very excellent points IMO. You seem to me to be someone who has studied Paul's writings in great detail. Especially Romans. With that said, how does any of your points about Paul's apostolic ministry to the Gentiles conflict with my use of 2 Cor 5:21 for support of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to a Gentile believer?

The only thing I can surmise is that you think the "we" in verse 21 is a reference to Paul and his fellow apostles, not so much the Gentiles to which he writes. Is that what you think?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Who is the we/our in this verse referencing?