This is a post designed to answer deeper theological questions. I've asked Facebook friends to post questions for discussion. I'll make a humble attempt to explore these questions from a biblical perspective.
Q: I've never understood the "how" behind Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice. How does his righteousness get transferred to us and our sin to Him? Why is a substitution acceptable to God, even in the Mosaic law? --Lewis Crow
A: Lewis, this question of substitution has been on my mind as well. In the Law, God allowed a penal [legal] substitute for human sin. Declaring that the penalty of sin is death [Romans 3:23], He chose to allow one to die for another. Before Christ, an unblemished lamb [aka "scapegoat"] could serve as the substitute for a penitent sinner. In the New Testament, Jesus becomes the perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world [John 1:29].
This idea of substitution is known as "imputation." Three imputations are found in the Bible and in our human experience. First, Adam's sin is imputed to us. Sin entered the world through this one representative man and was laid upon everyone who would be descended from him [see Romans 5:12ff].
Second, our sin is imputed to Christ. While some cry "foul!" because we are held responsible for something Adam started, they don't mind letting Jesus bear the punishment for something we did. Isaiah writes that "God laid on Him the iniquity of us all" [53:6].
The last imputation is Christ's righteousness given to us. Paul writes, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" [2 Corinthians 5:21]. As we trust in Jesus Christ, His righteousness replaces our sin. In this great exchange, we become acceptable to God.
These three imputations are mysterious principles of creation ordained by God. I consider them an expression of His grace--making it possible for sin to be justly condemned and sinners to be reconciled to God through the substitutionary work of a perfect God-man.
I hope this helps.
10 comments:
I think you have a wrong view of imputation:
In my study on this topic of imputed righteousness, the Greek term “logizomai” is the English term for “reckon/impute/credit/etc,” (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular lexicon here is what it is defined as:
—————-
QUOTE: “This word deals with reality. If I “logizomai” or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”
http://tinyurl.com/r92dch
—————-
The lexicon states this term first and foremost refers to the actual status of something. So if Abraham’s faith is “logizomai as righteousness,” it must be an actually righteous act of faith, otherwise (as the Lexicon says) “I am deceiving myself.” This seems to rule out any notion of an alien righteousness, and instead points to a local/inherent righteousness.
The Lexicon gives other examples where “logizomai” appears, here are some examples:
——————-
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted [logizomai] as a gift but as his due.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
——————-
Notice in these examples that “logizomai” means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul ‘reckons’ faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 4:4 the worker’s wages are ‘reckoned’ as a debt because the boss is in debt to the worker, not giving a gift to him. In 6:11 the Christian is ‘reckoned’ dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul ‘reckons’ the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.
To use logizomai in the “alien status” way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn’t really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 4:4 the boss gives payment to the worker as a gift rather than obligation/debt; (3) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (4) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven’s glory.
This cannot be right.
So when the text plainly says “faith is logizomai as righteousness,” I must read that as ‘faith is reckoned as a truly righteous act’, and that is precisely how Paul explains that phrase in 4:18-22. That despite the doubts that could be raised in Abraham’s heart, his faith grew strong and convinced and “that is why his faith was credited as righteousness” (v4:22). This is also confirmed by noting the only other time “credited as righteousness” appears in Scripture, Psalm 106:30-31, where Phinehas’ righteous action was reckoned as such. This is confirmed even more when one compares another similar passage, Hebrews 11:4, where by faith Abel was commended as righteous.
Lastly, the Bible uses the term "impute" over 40 times in the NT, so the Apostles were well aware and could have used the term, but Scripture never uses it in the other senses you've suggested.
Nick,
thanks for taking time to respond. However, where in my post have I suggested that I am dealing with "suppositions" rather than "facts?" In fact, I believe that the imputation of Adam's sin to us, our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us ARE judicial, spiritual, historical realities. And, in fact, the Bible DOES speak of imputation in the three senses I mentioned. Though I prefer more extensive Systematic Theologies, here is a snapshot from Hayford's Bible Handbook:
IMPUTATION—charging or reckoning something to a person’s account. An example of the concept of imputation is in Philemon, where Paul tells him to “put on my account” (v. 18) any wrong or debt caused by Onesimus. Three distinct biblical truths relate to imputation:
1. The Imputation of Adam’s Sin to His Descendants. Romans 5:12-19 declares that God imputes the guilt of Adam’s sin to all other members of the human race: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…judgment came to all men…death reigned through the one.” (See also 1 Cor. 15:21-22.)
2. The Imputation of the Believer’s Sin to Christ. In addition to guilt imputed or inherited from Adam’s sin, each individual also stands guilty for his or her personal sin (2 Cor. 5:19). But the Lord Jesus, whose supernatural conception and birth and sinless life kept Him from both personal guilt and from Adam’s sin, had no sin counted against Him. When He died as our substitute, God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Our sin was imputed to Him (Is. 53:6).
3. The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to the Believer. “The blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness” is the theme of the fourth chapter of Romans (also 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). As Jesus became the Holy and Just One (Acts 3:14) through His perfect obedience to God’s Law (Rom. 5:19), these qualities are imputed in turn “to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:24). Because of this the believer will appear before God “faultless” (Jude 24). We are welcomed and can stand in God’s presence because Jesus has imputed His righteousness and holiness to us through His sacrificial death on the Cross.
Hi,
Sorry for this late response, a lot of stuff came up in my life (nothing tragic, thankfully), including food poisoning the last few days. I simply have been unable to be online for more than maybe 15 minutes a day over the last week or so.
Can you explain what you mean by Imputation being or relating to a "spiritual" reality?
As for your quote from Hayford's Bible Handbook, I think there are some significant problems in it's claims:
1) The term for "impute" in Philemon is *not* logizomai, but a different word, and only occurs twice in the Bible (neither of which relate to the "Three Imputations" you speak of).
2) The term "impute" (logizomai) is never used in the Three Ways you speak, despite being used all over the place for other non-related issues. It's wrong to take a (common) Biblical term and apply it to texts/doctrines to which the term is never used as such in Scripture.
Nick,
When I say "spiritual," I mean the deep part of who we are. Sin is a spiritual problem. Imputation deals with this spiritual problem. I DON'T mean that it is not a actual, real transaction that takes place.
Regarding Paul's use of "elloga" rather than "logizomai" in Philemon: I'm not sure what your point is. Hayford uses this as an example to understand the concept of imputation [that's why he uses the word "concept"]. He isn't suggesting that Philemon 18 is describing a use of imputation such as I described.
Regarding your second point: You are assuming that the theological concept of imputation may ONLY be expressed in the Greek word "logizomai." Thus, since you conclude that "logizomai" doesn't express the ideas of imputation that I describe, you argue that imputation isn't found in Scripture. Moreover, I would suggest that the references to "reckon" that you list in no way are connected to the theological concept of imputation that I have referenced in this blog. So, you have chosen a word ["logizomai"] that has the semantic range of "imputation", found several texts where this Greek word appears with the specific definition of "reckon" and explained away imputation without considering the broader Scriptures. Respectfully, my explanation doesn't have anything to do with "reckoning" [which is a individual action commanded by God], but with "imputation" which is a legal transaction accomplished by God alone. If you go back and reference the the texts in my original blog, I believe this will become clear.,
Thanks again for writing.
Hi David,
When you say imputation deals with sin affecting us spiritually, who we are, this seems to be confusing justification and sanctification. Justification deals with one's legal standing, not the condition of their soul.
The point I was making about "elloga" in Philemon is that it's a different word and thus cannot be projected onto logizomai. That would entail the 'bait and switch' fallacy, even if Hayford didn't mean to. If he is trying to get a concept across, he need not appeal to a different word.
I wouldn't say I'm assuming "imputation" can only be expressed by the term logizomai. Rather, I'm saying logizomai is the only such term one could really appeal to for the concept. For example, the only place the whole NT really even mentions "imputed righteousness," and the central prooftext for it, is Romans 4. Well, the term "logizomai" is the only such term Romans 4 uses, so if Rom 4 wants to teach imputation it must do so through logizomai.
That said, I know of no other terms appealed to that could mean "impute," so if there are others I'd like to see them. Until the notion of "imputation" is clearly established, I cannot in good conscience use it as a building block for my theology, nor should anyone else.
Lastly, I'm not sure I understand your "imputation" versus "reckoning" point. Both terms can be used interchangeably, since they are simply English translations of the same one term, logizomai.
Thanks again for writing, Nick.
I most certainly DON'T confuse justification with sanctification. Justification is a singular act when a person is declared righteous by God. This gives them certain, eternal hope. Sanctification is the ongoing process of life transformation whereby we become what we have been declared to be [see post above "saved or not?"]. When I used the word "spiritually," I was trying to clarify that imputation deals with the essence of who we are and our actual standing before God...not simply philosophical idealogies. However, it is true that imputation does not actually CHANGE our condition, but rather our positional standing before God.
Respectfully, I think you're being unfair to Hayford. He isn't using a bait and switch when he uses the Philemon passage to express an idea...though not parallel with the final truth of imputation. I might use the reference of the ruler prostrating himself before Jesus as an example of condescension in order to help people understand the idea of the humility in the incarnation. But, I certainly wouldn't want my readers to think I was equating the two. One simple helps the reader begin to grasp the other. Hayford used the Philemon text to help the reader understand the idea of something being applied to another's account. That's reasonable analogy, not bait and switch.
You mention that you don't believe imputation can only be expressed by "logizomai." Yet, this is the only word that you use. In doing so, you deductively conclude that the only verse that addresses imputation is Romans 4. This isn't surprising because the verse also includes "logizomai." My contention is that the concept of imputation is found in other passes NOT expressed by "logizomai." Consider Isaiah 53:6, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:12-21, Galatians 3:13, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 2:24. These passages address the "reckoning" or "crediting" of Adam's sin to us, our sin to Christ and His righteousness to the believing sinner...though "logizomai" is not specifically used. This Scriptural evidence is the foundation I use to build this central theology.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
Thanks again for writing, Nick.
I most certainly DON'T confuse justification with sanctification. Justification is a singular act when a person is declared righteous by God. This gives them certain, eternal hope. Sanctification is the ongoing process of life transformation whereby we become what we have been declared to be [see post above "saved or not?"]. When I used the word "spiritually," I was trying to clarify that imputation deals with the essence of who we are and our actual standing before God...not simply philosophical idealogies. However, it is true that imputation does not actually CHANGE our condition, but rather our positional standing before God.
Respectfully, I think you're being unfair to Hayford. He isn't using a bait and switch when he uses the Philemon passage to express an idea...though not parallel with the final truth of imputation. I might use the reference of the ruler prostrating himself before Jesus as an example of condescension in order to help people understand the idea of the humility in the incarnation. But, I certainly wouldn't want my readers to think I was equating the two. One simple helps the reader begin to grasp the other. Hayford used the Philemon text to help the reader understand the idea of something being applied to another's account. That's reasonable analogy, not bait and switch.
You mention that you don't believe imputation can only be expressed by "logizomai." Yet, this is the only word that you use. In doing so, you deductively conclude that the only verse that addresses imputation is Romans 4. This isn't surprising because the verse also includes "logizomai." My contention is that the concept of imputation is found in other passes NOT expressed by "logizomai." Consider Isaiah 53:6, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:12-21, Galatians 3:13, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 2:24. These passages address the "reckoning" or "crediting" of Adam's sin to us, our sin to Christ and His righteousness to the believing sinner...though "logizomai" is not specifically used. This Scriptural evidence is the foundation I use to build this central theology.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
Hi,
I tried to phrase my comment on Hayford in such a way that I wouldn't be projecting ill motives on his part. I still consider the approach invalid, for he's using a concept in an unrelated context and projecting that concept onto texts speaking of something else. Perhaps rather than saying this was bait and switch, a more accurate way of putting this is to say he's 'begging the question' when quoting Philemon and then saying that concept is what's going on elsewhere.
I meant that it is logically *possible* that imputation could be taught without using the term logizomai, but I wasn't conceding that it in fact was (because for me that's yet to be seen). I focus on logizomai because that's the only word I've ever seen offered as support for "impute," and indeed the only option in Romans 4.
If you want to suggest "imputation" is taught other places not using "logizomai," you'd have to show they hold the same force as logizomai, else you're in the dubious position of saying all 'imputations' are essentially done the same way yet a multitude of terms are used in each case.
You quote a few passages and say these suggest "reckoning" going on, but my response would be that you're assuming that it must be taking the form of 'imputation' rather than something else.
This might help illustrate what I'm saying: You're arguing WordA, WordB, and WordC all clearly mean "impute," yet none of the words are the same. On top of that, I'm showing that the strongest candidate, WordA (logizomai) doesn't mean "impute," which makes the likelihood of WordB and WordC mean 'impute' more dubious.
Nick,
This will be my last comment exchange and I'll make it brief. For the sake of argument, I will not use the word "imputation." This should put you at ease as you look for a very specific term.
However, as I fairly study the passages I have listed in my last note, here's what I conclude:
1. Adam's sin was put upon all of humanity. Against a Pelagian viewpoint, people don't become sinners the moment they sin. They are born with a sin nature because Adam's sin was passed on to them.
2. Our sin was put onto Christ. He took our sin upon Himself.
3. Through faith, Christ puts his righteousness onto us.
Call it imputation or not. The reality still remains. There are three such "transfers" in the Bible.
Blessings,
David
Post a Comment