Hermen. Problems: “Justification” #2. “Imputation” #1

Justification Excludes Boasting and Justifies the Ungodly (Romans 4:2-8)

0:00 So, the language of Paul in immediate context of Romans 4, 2 through 11. So, that's where you'll want to be.

0:08 Let's notice, first of all, in verse 2, that he underscores that we are justified in a way that excludes all boasting. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

0:26 Is this light need to be on, brother? If we are justified on the basis of something that is done by us, we could have something to boast in. Even if we only had a very little part in it, still that little bitty part that our own doings or attitude have in making up the ground of our justification would be potential ground for boasting. But the Word of God declares that God justifies in a way that leaves absolutely no place for boasting.

0:59 In order to underscore this, Paul uses the example of Abraham. In the mind of the Jew, as we saw a few days ago, and as we know just from the New Testament itself, too, that Abraham was one of their heroes, a man of great righteousness and many good works. And we saw from some of the literature of the time period that Dr. Waldron quoted that many of the Jews of that day, or the Judaism of that day, a strand of the Judaism of that day, believed it was because of his great righteousness and many good works that Abraham was a man of great righteousness and many good works.

1:34 That Abraham was counted righteous. But Paul points out that Abraham was not justified on the basis of his works, but in a way that leaves absolutely no room for boasting.

1:45 Secondly, he underscores in verse 4 that God justifies the ungodly.

1:51 If the ground or basis or reason for which men are justified is something they do, even if that something is something God produces in them, then it could not be said that God justifies the ungodly, but this is precisely what Paul says God does. Chapter 4, verse 5. But to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly. God justifies the ungodly.

2:14 Those who are justified are not considered as having something good in themselves that God sees, or some good quality even, that God may have produced, and on the basis of which he justifies them. No, God justifies the ungodly who believe on Jesus. This can mean nothing less than that God, in the act of justification, has absolutely no regard, whatever, to anything good in the person he justifies, whether it be inherent good or good that has been wroth in him by God's grace. God views the subject as ungodly.

2:47 Even Abraham, who at the time the statement quoted in verse 3 was made about him in Genesis 15, had already been a believer and a servant of God for many years. Even so, with respect to the matter of his justification before God, Abraham was ungodly. Neither his faith nor his believing life was regarded as in any way being the basis of his justification. God had no regard to it in the matter of his justification.

Imputation Described by Bookkeeping Metaphor and Old Testament Comparison (Romans 4:9-18)

3:12 God justifies the ungodly who believe. Thirdly, this imputation is described in verse 4 by a bookkeeping metaphor. Paul places the idea of imputation or crediting in the context of wages and debts. Verse 4.

3:28 Now, to him who works, the wages are not counted, imputed, as grace, but as debt. Note that Paul speaks of something. He speaks of something external to a person, a wage being imputed or credited to the person. It's external.

3:46 What is imputed in this metaphor is not internal to the person, but external to the person. An external wage, in verse 4, is the subject of a passive verb, imputed. And therefore, the external wage is what is conceived of as being imputed or credited to the account, in verse 4. Now, this metaphor is being used by Paul as an illustration of what he had just said in verse 3.

4:08 And then says in verse 5, concerning faith being credited for righteousness. Thus, the metaphor of verse 4 does not jive with an interpretation of verse 3 and verse 5 that views one's own internal act of faith as the righteousness imputed. It agrees more with understanding the words faith was credited for righteousness as shorthand for the concept that an external righteousness is credited to the believer by means of faith or through faith. Faith being the way this righteousness external to us is credited to us.

4:42 Fourthly, that our own faith itself is not the righteousness is further confirmed by the connection between verses 5 and 6. Verse 5. But to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, verse 6, just as. The words there tell us that Paul is now making a comparison.

5:07 He's using an Old Testament example. By way of comparison to show us what he means when he says his faith is accounted for righteousness. Here's the comparison. Just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

5:24 Now, notice two things here. First, the parallel between God justifying the ungodly in verse 5 and God crediting righteousness apart from works in verse 6. Whatever it means for God to justify the ungodly. It's the same thing as God crediting to the ungodly righteousness apart from works.

5:46 Or in the language of the following two verses, verses 7 and 8, the man justified apart from works is the same as the man guilty of lawless deeds and sin. So God justifies the sinner, the ungodly, by crediting to the sinner righteousness apart from works. So Paul thinks of justification in terms of a positive imputation of righteousness to the sinner apart from works. Now, notice righteousness in verse 6 is the direct object of the verb imputes.

6:18 The wording and grammar is different from what we have in verse 5 where he says that faith is accounted for righteousness. Here, righteousness is the direct object of impute, thus referring to a righteousness external to us that is credited to us. And what is the connection then with verse 5? Well, this is Paul's explanation by way of an Old Testament comparison of what he means in verse 5 when he says that it's, faith is accounted for righteousness, just as.

6:45 He means not that faith internal to us is accepted in the place of or as being righteousness. He means that righteousness external to us is imputed to us by faith. As one has commented, justification in Paul's mind is God imputing righteousness to us by faith rather than faith being treated as righteousness within us. Fifthly, the flow of Paul's thought in verses 9 through 11 further indicates that Paul does not mean righteousness by faith.

Faith as the Means, Not the Ground, of Righteousness (Romans 4:19-28)

7:13 He does not mean by the phrase faith is accounted for righteousness that our righteousness consists of faith without giving a detailed exposition and interpretation of that verse. Wait a minute, I'm sorry, brethren.

7:27 I need to switch over here. In verse 9, Paul says that faith was accounted or credited to Abraham for righteousness. Then he says, how then was it accounted? While he was circumcised or uncircumcised?

7:43 Not while circumcised. But while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith.

7:57 Or it could be translated by faith or by the faith, which he had while still uncircumcised. Now, the words righteousness of faith or of the faith could mean the righteousness which consists of faith, or it could mean the righteousness received by faith. Which is it? Well, the next phrase helps to supply the answer.

8:17 That he might be the father of all who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. They believe so that righteousness may be imputed to them also. Faith being imputed for righteousness is described here in terms of righteousness being imputed because of faith. The righteousness is not our internal faith.

8:39 It is an external righteousness that becomes ours by faith or because of faith. So there are some contextual considerations that argue against understanding. Paul in verse 3 and verse 5, as describing our faith itself as that which God counts as righteousness. Consider now, fourthly, that the idea that our faith itself is in any way our justifying righteousness before God contradicts the office clearly assigned to faith in the New Testament.

9:07 And really, we saw a lot of this. Often the difference between serious error and truth is found in the prepositions that the New Testament writers use under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And really, we saw a lot of this. Often the difference between serious error and truth is found in the prepositions that the New Testament writers use under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

9:18 Well, in describing the relationship of faith to justification, the New Testament writers commonly employ three expressions. One, the believer is justified by faith using the dative case of the word for faith. Two, the believer is justified ek, pistios, from, out of, or again, by faith. This stresses that faith is the occasion of justification.

9:43 And three, the believer is said to be justified via, through, by means of faith. This stresses faith as the instrument of justification, the means by which justification is received and appropriated by the sinner. So this is how the relationship of faith to justification is described. It's very important to note that in none of these cases, and I'm not aware of anywhere in the Scriptures, is it said that we are justified on the ground of or on account of faith.

10:14 The prepositional phrase that would communicate that idea, on the ground of or on account of, is never used to describe the relationship of faith to justification. As Joel Beeky says, commenting on this, such is the precision of the Spirit's oversight of the New Testament Scriptures that nowhere does any writer ever slip into using this prepositional phrase. Justification by faith alone is never justification on account of faith, but always justification on account of Christ. Now, having considered these things, I think we're ready to bring all of this to bear on the interpretation of Romans 4.3 and the Symbolic Version of the Bible. There's a similar statement in 4.5. And also in Dr. Waldron's, as he went over this passage, there's all that we heard there to bring all of that to bear now on our understanding of what Paul is saying here. First of all, very simply, we can say that we know that Paul cannot be saying that the ground upon which God justifies us is our act of faith or our evangelical obedience or faithfulness. He cannot be saying that faith is our justifying righteousness before God. That would contradict what he has been saying in the immediate context and the office assigned to faith elsewhere in the New Testament.

Interpreting 'Faith Accounted for Righteousness' (Romans 4:29-35)

11:29 So how then are we to understand this statement? His faith was accounted to him for or unto righteousness. Well, I think the most plausible and consistent interpretation is simply that Paul speaks of faith here as a kind of shorthand, what is called an elliptical statement, when a part is said for the whole and the rest assumed, just like the other part. Just like when we say, we have no problem saying we are justified by faith.

11:57 Well, that's shorthand for a doctrine that can be much more fully and clearly stated. When we say that, it is assumed that everything else that is involved in that doctrine is understood. Well, the same is true here. Included in his mention of faith is the object of faith, which he has been setting forth in the preceding verses in the latter part of chapter 3.

12:20 It's not a bare faith apart from its object, that he's referring to. His other expressions, the righteousness of God to all who believe, justified through or by means of faith, justified through faith in his blood and so on, these and such like expressions fix the sense in which this clause is to be understood. Namely this, that it is by means of faith that Abraham came to be treated or reckoned as righteous, not that faith was accepted in the place of a perfect righteousness or as righteousness. J.I. Packer summarizes, when Paul, Paul paraphrases this verse as teaching that Abraham's faith was reckoned for righteousness, all he intends us to understand is that faith, decisive, wholehearted reliance on God's gracious promise was the occasion and means of righteousness being imputed to him. There is no suggestion here that faith is the ground of justification. Now, that's a sound interpretation, I think. There's another similar way of understanding this verse that is also, I think, plausible, untrue to the context and the rest of Scripture.

13:25 There are those who put emphasis upon the fact that the preposition for here is the preposition ace for righteousness. Ace, which could very properly be translated with a view to or in order to. Not instead of, but with a view to or in order to. The idea could actually be translated in that way more succinctly by the word towards or unto.

13:47 For example, in Romans 10.10, we have a text that is very much parallel to the statement here in Romans 4. And there we read, For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The preposition translated in that verse, as I'm reading from the New King James, is the same preposition translated for in Romans 4, 3, and 5, the preposition ace.

14:14 Clearly, when Paul says in Romans 10.10, And with the mouth confession is made unto or for salvation, he does not mean that salvation consists of confession. No confession is unto salvation. So the argument is that the statement in Romans 4, 3, and 5 should be translated, Faith was reckoned to him unto righteousness, an odd-sounding phrase in English, but good Greek.

14:39 It was that by which righteousness was made his. It was with a view toward or in order to righteousness, not that faith itself is the righteousness. Well, my purpose has simply been to demonstrate that we are not to understand Paul's teaching in Romans 3 and 5, that faith is the righteousness. That faith is the righteousness on the basis of which we are justified.

The Dishonor of Justification by Faith as Righteousness (Romans 4:36-38)

15:00 Justification is not based on anything wrought in us or done by us, and that includes our act of believing. Now consider that any doctrine that faith is reckoned by God as our righteousness, or that our faith or faithfulness is accepted in the place of perfect obedience to God's law, is exceedingly dishonoring to God's character. Why do I say that? Well, it teaches, in effect, that by the gospel, God lowers his requirement.

15:24 Instead of a gospel that upholds God's holy character, and justice, and the claims of his law, which demand full, comprehensive, perpetual, actual, both internal and external obedience, you have a gospel scheme in which God decides to waive that requirement, as it were, or in which it's argued that God never had such a requirement. We have a God who instead accepts an imperfect righteousness, even our faith. We are taught in Scripture that Christ came to magnify the law and to make it honorable, Isaiah 42, 21, that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, Matthew 5, 17, and to teach that God said, He sets aside the requirement of perfect obedience to his law, and accepts faith in its place as an acceptable righteousness, is to leave God's law, in a sense, unfulfilled. It sets forth a God who, in his method of saving sinners, compromises what is strictly just and right, rather than upholds it. Paul makes it very clear, in Romans 3, 26, that God does not in any way compromise his justice in the justification of sinners. He justifies them in a manner which fully manifests and upholds his righteousness, and in which he remains just, while at the same time showing mercy to sinners, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Any scheme which has God justifying sinners on the basis of anything other than a perfect obedience to God is extremely derogatory to his character.

16:50 Now, there is one other thing that makes it abundantly clear that faith is no part of the ground or basis of justification. No. Not only, if this were the case, would it contradict the emphasis of Paul, the context and a careful consideration of the context and the words of Romans 4 and their connections,

The Scriptural Basis of Justification: Christ's Righteousness and Obedience (Romans 4:39-55)

17:13 but it would totally contradict the emphasis of Paul regarding what the basis of justification, in fact, is. And this is what I now want to look at very briefly. I've been arguing that faith is no part of the basis of justification. Let's now consider a second question.

17:28 How does the Scripture describe what the basis of justification is? First of all, we are told that it is in Christ that we are justified. It is by being found in Him, Philippians 3, 9. We are made the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Corinthians 5, 21.

17:50 This tells us at the outset that it is by virtue of our being in union with Christ that we are counted righteous, justified. That there is something related to being in union with Him, that secures our justification. And then secondly, we are told that it is through the redemptive crosswork of Christ that we are justified. For example, as we look back up at Romans 3, 23 to 25, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

18:25 This justification is freely bestowed, we're told, there. It's not deserved or earned by anything that we do. It is an act of divine grace with respect to the undeserving and the ill-deserving. And how is it that God can do that?

18:38 He says it is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom, he goes on to say, God set forth as a propitiation by His blood. It is through the redemptive crosswork of Christ that we are justified. He was made a propitiation for us. That means that in His death, He satisfied the wrath of God that is due to us for our sins in our place.

19:01 It was an atoning sacrifice. The benefit of which becomes ours through faith. Romans 5, 9, Having now been justified by His blood. So it is in Christ that we are justified.

19:14 It is through His redemptive crosswork that we are justified, which directs us to what He accomplished and finished in that work. But there is more than that. Thirdly, the righteousness by which we are justified is called the righteousness of God. It is a God-righteousness, a righteousness of God, a righteousness of God, a righteousness from God.

19:35 We've already seen this and defended this. And then fourthly, this same righteousness that is called the righteousness of God is also called the righteousness and obedience of Christ. Notice over in Romans chapter 5 how this righteousness is described. I'll be coming back to this in more detail later.

19:54 Romans 5, but just notice now that it's called the righteousness of the one or the obedience of the one, speaking of Christ. Verse 17, For if by one man's offense death reigned through the one, that's Adam, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. Now you'll notice that this righteousness is referred to as a gift. It's not something we do or earn.

20:23 It is a gift. And what is this righteousness?

20:28 Verse 18, Therefore as through one man's offense, Adam,

20:33 judgment came to all men resulting in condemnation even so through one man's righteous act the free gift came to all men unto justification of life. The ground of our justification is the righteous act of the one man. Verse 19, For as by one man's disobedience, Adam, many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience, Christ, many will be made or constituted righteous. The idea, as we'll see later, is that we are put into the rank or category of righteous.

21:05 We are constituted righteous. And therefore justified. And on what basis are we constituted righteous? What is the reason for this?

21:13 It is by the obedience of one, even Christ. Well now, putting all of this together, what have we seen? How does the Bible describe the basis of our justification? It's not anything wrought in us or done by us.

21:27 And as both the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions say, it is not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to us as our righteousness. It's not our act of believing or our evangelical obedience or personal faithfulness that is the basis of our justification. It is in Christ that we are justified. It is on the basis of a righteousness that is from God and of God's righteousness that is found in Christ.

21:57 It is through the redemptive cross work of Christ and what it accomplished. It is a righteousness identified as the righteousness of Christ himself, a righteousness identified as the obedience of Christ. The larger catechism says it well. It says, not for anything wrought in them or done by them.

22:14 Okay, then what is the basis? But only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, which brings us now to consider, secondly, the method of justification.

The Method of Justification: Imputation (Romans 4:56-60)

22:28 What is the method by which the sinner is declared righteous and justified on the basis of the righteousness of Christ, the work of Christ, being in Christ, so on? The answer to that question is wrapped up in a very simple and yet extremely important word, the word imputation.

22:54 So the believing sinner is justified, declared righteous, but how can a holy God declare a sinner righteous?

23:02 Well, someone says on the basis of the righteousness of Christ, his obedience and full satisfaction. Yes, but how does Christ's righteousness result in the believing sinner being declared righteous? How can that be? The answer of the Reformation is that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believing sinner.

23:23 It is reckoned to his account. In justification, God does not arbitrarily declare the sinner righteous for no reason. That would indeed be a legal fiction. He does so because he has imputed to the sinner the righteousness of Christ, thereby constituting him righteous.

23:41 He puts the sinner into the legal state of being righteous in the eyes of God and the eyes of the law by counting to him the righteousness of Christ. So the key word when it comes to the method of justification is this word imputation. I want to seek to open this up and to demonstrate it under two major headings. First, I want us to briefly consider the general meaning of the concept of imputation.

General Meaning of Imputation: Crediting Deeds (Romans 4:61-74)

24:08 And then secondly, I want to set forth some of the main arguments for the fact that justification is indeed the method, by which believing sinners are justified. And it's in that section that we'll be seeking to open up some detail, some of the key text, and that'll spill over into tomorrow. So let's consider first of all the meaning of the concept of imputation. Some of this we've already done, some overlap here.

24:36 By definition, the word normally translated impute can sometimes simply mean to consider, to think, to devise, to evaluate. However, it is commonly used in contexts in which it means to ascribe to, to reckon to, to credit to, or even to lay to one's charge, to put something to someone's account. The Greek word is logizomai, which is used to translate the Hebrew Old Testament word kasab. It's often used, in fact, with reference to reckoning either sin or righteousness to someone.

25:06 Either sin is considered, charged, credited to a person, or righteousness is reckoned as the basis upon which that person is either condemned or justified. And this can take place in one of two ways. First of all, a person's own personal deeds may be counted as his or counted to him, imputed to him. The good or evil that he has actually personally performed is credited to him.

25:32 If he is guilty of a crime, it is reckoned as something he is guilty of and he is treated accordingly. If he has performed a righteous deed, it is reckoned as something he has indeed performed. It is reckoned to him as something he has done. Leviticus 17, 4 speaks of the man who kills an ox or lamb or goat in the camp or outside of the camp and does not bring it to the tabernacle to be offered to the Lord in the appointed way.

25:58 It says of him, blood shall be imputed to that man and that man shall be cut off from among the people. In other words, the man who sheds blood not according to the commandment, that act of violating the law that he has done will be reckoned to him. It will be credited to him and he will be dealt with accordingly. Likewise, we read, of a man's righteous deed being imputed to him.

26:20 Psalm 106, 31, we have reference to the act of Phinehas who executed God's judgment upon an immoral Israelite and the heathen woman with whom he was sinning. We are told that it was counted to him, imputed to him for righteousness. The righteous act that he performed was reckoned to him, put down to his account as it were. We have the example of Shimei pleading with David that his sin against the king and cursing him would not be put to his account.

26:50 He cried in 2 Samuel 19, 19, Lord, let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me. Now, he was indeed guilty of the sin of cursing David but he is asking David not to put that sin to him, not to credit it to him or to reckon it to his account, not to impute it to him. In other words, to forgive it. To not impute sin to one who has committed sin is to forgive that sin.

27:15 This is what David refers to in Psalm 32, 2 where he writes, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity. Now, in all of these instances I've given you to impute something to someone has nothing to do with either making that person evil or making that person righteous in themselves. It has nothing to do with making what they have done to be good or making it to be bad. It has nothing to do with infusing righteousness into them or causing them to be sinful.

27:45 It has to do simply with reckoning, crediting, accounting sin or righteousness to them. So this can be done when someone's own personal deeds are reckoned to him.

27:59 But then secondly,

28:03 the same concept is used at times to refer to imputing the accomplishment or the deeds of another to someone else or counting those deeds to someone who himself did not actually perform those deeds. For example, we read in 1 Kings 1, 21 that after doing that, after David's death, Bathsheba feared that her and Solomon would wrongly be counted offenders. She feared that offense or crime would be reckoned to them though they were innocent.

28:35 There's at least an illustration of the concept that we're talking about. Now, this imputation of wrongs to one who has not actually committed them can under some circumstances be voluntarily undertaken in a legal manner. We see that in our own culture and legal system, for example. There's the concept of being a surety for another person, someone who has legally accepted liability for another person's debts.

29:02 Those debts are not actually yours, but they are imputed to you. We have an illustration of this concept in Paul's letter to Philemon. Paul asked Philemon that if Onesimus, the runaway slave, had wronged him in any way to put it to Paul's, to his account, verse 18. Paul becomes a surety for Onesimus someone who legally makes himself responsible for another person's obligations.

29:30 Now, again, in all of these examples and illustrations, I trust we see that the concept that I'm seeking to set before you, the concept of imputation, has nothing to do with either making a person sinful or making a person personally righteous in themselves. It has to do with crediting or counting either sin or righteousness to them. Well, having explained the concept, meaning of the concept, I want to demonstrate now, secondly, begin to demonstrate the fact that imputation is the method by which the righteousness of Christ becomes the ground of the believer's justification.

Justification as Imputed Righteousness (Romans 4:75-79)

30:14 Okay, first. Now, this is important. This is kind of what I've been wanting to get to for a long time. Okay?

30:23 First of all, Paul plainly tells us, this is the first simple statement, that the righteousness, by which we are justified, is an imputed righteousness.

30:34 Repeatedly, Paul speaks of our justifying righteousness being a righteousness that is imputed to us. Romans 4, 3, Abraham believed God, it was accounted imputed to him for righteousness. Now, you remember that we saw that it is not that faith itself is our justifying righteousness, but it is by means of faith that Abraham came to be accounted righteous, came to have righteousness credited to him. Faith was the occasion of righteousness being credited to him.

30:59 The righteousness itself was not a righteousness itself, but it was inherent in him, but external to him that was counted to him. Paul speaks in verse 6 of the God who imputes righteousness without works. Their righteousness is the direct object of imputation. What is imputed?

31:15 Righteousness is imputed without works. At the end of Romans 4, he says that this was not only God's method of dealing with Abraham, verse 24, but also for us, it, righteousness, shall be imputed to us who believe in him who raised up our Lord from the dead. The righteousness by which we are justified is described explicitly as imputed righteousness. Secondly, turn over now to 2 Corinthians 5, verse 21.

The Great Exchange: Imputation of Sin to Christ and Righteousness to Believers (2 Corinthians 5:21) (Romans 4:80-108)

31:48 Paul draws a direct parallel between the imputation of our sins to Christ and the manner in which sinners come to have righteousness.

32:00 Notice in verse 19 of 2 Corinthians 5, Paul tells us that God was reconciling us unto himself in Christ, not imputing our trespasses unto us. If we are in Christ, our trespasses are not credited to us. They are not put to our account. Now, how can that be?

32:18 Well, in verse 21, he says, for he, God, made him who knew no sin, Christ, to be sin for us. Christ was made sin for us. Now, in what way was Christ made sin for us? Was he actually made subjectively sinful?

32:40 No, that's the text says. He knew no sin. Christ in his own person was without sin. As the scripture says, he was harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

32:50 So, how could it be said that he who knew no sin was made sin? In what sense was Christ made sin for us? He was made sin by imputation. Our sins were transferred to his account.

33:07 Now, this is something the entire Bible bears testimony to. Christ in his death was not acting as a private person. He was acting on behalf of others and in the place of others, taking upon himself the legal obligations of others. Our guilt was charged to Christ's account and he was punished in the place of his people.

33:24 We find such phrases as these describing the death of Christ. That Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all. That he bore our sin. That our sins were laid upon him and so on.

33:39 Isaiah 53 says, All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. There we have substitution and imputation. There's the concept of transferal.

33:53 Jehovah has imputed to him, reckoned to him our iniquities. Isaiah 53, 12. He bore the sin of many. There we have it again.

34:00 He bore what was theirs as their substitute. What was theirs? Namely, their sins were imputed to him. We see the same thing in 1 Peter 2.

34:10 2, 24. Who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree or to the tree. So here in 2 Corinthians 5, 19, consistent with what we see in the rest of Scripture, Paul tells us that our sins and trespasses were not imputed to us. Instead, they were imputed to Christ.

34:31 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, he says. Not imputing their trespasses to them.

34:40 What did he do with those trespasses?

34:43 Christ was made sin for us. Our trespasses were imputed to Christ and he was punished in our place. It's in that sense that Christ who knew no sin was made sin for us. Now, I want you to notice that Paul goes on to indicate, to imply that it is in this same way in which Christ was made sin that we are made the righteousness of God in him.

35:10 He's drawing a definite parallel here. For he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him. How do we become the righteousness of God in him? Are we actually made to be personally and inherently righteous in ourselves?

35:32 No, the parallelism indicates that we are made the righteousness of God in him in some way in the same way in which he has made sin for us. And what is that way? It is by imputation. Our sins were credited to his account and in the same way the righteousness of God is credited to our account and we are justified.

35:52 That righteousness from God that is found in, located in Christ or by virtue of our union with Christ. Someone says this speaks of us becoming the righteousness of God. It says nothing about the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us. True, but notice the language.

36:15 It is the righteousness of God in him in Christ. Verse 18 says that God has reconciled us to himself through Christ. Verse 18 says God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Now it is true that God and Christ are often distinguished in the New Testament.

36:40 The Father and Son have different roles in the work of redemption.

36:45 The Father commissions the Son. The Son comes into the world and takes to himself a human body and soul. The Father commands. The Son obeys and never vice versa.

36:54 The Son dies on the cross. The Father does not. And so on. Yet at the same time while the New Testament affirms that all that the Son does the Father does not do.

37:06 It also affirms that in all that the Son did he was acting on behalf of and in obedience to the Father. He was doing what the Father commissioned him to do and as the God-man God was acting in and through him. And so Paul could say that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. God was acting in and through Christ.

37:29 He can say on the one hand that God made Christ to be sin for us and to be a curse for us. The Father did not die on the cross. The God-man died on the cross. While on the other hand he can say that we are made the righteousness of God.

37:45 But again it is the righteousness of God in Christ. That righteousness from God that is found in located in Christ or that becomes ours by virtue of our union with Christ. So this must not be understood to refer to the righteousness of God in some sense distinct from it being the righteousness of Christ. It is the righteousness of God in Christ.

38:11 Thus at the same time it is the righteousness of Christ himself.

38:16 And let me just say that I am convinced that the imputation of our sins to Christ his death is a real substitution and the imputation of his righteousness to us are two doctrines that stand and fall together. Though some hold to one the imputation of our sins without the other I believe they do so precariously and ultimately the rejection of one logically tends to lead to the rejection of the other. Not that everyone who holds to the one follows out the logical tendencies of the other. That belief but it does tend to lead to that.

38:53 Part of why I say that is that some of the same reasons often given for the rejection of the one may be given for the rejection of the other.

39:02 One example is the repeated charge that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a legal fiction.

39:09 Well on the same basis one could argue that the charging of our sins our liability to punishment for our sins to Christ is a legal fiction. The same is true with charging Adam's sin to our account. Now all three of these truths are connected to each other and this points us to a third argument for the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Thirdly the justification of believing sinners is inseparably tied to the reality of our union with Christ.

Union with Christ as the Foundation of Imputation (Philippians 3:8-9, 1 Corinthians 1:30) (Romans 4:109-123)

39:39 Now we've just seen that here in 2 Corinthians 5 we are made the righteousness of God in Him. Also now Philippians 3 8 and 9 in this passage Paul says that he wants to be found in Christ in union with Christ not having my own righteousness which is from the law but that which is through faith in Christ the righteousness which is from God by faith. Now Paul ties his justification to union with Christ incorporation into Christ. Paul wants to be found in Christ not having a righteousness of his own.

40:14 It is a righteousness from God that is found in Christ. Union with Christ is the foundation of the imputation of His righteousness to us.

40:30 That's why this imputation is not a legal fiction.

40:35 In the reckoning of God we are identified with Christ. We are in Christ. We are one with Christ. Thus all that is His is ours.

40:44 Some scholars today seem to think of imputation and union with Christ as if the two things are mutually exclusive.

40:52 Well I would say that's a straw man. On the contrary union is the foundation of imputation. And the language of union with Christ is not merely to be understood in a vitalistic or transformative sense. There is a legal aspect to our union with Christ.

41:09 For example to be in union with Christ is to have our sins credited to Him and punished in Him as our surety and substitute. It is to have our sins imputed to Him. And in the same way it is to have the righteousness of God in Him imputed to us as we just saw in 2 Corinthians 5.21.

41:26 We are so united to Him in the reckoning of God that all of us are united and all our sins become legally His. He becomes liable for them and He is punished in our place and all His righteousness becomes ours and we are justified. Paul in Philippians 3.9 would be found in Christ by faith for in Christ by faith is the place where a righteousness which is from God is counted as our own.

41:55 There is this great exchange by virtue of being one with Him. Imputation is rooted in some even more foundational glorious reality of our union with Jesus Christ. Because I am in Him by faith all that He suffered and all that He did is in a sense as though I suffered it and I did it. Luther puts it this way.

42:14 Therefore a man can with confidence boast in Christ and say mine are Christ living doing and speaking His suffering and dying mine as much as if I had lived done spoken suffered and died as He did. This sheds light on 1 Corinthians 1.30 which is the next text I'm going to look at.

42:37 1 Corinthians 1.30 Here Paul writes but of Him you are in Christ Jesus who became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

42:53 By virtue of being united to Christ in Him identified with Him He has become for us righteousness so that if someone asks the believer the question where is your righteousness where is your righteousness where is your righteousness where is your righteousness that puts you in good standing before God every believer according to this text may boldly answer Christ is my righteousness. Now N.T. Wright argues against any attempt to support imputed righteousness here by saying that if we claim this text for that quote we must also be prepared to talk of the imputed wisdom of Christ the imputed sanctification of Christ and the imputed redemption of Christ.

43:32 You see his argument what he's saying?

43:35 Well it is true that I would not want to speak of imputed wisdom imputed sanctification and imputed redemption however I have no problem speaking of imputed righteousness because the Bible speaks of imputed righteousness and to understand righteousness here in a forensic sense is only to be consistent with the other many other texts that connect righteousness with being in Christ with justification and with imputation and also with the texts that tell us that justifying righteousness is righteousness from or of God for here Paul says that it is of God that we are in Christ Jesus who became for us from God wisdom and righteousness and so on. I don't know anyone including Wright who would argue that Christ becomes for us wisdom in the same way he becomes for us redemption or becomes for us redemption in the same way he becomes for us sanctification. These are all distinct terms referring to different aspects of the salvation that we have in Christ. Well the same is true of righteousness. Furthermore if righteousness is speaking here merely of covenant membership as in Wright's theology I could use his own argument against himself.

44:42 Surely covenant membership is not the same thing as sanctification or redemption nor do they become ours in the same way even in his theology. These terms must be understood in their distinctive meanings and usages by Paul when describing the salvation we have in Christ. As D.A. Carson comments the precise way in which Christ becomes these various elements can only be unpacked by what is said elsewhere. Granted such parallels as 2 Corinthians 5 19-21 Philippians 3 8-9 and Romans 4 however it is surely a brave scholar who insists that Christ has become our righteousness has nothing to do with Christ's righteousness being imputed to us. Now I want to mention one other text that may be called upon as speaking of justification and imputed righteousness in connection with union with Christ. My time is about gone isn't it?

Forensic Interpretation of 'Crucified with Christ' (Galatians 2:20) (Romans 4:124-140)

45:36 Let me just can I go ahead and just knock on the door? Let me just knock on the door. Let me just knock this out here and then we'll pause. Galatians 2.20 I want you to look at Galatians 2.20 I want to tentatively set this forth for your debate and argumentation purposes. Okay?

45:54 Something for us to talk about.

45:59 And I do believe that there can be a danger in some of our interpretation of scripture to interpret some text transformatively or subjectively that perhaps need to be interpreted more from a legal standpoint. And I think Dr. Waldron demonstrated that well with regard to Romans 6 and our understanding of what Paul is talking about when he speaks of death to sin. But I want you to look at this text.

46:31 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

46:46 Now I do want to remind you that this text comes to us in the context of Paul's heated defense of the doctrine of justification by faith. He has even spoken of that in verse 17 and 18 leading up to this. He speaks in verse 19 that I through the law died to the law which in my opinion is legal language. He died to the law the same type of language you see in Romans 6 and then in Romans 7 as you go into Romans 7.

47:17 And in reading D.A. Carson he gives an exposition of this text that I found quite interesting at this point I think it's worth considering. I haven't had the opportunity to carefully scrutinize it yet but I want to offer it for your consideration.

47:32 Carson argues that the proper way to understand Galatians 2 20-21 is forensically not vitalistically. Now here's the essence of his exposition. Paul speaks here of the believer having been crucified with Christ and Christ living in the believer. I no longer live but Christ lives in me.

47:53 This is often understood in the vital sense or in the spiritual sense to refer to the spirit living inside men or Christ living inside him. And this is certainly a New Testament concept. Christ living inside him by the spirit. But this is but is this really what Paul is talking about here?

48:10 We have the preposition and plus dative of personal pronoun. Paul uses the same construction at the end of Galatians 1 when he speaks of the Christians in Judea who heard of his conversion. Chapter 1 verse 24 he says and they glorified God in me.

48:30 They glorified God in me. Does that mean that they were somehow inside Paul glorifying God? No. As Carson points out the prepositional expression should probably not be rendered by the words in me.

48:45 It would better be rendered with respect to me or as the NIV paraphrases the thought because of me but again the more literal rendering would be with respect to me. Carson argues that in fact in as many as 30% of the instances of N plus dative of personal pronoun in the Pauline epistles the expression is somewhat akin to a dative of reference. Furthermore there is nothing in the context of Galatians 2 20 and 21 that points to this being a reference to union in a transformative vitalistic sense. While there is much that connects these verses to Paul's concern to explain the doctrine of justification see verses 14 and 15.

49:27 So, Paul is certainly not saying in verse 20 that he is literally dead. He is saying that he has been crucified with Christ because Christ has died in his place. Christ bore the curse for him vicariously as his substitute. As a result Paul is so identified with Christ and what he did that he can say that he was crucified with him.

49:49 But now Paul goes on to say that it is the same with respect to his life. I now I no longer live not that there is no sense of which he is living but in this sense Christ lives with respect to me. As Christ's death is my death so Christ's life is my life. You see in one sense he is not dead but in another sense he died with Christ because Christ died the death he deserved as his substitute.

50:17 Well, in the same way he is living. In the same way he is living but in another sense it is Christ who lives with respect to him because the Christ's life is reckoned his own. And understanding the passage in this way which I think may very well be the proper way to understand it is certainly not a far out interpretation of this text we have another support for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. As Carson comments the remarkable thing about this passage is that not only is Christ's death the Christian's death but Christ's life is the Christian's life.

51:00 In a when considered in a legal sense. Well, I'm going to stop there and our whole day tomorrow is going to be devoted to Romans 5 12 to 19 and which is such a crucial and important text in this whole debate regarding the positive imputation of Christ's righteousness. And it's in that context we'll also bring up the relationship of the covenant of works concept to the doctrine of the positive imputation of Christ's life. of Christ's righteousness.

51:34 Okay, any questions?

51:39 You guys all ready? You guys brain dead?