The 'Imputation' of the Righteousness of God, in Christ. A Book Keepers term.

mark kennedy · Mar 26, 2019

Atonement/Reconciliation (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē) - 1. exchange; of the business of money-changers, exchanging equivalent values (Aristotle, others). (Thayer’s Lexicon)

What follows is an invitation to study imputation and atonement as a formal doctrine. I'm going to offer a few choice quotes and expositions in the hopes of exploring the Biblical account of atonement as it relates to the gospel. The English word for 'atonement' was actually invented by William Tyndale, it's from a Greek word and Levitical concept that could probably be better translated 'reconciliation' but he wanted to coin a term that caught the full meaning of the idea of the Yum Kippur. I've tried to be brief, perhaps over simplifying some of the details in the process.

You would be justified (declared righteous) by the Law (Romans 2:13; Leviticus 18:5), if you could keep the righteous requirements of the Law (Romans 2:13). The Law is holy, righteous and good but it is spiritual and I am not (Romans 7:12, 14). We know that all God’s commandments are righteous (Psalm 119:172). The Law and the prophets clearly testify to the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21), so the Law at least shows us what the requirements of righteousness are, you just cannot be righteous before God by works of the Law, if that were possible then Christ died for nothing (Galatians 2:21)

The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" teaches that God graciously charges to the account of believers in Christ the righteousness wrought by Christ. It is at length expounded in Romans 3:21-4:25. Here we are taught that the righteousness wrought by Christ during the days of His incarnation is imputed to, or charged to the account of, believers by God in justification. The justified acknowledge Christ to be not only "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – but also their only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And they pray to be "found in Him, 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" (Philippians 3:9). (A Response to Don Garlington on Imputation in Reformation and Revival, John Piper)

Atonement ‘"at-one-ment”, perhaps would be better translated ‘reconciliation’ (Rom 11:15; 2Cr 5:18, 19). The idea is from Leviticus 16, 17 and the Yum Kippur, the annual remission of the sins of the nation of Israel.

The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, "propitiation," (1 John 2:2; 4:10), and hilasterion, (Rom 3:25; Heb. 9:5), "mercy-seat," the covering of the ark of the covenant. (Vine's Expository Dictionary)

This acknowledges "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – our only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And pray to be "found in Him, 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" (Philippians 3:9).

Now that's the rough cut of the doctrinal details. While I'm more interested in exploring this as formal doctrine I realize that there is a personal aspect to all of this and personal insights are certainly welcome. The New Testament is pretty clear that salvation and the requisite righteousness of God is imputed by faith as a gift, not paid as wages, I would hope I would get no arguments to the contrary. There are a lot of ways of approaching this subject matter; Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, feel free to express those views as you see fit.

Let all things be done unto edification.

Grace and peace,
Mark

food4thought · Mar 26, 2019

I have heard that some reject the idea of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, so I thought it would be helpful to quote this Scripture at the beginning, to show that we do indeed receive God's righteousness:

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

food4thought · Mar 26, 2019

This was referenced in the OP, but it should be quoted, because it also speaks to the idea of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us:

Romans 3:22 NKJV even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

mark kennedy · Mar 26, 2019

food4thought said:
I have heard that some reject the idea of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, so I thought it would be helpful to quote this Scripture at the beginning, to show that we do indeed receive God's righteousness:

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

I just wanted to post the times the word 'imputation' is used in the New Testament, mostly it's used in Romans 4.

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth G3049 righteousness without works, (Rom 4:6)

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will G3049 not impute G3049 sin. ( Rom 4:8)

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed G3049 unto them also: (Rom 4:11)

And therefore it was imputed G3049 to him for righteousness. (Rom 4:22)

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed G3049 to him; (Rom 4:23)

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, G3049 if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; (Rom 4:24)

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed G3049 unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James 2:23)

See, (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai)

The same word is used elsewhere but those are the times it's translated 'imputed'. I thought it might be helpful to take that into consideration.

food4thought · Mar 26, 2019

Another one:

Isaiah 54:17 NKJV No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD.

mark kennedy · Mar 26, 2019

food4thought said:
Another one:

Isaiah 54:17 NKJV No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD.

That's the idea of impution in no uncertain terms, righteousnessis from the Lord.

food4thought · Mar 26, 2019

mark kennedy said:
That's the idea of impution in no uncertain terms, righteousnessis from the Lord.

So if our righteousness is credited (or imputed) to us through faith in Christ, how exactly does Christ's sacrifice make this possible? Is that the question we are to discuss?

mark kennedy · Mar 26, 2019

food4thought said:
So if our righteousness is credited (or imputed) to us through faith in Christ, how exactly does Christ's sacrifice make this possible? Is that the question we are to discuss?

That is certainly a key question, there is the issue of our sin being remitted. Romans 4 uses the examples of Abraham and David, righteousness is 'credited' to Abraham by faith and the example of David it says blessed is the man to whom God does not 'count sin against him'. Sin has to be atoned for, then righteosness has to be imputed, 'reckoned', if you like an old English word.

food4thought · Mar 26, 2019

mark kennedy said:
That is certainly a key question, there is the issue of our sin being remitted. Romans 4 uses the examples of Abraham and David, righteousness is 'credited' to Abraham by faith and the example of David it says blessed is the man to whom God does not 'count sin against him'. Sin has to be atoned for, then righteosness has to be imputed, 'reckoned', if you like an old English word.

I have always leaned towards penal substitution as being the most Biblically sound theory of the atonement, but it does raise some problems/questions. I have not sorted it all out in my mind yet, so I will be watching this thread with interest.

mark kennedy · Mar 27, 2019

food4thought said:
I have always leaned towards penal substitution as being the most Biblically sound theory of the atonement, but it does raise some problems/questions. I have not sorted it all out in my mind yet, so I will be watching this thread with interest.

Well thanks for participating, it's been a while since I thought about 'penal substitution' but I tend to look at these things as Biblical expositions rather then theological principles. The contrast between ransom theory and penal substitution is interesting reading, I was actually more interested in how the first century Jewish Christians would have understood atonement. It's no coincidence that Paul spent so much time on imputation in Romans, since the audience would have been largely Jewish.

Thanks again for participating, always nice to get other peoples perspective on this.

Grace and peace,
Mark

redleghunter · Mar 27, 2019

food4thought said:
Another one:

Isaiah 54:17 NKJV No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD.

That's a great text. The one which really put imputation into perspective for me was the following:

Jeremiah 23: NASB

5“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.

6“In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
‘The LORD our righteousness.’

FenderTL5 · Mar 27, 2019

food4thought said:
I have always leaned towards penal substitution as being the most Biblically sound theory of the atonement, but it does raise some problems/questions. I have not sorted it all out in my mind yet, so I will be watching this thread with interest.

The challenge is that the Bible uses several analogies for atonement, not just one.
In my humble opinion, none of them are all encompassing but portions of the whole.

redleghunter · Mar 27, 2019

mark kennedy said:
I just wanted to post the times the word 'imputation' is used in the New Testament, mostly it's used in Romans 4.

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth G3049 righteousness without works, (Rom 4:6)

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will G3049 not impute G3049 sin. ( Rom 4:8)

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed G3049 unto them also: (Rom 4:11)

And therefore it was imputed G3049 to him for righteousness. (Rom 4:22)

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed G3049 to him; (Rom 4:23)

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, G3049 if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; (Rom 4:24)

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed G3049 unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James 2:23)

See, (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai)

The same word is used elsewhere but those are the times it's translated 'imputed'. I thought it might be helpful to take that into consideration.

John Piper in his tome on imputation makes many of the same points you have on this thread. In his book he is debating a "New Perspective on Paul" theologian who denies imputation. So where you see "Gundry" that's the guy he's debating.

Similar to the info you provided here is a clipping from his exegesis of Romans 4 on imputed Righteousness (debating the claims of David Gundry) from the book Counted Righteous in Christ (all the weird characters are Piper's use of images of Koine Greek):

§1.1. Paul Thinks of Justification in Terms of “Imputing” or “Crediting” In Romans 4:3 Paul quotes Genesis 15: 6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness.” Thus the idea of “imputation” is introduced by the word “credited” (= “reckoned” or “counted” or “imputed”- from Genesis 15: 6. This idea of imputation or crediting is introduced in connection with Romans 4:2 to show that Abraham was not “justified by works.” (“ If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about.”) So Paul is forging the link here between “justification” (v. 2, and “imputation” elogisthe). We know, Paul says, that Abraham was not “justified” by works because Genesis 15:6 says “faith was credited to him for righteousness.” Thus we learn that when Paul thinks of the justifying work of God he thinks of the imputing or crediting work of God. How then does Paul conceive of this crediting or imputing work of God? There are clues as we consider the flow of thought through verses 4-6.

The Context of Imputation Is One of Crediting in a Bookkeeping Metaphor In Romans 4:4-5 Paul places the idea of imputation or crediting in the context of wages and debts. This seems to be the framework of thought that Gundry finds foreign to Paul’s description of God’s reckoning righteousness to our account. 3 He calls it “a bookkeeping framework” over against a “covenantal framework.” But the idea of imputing or crediting or reckoning in a financial or “bookkeeping” framework seems plain in this context. The question is: How does faith relate to this act of “crediting”? Paul’s exposition of how faith relates to imputation or cred-iting goes like this: Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited/ imputed , logizetai) according to grace kata charin), but according to debt kata (5) But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies , dikaiounta) the ungodly, his faith is credited/ imputed logizetai) for righteous-ness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Immediately, something seems out of sync here with the way Gundry conceives of imputation in Romans 4:3. When Paul quotes Genesis 15:6—that “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness”—Gundry construes this (with all its parallels) to mean that Abraham’s righteousness “consists of faith even though faith is not itself a work” (I, 8). So God’s imputation, in Gundry’s view, is not crediting an external, divine righteousness to Abraham, but counting something that he has, namely faith, to be his righteousness. What seems out of sync with this interpretation is that Paul’s exposition of imputation, which immediately follows verse 3, gives us a conceptual framework for imputation very different from the one Gundry sees in verse 3. Paul speaks immediately in terms of something external (a wage) being credited to our account, rather than something internal (faith) being treated as righteousness. “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited according to grace, but according to debt.” If Paul’s conceptual framework were the same as Gundry’s, and verse 3 implied to Paul that the credited righteousness consists of faith, then why would it enter Paul’s mind to illustrate this with the words, “To the one who works, his wage is not credited according to grace, but according to debt”? Why would he speak in terms of a wage (or a gift) from outside ourselves being credited to us by debt (or by grace)? Would he not rather say something like,

Would he not rather say something like, “Now to him who works, his works are credited as (= treated as) his righteousness according to debt This would correspond nicely with verse 5 (“ his faith is credited for righteousness”) if faith-credited-for-righteousness in fact means faith-treated-as-righteousness (which, I will try to show, it doesn’t). Thus Paul would accomplish what Gundry seems to think he wants: to show that our righteousness consists not of our works but does consist of our faith. But this is not the conceptual framework that Paul develops. He jumps from “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness” (v. 3) to “a worker doesn’t get his earnings according to grace but according to debt.”

This seems odd and unlikely if Paul thinks about imputation the way Gundry does. In verse 4 the very grammar is different from verse 3 and points to a different conceptual picture than Gundry’s: The external reward misthos is the subject of a passive verb (“ is credited, misthos ou logizetai and is, therefore, the thing credited. This external reward is credited either to a “worker” as a wage “according to debt,” or to “one who believes” as a gift “according to grace.” Would not the wording of verse 4 rather tell us that in Paul’s mind “faith being credited for righteousness” is shorthand for faith being the way an external righteousness is received as credited to us by God—namely, not by working but by trusting him who justifies the ungodly? Paul’s conceptual framework for imputation in verses 4 and 5 would, therefore, not be God’s crediting something we have to be righteousness, but God’s crediting a righteousness we don’t have to be ours by grace through faith. 4

§1.3. Confirmation from the Connection Between Romans 4:5 and 4:6 This disconnect between Gundry’s conceptual framework and Paul’s is confirmed in the flow of thought between verses 5 and 6: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness, (6) just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.” The “just as” at the beginning of verse 6 shows that Paul is now explaining with an Old Testament comparison (Psalm 32: 1 2) what it means for God to justify the ungodly. He says, “Just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits or imputes righteousness apart from works.” There are two crucial things to notice in the connection between verse 6 and verse 5.

§1.3.1. The first is the parallel between “apart from works” in verse 6 and “the ungodly” in verse 5. In verse 5 God justifies “the ungodly.” In verse 6 God credits righteousness to a man “apart from works .” What it means to be “apart from works” in Romans 4:6 is defined in verses 7-8: The man is guilty of “law-less deeds” and “sin.” So God’s crediting righteousness to a person “apart from works” means that he credits righteousness to “the ungodly.”

§1.3.2. This leads to the second crucial thing to notice about the connection between verses 5 and 6—namely, the parallel between God’s act of justifying in verse 5 and God’s act of crediting or imputing righteousness in verse 6. We have seen that “the ungodly” in verse 5 parallels “apart from works” in verse 6. It is natural then to take the phrase, “justify the ungodly” to be parallel with “credit righteousness apart from works.” Therefore Paul thinks of justification of the ungodly in terms of a positive imputation of righteousness apart from works. And this righteousness is the direct object of the verb “credit/ impute” (“[ God] credits righteousness,” 4: 6). Thus he is not using the same wording or grammar as in verse 5 where “faith is imputed for righteousness,” but rather he is saying that righteousness (an objective reality outside us) is imputed to us. Justification in Paul’s mind is God’s imputing righteousness to us “by faith” 5 rather than faith being treated as righteousness within us.

§1.4. A Confirming Parallel Between Romans 4:6 and Romans 3:28 This second point is confirmed by the parallel in wording between Romans 3:28 and Romans 4:6. In Romans 3:28 Paul says, “A man is justified by faith apart from works of the law nomou ” In Romans 4:6 he says, “God credits righteousness apart from works The parallel between “apart from works of the law” (3: 28) and “apart from works” (4:6) is so close as to suggest that the other parallel between “justify” and “credits righteousness” is similarly close, even synonymous.

Therefore we have another good reason for thinking that when Paul speaks of “being justified,” he thinks in terms of righteousness being imputed to us rather than our faith being recognized or considered as our righteousness.

Romans 4:5 justifies the ungodly

Romans 4:6 credits righteousness apart from works

Romans 3:28 justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ location 949 chapter 3)

redleghunter · Mar 27, 2019

FenderTL5 said:
The challenge is that the Bible uses several analogies for atonement, not just one.
In my humble opinion, none of them are all encompassing but portions of the whole.

Good point. When one uses one theory and says "that's it!", I usually say "yes but incomplete."

~Zao~ · Mar 27, 2019

mark kennedy said:
I was actually more interested in how the first century Jewish Christians would have understood atonement.

For one thing they would have been aware of the origin of the atonement which was established after the sons of Aaron offered a strange fire in the tabernacle. After that the atonement was established for the insufficiency of humans to accomplish God’s purpose, an inadequacy of the temporal. What the atonement carried on to fulfill was the adequacy of the eternal and the complete sufficiency of God. That was accomplished by the Son of God, sufficient to accomplish the purpose. He gave the ransom that was both efficient and sufficient to reclaim what was lost and accomplish redemption. That was His passion that reflects the true fire.

They would have seen it as an overall process needing repeating over and over again to bring a new year of acceptance with God and a cleansing of the conscience for yet another little while.

redleghunter · Mar 27, 2019

LoreneDD said:
They would have seen it as an overall process needing repeating over and over again to bring a new year of acceptance with God and a cleansing of the conscience for yet another little while.

As we see in the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16

1213 · Mar 27, 2019

mark kennedy said:
...This acknowledges "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – our only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And pray to be "found in Him, 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" (Philippians 3:9).

Now that's the rough cut of the doctrinal details. ...

I think the idea of inputted righteousness is not correct understanding. If person is righteous, it is seen in actions of the person. If person has right actions, he can be declared righteous. Right actions would be that person lives according to God’s law, or right action is that person is loyal/faithful to God. Those actions can prove that person is righteous and that is why person can be declared righteous, if those exists.

Righteousness is always something that comes visible in actions. Without the actions, person is not righteous. But it doesn’t work so that person can do few nice things and the expect that he is declared righteous. It is like in the parable of good and bad tree.

Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
Matt. 7:17-20

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

If person has righteous mind, he does righteous things, and it is evidence for that person is righteous. The actions are only result of the mind and can show if person has right understanding and wisdom of the just. It is not so that person could become righteous by doing right actions, because righteousness is what must be in person first, before he can do righteous actions. And righteous actions then are good actions that are done in right state of mind.

mark kennedy · Mar 27, 2019

redleghunter said:
John Piper in his tome on imputation makes many of the same points you have on this thread. In his book he is debating a "New Perspective on Paul" theologian who denies imputation. So where you see "Gundry" that's the guy he's debating.

I had went over this debate by John Piper and Gundry before, not really sure what was so important that they spent so much time wrangling over the semantics. I was again trying to sort this out when I found something, before I get to that I wanted to point something external out:

Similar to the info you provided here is a clipping from his exegesis of Romans 4 on imputed Righteousness (debating the claims of David Gundry) from the book Counted Righteous in Christ (all the weird characters are Piper's use of images of Koine Greek):

There are now international standard for standard fonts, including Hebrew and Greek. When I want to show a term in the original I usually go to BLB because it's just a question of cut and paste. It may not be significant in the theological discussion but I thought I would mention it since the exposition and the exegetical notes tend to become important.

Anyway, this is the part that got me thinking:

So God’s imputation, in Gundry’s view, is not crediting an external, divine righteousness to Abraham, but counting something that he has, namely faith, to be his righteousness.

I see it now, Gundry is somehow trying to make faith a kind of work, something with special merit. What I further saw as being especially helpful in an exposition is simply this:

“a bookkeeping framework” over against a “covenantal framework.” But the idea of imputing or crediting or reckoning in a financial or “bookkeeping” framework seems plain in this context.

Ancient Israel wasn't predicated on some meritorious financial system, they received the land of Israel from the Canaanites as an act of God. They did not buy land, they did not clear and build farms, dig wells, plant and nurture orchards in order to possess the land. God sent the angel of the Lord ahead of them to destroy their enemies, the land was not purchased, it was inherited. What I have in mind here is a system of debits and credits, in redemptive history God has always provided the means to sustain the people, which was part of the covenant. Still it was always God's land, which has great significance regarding our view of salvation since God is our righteousness and without righteousness we cannot approach God. What I'm starting to see here with the 'bookkeeper framework' is an analogy. In the kingdom of heaven you don't have currency as we are used to thinking about it, we do most of our buying and selling using a debit card or something like that. In the kingdom of heaven the currency is righteousness, the biggest problem with the is the accrued debt of our ancestors going all the way back to Adam. You see, you could inherit debt as well, the quickest and most common way to become a slave in the ancient world was debt. When Pharaoh says of the children of Israel, let us deal shrewdly, I think they are planning on lending them money and good, and then using that leverage to make them slaves.

When @food4thought mentioned 'penal substitution' I went back and looked at how it has been contrasted with 'ransom theory' since the Protestant Reformation. Some theologians see penal substitution as being a kind of departure from the traditional ransom theory but I have another approach. These are analogies that reflect the cultural context of the times. In the early church they would have been very well aware of empires and kingdoms that took lands and property by force, it was the order of the day. When an area was conquered the invading army was often bought off as a condition for suing for peace. When the church was persecuted they didn't really take up arms to defend themselves, they saw their oppressors as being subject to a demonically induced delusion, more then anything else they pitied their persecutors. Things would have been a lot different in the Medieval period going into the Protestant Reformation, the dynamics of world politics would have changed drastically. Most kingdoms and nations were well established, the biggest obstacle for the average person was running afoul of an established magistrate.

This might seem like the long way around to an analogy, but the book keeper framework can still help to clarify the importance of imputation in Romans 4. When Paul quotes the passage from Genesis 15:6 he uses a very interesting Hebrew word translated 'credited', here it is in context:

What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:5, 22)

Gesenius' Lexicon offers this insight into the meaning of the word:

‘To impute something to some one; followed by [a special character] of pers. and acc. of the thing; e.g. sin, Psalm 32:2; 2 Sam. 19:20; a good deed, which was not any work at all, but simply his believing God, (Gen. 15:6) (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon)

There is that word again, not only the Greek, λογίζομαι (G3049 logizomai), but the Hebrew, חָשַׁב (H2803 chashab). I really don't want to belabor the semantics here but the first order of business when dealing with 'imputation' is to understand how the word is used in both the Hebrew and Greek, especially as it relates to Paul's exposition of the gospel in Romans 4. Another little nuance of the word, chashab, in the Hebrew, it can also be used to describe the highly skilled work of an artisan (Exodus 26:1; 26:1; 28:6; 29:15; 31:4…etc.). The citations from Exodus relate to the building of the Tabernacle, the workers were not trained, they were endowed by God with the skills needed. This brings to mind 1 Corinthians 12 where the body of Christ is being built up like a Temple, the tools, mental and physical, are literally 'charisma', gifts of grace.

We haven't even gotten to atonement yet, this simple analogy has ballooned on me. I want to get to the exposition of Romans 4 with a little different approach. When Paul speaks to the Ephesians he doesn't really use the imagery from the Levitical system, they wouldn't have understood that so well. Paul uses financial terms, the 'glorious riches of his grace' for instance, being a commercial center they would have been very well aware of how that kind of finance works. You buy at the docks wholesale, then sale retail around Asia Minor following the Roman road through the province in a big circle. Before you began that journey you would need a tent, talking to someone like Paul, Priscilla and Aquila who were tent makers.

In Romans the analogies come straight out of the Levitical Law, but most of the principles still apply. The currency here is righteousness that is being imputed, not as a debt owed to the worker, but the worker himself being the recipient by grace.

Anyway, I wanted to get that sorted out before starting an exposition. With the book keeper framework in mind, what I'm thinking here is the currency being transferred like wealth is righteousness. More to come, stay tuned.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Mar 27, 2019

LoreneDD said:
For one thing they would have been aware of the origin of the atonement which was established after the sons of Aaron offered a strange fire in the tabernacle. After that the atonement was established for the insufficiency of humans to accomplish God’s purpose, an inadequacy of the temporal. What the atonement carried on to fulfill was the adequacy of the eternal and the complete sufficiency of God. That was accomplished by the Son of God, sufficient to accomplish the purpose. He gave the ransom that was both efficient and sufficient to reclaim what was lost and accomplish redemption. That was His passion that reflects the true fire.

They would have seen it as an overall process needing repeating over and over again to bring a new year of acceptance with God and a cleansing of the conscience for yet another little while.

The High Priest only entered the presence of God once a year, the ceremonial was detailed. He would have incense in one hand and the blood of the lamb in the other. He would have bells around the fringe of his garments and a rope around his ankle, one mistake and the rope would be used to retrieve him when they stopped hearing the bells jingle as he did his work. There were so many sacrifices going on in the Temple area, the sin offering, the trespass offering, the sacrifice of the peace offering and others. None so important as the Day of Atonement since it was on that day that the sin of the whole nation was atoned for. It was no coincidence when Jesus gave up the ghost on the cross the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in two. Final atonement was made, once and for all time, eliminating the need for an annual reminder of sin.

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Rom. 5:11)

Some say the word is better translated reconciliation.

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5:18)

Regardless of the semantic, the concept remains the same.

Grace and peace,
Mark

fhansen · Mar 27, 2019

mark kennedy said:
Atonement/Reconciliation (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē) - 1. exchange; of the business of money-changers, exchanging equivalent values (Aristotle, others). (Thayer’s Lexicon)

What follows is an invitation to study imputation and atonement as a formal doctrine. I'm going to offer a few choice quotes and expositions in the hopes of exploring the Biblical account of atonement as it relates to the gospel. The English word for 'atonement' was actually invented by William Tyndale, it's from a Greek word and Levitical concept that could probably be better translated 'reconciliation' but he wanted to coin a term that caught the full meaning of the idea of the Yum Kippur. I've tried to be brief, perhaps over simplifying some of the details in the process.

You would be justified (declared righteous) by the Law (Romans 2:13; Leviticus 18:5), if you could keep the righteous requirements of the Law (Romans 2:13). The Law is holy, righteous and good but it is spiritual and I am not (Romans 7:12, 14). We know that all God’s commandments are righteous (Psalm 119:172). The Law and the prophets clearly testify to the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21), so the Law at least shows us what the requirements of righteousness are, you just cannot be righteous before God by works of the Law, if that were possible then Christ died for nothing (Galatians 2:21)

The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" teaches that God graciously charges to the account of believers in Christ the righteousness wrought by Christ. It is at length expounded in Romans 3:21-4:25. Here we are taught that the righteousness wrought by Christ during the days of His incarnation is imputed to, or charged to the account of, believers by God in justification. The justified acknowledge Christ to be not only "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – but also their only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And they pray to be "found in Him, 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" (Philippians 3:9). (A Response to Don Garlington on Imputation in Reformation and Revival, John Piper)

Atonement ‘"at-one-ment”, perhaps would be better translated ‘reconciliation’ (Rom 11:15; 2Cr 5:18, 19). The idea is from Leviticus 16, 17 and the Yum Kippur, the annual remission of the sins of the nation of Israel.

The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, "propitiation," (1 John 2:2; 4:10), and hilasterion, (Rom 3:25; Heb. 9:5), "mercy-seat," the covering of the ark of the covenant. (Vine's Expository Dictionary)

This acknowledges "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – our only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And pray to be "found in Him, 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" (Philippians 3:9).

Now that's the rough cut of the doctrinal details. While I'm more interested in exploring this as formal doctrine I realize that there is a personal aspect to all of this and personal insights are certainly welcome. The New Testament is pretty clear that salvation and the requisite righteousness of God is imputed by faith as a gift, not paid as wages, I would hope I would get no arguments to the contrary. There are a lot of ways of approaching this subject matter; Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, feel free to express those views as you see fit.

Let all things be done unto edification.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Romans 2:12-13 makes the point clearly enough that we'll be judged on the law regardless:
"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

Because, while we're not holy or spiritual as we come into this life, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." Rom 7:12

The promise of the New Covenant is that, by establishing communion between fallen man and God, initiated by faith in response to grace, God will do the justifying as only He can; God will place His law in our minds and write it on our hearts, God will make us holy, righteous, and good, only He can make us how we were intended to be. He didn't create man to sin after all. But man cannot justify himself, by his own efforts-never could. Adam thought otherwise, that he'd be better yet apart from God but, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). That's the basis of the new Covenant. And that's what we're here to learn.

Because, "... with God all things are possible." Matt 19:26

The 'Imputation' of the Righteousness of God, in Christ. A Book Keepers term.

Natura non facit saltum

Loving truth

Loving truth

Natura non facit saltum

Loving truth

Natura non facit saltum

Loving truth

Natura non facit saltum

Loving truth

Natura non facit saltum

Thank You Jesus!

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Wisdom’s child

Thank You Jesus!

Disciple of Jesus

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Oldbie

Similar threads