No guilt of His own... but all of our guilt rested upon him.
[Isa 53:6 NASB95] 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
You must not hold to "once saved always saved." It would be accurate to say that our sin was imputed to Christ.
If Jesus can simply put off our imputed guilt, then we can also lose His imputed righteousness.
Who made that rule?
You're comparing apples to oranges, comparing the righteous divine to the sinful human.
Nope. . .Jesus didn't "put off" guilt imputed to him, he
paid the penalty for it and, therefore, the guilt was
justly required to be
removed from him, and also from all those who
apply his payment,
by faith in that atonement for them.
No one gets to "put off" guilt, they get only to pay for it.
And having no guilt of his own, he was
not made personally righteous through Abraham, for he was
never personally unrighteous, as we were. He
had to be righteous to qualify as the perfect sacrifice.
Jesus is the
divine son of God, therefore, he is neither unrighteous nor is he
under Abraham, receiving Abraham's righteousness for himself.
If Jesus can say "yeah, I was imputed their guilt, but really I'm righteous" then it can be said of us "yeah, I was imputed Christ's righteousness, but really I'm guilty of sin... so no eternal life for me."
Who made that rule?
You have neither the power to impute righteousness, nor the power to remove it.
That is God's sovereign domain, and he has revealed in the NT how he administers it through faith.
By what mechanism can Jesus overcome our imputed guilt
The same way the guy down at the prison "overcomes" his earned/just guilt--by
paying the penalty (prison time), so Jesus
paid the penalty of
death, which in
justice removes the guilt.
That is the Greek meaning of (the righteousness of)
justification (dikaiosis)--a
declaration, a
sentence of acquittal of guilt by the Judge, who is God (because the fine/penalty has been
paid, nothing is
owed to justice anymore). It is not a transformation of character, it is simply the removal of guilt--forensical.
without taking back from us His imputed righteousness? Clearly Christ was cursed by The Law, so the Law cannot make Him righteous again once it has cursed Him.
Correct, the Law makes
no one righteous, it was not given to make righteous, it was given to reveal sin (
Romans 3:20) and to lead us to Christ (
Galatians 3:24). "All who rely on observing the Law are under a
curse." (
Galatians 3:10).
Christ
himself was never made
unrighteous, he was made a sin
offering (
Romans 8:3, as previously explained), our sin was laid on him, as sin was laid
on the animal sacrifice (the animal did not
become a sinner, animals cannot sin, it became a sin
bearer). If he were
not completely righteous, he could
not qualify to be our perfect sacrifice.
That is the weakness of The Law. He must overcome our imputed guilt apart from The Law. By what means or mechanism is our imputed guilt overcome?
Who made that rule?
He doesn't "overcome" anything, he
pays the penalty for it, just as the guy down at the prison doesn't "overcome" his guilt, he
pays the penalty for it (incarceration) and it is
removed by the Judge (justifi-
cation)--he is no longer "guilty." It is all forensical, it is not about character transformation, personal change or personal goodness. It is simply about
paying a fine owed to avoid its penalty (eternal death).
The sinner, then being free of guilt, God imputes Christ's righteousness to him (
Romans 1:17,
Romans 3:20-21,
Romans 4:1-11).
In Christ, the blessing of Abraham goes to the descendants. This means it flows from Christ to Abraham to be distributed to the descendants.
The blessing of Abraham
is Christ (Seed,
Genesis 15:5), which is the Seed (
Galatians 3:16).
Yes, Jesus was the principle descendant, so
Christ gave up his righteousness and became sin,
As previously explained. . .Christ did
not give up his personal righteousness, he became a
sin bearer.
(
1 Peter 2:24;
Hebrews 9:28).
His righteousness flowing to Abraham.
The righteousness that Christ "gave up" then "flowed to Abraham"?
You've really gone off the NT rails here.
The righteousness that Christ is and has, was
never "given up," it was
imputed to Abraham (
Genesis 15:6) who shared in it through faith.
Because of God's promise to Abraham, that righteousness flows to Abraham's seed - Jesus being the primary inheritor.
Jesus does
not inherit righteousness from sinful man (
Romans 5:18).
We're talking about the divine Son of God here! God
partakes in no sin, he
bears the sin of others.
Jesus
is divine righteousness
himself.
But now, not only can it flow from Abraham to Christ, but it can flow from Abraham to those who are in Christ through the same oath of inheritance. Ultimately it is Christ's righteousness, but it had to flow through a 3rd party and come through a promise so that it could flow forward and not backward... otherwise our sin would also flow backward.
Actually, this is simply a personal notion from the mind-of-man as a solution to the problem created by his faulty theology.
So righteousness had to flow back to Christ not because He deserved it (which He did), but out of the grace of a promised inheritance. Otherwise, God would have no need to make the Promise to Christ...
The promised inheritance to Christ was not righteousness.
Christ never lost righteousness, he is God, it never needed to "flow back" to him, it was his all along.
The promised inheritance to Christ is seed, the church, which is his reward, inheritance, and more importantly, his perfectly spotless Bride, prepared for him by his own Father.
Christ having deserved His own righteousness would just take it up again as something He was owed ... as something he had a right to... no promise necessary... it was His to take.
The divine Son of God is not in the business of owning, losing and taking up again.
That flawed notion could come only from the mind of man.
The only reason to make a promise to Christ is if Christ was giving it up with the possibility of not getting it back again.
The promise to Christ was not about righteousness, it was about
seed (
Genesis 5:15).
You've gone off the NT rails here because you misunderstand the promise to Christ.
Having been cursed by the Law, and having the iniquity of all of us laid upon Him, I could see how that was a possibility. But throughout the OT God gave Him assurances. For example, through David, God promised not to leave His soul in Hades.
[Act 2:31-36 NASB95] 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY (cross ref: Psa 16:10). 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, 35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified."
But whose righteousness was given to Abraham? God doesn't just create it and hand it out like cotton candy.
The righteousness of Jesus Christ was imputed to Abraham and the OT saints in advance of his atonement, in anticipation of that atonement (
Romans 3:25-26).
If that were the case, there would have been no need for Jesus to die and give up His life (righteousness), and there would have been no need for Jesus to live a sinless life.
Agreed.
No need when He was a direct descendant... the genealogies make that clear. Yet Jesus did believe everything God promised Him... so he was both a physical and spiritual descendant - the unified man through whom both Jews and Gentiles can be saved.
I agree.
