Where in Christ teachings do we find...?

[Eleanor]

I do believe Jesus taught truthfully, but at the time, perhaps ministering to just the Jews...

Matthew 10:6 (KJV) But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
John 1:11 (KJV) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

"Go and make disciples of all nations." (Mt 28:20)

The teaching of the apostles; i.e., imputation (Ro 5:18-19, Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9), is the teaching of Jesus (Lk 10:16).

Lotta' dancin' around in your unbelief.

 

[Eleanor]

Since all of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, (same veracity and authority) it struck me as curious as to why Jesus waited until Paul (the 13th apostle?) to have these crucial matters (imputed righteousness & justification) to be spelled out plainly.

Are you serious?

You have just exposed your deception.

That question has been adequately answered to you personally in this forum.

 

[prism]

Lotta' dancin' around in your unbelief.

Interesting, what is 'curious' to one is 'unbelief' to another. I never claimed to have perfect faith

 

[prism]

Are you serious?

You have just exposed your deception.

That question has been adequately answered to you personally in this forum.

So, you need not keep up with your insults.
Chill out, I was only asking.
Besides I'll be the judge of its adequacy of the answers, since I started the thread. No one is forcing you to participate here.

 

[makesends]

You said....."If I didn't know scripture, I'd get the impression that 2 Cor 5:21 said, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us."

In other words because you know scripture you know that 2 Cor 5:21 doesn't express that our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.

That is how I saw your post. If that isn't what you meant....then what do you mean?

That's not what I said. Read the whole thing. Quoting only part of it is misquoting it. (That's the problem with proof-texting from Scripture, too.)

I said,

Just a Mod note. Please take the time, being careful to separate your words from those of quotes—particularly important when the quote is from Scripture. Make it obvious. As a general rule, even when a reference is quoted into its own paragraph, it is good to identify it by more than simply separating it into its own paragraph. Put quote marks, or, italics, or, different color, or, indent —something to identify it.

If I didn't know scripture, I'd get the impression that 2 Cor 5:21 said, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us."

Or I might get the impression that 1 Peter 2:24 said only, "By His stripes you are healed.", and not be sure about the rest of what that line says.

I think I know you well enough to know that you do not mean to misquote Scripture. But just in case I am wrong, be aware: To misquote Scripture purposely, is to lie, and against God at that. It will not be tolerated here. To do so carelessly, continually, violates rule 3.1, in my opinion. If necessary, I will lobby for a more specific rule to that effect.

2 Cor 5:21 doesn't say, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.", but the way you quoted what 2 Cor 5:21 does say, but without separating your own comments from the quote, I might've been led to think it actually says the words you 'inserted', had I not known the Bible better than to think so.

The whole post was one statement, and it was a mod note, off-topic to the thread, only speaking of your apparent habit of quoting scripture without identifying what part is scripture and what part is your commentary.

 

[prism]

How can you read Mt 3:16 about fulfilling all righteousness and not consider it to be spot on target--that justification by a credited righteousness is intended?

I had to take a 2nd look ...

Matthew 3:16 (KJV) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

It may have been intended, but Jesus did not specifically teach a justification by a credited righteousness in Mt 3:16.
That's what I have been looking for in the Gospels.

 

[Eleanor]

Interesting, what is 'curious' to one is 'unbelief' to another. I never claimed to have perfect faith

You either have saving faith or you don't, because saving faith is of the Holy Spirit only, and Holy Spirit faith is not partial.

Put it all on the shelf and let God bring you back to it with Holy Spirit faith.

 

[prism]

You either have saving faith or you don't, because saving faith is of the Holy Spirit only, and Holy Spirit faith is not partial.

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with my comment of, "what is 'curious' to one is 'unbelief' to another. I never claimed to have perfect faith". I suppose your faith is perfect? (eg moved mountains, walked on water, or raised the dead lately?)

 

[EarlyActs]

I had to take a 2nd look ...

Matthew 3:16 (KJV) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

It may have been intended, but Jesus did not specifically teach a justification by a credited righteousness in Mt 3:16.
That's what I have been looking for in the Gospels.

Sorry one verse late. But in light of many Psalms, Dan 9 and Isaiah, what would ‘necessary to fulfill all righteousness’ possibly mean? He didn’t become righteous; he was completing it for sinners. Not in them but for them , as a covering of them.

Well it does take a while to digest. My last post was quite long and calls for a lot of
study.

 

[prism]

But in light of many Psalms, Dan 9 and Isaiah, what would ‘necessary to fulfill all righteousness’ possibly mean?

Probably for the 1000th time, I realize the OT is full of teachings on imputed righteousness, etc. BUT I am looking for Jesus teaching it in the Gospels (Matt, Mk, Lu, or Jn.). Is that asking too much?

 

[CrowCross]

Is that why there is so much debate and uncertainty on the rapture topic?

Well, Jesus did say He was going to build some mansions...and then return for us.

 

[EarlyActs]

Probably for the 1000th time, I realize the OT is full of teachings on imputed righteousness, etc. BUT I am looking for Jesus teaching it in the Gospels (Matt, Mk, Lu, or Jn.). Is that asking too much?

In my longest post above, most of the references (about 20) were from the Gospels. Regardless, expressions and quotes of the OT in the NT are cumulative things; they show us what the post-exile Judaism was struggling with, what was solved by the NT. You have to know those OT passages to know what was emerging in the NT, even in the Gospels.

Three passages show the depth of 1st centuries lost understanding:
Rom 9 that Israel was seeking to establish its own righteousness. You will find Christ in the Gospels speaking about this.
Eph 2 'in the Gospel' the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Christ addressed all these things in the gospel narratives.
Gal 3 that the Promise was made void and canceled by the Law--in Judaism's understanding. When Christ in Jn 3 told Nic that he needed to be born from 'anothen' (the beginning, the top, above), he was actually saying the same thing; that it was the faith of Abraham not the machinery of the Law that had been built up that was Gospel of the Promise. That's why the discussion moves toward justification--the opposite of condemnation, 3:17. Sinners are justified by imputed righteousness of Christ not by change inside them. Imputation has to do with debt and credit.

The Gospel narratives do not lack reference to credited righteousness; they are in unity with Paul about it.

What happened 1400 years ago that would have changed anything about the meaning of 1st century documents?

 

[prism]

Well, Jesus did say He was going to build some mansions...and then return for us.

Be honest now, is that the same as teaching us that we are declared righteous through faith in Him?

 

[prism]

In my longest post above, most of the references (about 20) were from the Gospels. Regardless, expressions and quotes of the OT in the NT are cumulative things; they show us what the post-exile Judaism was struggling with, what was solved by the NT. You have to know those OT passages to know what was emerging in the NT, even in the Gospels.

Give me the post # only if it involves Jesus' teaching on justification and/or imputed righteousness. I'll take another look, although I have an aversion to looong posts.( see my signature).

 

[Hazelelponi]

Be honest now, is that the same as teaching us that we are declared righteous through faith in Him?

Honestly, I think your the one who is not being honest.

To give just a couple examples:

Luke 18:9–14 – The tax collector brings no works, no merit—only repentance and trust in God’s mercy. Jesus says “this man went down to his house justified.” That’s a legal verdict (δικαιόω) (Strong's hyperlink) declaring him righteous while he still calls himself a sinner. That’s not infused virtue—it’s an alien righteousness credited to him by faith.

Matthew 20:28 – “The Son of Man came… to give His life as a ransom for many.” This is Isaiah 53 language (“He bore the sin of many”). A ransom is a substitutionary transaction—guilt transferred to the substitute, freedom credited to the captive. That’s sin imputed to Christ and righteousness imputed to those ransomed.

John 17:19 – “For their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.” In priestly language, His consecration is on behalf of His people so they share His sanctified standing. That’s covenantal transfer—what’s true of Him is counted true of them.

When you set these alongside Luke 22:37 / Isaiah 53:11–12, (hyperlink to forum post #35) the same pattern emerges:

• Jesus takes our sin (bearing iniquity).
• Jesus’ righteous standing is counted to us (accounted righteous).
• The Gospel accounts present this reality long before Paul wrote Romans 3–5.

So yes—Jesus taught imputation. He just did so in the categories of the Hebrew Scriptures, and His hearers would have understood it in that light.

Knowing Who/What Christ is has always been revealed knowledge. ("Who do you say I am?" "My Father in Heaven has revealed this to you" (Matthew 16:17).

If the Who/what of Christ's nature is revealed knowledge given as a gift by our Father, then Jesus teaching imputation all over the Gospels is likewise, revealed knowlege (Matthew 13:14).

 

[Tambora]

I don't doubt imputation of Christ's righteousness is taught in the OT, but I was trying to find Jesus speaking on it.

I can't find a direct teaching from Jesus on that particular subject.
However in round-a-bout way He did since one could easily insert that all of the OT teachings were very important to Jesus since He says that if one does not believe what the OT prophets said then why should one believe what He says.

John 5​

(47) But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”​

​

​

Luke 16​

(31) He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”​

​

​

So when Jesus tells the crowds to believe what the prophets said, He is teaching them.

 

[Hazelelponi]

What happened 1400 years ago that would have changed anything about the meaning of 1st century documents?

He's not talking about 1400 years ago, he's counting the 1400 years forward from Christ - stopping at the Protestant Reformation.

In short, he just told you all of the EC, and the RCC throughout church history and he are in agreement, and the ones wrong or in error on this matter are the Protestants from the Reformers forward.

 

[EarlyActs]

Also for Prism,
if you look at my thread on 'new light on the meaning of 'fulfillment' in the NT', you will see that a concept is revisited and gains a strengthened meaning. It is not like a checklist of 300 prophecies as much as it is a maturing from an elemental form. Like Christ the temple compared to the man made temple. It fulfills it.

Sometimes in the Law there were acts like vicarious transfer of guilt; the 'scape goat' practice. That was meant to be 'fulfilled.' It was in elementary form, and when Christ came it was matured. This was not a Pauline thought. Vicarious atonement is inseparable from imputed righteousness, like the transaction depicted in 2 Cor 5 'God made him who knew no sin, to be the righteousness of God for us.' In Luke 7, Christ was about to fulfill His exodus, meaning the old was only a shadow, an elementary form that was to be mature only in Christ. That's in Luke 9; it is not a Pauline idea (except I think Paul dictated to Luke).

 

[EarlyActs]

Reprinted for Prism:


I don't know what you are missing. Just because the word 'imputed' is not there does not mean it is not there. If you don't understand that, you won't see it. Added: there is a cluster of terms that relate: justify, condemn, righteousness, justice, credit, debt, other accounting terms.

All the related concepts are there and are used in the very sense that Paul goes on to use. Added: Christ taught Paul, Gal 1.

Maybe it helps to realize that there was a 'warning' dimension about the Gospels to that generation of Israel about the coming destruction of the country. This can overshadow things, and the matter of an imputed righteousness would not matter as much about that particular issue.

Added: Beware of seeking out a topic instead of letting the substance of a passage come to you on its own. People do this with the rapture or the millenium and it becomes hilarious or hallucinogenic after a while.

But the concepts of debt, credit etc are all there; in fact, the parable of the shrewd steward (Luke 16) cannot be about anything else or be understood any other way, AND is also about that generation. He meant that Israel was to be out working as a missionary of the gospel of a credited righteousness (one that 'reduces' a person's 'bill') so that it would 'have eternal friends' after this life. The guy has the power to extend credit to various debtors against reality; humanly speaking, he does not have any credit.

Notice in v16 that they loved money and 'justified themselves'.

Another strong reference is the line about 'by your words you will be condemned; by your words you will be justified.' Insofar as he means by this that you cannot do it by your works, it is spot on. It doesn't mean that your speech is a 'work' that will save you. It means that you must claim Christ as your righteousness.

Some people think that Jn 3 is about being born again, when actually being born again is about the ability to see what the kingdom/reign of God actually is, which was Nic's initial question. The born again/above stuff has been excessively popularized for experientialism and clouds the meaning of v17: God did not send the Son to condemn the world (it already was/is). The opposite of condemn is to justify.

So again, if you are looking only for the term 'imputed', you will not see it in the same way, but it is there. Conversely, Paul did not use it in Ephesians, but it is the premier form of saving grace, and is expressed that way in ch 2. In Col. he did a keen play on the term, in which the annoying Judaizers 'dis-justify' a believer who stands on Christ alone instead of Christ-plus-the practice of the Law. The term uses 'logizo' as a stem, but means that the believer is 'dis-credited' by the Judaizers. 'Logizo' is otherwise translated as 'imputed, reckoned, considered.'

How can you read Mt 3:16 about fulfilling all righteousness and not consider it to be spot on target--that justification by a credited righteousness is intended? You see, the fascinating thing about the NT is that it used the one cryptic line about Abraham; 'he believed and God credited him righteousness.' That was now the throb of the NT, that all who believed were sons like that. Jesus said so in John 8; and there is 'don't call yourselves sons of Abraham; God can make children of Abraham out of these stones' by John the Baptist.

I have searched through my research years, and I have not found where Judaism had a clue about what the Gen 15 line meant, the 'credited righteousness.' That might be because it only showed in such touchy passages as Dan 9 and Is 53 ('by his ordeal, my servant will justify many.'

Added: partial list of relevant gospels references:
Mt 3
Mt 5
Mt 12
Mt 18
Mt 19
Mt 27
Luke 7
Luke 16
Luke 18
Jn 3
Jn 11
Jn 12

I hope this helps. I also know that the NT looks disunified at first. We have to remember that Jesus spent 40 days explaining about 20 key OT passages, which we find expounded in Peters' teachings and in Paul. The term 'wipe away your sins' that Peter used in Acts 2 is from bookkeeping. They used wet clay tablets to do math. When you started over, you used a wood straightedge to wipe away the previous calculation in the wet clay. If Israel repented at that point, it would wipe away the sin of rejecting Christ. That included becoming the missionaries of the new message, and it started well (Acts 5's 5000 men) but ended very badly as Dan 9 said.

So the NT has a 'formidable unity' in the end, --Lewis.

 

[EarlyActs]

Me and 1400 years of Church history. I guess I am in good/bad company.

Correction it's 3:15.