Where in Christ teachings do we find...?

[prism]

"Tapped"by Peter?

Yes, in 2Pet 3:15-16

 

[prism]

Are you familiar with Ac 9?

Do you mean where Jesus tapped Paul?

 

[Eleanor]

Do you mean where Jesus tapped Paul?

So who governs, Peter or God?

 

[CrowCross]

A number of years ago there was what was called Red Letter Christians, meaning most of their theology came from the teachings of Jesus,
The emphasis of my theology is from Paul (Pauline), especially the letter to the Romans. Since the doctrine of imputed righteousness/justification is a central theme of Paul's, I was wondering if Jesus had taught on that topic? There seems to be hints of it (Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect), but nothing to explicit as we see in Romans 3 & 4.

I kinda thought that's what you meant. Some people are "red letter" only and throw out Paul.

But, as I said before, because Jesus didn't "directly" address the issue doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

[prism]

But, as I said before, because Jesus didn't "directly" address the issue doesn't mean it isn't so.

Yes, I see it as very so, our salvation depends on that gospel message

 

[prism]

Yes, I see it as very so, our salvation depends on that gospel message

Which Christ did not directly-explicitly teach. Maybe because he had not died yet? Maybe he had it in reserve for Paul to make that mystery clear?
Ephesians 3:4-6 KJV
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) [5] Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [6] That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 

[Hazelelponi]

Which Christ did not directly-explicitly teach.

In Luke 22:37 Jesus Christ quotes from Isaiah 53:12 and says the prophecy was to be fulfilled in Him.

The thing about the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 53 is that when we read the passage the verse He said applied to Him teaches imputation:

"
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.


It's significant because Jesus quoted from the therefore clause, which means, Jesus taught His righteousness would be imputed to us, just as our sins were to be imputed to Him upon His death and ressurection as we read the following from verse 11 what verse 12 was therefore-ing:

Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

Jesus directly taught this was to be fulfilled in Him, according to Luke.

 

[prism]

In Luke 22:37 Jesus Christ quotes from Isaiah 53:12 and says the prophecy was to be fulfilled in Him.

The thing about the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 53 is that when we read the passage the verse He said applied to Him teaches imputation:

"
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.


It's significant because Jesus quoted from the therefore clause, which means, Jesus taught His righteousness would be imputed to us, just as our sins were to be imputed to Him upon His death and ressurection as we read the following from verse 11 what verse 12 was therefore-ing:

Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

Jesus directly taught this was to be fulfilled in Him, according to Luke.

Edited by mod
I see our sin imputed to Christ, but not Christ's righteousness imputed to us in Isaiah 53:12'

Luke 22:37 ESV
[37] For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."

Isaiah 53:12 ESV
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That looks good, nice detective work, although the topic was quickly derailed.by a couple of disciples (v.38).
I see our sin imputed to Christ, but not Christ's righteousness imputed to us in Isaiah 53:12'

Luke 22:37 ESV
[37] For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."

Isaiah 53:12 ESV
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

It's not detection work it's knowing Scripture.

You can't read 53:12 without 53:11 because of the therefore clause which directly connects both verses, and verse 11 is explicit in that it teaches imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

You can't have one verse without the other because of the therefore clause. Jesus directly taught his death fulfilled these two verses, which teach imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

 

[prism]

It's not detection work it's knowing Scripture.

I was just trying to be extra nice after the alleged mocking incident. (Post #295 in the 'Question for the Calvinist' post).

You can't read 53:12 without 53:11 because of the therefore clause which directly connects both verses, and verse 11 is explicit in that it teaches imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

You can't have one verse without the other because of the therefore clause. Jesus directly taught his death fulfilled these two verses, which teach imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

Only problem is, Jesus didn't quote Isa 53:11, but only 53:12 in Luke 22:37.
I'm not wondering why the OT doesn't teach imputation of righteousness, but why we don't find it in the four Gospel accounts, or more specifically, in the teachings of Jesus?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Only problem is, Jesus didn't quote Isa 53:11, but only 53:12 in Luke 22:37.

He didn't need to. There were not any verses in the scrolls of the old testament. The statement that He is the fulfillment of the verses (plural) is enough with the grammatical therefore clause which directly connects the verses.

Jesus made the claim that verse 11 spoke of Him, and He was the fulfillment thereof, just the same as He made the claim that verse 12 was of Him.

 

[prism]

He didn't need to. There were not any verses in the scrolls of the old testament. The statement that He is the fulfillment of the verses (plural) is enough with the grammatical therefore clause which directly connects the verses.

True, there were no verses back then but He only quoted the 2nd part of Isa 53:11-12 and that only had to do with Him identifying with us sinners, not His imputed righteousness.

Jesus made the claim that verse 11 spoke of Him, and He was the fulfillment thereof, just the same as He made the claim that verse 12 was of Him.

The first section (vs.11) wasn't quoted only the last half of 11-12

 

[Hazelelponi]

vs.11 wasn't quoted

He didn't need to.

If He was the fulfillment of verse 12 He was also the fulfillment of verse 11.

Did you think Jesus was indicating the individual in verse 12 is a different individual than the one in verse 11 that's a connecting verse and a part of verse 12?

Prove Jesus taught they are different people and you might have a point, otherwise what I have brought forward stands, Jesus Christ taught that He is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:11-12 in Luke, and His disciples were hoping for a military action instead still. They hadn't been given understanding from the Lord yet. But Jesus still taught it all to them prior to His death

 

[prism]

He didn't need to.

If He was the fulfillment of verse 12 He was also the fulfillment of verse 11.

Did you think Jesus was indicating the individual in verse 12 is a different individual than the one in verse 11 that's a connecting verse and a part of verse 12?

Prove Jesus taught they are different people and you might have a point, otherwise what I have brought forward stands, Jesus Christ taught that He is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:11-12 in Luke, and His disciples were hoping for a military action instead still. They hadn't been given understanding from the Lord yet. But Jesus still taught it all to them prior to His death

I don't have to prove they're two different people, because they are not.. Like I've said Jesus does not teach on imputed righteousness, (as far as I can tell), and Isa 53:11-12 (as quoted by Jesus) relates to His identification with sinners, not reckoning sinners with the righteousness of Christ. Your argument would be more effective if you stuck with the Gospel accounts (Matthew/Mark/Luke/John).

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't have to prove they're two different people, because they are not.. Like I've said Jesus does not teach on imputed righteousness, (as far as I can tell), and Isa 53:11-12 (as quoted by Jesus) relates to His identification with sinners, not reckoning sinners with the righteousness of Christ. Your argument would be more effective if you stuck with the Gospel accounts (Matthew/Mark/Luke/John).

I believe this is the stronger argument, because it clearly points to double imputation, and Jesus specifically taught these verses applied to Him—and He did so in the Garden, just before His arrest.

Jesus’ disciples were Jews. That quote from Isaiah 53:12 would not have landed in a vacuum—it was a passage they would have heard read many times in the synagogue. And when Jesus quoted it, especially from the verse beginning with the “therefore” clause, He brought the whole passage to mind. That’s how Hebrew Scripture worked in their ears: quoting a part implied the whole.

And that’s likely what confused them. Jesus had just identified Himself with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53—a passage that had clear messianic interpretations in their own tradition. But their eschatology was deeply flawed. They had been raised to expect a Messiah who would overthrow Rome—Messiah ben David, not a servant who would suffer and die. The “two swords” moment in Luke 22:38 illustrates this confusion perfectly. They thought He was ready to fight.

We should remember that in the Second Temple period, Isaiah 53 was often interpreted messianically. For instance:

“Behold, My servant the Messiah shall prosper…”
— Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13–53:12
(Targum Jonathan on Isaiah)

The Targum doesn’t reinterpret the servant as Israel. It identifies him explicitly as the Messiah, even if it spiritualizes some of the suffering. This was not an obscure or hidden view—it was known. And the Qumran community, which preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls, had not only Isaiah 53 but also war scrolls, showing their anticipation of a coming clash between the Sons of Light and sons of darkness.

Many Jews at the time even held to the idea of two Messiahs:

• Messiah ben Joseph – the suffering servant figure
• Messiah ben David – the conquering king

So when Jesus identifies Himself as the one “numbered with the transgressors,” the disciples may well have been hearing both ideas: “Is He going to die... or fight?”

This is exactly why they asked about swords.

But here's the deeper point: Jesus didn’t just quote verse 12. He quoted from a clause that begins with “therefore”—which grammatically links it directly to verse 11. The division of the Servant’s portion is because He made “many to be accounted righteous” (v.11), and bore their iniquities.

That’s imputation—and not just one way.

“By His knowledge shall the Righteous One, My Servant, make many to be accounted righteous,
and He shall bear their iniquities.”
— Isaiah 53:11 (ESV)

That’s double imputation: our sins to Him, His righteousness to us. Jesus claimed this entire section was to be fulfilled in Him. There were no verse numbers in the scrolls. You couldn’t “quote a verse”—you identified with the passage. And Jesus did.

So yes, it’s in the Gospels. Luke 22:37 is not an isolated citation—it’s a declaration of fulfillment, drawn from a passage that teaches the very heart of the gospel.

The disciples simply didn’t understand it yet. But Jesus taught it to them all the same.

 

[Paul]

Where, in the teachings of Christ do we find Him teaching on the imputed righteousness for a believer?
Or is this strictly Pauline? (Examples would help.)

Indirectly I find...

Matthew 5:20 BSB
For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

But I suppose there is no direct teaching from Jesus?

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Those who have been sealed in Christ by the Spirit have no sin as it was taken away. They are clean. Can one who has no sin be considered unrighteous?

 

[makesends]

The way I see it is that the Pharisees followed the law to the "T"...even made up laws to help them follow the law. In other words they tried to be perfect. Jesus is saying you mst be more perfect than the Pharisees. In fact completely perfect. But, as we all know we can't be perfect.

That's why God came in the flesh and became our perfection.

Here is the concept....

2 Cor 5: 21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Here are some other verses...
1 Peter 2:24
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. “By His stripes you are healed.”

Philippians 3:9
and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith.

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.

 

[makesends]

I believe this is the stronger argument, because it clearly points to double imputation, and Jesus specifically taught these verses applied to Him—and He did so in the Garden, just before His arrest.

Jesus’ disciples were Jews. That quote from Isaiah 53:12 would not have landed in a vacuum—it was a passage they would have heard read many times in the synagogue. And when Jesus quoted it, especially from the verse beginning with the “therefore” clause, He brought the whole passage to mind. That’s how Hebrew Scripture worked in their ears: quoting a part implied the whole.

And that’s likely what confused them. Jesus had just identified Himself with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53—a passage that had clear messianic interpretations in their own tradition. But their eschatology was deeply flawed. They had been raised to expect a Messiah who would overthrow Rome—Messiah ben David, not a servant who would suffer and die. The “two swords” moment in Luke 22:38 illustrates this confusion perfectly. They thought He was ready to fight.

We should remember that in the Second Temple period, Isaiah 53 was often interpreted messianically. For instance:



The Targum doesn’t reinterpret the servant as Israel. It identifies him explicitly as the Messiah, even if it spiritualizes some of the suffering. This was not an obscure or hidden view—it was known. And the Qumran community, which preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls, had not only Isaiah 53 but also war scrolls, showing their anticipation of a coming clash between the Sons of Light and sons of darkness.

Many Jews at the time even held to the idea of two Messiahs:

• Messiah ben Joseph – the suffering servant figure
• Messiah ben David – the conquering king

So when Jesus identifies Himself as the one “numbered with the transgressors,” the disciples may well have been hearing both ideas: “Is He going to die... or fight?”

This is exactly why they asked about swords.

But here's the deeper point: Jesus didn’t just quote verse 12. He quoted from a clause that begins with “therefore”—which grammatically links it directly to verse 11. The division of the Servant’s portion is because He made “many to be accounted righteous” (v.11), and bore their iniquities.

That’s imputation—and not just one way.



That’s double imputation: our sins to Him, His righteousness to us. Jesus claimed this entire section was to be fulfilled in Him. There were no verse numbers in the scrolls. You couldn’t “quote a verse”—you identified with the passage. And Jesus did.

So yes, it’s in the Gospels. Luke 22:37 is not an isolated citation—it’s a declaration of fulfillment, drawn from a passage that teaches the very heart of the gospel.

The disciples simply didn’t understand it yet. But Jesus taught it to them all the same.

It's interesting to me how some people forget that Jesus was talking to those around him, neglecting that he also said what the gospels quote for OUR sakes. Conversely, there are some 'spiritualizers' who take the red letter to be things said for OUR sakes only, (usually these people also quote out of context). But he did so for both. And none of it was intended to be completely out of context, or of private interpretation.

This is one of the benefits of a reformed POV. We KNOW that whatever happens is intended by God as [at least] means to an end. What happens in Job isn't just to prove a point to Satan, but to us also! What Jesus said is intended for them, and for us, and that, for a reason.

 

[prism]

I believe this is the stronger argument, because it clearly points to double imputation, and Jesus specifically taught these verses applied to Him—and He did so in the Garden, just before His arrest.

I disagree because it points not to double imputation, but only took Christ's identification with the sinner and besides the OP is looking for the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus’ disciples were Jews. That quote from Isaiah 53:12 would not have landed in a vacuum—it was a passage they would have heard read many times in the synagogue. And when Jesus quoted it, especially from the verse beginning with the “therefore” clause, He brought the whole passage to mind. That’s how Hebrew Scripture worked in their ears: quoting a part implied the whole.

Again, realizing all scripture is given under the inspiration of God, the point I keep trying to make is that I am looking for direct teachings of Jesus in the gospels. I'm not denying that the Old Testament teaches divine imputation.

And that’s likely what confused them. Jesus had just identified Himself with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53—a passage that had clear messianic interpretations in their own tradition. But their eschatology was deeply flawed. They had been raised to expect a Messiah who would overthrow Rome—Messiah ben David, not a servant who would suffer and die. The “two swords” moment in Luke 22:38 illustrates this confusion perfectly. They thought He was ready to fight.

I realize that.

We should remember that in the Second Temple period, Isaiah 53 was often interpreted messianically. For instance:


The Targum doesn’t reinterpret the servant as Israel. It identifies him explicitly as the Messiah, even if it spiritualizes some of the suffering. This was not an obscure or hidden view—it was known. And the Qumran community, which preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls, had not only Isaiah 53 but also war scrolls, showing their anticipation of a coming clash between the Sons of Light and sons of darkness.

Many Jews at the time even held to the idea of two Messiahs:

• Messiah ben Joseph – the suffering servant figure
• Messiah ben David – the conquering king

So when Jesus identifies Himself as the one “numbered with the transgressors,” the disciples may well have been hearing both ideas: “Is He going to die... or fight?”

This is exactly why they asked about swords.

But here's the deeper point: Jesus didn’t just quote verse 12. He quoted from a clause that begins with “therefore”—which grammatically links it directly to verse 11. The division of the Servant’s portion is because He made “many to be accounted righteous” (v.11), and bore their iniquities.

That’s imputation—and not just one way.


That’s double imputation: our sins to Him, His righteousness to us. Jesus claimed this entire section was to be fulfilled in Him. There were no verse numbers in the scrolls. You couldn’t “quote a verse”—you identified with the passage. And Jesus did.

So yes, it’s in the Gospels. Luke 22:37 is not an isolated citation—it’s a declaration of fulfillment, drawn from a passage that teaches the very heart of the gospel.

The disciples simply didn’t understand it yet. But Jesus taught it to them all the same.

Thank you for that information, but I am looking again for direct teachings of Jesus in the gospels on imputation.

 

[prism]

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Those who have been sealed in Christ by the Spirit have no sin as it was taken away. They are clean. Can one who has no sin be considered unrighteous?

I'm sorry for not making myself clear when I said the teachings of Jesus, I meant the gospel accounts, not Acts. Besides, I still do not see imputation in Acts chapter 9.