Our Sin Transferred and Imputed to Christ, His Righteousness Imputed and Transferred to Us
Now if Christ was without sin in and upon His entire human nature at the time of His crucifixion upon the cross, then there would have been no just cause for the wrath of God to have been poured out upon Him in our stead; just as there would have no just cause for God to have judged Adam if he had not personally transgressed. Adam was a “type” of Christ in practically every respect. So we are not just talking about “reckoning” someone as “guilty” for no sin of their own, as true as this may also be ofttimes in the Scriptures; we are talking about both Adam and Christ becoming actually guilty as charged (or “reckoned” as such by God), and then imputing (or reckoning) and imparting to all of us based upon nothing that we have done, but based upon what Adam and Christ have each done respectively for all of us in our union with them as our federal heads. To be sure, both ideas presented above about “imputation” are not without biblical precedent. We often speak of the latter with regards to God not imputing or reckoning someone’s own sins (or even righteousness) to themselves based upon no work of their own, but the former is just as true in the Bible with regards to God reckoning someone guilty for their own sins. In fact, what was just stated above about God not reckoning someone’s own sins to themselves implies that someone’s own sins can be imputed to them. A few examples can be cited in the Scriptures with regards to this latter idea. But one in particular comes to mind where the actual Greek word used in the NT for “imputation,”
logizamai, is the actual word used in the Greek Septuagint in its translation of the Hebrew word used for imputation in Lev. 17:4. The verse reads as such in the Septuagint, starting in verse 3:
Every man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers abiding among you, who shall kill a calf, or a sheep, or a goat in the camp, or who shall kill it out of the camp, and shall not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of witness, so as to sacrifice it for a whole-burnt-offering or peace-offering to the Lord to be acceptable for a sweet-smelling savour: and whosoever shall slay it without, and shall not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of witness, so as to offer it as a gift to the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord; blood shall be imputed to that man, he has shed blood; that soul shall be cut off from his people.
This verse above is succinct and to the point, needing no further explanation. The person committing this offense before the Lord is “imputed” or reckoned as guilty for the crime. And the same is to be noted in both the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint with regards to Shimei in 2Sam. 19:19, where he implores David not to “impute” (Gk.
logizamai) him as “guilty” for the wrong that he did unto David. The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (I.S.B.E) also notes how this idea of someone being imputed or reckoned as “guilty” in a forensic manner for their own sin is
implied or inferred in Lev. 5:12; 7:18; 19:8 and 22:9. And Psm. 32:2, along with Rom. 4:8 and 2Cor. 5:19, are just a few more examples in which God is not imputing or reckoning someone’s own sins to themselves, again,
implying that they can be. But like I said, Lev.17:4 (as well as 2Sam. 19:19) is undeniably definitive in this regards.
Verses that imply just the opposite idea of “reckoning” someone or something as “guilty” for no personal crime of their own, are seen in: Gen. 31:15; 43:9; 44:32; Lev. 16:22; 1Kin. 1:21; Isa. 53:11; Lam. 5:7; Num. 18:27, 30; 33:22. So, for the sake of argument, when we are normally discussing the “imputation” of sin or of righteousness, we are talking about being charged guilty or or not guilty through no work or action on our part through each of our respective federal heads of either being “in Adam” or “in Christ.” But when we are referring to “impartation,” we are referring to the inherent attributes that each of us receives through each of these respective federal heads in our union with them, and, of course, those inherent attributes that Christ receives from us in His identification and union with us. Clearly, we cannot pigeonhole the word “imputation” to mean just one idea of us being reckoned for something based upon no work of our own, at the expense of it also being used to denote something that is reckoned to someone as an action belonging to them, and for which they are required to own up to. But, like I said, for the sake of argument in this discussion, “imputation” is normally used throughout this article to denote the former idea, not the latter; especially as it relates to us being reckoned as "guilty" for Adam's disobedience (or his sin), or us being reckoned as "not guilty" for Christ's obedience (or His righteousness). But being reckoned as either "guilty," or "not guilty,"
always implies an act of either disobedience or obedience somewhere along the line. No one is just reckoned either guilty or not guilty absent of any sin or righteousness, either by themselves or by someone else — an error that Charles Hodge and his son Archibald Hodge had succumbed to for their own
a priori theological reasons.
John Murray makes note of these two differing ideas noted above with regards to the use of this word “imputation” in his book,
The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. And on page 71, in the context of understanding that the word is also used to denote being reckoned or imputed for something we have not done, Murray notes how that, “The word has been widely used, however, in this connection and there is no good reason for abandoning its use,” with regards to how it is used in Romans 5 and elsewhere. I do not demur. But at the same time, John Murray also realized that God imputing someone’s own sins to themselves is a truth that should not be overlooked in favor of the other idea of God not imputing someone’s own sins to themselves only for
a priori theological reasons, as John Murray also notes of Charles Hodge (and company) who try to rob the atonement of its intimacy of Christ actually bearing our sins in and upon His person, and then say that Christ only bore the “guilt,” not the actual sin, as the only obligation required by God to satisfy justice. As Charles Hodge’s son, Archibald Hodge says, our sins “remain ours in order that they may be to Him the sins of another.”
[1] This all sounds good on the surface, but what Hodge means by this is that our sins were NOT actually placed in and upon Christ’s person. In other words, our sin never actually became as it were, Christ’s sin. They “remain all the while inalienably ours”
[2] And Hodge enforces this idea by saying that imputation, by the very nature of the case, does not transfer inherent personal sins. Hodge is right when he says that “imputation” does not “transfer” the personal inherent sins of one person to another, and he says this in the defense that our sins were never placed in and upon Christ’s person. But we are not talking about the transference of our sins to Christ
by imputation. We are talking about Christ becoming “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) or “made sin” (2Cor. 5:21) as our Scapegoat (Lev. 16:8, 20-22 ) with our sins, when He became cursed of God on the tree (or cross), and for which Hodge also begs to differ. But on the contrary, our sin did indeed become Christ’s sin at that moment in time. And it was at
that time that He was “imputed” or “reckoned” as “guilty” as charged with our sins place in and upon His person as an actual substitute sinner in our stead. Hodge (and company) viewed imputation in Christ’s case as
only being charged “guilty” for another person’s crimes, ruling out the idea that Christ could actually be “imputed” or reckoned “guilty” for what
seems to be His own crimes and misdemeanors; and so Christ, by the very nature of the case, according to these men, could not have had our sins placed in and upon His person and be charged as such. But, again, in Christ’s case (unlike Adam) He was not being charged or reckoned “guilty” for His own sins, but for ours. But our sins, nevertheless, indeed became as it were—His sins! Christ owned up to them and was charged or reckoned for them as if they were His own sins. Of course, most will not see this if they still see themselves as the person described in Romans 7. For them, Christ did not crucify our flesh (or the old sinful heart and nature), as denoted in Gal. 5:24 (and in Rom. 6:6).
Of a truth, we own up to Adam’s sin becoming inherently or personally our sin; Christ owns up to our sin(s) becoming inherently or personally His sin(s); and we own up to Christ’s righteousness becoming inherently or personally our righteousness with us thus becoming partakers of His divine nature; no more being slaves to sin, but slaves to God and to righteousness which leads unto holiness (Rom. 6:19-22). As Cranfield had earlier stated concerning Christ, it was “
a matter of starting from where we start, subjected to all the evil pressures
which we inherit, and using the altogether unpromising and unsuitable material
of our corrupt nature to work out a perfect, sinless obedience.”
[3] Again, our sins were actually and really placed in and upon Christ’s person as if He had Himself committed the crimes. So, in a real sense, Christ was considered guilty as charged by becoming as an actual sinner in our stead for our sins placed in and upon His person. Christ was not just pronounced “guilty,” absent of any sin; our sin actually became His sin and for which He was reckoned: “guilty.”
The sin which is spiritually on a personal level “inherited” by all, in God’s sight can easily become disinherited by just the touch of His finger. Impossible with men, but not impossible with God. It is a circumcision not made with men’s hands, but with God’s. Just the opposite happened with Adam, with us, with Christ, and then changed for us in the circumcision of Christ unto our old Adamic human nature known as: “the old man” (Rom. 6:6; Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:22) or the old “heart of stone” (Ezk. 11:19; 36:26). What God allowed to be put upon Adam, upon us via Adam, and upon Christ via becoming us in the exercise of His wisdom and power, was at the touch of His finger just as easily reversed for some of us to show forth His love, grace, and mercy. Has not the Potter the power over the clay, to make vessels to honor and some to dishonor? Has not God shut up all under disobedience, that He might show mercy upon all (Rom. 11:32)? Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!....For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:33, 36). The utter and absolute “foolishness” of the cross is the wisdom and power of God. No wonder many Jews could not believe in Christ, for how could such a benefactor for them be allowed by God to be cursed of God to hell on a tree? How “foolish,” so they thought. But Christ wasn’t doing it for His own benefit, but for ours. Oh foolish, and slow of heart, were those Jews to not believe all that the Law and the prophets had said concerning the Christ, that He must suffer these things (Lk. 24:25-26).
Of no doubt, before the fall Adam was
inherently without sin and without God (internally in his spirit), and became that way through no work of his own. Upon his fall, Adam became
inherently sinful and without God, and became that way through his own personal sin. In Adam, we too were
inherently made sin and without God, and became that way through no personal sin of our own. And upon the cross, Christ was
inherently made sin with our sin and without God (even “forsaken” of God at that moment and time), and became that way through no personal sin of His own. After the death His human body and soul, Christ (the antitype of Samson the Nazerite) cast off the power and chains of sin and darkness and was
inherently and spiritually made alive in His human spirit (1Pet. 3:18; 1Tim. 3:16) and thus with God, and became that way through His own personal righteousness. And in Christ, we too are
inherently made righteous and with God, and have become that way through no work of our own. Do you see the patterns and parallels? Do you see how that in almost every respect Adam was a “type” of Christ, not only positionally in a penal or judicial sense, but practically as well? All that was begun in Adam and imputed to him for
his own sin, and imputed to us
for no personal sin of our own but
for Adam’s sin, was reversed and completed (or “finished”) in Christ with
our sin being imputed to Christ’s person as if He had personally committed the crime,
yet for no personal sin of His own—just as it happened to us with Adam. In return, Christ’s righteousness is judicially imputed to us
for no personal righteousness of our own. Yet in all of these particular cases we can see how that “sin” or “righteousness” actually become
inherently ours as concomitant with the biblical doctrine of imputation. And except for Adam, in all cases we see that what has occurred to us—and to Christ—is through no fault or work of our own. Thus, in Adam as our former federal head we were constituted and made sinners through no fault of our own; in Christ’s union and identification with us as our federal Head He was constituted and made as a sinner through no fault of His own; and in Christ as our federal Head we become constituted and made righteous through no work of our own. In Adam, all die; whereas, in Christ, all are made alive. The “all” in Christ are not the “all” in Adam; otherwise, all would have to be made alive in juxtaposition of all who die in Adam. The Bible supports this latter idea, where even in Eph. 1:4 Paul says: “For He [God] chose us in Him [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will.” All of this speaks of a federal union and headship of being either in Adam or in Christ. Federal headship refers to the representation of a group united under a governmental federation or covenant. For example, a country's president may be seen as the federal head of their nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world. All the world fell into sin through their
covenantal relationship of works in Adam (Rom. 5:12, 15-19). All those chosen in Christ through a
covenantal relationship of grace even before Adam's fall, are all predestined to be effectually called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 5:15-19; 8:30).
Reformed theology, using the model of federal headship where all of humanity is
covenantally represented by Adam, sees also believers (or God’s predestined or elect “children of promise” in Rom. 9:8 and Gal. 4:28) as also represented
covenantally by Christ—as witnessed with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
et al, who are likewise said to be God’s elect “children of promise” (Rom. 9:8). Being God’s “child of promise” presupposes this idea. It screams “election” before the fact, not after the fact (see also Rom. 9:11 in the context of being “children of promise”). As such, we are the sheep that Christ said He came to die for (Jhn. 10:15; Eph. 5:25); not only from the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but also for all of the children of God scattered abroad throughout all the the world—in other words, not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles (Jhn. 10:16; 11:51-52). This is “the world” of God’s elect Gentiles that Paul describes for us in Rom. 11:12 and 15, in juxtaposition to God’s elect Jews also described for us in Rom. 11:2-5, 12, 15, 28. When the Jews said “the world (Gk.
kosmos)” is gone after Christ in John 12:19, they didn’t understand in their usage of “the world” to denote everyone in the world, but only those Jews (and definitely not the mass of Gentiles at that time) who had gone after Christ.
So, in light of what was has been said above about federal headship, and those represented by such a federal head, our federal union with Christ is of the same order, and involves the same class of effects, as did our federal union with Adam. And it is of such a nature as to involve an identity of
legal relations and
reciprocal obligations and rights from us to Christ, and from Christ to us as our federal representative Head. So of necessity, there
had to be a relation between Christ and His people before He could actually deliver them from their sin. From the foundation of the world was our Lamb slain for us (Rev. 13:8; Acts 2:23; 4:28; Eph. 1:4-5). Christ became a substitution for us, because in essence He had to become one with us in being “made sin” or “sinful flesh,” and identify with us so that we could in turn identify with Him as His body and He as our Head. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? (2Cor. 6:14-15). Of necessity, a change had to occur within us and for us in order that we could be with our righteous Lord in heaven.
So, who, or what, are we again exactly “in Christ”? First of all, we are united in Christ in terms of our
decretive election in Him from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:1-5). Secondly, we are united in Christ in terms of our
federal union in a covenantal relationship of grace with Him (He is the Head, and we are His body; Col. 1:18; 2:19). And, thirdly, we are united in Christ in terms of our personal or
vital union in Him in our baptism into death with Him both spiritually and physically, with us also being raised with Him to walk in newness of life (Romans 6). All that belongs to us in our spiritual baptism into Christ is both of a
legal and
organic union according to spiritual laws set in motion by God. Thus, the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of His mediation in their justification, their adoption, their sanctification, and whatever else in this life manifests our union and participation with Him. And in virtue of this union or oneness, which God’s elect have with Christ by faith, we are accounted (both forensically and practically) to have done and suffered whatever Christ did and suffered for us as our representative federal Head, as well as in how He walked circumspectly before us as an example for us to follow (1Jhn. 2:6; 1Pet. 2:21), once we become spiritually dead (or crucified) to the power behind our sins and trespasses.
John Murray has well said that our, “
union with Christ is...the central truth of
the whole doctrine of salvation.... It is not simply
a phase of the application of redemption; it underlies
every aspect of redemption”
[4] And this “every aspect” included Christ dying for us as our Kinsman-Redeemer with our sins placed upon His person, in order to remove them as far as the east is from the west both judicially and practically. There is no other way that we could have been saved before God both without and within, justified and sanctified, except for the fact of what Christ of necessity had to do for us on the tree, reversing the curse that Adam had imposed upon us via eating from a tree which invoked the curse.
The federal relation of Christ to His people before the foundation of the world was a very real one, and upon which God deemed it just to punish Christ for the sins of His people and actually impute their sins (and the power behind those sins) to His entire human nature or person for not only judicial reasons, but for practical reasons as well; and this, in turn, was to impute to His people Christ’s righteousness (and the power behind that righteousness) both judicially and experientially, in order to completely satisfy all the demands of God’s law that were due of His people. As the result of this union, Christ was
in all things (and not just in some things) “made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17), being “numbered (or reckoned) with transgressors” (Isa. 53:12). And in consequence of this federal union with us, Christ is also made to us “a quickening Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45) so that, in due time, each of His people become a living and vital member in union of that spiritual body of which Christ is their federal Head (Eph. 1:19-23).
As Arthur Pink also states here:
The relation between Christ and those who benefit from His Atonement was, therefore, no vague, indefinite, haphazard one; but consisted of an actual covenant oneness, legal identity, [and] vital union. Suretyship presupposes it. Strict substitution demands it. Real imputation proceeds upon it. The penalty Christ endured could not otherwise have been inflicted. They for whom Satisfaction was made do, by inevitable necessity, share its benefits and receive what was purchased for them. This alone meets the objection of the injustice of the Innocent suffering for the guilty, as it alone explains the transfer of Christ's sufferings and merits to the redeemed [as their representative and federal Head]. [5]
Again, Pink writes:
More than a thousand years ago, Augustine remarked, “Such is the ineffable closeness of this transcendental union, that we hear the voice of the members suffering, when they suffered in their Head, and cried through the Head on the cross, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ And, in like manner, we hear the voice of the Head suffering, when He suffered in His members, and cried to the persecutor on the way to Damascus “Saul, Saul, why persecute you Me?” (Acts 9:4).” [6]
And, finally, Pink again notes here:
Christ entered into this world not as a private individual, but in an official character as the covenant-Head of God’s elect, as their legal Representative... Accordingly, God dealt with Him as the Representative of His criminal people, inflicting upon Him all that their sins merited. As the sin-bearing Substitute of His people, Christ was justly exposed to all the dreadful consequences of God's manifested displeasure.... It is in the closing scenes of “the days of His flesh” that we may the more fully discover Christ occupying the place of His sinful people, and receiving from God that which was due them. Even where we behold Him before men, that which transpired is to be read and interpreted in the light of His vicarious position and His complete identification with His guilty people. [7]
Christ said to one of His sheep, John the Baptist: “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mat. 3:15). Here Jesus expresses His relation to His people, to those on whose behalf He was sent to bear their sins and have them remitted and washed away in His person. The reason given was: “for thus it becomes US,” not just Me personally, but “US” to fulfill all righteousness—Christ becoming one with those for whom He had come to save! Thus, the federal relationship between Christ and His people is seen right from the start—and even as far back as His incarnation in human flesh! Christ’s language thus intimated here in Him being baptized by John: It is suitable that I should appear in the “likeness of sinful flesh,” identifying Myself with them in “confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5). Thus, passing beneath the waters of Jordan was a fitting emblem of all those “waves and billows” (Psm. 42:7) of God’s wrath which would no sooner break over our Head.
Admittedly, a lot of this just said above in this last paragraph was from the mouth of Arthur Pink, with a few of my own thoughts and ideas interspersed throughout. And while I do not agree with everything that Pink has to say with regards to this subject, I would highly recommend reading this great work of his on
The Satisfaction of Christ,
especially as it relates to the “nature” of Christ’s work as our Kinsman-Redeemer. Pink gives us keen insight into our federal union with our Head, long before any of us were ever born. We were God’s elect long before the idea of “election” even became coined as a word in the Bible. Again, Christ was slain for His people that were written in His book, even before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). And the fact that God sent forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, intimates that Jesus entered into the condition of His people in an intimate and personal union with them as their merciful Substitute and Surety; even as a Friend who sticks closer than a brother.
For us to have union in and with Christ as our federal Head, it means that we must be one with Him in holiness. And if we are to be “one” with Him, then it means that, due to our sinful state that Christ foreknew of us, that He had to be our Lamb slain even from the foundation of the world; and so of necessity Christ had to make us one with Him by crucifying our old man in Adam and making us a new man in Himself. We had to spiritually die inside to sin, before we could be resurrected to live a life of holiness. A change had to occur within us. For without death to us and to the sin of who we use to be in our union with Adam, there is no resurrection for us while we are still in such a state of sin and death. As such, we remain: dead! Death to sin had to become us, in order that we could rise to holiness and be with God. As God’s children in federal union with Christ before the very foundation of the world, there had to be a complete reversal of what transpired with Adam to us, in order to bring many sons unto glory. No man can bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing. The only man for the job was the God-man, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
The suffering, pain, and sin placed in and upon Christ, had no power whatsoever over Him to overshadow His own previous
personal righteousness and holiness. Christ's bleeding-out as our sinless Substitute was to obtain the blood that was needed to effect the atonement. It mattered not so much that Christ was made sin; more importantly, it mattered that His unblemished blood atoned for sin. Christ being made sin was only secondary and consequential to the shedding of His unblemished and righteous blood. But the former could not be absent in the accomplishment of the latter. Sin not only needed to be atoned for, but it had to be removed from us. And this is why Christ was made sin in His human nature, in a nature like ours, in order to free us from our sins for all those who are united in Him. And this distinction of Christ atoning for sin as our sinless Substitute,
prior to actually being made sin upon His death upon the cross, is clearly represented for us in one of the two goats presented before the Lord in Leviticus 16 whose blood actually made the atonement for sin
[7a],
before the other goat actually received the sins of the people in order to carry them away into a dry and arid region or wilderness—a symbol in the Scriptures of the consequences of sin where there is no water of life to sustain anyone. As typically seen in this ceremony (and not so apparent in the other ceremonies where the laying on of hands occurred), our sins in and upon Christ could not hold Him down due to His own previous sinlessness and unblemished blood. As Paul also claims in Acts 2:24, the pains and agony of death could not hold Christ down. The strong man was bound by One stronger than he. Therefore, Christ’s own personal sinlessness and righteous blood was the vicarious condemnation and damnation to the power of sin both in us and in Him, that could not hold any of us under the power of Sheol. As such, Christ led captivity, captive, and gave gifts unto men.
As noted a little earlier above, Archibald Hodge had noted in his book,
The Atonement, how that the transference of any or all sin (and even the moral depravity or corruption behind it all) can only be “possibly” by “generation” and, therefore, by the very nature of the case Christ could not have had our sins (let alone the moral depravity and corruption behind those sins), transferred to Him and thus be imputed or reckoned as “guilty” for them, for us. So Hodge (and even his father, Charles) argues that Christ could only be charged “guilty” for our sins, but not charged “guilty” for our sins being actually placed in and upon His person. This is Hodge’s argument, and of all those who are in league with him. For they, like most, will always believe that they will forever remain with their “indwelling sin,” until they go home to be with the Lord. But hasn’t Christ already now purchased this wonderful redemption and freedom from sin for us both within and without? Isn’t that what Paul belabors over for us in Romans 6? And if that is the case, which it is, then what should that tell us about the person whom Paul is describing for us in Romans 7? If you still believe that about yourself, then it will blind you to truth, as it has for countless others, as to how all of this is truly to be understood and experienced by us in God’s holy and life-changing Word.
So, after now being of a sound mind and heart based upon all that has been said above, it is at this venture that I must with tongue-in-cheek readily admit without any reservation, that just as Adam’s sin was imputed to us, and the moral depravity or power he invoked for this sin, was
transferred to us in our union and identification with him through no
personal sin of our own; our sin, and the moral depravity or power behind our sin, was likewise
transferred and imputed to our federal Head in His union and identification with us through no
personal sin of His own; and in like manner, Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to us, and the moral fortitude or power (absent of the depravity) behind our personal righteousness has been
transferred to us in our union and identification with Him through no
personal righteousness of our own. Please bear with me, more will be said that can leave us with no other conclusion than what has just been delineated in all the above. But I will say this, for those who like to quote the reformers, and if it helps anyone for the better, Calvin believed Christ descended into hell. And Christ descended into hell for one reason: to put a death to our spiritual death and the power behind that death; not just behind physical death, but behind being spiritually dead in sins and trespasses. And to these latter ideas all would wholeheartedly agree. But HOW did Christ do that? By just dying physically? Not at all. And I deal with all of this more extensively throughout this discussion. But suffice it to say, Calvin writes:
If any one now ask, Did Christ descend to hell at the time when he deprecated death? I answer, that this was the commencement, and that from it we may infer how dire and dreadful were the tortures which he endured when he felt himself standing at the bar of God as a criminal in our stead.... Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal [or physical] death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death.... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God.... [T]he [Apostle’s] Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment [of "he descended into hell"] which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man... Death held us under its yoke, but he in our place delivered himself into its power, that he might exempt us from it... that by fellowship with him he mortifies our earthly members, that they may not afterwards exert themselves in action, and kills the old man, that he may not hereafter be in vigour [sic] and bring forth fruit.... Our salvation may be thus divided between the death and the resurrection of Christ: by the former sin was abolished and death annihilated; by the latter righteousness was restored and life revived, the power and efficacy of the former being still [or stopped], bestowed upon us by means of the latter. [8]
Calvin rightly says that Christ killed our old man while incurring a spiritual death in hell for us. The death to our old man was not upon Christ physically dying, but by His “soul” experiencing the spiritual pangs of the spiritual death and torment due us, and then reversing it all due to His own personal holy and blameless life. As Spurgeon succinctly notes in his 310th sermon on
Christ–
Our Substitute: “If the warp and woof is speckled, how shall he bring forth the robe of milk-white purity and wrap it about our loins? He must be a spotless one who shall become the representative of his people, either to give them a passive or active righteousness”; in other words, to give us both a positional righteousness and a practical righteousness. Christ couldn’t be “holden” of death, according to Acts 2:24, for the very reason that in Himself He was blameless before God. What Adam began for all of his posterity, Christ finished and reversed for all of His posterity. It had to be so, in order for us to stand righteous before God in Christ’s righteousness both forensically and experientially. Sinners do not go home to be with the Lord, saints do. This is why John says the one born of God does not continue in sin, due to the fact that God’s “seed” (or regenerating
sperma) has been impregnated in us. Calvin, in quoting Hilary, writes: "'to this descent [into hell] we owe our exemption from death.' Nor does he [Hilary] dissent from this view in other passages, as when he says, 'The cross, death, hell, are our life.'"
[9] Calvin goes on to say of those who harshly disagreed with him:
Here some miserable creatures, who, though unlearned, are however impelled more by malice than ignorance, cry out that I am offering an atrocious insult to Christ... It becomes us, therefore (as Ambrose truly teaches), boldly to profess the agony of Christ, if we are not ashamed of the cross. And certainly had not his soul shared in the punishment, he would have been a Redeemer of bodies only. The object of his struggle was to raise up those who were lying prostrate [not just physically, but spiritually as well]... These men [or detractors] pretend that a thing in its nature vicious is improperly ascribed to Christ; as if they were wiser than the Spirit of God... There is no reason, therefore, to take alarm at infirmity in Christ, infirmity to which he submitted not under the constraint of violence and necessity, but merely because he loved and pitied us. Whatever he spontaneously suffered, detracts in no degree from his majesty. One thing which misleads these detractors is, that they do not recognize in Christ an infirmity which was pure and free from every species of taint, inasmuch as it was kept within the limits of obedience.... Hence it appears that these triflers, with whom I am disputing, presume to talk of what they know not, never having seriously considered what is meant and implied by ransoming us from the justice of God. It is of consequence to understand aright how much our salvation cost the Son of God.” [10]
Christ came and suffered in the place of all of His elect, so that by Him enduring the full vials of God's wrath, they might be emptied out and not a drop ever fall upon the heads of His blood-bought people. Spurgeon likewise believed that Christ actually bore our sin. And on a similar note to all that has been said above, he writes:
As Christ did not share in the original depravity, so He did not share in the imputed sin of Adam which we have inherited—not, I mean, in Him personally, though He took the consequences of that, as He stood as our representative.... He lay not in Adam when he sinned, and consequently no guilt from Adam, either of depravity of nature, or of distance from God, ever fell upon Jesus as the result of anything that Adam did. I mean, that, upon Jesus as considered in Himself, though He certainly took the sin of Adam as He was the representative of His people on earth." [11]
It is not certain if Spurgeon believed that Christ also took the depravity of Adam as well, but his statements above sure seem to lean this way. He surely believed Christ took Adam's sin, along with the blame for his sin, as well as ours; for Adam (as well as Eve) was, after all, one of God's chosen children wrapped in the skins of the animal provided for him and his wife by God.
Of necessity, Christ had to bear in His soul the depravity, principle or power behind our sin in order for it to be crucified in us. It would do us no good just to remove our sins, for then they would just keep coming back to haunt us over and over again. In light of this seemingly conundrum that we have with sin, it is our members in our bodies that we must now "mortify," not our heart (Rom. 6:11f; 8:13; 13:14; Col. 3:5). The latter was taken care of, in Christ, in the spiritual operation of our old heart known as: "circumcision." This is our "old man" that Paul says repeatedly was crucified in us and put off from us as old clothing, with us thus being clothed inside with the "new man" created in Christ (see my article:
Created In God's Image, Not Adam's).
Now, with regards to this idea of the immorality and character of sin (or even of the morality and character of righteousness) being “transferred” only by “generation” (as A. A. Hodge put it), isn’t that what Adam has in fact done to us when he sinned, and what Christ has done to us through His righteousness? Even his father Charles admits of this much, when he says of the new heart given to us: "It implies a change of the whole
character."
[11a] And again, "the new spiritual life, imparted to the soul in regeneration... constitutes the believer's
character."
[11b] Of no doubt, we were not only
positionally made sinners in Adam, but we were
actually made sinners as well as the old man. And we are not only
positionally made righteous in Christ, but
actually made righteous as well as the new man. The former was by natural “generation” (though all would agree that a spiritual union and impartation is to be understood in all of this as well), while the latter is also by a spiritual “regeneration” via the Seed (Gk.
sperma, 1Jhn. 3:9) of the Spirit; and whereby we become the very children of God who become partakers of His divine nature and holiness, which are the very attributes and
personal moral qualities and character of God (2Pet. 1:4; Heb. 12:10). So don’t tell me, as A. A. Hodge claims, that “the
personal moral character,” "inherent moral quality" or "power" of another cannot be transferred to someone who wasn’t in and of themselves
personally immoral or moral before. God allowed such a change to occur in Adam (albeit, in his case) for his own personal sin; to Christ with our sin; and then back to us again with Christ’s righteousness. Adam was born in the absolute moral image of God, and lost that moral image becoming morally depraved. In Adam, as his sons, we are spiritually born (or generated) to be sinners. And through Christ (or God), as His sons, we are spiritually born-
again (or regenerated) to be righteous and holy. Isn’t this in essence what John is saying above in 1Jhn. 3:9, when he says that we cannot continue in sin because God’s “seed” (or, literally,
sperm) remains in us? There isn’t a commentator that I know that understands this word used in this verse to mean anything otherwise. These are the cold, hard facts. We are born of God by a spiritual regeneration; which presupposes the idea of us being spiritually generated before this other spiritual regeneration ever took place. In opposition to Hodge, even Calvin readily admits: “‘He [Christ] was numbered with the transgressors’ (Is. liii. 12; Mark xv. 28). Why was it so? That He might bear the
character of a sinner, not of a just or innocent person, inasmuch as He met death on account not of innocence, but of sin... Thus we perceive Christ representing the
character of a sinner and a criminal...”
[12] Calvin believed, unlike Hodge, that Christ actually bore all of our sin and all of our corruption in His person: “...though spotlessly pure, took upon Him the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and in return clothed us with purity...the Father having destroyed the power of sin when it was
transferred to the flesh of Christ.... [T]he power and curse of sin was destroyed in his flesh when he was offered as a sacrifice, on which the whole weight of our sins was laid”
[13] Calvin had no problem in believing that Christ actually bore the “character” of the sinner. I have no problem with it. Although my own personal convictions about all of this have nothing whatsoever to do with how man thinks one way or the other. And maybe Calvin was just such a person that Hodge had in mind when Calvin spoke this way. For Hodge starkly renounces those who disagreed with him, without necessarily mentioning all of their names.
Now if what Hodge means by "personal moral character," as someone's own personal sinful traits or habits not being passed on to another, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that this is what he means and also agree that such things are not passed on from one person to the next. And if this is in fact what he means by saying this, he surely does not believe that the "inherent moral quality" or "power" behind these sins (which I understand as moral character, qualities, or attributes) is transferable to Christ, especially if he doesn't believe our sins were transferable. But, again, what about Christ's own personal power, character, attributes and nature being transferred to us in order for us to no longer sin? Surely, Hodge believes that! Just read him for yourself: “Our evil nature remains inalienably our own UNTIL WE ARE CHANGED by the Holy Ghost in regeneration and sanctification.”
[13a] What Hodge said earlier about what remains “inalienably ours” and not transferable to Christ, now by the touch of God’s hand is said by Hodge to be absolutely “changed” for us into what was inalienably Christ's own personal moral character, image and likeness. And this “change” of “character” from being made righteous to being made sinful flesh is exactly what occurred to Adam upon falling into sin, upon Christ when He became “cursed” like Adam and all of us, and upon all of us when we are “changed” from being sinful flesh to being made righteous by the Spirit of regeneration. And even Hodge also readily admits that what occurred with Christ in suffering on the cross for us in canceling the claims of penal justice, that it didn’t effect who He was before the cross by the fact that His prior active “obedience
merited the rewards of
the original covenant
of life”
[13b] found in His unblemished blood. For the "life" is in the blood; it is "the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). This is what I have been saying all along, but with much more to be understood and realized on what actually occurred with Christ on the cross for us both spiritually and physically. Again, many can see all of this with regards to us in Adam or us in Christ. But they just can’t for the likes of themselves envision this with regards to Christ as the son of man. Not as “the Son of God,” mind you, but as “the son of man.” Clearly, Christ is said by Paul to be “made sin” or “sinful flesh”
by some type of spiritual generation via no less than by the
spiritual transference of our sins upon our federal Head and Substitute,
just as this spiritual principle occurred in Adam when he too was imputed for sin and found “guilty” before the bar of God. Spiritual laws were set in motion that condemned Adam both spiritually and physically. And the same spiritual law was set in motion when Christ was cursed and condemned as a Sinner worthy only of death both spiritually and physically in our stead. So, clearly, Christ in some manner or way inherited our sin and the “death through sin” both spiritually and physically. Jesus took our sin and actually owned it, as if it were His very own sin. And the only way that this can be understood is in the fact that when Christ was hung on the tree, that He really and truly became “cursed” of God for us. Christ was “cursed” of God which resulted in His condemnation and death (just as Adam was “cursed” of God which resulted in his condemnation and death for the transgression of God’s law given to him), with Christ likewise becoming dead through sin both spiritually and physically—through our sins and trespasses. For God’s law literally says: “Cursed of God is one who is suspended on a tree.” By way of hanging on that tree, our sin actually became Christ’s sin for which He in His person became “cursed” of God for. As John Stott says: “The curse was
transferred from us to Him”
[14] And by “the curse” being “transferred,” though Stott doesn’t tell us what he means by this, most likely he understands this (along with a handful of others) to mean: just the curse, but without the sin. But I can’t say for sure, without going back and reading all of his books again. But the fact remains here that Jesus’ own actual
person with our sin placed upon Him is the object of this curse noted here. There was something about Christ personally at that moment and time that “cursed” Him with the curse due us; not separate or apart from His person, but actually upon His very humanity. Of a truth, our sin, and the curse for sin, was “transferred” to Christ not just forensically but actually; and not just physically but spiritually as well. And to this, almost all would agree in some manner or sense! So what did this “curse” upon Christ’s human nature entail? Surely not just some outward physical curse of some kind; for, again, the Greek text in Galatians says that Christ himself (or anyone else for that matter) was the
object of the curse. Again, it is what Christ became
in His person. As Bengel notes here: “Christ’s dying on the cross is called
his becoming a curse; that is,
an accursed person, a person ignominiously punished
as a malefactor.”
[15] The Pulpit Commentary likewise adds: “It was simply the suspension upon a cross that
imparted to him, in the eye of the Law, this
character of accursedness,
of extreme abhorrent defilement.”
[16] And, finally, Ellicott states: “The curse identifies itself with
its object [or Christ]: seizes, as it were,
upon the person of its victim.”
[17] As such, Christ became
the embodiment of our curse in His entire human (and now sinful) nature that was due us. The curse was not hanging on the tree; the curse was the
result of hanging on a tree. The curse
followed the death on the cross; it was not the
means of the death. It was the
result of the death causing Christ to be numbered (or judicially “reckoned”) with transgressors, not just outwardly on the cross with the two malefactors, but in Hades as well where it is said that He preached to the spirits in prison. And there are many commentators that exegetically lend credence to this fact as well. The bible does not say Christ was raised from “the death,” as if He was just raised from a physical death. It says He was raised “from the dead” (Eph. 1:20,
et al), from the domain of all the departed spirits in Sheol. Christ had given up the ghost (or His spirit; Mat. 27:50), separating Himself from His body, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, not just bodily but spiritually as well, as well as being reckoned at some point and time with those in Paradise in Abraham’s bosom. These were the captive ones that Christ ultimately led captive to be with Him in heaven.
On the cross, Jesus entered into the experience of forsakenness on our behalf. God turned His back on Jesus as the son of man, cutting Him off from all blessing, from all protection, from all grace, and from all peace. God the Father turned His back on Jesus as the son of man, cursing Him to the pit of hell as He hung upon the cross. Here was the son of man’s “descent into hell.” It was here that the fury of God raged fully against the man-child Jesus. His scream, His cry, was the scream and cry of the damned for us. One writer online succinctly wrote: "The fact that he (Christ) cried, 'My God!' rather than the usual 'Father! (Abba)' suggests that he also suffered the loss of a sense of his own identity. The incarnation itself was sufficient to obscure the Lord's identity from the eyes of ordinary onlookers. The inability to say 'Abba!' suggests that at last the veil of (imputed) sin, ignominy and suffering was so impenetrable that his sonship was obscured even from himself: not necessarily in the sense that he doubted it but in the sense that it was not present as any consolation to his consciousness."
In both the Hebrew and the Greek, the various words used for our English word “curse” all basically have the same meaning. They denote something that is despised, something that is devoted or doomed to destruction. This is the “curse” that Jesus received from God in and upon His person through no fault of His own, before actually reversing it all as well through His own personal righteousness. Christ’s own sinlessness overrode and overcame the curse for the sins of His people. Christ’s own righteous blood shed before dying on the cross justified Him before God and for all of His people. It was a satisfaction of all satisfactions before God, both in Himself, in us, and for us.
All suffering under the
moral government of God is in some sense for sin, resulting in: “Death through sin” (Rom 5:12). It is even as John Murray notes:
Death itself is the judgment of God upon sin (cf. Rom 5:12; 6:23). And Christ died for no other reason than that death is the wages of sin. But the epitome of the judgment of God upon sin is His wrath. If Jesus in our place met the whole judgment of God upon our sin, He must have endured that which constitutes the essence of this judgment. [18]
Arthur Pink likewise says here:
The curse of one hung on a tree was a symbolical representation—a Divinely-arranged tableau—of a spiritual mystery, setting forth the altogether unique and dual relationship which Christ occupied in our place. In that Christ was “made sin” for us, He was also “made a curse” for us: the latter could not be without the former. And Christ hanging upon the tree was the public testimony to God cursing Him. As to why this means and method of death was selected by God out of all others possible—poisoning, stoning, beheading, etc.,—Genesis 3 supplies the answer: “As the fatal sin which diffused the curse over the human race was connected with the forbidden ‘tree,’ God wisely ordered that the last Adam should expiate sin by being suspended on a tree: and He appointed in the law (Deut. 21:22, 23) such a symbol of the curse as reminded all men of the origin of the Divine curse on the world. He would not have the curse removed in any other way” (G. Smeaton). [19]
The Lord had told Adam that in the day that he ate of the tree, he would die, both spiritually and physically. And in like manner, the day that one hangs on a tree (after having already been put to death physically; see Duet. 21:22) they are cursed of God forever, beyond just the curse of physical death, intimating a spiritual curse afterward of some kind. And who, in their right mind, would not understand this to mean to be eternally separated from God, unless, of course, God himself should intervene? The judgment upon Adam was reciprocal upon Christ. What was good for the goose (Adam), was good for the gander (Christ). For thus it seemed good in God’s sight. The Jews, the Romans, and even Satan, meant it all for evil; but God meant it for good, to save many souls as it is to this day. In God’s economy and way of doing things, death precedes life. Thus, Christ had to die, and kill us, in order that we could rise with Him in newness of life.
By violating the Law in being suspended on a tree, through no fault of His own, Christ became technically guilty of all the Law, and bore the punishment of God’s wrath to the nth degree by becoming in His person
an abhorrent curse—“made sin,” as I recall Paul saying in one place; and even becoming like “sinful flesh,” in another place. Christ’s very own person became the “object” of God’s wrath in our stead. As such,
a spiritual law was set in motion (by God no less) that incurred
a spiritual curse upon Christ’s entire human nature of spirit, soul and body; thus allowing God’s wrath to be poured out upon Christ to the uttermost that was owing to us, with this word “curse” implying being “cut off,” and not just being outwardly punished (or accursed) in some manner or way. Even the fact that the offerings in the OT (after having already been physically put to death) were gutted, butchered and entirely consumed by fire intimated something far more horrid after physically dying. Clearly, just physical death is not the thing that is in view here. Christ’s dealing with our sin goes much deeper than that. Francis Turretin writes: “For since fire is the symbol of Divine wrath, there is nothing to prevent this consuming of the sacrifices by fire being referred to the sense of Divine wrath which Christ endured
in His soul”
[20] And since His children were sharers in flesh and blood, “He also in like manner partook of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14,15). Christ could merit redemption for us from the bondage of our sins, because He had already stood in a relation to us from the foundation of the world as our federal Head and Surety, as our Mediator and Substitute. And the OT priests stood in a relation to Christ in the eating of the sacrifices which typified an inward spiritual assimilation of Christ's suffering for us in spirit, soul and body.
When Christ was removed from the cross,
another spiritual principle took place according to the God’s Law, where the land with its people actually became undefiled (
cp. Deut. 21:23 w/Lev. 18:25). And in Christ being removed from the cross and being laid in a tomb, it too was a
token that our sins had been removed as far as the east is from the west. It was a token that we were set free from our own personal defilement. Such was the case with both Christ and us, as depicted in this OT type and shadow. As our federal Head in union with us, our sin became Christ’s sin which cursed both Him and us in His federal union and identification with us as His body. It is even as Abraham told Isaac: “God has provided a lamb,” even before a lamb was ever provided, indicating a federal union with Christ and His people long before the fullness of time came to perform such a spiritual operation in us. Thus, in Christ’s spiritual and physical death to sin, it released both Him and us in our federal union with Him, not just physically, but spiritually as well, as even Rom. 6:1-10 clearly delineates to us. There was a death to death (both spiritually and physically) in the death of Christ. Would anyone dare to argue otherwise? And it is upon this death to death both physically and spiritually, that Christ was also raised first spiritually (or "quickened") from His spiritual death, before actually being raised physically as well from death. And we too are thus raised first spiritually from our former spiritual death (“quickened together with Him,” as Paul claims in Eph. 2:1-5), with us likewise to be raised physically from death someday.
In what way were we raised “spiritually” with Christ? From being formerly spiritually dead in sins and trespasses, which Christ crucified in His person, to being made alive together with Christ unto God in order to become dead to those sins and trespasses and alive unto God! Again, this is what Eph. 2:1-5 in no uncertain terms claims. Christ wasn’t only made alive physically, and we thus spiritually. Paul is saying that we were both “made alive” spiritually. And 1Pet. 3:18 and 1Tim. 3:16 likewise attest to this fact in the ASV translation, as does Rom. 8:10 with regards to us. To argue otherwise is to deny the most important and vital aspect of Christ dying for us, which is to release us internally from the power of sin and death. Of a necessity, Christ died to sin for us in His spirit, soul and body so that we could likewise die to sin in our spirit, soul and body. And all we have to do now is to “reckon” it as so in our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:11), making them our slaves (1Cor. 9:27) and not the other way around. Again, no one can deny that something deeply spiritual occurred for Christ at that moment and time on the cross. And that “something” was: “death through sin.” The wages of sin is death, not only physically but spiritually as well. Who in the OT under the Law seeing someone being “cursed of God” on a tree could possibly think otherwise? Such a person hanging on a tree incurred the full wrath of God, cursed even to hell. It was the whole enchilada. If not, then Christ would have been a redeemer of
bodies only and not of
souls. Fear not him who can destroy the body, but fear Him who can cast both body and soul in hell! This latter idea is what Christ came to redeem His people from. He who deeply and in an intimate way “knew” no sin (as this Greek word
ginosko implies), was “made sin” for us in a deep, spiritual, and intimate way (2Cor. 5:21). And it was all done “for us” in both our spirit and in our body.
Are you getting a hold of this? Christ, as the son of man, was spiritually cursed of the Father as an actual sinner and substitute “for sin” placed upon our Surety as our Scapegoat. For so it seemed good in God’s sight. It pleased the Lord to bruise the son of man, in order that He would see His seed (or generation) and be satisfied. And what a satisfaction at that! What an atonement! What an identification! And what a blessed substitute was our Vicarious Substitute “for us” and “for sin”—and for our sin at that! By our union with Christ, we are changed into the image of Christ according to His human nature that He had before being cursed on the cross. What Christ effects in His people is in a sense a replica or reproduction of what took place with Him. How else could we be “imitators of God” (1Ths. 1:6; 2:14, KJV), as Paul claims, or even “walk as Jesus walked” (1Jhn. 2:6), as John claims, if not for the fact of us being created in God’s image and likeness as Paul also claims of us as the new man in Eph. 4:24? Christ literally took our place, in order that we might literally take His place; God regarded and treated Christ as the Sinner, so that He could regard and treat the believing sinners as Christ.
With the error of mediate imputation noted and set aside, reformed thinker John Murray had noted in his book,
The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, how that a great injustice had been done by those, such as Charles Hodge, in declaring that immediate imputation is a “bare” imputation of Christ only being reckoned as “guilty” in order to satisfy the obligation of justice with none of our sins actually being placed in and upon His person, robbing us of a personal intimacy of what this actually entailed for us. Murray writes: "...the tendency to restrict his sin-bearing to the bare notion of penalty [or just guilt] impoverishes our appreciation of what his vicarious sacrifice demanded and entailed...'he bore our sins.' 'The Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all.' He stood in the closest relation to our sins that it was possible for him to sustain without himself becoming defiled thereby."
[21] As said earlier, all "guilt" reckoned or imputed to an individual(s) presupposes a sin committed of some kind. And in Murray's words, "Sin...is not that of mere
reatus [or guilt] abstracted from the only proper basis of
reatus, namely, sin itself.... [And it] vindicates the analysis which was characteristic of both Reformed and Lutheran theologians that
reatus poenae [a guilty penalty] presupposes
culpa [a crime]."
[22] Contrary to Hodge, the Bible confirms this analysis as well. The obligation to satisfy justice of either being pronounced "guilty" or "not guilty" includes as its antecedent ground, either sin or righteousness; disobedience or obedience. And while I appreciate Murray’s thoughts in defiance of Charles Hodge’s position of being reckoned "guilty" for no sins committed, I also believe that a further and even greater “injustice” has been done by those (including Murray no less this time) who have undermined and under-valued immediate imputation in Christ's case by the forfeiture and denial of even the transference of another’s inherent moral qualities or attributes, which, again, is all part and parcel with the transference of either sin, or of righteousness. And Jesus being “cursed” of God, after having already become physically dead, implies even a further spiritual death (or penalty) due to sin that was to come upon Him, for us. The transference of sin, or of righteousness, to which both Murray readily admits of, is actually all part and parcel with also the transference of the inherent moral qualities or attributes which is behind sin or righteousness respectively, and is likewise all a result of us being either in Adam or in Christ and not based upon something that we have “personally” done, as mediate imputation would suggest. Murray is just one of those of whom I said earlier, who for the likes of themselves, could not bring himself to believe that our immoral qualities or attributes with all of their power and pollution were likewise transferred to Christ. Because Murray, like most, still believes we have indwelling sin. Such an idea is just too “abhorrent” or even blasphemous of imagining our Savior enduring such a degradation for us, as if it somehow "defiled" (in the words of Murray) His previous sinlessness and righteous blood shed for us. Like I said before, even I cringe at such a notion or idea. But the principle or power behind our sin is what has in fact been passed on to us, and unto Christ, in order that Christ could crucify the principle or power of sin (or our old man) in us, so that we could rise as a new man according to the principle and power behind righteousness, bearing the fruit of the Spirit and presenting the members of our bodies as instruments of righteousness. The spiritual principle or law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the spiritual principle or law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2). Thus, the first man, Adam, in his human nature was like God and became sin in his spirit, soul and body; and we thus became like him with sin in our spirit, soul and body. The Second Adam, Jesus, in His human nature was also like God and likewise became sin in His spirit, soul and body, in order that He could reverse it all and we all become like Him in spirit, soul and body. In His eternal decrees God determined that Jesus would not remain solitary forever, but that out of a multitude of the sons of Adam, a vast host would become God’s own sons and partakers of His divine nature, being conformed to His own image and likeness according to Eph. 4:24. This great company of witnesses would become God’s sons by a new birth, by being born-again, thus becoming members of His body by the baptism of the Holy Spirit into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
So, based upon all that was mentioned above, Adam was imputed (or reckoned) for his own sin and fell into moral depravity; Adam's sin is imputed (or reckoned) and imparted to us through no sin of our own; and what we became in Adam was imparted and imputed (or reckoned) to Christ as an actual sinner in our stead, becoming a curse for us through no
personal or
inherent sin of His own; and, finally, Christ both imputes (or reckons) and imparts to us His righteousness based upon no personal righteousness of our own. All of this is the blessed doctrine of substitution and identification. Adam to us, us to Christ, and Christ back to us, gloriously restoring to us what was lost in Adam. Hallelujah! Adam the righteous one, became unrighteous, and we became unrighteous in him. Christ the righteous one, also became unrighteous, that He might overturn our unrighteousness and make us all righteous again. What our first Adam did to us, our Second Adam did even greater things for us. Adam was truly a type of Christ, with Christ even far-exceeding what Adam had done to all of us. No doubt, Christ was
personally exempt from all the consequences of Adam's sin, but
officially He was subject to them in His Identification with us. Sin was
officially assumed by Him but not
personally inherited by Him through physical birth, as He was not born through the seed of man but through a virgin who had known no man. Thus, the two-fold relation which Christ sustained in His person was
personally innocent,
officially guilty; in Himself without sin, yet by virtue of His identification with His people, "made sin." It is even as Arthur Pink states: "Yet it was the Sinner he assumed who was arraigned for sentencing. As Luke states: "He was [judicially] reckoned [by God] among the transgressors" (Luke 22:37).
[23]
So, if Christ actually
assumed our sinful fleshly human nature in His entire being in our stead, then God could justly condemn the power of
our own sinful fleshly human nature in Christ for those of us who have appropriated through faith that condemnation to the sin of our old man (or the flesh), as delineated in Rom. 6:6 and Gal. 5:24. Again, this was not just true forensically for us, but experientially and practically as well. Again, if Christ was
absolutely sinless in His human nature at that time on the cross (and I emphasize, “at that time”), then God could not have justly judged Him as our Substitute, let alone even
reverse all that Adam had done in and to us. For many (such as Charles Hodge and all those in league with him), God was only “imputing” our sin to Christ and charging Him "guilty" for it based upon none of our sin
actually being placed in and upon His person. But Christ wasn’t imputed or just constituted as sin for no sin in or upon His person, but judged as an actual substitute sinner in our stead. It is even as Paul claims: “He who knew no sin [as us sinners], was made sin [as us sinners] for us
[24], so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God [or as saints]” (2Cor. 5:21; words in brackets mine). This could very well read: He who was holy, was made unholy for us, so that in Him we might become the holiness of God. Or better yet: He who knew no unrighteousness, was made unrighteousness for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. On the cross, God treated Jesus as if He lived your life so He could treat you as if you lived His life. Christ receives the heavy yoke and burden of humanity’s sin, while humanity receives the very light and easy "yoke" (if we can even call it that) of Christ’s righteousness. This is in fact what happened to Christ, and to us, by Him being our substitute and identifying with us, so that we can now identify with Him. As David Garland notes here of the words "for us" in 2Cor. 5:21: “By metonymy, using an abstract term in place of a more concrete term and by saying it was ‘for us,’ he [Paul]
protects Christ’s sinlessness,”
[25] just as John Murray had noted earlier where “the word ‘likeness’
guards this truth” in Rom. 8:3.
As mentioned in a footnote in passing in part two, Christ being “made” sin and us becoming righteousness in 2Cor. 5:21 (and in many other verses), in all honesty, denotes this latter idea of impartation and identification with us through a creative act of God which this Greek word for "made" (
poieo) implies, and not the former of “reckoning to one’s account" or just "constituting" or regarding Christ as sin with no sin placed in or upon His person. This Greek word for “made” means: to act, to work, or to do. And when applied to God, it usually means: to act, to work, or to do something by a created act of God that brings about
a complete change of someone or something. For example, in Mat. 19:4, Jesus speaks of the One who created from the beginning,
made them male and female; in Eph. 2:10, we are spiritually said to be "God's
workmanship created in Christ Jesus"; in Eph. 2:14, spiritually in Christ both Jews and Gentiles have been
made to be one, or one new man in Christ (see also v. 15); in Eph. 3:11, it is to make known the spiritual eternal purpose which God
made in Christ; in Rev. 1:6, Christ has spiritually
made us kings and priests; in Rev. 5:10, Christ has spiritually
made us unto God kings; in Rev. 14:7, everyone is told to worship Him who
made heaven; and, finally, in Rev. 21:5, Christ says He will
make all things new. All of this is a far cry from just imputing (or reckoning), constituting, regarding, or appointing which Rom. 5:19 denotes with Paul's use there of the word "made." What Christ did on the cross was a tangible physical/spiritual reality where we actually die to sin. It is not just an abstract statement of fact.
Clearly, by the definition of this word “made” in 2Cor. 5:21, Christ wasn’t just regarded or constituted as a sinner by
imputation through no fault of His own personally (as true as this may be), but He is said to have
actually become spiritually “made” as a sinner by identification with us as our substitute for our sin, via the
impartation of our sins upon Him as noted in Leviticus 16 (and elsewhere). It is known in some Protestant circles as a "representative union" either: of sin, condemnation, and death; or of righteousness, justification, and life. And even though Christ is actually said to have been “made sin for us” (2Cor. 5:21), to have “become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13), to have borne our sins (1Pet. 2:24), to have been sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Rom. 8:3), yet we do not read that Christ himself sinned or was personally responsible for any sin of His own. He was “made” as such with our sin transferred to Him as our blessed Substitute and Identification. While the
forensic view or idea of Christ is no less true and not to be diminished, the
sanctification side or view of Christ is also no less true and not to be diminished as a
mere “forensic” external act. In 2Cor. 5:21 (and even in Rom. 8:3), Christ is NOT
constituted or just
regarded as a sinner, but actually
made to be as a sinner in our stead by the creative act or work of God. Christ didn’t just
do something for us, He
became something for us by the creative act of God, in order to crucify our old man and create us as a new man. It is even as Paul was noted earlier as saying in Ephesians 2:10, how that we are God's "workmanship" (
poiema, from
poieo; a thing made)
created in Christ Jesus. And of necessity all of this came about by Christ also being "made sin" for us.
Click
here for part four.
Footnotes: Create footnotes in addition to 24 and 25.
[1]
The Atonement, p. 174.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 201, 205.
[5]
The Satisfaction of Christ, p. 36; words in brackets mine.
[6]
Ibid, p. 35.
[7]
Ibid, p. 47.
[7a] Some translations make it sound like the scapegoat also made atonement for sin in their translation of Lev. 16:10. But I believe the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, CSB, ISV, NET Bible, NHEB, JPS Tanakh, NAS, Jubilee, ASV, Brenton Sept. Trans., ERV, Webster’s, and World English Bible all give the correct sense. The
Brenton Septuagint Translation correctly translates the Greek Septuagint,
ep autou, as “upon him” (or, upon himself), clearly indicating that atonement was made for the sins of the people upon the scapegoat. In verse 5 it says that both unblemished goats were designated for a sin offering, but only the goat on whom the lot fell was to be the goat “for the Lord” as the sin offering without the people’s sins placed upon it, in order to make atonement for sin. And this is clearly demonstrated for us in verses 15-17. Thus the sins of the people placed on the scapegoat were atoned for by the blood of the goat that was without sin.
[8]
Institutes, book 2, pp. 446, 443, 440-441 and 447, in this order.
[9]
Ibid., p. 444.
[10]
Ibid., 444-445, 446.
[11]
Christ—Our Substitute; sermon: 310.
[11a]
Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 35.
[11b]
Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 190.
[12]
Institutes, book 2, p. 438f.
[13]
Ibid, p. 438, 557.
[13a]
The Atonement, p. 331. Words in caps for emphasis mine.
[13b]
Ibid., p. 30. Emphasis mine.
[14]
Message of Galatians, p. 81.
[15] Accessed online at:
biblehub.com.
[16] Accessed online at:
biblehub.com.
[17] Accessed online at:
biblehub.com.
[18]
The Atonement, p. 5. Emphasis mine.
[19]
The Satisfaction of Christ, p. 52.
[20]
Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, p. 355.
[21]
The Imputation of Adam's Sin, p. 94.
[22]
Ibid., p. 95.
[23]
The Satisfaction of Christ, p. 42.
[24] The Greek huper here, translated “for us,” need not be limited just to our outward position before God on behalf of Christ as our vicarious substitute, but to our inward practice as well. This Greek preposition when used in the genitive, means: "in behalf of," "for the sake of," "in the place of,” or “instead of,” with no indication one way or the other of what Christ is doing on behalf of us, for the sake of us, in place of us, or instead of us. As the Cambridge Bible notes here in its comments under Gal. 3:13, as it relates to 2Cor. 5:21: "The great doctrine of our Blessed Lord’s vicarious sufferings and death does not rest on the narrow foundation of the exact force of a particle. It is the doctrine of the types and prophecies of the O.T. and of the teaching of our Lord Himself and His Apostles in the N. T." (biblehub.com). What Christ does “for us,” He no doubt does for us both forensically and experientially in our lives. Arguing over words such as this, and reading into them more than what is not really there (i.e., that what Christ did, He only did objectively or forensically for us), is of no benefit to the hearers (cp. 2Tim. 3:14). Huper does not determine the meaning of the context; the context determines the meaning of huper. And the context of 2Cor. 5:21 is what Christ did for us “in” His human nature, and “in” us, to be worked out in our lives. In fact, Paul just got through using it in this manner in verses 14-15, where he says: "For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for [huper] all, therefore all have died; and he died for [huper] all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for [huper] their sake died and was raised" (ESV). Here we see that what Christ did, He did for us internally, or spiritually, in accordance with Romans 6 where it says we have been spiritually baptized into Christ's death, so that we can now walk in newness of life. And Paul likewise says here in verse 15 that it is in order that we might no longer live for ourselves, but for Him who died for our sakes. No doubt, this is what Christ did "for us" as our substitution and identification. Even Charles Hodge, though denying all of this with regards to verse 21, admits of this concerning "huper" in verses 14-15:
He [Paul] judged that the death of Christ was the death of His people, and that the design with which He died for them was that they might live for Him. This idea is expressed in various forms in the word of God. Sometimes our Lord is said to have died, the just for the unjust, to bring us near to God, 1 Pet. 3:18 [justification]; or, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness, 1 Pet. 2:24 [sanctification]; or, to purify to Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, Tit. 2:14 [sanctification].... The proximate design and effect of the death of Christ is the expiation of sin and reconciliation with God, and the design and effect of reconciliation with God are devotion to His service." (1 and 2 Corinthians, 1978, p. 513; emphasis and words in brackets mine).
The KJV translates the last part of verse 14, where it says in the ESV, "therefore all have died," with the words, "then were all dead," as if indicating we were all dead in sins and trespasses and thus the reason why Christ had to die for us forensically. And as true as this may be, the words "have died" denote something altogether different. "Have died" is the translation of the Greek here that is an
aorist active indicative, denoting what we have actively done at some point and time in the past, not what we were in Adam through no "active" part of our own. We were all
passively made dead in Adam; whereas, here in v. 14, we have died at a certain point and time in the past when we all actively received Christ. This is what the text is saying. It is not what we
were, but who we have
become experientially or spiritually in Christ. Do you see that? This "active" voice in the Greek marks the difference between what the KJV says, and what other translations (such as the ESV) are correctly stating. I really like how the
New Living Translation translates these verses: "Since we believe that Christ died for all, we also believe that we have all died to our old life. He died for everyone so that those who receive his new life will no longer live for themselves. Instead, they will live for Christ, who died and was raised for them." What Paul says that Christ did here isn’t an empty vicarious atonement or substitution, void of anything realized
in us. The purpose of Christ being made sin for us was to not only make us whole
externally before God (to justify us), but to make us whole
internally as well (to sanctify us); not just to absolve us of “guilt,” but to remove the sin in us as well that produced that guilt in the first place. It is to make us “blameless” not only externally, but also internally to where we can now say with Paul: “You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you…” (1Ths. 2:10).
[25] David Garland,
The New American Commentary, 2 Corinthians (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Pub., 1999), p. 301.
