02.16. Opposite Imputations Are Inseparable

16. OPPOSITE IMPUTATIONS ARE INSEPARABLE The inseparability of both Christ’s impeccability and His vicarious work on the cross and His holiness and His being made sin have been studied. A deeper study of these truths plus the added inseparability of the opposite imputations of sins of the elect to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to the elect will now be made. The spiritual horizon of most Christians is very small. Hence, the limit of their perception is due to a lack of growth in grace and knowledge of Christ
(2 Peter 3:18). Peter was a striking example of his own inspired statement. A long time expired before Simon grew into Peter. The Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter, “...Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone” (John 1:42). Life is the best visible commentary upon the effect of the truths of the gospel. Grace and spiritual knowledge grow side by side-the practical and the theoretical. Progress is God’s ordained preventive against falling from steadfastness (2 Peter 3:17). When Peter said, “...grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” he placed grace before knowledge because it is the means of knowledge. The way to “stand against the wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:11) and to “withstand [to resist] in the evil day” (Ephesians 6:13) is to “grow” (audzanete, present active imperative of audzano, which means to grow or increase) in grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. There is neither standing nor resisting apart from progression. The imperative mood is not only a command. It is the furtherest mood from reality. Growth is possible because of grace; however, Peter contrasted this with one’s fall from his own steadfastness. A person can never be too far advanced in knowledge to live the Christian life without the necessity for being on guard. Peter knew this by experience.

There is a sense in which no one can grow in grace. Grace considered as God’s free favor toward the elect in regeneration cannot grow. The regenerated person can never be in grace more tomorrow than he is today. Consequently, there is neither progression nor retrogression in one’s position in grace. On the other hand, there is a sense in which the Christian grows “in” but not “into” grace. Progressive sanctification is growth in grace. The Divine principle within is grace, which enables one to grow. There are degrees in the development of grace in those positionally sanctified by grace. There is no place in the Christian life where one reaches a spiritual plateau from which there is no further progress. Since Jesus Christ is the object of the Christian’s knowledge, one should have no problem understanding that the infinite Savior can never be comprehended, although by grace He is apprehended.

Some have the heretical view that Christ was made guilty by being made sin. Two things are associated with guilt:
(1) The guilty person has merited his guilt.
(2) The guilty person is guilty because of his depraved condition. To say that Christ is connected in a personal way with either is heretical. The sinless Christ was made sin. It was impossible for the sins of the elect to have been transferred to Christ in such a way as to make Him either subjectively sinful or guilty. He was not involved with depravity. First, Christ could not be made either “sin” as such or “a sinner.” Sin is a personal act which affects oneself and others. Christ “who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21), “who did no sin”
(1 Peter 2:22), and in whom “is no sin” (1 John 3:5) could not be made a sinner. Second, guilt is personal and is incapable of being transferred to Christ. No one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor. If Christ was in any sense guilty, He deserved to die and His death could have no merit. He was not guilty and could not be made guilty. However, He was treated as though He were, because He was willing to stand in the place of guilty sinners. A view held by others is that the Greek word hamartia cannot be translated
“sin offering.” According to them, it can only be translated “sin.” They do not deny that Jesus Christ was made a sin offering, or a sacrifice for sin; but to them, that is not the same as Christ’s being made sin of 2 Corinthians 5:21. They believe Paul’s statement goes deeper into the problem of human sin; hence, human sin is the reason for Christ’s being made a sacrifice for sin. Christ’s being made sin justifies His being made a sin offering.

Another view is that the Greek word for “sin” and the corresponding Hebrew word denote both “sin” and “sin offering.” Hence, “They eat up the sin [sin offering] of my people...” (Hosea 4:8). Those who hold this view conclude that Christ was made a sin offering:
(1) by imputation, for our sins were made to meet upon Christ
- “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6); and
(2) by reputation, for He was reckoned among malefactors
- “...he was numbered with the transgressors...” (Isaiah 53:12).

There is a threefold reason why God’s judgement must come upon sinners:
(1) God’s judgment must come upon sinful men because of what they are by nature: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men...” (Romans 5:18 NASB). Men are sinful before they sin. Therefore, their antecedent sinfulness is not misfortune but real guilt. They sinned in Adam
(Romans 5:12).
(2) God’s judgment must come upon sinful men because of what they have done. Men are judged according to their works (Revelation 20:12). Like the thief on the cross, all men will recognize that they receive the due reward of their deeds (Luke 23:40-41).
(3) God’s judgment must come upon sinful men because of what they have not done: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it (Matthew 7:26-27).

Sin, therefore, is more than failure to do right. Both omission and commission are because of what men are by nature-sinful.

There is also a threefold judgment upon sinful men because of what they are, what they have done, and what they have not done. Jesus Christ, having never sinned (1 Peter 2:22), was qualified to stand in the place of the elect who have sinned. Moreover, He in whom there was no sin (1 John 3:5) was able to stand in the place of the elect for what they have not done.

Now comes the real test of one’s Biblical concept of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice. If Jesus Christ was peccable, which means He had a nature capable of sinning, He would not have been competent to stand in the place of the elect who are sinners by nature. Therefore, those who believe in peccability do not have a Savior who can stand in their place because their savior needs one to stand in his place. What a horrible concept of Jesus Christ. Those who believe Jesus Christ was impeccable have a Representative who stood for them at Calvary. In His holy human nature, He was the Substitute for us who have depraved natures. “...He was manifested to take away our sins...” (1 John 3:5). His sacrifice was perfect because He “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever” (Hebrews 10:12). He was our Substitute because He suffered on our behalf -
“the just for the unjust” (1 Peter 3:18). He was also identified with us because He “bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). Jesus Christ, who needed no reconciliation, objectively reconciled the elect to God at Calvary.

Finite man cannot make satisfaction to the infinite God who has been injured by his sin. Sin against the infinite God merits infinite punishment. When one speaks of the Infinite becoming finite in the incarnation, he should consider the effect such a theory has on the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross.The infinite Son of God did not become finite in the incarnation. He assumed a finite human nature. Therefore, the infinity of His Person qualified Jesus Christ to compensate for the eternity of retribution which the sin of finite man against the infinite God demands. If Christ had become finite in the incarnation, He could not have made infinite retribution. Hence, the man-made doctrine of peccability has no one who can satisfy Divine justice for sinful men. On the contrary, the Biblical truth of Christ’s impeccability represents Him as the infinite Savior who by one offering for sin made infinite retribution which suffices for the eternality of punishment. The extent of any crime depends on the relation between the offender and the offended. No crime can be greater than sin against God, against whom all sin is committed. As the representative of God’s people, Jesus Christ stood in the place of the elect at Calvary. He was imputatively appointed sin. The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, and He was made to bear the penalty in their place. The elect who were as lacking of righteousness as Christ was of sin had the righteousness provided by Christ imputed to them. Christ who knew no sin was appointed sin that the elect who knew no righteousness might become righteous in Him. Imputed righteousness becomes the judicial ground for the bestowal of grace. Christ’s obedience provided a righteousness, thus qualifying the recipients for eternal fellowship with God. The righteousness the elect receive through grace is not God’s inherent righteousness. God’s inherent righteousness refers to His unalterable character. The imputed righteousness of Christ to the elect is the grace righteousness provided by Christ in His work at Calvary. The statement “made sin” cannot mean that Christ became inherently sinful. Furthermore, to be made righteous does not mean the reception of God’s inherent righteousness.