What do you think sin and righteousness means to God as it relates to us?

Also, are you implying it is not possible for us in this lifetime to arrive at a point where we experience sinless righteousness like Jesus did while He was here in sinful flesh?

I think my first post does explore both sin and righteousness from Gods and mankinds perspectives. You would have to give more specific questions to go the next step.

Sinless righteousness, physical and mental restoration of the believer through the judgment of God/Jesus. I wonder if giving a foretaste of this is not one of the duties of the Holy Spirit, being a firstfruit, a deposit and a seal of what is to come to those who have believed. A search using "spirit" as keyword in the NT letters will illustrate this.

"Sin is the transgression of the law." That's what God thinks about it. Is that what you are saying? And, righteousness is living in harmony with the law. Is that what you're saying?

You wrote, "Sinless righteousness, physical and mental restoration of the believer through the judgment of God/Jesus." Do you mean to say, Sinless righteousness = physical and mental restoration of the believer through the judgment of God/Jesus.

I don't understand your comment. What does physical restoration have to do with the sinless righteousness Jesus demonstrated while He was here in sinful flesh? Also, what part does judgment play? What do you mean by "judgment"?

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

I think I agree with what you said, but I don't think it's complete. Of course, it is impossible to be comprehensive in a couple of paragraphs.

While it is true that we are not saved by the righteous works which we have done, and some would argue that our righteousnesses are filthy rags, it is also true that he who does righteousness is righteous. IOW, the acceptance of Christ's righteousness results in an experience of personal righteousness by the believer. In short, taking God's external righteousness makes it internal, which is kind of obvious now that I look at it.

I agree with the forensic aspect of what you wrote, but it makes God look subjective. If I were to present it, I would include the objective aspects of the judgment.

Dude! You have to respond more quickly! I know that at the time I wrote this I knew exactly what I was thinking. Now I've got to try to go back and remember, which gets harder as time goes on (by which I mean, as I grow older).

Let's see if I can find something by Waggoner that I think I had in mind. I found it, but it took awhile (thanks for waiting). Since this is a long quote, I'll do it without the quote thingy:

3. Now as to the rendering of the expression “under the law,” in Galatians 4:4. I have no fault to find with the rendering, “born under the law,” but think that it is the correct rendering. I will go farther than you do, and will offer some Scripture evidence on this point. John 1:1, 14: “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The word rendered “made” is the same as that in Galatians 4:4, and evidently signifies “born.” The Word was God, yet was born flesh of the Virgin Mary. I don’t know how it could be so; I simply accept the Bible statement. Now read Romans 8:3, and you will learn the nature of the flesh which the Word was made:— “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Christ was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Philippians 2:5-7: “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Revised version. Now note the next verse: “And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” And now compare the above with,
Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

These texts show that Christ took upon Himself man’s nature, and that as a consequence He was subject to death. He came into the world on purpose to die; and so from the beginning of His earthly life He was in the same condition that the men are in whom He died to save.

Now read, Romans 1:3: The gospel of God, “concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David accord ing to the flesh.”

What was the nature of David, “according to the flesh”? Sinful, was it not? David says: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5.

Don’t start in horrified astonishment; I am not implying that Christ was a sinner. I shall explain more fully in a few moments. But first I wish to quote, Hebrews 2:16, 17: “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of man; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners.

When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.

And now as another parallel to Galatians 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
2 Corinthians 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isaiah 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.

4. You say:
“That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine?

You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.

I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them.

“Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him.

What a wonder! Christ had all the glory of Heaven; we had nothing; and so He “emptied Himself,” became nothing, in order that we might be glorified together with Him, and inherit all things. Christ was sinless, the very embodiment of holiness; we were vile and full of sin, having no good thing in us; He was made sin in order that we might be partakers of His righteousness. Christ was immortal, having life in Himself; we were mortal, doomed to eternal death; He suffered death for us, in order that we might share His immortality. He went to the very lowest depths to which man had fallen, in order that He might lift man to His own exalted throne; yet He never ceased to be God, or lost a particle of His holiness.

5. Again; why was Jesus baptized? He said that it was “to fulfill all righteousness.” We may not say that it was simply as an example; for that would be really denying the vicarious nature of the atonement. It must have been for the same reason that He died, namely, for sin. Not His own sin, but ours; for as in His death, so in His life, our sins were counted as His. And thus it is that He could be all His life, even from His birth, under the condemnation of the law. It was not on His own account, but on ours.

I think that I have shown clearly, by abundance of Scripture testimony, that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law, and that this was necessarily incident to the fact that He was born of a woman; “for man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble;” and this was literally true of Christ. He was in all things like His brethren, in His life of temptation and suffering, and even to length of days; for His earthly life was exactly the length of an average human life.

(end quote).

This is from "The Gospel in Galatians," a wonderful read, which, btw, was passed out to each of the delegates at the 1888 GC in Mpls.

From reading this, it should be clear to see that Waggoner's idea was that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law, that his becoming sin for us encompassed more than his death. Christ's taking our sinful nature comes under that umbrella. While sin is in every fiber of our being by nature, so it was in every fiber of Christ's assumed human nature. We can't say it was in every fiber of Christ's being, because Christ had His own sinless and divine nature.

So there is sin in its tendency, and sin in its commission. Christ took both. It was necessary that He do so in order to heal us ("What He has not assumed, He has not healed.")

It is true that we read "sin is the transgression of the law". But it is also true that the core of the law is love of God and each other. Sin is transgressing the law and transgression of the law occurs when you disrespect God and/or a fellow human.

Righteousness being living in harmony with the law, we read that such living happens when we come to live according to the Spirit rather than according to the letter. Life according to the Spirit, having the fruits thereof, against this there are no laws. The first is the declaration of God according to His grace, the second is the gift of God according to His grace.

Yes, changing my comma to your "equals" is as I had thought. I think the reason you do not understand my comment is that you lay different content in the word "righteousness", not to mention "sinless righteousness" than I do. I think you see righteousness as a quality that is possessed by the individual while I here propose that righteousness is a quality bestowed upon the individual by the pronouncement of God in judgment.

Quoting from Tom Wrights book What St Paul Really Said, the chapter "good news for Israel"

"For a reader of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, 'the righteousness of God' would have one obvious meaning: God's own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant. God's 'righteousness', especially in Isaiah 40-55, is that aspect of God's character because of which he saves Israel, despite Israel's perversity and lostness. God has made promises; Israel can trust those promises. God's righteousness is thus cognate with his trustworthiness on the one hand, and Israel's salvation on the other."

and a couple of paragraphs later:

"2. What does it mean to use the language of 'righteousness' in this context? It means something quite different when applied to the judge to what it means when applied to either the plaintiff of the defendant. Applied to the judge, it means (as is clear from the Old Testament) that the judge must try the case according to the law.; that he must be impartial; that he must punish sin as it deserves; and that he must support and uphold those who are defenceless and who have no-one but him to plead their cause. For the judge to be 'righteous', to have and practise 'righteousness' in this forensic setting, is therefore a complex matter to do with the way he handles the case.

3. For the plaintiff and the defendant, however, to be 'righteous' has none of these connotations. They, after all, are not trying the case. Nor, less obviously to us because of the moral overtones the word 'righteous' now has in our own language, does the word mean that they are, before the case starts, morally upright and so deserving to have the verdict go their way. No; for the plaintiff or defendant to be 'righteous' in the biblical sense within the law-court setting is for them to have that status as a result of the decision of the court."

so, is the bible based on the roman legal system, or the levitical system?

Interesting post, Thomas. A couple of points:



I fully agree with this, and if one reads John, it is clear that this is the context in which he writes. For example, he speaks, in chapter 3 of 1 John, of how one who is born of God will not sin, but keep His commandments, and explains in a practical way what that means:



Now this is simply continuing the definition of righteousness that existed in the OT. For example:



God requires righteousness of us, and this is an eloquent description of what righteousness is. Jesus summed it up as love for God and love for man, the two great commandments. You summed it up similarly.



This isn't following the preceding part of the post. John says, "He who does righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous." A righteous person is one who respects God and his fellow humans, to use your language. Righteousness is indeed a quality possessed by the individual, and it is manifest in the manner you have described. It's not something we have inherently (all our righteousness are as filthy rags), but it is given to us as free gift received by faith, happening when we are born again.



This is right on the mark. The righteousness of God is exactly this: God's faithfulness. The righteousness of God was revealed by Jesus Christ. This is Paul's theme throughout His epistles. As we appreciate God's character, revealed by His Son, we are transformed into the same image, and we begin to live out the righteousness which Christ revealed.

I like the way Ty Gibson puts it, which is that our becoming like God and our perception of His true character dovetail into one process.

The part I quoted describes the jewish legal system. However, while Paul most likely writes thorroughly from a jewish perspective, what he writes to a roman audience should be expected to relate to the roman society, for instance its legal system.

The parts of the bible which were written before the romans came around are of course not relating at all to it.