← Back to sermon library

Well, you can turn with me in 
your Bibles to the book of Proverbs, Proverbs chapter 17. Proverbs chapter 17, I'll read 
verse 15, pray, and then we'll look at this particular passage, 
this particular principle. Proverbs chapter 17, beginning 
in verse 15. He who justifies the wicked and 
he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination 
to the Lord. Well, let us pray. Our God in 
heaven, we thank you for the written word. We thank you for 
what Solomon gives us in this book of Proverbs. We know it's 
by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We know that it's profitable 
for us, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction 
in righteousness. And our desire is that you would 
thoroughly equip us unto every good work that you would cause 
us to reflect upon this written word each and every day. And 
God, may we, with the psalmist, hide it in our hearts that we 
might not sin against you. And Lord God, again, we pray 
for forgiveness for the sins that we have committed. We pray 
for the ministry of the Holy Spirit, that He would indeed 
guide us as we consider this particular doctrine. And we ask 
these things through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. Well, I want 
to do two things with this particular text. In the first place, I want 
to look at a declaration of the justice of God in this text proper. And then secondly, the maintenance 
of the justice of God in the Christian gospel. Because if 
we understand what verse 15 is telling us, and we reflect upon 
the gospel, we might be inclined to think that God is an abomination 
to himself. Because in the gospel, God does 
justify the wicked. And in the gospel, God in fact 
condemned the just. Christ was holy, harmless, and 
undefiled. Christ was indeed sinless, and 
yet, nevertheless, Christ was condemned as an unjust man. So 
I think it's imperative for us to understand what the text teaches, 
and then look at the Gospel, and see how the Gospel does, 
in fact, maintain the very justice of God. That the justice of God, 
the righteousness of God, is not compromised when He receives 
sinners unto Himself. that there are some crucial doctrines 
in Scripture that help us to understand how God can be both 
just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus Christ 
our Lord. In fact, the Apostle Paul tells 
us in Romans 4 that God justifies the ungodly. So again, if we 
just looked at Proverbs 17, 15, and then we mused on that particular 
statement, we might be inclined to conclude that God was in fact 
an abomination to himself. And so the purpose of our message 
tonight is to show the declaration of the justice of God, and then 
secondly, the maintenance of that justice in the gospel. Now 
note in the first place, with reference to the principle, It 
is straightforward, it is obvious, it is easy to understand. Essentially, 
justice must be served. If a man is not guilty, he isn't 
to be punished. If a man is guilty, he is to 
be punished. And Solomon puts it this way, 
he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both 
of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. Obviously, the wicked 
should be condemned, and obviously, the righteous should not be condemned. 
That is an abiding principle of God's justice. Bridges says, 
with reference to civil judges, if they renege on their responsibility, 
he says judicial iniquity is an awful abuse of God's authority. The judge or magistrate is a 
minister of God for good. The Lord appointed the civil 
government not to punish those who are innocent. He appointed 
the civil government for the punishment of evildoers. And 
Paul speaks to that very specifically in Romans chapter 13. Now there 
is some background to Solomon's statement. You can turn to Exodus 
chapter 23. Exodus chapter 23. And it's important 
for us to understand how Exodus 21 to 23 function in the larger 
context of the book of Exodus. You have the giving of the 10 
commandments in Exodus chapter 20. Those 10 words, they're general 
principles. You shall not murder, for instance. You shall not commit adultery. 
Well, in Exodus 21 to 23, we have what's called case law. 
We have application of those general principles to Israel's 
life in the land that God was giving to them. In fact, if you 
look at 21.1, that sort of sets the stage for this case law interpretation 
in Exodus 21-23. Notice in 21.1, now these are 
the judgments which you shall set before them. So he moves 
from the general principles of the Ten Commandments to specific 
concrete applications of those principles in Israel's civil 
and religious life. And when we come to chapter 23, 
there are these principles of justice. Notice in 23.1, for 
instance, you shall not circulate a false report. It's absolutely 
forbidden by God. We are not to bear false witness. We're not supposed to circulate 
a false report. It goes on to say, do not put 
your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. You 
shall not follow a crowd to do evil, nor shall you testify in 
a dispute, so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 
You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute." 
Note the wisdom of God there. There is this tendency to want 
to show partiality to a poor man. We're not supposed to. The 
law of God is applicable to whoever, irrespective of their particular 
economic situation. The law of God is the law of 
God for the poor, for the rich, for whoever. That's why Lady 
Justice is wearing a blindfold. That's why she's holding scales 
in her hands. The idea or the implication is, 
is that she doesn't judge based on circumstances, she judges 
based on the certainty of law. Notice in verse 4, if you meet 
your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely 
bring it back to him again. If you see the donkey of one 
who hates you lying under its burden and you would refrain 
from helping it, you shall surely help him with it. Your personal 
animosity to your neighbor ought not to lend itself to his losing 
precious property. And then in verse 6, You shall 
not pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. And then 
verse seven, keep yourself far from a false matter. Do not kill 
the innocent and righteous for I will not justify the wicked. 
So you see, you've got these laws, the law of God through 
Moses, his servant, which indicate that Solomon isn't making something 
up here. When he says, he who justifies 
the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike 
are an abomination to Yahweh. This is consistent. This is the 
revelation of who God is. Turn over to Deuteronomy chapter 
25. Deuteronomy chapter 25, the particular context here is the 
execution of corporal punishment on a criminal offender. In other 
words, they would be beaten. If they were found guilty in 
a court, there was the category of corporal punishment inflicted 
upon wrongdoers in the Commonwealth of Israel. Now, it was done in 
a manner that was consistent with God's law. It was supposed 
to be conducted in a proper way. It was supposed to be supervised. 
It was supposed to be according to rule. It was supposed to have 
proper proportion and limit and dignity maintained, even on the 
part of the one that was being beaten for his crimes. But if 
you look at 25.1, It says, if there is a dispute between men 
and they come to court, that the judges may judge them and 
they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. In other 
words, they do their job. They justify the righteous and 
they condemn the wicked. That's what the purpose of a 
civil judge is for. He is to justify, or rather he's 
supposed to justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. And here, 
based on that finding, notice in verse 2, "...then it shall 
be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge 
will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according 
to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. Forty blows 
he may give him, and no more, lest he should exceed this and 
beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated 
in your sight." Again, the main emphasis there is that justice 
must be carried out. If a man is found guilty, then 
he is subject to the punishment inflicted by the court. So we 
see this principle sustained throughout scripture. Now, as 
I said, when we look back at Proverbs 17, verse 15 especially, 
we ought to be reminded of what happens in the New Testament. 
On the one hand, Jesus Christ is condemned. Jesus Christ is 
condemned. When it says, he who justifies 
the wicked and he who condemns the just, Christ was the just 
that was condemned in the pages of the New Testament. We find 
that statement in Hebrews 7.26. The apostle writes, for such 
a high priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, 
separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens. 
Holy, armless, undefiled, absolutely, positively, just, and nevertheless, 
he's condemned. As well, Peter, in 1 Peter 2, 
he quotes Isaiah 53.9, and he applies this to Jesus. And I've 
always found this one just amazing. Because typically, the longer 
we're around each other, the more we see each other sin. Isn't 
that right? The more that we are around each 
other, the more that we will see each other's sin. If that's 
a shocking statement to you, you don't know much about the 
Bible, and you probably don't have any close relationships 
whatsoever. But as we know each other, the 
more that we get to know each other, the more that we see each 
other's sin. Peter spent three years with 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter spent three years with 
the Savior, and he's able to apply Isaiah 53.9 to Jesus. It says, who committed no sin, 
nor was deceit found in his mouth. You ever wonder what it would 
have been like to be one of Jesus' close associates? And perhaps 
at times you'd say, does he ever sin? Does he ever do anything 
wrong? Does he ever say anything that 
he ought not to say? No, he never did. Holy, harmless, 
undefiled, committed no sin. There was no deceit found on 
his mouth. We have even the pagan, the pagan 
confirmation that Christ was in fact righteous during the 
passion narrative. Three times Pontius Pilate says, 
I find no guilt in this man. The thief on the cross recognizes 
that he and his brother thief deserved what they were getting, 
but not so with our Lord Jesus Christ. So, as we look at Solomon's 
text, we must conclude that the just was condemned. And we can't 
simply chalk that up to, you know, human limitation. We can't just say, well, Pilate 
was wrong, and Herod was wrong, and the people were wrong, and, 
you know, that's just the way it goes. We know according to 
the prophet Isaiah and the book of Acts in Acts 2.23, that it 
was the father's pleasure to bruise the son. The crucifixion 
of the son took place according to the purpose of God, to his 
predetermined plan. So with reference to Solomon 
in 1715, Jesus was the just who was condemned. But then you have 
the justification of the ungodly. You have the justification of 
those that we look at in our Bibles that were not stellar 
men. We look at people like the Apostle 
Paul for instance this morning. We considered that he persecuted 
the Church of God He tried to destroy the Church of God and 
yet in 2nd Timothy 4 8 He says finally there is laid up for 
me the crown of righteousness Which the Lord the righteous 
judge will give to me on that day and not to me only but also 
to all those who have loved his appearing 2nd Timothy 4 8 So 
how do we make heads or tails of that? Here's a man that was 
ungodly. Here's a man that tried to destroy 
the church. Here's a man that persecuted the church. Here's 
a man that tried to bind men and women and take them down 
to Jerusalem so that they might be punished. He was, in fact, 
an unjust man. And nevertheless, he's sitting 
now with our blessed Savior in glory. So when we look at Solomon's 
text in 1715, are we to conclude, with reference to the Christian 
gospel, that God is somehow an abomination to God? Because after 
all, he has condemned the just in the person of his son, and 
he has justified the ungodly in the person of the apostle 
Paul. He justifies the ungodly in the person of Simon Peter. 
David, king of Israel, what did he do? He committed murder. He 
committed adultery. Every single person that we look 
at in the pages of Scripture are guilty sinners. And nevertheless, 
they are vindicated. Nevertheless, they are justified. 
Nevertheless, they stand in the presence of God Most High. So 
let's move from the pages of Holy Scripture to you and I. 
We are unjust people, aren't we? We are wicked people. We 
are transgressors of God's law. The apostle tells us in Romans 
3, there is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who seeks 
after God. There's no fear of God before 
the eyes of men. And so, nevertheless, we find 
ourselves in this place of having been justified by God. The condemnation of the just, 
Jesus Christ, and the justification of the wicked actually occur. 
God an abomination to himself? Does he arbitrarily contradict 
his holy law? Does he arbitrarily or capriciously 
say, well, you know, today I'm feeling specifically benevolent, 
so I'm going to go ahead and justify that ungodly person? Well, let us hope it's not capricious, 
and let us hope it's not arbitrary. Let us, in fact, be reminded 
how the scripture provides the solution to the problem that 
Proverbs 17, 15 presents. So we see there the declaration 
of the justice of God. I want to look now at the maintenance 
of the justice of God in the Christian gospel. And there are 
three things that we need to consider with reference to this 
particular theme. First, we need to consider the 
concept of covenant. Secondly, the doctrine of imputation. And then thirdly, the doctrine 
of God. Probably the doctrine of God should have come first, 
but I think I wanted to put it this way for hopefully ease of 
following the message here. Notice in the first place this 
concept of covenant. Now, I don't want anybody to 
be bored tonight. I want you to get this. Because 
if anybody ever said, you know, you Christians preach about what 
Solomon says is an abomination to the Lord. Do we know why it 
is not an abomination to the Lord? Do we know why that in 
the gospel, God is both just and the justifier of the one 
who has faith in Jesus? Well, as I said, it's covenant, 
it's imputation, and it's basically grounded in who God is. Now, 
with reference to covenant, covenant is simply, most basically defined 
as an agreement between two or more persons. When we look at 
the Bible, there are covenants between men. But with reference 
to the covenant that I'm speaking about, it's God's covenant with 
His people. And with reference to covenant, 
it's not just that agreement. Typically, there's a bond. Typically, 
there's a promise. Typically, there's promise of 
threat for violation of the covenant. There is a promise of blessing 
for fulfillment of the covenant. But also within covenant is the 
idea of representation. And we need to get this because 
representation is absolutely crucial and most important when 
we come to consider how God can be both just and the justifier 
of the one who has faith in Jesus. God did not purpose to test every 
single human being. Rather, he tested Adam. He set 
up in the Garden of Eden a phase of probation for Adam. When you 
look at Genesis chapter 2, there is a covenant there. Now, typically 
persons, when they hear that statement say, but the word covenant 
isn't in Genesis chapter 2. But the concept of covenant is 
present. When you take your Bible concordance 
and you look up the word Trinity, the word Trinity is not in the 
Bible. No sane person would then conclude 
that the Trinity is not in the Bible. It's called the word-concept 
fallacy. Though the word is absent, the 
concept is present. And when you look at Genesis 
2, there is covenant. The presence of the concept, 
though the word is absent. You see something parallel in 
the Davidic covenant. In 2 Samuel 7, God makes a covenant 
with David concerning the seed of David. Now, it doesn't say 
covenant in 2 Samuel 7, but it does so in later redemptive history 
as the psalmist reflects upon that situation in Psalms 89 and 
132. God made a covenant with David 
even though the word covenant was absent from 2 Samuel 7. As well, in Genesis chapter 2, 
you see the elements present of a covenant. You have parties, 
God and man. You have conditions, obedience 
to the command. You have a promise, life for 
obedience, and you have a threat, death for disobedience. Now again, 
some might say, well, it doesn't promise life for obedience. That 
is a necessary implication from the threat of death for disobedience. Dying you shall die must necessarily 
imply living you shall live. So as long as Adam fulfills the 
obligations placed on him, he will secure life for not only 
himself, but for all of his posterity. Why? Because in this covenant, 
Adam represents us. In this covenant, Adam is a public 
person. In this covenant, Adam stands 
for all of his posterity. And that is the teaching of the 
apostle Paul in Romans chapter five. The Apostle Paul in Romans 
5 indicates that Adam was a type of him who was to come. In other 
words, Adam was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. He doesn't 
become a type when Paul writes that. He was a type when God 
made him. He always functioned in that 
capacity to be a type of Jesus Christ, our Lord. So God judges 
us in Adam. Adam is a representative who 
stands in our place and Adam sins. And in Adam, we all sin. In Adam, we all die. The concept 
of covenant is absolutely crucial if we're gonna navigate Proverbs 
17, 15 and not conclude that God is an abomination to himself. Now, with reference to the representational 
character, again, very specifically, Romans chapter 5, we're actually 
going to refer to that later in a bit more detail. But for 
now, suffice to say, the Apostle highlights that reality that 
Adam represented his posterity. In the language of the Westminster 
Shorter Catechism, did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression? 
The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but 
for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary 
generation, sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgressions. Call that original sin. We have 
inherited that, we have received that. It was based on the representational 
character of Adam, who stood in a covenant of works, and when 
he fell, we fell in him. So God has purpose to deal with 
mankind on the basis of two men. Adam the first, Adam the last, 
even our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, secondly, the way that we 
navigate through Proverbs 17, 15 without concluding that God 
is an abomination to himself is the doctrine of imputation. 
Now, perhaps you don't think about the doctrine of imputation 
often. May I suggest that you start 
to do so. It is a most glorious and a most 
blessed truth that Scripture sets forth. Now, certainly we 
can't say everything there is to be said about the doctrine 
of imputation because of time and because of my level of competency, 
but we can flesh out this doctrine so that we can see that in the 
gospel, God is both just and the justifier of the one who 
has faith in Christ Jesus because of the covenant and because of 
the doctrine of imputation. If you turn to Romans chapter 
4 for just a moment, actually, no, for probably a few moments, we see this concept many, many 
times in Romans chapter 4. Now, the particular word that 
Paul uses in Romans 4 to represent or to speak concerning this doctrine 
of imputation is used 11 times in Romans 4. And I would suggest 
that that is crucial in the apostle's argument at this particular juncture. Remember in 118, Paul says, for 
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness 
and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth and unrighteousness. 
Paul then details the sins, the vices, the wretchedness of the 
Gentile. In chapter 2, Paul then deals 
with the sin, the vices, and the wretchedness of the Jews. 
In Romans chapter 3, Paul concludes in verse 19 that all men everywhere 
are under sin. In verse 20, he says, therefore, 
by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight, 
for by the law is the knowledge of sin. So that is Paul's statement 
concerning the universal condemnation of all men, from Romans 118 to 
Romans 320. He changes directions in Romans 
321. He says, but now the righteousness of God is revealed. And so as 
he begins to explain this righteousness of God and how sinners receive 
this, imputation is crucial to his argument. The reality is, 
is that if God does not impute, if this doctrine is absent, then 
God is an abomination to God because he is guilty of justifying 
wicked sinners. Now notice Romans chapter four, 
he uses the word in verses three, four, five, six, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
22, 23, and 24. There's a point there. There's an emphasis there. There's 
theology there. There's the doctrine of imputation 
there. Now, the bare meaning of the 
word is to determine by mathematical process But from that we get 
reckon or calculate. In fact, in the New King James, 
at verse 3 in chapter 4, they give the glosses, they give the 
definitions, and it's very helpful. The word is imputed, credited, 
reckoned, or counted. That's what's happening. We have 
the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us so that we are 
no longer unjust. We are no longer wicked. We are 
no longer lawless. But having received the righteousness 
of Christ, we are righteous in him. The doctrine of imputation 
is one of the fundamental keys so that God is not an abomination 
to God in justifying the ungodly. Turn to one other passage in 
Romans 519. Now, it's a different word, but the concept is similar. 
Romans 5.19 deals with imputation, deals with crediting, deals with 
reckoning. In this particular instance, 
the new King James translates the verb by made, and that's 
not the best translation. I'll explain in just a moment, 
but notice in verse 19, for as by one man's disobedience, many 
were made sinners, so also by one man's obedience, many will 
be made righteous. Literally means causes someone 
to experience something, to make or cause. But one of the problems 
when we use the word make is that it seems to indicate the 
transformation of one's character. And that's not what Paul is highlighting 
here. It's not dealing with the transformation 
of character. We all know that there is transformation 
of character in those who by grace believe the gospel. That 
is in the category of sanctification. Once we've been justified freely 
by God's grace, we have received the righteousness of Jesus Christ, 
we have been declared not guilty. That is forensic. That is legal. That has to do with the courtroom. 
Now, having received that by God's grace, we enter into sanctification, 
the life of faith, grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. That's where moral transformation 
occurs. It's the Spirit's work in us. 
whereas this constitution or this reckoning or this accounting 
happens because of Christ's work for us. And that is a very significant 
difference that we need to appreciate. So when we look at 519, perhaps 
constitute might be a better word or a point. In fact, Guy 
Waters says the verb is best rendered constitute or a point. 
The term does not speak to a moral change within the descendant 
of Adam. Paul will deal with the moral 
change of the descendant of Adam who has become a believer. Paul 
will deal with moral change in Romans 6. Paul will deal with 
moral change in Romans 7 and 8. He'll say in Romans 13, put 
on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh 
to fulfill its lust. The argument is not that there's 
no moral change, but with reference to the gospel, with reference 
to justification by faith alone. The issue is not moral transformation. It is the imputation of the righteousness 
of Jesus Christ. It is a transaction. It is legal. It is forensic. And that's the 
emphasis of the apostle here in Romans 3, 4, and 5. So notice 
in verse 19, for as by one man's disobedience, many were made 
or constituted or appointed sinners, so also by one man's obedience, 
many will be made or constituted or appointed as righteous. Now 
again, once that's appointed, once that is constituted, once 
we have been justified freely by His grace, the Spirit is at 
work in us, both to will and to do. God calls us to obey and 
to do those things that He is working in us, both to will and 
to do. So the moral transformation is 
certainly there, but it's a consequence of our having been justified 
freely by His grace. Again, Waters says, it refers 
to the change in legal or forensic status of the descendant. This 
isn't something you probably think about each and every day, 
but you should. This is what Luther preached. 
This was what was emphasized. We need an alien righteousness. He didn't mean, you know, Martians. 
He didn't mean people living on Pluto. He meant something 
outside of us we must have. And in the gospel, it is provided 
to us by God. It is the righteousness of Jesus 
Christ, and it is received by faith alone. And that is emphasized 
by the apostle as well, very many times in Romans 4. But in 
terms of some demonstration, I'd like for everybody to just 
nod at this point. No, I'm kidding. But it'd be nice if everybody 
was still with me. I fear that... I'm losing you. 
It's hot. I know that. And this is more 
theological than typical you'd think Proverbs 17, 15 would be. But I want you to get this. I 
want to sort of flesh this out and show you what Scripture says 
concerning this point. Go back to Genesis 15. Genesis 
15. You see that whole idea of crediting, 
or reckoning, or accounting, or imputing. In Genesis 15, 6, 
with reference to Abraham. And this becomes paradigmatic 
or a pattern for future redemptive history. The Apostle Paul appeals 
to Abraham in Romans chapter 4. He appeals to Genesis 15, 
6 to make his argument that this isn't just for Abraham, but this 
is for us as well. It wasn't the case that Abraham 
has the imputation of righteousness, but for the rest of us, we need 
to work for it. We need to try and obtain it. 
This has always been God's way. It's why he appeals to Abraham 
and why he appeals to David in Romans chapter 4. He does so 
with reference to Abraham later again in the book of Galatians. 
But notice in Genesis 15 6, and he believed in the Lord and he, 
the Lord, accounted it to him for righteousness. He believed 
in the Lord and he accounted it to him for righteousness. 
It wasn't Abraham's righteousness that he had accomplished. It 
wasn't Abraham's moral transformation, but rather he believed in the 
offer of grace, the offer of salvation, the mediator, even 
Jesus Christ, and believing in him, that is when it was accounted 
unto him for righteousness. Notice in Leviticus chapter 16, 
just to see the doctrine of imputation here. Leviticus chapter 16. Not necessarily the imputation 
of righteousness in this instance, but the doctrine of imputation. Notice in Leviticus 16, and the 
particular account here is the day of atonement. It's Yom Kippur. 
It is that day when the Jews would go to the tabernacle, in 
this instance, or to the temple, and the high priest would take 
off all of his priestly attire except for the linen garments. 
And he alone would go into that Holy of Holies. He alone with 
blood. He would go in there three or 
four times. He'd offer up blood first for his sin. He'd offer 
up blood for the sins of Israel. He'd offer up blood to cleanse 
the altar itself. And after he was done with that, 
there was another goat. And they called that goat the 
scapegoat. And the significance of the scapegoat 
is quite amazing. It's quite glorious. So the blood 
of atonement washes away sin. But there's also this picture. 
There is this demonstration, there is this symbol of God's 
having dealt with the sin of Israel in the scapegoat. And 
notice what the high priest does in Leviticus 1620. And when he 
has made an end of atoning for the holy place, the tabernacle 
of meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. Aaron 
shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess 
over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all 
their transgressions concerning all their sins, putting them 
on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness 
by the hand of a suitable man. The goat shall bear on itself 
all their iniquities to an uninhabited land, and he shall release the 
goat in the wilderness." You see, it's imputation. As the 
high priest lays his hands upon the goat, probably presses his 
hands upon the goat, he confesses the sins of Israel. He goes through 
the Decalogue. Forgive us for having committed 
idolatry. Forgive us for blasphemy. Forgive 
us for Sabbath breaking. Forgive us for insubordination 
of parents and authority. forgive us for murder and adultery 
and theft and lies and covetousness. And he lays that on the goat, 
the goat receives this, and then the goat is driven out into the 
wilderness. It's a beautiful picture of what 
is called the expiation of sin, the removal of sin. So the blood 
of atonement cleanses us, that goat takes the sin away from 
us. It's a beautiful picture of the 
imputation of sin in this instance. Now notice in Psalm 31, Psalm 
31. Again, just fleshing out the 
doctrine of imputation in some concrete examples in Scripture. 
Psalm 31 is quoted by the Apostle Paul in Romans 4. I mentioned 
he refers to Abraham, he refers to David. Well, here is where 
he refers to David in Psalm 32. Notice in verse 1, Blessed is 
he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed 
is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, and in whose 
spirit is no deceit. If you leave your finger there 
and turn to Romans 4, you'll notice something interesting. 
Romans chapter 4. The Apostle Paul cites this to 
show us and to show his readers that this was no new thing. How 
is it that King David, who had committed transgression against 
God, how is it that a murderer and an adulterer, a wicked and 
an unjust man, could ultimately enter into heaven? It is by this 
truth of imputation. It is by this aspect of God's 
dealing with his people. It is the means by which God 
is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 
So he cites Genesis 15 with reference to Abraham. He cites Psalm 32 
with reference to David to indicate that this has always been God's 
way. This has always been the means 
by which sinners enter in. to glory. It is through the doing 
and the dying and the rising of our Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed 
is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity. Paul quotes 
that there in Romans chapter four. Now go back to the Old 
Testament to Isaiah 53 and just to see imputation. Isaiah 53, 
it's not as sparse as one might think. Well, there's a text or 
two in the New Testament, but we can't hang a doctrine on that. 
You've already seen it in Genesis 15, you see it there in Leviticus 
chapter 6, you see it in Psalm 32, but you see it in a couple 
places in the prophet Isaiah. In Isaiah 53, verse 11. Isaiah 53, verse 11, he shall 
see the labor of his soul and be satisfied. By his knowledge, 
my righteous servant shall justify many, for he shall bear their 
iniquities. That's what it means. The iniquities 
of us all are laid upon him. Go back for just a moment in 
verse six. And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 
Now, that means he bears our sins, to be sure, but it means 
they were imputed to him. And then notice what he goes 
on to say. Verse 12, therefore, I will divide him a portion with 
the great. He shall divide the spoil with the strong because 
he poured out his soul unto death and he was numbered with the 
transgressors and he bore the sin of many and made intercession 
for the transgressors. And then Isaiah 61, Isaiah 61, 
verse 10, the doctrine of imputation. I will greatly rejoice in Yahweh. 
My soul shall be joyful in my God for, Notice what he says. He has clothed me with the garments 
of salvation. He has covered me with the robe 
of righteousness. It's not our righteousness. It's 
not our moral transformation. It's not our good works. We are 
unjust. We are wicked. And nevertheless, 
we are justified. Why is that? Because of the doctrine 
of the covenant. Someone represented us. And because 
of the doctrine of imputation, God clothes us in the righteousness 
of Jesus Christ our Lord, as a bridegroom decks himself with 
ornaments, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. One 
more Old Testament demonstration is in the prophet Zechariah. 
Zechariah chapter 3. Zechariah chapter 3 demonstrates 
the doctrine of imputation. Zechariah 3.1, then he showed 
me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, 
and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. And the Lord 
said to Satan, the Lord rebuke you, Satan. The Lord who has 
chosen Jerusalem rebuke you. Is this not a brand plucked from 
the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and was 
standing before the angel. I'm sure I've told you before 
the filthiness there isn't, you know, a little blotch of cream 
cheese on his tie. Filth is used in other contexts 
with reference to feces and vomit. The idea isn't that he's a bit 
disheveled before Yahweh. The idea is that he's completely 
undone. He is filthy. He is wicked. He is unjust. He 
is wretched. And it's not just Joshua, but 
in this capacity, Joshua the high priest is standing for Israel. The point is that Joshua represents 
covenantally the people of Israel. And so these people are found 
out by God to be guilty But notice what occurs. Joshua was clothed 
with filthy garments and was standing before the angel. Then 
he, God answered and spoke to those who stood before him saying, 
take away the filthy garments from him. And to him he said, 
see, I have removed your iniquity from you and I will clothe you 
with rich robes. And I said, let them put a clean 
turban on his head. So they put a clean turban on 
his head and they put clothes on him. And the angel of the 
Lord stood by. You see that's imputation. He's 
full of sin, he's full of filth, he's full of wickedness, he's 
full of wretchedness. And God says, take away the filthy garments 
from him. This is forgiveness. And to him, 
he said, see, I have removed your iniquity from you and I 
will clothe you with rich robes. You see, the gospel answers to 
that. We need to be forgiven of our sins, but we also need 
a righteousness. We are forgiven because of the 
blood of Jesus Christ, His Son. It cleanses us from all sin. 
But we need the righteousness of Christ's life, and that is 
given to us. It is imputed to us, and it's 
received by faith alone. And when we turn to the pages 
of the New Testament, we see this emphasis, not only in Romans 
4, we see it also in Romans chapter 5. We see it in 1 Corinthians. You can turn there. 1 Corinthians 
chapter 1. It's a man by the name of N.T. 
Wright, and he is taught, or he is a proponent of what is 
called the New Perspective on Paul. And N.T. Wright is N.T. wrong when it comes to justification, 
because he says that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ 
is a legal fiction. He denies this, and there are 
some Protestants that should know better that have jumped 
on this bandwagon. If we don't have the imputed 
righteousness of Jesus Christ, as Machen observed, we're back 
at the tree. And then it is up to us in our 
moral transformation to do enough to ultimately be justified. You 
hear it in Piper. There's a beginning and a final 
justification. Praise God, that is not the case. There is one justification. It's 
freely by His grace. That is sloppy. It is fuzzy. It is certainly not Pauline. 
And for whatever reason, Protestants are being led astray and they're 
sounding more like Papists when it comes to the doctrine of justification. If you do not get this, if you 
do Do not get it tonight. Ask questions. Attend our studies 
in the morning. Next time, this coming Sunday, 
we're going to be looking at chapter 11 of Justification in 
the Second London Confession of Faith. It's gold. It represents 
solidly, beautifully, and gloriously the biblical doctrine of justification 
by faith alone. You cannot be wrong on this. 
You can be wrong on eschatology. You can be wrong on preferences. You can be wrong on a myriad 
of things associated with our religion. But if you get justification 
wrong, there is no hope. It is absolutely, positively 
crucial that we get this. You need to get Trinity right, 
you need to get who Jesus is right, and you need to get justification 
right. Now beyond that, we can disagree. And 22 years ago, my list was 
a lot longer, but nope, that's it. Those are the non-negotiables 
for me now. Trinity, who Jesus is, and justification. Beyond that, I'm happy to disagree. 
Agree to disagree with you. But we won't agree to disagree 
when it comes to those doctrines. Those are cardinal. Those are 
absolutely crucial. Jesus himself says in John 8, 
unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. We 
cannot toy with what scripture says concerning who God is. And Christ is the second person 
of the blessed Trinity who took on our humanity. We can't tamper 
with what Scripture says in upholding that blessed truth of what we 
call the hypostatic union. And we certainly can't be wrong 
on how is it that God is both just and the justifier of the 
one who has faith in Jesus. In other words, we need to know 
what justification by faith is all about. It's not a legal fiction. It is clear, it is replete, it 
is emphasized, and it is the answer to the conundrum presented 
by Proverbs 17, 15. Because God in the gospel does 
justify the ungodly. It's not arbitrary, it's not 
capricious, but rather it is based on covenant and imputation. Theological truths that are absolutely 
necessary to vindicate God and to bring comfort and stability 
to the people of God. But notice in 1 Corinthians 1.30, 
But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom 
from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 
that, as it is written, he who glories, let him glory in the 
Lord. Christ is our righteousness. 
And we deny that, we do that to our own peril, but we do that 
in light of the written Word. Isn't this how Christ is announced 
in the prophet Jeremiah? In Jeremiah 23, when it looks 
forward to the new covenant era, when it looks forward to the 
messianic reign, when it looks forward to the person, the Lord 
Jesus Christ, it tells us that He is the Lord, our righteousness. Now, that just doesn't mean that 
he's right and he's just, but with righteousness or the righteousness 
of Christ in that sense is what he demands from us and what he 
supplies to us. That's what the gospel is about. And then, of course, 2 Corinthians 
5 will appeal to that in just a few moments. But you get the 
point. It's not isolated. It's emphasized. It is a vital 
component of how God is not an abomination to God. Now, the 
instrumentality is faith. It's faith. What is justification? Justification is an act of God's 
free grace, wherein He pardons all our sins and accepts us as 
righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ 
imputed to us and received by what? By faith alone. So when 
we go back, for instance, to the book of Romans, and we look 
at Romans chapter 4, in several instances, the Apostle Paul highlights 
belief. In several instances, Paul highlights 
faith. John Fesco says Paul repeatedly 
places believing in antithetical contrast to working or doing. We can't work or do enough in 
order to be saved, to blot out our iniquity, and to satisfy 
the requirements of God's holy law. So what's the answer? Faith 
in Jesus. What's the answer? Belief in 
Him. What's the answer? Look unto 
Him, all the ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no 
other. The answer is grace alone through 
faith alone in Christ Jesus alone. Our confession, chapter 11. Again, 
we're going to look at it next Sunday morning at 9.30. Everybody's 
invited. I don't know that I always offer 
that invitation, but y'all can come. We got plenty of room up 
there, lots of empty seats this morning. It's a good time, brethren, 
to go through Christian doctrine, stuff that we really need to 
know about. But in our confession, it says 
those whom God affectionately calls, He also freely justifies. Not by infusing righteousness 
into them. vis-a-vis Rome. See, moral transformation. That's what Rome teaches. Your 
justification is not only your belief in Christ, but it's your 
conduct, it's your behavior, it's your adherence to the laws 
of the Church of Rome. Well, that's no justification. 
That's terrible. It's not the infusion of righteousness, 
but rather it is the imputation of righteousness. You say, well, 
those words sound very similar, Pastor Butler. Google them and 
see the vast difference. That's what distinguishes, in 
many respects, Protestantism from potpourri. And if we don't 
have this understanding, we need to get it because our confession 
is right in this matter. Not by infusing righteousness 
into them, but by pardoning their sins and by, here's the word, 
accounting and accepting their persons as righteous. Not for 
anything wrought in them. Not for anything wrought in them. That means not their moral transformation. Again, it will come, but that's 
not the basis upon which we're accepted in the Beloved. Not 
for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's 
sake alone. Not even by imputing faith itself, 
the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to 
them. The divines there are counteracting 
or contrasting what was called Baxterianism. Richard Baxter 
taught, and unfortunately, he has a very popular book called 
The Reformed Pastor. The book is good insofar as pastoral 
responsibility goes, but don't make the misstep that he was 
a reformed pastor because his doctrine of justification was 
Romish. And that's what our confession 
is speaking against. He said that we bring faith to 
God and it's on that basis that God then justifies us. That's not what scripture says. 
It's never grace because of faith. It's always grace through faith. 
through faith. The apostle is conspicuous, there 
is a pattern, and he never highlights that it's because of faith that 
one is justified. Faith is the instrument, faith 
is the hand that receives it, and that faith even is given 
by God as a free gift. Back to our confession. Not by 
imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical 
obedience to them as their righteousness. And here's where the London Baptist 
confession, this next statement, is better than the Westminster. 
Most of you will know that the Westminster is what? The Baptist 
copy. Now, with some differences in 
terms of who do we baptize and church polity and those sorts 
of things, but the Westminster Confession does not include what 
the Baptists found necessary to include in this next statement, 
because there was some difference of opinion at the Westminster 
Assembly. Some of those men did not accept 
the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Not so with 
our dear particular Baptist brothers, our forefathers in the faith. 
Notice what they say. but by imputing Christ's active 
obedience unto the whole law and passive obedience in his 
death for their whole and sole righteousness. It's on this basis 
that Edward Mote could write his song, My Hope is Built, on 
nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. This is the 
theology that Paul teaches. This is the theology that Jesus 
taught. This is the theology of Isaiah 
and of Moses. This is what the Bible teaches, 
brethren. And to jettison that is to put 
ourselves into very tumultuous waters with reference to our 
position before God Almighty. Now, in terms of the imputation, 
the doctrine of... I want to close here. I don't 
want to keep you much longer. I feel like I've already stayed 
my welcome here. But there are three acts of imputation 
that we find in Scripture. The first is the imputation of 
Adam's sin to all mankind. The imputation of Adam's sin 
to all mankind, Romans 5, 18a. Therefore, as through one man's 
judgment, as through one man's, excuse me, I miswrote that in 
my notes. I don't want to mess that up. 
Romans 5, 18a. Therefore, as through one man's 
offense, judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation. That's the imputation of Adam's 
sin. We weren't in the garden. We 
weren't there. We didn't eat that particular 
fruit. No, but we were in Adam covenantally. We were in Adam 
positionally. We were in Adam representationally 
and in Adam all died. And that's Paul's point. As well, 
notice in 519a, for as by one man's disobedience many were 
made or constituted or appointed sinners. You see, it's the doctrine 
of imputation. Adam's sin is imputed to Adam's 
posterity via covenant. Secondly, we have the imputation 
of the elect's sin to Jesus Christ. the imputation of the elect's 
sin to Jesus Christ. Why did Jesus go to that cross? Because he was constituted, he 
was reckoned, he was appointed, he was made a sinner. Again, 
that's where we see that moral transformation isn't the point. 
Jesus wasn't morally transformed into a sinner. Jesus didn't rob 
a bank. Jesus didn't go out and shoot 
somebody. It wasn't transformation. It 
was legal and forensic based on this idea of imputation. The 
priesthood or the Levitical system in Leviticus chapter 1, when 
the worshiper took his animal to the tabernacle or temple, 
what did the worshiper do? The worshiper cut the throat 
of the animal. The priest laid hands on the 
animal. The priest then dissected the 
animal and offered it up to God Almighty. We've already seen 
that imputation of the sins of Israel in Leviticus 16, 20 to 
22 with reference to the scapegoat. And then you see it in the New 
Testament with reference to our Lord Jesus Christ. We see in 
Isaiah 53, 6, and Yahweh has laid on Him the iniquity of us 
all. Probably the most famous text 
is 2 Corinthians 5, 21, for He, God, made Him Christ who knew 
no sin. to be sin for us. Again, it's the doctrine of imputation. That's why God is not an abomination 
to God. Christ is just, Christ is righteous, 
Christ is glorious, but he's condemned. Why? Because God imputed 
to him the sins of the elect so that he could punish him in 
our stead. This is the rationale behind 
Paul's statement as to why God can be both just and the justifier 
of the one who has faith in Jesus Christ. And then we have, of 
course, the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ 
to the elect. That's Paul's point in Romans 
4. It's Paul's point in Romans 5. It's Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 
1. 2 Corinthians 5, John Gill comments 
on 2 Corinthians 5. He made him who knew no sin to 
be sin for us. Why? So that we might become 
the righteousness of God in him. It's a beautiful transaction, 
isn't it? It is the great exchange. It 
is the imputation of that alien righteousness, our sins to him. 
He is punished in our stead and then his righteousness to us. 
Gil says, just as Christ is made sin by the imputation of the 
sins of others to him, so they are made righteousness or righteous 
persons through the imputation of his righteousness to them. 
And in no other way can the one be made sin or the other righteousness. This is the answer to the problem 
that Proverbs 17, 15 introduces. God is not an abomination to 
himself because of covenant, because of imputation, and ultimately 
because of God. This all flows out of who God 
is. God is just. God is righteous, 
God is gracious, God is merciful. And God is infinitely wise because 
He ordained the way to save His people from their sins in a manner 
that upholds His righteousness and demonstrates His grace. He 
doesn't compromise one perfection at the expense of others. He 
doesn't renege on His righteousness so that He can bring sinners 
into a state of favor and acceptance. Go to Romans 3 for just a moment 
and notice Paul's emphasis in this particular section. Beginning 
in verse 21, but now the righteousness of God apart from the law is 
revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even 
the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all 
and on all who believe. For there is no difference for 
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Now notice, 
being justified freely by His grace through the redemption 
that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation 
by His blood. Propitiation is another one of 
those great and glorious gospel words we don't have time for 
right now, but I would suggest that at some point you get your 
nose into a this section of scripture, ask the question, what does it 
mean, propitiation, and find great cheer and encouragement 
to your heart. But notice, God set forth Christ as a propitiation 
by his blood through faith. Now notice, to demonstrate his 
righteousness, You see, it's not that at the cross, all we 
see is God's grace. We do see that. It's not at the 
cross that we alone see His love, though we do see that. It's not 
at the cross alone that we see mercy. We see that. But at the 
cross, God is able to maintain His righteousness, and He's able 
to receive guilty sinners unto Himself. He's able to navigate 
between what Solomon says in Proverbs 17, 15, not becoming 
an abomination to himself because of the doctrine of covenant, 
because of imputation, and based on his own holy and excellent 
character. So it is to demonstrate his righteousness. Now notice, because in his forbearance, 
God had passed over the sins that were previously committed. 
Now do not think for a moment that passed over the sins that 
were previously committed means that he winked at them or that 
he neglected them or that he didn't deal with them. No, I 
think the referent is this, is that God received believing Israelites 
in the old covenant based on the coming of Jesus Christ. He 
passed over that epoch based on the reality that the mediator 
would come and stand in the place of Abel, would stand in the place 
of Noah, would stand in the place of Abraham. Because we learn 
in the book of Hebrews, the blood of bulls and goats can never 
take away sin. They were types, they were shadows, 
they pointed forward to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin 
of the world. So someone might say, well, based on what you're 
saying, Paul, God didn't deal with the sins of the people in 
the Old Testament. Of course he did. He laid them upon the 
son of his love. He passed over them in his forbearance 
because the Lord Jesus would come and ultimately receive the 
punishment for them. But then notice again in verse 
26, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, Have 
you ever considered that? Have you ever thought through 
this? Have you ever asked the question, 
why does Paul say this? Because it was crucial that God 
maintain his Godhood when he saves us from our sins, that 
he orchestrates a way so that he can be, as the remainder of 
our verse says, just and the justifier of the one who has 
faith in Jesus. So at the cross, we learn of 
love. At the cross, we learn of grace. 
At the cross, we learn of forgiveness. At the cross, we learn of mercy. 
But at the cross, we learn of righteousness. We learn of what 
God thinks of sin. We learn of what God thinks of 
His holy law. We learn of what God thinks of 
His perfections in terms of righteousness and justice. God's grace, according 
to John Murray. He says the description given 
in verse 5, drop down to Romans 4-5, but to him who does not 
work but believes on him, notice the language, who justifies the 
ungodly. It occurs to me that Paul is 
vindicating God in this section. It is that Paul is demonstrating 
how the cross upholds the very righteousness of God so that 
God can remain who God is and yet justify the ungodly. In fact, Lloyd-Jones has a beautiful 
sermon called, The Cross, The Vindication of God. I commend 
it highly. Murray says, the description 
given in verse 5, him who justifies the ungodly is intended to set 
off the munificence, that means characterized by great generosity 
and liberality, of the gospel of grace. The word ungodly is 
a strong one and shows the magnitude and extent of God's grace. His 
justifying judgment is exercised not simply upon the unrighteous, 
but upon the ungodly. Verse five is a general statement 
of the method of grace and is not intended to describe Abraham 
specifically. We have here rather the governing 
principle of grace. It is exemplified in the case 
of Abraham because he believed in accordance with that principle. Douglas Moos says, the one who 
justifies the ungodly is justly famous as a succinct and bold 
statement of God's conviction that our standing with God is 
holy of God's free grace. So, as we consider, or rather 
as we conclude, we ought to remember this morning, one man has well 
said that Paul's theology was nothing but the explication of 
his own conversion. He knew that gospel experientially. He knew that gospel blessedly. He knew that gospel and then 
proclaimed it to others so that they would never think that they 
will ultimately be received by God based on what they've done. 
Paul does provide the theology so that Edward Mote can write, 
my hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. 
It's covenant, it's imputation, and it's who God is that keeps 
us from concluding that God is an abomination to himself. Because 
in the gospel, God condemns the just. And in the gospel, God 
justifies the ungodly. If we don't have those vital 
components, we're gonna mess up when it comes to who God is 
Well, let us close in a word of prayer. Father, thank You 
for Your Word. Thank You for its clarity on 
these matters that are most important in terms of our standing with 
You. I pray that whatever was confusing would be chased away 
by the power of the Holy Spirit and the truth that Christ and 
Him crucified is our only hope would come through loud and clear. 
that everybody in here would be looking unto Jesus Christ, 
in whom there is forgiveness and in whom or through whom comes 
a righteousness that avails with God the Father. We thank you 
for justification by your grace. We thank you for the life of 
sanctification and the Holy Spirit at work in us. And we pray that 
even now, as we go into a new week, he would be at work in 
us and he would be conforming us further unto the image of 
your beloved son, even our Lord Jesus Christ, in whose name we 
pray, amen.