Home
Sin Imputation Home
Sin Imputation. Video2   V3 The
Bible says in 2nd Timothy 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word
of truth." This scripture came out of a time when they were building
the temple at the construction site. The stones were all hewn, squared
and numbered at the quarries where they were raised. While
transporting these huge boulders from the quarry to the building site,
men were actually die-ing when these boulders rolled back on them. If
the mason's measurements were wrong, and it was necessary to transport
another bolder, then this was an unnecessary sacrifice for doing God's
work. To this end the first time the error occurred the mason's head was
shaved and his beard was cut. The second time he was killed. The point
was that people's lives were dependent on the accuracy of the mason. We
could say that people's lives are now dependent on the accuracy of the
preacher or teacher. This speaks to my need for accuracy on what I am
about to say. The emphasis of this message is in Romans 5 13, which
expresses the principle that, "sin is not imputed when there is no
law". I have read many commentators, and virtually all, if not all
of them, say in one way or another, that the imputation of sin, started
with the Law Of Moses. Or, more percisely they say, that the scripture
says, right here, in, "sin is not imputed when there is no law, means,
that God was not holding sin against men's account until the law of moses.
There is a right and wrong way to interpret God's Word. You can preach
A truth from a certain passage, yet it may not be the truth the verse
is proclaiming. This is not handling the Word of God correctly. That is
this is not rightly dividing the word of truth. For
instance, a person could take Exodus 20 8, which says, "Remember
the sabbath day, to keep it holy," and expound an Old Testament truth
that would put people under bondage about observing certain days. The
New Testament makes it clear that the Sabbath, was a picture of an New
Testament reality, that was fulfilled in Christ (see Colossians 2 16 to
17)., which says: "Let no man therefore, judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath
days: Again
I say, my mentor Andrew Wommack says regularly, ain't nobody saying this
but me. That is the same thing that Elijah said, "All the prophets
are dead except me. Yet, in Andrew's case I've checked the records, and
in Andrew's case I am convinced that it is true. In Elijah's case it was
not true, and the consequences were significant. Elijah lost his ministry.
Yet, by the Grace of God, God sent a chariot to pick Elijah up. Nevertheless,
in Andrew's case, at the time that he began saying certain things, there
wasn't anybody else saying it but him. You know, that is a dangerous position
to be in. When nobody else is saying something except you, most likely
the reason why nobody else is saying it, is because it is wrong. If it
is true, and nobody else is saying it, as far as you know, then that is
a rahma word from the Lord. After all, where did you get it from. What
I am about to say about Romans 5 13, I am persuaded is a rahma word from
the Lord. It is surely a blessing to know that God loves you so much that
he will reveal his secrets to you. For what saitheth the Lord. "Shall
I reveal my secrets to Abraham. Sin
is not imputed when there is no law, is a principle which started back
in Adam's day. The bible says these things are written for our learning.
We say the Old is in the New explained. The explanation of this principle,
Sin is not imputed when there is no law, is, this principle started back
in Adam's day, continued through Mose's day, when the law said the sins
of the father is visited unto the children to the third and fourth generation,
and ended with Jesus's righteousness being imputed to us, when Jesus imputed
all of our sins to himself, including the sins of Adam. The only sin that
is left is the sin of not accepting Jesus. As
I have said, verse 13 states in part that "sin is not imputed when
there is no law" to transgress. This verse is often interpreted by
many commentators to mean that before the law of Moses, if a man committed
a sin, up to and including killing another man, God did not hold it against
the offender, because there was no law against the transgression of murder.
I strongly disagree with this analysis. First
and foremost we know that there must have been a law when Adam sinned
before the law of Moses, because sin, (inherited sin), was then imputed
when Adam transgressed the law and sinned. The KJV, AMP, and the A.S.V.
make it clear that Adam did transgress a law. Furthurmore, Romans 14 15
says that where no law is, there is no transgression. If Adam transgressed,
then there had to have been a law at that time. Therefore, the law that
verse 13 is talking about is the law of God, (do not eat), and not the
law of Moses. The text makes it clear that in order for imputation of
sin to occur there has to be a law in place. The scripture makes it clear
that imputation of sin first occurred during Adam's day. Sin, hereditary
sin, was charged to men's account when Adam transgressed the law of God.
Romans 5 14 says: The word, "Nevertheless", joins Romans 5:14
to Romans 5 13. When read-ing Romans 5:13 and 14 together, the gramatical
structure of, "Nevertheless", implies the following. Romans
5 14, that is the thing that comes after the word nevertheless, appears
to be a contradiction to the thing that came before the word nevertheless.
That is to say that, death reigned from Adam to Moses, appears to be a
contradiction to "sin is not imputed when there is no law".
It would be equally valid to say, although, death reigned from Adam to
Moses, nevertheless, sin is not imputed when there is no law. What we
receive is the following. It
is evident from this that if men after Adam died, but sin was not imputed
when there is no law, and the law of Moses did not exist, then nevertheless,
men must have died by reason of Adam's sin. That is they died as a result
of some other law, being held against them, other than the law of Moses.
For example the law of God, do not eat. That's Paul's point. The text might very well read, for until the law {of Moses}
sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no {law of
God, law of Moses, or law written on our hearts}, that is no law anywhere.
We know this usage of "law" is correct because, sin was imputed
when Adam sinned. Therefore, there must have been a law at that time.
Actually, the text is saying the opposite of what you might think the
premise is saying. Let us state the premise in the positive instead of
the negative, and change some things around which we seem to be having
a problem with because equals can be substituted for equals. The text
might read. "In order for the imputation of sin to occur, there has
to be a law in place. Nevertheless, sin was in the world before the law
of Moses". We might ask how was sin in the world before the law of
Moses, if there was no law of Moses. The answer is suddenly obvious. Before
the law of Moses, there was a law of God, which was the cause of the imputation
of sin. To
that end, these verses explain our righteousness as a result of what Jesus
did. In discussing this topic, it contrasts our righteousness, with Adam's
sin. In discussing sin, verse 13 uses the concept of imputation of sin.
It explains that the imputation of sin is parallel with the imputation
of righteousness. Lets first look at the definition of imputation. The dictionary explains that in Romans 5, the nature of
imputation is the same weather if the imputation of sin or the imputation
of righteousness. Let's look a little further to see what natures of imputation
are available. According
to the dictionary the nature of imputation in Romans 5 is the same, weather
we are talking about imputation of sin or imputation of righteousness.
Furthermore, imputation can be the result of our own sin or righteousness,
or someone else's sin or righteousness. Clearly, the nature of righteousness
in the text, is someone else's righteousness or inherited righteousness.
Therefore, far more likely than not, the text is talking about someone
else's sin or inherited sin. That is Adam's sin, inherited sin. In Romans
4 and 5 the concept of imputation is mentioned maybe as many as 10 times.
Clearly, every time except one time in Romans 5 13, we agree that imputation,
is talking about, counting to another person's account, either sin or
righteousness. That is inherited sin or righteousness, It is only in Romans
5:13, that the idea of counting to one's own account is perceived. That
is it is only in Romans 5 13 that the idea of personal sin, is interpreted
by some. Some say, God was not holding our personal sins against us before
the law of Moses. I
submit to you that the idea of counting sin to another persons' account
or inherited sin is what Romans 5:13 is addressing. The statement sin
is not imputed when there is no law, is synonymous with saying inherited
sin is not charged to men's account when there is no law. The text is
not saying personal sins are not charged to men's account when there is
no law. Nevertheless, the premis that God was not charging sin to men's
account before the law of Moses, does imply that God was not charging
personal sins to men's account before the law of Moses. Thus the principle,
where there is no law there is no imputation goes array. Because it is
not clear that God was not imputing or charging personal sin to men's
account before the law of Moses. Now, let us examine how the text could
make sense if the imputation of sin is someone else's sin in Romans 5
13. To be more precise, there are many examples in the bible where God
was charging personal sins to men's account before the law of Moses. For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed when there is no law. This is an example of imputation of sin after the law of Moses. This sin is credited to someone else's account. The text is saying that this type of imputation would not have been just if there was no law to the father. Thus this would not have occurred before the law of Moses. That is, before a law of Moses was given to to the father. Likewise, the imputation of sin, or inherited sin was
visited upon men before the law of Moses due to Adam breaking the law
of God (do not eat). If there had not been a law to Adam, there would
not have been an imputation of sin to us as a result of the sins of Adam.
This is the heart of the text, "sin is not imputed when there is
no law". Crediting or charging sin to someone else's account, is a unique definition of imputation. Does, imputation in the principle, "but sin is not imputed when there is no law", in Romans 5 13, refer to sin being charged to the account of the person committing the sin, often called personal sins. Does it refer to sin being charged to someone else's account, often called inherited sin. Finally, does imputation here refer to both, the account of the person committing the sin as well as someone else's account, that is personal, and inherited sins. I
submit that the context makes it clear that imputation here refers to
if there was no law to Adam, there would not have been any inherited sin
as a result of the law to Adam. It does not refer to personal sins, as
a result of the Law Of Moses. It does not say that if there was no law
to us by the law of Moses, there would not be any imputation of personal
sins. The erroneous interpretation that if there was no Law Of Moses,
personal sins would not be charged to men's account, comes from the reference
of the Law Of Moses in verse 14, "Nevertheless death reigned from
Adam to Moses". The usage of the word sin, in the principle, "sin
is not imputed when there is no law", could very well be stated as,
sin is not inherited when there is no law to the person committing the
sin. This definition comes out of the context. Actually, there are many
examples in the bible where sin was charged to the account of the sinner
before the law of Moses, which we will see shortly. This concept that the sins of one man is charged to the
account of another proceeds from the understanding that, of course it
is just to charge sin to the account of the person committing the sin.
We do not need to be told that that is true. However, the point that the
text is making is that, it is unjust to charge sin to the account of someone
that he represents if there is no law to the person committing the sin.
It is unjust to charge sin to the account of the son if there is no law
to the father, if there is no high-handed sin. This principle, proceeds
in part from the principle that, when there is a law to transgress, violation
or transgression of the law constitutes an, in your face, or high-handed
sin attitude. This, in your face attitude, does not exist when the sin
is un-known, uncertain, by accident or manslaughter. So the concept indicates
a difference between high-handed sin, and un-known sin. This difference
was also brought out by the fact that, there was no personal sin offering
for high-handed sin in the Old Testament. Furthermore,
Romans 2 12 to 14 focuses on God dealing with our personal sins before
the law of Moses or during the patriarchal dispensation. It makes it clear
that personal sin was charged to our account before the law of Moses.
It goes on to say that God is justified in charging our personal sins
to our account, "you are without excuse old man", because we
have the law written on our hearts. The undisputable evidence of the fact
that the law is written on our hearts is; we accuse others when they steal,
kill and rape us, then we try to excuse ourselves when we do the same
thing to them, just because there is no law. This is often categorized
as getting off on a technicality. Therefore, we are inexcusable and will
be judged accordingly. Our personal sins will be charged to our account
weather or not there is a written or spoken law. After all, God counted
sin to men's account before the law of Moses. For in Romans 5 4, in reference
to sin before the law of Moses, God said "You are without excuse
old man", weather you had a law written by Moses, a law written by
God, or a law witten on your heart, because in either case you knew. Knowing
it what makes you personally liable. While all in every generation have sinned, verse 14 shows
that only the patriarchal dispensation is under consideration here. We
know that during the time between Adam and Moses there were laws from
God, to which men were accountable, laws written on their hearts as well
as direct positive commands. Others besides Adam, had positive laws during
the patriarchal age. Where there is no law sin is not imputed. There must
therefore have been a law during that period, because sin, (inherited
sin) was then imputed when Adam sinned. There must therefore have been
a law during that period, because sin (personal sin) was then imputed
when Cain slew Able. Cain was inexcusable even though he lacked a formal
written law. Cain violated a moral law of God and killed Abel. God had
warned him to deal with his feelings against Abel, for, as he said, "sin
croucheth at the door". Be careful of how you treat your brother!
Cain was not careful. He went to the other extream and murdered his brother.
Cain also violated God's laws concerning worship and sacrifice, which
came directly from the mouth of God, just as God's law to Adam did. God
destroyed Sodom because of the sins of men before the Law Of Moses. God
destroyed the whole world because he charged our personal sins to our
account, before the law of Moses. Any word spoken by God is law. God spoke
to men directly and moral laws were written on our hearts. We are without
excuse. We have to be careful, how we build a doctrine around
Romans 5 13. Which of us would say that God was unjust for charging sin
to Cains's account and thus judging him. We would most assuredly be incorrect.
After all in addition to punishing Cain with a punishment that was more
then he could bear, God destroyed the whole world because of the personal
sins of men before the law of Moses. Therefore, how can we say that "sin
is not imputed when there is no law" means personal sins were not
charged to men before the law of Moses.
|