TMSJ 32/1 (Spring 2021) 5–19 IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS: THE APOSTLE PAUL AND ISAIAH 53 J. V. Fesko Ph.D., University of Aberdeen Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology Reformed Theological Seminary * * * * * The Heidelberg Catechism asks the question: “How can man be righteous before God?” To answer this question, most would refer to New Testament passages, likely in Romans or other Pauline epistles. But the New Testament writers developed their understanding of justification by reading their sacred texts—what is now referred to as the Old Testament. While the doctrine of imputation can be found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, there are few texts as clear and rich as Isaiah 53—the song of a coming Servant, “the righteous one” who would “make many to be accounted right- eous” (53:11). This article contends that when Paul was writing critical New Testa- ment passages on the doctrine of imputation, he was likely doing so while pouring over Isaiah 53. * * * * * The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is a chief component in the historic Protestant understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.1 Numerous Reformation-era confessions attest to the doctrine, though the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) provides a common expression. When it asks, “How are you righteous before God?” the catechism responds that one can only lay hold of Christ’s righteousness by true faith in Him. Even though man has sinned against God’s commandments, God grants and “credits” to sinners “the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ,” as if the sinner had never sinned and as if he had been perfectly obedient.2 In other words, when God declares sinners righteous before the divine bar, He imputes, accredits, or counts the obedience and suffering of 1 This essay is updated material originally presented in J. V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption (Fearn: Mentor, 2016), 245–315. 2 For the Heidelberg Catechism, q. 60, see Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, 3 vols. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003). 5 6 | The Apostle Paul and Isaiah 53 Christ to the believer by grace alone through faith alone. Historically, discussion about imputation has rightly focused upon key Pauline passages, such as Romans 4:1–8, 5:12–21, and 2 Corinthians 5:17–21. Equally important, however, are the Old Testament roots for the doctrine of imputation. There are a number of passages to consider for the doctrine of imputation, such as Achan’s sin (Josh 7), the Day of Atonement (Lev 16), David’s sinful census (1 Chron 21), or Joshua’s installment (Zech 3:1–5). This essay, however, will focus upon Isaiah 53 and the fourth Servant Song.3 The thesis of this essay is that Isaiah 53 serves as a significant Old Testament text for Paul’s doctrine of imputation. Paul does not create the doctrine ex nihilo, but draws it from Isaiah’s fourth Servant Song and employs it at several points in his letters. This essay begins with an examination of the fourth Servant Song, and then explores the connections to four Pauline texts: Romans 4:25; 5:12–19; 8:1–4; and 2 Corinthians 5:19–21. The essay then concludes with observations about the Old Testament roots of Paul’s doctrine of imputation. The Fourth Servant Song Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:10) ויהוה חפץ דכאו החלי אם תשׂים אשׁם נפשׁו יראה זרע יאריך ימים וחפץ יהוה בידו יצלח This is a .(אשם) ”Isaiah states that the Servant would be an “offering for guilt occurs א ש ם unique category of offering within Israel’s sacrificial system. The term in several places in the Levitical code, but most notably in Leviticus 5:17–19, which addresses unconscious violations against Yahweh’s commands, and in 6:1–7 (MT 5:20–26), with instructions to make amends for violated oaths. Initially, such sins may not seem relevant to Isaiah’s context and the Servant’s mission—to break the and somehow end the exile. How does this concept , א ש ם claim of the law, offer an was a multifaceted remedy for breaches of the covenant אשם relate to imputation? An ,מעל was a remedy for a אשם that were committed specifically against Yahweh. The or for a violation of the sanctity of anything that Yahweh designated as holy (Lev 4 5:15; 6:2; Num 5:6; Ezra 10:10, 19; Josh 7:1ff; 20:20; 1 Chron 2:7).9F was a significant breach of the covenant that required exile from the מ ע ל A community, or from that which was holy. It was a sin specifically against God (cf. Num 5:6).5 When Achan, for example, took forbidden plunder in the opening required both his and his family’s מ ע ל campaign to conquer the promised land, his 6 death because he broke the covenant.11F When Miriam challenged Moses’s leadership, 3 For explanation of these passages, see J. V. Fesko, Death in Adam, Life in Christ: The Doctrine of Imputation (Fearn: Mentor, 2016), 175–96. 4 Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: the ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 7, 13, 16, 20–21, 125; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 339–45. 5 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 345. 6 Joel K. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 92. The Master’s Seminary Journal | 7 and was therefore struck with leprosy and exiled from the camp מעל she committed a to convey the א ש ם cf. Num 5:5–7; 12:1–16; Lev 14:12, 21).7 Isaiah invokes the term) idea that Israel had breached the covenant and desecrated the sanctity of the land and Yahweh’s holiness. This required their expulsion from the land, which contained God’s dwelling place, the temple (cf. 2 Chron 36:14–21).8 But in this case, the is repaired, not by a vicarious animal substitute (e.g., Lev 5:15–17), but מ ע ל nation’s means that Israel has א ש ם by the Servant. That Isaiah invokes the category of And now, the Servant brings . מ ע ל breached the covenant; they have committed a reconciliation as covenant surety. The Servant stands in the gap and reconciles Yahweh to the covenantally unfaithful Israelites. The one Servant acts as covenant surety for the many confederated individuals. In this respect, the individual-corporate dynamic appears, which is a key element in the doctrine of imputation. The actions of the one impact the lives of the many— whether negatively, as with Adam’s sin, or positively, as with Christ’s obedience. In this case, the individual Servant suffers, as “he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors” (Isa 53:12). The Servant alone poured out his soul unto death, transgressors”). The“) פשעים many”) for the“) רבים and He alone bore the sin of the one-and-the-many dynamic is operative in the fourth song, a point confirmed by Christ’s own invocation of this language. Arguably alluding to the third and fourth Servant Songs, Christ tells His disciples: “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Here Christ, the One, offers His life as a ransom for the many. Moreover, He characterizes his sacrificial activity in Isaianic Servant-terms. Jesus serves; He does not come to be served (cf. Luke 22:27). But what of imputation? The first important element of exegetical data appears the sin of many, and makes [נשא] in the latter half of Isaiah 53:12, “He bore intercession for the transgressors.” This language points back to the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 when the high priest placed his hands upon the scapegoat and transferred Israel’s sins to the sacrificial animal (Lev 16:22).9 The imposition of the hands upon another, depending upon the context, symbolized the transfer of something from one person to another, such as with the transfer of authority from Moses to Joshua (Num 27:18).10 But in this particular case, the text clearly states that all their iniquities on itself” (Lev 16:22). Isaiah’s use of the [נשא] the “goat shall bear ,has roots in the Day of Atonement with its transfer of sin from Israel נשא term through the high priest, to the goat, which would then bear the sin and carry it into 7 Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 80. 8 Richard E. Averbeck, “Christian Interpretations of Isaiah 53,” in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 48–58; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 346, 356; William Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honor of William McKane, ed. James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 113–38, esp. 117, 119, 121, 124–25. 9 John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 510–11; Gordon J.