The
Epistles of Paul on the Righteousness of God
by George Smeaton
AS Peter is called the apostle of hope, and John of love, Paul may be
called the apostle of faith, or more strictly, of the righteousness of faith.
Paul develops and applies the doctrine the doctrine of the atonement in a full,
comprehensive manner. Even though he was not a disciple of Christ when Jesus
taught in the days of His flesh, Paul was still taught by the revelation of
Jesus Christ (Gal. i. 12), and even caught up into paradise to hear unspeakable
words (2 Cor. xii. 4). Apart from this, he was led by the Spirit into the
import of the law and the prophets, and there found the truth which his nature
needed, and which was all verified in the Lord’s atoning death. He reproduces
the doctrine in many new lights, from the objective truth opened up to him in
the Old Testament, and from his own deep experimental acquaintance with Christ
as the end of the law.
As to the order of conducting the inquiry, we purpose to take the epistles
in the order in which they stand in the common editions of the Bible. The
advantage obtained by following the chronological order in which the epistles
are supposed to have been written—for there is by no means a complete
uniformity of opinion on their exact order—will not compensate for the
inconvenience of departing from the well known arrangement. Rather we abide by
it because we can discover no trace of any development of Paul’s views from one
stage to another: he was like himself from the moment when he died to the law
by the reception of Christ (Rom. vii. 4,9). Not that his epistles are all
alike; but they take their color from the circumstances and prevalent
sentiments in the various churches.
While the apostle makes use of all the terms employed by the other writers,
such as redemption, propitiation, peace, and the like, descriptive of Christ’s
sacrificial death, there is one peculiar to him, THE
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, which very
frequently occurs. Though announced in the prophets, and indirectly alluded to
by Peter and John in their use of the designation “the Righteous One,” it is
specially found in Paul, who uses this abstract expression to describe the
atonement in relation to divine law.
I purpose in this section to consider somewhat fully the righteousness of
God, and to group together the Pauline doctrine on the subject. Amid the
manifold negations of the times, it cannot be without its use to give a new
grounding to this important expression. That a great change has entered in the
mode of viewing the righteousness of God, compared with the general recognition
which it received in all the Protestant churches, cannot be doubtful to any one
who has watched the changes of opinion on the subject of the atonement. This
was long the descriptive name for the material cause of a sinner’s acceptance
with God. The task we impose on ourselves is to ascertain the import of the
phrase, “the righteousness of God,” and to define the place which it occupies in
the Pauline epistles; and we aim at an objective statement, embodying the
results of exegetical inquiry, more than a formal discussion of the opinions
which have appeared on the ecclesiastical field, though we cannot omit all
notice of recent views fundamentally opposed to the proper meaning of the
terms. We wish to go direct to the apostles, except where it is indispensably
necessary to refer to recent obscuring theories. The task of reproducing
apostolic doctrine in its true significance and organic connections, is
becoming an urgent duty; and the part assigned to exegetical theology is to
recall, as far as may be, not only single phrases, but the general outline of
those truths by which the apostles, as the chosen organs of Christ’s
revelation, exhibited in the church the riches of divine grace as seen in the
incarnate Word, and unfolded to them after His ascension.
An occasion for a full inquiry into the righteousness of God will be found
also in the fact that a large class of minds betray a hesitancy which contrasts
painfully with the liberty and boldness which marked the days of the apostles.
This attaches to not a few who are truly occupied with the personal Redeemer
and the contemplation of the divine Life, but stop short of defining the mode
in which THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD stands related to LIFE in the Pauline scheme of doctrine. They evince little
interest indeed as to the relation of these points to each other, seeking the
fellowship of life with Christ without distinct ideas as to the indispensable
conditions of this communion. Under the influence of what can only be called a
mystic element, limiting the regard to Christ IN
US, and failing to give prominence to Christ FOR US, they never breathe freely the liberty of the gospel. They
have fallen under a scheme of doctrine which makes no distinction between the
person and the nature, the standing of the man and the renovation of the heart,
the objective and the subjective; and though correctly regarding the person of
Christ as the center point of Christianity and the fountain of life, they do
not know how Life stands related to Righteousness—a thought pervading the whole
Pauline doctrine.
Our first inquiry must be to ascertain the precise import of the
righteousness of God in the Pauline epistles, and the place it holds in them. A
comparison of these epistles with one another shows that there are two
divisions or classes, with their own marked peculiarity, according as the
apostle has occasion to counteract a Jewish Legalism, or a tendency to an incipient
Gnosticism, invading the Christian churches while he yet lived. To the
pharisaic cast of thought, with its attachment to the works of the law, and the
enforcement of legal ceremonies as necessary, allusion is made in the Epistles
to the Galatians, Romans, and Philippians; and there the righteousness of God
is the central thought. To the oriental theosophy, with its claim to a higher
wisdom, which put notions in the place of the personal Redeemer, allusion is
made in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians (Col. ii. 8). There the
personal Christ, and the life found in Him, are the central thoughts. But even
there LIFE is viewed as subsequent to, and
dependent on, the atonement. To the former class of the Pauline epistles we
direct our attention in this section. And our purpose is to notice the place
which THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD holds in them; for this phrase, as we shall
find, is descriptive of the finished work of Christ, as approved at the divine
tribunal, and the meritorious cause of our acceptance.
Throughout the doctrinal part of the Epistle to the Romans, the
righteousness of God, as a descriptive name for the atonement, is the grand
theme. The Epistle to the Galatians, again, is nothing else than an enforcement
of the great truth, that to the close of the Christian’s career, the
righteousness of faith is the one plea valid before God; and no second
recommendation or condition, in the form of works, is of any avail (Gal. ii.
21, iii. 21, vi. 5). In the Epistles to the Corinthians we find the same theme
in the same antithesis, with this difference only, that other points required
attention in this church (1 Cor. i. 30; 2 Cor. iii. 9). But when the apostle
contrasts the two economies, the law is called the ministry of condemnation,
and the gospel the ministry of righteousness. In the Epistle to the Philippians
we find Paul, when very near the close of his career, still counting all things
but loss for this righteousness, and far from having outlived this thought,
which coloured his ideas in prospect of approaching martyrdom (Phil. iii. 9).
We find allusion to the righteousness of God also in the pastoral epistles
(Tit. iii. 5–7).
Having seen how prevalent is the reference to the righteousness of God in
the Pauline epistles, we have next to consider in what it consists. And here it
will be necessary to clear up some misconceptions.
1. The phrase cannot be held to refer to the divine attribute of
righteousness. Divine justice, reflected in the law, is indeed the rule or
standard on which, in a definite sense, the righteousness of God is measured;
but this righteousness is not the divine attribute itself. The expression is
uniformly introduced in Scripture as descriptive of what is due from man, or as
the ethical response on man’s side to a divine claim. It is a name for that
which Adam should have rendered, and not a divine perfection. Some faint color
seems to be lent to the idea that it may be the divine attribute by the
apparent connection—though it is but apparent—between the two statements in two
successive verses: “The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel;” and,
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness” (Rom. i.
17,18). But the two statements, though placed in close juxtaposition, and
apparently connected by a causal particle (gar),
belong to two wholly different economies, and have nothing in common. The tacit
thought is: All alike need the provision of the gospel, and must repair to it; FOR they have nothing to expect but a revelation
of wrath on their own account. The mode of expounding this phrase by allusion
to the divine attribute was in reality overcome at the Reformation. Luther
tells us that, having long had a desire to understand the Epistle to the
Romans, he was always stopped by the expression “the righteousness of God,”
which he understood as the divine attribute; but after long meditations, and
spending days and nights in these thoughts, the nature of that righteousness
which justifies us was discovered to him; upon which he felt himself born anew,
and the whole Scriptures become quite a different thing. It is evident, indeed,
that there can be no allusion to the divine attribute of justice, because this
would furnish the idea of an incensed God, which is the purport of the law;
whereas the provision is one of grace, displaying a reconciling and justifying
God, which is the essence of the gospel. Besides, such an acceptation as that
which we oppose would not adapt itself to the general phraseology of Scripture.
Thus, in the memorable passage which represents Christ as made sin that we
might be made the righteousness of God, it is evident that in no sense of the
terms, and with no propriety of language, could it be said of the Christian
that he is made the attribute of righteousness (2 Cor. v. 21). The fact, too,
that it is commonly put in antithesis to our own righteousness (Phil. iii. 9),
determines the significance of the expression to be something different from
the divine attribute. The only part which the divine justice acts in this
matter is, that it furnishes the rule or standard by which it is tried. When
this righteousness is called a gift (Rom. v. 17), and said to be of God, or
divinely provided, in contrast with that which is of the law and our own (Phil.
iii. 9), the idea is, that for those who have no righteousness of their own
this is the gracious provision of God.
Attempts have been made, however, to explain the phrase in a mystic way, by
referring it to Christ’s essential righteousness as a divine person. This
notion, propounded by Osiander, and restored by some men of mystic tendencies,
separates the one indivisible work of Christ into two parts, allowing pardon to
be procured by Christ’s atoning blood, but maintaining that righteousness is
the communication of Christ’s essential attribute. That argues a complete
misconception of Christ’s mediatorial work, which was meant to bring in what
was due from man as a creature, and has everything in common with what the
first man should have produced. The essential righteousness belongs to God as
God, and to the Son of God as a divine person. But the righteousness of which
the apostle speaks is that which was required from man as man, and which a
Mediator, as our substitute, brought in to meet our wants; and though this
could be brought in only by a God–man, uniting the two natures in one person,
the whole is properly a created, not an uncreated, a human, not a divine
righteousness. The supreme Lawgiver did not demand the essential righteousness
of God, but what was proper to a creature made in the likeness and image of
God. And it consists in action, not in the mere possession of a perfect nature.
Adam had the pure nature, but failed in rendering the righteousness. But
neither is it mere outward action or outward deed, but a perfect nature acting
itself out, or approving itself to the Lawgiver by a compliance with the law in
the sphere of tried obedience.*
* See Thomasius' able discussion on the views
of Osiander in his two University Lectures, de obedientia Christi activa, Erlangen
1846.
We have only to examine the language of Scripture to see that the
righteousness of God of which Paul so often speaks is not His essential
righteousness: for God does not demand from man His own essential
righteousness, but that which is competent to a creature; and the righteousness
of created beings corresponds to the thought of God and the will of God, from
whom they derive their origin. The creature’s destiny is to bear the impress of
the divine perfections in its sphere. Such would have been Adam’s righteousness
had it been verified (v. 12), that which the creature owes to the Creator, not
that which the Creator Himself possesses. This will appear from the general
phraseology of Scripture (Rom. x. 3).
2. Another opinion, much more common than the former, is that the righteousness
of God denotes an inward righteousness, on the ground of which, whether it is
already perfect or not, God pronounces men righteous by a judicial sentence.
This is the interpretation given by Meander, Olshausen, and others; and it is
still accepted by not a few believing men in various churches, though not to
the same extent as formerly Lipsius,* in his treatise on the Pauline view of
justification, contends that the word never refers merely to an objective
relation, but always to an inward condition as well, sometimes delineated in
its principle, and sometimes in its future perfection. We must do these writers
the justice to state, that by this they do not mean a justification by works.
While they interpret it as the inner righteousness which God works, and
represent it as so pleasing to God, that on account of it He pronounces men
righteous, though not yet completely perfect, they avoid the abyss of legalism,
and lay stress on the faith which unites us to the person of Christ as the
Life. This view has everything in common with the doctrine of Augustine and the
Jansenists on the same subject; drawing a distinction between a man’s own
righteousness (Phil. iii. 9), as undertaken in the exercise of his unaided
powers, and that which is “of God,” interpreted as meaning produced by divine
grace. This, they think, is the import of the expression “the righteousness of
God.”
* Die Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, von Dr. Lipsius, Leipzig 1853.
But the antithesis between our own righteousness and that which is called
the righteousness of God is different. It is between that which is subjective
(our own) and that which is objective (God’s.) The opinion we are
controverting, though different from legalism, and speaking of salvation by
faith, is at variance with the Pauline doctrine, as will appear by two
considerations. (1.) The objective relation expressed by the term stands out in
bold relief when we consider the peculiar antithesis between Christ made sin
for us, and believers made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. v. 21).
These words intimate that, in the same sense in which Christ was made sin—that
is, objectively and by imputation—in that sense are His people made the
righteousness of God. Nor is the sense different in another passage, where the
apostle contrasts the going about to establish a personal righteousness, and
submitting to the righteousness of God (Rom. x. 3); or when he declares that he
wishes to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, but the
righteousness which is of God (Phil. iii. 9). It cannot be alleged that the
antithesis in the latter passage is between works of nature and works of grace,
works of law and works of faith. (2.) It obliterates the distinction between
the person and the nature and the standing in the first or second Adam, with
which the whole Scripture is replete. It confounds righteousness and life,
which are ever carefully, the one being the way to the other. This is
conclusive against the interpretation, if we would abide by the apostle’s use
of language, and not efface his express distinctions.
3. Another opinion is, that faith itself is counted as the Righteousness.
There are various modifications of this opinion; but none of them supposes an
objective righteousness of God that has been wrought out, and then revealed in
the gospel; and in almost every case it throws the mind back on itself in a
neonomian tendency. (Neonomianism is the theory that the gospel is a law that
takes the place of Mosaic law.)
a. To begin with that phase of it which is simply Arminian, or that
has everything in common with Arminianism, the act of faith is made this
righteousness. The answer is obvious: Faith, in that case, is transformed into
a new law, whereas we are accepted without works of law. Besides, this theory
assumes that God accepts an imperfect title for a perfect, by accommodating His
right to man’s inability; an interpretation which, if carried out to the full,
is derogatory to the divine law, and fitted to explode the whole redemption
work of Christ. If the divine law can be relaxed by God’s receding from His
rights, why may He not recede to a yet larger degree, and wholly supersede the
necessity of the incarnation and atonement? The inflexible strictness and
immutable claims of the divine law are taken for granted by the atonement. This
view was advocated by Tittmann,* who remarks that Scripture does not teach that
the righteousness of Christ is imputed to men, but that faith is counted for
righteousness. Though this has some color from expression, the expression, “Faith
is counted for righteousness,” it loses this when the phrase is properly
rendered. It should be rendered, “Faith is counted unto righteousness,”
expressing the result, and lends no countenance to the notion that a substitute
is accepted for a perfect righteousness. The righteousness of God is made ours
through faith as the means of reception (Rom. iii. 22). But, on the other
theory, how can the sentence of the Judge have a sufficient ground? A method of
acceptance, without a real righteousness which can be measured on the divine
claims, neither meets the requirements of God’s justice nor satisfies an
awakened conscience.
* See his treatise, de obedientia Christi
ex apostoli Pauli sententia, appended to his Synonyms (p. 311). Nitzsch, in
his protestantische Beantwortung der Symbolik Dr. Möhler, p. 139, adopts
the same conclusion, and commends Tittmann's Essay.
b. A modification of the same view, decidedly in a neonomian
tendency, though of a subtle nature, is proposed by an ingenious opponent of
the vicarious sacrifice. It is alleged that Christianity makes known the
absolute forgiveness of sin without atonement as its procuring cause, and that
the belief of this offer is considered as righteousness. Faith is thus supposed
to be God–pleasing conduct, and accepted as righteousness. When a man renders
this obedience, his conduct is pleasing in God’s sight, and reckoned for
righteousness.* Apart from other considerations, this theory supposes not a
real, but a merely putative righteousness; and thus the foundation of
acceptance is completely undermined.
* See Hofmann's Schriftbeweis, i. p.
649. This perverts the idea of faith. Instead of making faith simply receptive,
he makes it conduct, or verhalten, getting a reward!
4. Another opinion prevalent, is to the effect that the righteousness of God
denotes the state of being justified. Not to mention names in the last age,
this view was held by Stuart of Andover, and Wieseler* on Galatians. The latter
makes it the state into which the Justified are brought, or the condition of
possessing Justification. This view, though certainly nearer the truth the
others already mentioned, is faulty: first, because it is not the precise
interpretation of the term righteousness; and next, because it transposes the
order of biblical doctrines. Righteousness is represented in the Pauline scheme
of doctrine as the basis, or material cause, of the sentence of justification,
not conversely. So far, indeed, is this view correct, that it makes allusion to
our relation Godward, not to moral conduct; but it fails to bring out the
substantive character of the righteousness, as consisting in tried obedience.
The term righteousness, as we shall see, does not in any passage mean the state
of justification. If the state of justification does not proceed on an
underlying righteousness as its basis, we are lost in the mists of uncertainty.
The divine rectitude insists, and cannot but insist, on a true fulfillment of
the divine law, and acquits on no other ground than on the presentation of an
actual obedience. But, on this theory, what is assumed as the material cause of
justification? No one can be justified, in the government of a righteous God,
by a connivance at defects, or by being accounted what he is not by a mere
make–believe. Scripture everywhere shows that God demands a real, substantive
righteousness.
* Commentar uber den Brief an die Galater,
von Dr. Karl Wieseler, 1859. He says, p. 177: "The act by which God dikaioi the sinner Paul calls dikaiwsiV (Rom.
iv. 25, v. 18), and the state of possessing this dikaiwsiV of
God he calls dikaiosunh
qeou, which therefore, like the dikaiousqai, comes from faith (Rom. i. 17)," etc. This is a
complete confusion of ideas.
These are all baseless theories, and lead to the notion of an acceptilation,
that is, to the reputing of one to be what he is not. A complete righteousness,
objectively brought in, on these theories, exists no longer. If so, faith wants
its security, and rests on no corresponding reality. We must now ascertain the
precise meaning of the phrase against these modern comments, which to a large
extent declare that faith is taken for the righteousness, without any
underlying reality. They may be in keeping with modern notions as to Christ’s
atonement; but our aim is to investigate the biblical import of the expression.
Having canvassed the subject negatively, it remains that we investigate it
positively from the apostle’s words.
1. An analysis of the apostle’s language suffices to show that this
righteousness is an actually accomplished fact; not less a historical reality
than sin, and as productive of results, but in an opposite direction. These two
terms throw light on each other. That this righteousness is the finished work
of Christ, considered from the view–point of the divine approval, may be proved
from the fact that it is presented to us as the great subject–matter of the
gospel. It is said to he revealed (Rom. i. 17), and the righteousness must
exist if it is revealed. The same thing may be argued from the title given to
the gospel as the ministry of righteousness (2 Cor. iii. 19): for how could an
economy be instituted to proclaim what did not exist? When it is called the
gift of righteousness (Rom. v. 17), and described as a provision unto all and
upon all them that believe (Rom. iii. 22), we must conclude that it exists.
That the righteousness of God is an actual reality, is proved by the twofold
parallel which the apostle draws between sin and righteousness, and between the
death which is the result of the one, and the life which is the equally certain
result of the other (Rom. i. 18– iii. 18, and Rom. v. 12–18). If we consider
these counterparts, we shall find that the apostle places sin and righteousness
in marked antithesis. In entering on the description of the prevalence of sin,
he not only displays the wants of mankind, but exhibits the two great
counterparts of sin and righteousness as equal realities,—the one as the
world’s ruin, the other as its restoration. The one is a completed fact as well
as the other. They are the only two great events or facts in the world’s
history, and they confront each other.
At this point we may consider the peculiar shade of meaning which the phrase
acquires when put in connection with God. Why is it designated GOD’S righteousness, or the righteousness of God?
Modern interpreters generally understand that it is so called because God was
its author, as Christ is also called the Lamb of God because God was the
provider of the Lamb. We regard it as only a briefer expression of what is more
fully described as the righteousness which is of God (Phil. iii. 9). The fact
that the phrase is contrasted with our own righteousness leads us to conclude
that it means the righteousness of which God is the author. The interpretation
long given by the Lutheran divines, that it denotes a righteousness valid
before God, is more a paraphrase* than a translation, though a legitimate
inference: for the righteousness will be valid at God's tribunal, if He was its
author. But that is rather a secondary idea involved in the other.
* Luther's rendering of dikaiosunh qeou is, Gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt, or in the
Latin form, justitia qua valet apud Deum; and Calvin goes in the same
direction, though admitting the force of the rendering, justitia qua a Deo
nobis donatur. Recent expositors pretty unanimously concur in viewing the
phrase as an instance of the genitivus auctoris, and regard this as the
strict grammatical construction. Fritzsche, in his exact philological
commentary, tries to vindicate Luther's rendering, but without success. The
appeal to Jas. i. 20 is not in point.
2. The manifestation of this righteousness as a historic fact is next
noticed: “Now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested” (Rom.
iii. 21). This refers to its manifestation as a historic fact in the
incarnation and finished work of Christ. The allusion is not so much to its
revelation in the gospel, as to the bringing in of the righteousness once for
all by Christ’s manifestation in the flesh The language used by the apostle
shows that it is coincident with the person of Christ, and found in Him. It is
one of those terms—and they are various—descriptive of the obedience of Christ
in the manifoldness of its aspects and ejects. The personal Redeemer crucified
is Himself the manifestation of the righteousness of God; and though it was
completed with His finished work when He expired, and is not capable of
addition, it is not to be denied that His living through death was necessary to
the perpetuity of this righteousness of God. It was valid at death, but it is
found in the person of the Lord (1 John ii. 2). It is no transitory, past, or
putative righteousness, but one actually in the world, and the only great
reality in it; a righteousness for man, because the Lord Jesus, as very man, brought
it into Humanity. And when the Judge beholds His Son clothed with our humanity,
and presenting the righteousness of God, then follows the re–adjustment of
man’s relation to his Maker, the reunion of God and man.
But the apostle is careful notice that this righteousness was witnessed by
the law and the prophets (Rom. iii. 21). First, as to the law, the sacrifices
had special reference to it; and whether we look at the temple or at its
services, at its priesthood, or the sacrificial blood that flowed in streams
from age to age, we find a testimony to this righteousness. The law, too, in
its moral aspect held up a lofty standard, which found no corresponding reality
in any human heart, but pointed forward to Him who should one day come, saying,
“Thy law is within my heart” (Ps. xl.). It testified in both its elements
foreshadowing good things to come, and pointing out, at least when Israel was
in their normal condition, the readjusted relation of man to his Maker. As to
the prophets, moreover, their expressions as to this righteousness are often as
precise as Paul’s own words (Isa. xlv. 24, liv. 17, xlvi. 13). The apostle
alludes to the testimony of the law and the prophets, to make it evident that
this righteousness. of God was no new, unheard–of doctrine, with which the
church had no acquaintance in past ages; and in receiving it, men did not
depart from Moses and the prophets, but embraced what had before been
announced. It was no abrupt phenomenon, for which there had not been a
preparation; for the Old Testament, in all its parts, bore testimony to the
righteousness of God.
3. The standard of this righteousness is divine justice and the law of God.
Righteousness in a creature is measured by the standard of justice. There is a
manifestation of justice in demanding the satisfaction, and then in preparing
and accepting this righteousness of God: “That He might be just, and the
justifier” (Rom. iii. 26).
But specially, the law is the standard of the righteousness; that is, the
law considered as a definite expression of the justice of God. The idea of
righteousness in a creature implies conformity to law: law is the sphere of
righteousness, the element in which it moves. These two terms, law and
righteousness, are correlative, and suppose each other. To unfold the principle
of law to which this righteousness of God goes back, we find the apostle
delineating both sides,—the law considered in its violation, and then in its
positive demand with its promise of life. The transgressor of the law was under
its curse, and the Surety came under it (Gal. iii. 10). Again, it enforced its
unalterable claim to do and live (Rom. x. 5), and Christ was made under it
(Gal. iv. 4), and so became its end (Rom. x. 4). Thus He obtained its reward of
debt, not only for Himself, but for all whom He represented. A comparison of
numerous passages where the work of Christ is mentioned, leads us to the
conclusion that the phrase “righteousness of God”, wherever it occurs, involves
a subjection to law as the rule of ethical rectitude. The law, as the
transcript of God’s nature, and the mould in which man’s nature was formed, is
immutable; and far from losing its authority by human inability, it ceased not
to claim all that it ever claimed. The law to which the Lord subjected Himself,
moreover, was THE LAW AS VIOLATED. The two
aspects in which the apostle presents the law, not only to the Jews, who were
dispensationally under it, but to the Gentiles, who were not, are these:
(1) That it urges its inflexible claims to sinless obedience as the only way
to life (Gal. iii. 12); and
(2) that it comes armed with the curse incurred by its violation (Gal. iii.
10–13). That is the twofold demand of the law made upon every man. That is
apostolic doctrine, however much at variance with modern theories, which all
too superficially limit it to Israel; as if the law, in its true character,
were not a republication of the primeval and eternal law, binding on man as
man. The Lord was made under it in both respects for the production of this
everlasting righteousness; and accordingly the work of Christ is described in
its relation to the law. Thus, it is said that He was made under the law, and
that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Rom. viii. 4); that
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth
(Rom. x. 4),—an expression presupposing the fulfillment which the law demanded,
and could not but demand, till its end was reached. The additional words, “the
end of the law unto righteousness,” leave us in no doubt that the
realization of the law and its end are found in Christ.
4. As another constituent element of this righteousness, it must be added
that it owed its origin to a God–man. It was a work to the production of which
the twofold nature of the Redeemer was necessary. We have to trace the
influence of Christ’s deity in the bringing in of the everlasting righteousness
(Dan. ix.:24). Though purely human in its essential character, it is the result
of the concurrent action of both natures, and therefore of infinite value and
eternal validity; and as He was under no obligation on His own account to obey,
or to be under the law, or to be incarnate, His obedience is capable of being
given away. Hence the constant reference to the divine Sonship when the
fulfillment of the law is described (Gal. iv. 4; Rom. viii. 3). Without
personal obligation of any kind, the Son of God, in assuming humanity, entered
into all those duties which man was bound to discharge,—into the burdensome
duties of an Israelite, and into manifold temptations and trials which His
position as the sin–bearing substitute entailed. In short, He united a sinless
humanity to Himself, that, by entering into every part of our obligation as
creatures and sinners, He might bring in an everlasting righteousness. Till the
law received its satisfaction in the twofold respect already mentioned—that is,
by obedience to precept and penalty—the Supreme Judge could take none into
favor.
But this obedience of the God–man was ONE indivisible. Though possessing a
twofold aspect, it was one finished work. As man is under precept and penalty
because he is the creature of God under the eternal law of obedience, and a
sinner under condemnation, the surety obedience of the Lord must satisfy the
law in both respects. Many expositors incorrectly sunder the two, or fix
attention on the one to the exclusion of the other. Others acknowledge both,
but unhappily make the two elements separately meritorious, losing sight of the
link that binds Christ’s deeds and sufferings together as one vicarious
obedience. The latter class of divines ascribe forgiveness to the sufferings,
and the right to everlasting life to the active obedience,—an unhappy
separation, though countenanced by eminent names. As it is the work of one
Christ, it is one atoning obedience; and though we may, and must, distinguish
the elements of which it consists, we may not disjoin them, for the two
elements concur to form one obedience. That they cannot be separated appears
from many considerations, and especially from this, that in every action there
was a humiliation, and in every suffering an exercise of obedience. Both
obedience to precept and suffering for penalty are part of every event in
Christ’s life.
This atoning obedience extended over the entire life of the Lord, and was
not limited to the few hours on the cross. It was but the verification of His
sinless nature in various scenes of action and agony allotted to Him, but
formed one obedience from first to last. That the element of obedience went
into all His sufferings, sufficiently appears from numerous texts, which I
shall not expound in this place (Rom. v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8). If we
call up before our minds the usual division of human duty, according to the
different relations which man occupies to God, him, and his fellows, He learned
obedience in them all; and with the augmented trials, as they thickened and
deepened, His obedience was also augmented,—that is, was capable of increase,
though always perfect. The humanity He wore was made by Him an instrument which
He used for the great purpose of bringing in the righteousness of God; or, to
put the matter in a personal, concrete form, Christ Himself is the
righteousness of God. The Son of God made flesh, and obedient in life and
death, is our righteousness before God. Scripture knows of only ONE
righteousness uniting God and men, and the world has never seen another.
5. It remains to be added, that the righteousness of God was IN OUR STEAD as well as for our benefit. It is
the more necessary to establish the vicarious nature of this
righteousness, because not a few in every community are ready to admit the
vicarious suffering who are not willing to allow the vicarious obedience in the
whole extent of human obligation; that is, they divide the two parts of the
law, the penalty and precept, into two portions, regarding the vicarious
suffering as alone capable of imputation. But the vicarious character attaching
to the one obedience of the Lord is as plainly taught as the fact that it is a
substantive reality; and when the apostle says "We are made the
righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. v. 21), he intimates that believers
in Christ come to a realization of the fact that it was rendered in their room,
and that they are one with Him in the whole transaction. The obedience of
Christ realizes the lofty ideal or goal set before the human race; and on this
account it is the greatest event in the world's history. He was acting for His
people, and they were representatively in Him. The entrance of Christ's sinless
humanity, with the law in His heart, became the central point of all time, to
which previous ages looked forward, and after ages look back. He was the living
law, the personal law,—an event with a far more important bearing than any
other that ever occurred. It was the world's new creation. It is made ours not
less truly than if we ourselves had rendered it, IN
CONSEQUENCE OF THE LEGAL ONENESS FORMED BETWEEN US AND HIM. Not that in the Lord's experience the
personal was merged in the official, for He had not, and could not have, any of
those feelings which stand connected with personal guilty. He was always fully
conscious of inward sinlessness when the sin-bearer and curse-bearer in our
stead; and in like manner the redeemed, amid all the security of imputed righteousness,
never cease to cherish personally the feelings of conscious unworthiness and
deep abasement. That the vicarious character of the whole may appear, it is
only necessary to recall the words, "By the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous" (Rom. v. 19).
As an objection to this mode of interpreting the righteousness of faith, it
is commonly urged that the apostle nowhere uses the theological expression
"the righteousness of Christ." But when we examine the terms in which
it is expressed, the vicarious character of the righteousness is made the more
evident. CHRIST HIMSELF IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. The incarnate Son, dying in our
room, the realized ideal of what man was made to be, is made of God unto us
righteousness (1 Cor. i. 30), in such a sense that we are said to be made the
righteousness of God in Him. This is more remarkable: we are made all that
Christ was; He is the Lord our righteousness (Jer. xxiii. 6), and we are made
the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. v. 21).
Having noticed what are the elements of this righteousness, and proved that
it is but another name for the Lord's atoning obedience, it remains for us to
add, with all brevity, the way by which it is appropriated, and its immediate
as well as ulterior consequences.
6. The relation of faith to the righteousness of God is, that faith is the
hand by which it is received. The righteousness is in another person, in such a
sense that it is merely received as a gift, irrespective of moral worth on the
part of the receiver. Why is such a gift given to faith, and to no other mental
act? Partly because faith is the only way by which the soul goes out to rely on
an object beyond itself, partly because faith is the most self-emptying act of
the mind. By its very nature, it negatives everything but that righteousness
which it receives. Faith is the receptive organ by which we lay hold of the
righteousness; while the gospel, or word of God, is the medium of revealing it
(Rom. i. 17). It is unto all and upon ALL THEM
THAT BELIEVE (Rom. iii. 22).
7. The immediate effect of receiving the righteousness of God is the
sentence of absolution, called the justification of our persons; for it must be
kept in mind that the man is justified, and not his works,—the person, not the
nature. This sentence is complete at once, and capable of no addition; and it
has a twofold side,—the ABSOLVING of the
man from any charge of guilt, and the pronouncing of him ABSOLUTELY RIGHTEOUS, because in the possession
of this righteousness of God.
8. A further point demanding notice, is the relation in which the
righteousness of God stand to LIFE. This
all-important point is very much the theological question of the age; for the
relation between these two things is much misapprehended. The relation of this
righteousness to the divine life which Christ came down from heaven to restore
in a dead world, is the leading thought with all the apostles, as well as with
the Lord Himself, and it is brought out with great prominence in the Pauline
epistles (Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii. 10). The relation between the two is simply
this: RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE PRICE, AND LIFE IS THE
REWARD. It is a relation intimated in the law, which was ordained to
life, but was found to be unto death (Rom. vii. 10). The man who should do what
is enjoined was to receive life in return (Rom. x. 5). Modern theology, at
least of the German type, and as far as it is modified from that quarter,
evinces little interest about the relation in which the two points,
righteousness and life, stand to each other. But a misapprehension here
disorganizes the whole gospel. And the mystic theology which merely seeks
communion with God, and life in Him, through the incarnation, has no adequate
idea of the conditions on which life is conferred. They seek to delineate the
life as an absolute donation apart from righteousness, or an atoning sacrifice
as its ground. They speak of Christ IN US,
not of Christ FOR US. There is no life,
however, but through a vicarious death. The important question of the age, and
of all ages, is, How does life reach us? and the answer is, By a vicarious
fulfilment of the law in precept and penalty; in others words, by an atonement.