Examining the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ
A Study in Calvinistic Sacred
Cow-ism by Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker,
modified http://idsaudio.org/ids/pdf/classic/imputation.pdf
A sacred cow is a doctrine or belief that
one cannot examine and weigh to consider its truth claims without upsetting
people. An example of a sacred cow in Calvinistic1 theological circles is the imputation of the active
obedience (AO) of Jesus Christ. It is a doctrine that is a lynchpin of
Covenant Theology (CT).2 It has been
handed down from one generation to another without being questioned, and after
the passage of time has come to be regarded as a given.
Active (or Preceptive) Obedience: The perfect obedience of Jesus
Christ to the Mosaic Law.
Passive (or
Penal) obedience: Christ’s sacrificial death by which He paid the penalty
for the sins of the elect.3
Imputation: Getting
something that you did not earn. Imputation, rather abstractly, describes how
all that Jesus accomplished for us gets to us. So, one might say that
imputation communicates that all that Jesus did on the cross is placed
or wired into your “spiritual bank account” when you believe.
Righteousness: Acceptance with
God. In the context of salvation, it entails whatever God requires in order to
be accepted by Him.
---------------------
1 “Calvinistic” herein referrs to Calvinism only as it touches on soteriology—the doctrines of grace or the five
points of Calvinism.
2 This connection is
further explained later.
3 Some folks object to
our limitations on the definition of passive obedience (
Making a Molehill Out of a Mountain
Reformed
theologian Louis Berkhof believed that the passive
obedience (
“…if He (Christ) had
merely paid the penalty (for the believer), without meeting the original
demands of the law (for the believer), He would have left man in the position
of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal
life in the way of obedience. By His AO, however, He carried His people beyond
that point and gave them a claim to everlasting life.”4
According to Berkhof, if only the PO of Christ (POC) is imputed to the
believer, this would not give him eternal life. He would have to obey God
perfectly and earn eternal life on His own. The man who only has the POC
imputed to him would be in a spiritual
Consider what
Scripture actually says that Jesus accomplished by His death on the cross— His
PO. Hebrews is a great book to turn to when considering the POC because it is
the book of the Bible that spills the most ink concerning Christ’s sacrificial
work. Heb.10 extols the greatness of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ in
contrast to the repetitive but ineffective sacrifices offered by the Levitical priests:
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious
duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for
sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his
enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made
perfect forever those who are being made holy (Heb.10:11-14).
This passage
speaks only about Christ’s priestly sacrifice for the sins of His people. It says nothing about His righteous life.
The sacrifice of Christ or the imputation of the POC does two things for the
believer. First, it makes the believer perfect—that is the believer is viewed
as though he had obeyed the law perfectly (v.14a). Second, it purchases a work
of the Spirit in the life of the believer that guarantees that he will grow in
holiness (14b). Our concern here is for the perfect status the believer is
given because of the imputation of the POC. In the context of the book, “perfection” is referring to the state
of moral innocence that allows one to be accepted by God—to stand in the
presence of God and to approach Him boldly for grace and mercy in times of
need. Consider the verses that immediately follow the passage above:
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the
Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their
minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no
more. "And where these have been forgiven, there
is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have
confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and
living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we
have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a
sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to
cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure
water (Heb.10:15-22).
The one
priestly sacrifice of Christ on the cross is identified here as the New
Covenant. It gives us complete forgiveness of our sins—past, present, and
future—making us perfect in God’s eyes. Christ’s
Some argue that
sinners not only need their sins forgiven to have eternal life, but they need a
“positive righteousness” to obtain eternal life with God. Consider Wayne Grudem’s thoughts on this:
“Christ had to live a
life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had
to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of
his perfect obedience would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called
Christ’s ‘AO,’ while his suffering and dying for our sins is called his ‘
Grudem is clearly saying that the brand of righteousness that the
imputation of Christ’s
But now a righteousness from God, apart
from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This
righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ
Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his
blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he
had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his
justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those
who have faith in Jesus.
Earlier we
defined “righteousness” as: “Acceptance with God. It is, in the context of
salvation, whatever God requires in order to be accepted by Him.” The wrath of
God against sinful man is the big problem highlighted in Romans up through
chapter 3:20. The law simply makes it clear that sinful man is utterly and
justly condemnable before the God of heaven and earth. The solution that this
passage gives us to that problem is the cross, which results in the believer
becoming “righteous” or “justified.” Does this “righteousness” or
“justification” necessitate a “positive” or “law-keeping” element that goes
beyond payment for sins? If so, the passage in the New Testament that speaks most
directly to this issue makes no mention of it.
The
righteousness from God is revealed apart from law means that we can become
righteous without perfect obedience to God. In fact, we can become righteous
even after having transgressed God’s holy law. How is this done? The first
thing that is revealed to us is that it is done “by faith.” We acquire this
precious righteousness simply by believing or trusting in Jesus Christ. That
is, by trusting in Him alone to save us from God’s wrath because of His substitutionary work on our behalf, His work is then
imputed to us. But what is the work of Christ that is spoken of here that has
such a close connection to the believer becoming “righteous”? This passage
is solely concerned with the imputation of Christ’s
--------------------
* A THEOLOGICAL DISCLAIMER: We affirm the imputation of
the sin-bearing work of Jesus Christ on the cross to the believer. The believer
acquires the results of the sin-bearing work of Christ by faith alone in Christ
alone. This faith is the result of God’s irresistible grace alone. We are only
rejecting the imputation of the AOC because we cannot find it in Scripture. We
wholeheartedly embrace the imputation of the sin-bearing work of Christ as
absolutely essential and foundational for our acceptance with the
Father—essential to being declared righteous in his sight. The imputation of
Christ’s cross work is the sine qua non of the Christian faith. [see Justification By Imputation http://pop.eradman.com/]
There is a current
controversy in evangelicalism that is raging under the heading of the “New
Perspective on Justification.” This “New Perspective” seems at some point to be
denying the imputation of both the active and passive obedience of Christ.
Because it is rejecting imputation en toto,
the New Perspective is a denial of the biblical doctrine of justification by
faith alone and is therefore heresy.
4 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1941), p.381
5
6 see appendix for a
fuller treatment Rom.3:20-4:12 as it relates to the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness
Making a Mountain out of a Molehill
If affirming
the imputation of the AOC seem to make a theological molehill out of a
theological mountain, the opposite, making a theological mountain out of a
theological molehill, is also going on. If the imputation of the POC makes the
believer unconditionally accepted by God and therefore completely righteous,
then what more does he need? Again, if the sacrificial death of
Christ is in fact so wonderfully powerful and efficacious as to completely
justify sinners and ensure their claim on eternal life with God, what more
would the imputation of the AOC give you?
In my
experience, the sacred cow called
the imputation of the AOC has been a litmus test for orthodoxy. If you
deny this, it is as if you have denied the faith. This is making a mountain out
of a molehill. We have just shown that in Scripture the POC secures eternal
life for the believer, allowing him direct access to the God of heaven and
earth. Even if the imputation of the AOC were biblical, since it gives one
nothing that the imputation of the POC does not give—righteousness and eternal
life—it would seem that it is not essential to the faith.
Does the
imputation of the AOC even qualify as a molehill? We have shown that
righteousness is gained for the believer by the substitutionary
death of Christ. Eternal life is the result of this amazing and merciful cross
work. It would seem that the imputation of the AOC is a theological redundancy. The claim is that it brings positive
righteousness, but a believer already has that with Christ’s imputed death. The
claim is that it secures eternal life, yet a believer has that as well through
Christ’s cross work on his behalf. Finally theologians claim that the
imputation of Christ’s AO brings one beyond any relationship Adam ever had with
God so that there is no need to work to earn anything. Praise God, the believer
has this too, through the imputation of Christ’s
Wag The Dog
Much of the our interaction with people about this issue of the
imputation of the AOC has been strange. The objections they raised rarely had
anything to do with Scripture. It gives us a sneaking suspicion that this
theological doctrine is a direct result of the tail wagging the dog.
Why is the
imputation of the AOC such a big deal? It is a big deal first and foremost
because it is a lynchpin
in the system of theology known as CT. The verses used as proof-texts
and the exegetical work done by Covenant Theologians over centuries on this
issue is shockingly sparse and void of sound biblical spade-work. That is
because the tail (the system of theology) is wagging the dog (Scripture
itself). According to CT, the imputation of the AOC has to be in Scripture
because it is the foundation of how the Bible fits together and how salvation
works. [see 3 Studies Theological Notes http://pop.eradman.com]
The Covenant of
Works
Just what is
the Covenant of Works (CoW) and why is it so
important to CT and the imputation of the AOC? Wayne Grudem,
who is not a Covenant Theologian, has perhaps the best description of the CoW and its relationship to the imputation to the AOC:
In this statement to
Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you
shall die’ (Gen.2:16-17)] there is a promise of punishment for
disobedience—death…In the promise of punishment for disobedience there is implicit
a promise of blessing for obedience. This blessing would consist of not
receiving death, and the implication is that the blessing would be the
opposite of receiving “death.” It would involve physical life that would not
end and spiritual life in terms of a relationship with God that would go on
forever. The presence of the ‘tree of life…in the midst of the garden’
(Gen.2:9) also signified the promise of eternal life with God if Adam
and Eve had met the conditions of a covenant relationship by obeying God
completely until he decided that their time of testing was finished. After the
fall, God removed Adam and Eve from the garden, partly so that they would not
be able to take from the tree of life ‘and eat, and live forever.’7
The way this
works in CT is that just as the first Adam represented a people and was under a
CoW, so also, the last Adam—Jesus Christ—represents a
people and is under a CoW. Adam failed to obey God
perfectly and earned condemnation for His people. But where Adam failed, Christ
succeeded. Jesus Christ succeeded in obeying God perfectly when He lived a
sinless life under the Mosaic Law. In doing so, He earned justification or
righteousness for His people. Dr. Grudem states this
component of CT quite well:
If Christ had only
earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt
would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve
before they had done anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of
probation successfully. To be established in righteousness forever and to have
their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had to obey God
perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful
obedience with pleasure and delight, and they would have lived with him in
fellowship forever. For this reason, Christ had to live a life of perfect
obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law
for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect
obedience would be counted for us.8
This
understanding of how Scripture fits together sounds so clear and so right. It
shows not only the importance of the relationship between Adam and Christ, but
it makes the futility and even the hubris of trying to earn our own
salvation by works so clear. But there is one big problem. Although there are
many individual truths in this scheme, Scripture
does not seem to teach the scheme as a whole.
What Will The Weather in Be Like
in Heaven?
“What will the
weather be like in heaven?” “I don’t know what the weather in heaven will be
because Scripture doesn’t tell us!” Much of what Grudem
said above is like this question about weather in heaven—any answer is pure
speculation [or logical deduction]. The entire argument might be correct,
but if what he says is not clearly stated in Scripture, then it is just
conjecture. It is uncheckable and can neither be
confirmed nor denied. In fact, if God does not deem important enough even to
tell us about issues like the weather in heaven or the so-called probation
period of Adam, it is a safe bet that we don’t need to know. All that Dr Grudem wrote is the standard understanding of the CoW and its relationship to the work of Christ. Just mull
over some of our questions about this understanding of Scripture.
Those who
believe in the CoW understand that within the
arrangement between God and Adam there was an “implicit promise of blessing for
obedience.” But our question is, “How can you be certain if it is not
stated explicitly?” Dr. Grudem along with Covenant
Theologians posit that the tree of life is that which “signified the promise
of eternal life with God if Adam and Eve had met the conditions of a covenant
relationship by obeying God completely until he decided that their time of
testing was finished.” Does Scripture tell us that the tree signified this or say
that there was a “time of testing” or “probation period” anywhere in the text
of Genesis? Does God ever say that Adam only had to obey the command for a
certain period of time or that if Adam did obey the commandment that God would
allow him to eat from the tree of life? Does the text say that if Adam and Eve
obeyed that they would be “established in righteousness forever and…have their fellowship
with God made sure forever”? Where in Scripture is forgiveness of sins ever said to be
insufficient to gain acceptance with God, or as Grudem
puts it, “If
Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven.
Our guilt would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of
Adam and Eve before they had done anything good or bad and before they had
passed a time of probation successfully”? There might have been a probation
period, but since Scripture doesn’t tell us this, the question must be left
open.
--------------------
7 Ibid.,
516.
8 Ibid.,
570.
The Covenant of
Works —What’s
in a Name?
It is unwise to
refer to God’s relationship with Adam as a “covenant” even though God gave Adam
a command with a promise of punishment if broken. But if this command and this
promise is not called a covenant by the authors of
Scripture, we must think twice about describing it by that name ourselves.
Because of the importance of the word “covenant” in Scripture and the prominent
place the concept has in our theological systems, using the word “covenant” to
describe Scriptural events not called covenants should be rejected. The danger of calling something a covenant
that is not referred to as such increases the
likelihood of making it a cornerstone of our theology. Something that in fact
is not an emphasis in Scripture may end up acquiring an unscriptural
significance and supporting an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system.
We are not
saying that you always have to use biblical terms to describe biblical concepts
(even when those concepts are foundational to our theological systems). The
Bible never uses the term ‘person’ when referring to the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, Christians are justified in this application because the concept
of the personhood of the Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture. We find that we are
forced to acknowledge the personhood of the Holy Spirit from the clear teaching
of Scripture which does not allow us to believe that the Holy Spirit is simply
an impersonal force. Some of these evidences are actions of the Holy Spirit
that are driven by purpose and intelligence as well as the fact that the
authors of Scripture referred to the Spirit by using personal pronouns like
“him” and “his.” So the concept of the “personhood” of the Holy Spirit is an
important doctrine although the term is never used to describe Him in
Scripture. Thus it can be a valid practice to understand a person or event in
Scripture by using a term that Scripture does not in fact use to describe that
person or event.
So, the
fundamental problem is not in assigning the word “covenant” to events in
Scripture that Scripture itself does not call covenants, but rather the problem
is the place you give those events in your theological system precisely because
you designate them “covenants.” I think this happens very naturally
because the term “covenant” in Scripture, unlike the term “person,” is a high
profile and extremely important term. Almost invariably covenant theologians use
the concept of covenant, whether it is the Covenant of Redemption, the CoW or the Covenant of Grace, to illustrate the continuity
of Scripture and God’s work in salvation. But Scripture uses the term, almost
without exception, to illustrate discontinuity.
We return again
to the most basic question, “Is it biblical?” Even if the relationship between
God and Adam in the Garden is technically a covenant, God places no importance
on that fact. If Scripture does not use the term “covenant” when referring to
God’s relationship to Adam but uses it of other pivotal events, perhaps we
should reserve the term for those events God calls covenants.9 Consider whether refraining
from calling the arrangement a covenant would do damage to your theological
system and whether your system in turn drives you to label the arrangement a
covenant.
------------------
9 Hosea 6:7 is often
cited as biblical proof that God call’s the relationship between God and Adam a
covenant: “Like Adam (or “as at Adam;” or
“Like men”), they have broken the covenant- they were unfaithful to me there.”
Using this text to support the massive weight of the CoW
seems unwise. Not only are there other interpretive options for this text such
as taking Adam as the name of a location (Josh.3:16) at which some rebellion
occurred, but also within the ranks of CT there are many who do not see this
text as supporting the existence of a CoW in the
garden (As an example of this see “The Adamic
Administration,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray [Edinburgh: Banner
of Truth, 1977], 47-59). Even if one were to grant that this text does call the
relationship in the garden between God and Adam “a covenant,” can this rather
obscure verse bear the full weight of the doctrine?
Rejecting the “Covenant
of Works” Without Rejecting the
Principle of Works
Salvation can
“theoretically” be earned by perfect heart-act obedience to God. In addition,
even the smallest act of disobedience earns God’s infinite and eternal wrath.
We do not need the “CoW” schema to embrace these facts.
These statements actually have clear biblical foundations that can be verified
by simple exegesis.
If we turn our
attention to the Old Covenant and examine the nature of that covenant under
which Christ was born, we will find that it was a “CoW.”
That is, we find that the condition for blessing was perfect obedience to the
commands of that Covenant and cursing and wrath followed violation of any of
those commands:
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the
mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and
what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did
to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now
if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all
nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words
you are to speak to the Israelites" (Ex.19:3-6).
If you fully obey the LORD
your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your
God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings
will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God…(Dt.28:1-2).
However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not
carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all
these curses will come upon you and overtake you…(Dt.28:15).
Although there
are many places one could turn in the New Testament to support this doctrine, Galatians
is the locus classicus, the great antidote for
any fool who desires to earn God’s acceptance by works. Paul does not rebuke
the Galatians because salvation by works is an unbiblical concept. He rebukes
them because it takes perfect obedience in order to gain eternal life by works
and they should know this and also realize that they are unable to achieve such
a thing:
All who rely on observing the law are
under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not
continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no
one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will
live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The
man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the
curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is
everyone who is hung on a tree" (Gal.3:10-13).
If you desire
to be saved, even just in part, by earning or meriting your salvation, then
your salvation will not be gained by faith but by obedience to the law. But
make no mistake—you actually have to “do” the law to be saved in this manner
(v.12). James tells us that even one violation of God’s law is treated by God
as if you violated every law: “For
whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of
breaking all of it” (Jas.2:10). Even in this context where he is clearly
writing about Christ’s work in relation to salvation by faith and by law, Paul
does not mention the AOC. He does not write that Christ redeemed us from the
curse of the law by obeying the law perfectly on our behalf (AO). But Paul does
write about Christ “becoming a curse for us” by His work on the cross—His PO.
The fear of
many believers is that if you deny this CoW schema,
you will have to abandon the crucial biblical understanding of the relationship
of salvation and works as well as the seriousness of sin. But establishing the
biblical foundations of the relationship of salvation and works of the law, as
above, can be done without any reference to the CoW
said to have been made by God with Adam in the Garden. Establishing the
biblical truth concerning our accountability to God for keeping His commands in
the New Covenant era can also be done without reference to God’s relationship
with Adam. Consider Rom.6:23:
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal
life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul is simply
saying that when you break the commands that apply to you in the New Covenant
era, what you earn from God is eternal wrath in hell or spiritual death. You
get the curse of God unless the Son takes the curse on your behalf. Unlike the CoW, the biblical foundations of this doctrine can be
examined and verified by reading and interpreting clear texts of Scripture.
Considering Scriptures Used to Support the Imputation of
the AOC
Romans 5:18-19
For Robert Reymond, in his one volume systematic theology, the “fact”
that these verses refer to the AOC is almost self-evident and without need of
argumentation. His view comes under the subtitle “Christ’s Entire Life Work
‘One Righteous Act’ of obedience” which gives us a sneak preview of his
understanding of Rom.5:18. His comments simply amplify the subtitle:
…it is necessary first
to note that under girding all the rich and variegated terminology that the
Scriptures employ to describe Christ’s cross work, there is one comprehensive,
all-embracing, unifying feature of his entire life and ministry, which is so essential
to his cross work that without it none of the things that the Scriptures
say about it could have been said with any degree of propriety. That feature is
the obedience of Christ (see Rom.5:18).10
This passage is
the premier teaching passage on imputation.
If Reymond is correct and these verses are referring
to Christ’s entire life of obedience, then the imputation of the AOC is a
biblical doctrine. But if this text does not refer to His obedient law keeping
life, then we must look elsewhere for its biblical foundation. Let’s examine
this passage:
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation
for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one
man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man
the many will be made righteous (Rom.5:18-19).
The tight
argument that Paul makes about the method by which God saves begins in v.12.
But Paul sets the stage in the beginning of chapter 5 where he speaks about the
POC:
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,
Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man,
though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates
his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved
from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were
reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been
reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!11 Not only is this so,
but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have
now received reconciliation. (5:6-11).
The only
connection that Paul has made between Christ and our justification is Christ’s
death on the cross. There is nothing in the text up to the beginning of the
argument in verse 12 that would lead the reader to consider Christ’s
law-keeping in relation to the justification of sinners.
The contrast is
between Adam’s “one act” and Christ’s “one act.” Adam’s one act of disobedience
refers to his eating the fruit from the forbidden tree. It was not a reference to his entire life. One
of the simple keys that tell us this is Paul’s statement “one act” in reference
to Adam’s sin. No interpreter takes Adam’s “one act” to refer to his entire
life before God.
So as we
consider verses 18 and 19, the question before us is, “What does
Christ’s ‘one act of righteousness’ (5:18) and his ‘obedience’ (5:19) refer
to?”
Some argue that although the “one act of righteous” might point to a single
event, the use of the word “obedience” to describe this act opens it up to the
possibility that Paul is referring to the entire life of Christ. Consider John
Piper’s words on this: “does not the word ‘obedience’ in Rom.5:19 without any
limitation itself provide that clue? ...it seems arbitrary to draw the line at some point in the
final hours or day of Jesus’ life and say that the obedience before that hour
was not part of the righteousness that ‘leads to justification’ (v.18) or part
of the ‘obedience’ that constitutes many righteous (v.19).”12 Now this logic
would be a powerful argument if it weren’t for the context that surrounds the
word “obedience.”
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation
for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one
man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man
the many will be made righteous (Rom.5:18-19).
Adam’s sin is
referred to as ‘disobedience’ in verse 19 “without any limitation.” Using
Piper’s own argument we would need to consider the events surrounding Adam’s
fall - Adam’s sinful intentions before he ate and perhaps when he inevitably
sinned against Eve after he ate. But isn’t it simpler and clearer to
simply work with those things that are obvious in the passage: the clear
parallels between Adam and Christ; the near context in which the POC is
mentioned in relation to justification; and the reference to ‘one act’
concerning both Adam and Christ? Is it really that “arbitrary” to limit
Christ’s obedience to His obedient substitutionary
death in this context, especially since the only Pauline reference to the
obedience of Christ is His obedient death (Phil.2:8)?
This text
clearly favors the interpretation that Christ’s “one righteous act” or his
“obedience” refers to his sacrificial death. But even if you are not convinced of
our point of view, this text is not unambiguously speaking about the imputation
of the AOC. If it does not speak clearly to the issue, then it cannot serve as
the textual foundation for this doctrine.
-----------------
10 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian
Faith (998), p.629.
11 The reference here to
being “saved through His life” (v.10) is often understood by Covenant
Theologians to refer to the imputation of the AOC—that would make life refer to
the obedient life of Christ prior to His work on the cross. But v.9 begins an
argument from the lesser to the greater in which there is a temporal aspect.
Here is my paraphrase of verse 9: “If now we have been justified through Christ’s blood, how much more
shall we finally be saved through Him since he is
resurrected and at the right hand of God in Heaven?” The contrasting is
between all that Christ’s death does for us with all that His resurrected life
will do for us in the future. Christ’s resurrected life will actually do
“more.” With this in mind, consider my paraphrase of verse 10: “If God reconciled us to Himself by the
death of Christ while we were still God-haters and His enemies, How much more
will God save us utterly and completely in the last day by the resurrected life
of Christ now that we love Him and He loves us!” This is a wonderfully
comforting verse that points to power of Christ’s resurrected life rather than
His obedient suffering life. Rom.6:5 is another great example of this death to
resurrection life pattern that Paul writes about: “If we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will
certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection.”
12 John Piper, Counted
Righteous In Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation
of Christ’s Righteousness? (02), p.111-112.
Philippians 3:9
In this passage
Paul is looking at the religious achievements in his life and comparing them to
knowing Christ and His righteousness and seeing the latter as being of
incomparably greater value:
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of
Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing
greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all
things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him,
not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is
through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of
sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to
attain to the resurrection from the dead (Phil.3:7-11).
This text is
often cited in support of the imputation of the AOC.
Although there
is no mention of a CoW and there is no mention of
Christ’s perfect law-keeping on behalf of sinners, the text does speak of
righteousness. Paul does not want a righteousness of his own “that comes from
law.” Righteousness certainly can come from perfect law-keeping, but Paul knows
that obtaining such a righteousness is a fruitless and
faithless endeavor. Paul wants the righteousness that comes from God and is
acquired by faith in Christ. What is Christ’s righteousness? One
interpretive option is that Christ’s righteousness refers to Christ’s perfect
obedience to the Mosaic Law (AOC) which He imputes to all those who trust in
Him as Savior and Lord. Another interpretive option is that Christ’s
righteousness refers to the payment for sin which He made by His death on the
cross (POC) and imputes to all those who trust in Him as Savior and Lord. Which
interpretation is right and how do we decide?
In order to
arrive at the correct conclusion we must go to the locus classicus
regarding the righteousness the believer acquires through faith in Christ,
Rom.3. Since we have already spent time in this passage, we can come to some
swift conclusions. In Rom.3 we found that Paul only writes about the imputation
of the POC—the payment for sins. Therefore, since the only place in Scripture
where Paul defines the righteousness of Christ is in reference to his
1 Corinthians
1:30
In this passage
Paul is contrasting the “wisdom” of the world with the “foolishness” of the gospel:
“It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has
become for us wisdom from God--that is, our
righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written:
"Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
This verse
clearly speaks of imputation, but is there anything in the text that
causes us to think that this is a reference to the imputation of the AOC? When Paul
speaks of preaching the gospel he talks about preaching “Christ crucified”
(v.23) which is an explicit reference to
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
The term
“sanctified” in 1 Cor.6 doesn’t seem to have any clear reference to Christ’s
imputed law-keeping, nor does it have anything to do with the Holy Spirit’s
work in the life of the believer causing Him to put away sinful patterns of
living. If it had to do with growth in moral purity he could scarcely have said
that about the Corinthians at this point in the letter. Instead, consider the
words that Paul uses with “sanctified” in this verse. It is being used with two
synonyms: “washed” and “justified,” which it stands in-between. 1 Cor.1:30 has that same pattern. Paul writes that Christ has become
for us “wisdom from God—that is our “righteousness, holiness, and redemption.”
The “wisdom from God” spoken about in this passage is the gospel—how a sinful man is accepted by a holy God. If both
“righteousness” and “redemption” are clear references to payment for sin—which
we found to be the case in Rom.3—then we have two synonyms that enclose
the word in question. It is doubtful that holiness refers to a different
concept entirely while being enclosed by two synonyms. It is far more likely
that this is a three-fold word description of what the believer gets
because he is “in Christ.” They are not three different things, but it is a
three-fold way of describing the same thing—the believer’s complete innocence
before a holy God because of the death of Christ. It is a beautiful way of
describing the believer’s ability to come right into the presence of God
because of the imputation of the POC.
2 Corinthians
5:21
This text is a
clear and wonderful declaration of the imputation of our sin to Christ and His
righteousness to us: “God made him who had no
sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Of course the
argument turns on one’s definition of “righteousness.” Since Paul uses this
term to refer to the imputation of the POC, this text is best read as a
statement of that wonderful truth. Christ makes it so that we are declared
innocent of any transgression or “perfect” (Heb.10:14) because of Christ’s one
sacrifice. Christ took the punishment of our sin so that through faith in Him
we become acceptable and perfect—that is, “righteous in His sight” (Rom.3:20).
There is no reference in this text or in the surrounding context to the
imputation of Christ’s perfect life.
Romans 8:3-4
Ironically,
these verses serve to undermine any theological necessity for this doctrine.
This should become evident as we closely examine this important passage of
Scripture. In Rom.8 Paul is making the case that if you are a believer, then
you are no longer a slave to sin, that if you are yoked to Christ, then you are
set free from both the penalty and the enslaving power of sin:
“For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by
the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man
to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the
righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live
according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Rom.8:3-4).
This text says
that “God did” something - sent His Son to die on a cross as a “sin offering.”
That is a clear reference to the POC. Through the imputation of the POC “the
righteous requirements of the law” are “fully met in us.” Isn’t that amazing!
There is absolutely no hint of the imputation of the law keeping of Christ.
There is only reference to His PO and yet that “sin offering” which served to
have our sins condemned in Christ, allows us to stand before God as people who
have fully met the righteous requirements of the law. The imputation of the POC
unambiguously accomplishes everything that the so-called imputation of the AOC
was supposed to do!
In v.4 Paul
describes the group of people that fully meet the righteous requirements of the
law as those “who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to
the Spirit.” This is a reference to something else that the one “sin offering”
of Christ does for every believer. We mentioned it earlier in relation to
Heb.10:14 “because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who
are being made holy.” The one sacrifice that Christ made, not only
purchased perfection for the believer—described in Rom.8 as having fully met
the righteous requirements of the law”—but also progress in holiness.
That is a work of the Spirit in the life of the believer that causes the
believer to serve God and put sin to death. The verses that follow contrast the
life of the man who has this work of the Spirit of God and the man who does not
have the Spirit. This is all purchased by the POC that is imputed into the
account of everyone who repents and believes.
Other verses
used to defend the imputation of the AOC cited in systematic theologies seem to
fall into four broad categories for which we have provided obvious textual
examples:
1) in defense of the sinless life of Christ (Heb.5:8);
2)
in reference to the imputation of righteousness (Rom.4:4-6; 10:3-4);
3)
that say that Christ was under law (Gal.4:4-5);
4)
that seem totally unrelated other than some key words (Mt.3:15).
Our response to
these verses by category is as follows:
1) Christ had a
sinless life, but without reference to imputation in relation to that sinless life
in Scripture we are left to understand it to refer to His sinless life that qualified Him to by the perfect Savior13.
2)
Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, but that righteousness is
defined in Scripture as His sacrificial death in payment for sin, which grants
the believer acceptance from God for all eternity.
3)
Christ was under the Mosaic Law and His
perfect obedience to it qualified Him to be the perfect Savior.
4)
Scriptures that are unrelated to the doctrine do not and cannot serve to give
it a biblical foundation.
We found even
the best attempts at exegetical arguments for the imputation of the AOC to be
wanting of clear biblical support. We also found that some of their most
frequently cited texts, upon closer scrutiny, actually undermine the need for
the doctrine entirely. The imputation of the AOC seems to be a doctrine without
biblical foundations. It would seem that to hold and defend a doctrine with a
traditional foundation rather than a biblical foundation is to begin your trek
down the hermeneutical road to
------------------
13 [The OT types of Christ’s
substitutionary death all depict the POC of the
perfect sacrifice without any stain. PO is given as the reason for the Lamb who was slain to be
acclaimed as worthy in Rev.5, “for
you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God.” (v.9) The
AOC resulted in not only His keeping the law, but also in His fulfilling it becoming the obedient son Israel
never was, the progenitor of the new spiritual nation of Israel composed
entirely of believers purchased and made perfect by His PO.]
Some Questions and Objections Considered
Do you mean
to say that you actually need a specific text from the bible to establish a
biblical doctrine or practice?
Yes. For if by
“establish a biblical doctrine or practice” you mean that this is something God
wants me to believe or do, then you must have the
clear and unambiguous witness of Scripture to back that up. If you don’t have a
text from scripture to establish your view, you have no word from God and
therefore no view worth defending.
I’m not a
Covenant Theologian and yet I embrace the Imputation of the AOC. How does your
characterization of CT apply to me?
It is possible
that you embraced the doctrine not knowing that its invention and continued
existence depends on and is driven by CT. You may simply believe the doctrine
is true because someone you trust taught it to you and you never thought to
question it. Many evangelicals who are not of the Covenant Theological stripe
wisely embrace the doctrine of salvation that Covenant Theologians also hold. That
is, many—though not enough—non-covenantal evangelicals embrace the doctrines of
grace. But when covenant theologians expound the doctrines of grace, the
imputation of the AOC is woven into the fabric of the doctrines of grace so
that the two are inseparable. That is why, if you are not a Covenant
Theologian, you probably still believe in the imputation of the AOC. Covenant
theologians and the many garden-variety evangelicals who embrace the
life-giving doctrines of grace unwittingly embrace the imputation of the AOC.
Can’t you
lump AOC and POC together under one heading—Christ’s imputed obedience that
makes us righteous?
Certainly if
you have a passage that clearly teaches the imputation of the AOC alongside the
imputation of His PO. We have many clear passages that teach the imputation of
Christ’s
Do believers
have to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law?
Yes. But,
according to Scripture, this can only be done through the death of Christ. The
reception of his payment for sins makes it just as if we had already perfectly
obeyed the righteous requirements of the law. Consider our comments on
Rom.8:1-4 above.
==========
John Piper defines justification differently than we do here. He writes:
The Greek word for ‘justify’ (diakioo)
does not mean “forgive.” It means to declare righteous, usually in a court of
law. A prisoner who is found guilty and is forgiven would not be called
‘justified’ in the ordinary use of the word. He is justified if he is found not
guilty. Forgiveness means to be found guilty and then not have the guilt
reckoned to you but let go. So we should be careful that we not assume
justification and forgiveness are identical” (Counted Righteous in Christ:
Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness (02), p.115.
In your paper
you say that forgiveness of sins is synonymous with justification. How do you
respond to Piper’s argument?
It appears that
his argument is philosophical rather than biblical. The problem that Paul
raises in Rom.3 is that men need righteousness that cannot be earned. How, then
do we get it and what does it consist of? Paul tells us that we get
righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ and that the righteousness or
justification we need to be accepted by God is equivalent to redemption which
is the forgiveness of sins: “and are justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God
presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood”
(Rom.3:24-25). The author of Hebrews tells us that the imputation of
Christ’s sin-bearing work makes believers perfect: “But when
this priest had offered for all time one
sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that
time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being
made holy” (Heb.10:12-14). Scripture seems quite clear on the
subject and we must not let our philosophical ideas drown out the clarity of
God’s Word.
If you deny
the imputation of the AOC, aren’t you watering down the doctrine of
justification?
We think that
we are actually lifting the priceless sacrificial death of Christ to its rightful
position within the incredibly important doctrine of justification. What does the
death of Christ give the believer? Some say that the sacrificial death of
the sinless Son of God procures for believers no better standing than Adam had
before the fall. They say that the sacrificial death of Christ is insufficient
for eternal life. But Scripture says that when believers receive the results of
the death of Christ they have been made perfect forever (Heb.10:14). This
language that the Holy Spirit uses gives us the clear picture that as the
result of the death of Christ the believer is viewed as though he has obeyed
God’s law perfectly, when in reality he has simply received the full
forgiveness of his sins. God is telling us that in order for someone to be accepted
by God, that person must have no black marks on his record. One can get a clean
record in two ways:
1)
obey God’s law perfectly
2)
have all of your transgressions of God’s law perfectly paid for through
Christ’s sacrificial death.
A clean record
or being perfectly forgiven is equivalent to perfect obedience—it makes the
believer righteous in God’s sight. That is exactly what the death of Christ
gives to the believer according to Heb.10:14. Denying the imputation of the AOC
while affirming the imputation of what the Scripture says about the amazing
sufficiency of the Sacrificial death of Christ lifts
the cross high and the theological significance and meaning of justification
remains unchanged.
Appendix
By Steve Lehrer http://idsaudio.org/ids/pdf/classic/appendix.pdf
Interpreting Scripture with Nothing up My Sleeves
Our method of
interpreting Scripture must not be like illusionists pulling rabbits out of hats.
There should be no slight of hand and no smoke and mirrors. Our conclusions
should be obvious and every step we take to get there must be out in the open.
Rom.4:4-8 has
been trumpeted as a proof text for the imputation of the active obedience of
Christ (AOC). We do not believe the doctrine is actually in the text, but has
to be smuggled in from the outside. Both the magician and the well-meaning
interpreter are often doing the same thing—making something, a rabbit or a
doctrine, appear “out of thin air.” A careful and ordinary reading of the text
does not find the imputation of the AOC in it.
Romans 4:4-8 in
Context
How does a
sinful man get right with a holy God? Is it by obedience to the Law or by
faith? How do we get the “righteousness” we need to be accepted by God? These are the
questions that Paul pours all of his rhetorical powers into answering in
Rom.3:20-4:12. Rom.4:4-8 plays an important role in this larger text where Paul
explains the life-transforming message of justification that is the heart of
the gospel. There is a root word (dikai) woven throughout the passage. Words that are built
upon this root are used 18 times in
these 25 verses. The noun means
righteousness and the verb means to
declare righteous, to recognize as righteous, or to vindicate, depending on the
context in which it is used. The common theme in the whole passage is righteousness, which
explains Paul’s repeated use of the word and its cognates:
20Therefore no one will be
declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through
the law we become conscious of sin. 21But now a righteousness
from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the
Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through
faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God
presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did
this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left
the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate
his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who
justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is
boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For
we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the
law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he
not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is
only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the
uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold
the law. 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather,
discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified
by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What
does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it
was credited to him as righteousness.” 4Now when a man works, his
wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God
who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the
man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7"Blessed
are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8Blessed
is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” 9Is this blessedness only for the
circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that
Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under
what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before?
It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he
was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have
not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to
them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only
are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father
Abraham had before he was circumcised (Rom.3:20-4:12).
Interpreting
Romans 3:20-4:12
In the
beginning of this passage Paul points out man’s need for righteousness. He
immediately tells us about God’s wonderful provision of that righteousness and
exactly how this righteousness was acquired and how we can have a share in it.
Paul never wavers or adds to the foundational statements he makes in the
beginning of the passage. The law will not allow sinners to be declared
righteous. Law can only point out sin and condemn sinners. The first three chapters right up to Rom.3:20, are spent proving this point:
“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his
sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin”
(Rom.3:20).
In v.3:21-23,
Paul tells us that God provides righteousness apart from lawkeeping.
This righteousness or justification is acquired by faith. The sinner trusts in
Jesus Christ alone to gain this righteousness:
But now a righteousness from God,
apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all
who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God.
As we consider
the issue of the imputation of the AOC in relation to this passage of
Scripture, some questions naturally arise - What are we to trust that Christ did
for us? Where does our righteousness come from? Does it come from Christ’s
perfectly obedient life, or from His sin-bearing death? In the verses
that follow, Paul only mentions Christ’s sin-bearing death: “and are justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of
atonement, through faith in his blood.” Paul writes that justification,
or being declared righteous in the court of heaven, comes through redemption.
In Eph.1:7 Paul uses the
term “redemption” in a similar context, but there he also defines the word: “In him we have redemption through
his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.” In Col.1:14 Paul writes something very similar: “in whom we have redemption,
the forgiveness of sins.” One way to
think about how we are justified is by thinking about how we are redeemed.
The meaning of redemption in the context of spiritual salvation is forgiveness
of sins. Paul tells us that the way one becomes “justified” is by being
“redeemed.” That is, one is declared righteous in the court of heaven by having
his sins forgiven via the substitutionary
atonement of Christ. God poured out His wrath on Jesus Christ in our place
so that we might be declared “righteous in His sight.” We place our faith in
His blood, or in His sacrificial death, so that we can be considered
“righteous.”
Verses 25 and
26 are concerned with God’s character - with the justice of God in relation to
His mercy on sinners:
He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his
forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to
demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and
the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
God
demonstrates His own “righteousness” by making sure sins are
punished. Those who were saved before the New Covenant era went for many years
without having their sinful behavior duly punished. God demonstrated His
justice or righteousness by pouring out His wrath on Jesus Christ for the sins
of all who believe. God shows His justice in doing this by not simply winking
at or ignoring sin; God declares men positively righteous by pouring out His
wrath on Jesus, thereby being both just and the justifier. In verses 27-30 Paul
continues to write about the same issue—how a sinful man can become righteous
before God. The answer is still the same. We become righteous through faith in
Christ’s sin-bearing death rather than by our own obedient observance of God’s Law;
therefore we cannot brag that we have done something to earn God’s favor:
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On
what principle? On that of observing the law?
No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by
faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the
God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who
will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that
same faith.
There is only
one God for both Jews and Gentiles, so there is only one way to be
saved—through faith. It is not by Law observance or God would be the God
of the Jews only, since they were the only ones who had God’s Law: “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is
there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been
entrusted with the very words of God” (Rom.3:1-2).
If one could be
saved by simply believing that a kind and loving God overlooks sin, then God’s
law and his justice for transgressors by the unyielding standard of the Law
could not be taken seriously. The Law would be nullified and God would be
unjust. The Almighty would be a false-witness in His own court, setting up the
lofty benchmark of the Mosaic Code as the presiding Judge and then mounting the
witness stand to abrogate it with a whimsical “Oh never mind. I’m too nice for
that sort of legalism.” Perish the thought! Our faith is in an objective event, the sin-bearing death
of Christ that takes the demands of God’s law seriously. Paul makes clear that
God has made a way for one to be righteous through the sin-bearing death of
Jesus Christ. Those who accuse us of nullifying the Law should be applauding us
for taking it so seriously: “Do we, then, nullify
the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (Rom.3:31).
As we make our
way into Rom.4, we find that Paul is still writing about the same issue—namely,
how
can a sinful man can be considered righteous in God’s sight? Can one become
righteous by what he does or must it be through believing in the atoning work
of another? Paul laid out the answer for us at the beginning of this passage
as shown above. We are justified or found righteous in God’s sight through
redemption, which is the forgiveness of sin. This precious gift was purchased
by the sin-bearing death of Jesus Christ. Nothing new is being introduced into
the argument. In order to further explain his point (that justification is by
faith in Christ’s work on the cross apart from any works that the sinner does),
Paul considers how Abraham was declared righteous: “What then
shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in
fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast
about—but not before God” (Rom.4:1-2). There is no reason to think
that Paul is suddenly changing or appending the definition of “justify” or
“righteousness” when he introduces Abraham.
In verses 3-5,
the main point of the argument is to tell us that Abraham did not earn his
righteousness through works. Paul is assuming that the reader has not
completely forgotten all that has been said about righteousness. Paul is simply
using different words to drive home the point that he already made in
Rom.3:24—namely that justification, or the legal declaration of righteousness,
is a gift: “and are justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” God gave Abraham his
righteousness through the instrument of faith in God’s promises:
What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God,
and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift,
but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies
the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Many an able
interpreter stumbles at this point by getting wrapped up in the question, “What does
the term credit mean?” It is true that this word was often used in financial
transactions meaning, “to place into one’s account.”
Many commentators then run with this verbal idea and conclude that
righteousness cannot simply be forgiveness of sins because forgiveness of sins
is non-imputation. Forgiveness is considering something bad (debt) in
someone’s account as if it is not there, rather than placing something positive
(wages) into someone’s account. They then conclude that a forgiven man is not
necessarily a righteous man. If we follow these commentators down this dead end
street, we will not be able to follow Paul’s argument. They are reading a theological
assumption into the text by assuming that for something to be imputed it must
be “positive” in some sense. And since forgiveness is not positive, it cannot
be imputed. This is an unbiblical conclusion because when Paul speaks of
crediting or imputing righteousness, he is speaking about the fact that
righteousness is a gift that God gives to sinners who place their trust in
Jesus Christ. Remember, Paul’s purpose in writing about imputation is to show
the difference between working for your salvation and having your salvation
given to you. He unambiguously explains what righteousness is in chapter three.
One is declared righteous by being redeemed or receiving the complete
forgiveness of sins (past, present, and future) that is gained by faith in the
sacrificial death of Christ. The use of the term “credit” or “impute” does not
turn all of this on its head. The purpose of the passage is to explain that
righteousness, or forgiveness of sins, is a gift from God. God redeems sinners
freely, rather than having them earn His acceptance by
their works.
Paul’s simple
but profound argument continues with a straightforward Old Testament quotation
about forgiveness of sins:
6David says the same thing
when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness
apart from works: 7"Blessed are they whose transgressions are
forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man whose sin the
Lord will never count against him.
Paul reaches
back to Psalm 32 because it so
beautifully restates the key idea that righteousness or forgiveness of sins is
a free gift given by God to guilty sinners. He tells us in v.6 that David is
saying “the same thing” as he has been arguing. There is nothing new or complex
here. It is wonderful, but it is not complicated. Paul wants us to understand
and marvel at the free gift that we are given by believing in the sacrificial
death of Jesus Christ on behalf of His people. To be righteous in God’s sight
is to have one’s sins “forgiven,” “covered,” and “never counted against him.” To be forgiven is to be righteous and
to be righteous is to be blessed. Paul continues discussing the exact same
point that he began to argue in the beginning of the passage and has focused on
throughout this passage. He concentrates on the term “blessed” to continue the
discussion about how a sinful man can be found righteous in God’s sight:
9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the
uncircumcised? We have been saying that
Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under
what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before?
It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was
still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not
been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And
he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who
also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he
was circumcised.
Salvation is by
faith alone, apart from works of the Law. Abraham was blessed (reckoned righteous,
justified, or forgiven of all his sins) before he was circumcised. Abraham’s
obedience in getting circumcised, or his obedience to any other law, did not earn
Abraham anything. The law of circumcision was given to Abraham after the
promise so that we might understand that righteousness is a gift that, by
definition, can never be earned.
Who hasn’t
unwittingly engaged in some slight-of-hand as he has wrestled with Scripture?
We have all unintentionally “smuggled” into our biblical interpretations some
unbiblical presuppositions. The imputation of the AOC is the “rabbit” that is
often smuggled into the “hat” of Rom.4:4-8. It is nowhere in the text, but
well-meaning interpreters make the doctrine appear
“out of thin air.” We all need to examine our presuppositions and our
interpretations of Scripture with the utmost care that we may be found with
“nothing up our sleeves.”