Jesus' Blood and Righteousness E-Book

Brian Vickers

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010

Beschreibung

The question of whether Paul teaches that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer has been debated for roughly four hundred years. Some of the questions that arise are: What is the connection between Adam and the rest of the human race? How did Christ fulfill the role of the second or new Adam? How can the "ungodly" stand before a righteous God? In Jesus' Blood and Righteousness, Brian Vickers investigates the key Pauline texts linked historically to the topic of imputation. Though Vickers spends a good deal of time on the particulars of each text, he keeps one eye on the broader biblical horizon; like any doctrine, imputation must be investigated exegetically and synthetically. This book, and its conclusion that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a legitimate and necessary synthesis of Paul's teaching, is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on imputation.

Leseprobe

Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness

Copyright © 2006 by Brian J. Vickers

Published by Crossway Booksa Publishing ministry of Good News Publishers1300 Crescent StreetWheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this Publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Publisher, except as provided by USA copyright law.

Cover design: Jon McGrath

Cover illustration: Getty Images

First printing 2006

Printed in the United States of America

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are the author’s translation.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a Publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are from The New American Standard Bible.® Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

Scripture references marked NIV are from The Holy Bible: New International Version.®Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

Scripture references marked NRSV are from The New Revised Standard Version. Copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Scripture references marked NKJV are from The New King James Version. Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Pblication Data

Vickers, Brian J., 1966–

Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s theology of Imputation /

Brian J. Vickers.p. cmIncludes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 13: 978-1-58134-754-8 ISBN 10: 1-58134-754-51. Righteousness. 2. Bible. N.T. Epistles of Paul—Theology. 3. Paul, the Apostle, Saint. I. Title.

BT764.3.V53 2006 234'.7—dc22

2006019337

RRDH   15   14   13   12   11   10   09   08  07    0614   13   12   11   10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

FOR LLOYD (1922-2004) AND VIRGINIA VICKERS

My son, keep thy father’s commandment,and forsake not the law of thy mother:Bind them continually upon thine heart,and tie them about thy neck.When thou goest, it shall lead thee;when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee;and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.

PROVERBS 6:20-22 (KJV)

CONTENTS

PARTIAL LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

1 TRACING TRAJECTORIES: THE HISTORY OF IMPUTATION

2 THE RECKONING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: ABRAHAM, FAITH, AND IMPUTATION

3 THE FOUNDATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: ROMANS 5:19

4 THE PROVISION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: CORINTHIANS 5:21

5 THE IMPUTATION OF CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS: A PAULINE SYNTHESIS

6 CONCLUSION: “NO HOPE WITHOUT IT”?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Partial List of Abbreviations

Preface

SOMETIMES A PHONE CALL can change your life. I was a Ph.D. student working happily away in preparation for a dissertation on the letter to the Hebrews when one day I pressed the button on our answering machine. A familiar voice said, “I want to tell you something that will change your life”—a dramatic message to say the least. Ultimately it took three days to get the life-changing message. One can think a lot of things in three days, though admittedly as more time went by I began to doubt just how radical this life change could really be if the delivery of the message could be postponed indefinitely. Finally, after several missed phone calls and a twenty-four hour virus, I was home when the phone rang. There was a pause, no hello, and then I heard, “You should work on imputation.” It was my then supervisor and now colleague, Tom Schreiner. To make a long story short, that phone call resulted in a dissertation, and that dissertation later resulted in this book. It was, at least on one level, a phone call that changed my life.

Though I was working on Hebrews, I had been studying justification and related topics in Paul and tracking with the ongoing debates since my days as a graduate student at Wheaton College. In my own thinking, however, there were lots of loose ends. I needed some time to work on the issues. Writing a dissertation provided the time I needed. It also led to the writing of this book, something I doubt I would have done were it not for that phone call.

Maybe the phrase “changed my life” is a bit too dramatic, but the months and years spent writing the dissertation were formative in my own thinking and experience. The dissertation informed my thinking because my thoughts had time to solidify as I studied and restudied the relevant texts, and as I read and often reread (at least some of) the mountains of secondary literature. It shaped my experience because in the final months of writing, my father, Lloyd Vickers, was diagnosed with cancer, and as I wrote, he fought. Yet he did not fight in desperation, even though the prognosis never got better than a hope of a slight prolonging of weeks, perhaps months. After the initial shock, he faced cancer with confidence—not confidence that he would “beat it,” but confidence that came from resting, as he put it, “only in Jesus and all he has done for me.” My dad was resting in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the face of a disease that was quickly ending his life. He lived to see me finish a dissertation and watch me be hooded. Just under four months later, right after finding out that I was hired to teach New Testament, he died, clinging more than ever to Jesus and his righteousness. It dawned on me later how my thesis topic and my Dad’s battle with cancer had dovetailed. I was working on the topic that sustained him and gave him hope and confidence in the face of the last enemy; the defeated enemy. In my dad’s life and in his death I witnessed the doctrine of imputation in action.

Like all books, this book could not have been written without the encouragement and assistance of many people. First of all, heart-felt thanks to my friend and colleague Tom Schreiner. Tom was always quick to give his insights, suggestions, corrections, and encouragements. Tom not only read the dissertation, he has gladly read parts of this book, whether new, old, or revised. Bruce Ware and Shawn Wright also deserve a special note of appreciation. Both were an encouragement to me as I pursued the possibility of publishing this work and helpful to me because of their keen theological and historical insights. Thanks also to Jim Hamilton for his friendship and for his remarkable ability to rejoice in the Lord at all times and to give thanks in all things.

Special thanks go to Matthew Anderson, who converted all the Greek fonts in my manuscript, and to John Meade who helped with reading the manuscript in its final stages.

My mother, Virginia, though living with the loss of her companion of sixty-one years, continues on with a resilience that flows from her indomitable view of life under the sovereignty of God. Her wit and wisdom are untarnished as she turns eighty this year. Her ability to tell her son what he needs to hear, even if he does not want to hear it, is invaluable.

Finally, no one can compare to my lovely wife, Denise. She is a gift from God and a constant source of strength and joy in all things. Jamie, our daughter, could not have a better model of faith, hope, and love.

Introduction

“I’M SO THANKFUL FOR the active obedience of Christ; no hope without it.”1 One day before his death, J. Gresham Machen sent this message to John Murray. This one short phrase is theologically loaded. “The active obedience of Christ” means the obedience that Jesus rendered to the Father during his incarnation, and which, along with the forgiveness that flows from his sacrifice on the cross, is imputed to the believer by faith. When we sing “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness,” we are singing about the same thing that Machen wrote to Murray. In theology, a conjunction can be extraordinarily important.

The “active obedience of Christ,” just like the short phrase “and righteousness,” is a statement about what it means to be justified. In much of both the Calvinist and Lutheran traditions, the active obedience of Christ is a vital component in the doctrine of justification.2 Specifically, the doctrine of justification is formulated so as to include both the non-imputation of sin (forgiveness) and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (his active obedience). The latter aspect, namely that justification must necessarily include the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, draws the lion’s share of controversy.

The debate over imputation is not a mere academic debate. The discussion strikes at the heart of what it means to be right with God. Core biblical themes like forgiveness, sacrifice, and union with Christ are woven into the doctrine of imputation. There is more at stake than merely continuing a debate. What is the connection between Adam and the human race? How did Christ fulfill the role of the second or new Adam? How can the “ungodly” stand before a righteous God? Is faith itself, or the object of faith, the foundation for righteousness? These are but a few of the questions related to the topic of imputation. At the center of the debate over the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the interpretation of key Pauline texts.

“KEY” TEXTS

The main goal of this book is to investigate Pauline texts linked historically to the topic of imputation.3 The bulk of this investigation is driven by a consideration of three general questions: (1) In Romans 4 when Paul quotes Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (v. 3), and shortly thereafter quotes Psalm 32:2, “blessed is the man against whom the Lord does not reckon sin” (v. 8), what is the implication for the doctrine of imputation? More to the point, does Romans 4 create a tension for the traditional view of imputation since the emphasis there seems to be primarily on forgiveness? (2) Does the parallel and antithesis between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21 imply that Paul understands that Christ not only provided pardon for Adam’s (and his posterity’s) sin but also, in contrast to Adam, fulfilled God’s commands thus providing a positive status for “the many who will be made righteous”? (3) Does Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (which, according to Paul, includes the non-imputation of sin, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not reckoning their trespasses against them” [5:19]), also include the imputation of righteousness? In the history of the debate these are the primary issues discussed in these texts.

Once these three texts are identified as the central texts in the debate, a rather common-sense observation arises: In these three “imputation” texts, Paul deals with different, albeit related, issues. Romans 5:19 is not simply another way of putting Romans 4:3, and 2 Corinthians 5:21 is not a restatement of either Romans 4:3 or 5:19. In other words, the three imputation texts do not appear to be about the exact same thing. In each text Paul discusses similar ideas (e.g., righteousness, sin, God, and/or Christ) but the texts are not the same. There are different subjects, actors, actions, and concepts. For instance, there is an emphasis on “faith” in Romans 4:3 but no explicit mention of it in either Romans 5:19 or 2 Corinthians 5:21. In Romans 5:19 obedience is at the core of Paul’s discussion, but obedience is not at all the emphasis in Romans 4:3 and even if “knew no sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 implies Christ’s obedience, it is still not the primary focus as it is in Romans 5:19. This observation regarding the differences between the key texts plays a major role throughout this book.

Secondly, there are other texts that have both textual and conceptual links to the “key” texts and have also played a role in the historical debates. These other texts (i.e., 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9; and Rom. 9:30–10:4) are presented along with the “key” texts in an attempt to develop a Pauline synthesis regarding the doctrine of imputation. These texts are essential for understanding Paul’s theology of imputation. The goal here is to focus as narrowly as possible on the issues in these texts that link them with the doctrine of imputation and present a kind of “synoptic” reading of these texts along with the “key” texts.

Finally, part of the goal of this work is to try to avoid the two extremes that too often characterize the debate. On one hand defenders of imputation, because of a healthy desire to know and understand the whole counsel of God, sometimes ignore the differences between, and subsequently the unique contribution of, the texts typically associated with the doctrine. When this happens the biblical texts are flattened out and become mere springboards for lectures and sermons on the doctrine of imputation.

On the other hand, critics of the doctrine, rightly concerned about eisegesis (reading into rather than from a text), often miss the connections not only between the major texts but between the texts and a larger biblical-theological framework. Ironically, critics often end up doing the very thing that defenders of imputation often do—they expect too much from a single text, and when they find (as they inevitably will) that the entire doctrine of imputation in the traditional sense is not in Romans 4:1-8 or 2 Corinthians 5:16-21, they pass the doctrine off as just so much “systematic theology” and pronounce imputation dead on arrival.

The truth, as someone once said, is somewhere in the middle. The traditional doctrine of imputation is not theology apart from exegesis, nor does one have to subscribe to one particular theological presupposition before accepting imputation. At the same time, no historical doctrine was ever established, or denied, on the basis of one text alone. Though a great deal of time will be spent on the particulars of each text, one eye will be kept on the broader biblical horizon. Imputation, like other doctrines of Scripture, must be investigated exegetically and synthetically. The contention of this book is that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a legitimate and necessary synthesis of Paul’s teaching. While no single text contains or develops all the “ingredients” of imputation, the doctrine stands as a component of Paul’s soteriology.

THEOLOGY AND HISTORY

Although this work deals primarily with the New Testament, specifically, New Testament theology, the nature of the topic demands inquiry into areas typically associated with historical and systematic theology. The reason for this is twofold: (1) the doctrine of imputation formally arose in Protestant confessional settings; and (2) the most comprehensive treatments of the doctrine appear in works written by Protestant systematic theologians. Contrary to the opinion of some biblical scholars, the fact that “imputation” is closely associated with confessional and systematic theology does not make it off limits, or illegitimate, for biblical scholarship. In addition, it should be kept in mind that confessional statements and systematic theologies are usually based on the reading of biblical texts.4

While some readers may think that this book belongs in the realm of systematic rather than biblical theology, a clear distinction remains between true systematics and the type of work found here. The clearest differences are in method and arrangement. Rather than moving along and organizing on synthetic lines, the pattern will be to move along through the exegesis and interpretation of a selected number of biblical texts, then weighing the evidence. Even if systematic theology provides a jumping off point, the majority of the work is exegetical. After the work is done, then we will move on to a synthesis of Paul’s teaching on imputation.

Although I have included a fair amount of historical and systematic theology, I have tried, for the most part, to stay above the historical debates, choosing rather to include, usually in notes, the main ideas that have characterized the historical discussion and the various presuppositions that lie behind it. Not the least of my reasons is that I make no claim to be an expert in a large part of the history discussed in the first chapter. I am not setting forth a comprehensive study of imputation in the theology of, say, Luther or Calvin, but rather focusing on places where their work helps build historical-theological trajectories that aid in presenting a streamlined view of the history of the doctrine. It is my hope that others will perhaps follow some of these trajectories and do what I am not able to do in the scope of this work. In sum, the historical chapter is intended to (1) frame my discussion by providing a way to move back and forth between history and the exegesis that comprises the bulk of this book, and to (2) provide readers, especially those not familiar with the historical aspect of the question, with a context for understanding the breadth of the topic of imputation.5

DRAWING BOUNDARIES

The subject of imputation lends itself to the discussion of a variety of exegetical, biblical, theological, linguistic, and historical issues and questions. The intention is to proceed with as narrow a focus as such a broad topic will allow. If we paused all along the way for thorough discussions or definitive answers to every question or explorations of every connection, the book would not only exceed the allotted page limit, but also try the patience of even the most determined reader. For instance, even though this work focuses on the imputation of righteousness, it does not present a thorough linguistic discussion of the biblical language of righteousness. Rather than retrace the disputed question of “righteousness” in Paul, the discussion of righteous/righteousness in the relevant texts is determined by their immediate contexts, with particular attention given to the pivotal phrases, “reckoned as righteous,” “made righteous,” and “become . . . righteous.” To take but one other example, the theme of union with Christ plays an important role later in this study but that theme is not presented in anything like an exhaustive treatment Rather, it is limited to how it functions in texts associated with imputation. Secondly, this topic has vast amounts of historical background not only in the areas of historical and systematic theology, but also in the history of both Old Testament and New Testament interpretation, and all of the “key texts” are accompanied by extensive secondary literature on any number of exegetical topics and debates. Care has been taken to consider only those aspects of exegesis that have direct bearing on imputation. The goal is primarily to investigate the texts in Paul most closely associated with imputation, keeping an eye on the history of interpretation and sticking as close as possible to those issues in the texts that directly speak to the topic. Finally, there is no section in this book devoted to a study of the “New Perspective” on Paul. There are many studies on the New Perspective, so rather than simply repeat what can be easily read in various other sources, the scholars associated (to various degrees) with the New Perspective are dealt with when appropriate in the course of interpreting biblical texts.6

A NOTE TO THE READER

There is in places a fair amount of Greek and Hebrew. I have not transliterated the languages. The reason is simple: I know few, if any people, who actually find transliterations helpful, much less people who can read them. Moreover, people who do not read Hebrew or Greek are not made to do so by transliterations. Essentially all it does is introduce two additional foreign languages into the text. It may look a bit more like English, but in reality it is not English nor is it Greek or Hebrew. I have provided translations and I have tried to keep the languages in the text only when I thought it was helpful for readers who might want to see the text, phrase, or word for themselves.

1 J. Gresham Machen, God Transcendent, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, (Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth), 14. The quotation appears in Stonehouse’s introduction. In this collection of Machen’s essays there is a chapter entitled “The Active Obedience of Christ” that summarizes the essential content of the traditional view of imputation in simple terms (ibid., 187-96). Readers not familiar with the topic may want to consult Machen’s essay for a brief, pastoral introduction.

2 I recognize that there is a great deal of debate over whether there is continuity or discontinuity between Calvin and Luther and the traditions that bear their names. That is not the issue here. This investigation is not concerned primarily with how doctrine has developed within these traditions (though that issue does surface in the section on historical background below) but with how representative theologians have dealt with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

3 The terms imputation, impute, reckon, and count are used interchangeably throughout this work. This decision is not driven by any particular theological bias or presupposition. Although the word impute may appear theologically loaded to some, it is treated here as synonymous with reckon and count.

4 I hope, as a corollary goal, to confirm that contrary to some modern caricatures, Protestant theology, particularly the Reformed tradition, has not been dominated only by systematicians who cared little for exegesis.

5 I have obviously biased my historical interaction toward the Reformed tradition. There are two reasons for this. The first is that imputation, as it is typically formulated, is a consistent and vital tenet of Reformed theology, so it only makes sense to interact with sources from that tradition. The second reason is that my own background and relative level of expertise lie in the Reformed traditions. Since this is not a book on historical-theology, I thought it best to stay as close as possible to the tradition with which I am most familiar. For those interested in the type of work that has influenced the method and goal of this book, see Richard B. Gaffin, Jr, “Systematic and Biblical Theology,” WTJ 36 (1976): 281-99.

6 Works on our about the New Perspective abound increasingly. For readers already possessing knowledge of the debate and who want to pursue both the background and the technical aspects of the central issues, the clear choice is the set of volumes edited by D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid: Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), and Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2, The Paradoxes of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004). These volumes stand out because the debate over the New Perspective is essentially a debate that begins with the reading of Second Temple Jewish literature. For analysis and engagement of the various streams of the New Perspective, and an exegetical/theological study of Paul’s theology of justification, one cannot do better than to read Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and his Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). For an overall introduction to the New Perspective that does not assume prior knowledge and that carefully and fairly sets forth the various proponents of the New Perspective and responds to them accordingly, see Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004).

ONE

Tracing Trajectories: The History of Imputation

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION is not, historically speaking, cut and dry. This may come as a surprise to some readers since lately we are used to hearing that someone either affirms or denies imputation. Like most things, it all has to do with how we define our terms. The term “imputation,” is a fairly specific, almost technical term for the traditional Reformed view of justification consisting of the forgiveness of sins and the counting of Christ’s active obedience (his positive righteousness) to the believer. We cannot, however, limit ourselves historically only to those authors who use the word “imputation.” For this reason, if we want to do justice to the historical background, the best way to approach the subject is to focus as much as possible on the interpretation of the texts commonly associated with imputation. When we come at imputation from this angle, we can interact not only with those who hold explicitly to the traditional doctrine, but also with theologians who hold a more-or-less traditional view but do not use the word “imputation.” We can also interact with those who seem to avoid the term because they want to discuss the texts apart from “systematic” categories, and with those who do not so much deny imputation as seem not to have it on their horizon at all, and also with those who reject the doctrine outright. The best way to get started in the discussion is to follow loose trajectories through theological traditions. Along the way we will hear not only from well-known theologians, but also at times from some lesser-known scholars whose work sheds light on the various debates in our own day.

REFORMATION TRAJECTORIES

Luther

There is considerable debate over Luther’s teaching on imputation, or whether he held to anything like the later Reformed and Lutheran understanding of the doctrine.1 Though such a discussion runs the risk of asking anachronistic questions, it is essential that we consider Luther in the debate. While it is difficult to see in Luther a developed idea of both the negative and positive elements of imputation, as spelled out so precisely in later Lutheran and Reformed theology, the selections included here contain some of the necessary elements of the later formulation.

Imputation language is prevalent in Luther’s treatment of Romans 4:18. This is hardly surprising, since Paul’s argument hinges on the quotation from Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and God reckoned it to him as righteousness.” For instance, Luther asserts that people “are righteous only when God imputes righteousness to them.”2 Believers are righteous “outwardly” (i.e., in the eyes of God), “solely by the imputation of God and not of ourselves or of our own works.”3 A central element of Luther’s view of righteousness is his understanding of believers being equally righ­ 1 teous (before God) and unrighteous (in their own eyes). He can even say that “in their [believers’] own sight and in truth they are unrighteous, but before God they are righteous because He reckons them so because of their confession of sin.”4 The emphasis here is on the continuance of sin in the lives of believers even though God has imputed righteousness to them.5

A second emphasis, and important for the issue at hand, is the central role of forgiveness. Luther’s discussion of this text clearly focuses on the connection between the imputation of righteousness and forgiveness. It is indeed the righteousness of Christ that is in view here, but Luther speaks specifically of Christ’s righteousness that covers sin.6 This covering righteousness of Christ does not inhere in the believer but lies outside; it is imputed to the believer.7 There is no emphasis given to Christ’s fulfillment of the law which in turn is imputed to the believer.8 At least in his interpretation of Romans 4:1-8, Luther does not view the imputation of righteousness and the non-imputation of sin as two distinct ele­ments but rather as synonymous concepts. Commenting on Psalm 32:12, Luther says: “Thus the man to whom these two evils (evil deeds and sin) are forgiven, behold, he is the man whom God regards as righteous. Hence it follows, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity.’” Luther adds: “It is the same thing, whether we say, “to whom God imputes righteousness’ or, ‘to whom the LORD does not impute sin,’ that is, unrighteousness.”9 Thus God imputing a person as righteous is, in this text, the same thing as God forgiving a person’s sin.

Commenting on Romans 5:12, Luther emphasizes that sin “enters into men” even though “they do not commit it.”10 Thus while the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race is implied, as Luther continues through the passage the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in terms of his active obedience is less obvious. When, however, Luther comes to 5:14, he states that “the likeness of Adam’s transgression is in us because we die as if we had sinned in the same way he did. And the likeness of Christ’s justification is in us, because we live, as if we had produced the same kind of righteousness that he did.”11

He goes on to say that the gift, “by the grace of that one Man” (5:15), is “by the personal merit and grace of Christ.”12 Luther’s use of the term “merit,” and his statement that when we are justified it is “as if” we ourselves had done “the same kind of righteousness,” bear similarities with the later Protestant formulations of the imputation of positive righteousness, but we must be careful not to import all the later distinctions back into Luther.

The same tendency to come short of asserting positive imputation explicitly is seen also in Luther’s other writings.13 For instance, in “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” Luther states that, “through faith . . . Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours, rather he himself becomes ours.”14 Here the emphasis on Christ’s righteousness becoming ours is thought of more in terms of union than imputation. More accurately, Luther’s concept of imputation is tied closely to his understanding of union. Luther goes on to say that “he who trusts in Christ exists in Christ; he is one with Christ, having the same righteousness as he.”15 Again, as in Romans, Luther emphasizes the “alien” nature of this righteousness we have in Christ—it is Christ in us that is our righteousness, not anything that we have, even as gift, that becomes intrinsically our own.16

Similarly, in “The Freedom of the Christian,” it is union with Christ that Luther emphasizes:

By the wedding ring of faith he [Christ] shares in the sins, death, and pains of hell which are his bride’s. As a matter of fact he makes them his own and acts as if they were his own as if he himself had sinned; he suffered, died, and descended into hell that he might overcome them all. . . Thus the believing soul by means of the pledge of its faith is free in Christ, its bridegroom, free of all sins, secure against death and hell, and is endowed with the eternal rights, life, and salvation of Christ its bridegroom.17

Note that Luther does emphasize the imputation of sins to Christ, but he is more apt to emphasize forgiveness (as evident above) and union with Christ, rather than the imputation of positive righteousness.18 In a sermon on Galatians 3 Luther says in regard to imputation that “it is of pure grace that God reckons not to us our sins, yet he would not so forgive were not his Law and his standard of righteousness already completely satisfied.”19 Here the fulfillment of the law and imputation are linked although, again, the emphasis is on the resulting forgiveness. Here, however, the imputation of a positive righteousness is explicit. This is particularly true in regard to the law being fulfilled on our behalf. Luther develops this idea further when he states: “It is impossible for us to purchase forgiveness; God ordained in our stead one who took upon himself all our deserved punishment and fulfilled the Law for us, thus averting from us God’s judgment and appeasing his wrath.”20 Here the language is quite similar sounding to later Protestant teaching. Jesus, in our place, bears our sin and obeys the law of God on our behalf, with the result that God’s justice is met and we are free from his wrath.

It seems, then, that Luther does indeed understand justification as including both forgiveness and the imputation of Christ’s obedience to God’s “standard of righteousness.” What we see in Luther may not be the same explicit, systematic formulation of imputation that marks later Protestantism, but the raw material, so to speak, is there. We do need to recognize the primary role of forgiveness in Luther’s theology of justification, but this emphasis is hardly surprising since Luther was facing issues such as the Roman Catholic view of the propitiation of divine wrath through penance.21 Perhaps this is the background for Luther’s statement that “it is impossible for us to purchase forgiveness.” Certainly Luther’s statements and emphases must be read ultimately in light of his historical context. In short, Luther’s underscoring of forgiveness cannot simply be interpreted as proof that he did not have a conception of the imputation of positive righteousness.22

In a final selection from Luther there is a clearer connection with the traditional formulation. In “Adversus armatum virum Cokleum” (1523), Luther asserts: “God does everything to justify us. Christ has merited our justification, and the Holy Spirit implements the merit of Christ, so that we are justified.”23 Without entering into the discussion of the various meanings of “merit,” this statement sounds closer to the traditional doctrine than what was seen in some of the earlier examples. From this brief overview, including recognition of Luther’s emphasis on union with Christ, and the primary place of forgiveness in our justification, Luther’s understanding is not incompatible with what followed in Melanchthon, Calvin, et al. As we shall see later, both union and forgiveness are central to understanding a full-orbed doctrine of imputation. At the end of the day, Luther’s interpretation neither proves nor disproves the validity of the traditional formulation. Even if it were true that Luther opposes the later formulation of the doctrine (granted, an anachronistic idea) that would not be grounds to reject it as false. Whatever one concludes about Luther, he is, nevertheless, the beginning of a trajectory. We now turn to his immediate successor, Philip Melanchthon.

Melanchthon

In the writings of Luther’s companion and successor, Philip Melanchthon, we see a clearer formulation of imputation that includes forgiveness and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.24 Commenting “Through such faith,” Carl J. Lawrenz writes, “justification is, however, not yet appropriated to us. Rather, through such faith Christ the eternal Word, who is God himself, now is able to come and on Romans 5:12, Melanchthon sounds quite similar to Luther when he asserts that the guilt of sin comes to those who follow Adam not because of “actual transgressions” (which they do commit), but because “all are guilty on account of one, Adam.”25 As he comes to verse 15, however, the parallel between Adam and Christ is more finely tuned and developed than in Luther:

Here Paul joins together two things: grace and gift through grace. Grace signifies gratuitous acceptance because of Christ, that is, gratuitous remission of sins, and gratuitous imputation of righteousness because of Christ.26

There are two things to note in this passage. First, Melanchthon’s distinction between remission and imputation is significant because the traditional formulation rests on a division of imputation to include forgiveness and the imputation of positive righteousness; this is true whether the distinction between active and passive obedience is pressed or not. Furthermore, Melanchthon’s insertion of “imputation,” commenting on a text in which the word does not appear, may suggest that he understood the parallel and antithesis between Adam and Christ and their connection with humanity in terms of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience, best explained in terms of imputation.27

Statements in Melanchthon’s Loci are clearer than what we see in Romans.28 In the 1543 edition Melanchthon equates justification with the “remission of sins, reconciliation, or the acceptance of a person unto eternal life.”29 That justification means more than forgiveness, or that there are aspects of justification that accompany forgiveness, is evident in his definition of the gospel: “This is the definition of the Gospel in which we lay hold on three Gospel blessings: that for the sake of Christ our sins are freely remitted; that we are freely pronounced righteous, that is, reconciled or accepted by God; that we are made heirs of eternal life.”30 On the one hand it could be argued that Melanchthon is simply restating what it means to have sins “freely remitted,” or the results of that remission, when he uses the words “freely pronounced righteous,” and “made heirs of eternal life.” On the other hand, however, Melanchthon’s definition of the gospel centers on “three Gospel blessings,” making it seem unlikely that he is merely saying the same thing, i.e., the gospel is forgiveness, in three different ways. In that case there would be only one gospel blessing.

In the 1555 edition of the Loci there are no longer ambiguities in Melanchthon’s statements. In the section entitled “How Man Obtains Forgiveness of Sin and Is Justified before God,” he states that as believers we “have forgiveness of sins, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, so that we are justified and are pleasing to God for the sake of Christ.”31 He cites Romans 3:24-25 and says:

Now to be justified is to obtain forgiveness of sins, to please God, to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and endowed with the Holy Spirit. This occurs when he [Paul] expressly says, without merit on our part, through faith in the Lord Christ, God and Man, because he bore for us the wrath of God. By speaking of blood, he includes the entire obedience and merit of the Lord Christ.32

There can be no question that here Melanchthon is describing different aspects of justification, of which forgiveness, though mentioned first, is but one. There is at least one thing that should be noted here in regard to the development of the doctrine. Melanchthon sees “blood” (“justified freely by faith, in his blood,” Rom. 3:25) as Paul’s shorthand for Christ’s entire work. There is no clear distinction, as made by later Lutheran and Reformed theologians, regarding the so-called “passive” and “active” obedience of Christ. Apparently, Melanchthon understood the cross as a metonymy for Christ’s saving work, including his obedience in life and in death. This idea is made explicit later when he says that “the Mediator’s entire obedience, from his Incarnation until his Resurrection, is the true justification which is pleasing to God, and is the merit for us.”33

Melanchthon makes a direct link between righteousness and obedience to the law: “Righteousness is uniformity with, or fulfillment of, the entire law.”34 The sinner, unable to fulfill the law of God perfectly, can through Christ nevertheless “obtain forgiveness, and become pleasing to [God].” Since righteousness is equated with fulfillment of the law, and righteousness is required to approach God, the sinner being unable to fulfill the law must receive, by faith, “an imputed righteousness,” which is the righteousness of Christ, i.e., his obedience.35

While it may not be eminently clear that Melanchthon speaks of an imputation of positive righteousness in the explicit language of the later Reformers, his insistence on forgiveness and imputation—not simply forgiveness as imputation—lends itself to the later formulations.

One need not look far to find a figure who saw himself as carrying on this trajectory and who strongly emphasized imputation.

Melanchthon’s best known student, Martin Chemnitz, commenting on Melanchthon’s Loci no less, states:

The free imputation in the article of justification is the grace of God, which for the sake of Christ, does not impute against us the sins inher­ing in us, 2 Cor 5.19, and imputes to us (as though it actually did inhere in man) the perfect righteousness which does not inhere in us and which is worthy of eternal life.36

Chemnitz’s insistence on imputation of “perfect righteousness” that is “worthy of eternal life” is perfectly in keeping with the theology of the later Lutheran and Reformed scholars and their followers. The similarities are clearer still when Chemnitz asserts that justification depends on both “satisfaction” for the penalty of the law and the fulfillment of the law “by perfect obedience.”37 Both elements of the traditional formulation, forgiveness and positive imputation, are explicit. Thus in little more than one generation, in one tradition, a clear trajectory arises regarding the interpretation of texts, particularly in Paul, that deal with the function of imputation in justification.

Calvin

In his commentaries on the major imputation texts, Calvin speaks of justification explicitly in terms of forgiveness, but this does not mean that the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness is absent in his interpretations. In Romans 4 Calvin interprets Paul’s discussion of God reckoning Abraham’s faith as righteousness and David’s declaring that the blessed man is the one whom “the Lord does not reckon sin” as meaning that “righteousness . . . is nothing other than the remission of sins.”38 Although he also states that justification requires “obedience, perfect and complete in all its parts,” and that the believer is “covered by the purity of Christ,” the bulk of his discussion centers on forgiveness. On the other hand, when he comes to Romans 5:18-19 he speaks of being “made righteous by the obedience of Christ.”39 Furthermore he states that if we want “to be justified by works, viz., obedience to the law,” we must have total obedience to all points of the law. His point, of course, is that we cannot be justified by our works. This observation comes in the context of discussing Christ’s obedience as both the “character” of his righteousness and that which makes us righteous, and Christ’s righteousness being “imputed” to us. Taken all together, Calvin implies that perfect obedience, which we cannot render but which is required for justification, is rendered by Christ and imputed to us and on this basis we are justified.

Calvin again focuses on forgiveness in his interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, saying that “we were made the righteousness of God as a result of Christ’s having been made sin.”40 Thus being “the righteousness of God in him” (5:21) means we are righteous just “as Christ became a sinner.” Christ was “reckoned a sinner” in our place, bearing our sin so that we “are judged in relation to Christ’s righteousness which we have put on by faith.”41 So while Calvin does speak here of the reckoning of our sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, he emphasizes Christ’s sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

When we turn to Calvin’s Institutes, his connection to the theological tradition that bears his name is clearly evident.42 While Calvin’s language in the passages from his commentaries may be inconclusive, a more developed idea of positive imputation is made explicit in the Institutes.43 Commenting on a series of Pauline texts, particularly 2 Corinthians 3:6, Calvin says that Paul “means that righteousness is

41 Ibid., 81-82 taught in vain by the commandments until Christ confers it by free imputation.”44 Soon after this he adds: “We cannot gainsay that the reward of eternal salvation awaits complete obedience to the law.”45 Later on, Calvin concludes that “if righteousness consists in the observance of the law, who will deny that Christ merited favor for us?”46 Though in the context Calvin stresses forgiveness, the basic formulation of positive imputation is evident, as in the following statement:

He is said to be justified in God’s sight who is both reckoned righteous in God’s judgment and has been accepted on account of his righteousness. . . . Therefore, we explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.47

When he sets out to refute Osiander’s view regarding union with Christ as meaning union with Christ’s essential righteousness as derived from his divinity, Calvin leaves little room to doubt where he stands on the imputation of righteousness. Calvin’s fundamental problem with Osiander’s view is that it results in righteousness “by the infusion both of his [Christ’s] essence and of his quality,” rather than a righteousness “that has been acquired for us by Christ’s obedience and sacrificial death.”48 Since union with Christ plays such an important role in Osiander’s view, Calvin counters with his own understanding of the doctrine. This is particularly significant here because of the connections that will later be drawn between imputation and union. In Calvin we find an example of how it is not a matter of either imputation or union, but that the two ideas work together. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer in the context of the believer’s union with Christ. Imputation is not an abstraction but a reality that comes as a result of faith in Christ and being “engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.”49

PROTESTANT SYMBOLS50

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, as meaning more than the forgiveness of sins, is arguably present in Luther, more pronounced in Melanchthon, and clearer still in Calvin. In much of both the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, including his positive obedience, became accepted orthodoxy. The developments and refinements that took place in the generations immediately following the early Reformers are well illustrated in their confessional statements.51

The Augsburg Confession (1530), Article IV

They [Scriptures] teach that man cannot be justified (obtain forgiveness of sins and righteousness) before God by their own powers, merits, or works; but are justified freely (of grace) for Christ’s sake through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and their sins forgiven for Christ’s sake, who by his death hath satisfied for our sins. This faith doth God impute for righteousness before him.

Though the emphasis is on forgiveness, the parenthetical remark does point to the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the rest of the statement affirms that a positive imputation of righteousness is not summed up fully in forgiveness.

When we compare the statements on justification in the 1644 London Confession (Baptist) and the Second London Confession of 1689, there is discernable development.

First London Confession, 1644, Article XXVIII

Those which have union with Christ, are justified for all their sins, past, present, and to come, by the blood of Christ; which justification we conceive to be a gracious and free acquittal of a guilty, sinful creature for all sin by God, through the satisfaction that Christ has made by his death; and this applied in the manifestation of it through faith.52

Second London Confession (1689), Article XI

Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting, and accepting their Persons as Righteous . . . not by imputing faith itself . . . but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole Law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole Righteousness.53

Clearly the 1689 article on justification is more sharply defined than the 1644 article that speaks of justification exclusively along the lines of the forgiveness of sins. Whether the addition is a clarification or a correction, it does witness to the fact that it is possible for those in the same basic historical trajectory—affirming justification by faith alone through Christ alone—to conceive of justification with or without explicit mention of the imputation of Christ’s positive obedience.

For the most part, the major Protestant, particularly Reformed, creeds, confessions, and catechisms affirm both negative and positive imputation:

The Formula of Concord (Lutheran) 1584, Article III, 1 and 2

1. [W]e unanimously believe, teach, and confess that Christ is truly our righteousness . . . in his sole, most absolute obedience which he rendered to the Father even unto death, as God and man, and thereby merited for us the remission of all our sins and eternal life.54

2. We believe, therefore, teach, and confess that this very thing is our righteousness before God, namely, that God remits to us our sins of mere grace, without any respect of our works, going before, present, or following, or of our worthiness or merit. For he bestows and imputes to us the righteousness of the obedience of Christ; for the sake of that righteousness we are received by God into favor and accounted righteous.

The French Confession of Faith (1559), Article XVIII

We believe that all our justification rests upon the remission of our sins, in which also is our only blessedness, as with the Psalmist (Ps. 32:2). We therefore reject all other means of justification before God, and without claiming any virtue or merit, we rest simply in the obedience of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us as much to blot out all our sins as to make us find grace and favor in the sight of God.

The Belgic Confession (1561), Article XXIII

We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, and that therein our righteousness is implied. . . .

And therefore we always hold fast this foundation . . . without presuming to trust in any thing in ourselves or in any merit of ours, relying and resting on the obedience of Christ crucified alone, which becomes ours when when we believe in him.

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

Question 60: How art thou righteous before God?Answer: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ; that is, although my conscience accuse me that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and that I am still prone always to all evil, yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me, if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Chapter 15

For Christ took upon himself and bare the sins of the world, and did satisfy the justice of God. God, therefore, is merciful unto our sins for Christ alone, that suffered and rose again, and does not impute them unto us. But he imputes the justice of Christ unto us for our own; so that now we are not only cleansed from sin, and purged, and holy, but also endued with the righteousness of Christ.... To speak properly, then, it is God alone that justifieth us, and that only for Christ, by not imputing unto us our sins, but imputing Christ’s righteousness unto us.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), VII.V

The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of the Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.55

There were, historically, voices within Protestantism that did not assert a positive imputation of righteousness; nevertheless, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience—positive righteousness—became firmly established as a point of orthodoxy for a large number of Protestants.

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TRAJECTORY

The theologians included in this section are representative of the Reformed theological tradition that took hold with the English Puritans and later crossed the Atlantic and settled in New England.56 In America, this tradition comes down to us (not exclusively) through Jonathan Edwards and the early Princeton theologians. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a prominent aspect of this theological trajectory.

Theological Presuppositions57

John Owen provides a classic statement, in the Reformed tradition, for the doctrine of imputation. Commenting on Paul’s teaching, Owen states,