Justification, strictly speaking, consists in
God's imputing to His elect the righteousness of Christ, that alone
being the meritorious cause or formal ground on which He pronounces them
righteous: the righteousness of Christ is that to which God has respect when He
pardons and accepts the sinner. By the nature of justification we have
reference to the constituent elements of the same, which are enjoyed by
the believer. These are, the non-imputation of guilt or the remission of sins,
and second, of the investing of the believer with a legal title to Heaven. The
alone ground on which God forgives any man's sins, and admits him into His
judicial favour, is the vicarious work of his Surety--that perfect satisfaction
which Christ offered to the law on his behalf. It is of great importance to be
clear on the fact that Christ was "made under the law" not only that He might
redeem His people "from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13), but also that
they might "receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4, 5), that is, be invested
with the privileges of sons.
This grand doctrine of Justification was
proclaimed in its purity and clarity by the Reformers--Luther, Calvin,
Zanchius, Peter Martyr, etc.; but it began to be corrupted in the seventeenth
century by men who had only a very superficial knowledge of it, who taught that
justification consisted merely in the removal of guilt or forgiveness of sins,
excluding the positive admittance of man into God's judicial favour: in other
words, they restricted justification unto deliverance from Hell, failing to
declare that it also conveys a title unto Heaven. This error was perpetuated by
John Wesley, and then by the Plymouth Brethren, who, denying that the
righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer, seek to find their title to
eternal life in a union with Christ in His resurrection. Few today are clear
upon the twofold content of Justification, because few today understand
the nature of that righteousness which is imputed to all who believe.
To show that we have not misrepresented the
standard teachings of the Plymouth Brethren on this subject, we quote from Mr.
W. Kelly's "Notes on Romans." In his "Introduction" he states, "There is
nothing to hinder our understanding `the righteousness of God' in its usual
sense of an attribute or quality of God" (p. 35). But how could an "attribute"
or "quality" of God be "upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3:22)? Mr.
Kelly will not at all allow that the "righteousness of God" and "the
righteousness of Christ" are one and the same, and hence, when he comes to
Romans 4 (where so much is said about "righteousness" being imputed to
the believer) he evacuates the whole of its blessed teaching by trying to make
out that this is nothing more than our own faith, saying of Abraham, "his faith
in God's word as that which he exercised, and which was accounted as
righteousness" (p. 47).
The "righteousness of Christ" which is imputed to
the believer consists of that perfect obedience which He rendered unto the
precepts of God's Law and that death which He died under the penalty of the
law. It has been rightly said that, "There is the very same need of Christ's
obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of His suffering the
penalty of the law in our stead in order to our escaping the penalty; and the
same reason why one should be accepted on our account as the other... To
suppose that all Christ does in order to make atonement for us by suffering is
to make Him our Saviour but in part. It is to rob Him of half His glory as a
Saviour. For if so, all that He does is to deliver us from Hell; He does not
purchase Heaven for us" (Jonathan Edwards). Should any one object to the idea
of Christ "purchasing" Heaven for His people, he may at once be referred to
Ephesians 1:14, where Heaven is expressly designated "the purchased
possession."
The imputation to the believer's account of that
perfect obedience which his Surety rendered unto the law for him is plainly
taught in Romans 5:18, 19, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came
upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous." Here the "offence" or "disobedience" of the first Adam is set over
against the "righteousness" or "obedience" of the last Adam, and inasmuch as
the disobedience of the former was an actual transgression of the law,
therefore the obedience of the latter must be His active obedience unto
the law; otherwise the force of the Apostle's antithesis would fail entirely.
As this vital point (the chief glory of the Gospel) is now so little
understood, and in some quarters disputed, we must enter into some detail.
The one who was justified upon his believing
sustained a twofold relation unto God: first, he was a responsible creature,
born under the law; second, he was a criminal, having transgressed that
law--though his criminality has not canceled his obligation to obey the
law any more than a man who recklessly squanders his money is no longer due to
pay his debts. Consequently, justification consists of two parts, namely, an
acquittal from guilt, or the condemnation of the law (deliverance from Hell),
and the receiving him into God's favour, on the sentence of the law's approval
(a legal title to Heaven). And therefore, the ground upon which God pronounces
him just is also a double one, as the one complete satisfaction of Christ is
viewed in its two distinct parts: namely, His vicarious obedience unto the
precepts of the law, and His substitutionary death under the penalty of the
law, the merits of both being equally imputed or reckoned to the account of him
who believes.
Against this it has been objected, "The law
requires no man to obey and die too." To which we reply in the language of J.
Hervey (1750), "But did it not require a transgressor to obey and die?
If not, then transgression robs the law of its right, and vacates all
obligation to obedience. Did it not require the Surety for sinful men to
obey and die? If the Surety dies only, He only delivers from penalty. But this
affords no claim to life, no title to a reward--unless you can
produce some such edict from the Court of Heaven-- `Suffer this, and thou shalt
live.' I find it written `In keeping Thy commandments there is great reward'
(Psa. 19:11), but nowhere do I read, `In undergoing Thy curse, there is the
same reward.' Whereas, when we join the active and passive obedience of our
Lord--the peace-speaking Blood with the Life-giving righteousness--both made
infinitely meritorious and infinitely efficacious by the Divine glory of His
person, how full does our justification appear! How firm does it stand!"
It is not sufficient that the believer stand
before God with no sins upon him--that is merely negative. The holiness
of God requires a positive righteousness to our account--that His Law be
perfectly kept. But we are unable to keep it, therefore our Sponsor fulfilled
it for us. By the blood-shedding of our blessed Substitute the gates of Hell
have been forever shut against all those for whom He died. By the perfect
obedience of our blessed Surety the gates of Heaven are opened wide unto all
who believe. My title for standing before God, not only without fear, but in
the conscious sunshine of His full favour, is because Christ has been made
"righteousness" unto me (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ not only paid all my debts, but
fully discharged all my responsibilities. The law-Giver is my law-Fulfiller.
Every holy aspiration of Christ, every godly thought, every gracious word,
every righteous act of the Lord Jesus, from Bethlehem to Calvary, unite in
forming that "best robe" in which the seed royal stand arrayed before God.
Yet sad to say, even so widely-read and
generally-respected a writer as the late Sir Rob. Anderson, said in his book,
"The Gospel and Its Ministry" (Chapter on Justification by Blood), "Vicarious
obedience is an idea wholly beyond reason; how could a God of righteousness and
truth reckon a man who has broken law to have kept law, because some one else
has kept it? The thief is not declared to be honest because his neighbour or
his kinsman is a good citizen." What a pitiable dragging down to the bar of
sin-polluted human reason, and a measuring by worldly relations, of that Divine
transaction wherein the "manifold wisdom of God" was exercised! What is
impossible with men is possible with God. Did Sir Robert never read that
Old Testament prediction wherein the Most High God declared, "Therefore,
behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a
marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall
perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid" (Isa.
29:14)?
It is pointed out that, "In the human realm, both
innocence and righteousness are transferable in their effects, but that in
themselves they are untransferable." From this it is argued that neither
sin nor righteousness are in themselves capable of being transferred,
and that though God treated Christ as if He were the sinner, and deals
with the believer as though he were righteous, nevertheless, we must not
suppose that either is actually the case; still less ought we to affirm that
Christ deserved to suffer the curse, or that His people are
entitled to be taken to Heaven. Such is a fair sample of the theological
ignorance of these degenerate times, such is a representative example of how
Divine things are being measured by human standards; by such sophistries is the
fundamental truth of imputation now being repudiated.
Rightly did W. Rushton, in his "Particular
Redemption," affirm, "In the great affair of our salvation, our God stands
single and alone. In this most glorious work, there is such a display of
justice, mercy, wisdom and power, as never entered into the heart of man to
conceive, and consequently, can have no parallel in the actions of
mortals. `Who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that
time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a
Saviour; there is none beside Me': Isaiah 45:21." No, in the very nature of the
case no analogy whatever is to be found in any human transactions with God's
transferring our sins to Christ or Christ's obedience to us, for the simple but
sufficient reason that no such union exists between worldlings as
obtains between Christ and His people. But let us further amplify this
counter-imputation.
The afflictions which the Lord Jesus experienced
were not only sufferings at the hands of men, but also enduring punishment at
the hand of God: "it pleased the LORD to bruise Him" (Isa. 53:10); "Awake, O
sword, against My Shepherd, and against the man that is My Fellow, saith the
LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd" (Zech. 13:7) was His edict. But
lawful "punishment" presupposes criminality; a righteous God had never
inflicted the curse of the law upon Christ unless He had deserved it.
That is strong language we are well aware, yet not stronger than what Holy Writ
fully warrants, and things need to be stated forcibly and plainly today if an
apathetic people is to be aroused. It was because God had transferred to their
Substitute all the sins of His people that, officially, Christ deserved
to be paid sin's wages.
The translation of our sins to Christ was clearly
typed out under the Law: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of
the live goat, (expressing identification with the substitute), and
confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat
(denoting transference), and shall send him away by the hand of a fit
man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their
iniquities unto a land not inhabited" (Lev. 16:21, 22). So too it was expressly
announced by the Prophets: "The LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all...
He shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:6, 11). In that great Messianic Psalm,
the 69th, we hear the Surety saying, "O God, Thou knowest My foolishness; and
My sins are not hid from Thee" (v. 5)--how could the spotless Redeemer
speak thus, unless the sins of His people had been laid upon Him?
When God imputed sin to Christ as the sinner's
Surety, He charged Him with the same, and dealt with Him accordingly.
Christ could not have suffered in the stead of the guilty unless their guilt
had been first transferred to Him. The sufferings of Christ were penal. God by
act of transcendent grace (to us) laid the iniquities of all that are saved
upon Christ, and in consequence, Divine justice finding sin upon Him,
punished Him. He who will by no means clear the guilty must strike
through sin and smite its bearer, no matter whether it be the sinner himself or
One who vicariously takes his place. But as G.S. Bishop well said, "When
justice once strikes the Son of God, justice exhausts itself. Sin is amerced in
an Infinite Object." The atonement of Christ was contrary to our
processes of law because it rose above their finite limitations!
Now as the sins of him who believes were, by God,
transferred and imputed to Christ so that God regarded and treated Him
accordingly--visiting upon Him the curse of the law, which is death;
even so the obedience or righteousness of Christ is, by God, transferred and
imputed to the believer so that God now regards and deals with him
accordingly--bestowing upon him the blessing of the law, which is life.
And any denial of that fact, no matter by whomsoever made, is a repudiation of
the cardinal principle of the Gospel. "The moment the believing sinner accepts
Christ as his Substitute, he finds himself not only freed from his sins, but
rewarded: he gets all Heaven because of the glory and merits of Christ
(Rom. 5:17). The atonement, then, which we preach is one of absolute exchange
(1 Peter 3:18). It is that Christ took our place literally, in order that we
might take His place literally--that God regarded and treated Christ as the
Sinner, and that He regards and treats the believing sinner as Christ.
"It is not enough for a man to be pardoned. He,
of course, is then innocent--washed from his sin--put back again, like Adam in
Eden, just where he was. But that is not enough. It was required of Adam in
Eden that he should actually keep the command. It was not enough that he
did not break it, or that he is regarded, through the Blood, as though he did
not break it. He must keep it: he must continue in all things that are
written in the book of the law to do them. How is this necessity
supplied? Man must have a righteousness, or God cannot accept him. Man must
have a perfect obedience, or else God cannot reward him" (G.S. Bishop).
That necessary and perfect obedience is to be found alone in that perfect
life, lived by Christ in obedience to the law, before He went to
the cross, which is reckoned to the believer's account.
It is not that God treats as righteous one
who is not actually so (that would be a fiction), but that He actually
constitutes the believer so, not by infusing a holy nature in his heart, but by
reckoning the obedience of Christ to his account. Christ's obedience is legally
transferred to him so that he is now rightly and justly regarded as righteous
by the Divine Law. It is very far more than a naked pronouncement of
righteousness upon one who is without any sufficient foundation for the
judgment of God to declare him righteous. No, it is a positive and judicial act
of God "whereby, on the consideration of the mediation of Christ, He makes an
effectual grant and donation of a true, real, perfect righteousness, even that
of Christ Himself unto all that do believe, and accounting it as theirs,
on His own gracious act, both absolves them from sin, and granteth them right
and title unto eternal life" (John Owen).
It now remains for us to point out the ground
on which God acts in this counter-imputation of sin to Christ and
righteousness to His people. That ground was the Everlasting Covenant.
The objection that it is unjust the innocent should suffer in order that the
guilty may escape loses all its force once the Covenant-Headship and
responsibility of Christ is seen, and the covenant-oneness with Him of
those whose sins He bore. There could have been no such thing as a
vicarious sacrifice unless there had been some union between
Christ and those for whom He died, and that relation of union must have
subsisted before He died, yea, before our sins were imputed to Him.
Christ undertook to make full satisfaction to the law for His people because He
sustained to them the relation of a Surety. But what justified
His acting as their Surety? He stood as their Surety because He was their
Substitute: He acted on their behalf, because He stood in
their room. But what justified the substitution?
No satisfactory answer can be given to the last
question until the grand doctrine of everlasting covenant-oneness comes into
view: that is the great underlying relation. The federal oneness between
the Redeemer and the redeemed, the choosing of them in Christ before the
foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), by which a legal union was established
between Him and them, is that which alone accounts for and justifies all else.
"For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of
one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2:11).
As the Covenant-Head of His people, Christ was so related to them that their
responsibilities necessarily became His, and we are so related to Him that His
merits necessarily become ours. Thus, as we said in an earlier chapter, three
words give us the key to and sum up the whole transaction: substitution,
identification, imputation--all of which rest upon covenant-oneness. Christ was
substituted for us, because He is one with us--identified with
us, and we with Him. Thus God dealt with us as occupying Christ's place
of worthiness and acceptance. May the Holy Spirit grant both writer and reader
such an heart-apprehension of this wondrous and blessed truth, that overflowing
gratitude may move us unto fuller devotedness unto Him who loved us and gave
Himself for us.