The Upper Register Blog

What is the righteousness that is imputed to the elect in justification?

Option 1

Some say it the righteousness of Jesus himself, that is, his lifelong moral perfection and obedience to the law. There are good arguments for this view.

First, it is not enough that we have a substitute who bears the curse brought upon us for our violation of the moral law; we also need a substitute who obeys the moral law in our place in order that we might be “righteous before God” (Rom 2:13) and thus have a positive right and title to eternal life (”justification that brings life,” Rom 5:18 [NIV]).

Second, Paul relies heavily on Gen 15:6 for his teaching on justification (Rom 4:3-11; Gal 3:6), focusing particularly on the verb “it was reckoned” and the noun “righteousness” (ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην). Note that Paul changes the passive into the active form*, supplies the implicit subject (”God”) and paraphrases it as “God credits righteousness” (ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην, Rom 4:6). [*Technically, it is middle in form, but active in meaning.] Paul also speaks of “the righteousness of/from God” (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9), “the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13; 9:30; 10:6) and “the free gift of righteousness” (Rom 5:17). This language of “righteousness” seems to indicate that in Christ we have something more than the forgiveness of sins.

Third, the Adam-Christ typology of Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15:20-22, 45 seems to suggest that the obedience that Adam failed to render to God as the natural and federal head of the human race has now been supplied by the Second Adam. Where Adam disobeyed and brought condemnation and death upon his seed, Christ has obeyed and brought justification and life to his “seed,” that is, all those who are “in Christ” (1 Cor 15:22) or who “belong to Christ” (1 Cor 15:23).

Option 2

However, when asked, “What is the righteousness that is imputed to the elect in justification?” others answer differently. They say it is a righteous status that God legally confers on (or imputes to) the believer on the basis of the atonement, with the moral perfection of Christ as the necessary precondition qualifying him to offer himself as a sacrifice. There are good arguments for this view as well.

First, Paul never explicitly says that the righteousness of Christ, or his lifelong perfection and obedience to the moral law, is imputed to the elect.

Second, by contrast, Paul does repeatedly say that we are justified “by his blood” (Rom 5:9), “by the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10), that righteousness comes through the cross (Gal 2:21) and resurrection (Rom 4:25), and so on. The passages that mention Christ’s obedience (Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8; Heb 5:8) are probably referring to the obedience of Christ in going to the cross, as the immediate context suggests (e.g., “one act of righteousness,” Rom 5:18; “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,” Phil 2:8; “he learned obedience through what he suffered,” Heb 5:8).

Third, the passages which speak of Christ’s sinlessness explicitly recall the Levitical requirement that a sacrificial animal must be “without blemish” before it can be sacrificed (Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 1:19), thus indicating that the sinlessness of Christ was what qualified him to be the perfect and final sacrifice for sin, not that his sinlessness is imputed to our account.

The truth in both options

Both options are credible. All of the above arguments are weighty in my mind. One set of arguments cannot be easily dismissed or suppressed in favor of the other set.

To begin with, we cannot deny the force of the arguments in support of Option 2. Just stand back and take a look at the whole teaching of Scripture. The emphasis is not on Christ’s own moral perfection and sinlessness being imputed to the elect; the emphasis is on the atoning death of Christ. That is so obvious it hardly needs to be stated. What is the theme of the saints in heaven? Worthy is the Lamb that was slain! What is Paul’s boast? That he determines to know nothing except Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2; cp. Gal 6:14). The fact that Jesus was morally perfect is clearly taught in the Scriptures, but it is not the heart-beat of the church’s worship. It is hardly mentioned when the New Testament explains the redemptive work of Christ. The repeated formula is that “Christ died for our sins.” The resurrection is also sometimes mentioned, indicating that God’s verdict of judgment against Christ has been reversed, thus indicating that the judgment against us (borne by Christ) has been accepted. But the emphasis is on the saving power of the death of Christ.

Now, lest anyone think I have abandoned the traditional doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, let me say that we also cannot ignore the arguments in support of Option 1. It is not enough to have our bad record expunged; we also need a positive righteousness in the sight of God if we are to have a right and title to eternal life. This is Paul’s particular contribution to the New Testament interpretation of Christ’s atoning death. Why does Paul repeatedly use the language of “righteousness” and “justification” (which, remember, is merely the verb form, meaning “to declare and treat someone as righteous”) if he merely wanted to say that through Christ’s death our sins are forgiven? The New Testament writers know how to speak of “forgiveness” when they want to, using words like ἄφεσις and its cognates. Even Paul speaks of forgiveness as part of justification in Rom 4:7-8, but he does not reduce justification to forgiveness. His three-point outline of the gospel is: (1) God demands righteousness (Rom 2:13); (2) tragically, because of Adam’s sin, there is none righteous, no not one (Rom 3:10-20); (3) but now, apart from our moral efforts, a supernatural righteousness from God has been revealed in the cross of Christ, received as a gift, by faith alone (Rom 3:21-26). The gospel is that we are “righteous” before God, not by works, but by faith (Rom 1:16-17; Hab 2:4). This, for Paul, is something greater than God not counting our sins against us.

How, then, do we resolve the dilemma?

I believe the best resolution to the dilemma is to define the righteousness of Christ in a covenantal context. The righteousness that is imputed to us is Christ’s obedience to the point of death (Phil 2:8; Rom 5:17-19) within the context of the pactum salutis or covenant of redemption. The obedience of Christ is not a separate phase of Christ’s life prior to his death but the totality of Christ’s voluntary submission to the Father’s will, beginning with his incarnation and humiliation, and climaxing in his act of laying down his life for us on the cross. Since this obedience took place within the context of a covenant (incidentally, the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son was a covenant of works for Christ), the obedience of Christ to the point of death is acknowledged and rewarded by the Father, thus constituting a covenantal “righteousness” that is then imputed to the elect. So it is not the moral perfection or obedience of Christ itself that is imputed, but the righteousness that arises from the Father’s recognition of the Son’s fulfillment of the terms of the pactum salutis. But since the Son’s fulfillment of the pactum salutis included his lifelong keeping of the moral law, this too is included in the obedience of Christ, not merely as that which qualified him to be the final sacrifice for sins, but neither simply as the righteousness imputed to us, as if it were a straightforward transfer from one bank account to another. Rather, it is the total obedience of Christ, from the incarnation to the cross, that fulfills the covenant and which, with the Father’s approval and vindication, achieves a covenantal status of “righteousness” that is imputed to the elect in justification.

I would suggest that it is precisely because of the Father’s role in sending the Son on his mission as the Second Adam, as well as the Father’s role of recognizing, approving, vindicating, and rewarding Christ’s obedience once his mission was completed (the reward being granted at the resurrection and exaltation of Christ), that the righteousness that is imputed to the elect is not called “the righteousness of Christ” but “the righteousness of God.” My covenantal interpretation also explains why Paul says that Christ “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). God’s act of vindicating Christ played a necessary role in constituting the covenantal righteousness that is now reckoned to our account by grace.

Unidentified Scripture quotes are from the ESV.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 10th, 2009 at 2:56 pm and is filed under Justification. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.