Justified By Faith Alone (Part 6)

Jonathan Edwards

PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE LAWS OF GOD (Cont’d)

To suppose that the only thing Christ does is to make atonement for us by suffering is to make Him our Savior, but only partially. It robs Him of half His glory as Savior. If so, all that He does is deliver us from hell; He does not purchase heaven for us. Opponents suppose that He purchases heaven for us by satisfying for the imperfections of our obedience, purchases that our sincere and imperfect obedience might be accepted as the condition of eternal life, and purchases an opportunity for us to obtain heaven by our own obedience. But to purchase heaven for us ony in this sense would be to purchase it in no sense at all.

All of it comes from no more than satisfying for our sins, or removing the penalty by suffering in our stead. All th epurchasing of which they speak, based on the assumption that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, is only His satisfying for the sinful imperfection of our obedience. In other words, He is making atonement for the sin that our obedience is attended with. But that is not purchasing heaven merely to set us at liberty again, so that we may go and get heaven by what we do ourselves. The only thing that Christ does is to pay a debt for us. There is no positive purchase of any good. We are taught in Scripture that heaven is purchased for us. It is called the purchased possession (Ephesians 1:14). As the first covenant did, the gospel proposes the eternal inheritance: not to be acquired in the future, but as already acquired and purchased. But he who pays a man’s debt for him and so delivers him from slavery does not purchase an estate for him, merely because he sets him at liberty. The freed man, from this point forward, has the opportunity to get an estate by his own labor. According to this scheme, the saints in heaven have no reason to thank Christ for purchasing heaven for them or redeeming them to God and making them kings and priests, as we have an account that they do in Revelation 5:9-10.

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in comprehensive terms. Romans 5:18-19, “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, will all be made righteous.” In one verse, we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness. It leaves no room for interpretating that righteousness as merely of Christ’s atonement by His suffering the penalty. It is restated in the next verse, emphatically asserting that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. It could not be made more clear. The verses confirm each other. They state that we are made righteous and justified by that righteousness of Christ that consists in His obedience, and by His obedience, righteousness, and moral goodness before God.

RIGHTEOUSNESS AND OBEDIENCE

It is possible that this text could be misinterpreted to mean only that we are justified by Christ’s passive obedience. To this I answer, it does not matter whether we call His obedience active or passive. One or the other will not alter the case being made for present argument. What is important is that Christ’s suffering was not merely atonement for disobedience or a satisfaction for unrighteousness. It was a positive obedience and a righteousness that justifies us and makes us righteous. These words “righteousness” and “obedience” are used together. They are further defined as opposites of sin, disobedience, and offense (offence). “Therefore as by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteousness.”

Now, what else could the righteousness mean except moral goodness, when it is used to describe the opposite of sin or moral evil? What is righteousness that is the opposite of an offense, but behavior that is well pleasing? And what can be meant by obedience except positive obeying and complying with the command, when it is used to describe the opposite of disobedience, or going contrary to a command? So clear are these words, that no dispute about active and passive obedience can compromise the argument from this scripture. It is as evident as anything can be that believers are justified by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, under the notion of His moral goodness — His positive obedience, and actual compliance with the commands of God. Christ’s behavior, in perfect conformity to His commands, was well-pleasing in His sight. Whether Christ obeyed passively or actively is unimportant.He was well-pleasing in God’s sight.

By this, it appears that if Scriptural descriptions of Christ’s dying include the words “righteousness” and “obedience,” His suffering is not merely an appeasement or the bearing of a penalty for a broken law in our stead, but His voluntary submitting and yielding Himself to those sufferings. It was an act of obedience to the Father’s commands, and so was part of His positive righteousness or moral goodness.

Indeed all obedience considered under the notion of righteousness is active, something done in voluntary compliance with a command. It makes no difference whether it is done without suffering, or is hard and difficult. It is voluntary and active. If anyone is commanded to go through difficulties and sufferings, and voluntarily does so in compliance with this command, he properly obeys. Because he voluntarily does it in compliance with a command, his obedience is active. It is the same sort of obedience of a man who labors hard in compliance with a command. The obedience cannot be distinguished from the labor by such opposite terms as active and passive. This is no more possible than trying to distinguish disobeying an easy command and a disobeying a difficult one. Is there any basis for making two species of obedience, one active and the other passive? There is no appearance of any such distinction ever entering into the hearts of any of the penmen of Scripture.

It is true that of late, when a man refuses to obey the precept of a human law and patiently yields himself up to suffer the penalty of the law, it is called passive obedience. But this I suppose is only a modern use of the word “obedience.” Surely the sense of the word is a perfect stranger to Scripture. It is improperly called obedience. It is actually disobedience unless there is a precept in the law that he will yield himself patiently to suffer. Then his doing so will be an active, voluntary conformity. In some sense, it is possible that a person’s suffering the penalty of the law could be said to be conforming to the law. But no other conformity to the law is properly called obedience to it, except an active, voluntary conformity to the precepts of it. The word “obey” is often found in Scripture with respect to the law of God to man, but never in any other sense.

It is true that Christ’s willingly enduring suffering is a great part of that obedience or righteousness by which we are justified. The suffering of Christ is respected in Scripture under a twofold consideration: either He was merely being substituted for us or He was put into our stead. And so His suffering is considered as satisfaction and atonement for sin. In other words, He voluntarily submitted Himself up to bear the suffering in obedience to a law or a command of the Father.

So His submission and suffering are considered to be His righteousness and a part of His active obedience. Christ underwent death in obedience to the command of the Father. Psalms 40:6-8, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” John 10:17-18, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” John 18:11, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”

BREAKING AND KEEPING THE LAW

Undeniably, the command of the Father to Christ that He should lay down His life was not part of the law that we had broken. Therefore, His obeying this command could not be part of that obedience that He performed for us, because we needed Him to obey no other law for us except one we had broken or failed to obey ourselves. We damaged God’s honor with our disobedience. And although God’s honor is repaired by Christ’s obedience, there is no need that the law that Christ obeys should be precisely the same that Adam was to have obeyed.

There should be neither positive commands wanting not any added. There was missing the command regarding the forbidden fruit, and there was added the ceremonial law. The only thing required was perfect obedience. It does not matter that the positive commands that Christ was to obey were much more than equivalent to what was missing, because they were infinitely more difficult — particularly the command to lay down His life. This was His principle act of obedience, and above all others, is concerned in our justification. The act of disobedience that caused our fall was disobedience to a positive command that Christ was never under.

Abstaining from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the principle act of obedience by which we are redeemed, is obedience to a positive command. It should try both Adam’s and Christ’s obedience. Such commands are the greatest and most proper trials of obedience, because in them, the mere authority and will of God is the sole basis of the obligation. Therefore, it is the greatest trial of any person’s respect to God’s authority and will.

THE LAW AND ADAM

The law that Christ was subject to and obeyed was in some sense the same law given to Adam. There are innumerable particular duties required only conditionally by the law. Those duties are understood to be some great and general rule of that law. Those duties are understood to be some great and general rule of that law. For instance, there are innumerable acts of respect and obedience to men that are required by the law of nature (which was a law given to Adam). Yet they are not required absolutely, but upon prerequisite conditions. For example, there are men in authority over us, and our mandate is simply to obey them. Only when we are given specific instructions do we understand exactly what to do. So many acts of respect and obedience to God are included in like manner, conditionally, in the moral law. Examples are Abraham’s going about to sacrifice his son, the Jews’ circumcising their children when eight days old, and Adam’s not ating the forbidden fruit. These acts of obedience are not to any specific law, but understood to be within the great general rule of the moral law: that we should obey God and be obedient to Him in whatsoever He pleases to command us.

Certainly the moral law requires us to obey God’s positive commands, just as it requires us to obey the positive commands of our parents. And thus everything that Adam and Christ were commanded (even observing the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish worship, and laying down His life) was virtually included in this sam great law.

Even though the moral law given to Adam does not specifically address the commands given to Adam and Christ, they are included — even in Christ’s laying down His life. Moral law virtually includes all right acts on all possible occasions, even occastions that the law itself has not specifically addressed. Thus we are obliged by the moral law to mortify our lusts and repent of our sins, even though the law addresses neither lust to mortify, nor sin of which to repent.

All duties of positive institution are contained and understood within this law. Therefore, if the Jews broke the ceremonial law, it exposed them to the penalty of the law or covenant of works that threatened, “thou shalt surely die.” The law is the eternal and unalterable rule of righteousness between God and man, and therefore is the rule of judgment. All that a man does to obey the law will be either justified or condemned. No sin exposes to man damnation, except by the law. So now he who refuses to obey the commands that require an attendance on the sacraments of the New Testament is exposed to damnation by virtue of the law or covenant of works. It may moreover be argued that all sins are breaches of the law, because all sins, even breaches of the positive commands, are atoned for by the death of Christ. Christ died to satisfy the law or to bear the curse of the law (Galatians 3:10-13 and Romans 7:3-4).

Christ’s laying down His life was part of that obedience by which we are justified, even though it was not a positive command given to Adam. Doubtlessly, it was Christ’s main act of obedience, because to obey this particular command was immensely the greatest difficulty. Obeying this command was the greatest trial of Christ’s obedience. His respect shown to God through it and His honor to God’s authority were proportionally great. It is spoken of in Scripture as Christ’s principle act of obedience. Philemon 2:7-8, “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.”

It is mainly by this act of obedience that believe in Christ also have the reward of glory, or come to partake with Christ in His glory. We are as much saved by the death of Christ, as His yielding Himself to die was an act of obedience. We are saved by Christ’s act of atonement for our sins. While Christ’s suffering and ying were acts of obedience that warrant merit, they are not the only ones. He performed meritorious acts of obedience throughout the whole course of His life. It was not the only suffering that atoned; all His sufferings throughout the whole course of His life atoned. His every act of obedience was meritorious. Indeed, this was His principle suffering and therefore, His principle act of obedience.

CHRIST’S DEATH: ATONEMENT AND REDEMPTION

Now we can understand how the death of Christ not only atoned, but also merited eternal life. We can understand how, by the blood of Christ, we are not only redeemed from sin, but also redeemed unto God. Scripture seems everywhere to attribute the whole of salvation to the blood of Christ. This precious blood is as much the main price by which heaven is purchased, as it is the main price by which heaven is purchased, as it is the main price by which we are redeemed from hell. Christ spilled His blood to satisfy. And because of the infinite dignity of His person, His sufferings were looked upon as of infinite value, and equivalent to the eternal sufferings of a finite creature. He spilled His blood out of respect to the honor of God’s majesty, and in submission to the authority of Him who had commanded Him so to do. His obedience was therefore of infinite value, both because of the dignity of the person who obeyed, and because He put Himself to infinite expense to perform it, whereby He demonstrated the infinite degree of His regard for God’s authority.

One would wonder what Arminians mean by “Christ’s merits.” They talk of Christ’s merits as much as anybody, and yet deny the imputation of Christ’s positive righteousness. If not righteousness and goodness, then by what else should anyone merit or deserve anything? If anything that Christ did or suffered merited or deserved anything, it was by virtue of the righteousness, goodness, or holiness of it. If Christ’s sufferings and death merited heaven, it must be that there was excellent righteousness and transcendent moral goodness in that act of laying down His life. And if by that excellent righteousness, He merited heaven for us, then surely that righteousness is reckoned on our account, so that we have the benefit of it. In other words, it is imputed to us.

Thus, I hope, I have made it evident that the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed to us.

(To be continued …)