A Defense of the “Active Obedience” of Jesus Christ In
The Justification of Sinners: A Biblical Refutation of Norman Shepherd on the Preceptive Obedience of the Savior
By: Brian Schwertley
Introduction
The most important question facing any
man, woman or child is: how does a person become right with God? How can a
person who cannot perfectly obey the law, who has the guilt of sin, be
justified and have peace and fellowship with Jehovah? The biblical answer is
simple. In order for men, who are sinners, to have eternal life the guilt and
penalty of sin must be removed. In addition, men must have a perfect and
perpetual record of obedience to God’s law. When these two things are
accomplished men can be justified or declared righteous before God. Thus,
justification contains two elements: one negative and the other positive.
The negative aspect deals with the
removal of guilt and the penalty due for sin. When a person believes in Jesus
Christ, all his sins (past, present, and future) are placed upon Jesus Christ
on the cross. Our Lord’s atoning death removes sin. The penalty or curse of the
law is removed because the Savior endured the penalty for us. “For He made Him
who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God
in Him” (2 Cor.
Most evangelicals and some modern
“Reformed” writers regard the negative element (i.e., the removal of sin by
Jesus’ blood) as the only element needed for eternal life. One Reformed author
even argues that the idea that a perfect positive righteousness is needed for
justification is a later addition to Reformed theology; that such an idea is
unscriptural. He even refers to the standard Reformed view as the works/merit
paradigm.[2]
Given the widespread ignorance and rejection of the positive element among
professing Christians today, a brief examination of the “active obedience” of
Christ is in order. Does the Bible teach that in addition to the Savior’s
“passive obedience” a perfect obedience to God’s law is needed? Should Reformed
believers reject the doctrine of double imputation (i.e., the
believing sinner’s sins are imputed to Christ on the cross and our Lord’s
perfect righteousness is then imputed or credited to the believer)? In
answering these questions it will be demonstrated that the standard Reformed
doctrine is eminently Scriptural.
Some Clarifications
When discussing doctrine it is
always important to clarify the meaning of various terms used. This
clarification is especially needed because the theological language of “active”
and “passive” obedience is easily misunderstood and somewhat confusing. For
example the passive obedience of Christ refers to His suffering and death on
the cross. Why the term passive was used cannot presently be ascertained.
Perhaps because our Lord stood silent and remained inactive physically as He
was beaten, tortured and crucified. He endured His agony without struggle as a
sheep is led to the slaughter. While in a certain sense He was passive on the
cross, in another sense He was very active in the sacrifice of Himself. He
willingly, as a high priest, offered Himself as an atoning sacrifice for sin
(Heb.
Another concept that can be
confusing is the biblical description of our Lord’s obedience. While
theologians have correctly made distinctions between the Savior’s obedience in
fulfilling the law as precept and penalty, the Bible does not make such clear
cut distinctions. It simply speaks of the obedience of Christ. The whole
obedience of the Messiah (which includes His active and passive obedience) is
the basis or ground of justification. Although the Bible certainly emphasizes
the suffering and death of Jesus, the Lord’s whole life of law-keeping and suffering were
vicarious. The active (i.e., preceptive) and passive
(i.e., penal) obedience of the Savior are different aspects of the same thing.
“Hence this distinction is not so presented in Scripture as though the
obedience of Christ answered one purpose, and his
sufferings another and distinct purpose.”[4]
Thus, the New Testament can speak of Christians being justified by His
blood or death (Rom.
The righteousness, which is the ground of a sinner’s
justification, is denoted or described by various terms in Scripture, so that
its nature may be determined by simply comparing these terms with one another;
and then ascertaining whether there be an righteousness to which they are all
equally applicable, and in which they all coincide, in the fullness of their
combined meaning.
That righteousness is called in Scripture,—‘the righteousness of
God,’—‘the righteousness of Christ,’—the ‘righteousness of One,’—‘the obedience
of One,’—the ‘free gift unto justification of life,’—‘the righteousness which
is of,’ or ‘by,’ or ‘through, faith,’—‘the righteousness of God without the
law,’—and ‘the righteousness which God imputes without works.’
It
will be found that, while these various expressions are descriptive of its
different aspects and relations, they are all employed with reference to the
SAME RIGHTEOUSNESS,—that there is one righteousness, in which they all find
their common centre, as so many distinct rays converging towards the same
focus, while each retains its distinctive meaning,—and that there is no other righteousness
to which they can all be applied, or in which they can find their adequate
explanation.[5]
Does the fact that the Bible does
not always make clear-cut distinctions regarding the righteousness of Christ
mean that no distinctions can or ought to be made by theologians or that the
Son’s preceptive obedience has no role in
justification? No, absolutely not! The important role that the Savior’s preceptive obedience has in the salvation of sinners is
easy to deduce from Scripture and must never be overlooked. “The distinction
becomes important only when it is denied that his moral obedience is any part
of the righteousness for which the believer is justified, or that his whole
work in making satisfaction consisted in expiation or bearing the penalty of
the law. This is contrary to Scripture, and vitiates the doctrine of
justification as presented in the Bible.”[6]
There are many reasons why the
active or preceptive obedience of Christ must be
accepted as a crucial aspect of justification.
(1) A biblical understanding of
man’s responsibility under God’s law proves the necessity not only of pardon,
but also of an obedience fulfilled or an active righteousness. Why is this
assertion true? Because the law requires two things of a
sinner. First, the penalty for sin must be paid in full. The penalty for
disobedience to the law is death (Gen. 2:17; 3:3; Rom.
Second, the law also requires a
perfect obedience. If a person has the guilt of sin removed that person has
been delivered from hell. However, if he is to enter heaven; if he is to have
the reward that the law promises for perfect obedience, then he needs the
righteousness or perfect law-keeping of another (i.e., a substitute). Shedd writes:
When a criminal has suffered the penalty affixed to
his crime, he has done a part, but not all that the law requires of him.
He still owes a perfect obedience to the law, in addition to the
endurance of the penalty. The law does not say to the transgressor: “If you
will suffer the penalty, you need not render the obedience.” But it says: “You
must both suffer the penalty and render the obedience.” Sin is under a double
obligation; holiness is under only a single one. A guilty man owes both
penalty and obedience; a holy angel owes only obedience.
Consequently,
the justification of a sinner must not only deliver him from the penalty
due to disobedience, but provide for him an equivalent to personal obedience.
Whoever justifies the ungodly must lay a ground both for his delivery
from hell, and his entrance into heaven.[7]
The doctrine that a perfect
obedience or a positive righteousness is necessary is easily deduced from
Scripture. Note the following observations.
The moral law of God is based on
God’s own nature and character (Lev.
In order to clarify the previous
point a brief examination of a common error relating to justification is in
order. Classical Arminianism teaches that faith
itself is reckoned or imputed for righteousness; that God accepts our faith and
our imperfect obedience (commonly called evangelical obedience) in the place of
the perfect obedience required of Adam in the garden and required by God’s law.
This view is largely based on Romans 4:3, “Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him for righteousness.” Is Paul teaching that faith and a
“faithful” but imperfect obedience is the ground of justification? No,
absolutely not! The Arminian view should be rejected
for the following reasons.
First, it contradicts the immediate
context. The preceding verse says that Abraham had no reason to boast before
God. This statement presupposes that Abraham was justified gratuitously. In
other words, the patriarch’s works had nothing to do with his justification. He
was not saved because of faith as a meritorious ground but through faith
as an instrument which lays hold of the righteousness of God.
Second, it violates the broad
context of Scripture. There are several passages in the Bible which explicitly
deny that the ground of justification is founded upon our own good works or
faith. Nothing that we do contributes to our salvation. When anything other
than our Lord’s perfect righteousness (e.g., faith, repentance, covenant
faithfulness, obedient faith, evangelical obedience, perseverance, etc.) is
said to be a ground or co-ground of justification, the covenant of grace is
turned into a new covenant of works. Ironically, those who reject the active
obedience of Christ in justification always seek obedience from some other
source. Such righteousness, however, is always imperfect.
God’s Word explicitly teaches that
our justification is grounded solely upon Christ and His righteousness. “Faith
must either be the ground of our acceptance, or the means or instrument of our
becoming interested in the true meritorious ground, viz., the righteousness of Christ.
It cannot stand in both relations to our justification.”[8]
Further, Scripture repeatedly teaches that we are saved through faith or by
means of faith (Rom.
Third, any view of justification which sets aside the
moral law and settles for an imperfect, partial obedience contradicts God’s nature
and many explicit passages of Scripture. Because God’s character cannot change,
the righteous requirements of the law cannot be set aside. Further, if God
could set aside the obligation of obedience to the law (as if the moral law
were positivistic or arbitrary) in the gospel era so that a partial obedience
(i.e., an obedience mixed with sin and filth) was acceptable to enter heaven,
then why demand a sacrifice of infinite value to eliminate the guilt and
penalty for sin? If the moral law can be relaxed with regard to obligation,
then why can it not also be relaxed with regard to its
curse? If God can relax, abrogate or modify the positive requirement of the
law then could He not also relax or modify the negative aspect of the law –
i.e., the curse of the law? It is totally arbitrary and inconsistent for Arminians to proclaim a relaxation of the law for obedience
while teaching the absolute necessity of blood atonement to eliminate the curse
from the same law. If obligation is removed, then how can a curse remain upon
those who have broken the very same law? Clearly, then, we need both a perfect
fulfillment of the obligation as well as an elimination of the curse. Further,
the New Testament says that Jesus did not come to set aside or relax the law but
to fulfill it (Mt.
(2) There are specific New Testament
passages which speak of the relation of perfect obedience to justification. For
example: Paul says that “the doers of the law will be justified” (Rom.
In this passage (Rom.
But after stating the biblical
principle about the doers of the law, what does the apostle then proceed to do?
He completely destroys all the Jewish hopes of salvation by law-keeping. Paul
writes: “You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through
breaking the law? For ‘the name of God is blasphemed among
the Gentles because of you’” (Rom.
The climax of Paul’s argument found
in Romans 3:20 proves conclusively that the apostle was not merely refuting
Jewish self-confidence (e.g., “We are saved because we are the children of
Abraham” [
Does the fact that no man can obey
the law and achieve a perfect righteousness over turn Paul’s statement of the
biblical principle that a perfect perpetual obedience to the law would indeed
result in a declaration of righteousness? No, certainly not. All the attempts
to avoid the plain meaning of Paul’s statement or circumvent his teaching are
very weak and easily refuted. Note the following examples.
a) One argument is that once a
person sins the obligation of a perfect obedience is annulled. This idea is
absurd for it would mean that men can exempt themselves from the government of
God by committing sin. Further, if sin exempted one from the obligation, then,
would it not also exempt one from the curse and judgment. This theory would
amount to salvation through wickedness.
b) Another idea is that the
obligation to a perfect obedience has been abrogated in the gospel era. This
view was refuted in a previous section and suffers from the same objection made
above. That is, if the obligation to obedience is no longer binding, then why
is the curse for disobedience not also abrogated? Further, (as noted) the
obligation of the moral law is founded upon God’s nature and character.
Therefore, the obligation cannot be set aside as with positivistic law.
c) A very small minority of commentators and some
modern “Reformed” theologians and writers (e.g., Norman Shepard, Steve Schlissel, Andrew Sandlin) argue that Romans
First, it would be confusing and out
of character for Paul in the middle of a detailed argument as to why all men
are guilty and inexcusable before God (because all whether Jew or Gentile have
broken the law) to have a parenthetical comment about obedient faith, faithful
obedience or even the need for sanctification. It would especially be confusing
to Jews who believed that personal obedience was necessary for
justification.
Second, it would disturb the whole
train of Paul’s thought in this section which is to demonstrate that no man can
gain salvation through morality or good works. The apostle’s climax is that by
the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in the sight of God (Rom.
Third, it would connect a partial,
imperfect and sin-mingled obedience directly with justification. The law
demands a perfect, perpetual obedience, not a defective obedience. “Cursed is
everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them”
(Gal.
Fourth, when discussing
justification the Bible excludes all the works of believers after conversion
including faithful obedience or covenant faithfulness (see Gal. 2:16; 1 Cor. 4:4; Phil. 3:9; Eph. 2:9-10, etc.); excludes all
reasons for boasting (see Rom. 4:2; 3:27; Eph. 2:9; 1 Cor.
1:29-30); and, repeatedly attributes our justification solely to the
righteousness of Christ alone (see Ac. 13:38; 26:18; 1 Cor.
1:30; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 5:1, etc.).
d) There are those who follow what
is called “The New Perspective on Paul” (from the writings primarily of James
Dunn, N. T. Wright and E. P. Sanders) which argue that the apostle’s contention
with the Jews of his day was not salvation by law-keeping or human merit but
rather Jewish pride and elitism, which was based on the laws and customs which excluded
the Gentiles. In other words (according to the “New Perspective”) the issue was
not achieving salvation through obedience to ethical requirements (e.g., the moral
law) but rather the Jewish refusal to accept the Gentiles because of the
ceremonial laws. Thus, Paul is not refuting concepts of merit but Jewish
exclusivity and the idea that the Jew’s special status exempted them from God’s
wrath. (This view is growing in popularity and has been accepted to an extent
by some “Reformed” pastors).
Is this “New Perspective on Paul”
based on any solid historical[15]
or exegetical evidence? No. It has no support whatsoever. The exegetical case
against it is overwhelming. In the book of Romans when Paul contrasts salvation
by the works of the law with faith in Jesus Christ the apostle is speaking
almost solely of the moral law. When Paul sets out to prove the sinfulness of
the whole human race (both Jews and Gentiles) in the early chapters of Romans
he refers exclusively to the moral law. The Gentiles violate the work of
the law written in their hearts (
Romans chapter 3 also refutes the
“New Perspective” theology. Paul says that both Jew and Greeks are under sin,
that all have violated the moral law. Everyone is unrighteous (v.10), bad
(v.12), deceitful (v.13) full of cursing (v. 14), violent and destructive
(vs.15 – 16) and does not fear God (v. 18). By the deeds of the law (i.e., the
moral law) no flesh will be justified (v. 20). The moral law defines sin (v.
20). Paul contrasts justification by faith with attempts at salvation by the
works of the law (v. 28). The works of the law in context obviously includes
the moral law. Then in verse 31 Paul says that faith in Christ establishes the
law. It would be absurd to say that justification establishes the ceremonial
ordinances or the Jewish “identity markers.” By His perfect obedience and
sacrificial death the moral law was not circumvented but honored and
established. “No moral obligation is weakened, no penal sanction disregarded.”[16]
Then, in chapter 4 Paul appeals to Abraham (v. 2) who was justified before
circumcision, centuries before the Mosaic law and the
introduction of Jewish “identity markers.” The “New Perspective on Paul” is
speculative nonsense.
The “New Perspective” is also
thoroughly refuted by our Lord’s parable of the Pharisee and tax
collector. Also he spoke this parable to
some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax
collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners,
unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give
tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would
not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying,
‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house
justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be
humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Lk.
18:9-14).
The Pharisee looks to his own
righteousness for justification. He brags that he is not a sinner like other
men and “exalts his own works of supererogation. He fasted even more than God
required. He gave tithes even of things which God did not command to be tithed,
– not of corn and his fruits only, but all of his possessions.”[17]
Here we find a picture of Pharisaical Judaism painted by Christ Himself. The
Pharisee is a man who looks to an exact, scrupulous outward obedience to God’s
law in order to merit the blessing of God. The Pharisee trusts in his own
ethical attainments rather than the righteousness of God. One can accept Jesus’
assessment of Pharisaical Judaism or the “New Perspective” theology but not
both.
Another section of Scripture which
teaches the principle that a perfect positive righteous (i.e., a perfect
obedience to the law) would merit eternal life is found in Christ’s encounter
with the rich young ruler. “Now as he was going out on the road, one came
running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do that I
may inherit eternal life?’ So Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
You know the commandments: “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do
not steal,” “Do not bear false witness,” “Do not defraud,”’ “Honor your father and your mother.”’ And he answered and said to Him, ‘Teacher, all
these things I have kept from my youth.’ Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him,
and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and
give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross,
and follow Me.’ But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he
had great possessions”(Mk.10:17-22). In response to
the question by the rich man “what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life”
our Lord responds by pointing the man directly to the moral law; specifically
to the second table which focuses on man’s duty toward man. Perhaps the reason
that Jesus points to the second table is because these commandments are so
easily applied to everyday conduct.
What are we to make of Christ’s
response? Is the Savior teaching salvation by works? Does our Lord’s response
presuppose that men can perfectly obey God’s law? The answer to both these
questions is absolutely not! The Savior is answering the man in a manner that
will set the stage for Him to deal with two crucial issues relating to the law:
a) Do you really understand all the
requirements of the law? That the law is not merely external but applies to the
heart, to covetousness? The Jews in Jesus’ day (under the influence of the
teaching of the Pharisees) had externalized the law in order to make it greatly
easier to obey.[18]
It is one thing never to commit adultery. It is quite another never ever to be
guilty of lust in one’s heart. (Our Lord dealt with this gross defect in Jewish
theology in detail in His sermon on the mount [Mt.
The fact that this man could not and
did not keep the law does not mean that our Lord’s statement of principle (that
a perfect, perpetual obedience to the law would merit eternal life) is not
valid or true. Jesus and Paul are in total agreement that: (1) the obligation
to obey the law perfectly has not been annulled; (2) no person can perfectly
obey God’s law (“No one is good except God alone” [Mk.
(3) The necessity of the active or preceptive obedience of Christ is set forth in the New
Testament contrast between Adam and Christ. The first Adam was the federal head
of the human race and what he did in the garden had consequences for all
mankind. Before the fall when Adam was innocent (i.e., he did not have the
guilt or penalty of sin), he did not yet have eternal life. God required Adam
to obey His command not to eat of the tree of good and evil for a period of
time, before he would be permitted to eat from the tree of life. If Adam had
rendered a perfect obedience, God would have rewarded him with glorification
(i.e., all possibility of falling or committing sin would have been forever
removed; Adam and his posterity would have been blessed with eternal life with
God forever). Reformed theologians refer to God’s arrangement with Adam as the
covenant of works.[22]
Adam, however, failed this test. He sinned against God, died spiritually and
was cast out of the garden. Because of the disobedience of Adam all men are guilty
in him and constituted sinners.
Christ, the second Adam was born of
a woman; and was placed under the law in order to render a perfect obedience to
the law, to provide a perfect righteousness for His people. Where the first
Adam failed the second Adam succeeded. Jesus honored the law by rendering a
perfect obedience unto it.
When Jesus came to be baptized by
John and the baptizer, understanding who the Lord was, said: “I need to be
baptized by You, and are you coming to me”? Christ
responded by saying, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to
fulfill all righteousness” (Mt.
The contrast between Adam and Jesus
is also noted in the Gospel temptation narratives (Mk.
The contrast between Adam and Christ
and the proof that an active righteousness is needed for justification is set
forth by Paul in Romans 5:18-19. “Therefore, as by the offense 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” (KJV). These two verses
serve as climax and concluding summary to a whole section (Romans
As there are two opinions as to what
is the ground of a sinner’s justification before God, there are two basic
interpretations of this passage among Protestants. Some interpreters note that
the phrase “the righteousness of one” can be translated “one righteous act” and
thus conclude that Paul is only referring to Jesus’ death on the cross. This
interpretation could be used to support the common evangelical notion that
justification only consists of pardon and does not involve a perfect
fulfillment of the law or the covenant of works. The common Reformed
interpretation of this passage is that the righteousness of Christ encompasses
the whole life of the Savior: His perfect obedience to the law and His death on
the cross. There are many reasons why our Lord’s righteousness includes His
perfect law-keeping.
First, it better maintains the
parallelism between the first and second Adam. The first Adam was guilty of
disobedience or an actual transgression of God’s law. It was the breaking of God’s
law that brought sin and death to the human race. Over against this
disobedience is set forth the obedience or righteousness of the second Adam.
Since Adam was guilty of an actual transgression of God’s law, Christ’s
righteousness must involve an active obedience to the law,
otherwise the apostle’s antithesis doesn’t make sense. A. A. Hodge writes: “The
condition of the covenant of works was perfect obedience. This covenant having
failed in the hands of the first Adam must be fulfilled in the hands of the
second Adam, since in the covenant of grace Christ assumed all of the undischarged obligations of his people under the covenant
of works. His suffering discharges the penalty, but only his active obedience
fulfills the condition.”[26]
Second, it comports better with the
meaning of righteous (dikaiomatos). When the
Bible speaks of righteousness as it relates to obedience (hupakoes)
it refers to the obedience of a statue, requirement, ordinance or legal claim.
While Christ’s obedience to the Father in going to the cross is certainly
righteous, it is also quite natural to view this term as a reference to all of
the Savior’s vicarious righteous conduct. Further, “to declare righteous is
another thing than a mere declaration of exemption from penalty, even as
righteousness is another state, than that of mere exemption from suffering.”[27]
John Dick adds: “Righteousness supposes that the whole law has been fulfilled;
innocence imports only that it has not been transgressed….In the case of a
sinner, therefore, the imputation of righteousness is pre-supposed as the
ground of his justification, which, consequently, implies something more than
simple remission….If he [i.e., the sinner] cannot himself fulfill the law,
another, taking his place, and coming under his obligations, may fulfill it in
his name; and the obedience of this surety may be placed to his account.”[28]
This is precisely what Christ does for His people. He provides a perfect
righteousness for the elect so that judicially the believing sinner is positionally just as righteous as Jesus in God’s sight.
Third, it comports with the biblical
teaching that Christ’s whole life of obedience and suffering were vicarious and
were part of His finished work. William S. Plumer
writes:
All Christ did and all he bore was for our salvation.
He suffered in obeying. He obeyed in suffering. No fair criticism can ever shew that righteousness in this verse or obedience
in v. 19 means simply his sufferings, much less his obedience in the mere
act of dying. His circumcision and baptism were as much in fulfillment of all
righteousness as his death. His perfect love to God and his equal love to man,
evinced in every way, were essential to his righteousness. There is a sense in
which Christ’s righteousness is one. It is a seamless robe. There is no rent in
it. It is undivided. It cannot be divided. But this is a very different thing
from saying that Christ wrought out his righteousness the last few hours of his
life. The parallel between Adam and Christ is not intended to be preserved in
the shortness of the time in which, or the ease with which ruin and recovery
were wrought. No? Destruction is easy. Recovery is difficult. It is so in every
thing. A rash act of one may destroy a thousand lives, but all the power of men
and angels cannot restore one life. A child may in a few hours burn down a
city, which ten thousand men could not build in a year. In a moment Adam
brought down ruin. It required the righteousness and obedience of
the life of Christ and his agony in the garden and on the cross to bring us to
God. Yea, to the same end he ever liveth to make
intercession for us. “The truth is, the work of Christ is just the whole of his
humiliation, with all that he did and all he suffered in the nature which he
humbled himself to assume. That on account of which
God exalted and glorified Christ, is that on account
of which he justifies and glorifies sinners.”[29]
One cannot divide the life of Christ
into separate unrelated segments. His whole life contained humiliation
and suffering. Obviously, the Savior’s suffering and humiliation was not for
Himself but for His people. Further, he exercised the highest active obedience
in His suffering at
…Christ’s sufferings contained an active obedience;
and it is this which made them a righteousness: for
mere pain, irrespective of the motive of voluntary endurance, is not
meritorious. And Christ’s obedience to precepts was accompanied with
endurance….In many places Christ’s bearing the preceptive
law is clearly implied to be for our redemption. See for instance, Gal. 4:4. By
what fair interpretation can it be shown that the law
under which He was made, to redeem us, included nothing but the penal threatenings? “To redeem us who were under the law.” Were
we under no part of it but the threats? See, also, Rom. 5:18, 19….Rom. 8:3, 4. What the law failed to do, through our moral impotency, that Christ has done for us. What was that?
Rather our obedience than our suffering.[30]
John
Owen writes: “And if the actual sin of Adam be imputed unto us all, who
derive our nature from him, unto condemnation, though he sinned not in our
circumstances and relations, is it strange that the actual obedience of Christ
should be imputed unto them who derive a spiritual nature from him, unto the
justification of life? Besides, both the satisfaction and obedience of Christ,
as relating unto his person, were, in some sense, infinite, – that is,
of an infinite value, – and so cannot be considered in parts, as though one
part of it were imputed unto one, and another unto another, but the whole is
imputed unto every one that doth believe …”[31]
That the obedience of Christ must
not be viewed in a simplistic or narrow manner is also taught by John Murray.
He writes:
The obedience is that by which he is furnished
so as to fulfill these roles, to conduct to salvation and to bestow it. In
other words, the obedience is the accomplishment that procures salvation and
ensures its bestowal. No consideration could more definitely institute the
place that obedience occupies in the securing and imparting of salvation in its
all-embracing connotation. In other passages the obedience of Christ is
set forth as the basis or medium of more specific elements in salvation. In
Paul’s statement ‘By the obedience of the one shall many be constituted
righteous’ (Rom.
If
as
Some will object to the Reformed
conception of our Lord’s obedience (e.g., Norman Shepherd). They will point out
that the earliest Reformed symbols do not make explicit distinctions between
the penal and preceptive obedience of Christ. While
the earliest Reformed statements of faith are not explicit on this matter, this
observation does not necessarily mean that the early Reformed theologians
rejected the necessity of our Lord’s preceptive
obedience or active righteousness in justification. The early symbols reflect
the fact that the Scripture itself rarely makes distinctions between the active
and passive obedience of Christ. The Bible usually just speaks of Jesus’
obedience or righteousness. Further, the fact that salvation is so often
ascribed to the cross, blood or death of Christ does not negate the role of
Christ’s obedience and resurrection in salvation. We know this is true because:
(a) God’s word often speaks of our Lord’s death as the principal cause of our
whole salvation; which, indeed, it certainly is; and (b), Other portions of
Scripture ascribe salvation to the resurrection of our Lord (I Pet. 1:3; 3:21)
and His obedience (Rom. 5:10, 19). Passages which speak solely of being
redeemed by Jesus’ death need to be considered within the whole context of
Scripture.
Although the early Reformed symbols
are not explicit on this issue, there is irrefutable evidence that these
Reformed bodies would have fully accepted the later more refined and explicit
Reformed theological statements on justification. For example, John Calvin
(writing before the formulation of the Heidelburg
[1563] and Belgic confessions [1561] recognized the
active or preceptive obedience of Christ. Calvin
speaks of the “character” and “purity” of Christ imputed to a believing
sinner’s account. Calvin writes:
What is placing our righteousness in the obedience of Christ,
but asserting that we are accounted righteous only because His obedience is
accepted for us as if it were our own? Wherefore Ambrose appears to me to have
very beautifully exemplified this righteousness in the benediction of Jacob:
that as he, who had on his own account no claim to the privileges of
primogeniture, being concealed in his brother’s habit, and invested with his
garment, which diffused a most excellent odor, insinuated himself into the
favor of his father, that he might receive the benediction to his own
advantage, under the character of another; so we shelter ourselves under the
precious purity of Christ.[33]
In
his commentary on Corinthians Calvin writes: “…he says that he is made unto us
righteousness, by which he means that we are on his account acceptable to God,
inasmuch as he expiated our sins by is death, and his obedience is imputed
to us for righteousness. For as the righteousness of
faith consists in remission of sins and a gracious acceptance, we obtain both
through Christ.”[34]
Calvin’s statement is a clear acceptance of the doctrine of double imputation.
The believing sinner’s guilt and liability to punishment is imputed to Jesus on
the cross – expiation. Thus, the sinner is pardoned. Also, the righteousness of
Christ, His obedience, is imputed to the believer. Therefore, the sinner is
regarded as righteous (i.e., perfectly and perpetually obedient to the covenant
of works and the law of God) because of our Lord’s vicarious obedience. We are
saved solely by the merits of the Savior.
It is also noteworthy that early
Reformed theologians heartily agreed with the Lutheran statement on
justification which clearly recognizes the negative and positive aspects of
justification. The Formula of Concord (1576) reads:
That righteousness which is imputed to faith, or to
believers, of mere grace, is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of
Christ, by which He satisfied the law for us, and expiated our sins. For since
Christ was not only man, but truly God and man in one undivided person, He was
no more subject to the law He was to suffering and death (if his person,
merely, be taken into account), because He was the Lord of the law. Hence, not
only that obedience to God his Father which He exhibited in his passion and
death, but also that obedience which He exhibited in voluntarily subjecting
Himself to the law and fulfilling it for our sakes, is imputed to us for
righteousness, so that God on account of the total obedience which Christ
accomplished (praestitit)
for our sake before his heavenly Father, both in acting and in suffering, in
life and in death, may remit our sins to us, regard us as good and righteous,
and give us eternal salvation.[35]
The
idea (recently espoused in a lecture by Norman Shepherd) that the imputation of
the active obedience of Christ was a later unbiblical innovation among Reformed
theologians is simply untrue. One must never confuse theological development
and clarification with human invention and declension.
(4) The doctrine of the preceptive obedience of Christ is taught by Paul in other
passages. In Galatians 4:4-5 the apostle writes: “But when the fullness of the
time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to
redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as
sons.” When Paul speaks of the human race being “under the law” or of Jesus
being “born under the law”, can this phrase refer only to being under
the curse of the law? No, definitely not! Being under law in this context
refers not simply to the law’s penalty but also to the personal obligation to
obey the law. Our Lord was born both to obey and to endure the penalty. Lenski writes: “… Paul says that the Son bought us by this
active obedience. It was thus just as much substitutionary
as his passive obedience. In fact, the two cannot be separated. Even in death
the Son gave himself (active) and so was slain (passive). The two were
indissolubly united during all of his life. We should never stress the one
against the other because the passive obedience is more frequently mentioned in
Scripture than the active.”[36]
That Paul has more in mind than
simply eliminating the curse of the law, is evident from the immediate context
which speaks of a believer’s adoption (“that we might receive the adoption as
sons,” v. 5). Jesus was “born under the law” not only that the elect might be
delivered from the consequences of sin but also that they may receive the
greatest reward possible. They are made members of God’s own family. With the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness, they are given a new legal status and
receive the reward that can only be founded upon the merits of God’s Son. They
are taken far beyond what Adam had in the garden because they are clothed with
the righteousness of the Mediator. What a comprehensive and amazing salvation!
Our Lord takes us light years beyond a simple pardon. “Christ achieved the
purpose of redeeming those under law by bearing the full obligation of the law
in life as well as the curse of the law in death (
It is excepted, with more colour of sobriety, that he was made under he law only as
to the curse of it. But it is plain in the text that Christ was made under the
law as we are under it. He was “made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law.” And if he was not made so as we are, there is no consequence
from his being made under it unto our redemption from it. But we were so under
the law, as not only to be obnoxious unto the curse, but so as to be obliged
unto all the obedience that it required; as hath been proved. And if the Lord
Christ hath redeemed us only from the curse of it by undergoing it, leaving us
in ourselves to answer its obligation unto obedience, we are not freed nor
delivered. And the expression of “under the law” doth in the first place, and
properly, signify being under the obligation of it unto obedience, and
consequentially only with a respect unto the curse. Gal. iv.
21, “Tell me, ye that desire to be “under the law.”
They did not desire to be under the curse of the law, but only its obligation
unto obedience; which, in all usage of speech, is the first proper sense of
that expression. Wherefore, the Lord Christ being made under the law for us, he
yielded perfect obedience unto it for us; which is therefore imputed unto us.
For that what he did was done for us, depends solely on imputation.[38]
Another passage which teaches the
necessity of Christ’s righteousness is 1 Corinthians
In Philippians 3:8-9 Paul contrasts
two kinds of righteousness. He writes: “Yet indeed I also count all things loss
for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have
suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, that I may gain
Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the
law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from
God by faith.” There is self-righteousness which is based on human attempts to
obey the law and thus build a tower of merit to heaven. There also is the
righteousness which is found solely in Jesus Christ. Paul acknowledges that the
sum of all human attainments that are intended to establish a claim upon God
are nothing more than filthy rage. Once the apostle understood what his so
called good works were in the eyes of God, he counted them as dung and placed
his trust in the Mediator. If a person wants to be right with God he must be
found in Christ and must lay hold of the Lord’s righteousness. In Adam and
because of our own sins we are unfaithful, guilty and damned. But in Christ we
obtain His faithfulness. His perfect obedience to the law and his propitiatory
sufferings and death become ours. They are appropriated by the instrumental
means of faith. The parallel between human attempts at merit, at righteousness
by keeping the law and the merits of Christ or His perfect righteousness
clearly involves Jesus’ own faithfulness, moral perfections or law-keeping as
well as His sufferings. Robert Johnstone’s comments
on this passage are most helpful. He writes:
The claim of the divine law is,
that man should render to God perfect obedience, or suffer death as the penalty
of disobedience. Our whole race has sinned, and thus become liable to the
penalty. But the Son of God, freely given by His Father, freely giving Himself,
has assumed our nature, and as our Substitute – accepted as such by His Father,
who in the scheme of redemption sustains the majesty of the Godhead—has
fulfilled all the law’s requirements,—living a true human life of holy
obedience, as we were bound to do, an dying the death of pain and shame which
we deserve to suffer. To all who believe the gospel, and are thus led to place
their confidence in Christ, God, of His infinite mercy, imputes this perfect
righteousness of the Savior —reckons it as theirs—treats them as if they had
themselves been righteous, like their Representative. This is the great
doctrine of justification by faith. You see how humbling it is to man. The
faith through which we obtain justification involves an acknowledgement of the
reality and exceeding evil of our sin, and of our own utter helplessness. We
come to God confessing that the robe of our personal character is but ‘filthy
rags,’ in which we dare not stand in His sight; and we receive from Him the
ample, stainless, fragrant robe of the Redeemer’s righteousness.[41]
(5) Zechariah 3:3-4 teaches the
necessity of both elements of justification. Note that God removes the filthy
garments (the negative aspect) and then provides new garments (the positive
aspect). “Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before
the Angel. Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying,
‘Take away the filthy garments from him.’ And to him He said, ‘See, I have
removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.’” In this
fourth vision of Zechariah we encounter Joshua the high priest standing before
the Angel of the LORD (the second person of the trinity) in the throne room of
heaven. Satan is standing at Joshua’s right hand to oppose him. Joshua and
It hath been generally granted that we have here a
representative of the justification of a sinner before God. And the taking away
of filthy garments is expounded by the passing away of iniquity. When a man’s
filthy garments are taken away, he is no more defiled with them; but he is not
thereby clothed. This is an additional grace and favour
thereunto,—namely, to be clothed with change of garments. And what this raiment
is, is declared, Isa. 1xi. 10, “He hath clothed me
with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of
righteousness;” which the apostle alludes unto. Phil iii.
9. Wherefore these things are distinct,—namely, the taking away of the filthy
garments, and the clothing of us with change of raiment; or, the pardon of sin,
and the robe of righteousness. By the one are we freed from condemnation; by
the other have we right unto salvation. And the same is in like manner represented, Ezek. xvi. 6-12.[43]
Christ achieved it all. He not only
pardons our sins but also clothes us with His righteousness. All the undeserved
benefits we receive: justification, adoption, the reward of glorification and
heaven are due to Jesus’ obedience. If we take our eyes off of the Lord’s
person and work and instead focus our attention on our own partial, imperfect
obedience then we will sink into hopelessness and despair. Let us count our own
works as rubbish and cast our crowns at the pierced feet of the Savior.
Conclusion
The Protestant Reformation has
spoken with one voice on the doctrine of justification. The
Reformers, whether Lutheran or Calvinistic, whether in the
The fact that the orthodox
understanding of justification is in complete accord with Scripture and has
already been biblically dealt with by Christ’s church does not mean that it has
not been attacked from a variety of sources (e.g., the Roman Catholic
counter-reformation, Socinianism, Arminianism,
neo-nominianism, the “New Perspective on Paul” school
of thought, Norman Shepherd and his step children: the Auburn Four, etc.).
Sadly, today the attacks on the doctrine are coming from men within the pale of
the conservative Reformed tradition. These men have been spreading Romanizing
germs throughout the body of Christ.
Give the current attacks on
justification by faith alone we must stand up, proclaim and defend the imputed
righteousness of Christ with every fiber of our being. For, if this precious
doctrine is lost, all is lost. If the Reformed churches adopt the new
perversions regarding justification and the covenant, they will usher in an age
of declension and darkness. May God enable us by His grace to defend our
covenanted Reformation. Help us, O LORD to trust in Christ’s righteousness
alone. The more we behold the righteousness of your dear Son, the more our
hearts adore You. Preserve us, LORD, that we may wipe the pierced feet of Your
Son with tears of gratitude and joy.
Copyright
2004 © Brian Schwertley, Haslett, MI
Home Free Downloads Books to Buy
[1] Rousas John Rushdoony, Systematic Theology (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1994), 1:626.
[2] In a recent lecture at the Christian Worldview Conference sponsored by SCCCS (The Southern California Center for Christian Studies) Norman Shepherd argued that the standard Reformed distinction between the active and passive obedience of Jesus and the necessity of the imputation of our Lord’s perfect law-keeping (i.e., His merits) were unscriptural and were a later addition to Reformed theology. In his lecture he repeatedly referred to the standard Reformed interpretation as the works/merit paradigm. He also very selectively quoted Reformed authors and theologians to give the impression that these men taught the only ground in justification was the imputation of our Lord’s perfect law-keeping (i.e., His active obedience). This selective use of quotes gave a very false impression that these men did not also teach the necessity of Christ’s bloody sacrifice (His vicarious atonement) in the justification of sinners. In order to fairly represent the position that he was attempting to refute Dr. Shepherd should have noted that in virtually all Reformed theological works that discuss the “passive” and “active” obedience of Christ, the sacrifice of our Lord is emphasized alongside of His “active” obedience. In other words, sinners are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ which includes His atonement which eliminates the guilt and penalty of sin (expiation) as well as Jesus’ whole life of perfect law-keeping. The standard Reformed position is that our Lord satisfies the demands of the law both as to precept and penalty. Shepherd’s lecture gives the false impression that Reformed theologians ignore the sacrifice of our Lord in their definitions of justification. In his lecture Shepherd grossly misrepresents the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the righteousness of Christ and wrongly argues that the idea of the imputation of Jesus’ active obedience came long after the first generation of the Reformers. Listening to the anti-Reformed unconfessional teaching of the SCCCS conference precipitated this brief study.
[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 3:143.
[4] Ibid.
[5]
James Buchanan, The Doctrine of
Justification (
[6]
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:150.
[7] William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Son’s, 1889), 2:539-540.
[8] Charles Hodge, Romans (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1835] 972), 109.
[9] Ibid., 108.
[10]
John Owen, “The Obedience Required by God” in Works (Carlisle, Pa.:
Banner of Truth, 1965), 5:273.
[11]
Norman Shepherd perverts the meaning of Romans 2:13 in order to fit this
passage into his justification by the instrument of faith and works paradigm.
He writes: “The Pauline affirmation in Romans
[12] Robert Morey, Studies in the Atonement (Southbridge, MA: Crown Pub., 1989), 178.
[13]
Part of Norman Shepherd’s heretical understanding of justification can be
traced to his rejection of the confessional doctrine of the covenant of works.
He completely rejects the idea that if Adam had perfectly obeyed God’s command
then a time would come when he would be rewarded with eternal life in its most
comprehensive sense (i.e., Adam would have lost the ability to sin and would
have had free access to the tree of life). Because Shepherd defines faith as
“faithful obedience” and gives a believer’s good works a role to play in a
believer’s justification (i.e., Works are viewed as a co-instrument of
justification alongside of faith. In other words, gospel and law are blurred
together.), the active or preceptive obedience of
Christ is rejected in his theology. If (as Shepherd teaches) a person’s own
good works play a crucial role in his justification why is the perfect active
righteousness of Jesus needed? Shepherd uses the phrase “the righteousness of
Jesus Christ” in his articles and lectures. However, for him this phrase refers
only to our Lord’s sacrificial death or passive obedience. Note, how
Shepherd acknowledges Christ’s righteousness (i.e., Jesus sacrificial death,
his penal suffering) but then substitutes the believer’s own obedience for the
active obedience of our Lord. In his Thirty-four Thesis [1978] he
writes: “The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state
of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his [i.e. a
believer’s] obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the
way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of
justification” (Hebrews 3:6, 14). (Thesis 21) In its essence Shepherd’s
doctrine of justification has much more in common with classical Arminianism and even Romanism than it does with
confessional Reformed thought. His perverted doctrine of the covenant in
[14] John Owen, 5:284.
[15] The Auburn Avenue/New Perspective movement is disproved by Jewish sources available in Paul’s own day. “We read the following in from the apocrypha: ‘If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given’ (Sir. 15.14-17, NRSV; Vg. 14-18). To this passage Calvin responds: ‘Granted that man received at this creation the capacity to obtain life or death. What if we reply on the other side that he has lost his capacity? Surely it is not my intention to contradict Solomon who declares “that God made man upright, but he has sought out many devices for himself.” But because man, in his degeneration, caused the shipwreck both of himself and of all his possessions, whatever is attributed to the original creation does not necessarily apply forthwith to his corrupt and degenerate nature. Therefore I am answering not only my opponents but also Ecclesiasticus himself, whoever he may be: If you wish to teach man to seek in himself the capacity to acquire salvation, we do not esteem your authority so highly that it may in the slightest degree raise any prejudice against the undoubted Word of God.’ (Institutes, 2, 5, 18, p. 338) Calvin rejects this passage from the apocrypha not only because Ecclesiasticus, Sirach, is not canonical but also because it contradicts the witness of Scripture, such as Romans 3. What is interesting is that this passage from the apocrypha goes untreated by the advocates of the new perspective, yet it does not pass by the attention of either Pelgaius or Erasmus.” (J. V. Fesko, “Justifcation, The New Perspective on Paul: Calvin and N. T. Wright” in PCA News .
[16] Charles Hodge: Romans, 102.
[17] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Luke (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth. 1986 [1858]), 2:264.
[18]“In H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neven Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch p. 118 we read: ‘That man possesses the ability to fulfill the commandments of God perfectly was so firmly believed by the rabbis that they spoke in all seriousness of people who had kept the whole Law from A to Z. It is necessary only to refer to Paul’s affirmation in Phil. 3:6, ‘as to righteousness under the Law, blameless’”. (As quoted in William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 366, footnote 45)
[19]
J. A. Alexander, Mark (
[20] Some modern writers and speakers (e.g., Andrew Sandlin) have rejected the standard Protestant interpretation of our Lord’s encounter with the rich young ruler (i.e., Jesus was not teaching salvation through keeping the law but using the law to expose the rich man’s sin in order to show him his need of Christ) and have adopted the old Romanist interpretation that men need to be obedient (covenant faithfulness) to a certain point in order to be justified. The problem with this view is that it assumes a imperfect, partial obedience is acceptable before God. The works of even the holiest believers are not perfectly righteous in the eye of the law. God cannot accept the sinner with filthy, stained garments (Zech. 3:1-4). A believer can only be accepted as righteous on account of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. When a sinner embraces Jesus he counts all his own “good works” as filthy rags. He looks away from himself and beholds the person and work of the Mediator. All his sins (past, present and future) are imputed to the Savior on the cross. And the Lord’s perfect obedience is imputed to the believing sinner. That person can confidently stand before God in the white raiment of the Mediator’s righteousness.
[21] J. C. Ryle, Mark (Wheaton, Il: Crossway Book, 1993), 152.
[22]
Louise Berkhof notes some of the elements of this
covenant. He writes: “(1) Adam was constituted the representative head of the
human race, so that he could act for all his descendants. (2) He was
temporarily put on probation, in order to determine whether he would willingly
subject his will to the will of God. (3) He was given the promise of eternal
life in the way of obedience, and thus by the gracious disposition of God
acquired certain conditional rights. This covenant enabled Adam to obtain
eternal life for himself and for his descendants in the way of obedience.” (Systematic
Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939], 215).
Regarding the parallel between the first and second Adam Berkhof
adds: “The parallel which Paul draws between Adam and Christ in Rom.
To all of those men who reject the covenant of works
with sophisticated arguments we ask the following questions: Would Adam have
received glorification on the basis of his own obedience or upon the obedience
of another? Would Adam have received glorification by a simple faith in the
person and work of another apart from his own doing or apart from
the works of the law (Rom 3:20; 4:4-8; Eph. 2:8-9) or did Adam need to do
something in order to receive glorification? The answer to these questions is
obvious. The Christian must look to the person and work of Christ (His doing
and dying) while Adam had to do something himself. While God’s creation of Adam
was gracious; the reward offered to Adam was incredibly generous and Adam’s
obedience obviously required faith or belief in God and His spoken Word,
nevertheless Adam had to do something to achieve glorification. His
obedience would have been the basis of the reward. Christians are not saved
because of what we do (i.e., our obedience to the law) but because of what
Jesus has done. His work was substitutionary or
vicarious. If one argues that everything is under the covenant of grace and
there is no covenant of works, then logically one must make human effort
whether law-keeping, covenant faithfulness, good works or perseverance a basis
or co-instrument of justification. Perhaps this explains why the advocates of
the
[23]John Owen demonstrates that our Lord’s obedience was not for Himself but for us. He writes “…the human nature of Christ, by virtue of its union with the person of the Son of God, had a right unto, and might have immediately been admitted into, the highest glory whereof it was capable, without any antecedent obedience unto the law. And this is apparent from hence, in that, from the first instant of that union, the whole person of Christ, with our nature existing therein, was the object of all divine worship from angels and men; wherein consists the highest exaltation of that nature.
It is true, there was a peculiar glory that he was actually to be made partaker of, with respect unto his antecedent obedience and suffering, Phil. ii. 8, 9. The actual possession of this glory was, in the ordination of God, to be consequential unto his obeying and suffering, not for himself, but for us. But as unto the right and capacity of the human nature in itself, all the glory whereof it was capable was due unto it from the instant of its union; for it was therein exalted above the condition that any creature is capable of by mere creation. And it is but a Socinian fiction, that the first foundation of the divine glory of Christ was laid in his obedience, which was only the way of his actual possession of that part of his glory which consists in his mediatory power and authority over all. The real foundation of the whole was laid in the union of his person; whence he prays that the Father would glorify him (as unto manifestation) with that glory which he had with him before the world was.
I will grant that the Lord Christ was “viator” whilst he was in this world, and not absolutely “possessor;” yet I say withal, he was so, not that any such condition was necessary unto him for himself, but he took it upon him by especial dispensation for us. And, therefore, the obedience he performed in that condition was for us, and not for himself.” (Works, 5:259)
[24] Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982 [1915]), 35-36.
[25] William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 235.
[26] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972 [1860]), 500.
[27] R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1985 [1871]), 624.
[28] John Dick, Lectures on Theology (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1864), 2:190.
[29] William S. Plumer, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1970 [1870]), 246-247.
[30] R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, 626.
[31] John Owen, “The Imputation of Christ’s Obedience” in Works (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1965 [1850]), 5:270.
[32]John Murray, “The Obedience of Christ” in Collected Writings (Carlisle, Pa., Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:156-157.
[33]
John Calvin as quoted in Aurther Pink, Election
and Justification (New
[34] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 1:93.
[35] As quoted in Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:149. See The Formula of Concord, “Of the Righteousness of Faith Before God,” Article III, “Statement of the Controversy” and “Affirmative” I, II (“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”), III and VII, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes [Grand Rapids: Baker (1931) 1983], 3:114-118).
[36]
R. C. H. Lenski,
[37]
Ronald Y. K. Fung, The
Epistle to the Galatians (
[38] John Owen, Works, 5:272-273.
[39] Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 27.
[40] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 501.
[41]
Robert Johnstone, Lectures on the Book of
Philippians (Minneapolis: Klockond Klock, 1977 [1875]), 246.
[42] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971 [1956]), 70.
[43] John Owen, Works, 5:268.