The previous essay on “Monocovenantalism” brought up this matter, so a few comments here. In this area also the mindless militants have perverted the conversation. The notion that the death of Jesus was insufficient for our justification and that we must also have an imputation of His perfect life in order to be declared just is a notion found in none of the Reformed Confessions. It was debated at the Westminster Assembly, with people on both sides, and the Assembly decided to write nothing about it and leave it as adiaphora.
Like American political liberals who find the right to abortion hidden in the Constitution, today’s militants have found this doctrine hidden in the penumbra and interstices of the Reformed faith and are determined to pronounce as heretics anyone who differs from it. Never mind that their behavior makes the entire Westminster Assembly into heretics!
I’m rather dubious about this doctrine myself, since I cannot find it in the Bible. Perhaps it is there by implication, as indeed may be the case. I do think, however, that there are some underlying issues that play into the matter, and these I wish simply to note here.
One issue is the incarnation. The early church and the Nicene Creed affirm that the incarnation was “for us” as well as “for our salvation.” The Son was not incarnated as man only to save us from sin, but also to “bring many sons to glory.” In other words, the incarnation was planned all along, sin or no sin. God created humanity as a bride for His Son, and it was always going to be the Son who would come into the world and bring His bride to full glory. Notice the Creed:
Who for us men,
And for our salvation,
Came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
And was made man;
ALSO [etiam] was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
And suffered….
Together with this is the effective rejection of Romans 8:30, where “justified and glorified” are in the same tense. There is present glorification just as there is future justification. As 2 Corinthians 3:18 assures us, we are presently growing from glory to glory. The early church called glorification “deification.” The passages used nowadays to show imputed righteousness, such as the robing of Jeshua in Zechariah 3, are actually about glorification (as is obvious).
God killed an animal to cover Adam’s sin in the garden, and then clothed them in tunics, a royal garment. This “same” tunic of royal rule was stripped from Jesus at the cross and the soldiers cast lots for it.
The “day of atonement” in Leviticus 16 is actually literally the Day of Coverings, plural. Blood covers the Ark-Cover, removing sin, and then the priest is covered in his glory garments.
I lean my hand upon the sacrificial animal, but he does not turn around and put his innocent paw upon me. Rather, he dies and his blood is displayed. That’s justification. Then, however, the sacrifice enters into God’s fiery shekinah presence inside the “altar” (communion site) and ascends up to the throne. That’s glorification.
My robes are white in the BLOOD of the Lamb, not from “imputed righteousness.” The Lord’s Supper displays Jesus’ DEATH to the Father until He comes.
Jesus receives my liability to sin and thus dies, His blood displayed. What I receive from Him is union with His glorification by the Spirit. It is His new life, resurrection and transfigured life, that is given to me. It is the well nigh universal failure of the Reformed faith to take this Biblical data into account that is behind the confusion over justification. Jesus died for me. That’s why I’m forgiven. That’s enough.
This article was originally posted at the Biblical Horizons blog. Below are some of the blog comments and responses.
Comment
Mr. Jordan,
you said,
“The notion . . . that we must also have an imputation of His perfect life in order to be declared just is a notion found in none of the Reformed Confessions.”
Maybe I’m not understanding you right. What of WCF XI.1/3?
“He also freely justifies . . . by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them”
“…His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead”
Note, in both cases, obedience AND satisfaction.
Response from James Jordan
The problem is that here “obedience” refers to “passive obedience,” as in Philippians 2: obedient unto death, even the death of a cross. As I mentioned, the notion of “active obedience” was argued at the Assembly, and it was decided to leave it alone. There were men on both sides.
Coming at the Confession with our modern views, it looks as if it’s saying something it’s not actually saying.
In the previous discussion of “Monocovenantalism,” Steven Wedgeworth wrote this, and I’ll put it here so that it can be seen in this context:
BOQ:
this is why the imputation of active obedience could once be regarded as a theolougemon and is now held to be of the essence of the faith. You’ve got the whole Heidelberg school denying it rather explicitly (see Ursinus’s commentary on the HC, which is actually coming from David Pareus), Robert Rollock explicitly denying it, as well as Twisse, Vines, and Gataker. These men all lived after the development of the doctrine.
Comment from “J”
Doesn’t the acceptance of the sacrifice depend upon the quality of the sacrifice? Is not the righteousness we receive in being united to Jesus’ death and resurrection life dependent upon His pre-resurrection life? What I mean is, doesn’t the righteousness we receive necessarily include the entire ministry of Jesus? We are not united merely to the end result but to the entire person. When the Father sees me covered by Jesus does He see my daily shortcomings or does He see Jesus’ living, dying and rising on my behalf?
Response from Jeff Meyers
Yes, absolutely. I have no problem with your formulation, Jared. Nobody is denying that Jesus had to be obedient and sinless in order to be a perfect sacrifice. That’s not what debate over the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ is about.” We certainly affirm both the necessity of the active and the passive (=passion) obedience of Jesus. What is being denied is, to put it crudely, that Jesus, in his pre-passion earthly obedience, racked up moral brownie points with the Father in order to fulfill a still-in-force “covenant of works” so as to merit the Father’s favor, which merit points are then “imputed” to us.
Comment from “J”
Didn’t Jesus say He came to fulfill the Law (and that nothing from the Law would pass until Heaven and Earth passed)? And isn’t His fulfilling of the Law imputed to us along with new life as part of a complete salvation “package”? This is how I currently understand imputed active obedience: Jesus’ active obedience (i.e. His pre-resurrected life/righteousness) and my sin switch places on the cross. I receive new (resurrection) life being united to Jesus partly because that union also affords me His active obedience affirming the satisfied justice of the Father. Jesus actually received the Father’s wrath and I receive it only in symbolic form via baptism. I don’t ever have to actually experience it because (1) His prior (active) righteousness was imputed to me as my sin was imputed to Him and (2) because He was, ultimately, vindicated by the Father in resurrection and ascension.
Response from Jeff Meyers
There’s lots to comment on in your question.
1. “Fulling the law” (Matt. 5) is not the same thing as fulfilling the conditions of the covenant of works. Jesus did fulfill the law, as well as the former and later prophets, and the Psalms. He fulfilled Adam’s, Noah’s, Abrahams, Jacob’s, Joseph’s, Israel’s, and the Jew’s calling. He was the last and flawless, mature old world Man. He was faithful (=righteous). With the conclusion of his faithful ministry and his glorification at the resurrection, heaven and earth passed away–the entire old way of organizing humanity with all the laws, sacred space, rituals, etc. Unfortunately, we restricted fulfillment passages like Matt. 5 to being about Jesus conforming to a moral code. But so much more is going on.
2. Of course, your instincts as a Christian are correct. Everything Jesus has accomplished, everything Jesus is, is reckoned to be ours by grace because of our union with him. But I would suggest that even your modest formulations go a bit beyond what the Scriptures explicitly teach. Where do we get the idea that Jesus’ pre-cross “active obedience. . . satisfied the justice of the Father”? Or that “his prior righteousness. . . is imputed to me”? Those are the issues, J.