Imputed Righteousness: The Method of Justification

“The doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, is a doctrine of great importance…some have called it, the basis of Christianity…” ^[1] So wrote the Baptist theologian John Gill, at a time when such a statement was relatively uncontroversial within Protestantism. Today the tide is turning, as those within Protestantism are often the first to criticize the validity of justification by the righteousness of Christ – that is, the imputed righteousness of another. This paper will seek to defend this doctrine, confessing that justification is accomplished by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Four viewpoints on justification will be presented, followed by the Biblical context and evidence for the doctrine of imputation.

Viewpoints on Justification

Reformed View: Imputed Righteousness

Theologians of the Reformation tradition argue that justification is accomplished by the mystical union of Christ and His people, such that their sin is atoned by Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to them. Such righteousness refers to “all he became, did, and suffered to satisfy the demands of divine justice, and merit for his people the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life.”^[2] Hence, this righteousness includes both active and passive obedience.

The concept of imputation refers to counting, computing, calculating, or laying something to one’s charge – such is the meaning of the Greek word λογιζομαι, which can be (and in the King James Version was) translated ‘impute.’^[3] Christ’s righteousness is not credited to the account of believers impersonally, but because of their union with Him. This imputation is the reason why believers are justified; since God observes them ‘wearing’ the righteousness of Christ, he can declare them just. Imputation goes beyond substitution; while Christ suffered for the sins of believers, his positive righteousness clothes them in what is acceptable to God. As Calvin said, “…the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must be summoned for us, and as a surety represent us judicially.”^[4]

Roman View: Infused Righteousness

Roman Catholic theologians understand justification as an act of pardon and inner renewal, setting man on a plane that allows him the ability to perform acts that are meritorious before God. Such theologians understand these meritorious acts as stemming from the grace of God. Justification occurs as the human, freed from previous sins (‘negative imputation’) lives a meritorious life. The catechism of the church says, “Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.”^[5] It later adds, “We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.”^[6] The Council of Trent argues the same, that after preparation for God’s grace comes, “…justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”^[7]

Moral Government View: Implied Righteousness

The moral government theory of the atonement has a varied history, acting as a sort of ‘catch-all’ for those who hold to substitutionary atonement, but not within a penal framework. It is historically associated with Hugo Grotius, Charles Finney, and Albert Barnes. Generally, this view understands imputation as negative – God ‘not counting’ sins to the account of the believer (rather than positive, God counting the righteousness of Christ to their account).^[8][9] In this view, Jesus Christ is a substitute who suffers on behalf of his people, though not suffering the legal punishment of their sins. By requiring Christ’s death, God maintains His character as the just governor of the universe. Through the Messianic suffering, believers have a ‘clean slate,’ with their own sins no longer credited to their account. Romans 4:6-8 is often cited: “Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.’”^[10] Hence this view understands that “To be imputed righteous without the works of the law, according to David and Paul under the inspiration of God, is when your iniquities are covered and your sins are forgiven.”^[11] Since Christians are absolved of guilt, they are therefore ‘righteous,’ so that their righteousness could be described as ‘implied righteousness.’

New Perspective View: Implicated Righteousness

The New Perspective argues that in Paul’s writings, justification is not about the process of how one comes into a state of justification, but how God shall vindicate his people, revealing to the world that they are in right standing with Him.^[12] Justification ‘makes’ a person righteous, because it is not a statement about moral reality but about judicial standing.^[13] The New Perspective admits that believers are one with Christ in the sense that they are declared vindicated since they were raised with Jesus Christ, but “…God’s righteousness never becomes…an attribute which is…imputed to, his people.”^[14] Hence, one could understand the New Perspective view on righteousness to be ‘implicated righteousness’ – believers are ‘implicated’ (though in a positive way) by the legal system as being ‘righteous’ since justification is a declaration (to the world, as it were) of their legal standing before God.

A Defense of Imputed Righteousness

It is not within the scope of this paper to provide a thorough critique of the above views; rather, this paper will seek to use biblical evidence and arguments to support the premise that justification is accomplished through the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is important to note that this doctrine of imputed righteousness is united with the doctrine of justification. Justification can occur because “the method of our justification” is imputation.^[15] As Wayne Grudem states, “God can declare us to be just because he imputed Christ’s righteousness to us.”^[16]

Union with Christ: The Essential Foundation

The premise of imputed righteousness is that believers are united with Jesus Christ in a mystical union. Hence, “…believers are incorporated into the righteousness of Christ. The matrix for understanding justification is union with Christ.”^[17] The notion of union with Christ is a commonly admitted point, even by those who deny imputation; Hooker admits that “Through baptism, believers are united with Christ in death and resurrection.”^[18]

The doctrine of union with Christ is clearly taught in Ephesians 5, where the mystical relationship between Jesus Christ and His people is symbolized by human marriage; it is a powerful metaphor indicating a “profound union” that “goes well beyond the other metaphors that Paul uses in portraying union with Christ.”^[19]

Union with Christ is also implied through the constant use of the Pauline phrase “in Christ.” This expression is used scores of times, often in the context of spiritual benefits which believers access through their union with Jesus. While the Greek preposition ενis flexible in meaning, Campbell’s study suggests that “It is…reasonable to regard the spatial sense of the preposition to be primary…” He adds that, “It also seems prudent to accept that the phrase εν Χριστω denotes a personal relatedness.”^[20]

There is no lack of Pauline passages which clarify the concept of union with Christ and the phrase ‘in Christ.’ The apostle says of believers that “because of him [i.e., by the choice of God] you are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor 1:30). In another place he notes that “it is God who establishes us with you in Christ” (2 Cor 1:21); later he adds that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). The goal of the apostles is “that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Col 1:28).

It is important to understand union with Christ because imputed righteousness does not make sense without it. Unfortunately, while union with Christ is a relatively uncontroversial doctrine, the implications of this doctrine are often missed. “It is easy to understate the significance of our union with Christ, for it is not visible but spiritual – it exists by faith. But this is not at all to imply that it is not real.”^[21]

The New Testament constantly reveals that believers obtain benefits through their relationship with the Savior, just as family members may receive financial or insurance benefits if they are related to one who works at a specific company. There is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). There is a “redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:21). The believer is “approved in Christ” (Rom 16:10), and the church is “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor 1:2). Indeed, “…union with Christ is in itself a very broad and embracive subject. It is not simply a step in the application of redemption…in its broader aspects it underlies every step of the application of redemption. Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation…”^[22]

Within this framework, imputation is not an impersonal recording of Christ’s righteousness on the ledger of the believer; rather it is a personal relationship so mystical and spiritual that the Father associates the righteousness of the Son with the Son’s people, so that they are “incorporated” into His righteousness.^[23]

Biblical Texts Supporting Imputed Righteousness

It is true that “Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers.”^[24] Nevertheless, the concept can be clearly seen in four Biblical passages: Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Corinthians 5:14-21, and Philippians 3:8-9.

Romans 5:12-21

From the initial statement that “all sinned” in Romans 5:12, Paul lays out a framework of federal headship that explains the natural depravity of all mankind. Individuals are guilty, not only because of their individual sins, but because they are the descendants of Adam, their representative head. Adam sinned, and that brought actual sin and guilt on all: “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (v. 19).

Paul goes further. In describing the solution to the original Adamic sin, he ‘inverts the sand timer,’ presenting Jesus Christ as a representative head for “all men” (v. 18). What Adam does, Christ does also, but Adam’s representation is destructive while Christ’s force is recreative. 

The implication is obvious: Adam’s sin was imputed to his people, making them sinners. Christ’s ‘obedience’ is imputed to His people, making them righteous (v. 19). Here is ‘imputed obedience,’ the righteousness of Jesus applied to the account of every Christian. In fact, this is more than simply a legal transaction: “Justification is both a declarative and a constitutive act of God’s free grace,”^[25] as Reformed theologians admit, so that Paul can actually say that believers are “made righteous” (v. 19).

In verse 18, Paul refers to ‘one act of righteousness.’ Does this mean that only one of Christ’s righteous acts is in view, rather than the sum of His life’s obedience? No, for the following verse clarifies that what is in view is “the one man’s obedience,” set in opposition to “the one man’s disobedience.” What Paul aims for is parallelism: one man’s solitary act of sin leads to death for all; so one man’s solitary life of obedience leads to life for all.

It is clear that Paul understands more than negative imputation. While Romans 4:6-8 read in isolation could lead to that view, Romans 5 follows. If there is positive imputation of Adam’s sin, but only negative imputation of Christ’s righteousness, Paul’s parallels break down. Further, it is important to remember that Paul is arguing against ‘works of the law.’ He aims to show that Christ provides a higher righteousness than can be attained by works. The aim of the law-doer, of course, is not simply negative blamelessness, but actual positive merit. Paul’s argument is unappealing if Christ only provides negative righteousness.

1 Corinthians 1:30

In 1 Corinthians 1:30, Paul argues against the presumption of the Corinthians to understand themselves as wise apart from the cross. Wisdom and righteousness are only significant in so far as they occur in union with Christ: “…you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

A common argument against this passage is that Paul does not claim each characteristic as imputed to the believer. Does the Christian possess ‘imputed wisdom,’ ‘imputed sanctification,’ or ‘imputed redemption’? Such an argument, however, misses the important facet: Paul is not explaining how each of these characteristics is applied to the believer; he is only showing that they occur through union with Christ. Each characteristic is actually applied in unique ways: Christ is wisdom, but that wisdom is gradually personalized as Christ dwells in the believer. Sanctification, similarly, is gradually realized. Redemption is an instantaneous effect, but it is not ‘imputed.’ Since these characteristics are applied in unique ways, why can righteousness not occur through imputation? The point remains: this righteousness occurs through union with Christ.

How did Christ become ‘righteousness’ for the believer, if not through imputation? Further, if this righteousness refers to actual meritorious works that the believer performs through union with Christ, why does Paul separate this concept from that of sanctification? The moral government and roman views on justification do not adequately answer these questions. A conception of ‘negative righteousness’ does not fit the context: the Corinthians are not boasting in their lack of sin, but in their positive qualities: they are ‘somebodies’ in the Kingdom!

2 Corinthians 5:14-21

Paul’s description of union with Christ is particularly rich in 2 Corinthians 5:14-21. He describes reconciliation, regeneration, and practical Christianity within the context of union with Christ. In wording that reminds one of Romans 5, he speaks of Christ having died “for all.” Verse 21 concludes that “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

This verse reveals the extent to which union with Christ causes Christ to identify with the believer, and vice versa. It is another example of Pauline parallelism. The sins of the believer are laid to Christ’s account: ‘he made him to be sin.’ Similarly, the righteousness of Christ is laid to the believer’s account: “that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Such parallelism is a forceful argument, for it makes sense that an intimate spiritual union with Christ could lead to both effects, sin-imputation balanced with righteousness-imputation. As Piper states, “We ‘become’ God’s righteousness the way Christ ‘was made’ our sin.”^[26]

While it may be argued that Paul is simply expanding on the idea of “not counting their trespasses against them” (v. 19), such a view fails to do justice to the conception of ‘becoming’ the “righteousness of God.” It breaks the parallelism of sin- and righteousness-imputation. It is more understandable to interpret this passage in light of what was clearly stated in Romans 5.

Philippians 3:7-12

Paul’s impressive list of Judaic credentials highlights the contrast of seeking righteousness in Christ, as explained in Philippians 3:7-12. While Paul had reason to trust in the flesh and his works of the law, he abandoned that hope in order to “be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God” (v. 9). Again, the passage is clearly set in the context of union with Christ. Further, Paul’s description of his previous confidence – works of the law which he now regards as “rubbish” (v. 8) – explains what Paul means by ‘righteousness.’ This is not a negative righteousness, as if Paul once worked to be found only as ‘non-guilty,’ but a positive righteousness – Paul worked to gain merit and favor from God. Christ’s righteousness is now paralleled with the former, even shown to be superior – hence it is difficult to argue that it is only a negative righteousness.

Paul’s striving is not for righteousness, but for Christ. If he can attain Christ, then while he will not have a righteousness of his own, yet he will be acceptable: he will have that which comes through faith in Christ. In verse 12, Paul admits that he has not “already obtained this,” but the ‘this’ is unclear. The word is not present in the Greek. The idea seems to be that Paul has not attained perfection, since he clarifies that he is not “already perfect.” In fact, Paul has not already obtained perfection in Christ, and he awaits the final reckoning, where he hopes to “be found in him” (v. 9). How will such a thing occur? Paul is not in doubt: “Christ Jesus has made me his own” (v. 12). In other words, Paul’s hope is to be found in Christ; if this occurs, he will be seen to have the righteousness from God. Paul is not saying that he does not already have this – he is only arguing that it will be made apparent at “the resurrection from the dead.” While it is important to understand this context, the main point remains clear: Paul’s righteousness (paralleling the positive ‘gain’ of law-keeping) is found in Christ, from God, not his own law-keeping.

Conclusion

While modern evangelicals often think of justification by faith as the cardinal doctrine of the reformation, they often overlook the means by which this justification occurs: Christ’s imputed righteousness. Further, without clarity on the relationship between union with Christ and imputation, this doctrine can be easily misunderstood. Yet as the New Testament makes clear, justification is accomplished by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is the method of justification, which is the believer’s hope in life and death.

---

^[1]John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity(Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2007), 503.

^[2]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), Vol. 3, 142.

^[3]Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1896), 379.

^[4]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), 3.14.12.

^[5]“Catechism of the Catholic Church,” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm. 2019.

^[6]Ibid., 2025.

^[7]“On Justification,” the Council of Trent, http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm.

^[8]Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans, (London: Blackie & Son, 1885), 115.

^[9]“Justification by Faith,” Charles Finney, https://www.gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/lptc05_just_by_faith.htm.

^[10]All Bible references in this paper are to the English Standard Version (ESV) (Good News Publishers: Crossway, 2001, 2016 ed.).

^[11]“The Myth of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ,” Jesse Morrell, https://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-myth-of-the-imputed-righteousness-of-christ-jesse-morrell/.

^[12]“New Perspectives on Paul,” N. T. Wright, http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/new-perspectives-on-paul/.

^[13]Ibid.

^[14]Ibid.

^[15]Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2019), 227.

^[16]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 726.

^[17]Michael Bird, “Incorporated Righteousness: A Response to Recent Evangelical Discussions Concerning the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness in Justification,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society47/2 (June 2004): 261.

^[18]Morna Hooker, “Interchange in Christ and Ethics,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament25 (1985): 7.

^[19]Constantine Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 308.

^[20]Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 73.

^[21]Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 242-43.

^[22]John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 171.

^[23]Bird, Incorporated Righteousness, 274.

^[24]George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 491.

^[25]Murray, Redemption Accomplished, 131.

^[26]John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?(Wheaton: Crossway, 2002) 69.