Romans 3:28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
The labours of the early Reformers were specially directed to interpreting the term justification. Among the errors of Romanism, which had been accumulating for ages, one of the most fatal was on this point. It served the popish defences of human merit to teach that justification signified a change of character. Hence they taught that to justify was to make just, in the sense of making holy; and they introduced the false idea of a first and second justification. By the first, the unrighteous man was made righteous; by the second he was continued righteous. So justification was confounded with sanctification. These opinions were almost universal among the Romanists and were authoritatively established by the Council of Trent; they have been revived, and earnestly maintained, by the Romanising party in the Church of England. It is therefore of the utmost importance to attain a clear notion of justification, in its Scriptural sense.
To justify, then, is not to make just, in the sense of making holy, but to declare just. It is derived from courts of law, where everyone who is on trial is either justified or condemned. It is for this reason called a forensic, or judicial, term. To condemn and to justify are exact opposites. When the judge condemns a man, he does not by that act render him any worse than he was before; he simply declares him to be guilty. When the judge justifies a man, he does not by that act render him any better than he was before; he simply declares him to be innocent. In this sense, the term is used in the Scriptures: “If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgement, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked” (Deut 25:1). “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord” (Prov 17:15). It is obviously only in this declarative sense that God can be said to be justified by men, and wisdom to be justified by her children.
We further observe that where this term is used in a religious sense, an allusion to judicial practice runs through the whole statement. Thus Job says, “How should man be just with God? If he will contend with Him, he cannot answer Him one of a thousand” (9:2,3). And David: “Enter not into judgement with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps 143:2). The scriptural language seems to introduce us to a court: there are a law, a sanction, a tribunal, a judge, an accusation, a condemnation, an advocate, a surety, an acquittal. But there is not a syllable about changing the character; it is only a change of state, standing, or relation to law. A misunderstanding here darkens the whole system of grace and ensures an unsound theology. This, as Calvin says, is the very hinge on which the whole work of redemption turns. And error in this point is easier because the word sometimes has another meaning; it has been extensively used for sanctification; and because, in point of fact, justification and sanctification are inseparably connected. Justification therefore is an act of God, whereby He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous.
Taken with editing from Alexander’s volume of sermons entitled, Faith.
Having settled the meaning of the term, we proceed to consider the act itself. All will agree that the moving cause of justification is the eternal goodness of God; apart from this, no offender could ever have been received to favour. But people are so ignorant of God’s true character that they sometimes ask in their hearts, if not with their lips, Why this circuitous method? Why might God not accept the sinner by a sovereign declaration, irrespective of any acts on his behalf? Such inquiries arise from exceedingly low thoughts of the most high God.
But let us present ourselves in thought before His awesome tribunal. Let us meditate on the Judge whose brightness eclipses the stars, and whose holiness sheds condemnation on the heavens, whose anger shakes the earth, and whose power melts the mountains, whose justice brings dread into the hearts of the angels, who does not acquit the guilty and whose wrath has ordained Tophet of old, and we shall be ready to exclaim, “If Thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”
The law of God involves a solemn degree of the majesty of that character of which it is the transcript. It is holy, just and unchangeable. Everything which made a law right in the beginning remains in full force, demanding obedience. Every reason in God’s mind for annexing a penalty remains in full force, to exact the execution of that penalty. All the wisdom and justice which made it necessary for creatures to be threatened with punishment, in case of disobedience, make it necessary that the sinner’s acceptance should not take place without some amends being made to the violated law. It is indeed a sovereign act of God which justifies the sinner – an act of sovereign mercy, but one in which justice no less than mercy appears.
Seeing something is necessary to manifest the glorious justice of God in accepting sinners, the question remains, What is this? In other words, What is the meritorious cause, for the sake of which the sinner is justified in the sight of God? All answers to this question reduce themselves to these two: The ground of justification is something in the sinner, or something outside him; something done by him, or something done for him by another. He is justified either by works, or without works. And the doctrine which prevails in the Romish Church is that the sinner is justified, in some way or other, by works. The doctrine of Scripture is that he is justified without works. Indeed, so explicit is the language of Scripture on this point, and so distinctly is it sounded by the trumpet of Paul – as not merely his doctrine, but his capital doctrine – that few have the effrontery to declare in plain terms that their own works are the proper ground of their justification. In order therefore to guard against the finesse of errorists, we must examine a little their mode of evading the truth.
All agree that spirits who have never sinned, and man in a state of innocence, were justified by works; that is, by perfect obedience to the law under which they were created. In this case we have the simplest form of justification: when God pronounces him just who is properly and in every sense righteous. But the problem becomes less easy when justification refers to those who have broken the law, as it is agreed that all on earth have done.
A further concession is to be made, in order to clear the question and stop the mouths of adversaries. We fully admit that everyone who is justified is made holy, and if the term had not been abused, this might be called inherent righteousness. Our opponents, including Rome, reproach evangelical teachers with rejecting inherent righteousness, both name and thing. We indignantly resist the charge and affirm that, in every case of true justification, the Holy Spirit infuses a principle of holiness, which manifests itself in good works. But we firmly deny that these good works constitute, in whole or in part, that righteousness whereby we are accepted in the sight of God. And this is the great position on which we make our first stand. Let it be observed that we deny this, both of the principle and of the fruits; both of works wrought after regeneration and of works wrought before it; both of works wrought in faith and of works wrought in unbelief; both of works wrought with a spiritual influence and of works wrought without one. Works have no part in our justification.
The opponents of this doctrine, in order to give some place to the work of the Redeemer, teach that Christ has merited, by His obedience, that internal righteousness should be communicated to us; but also that the righteousness thus infused is our justifying righteousness. The Council of Trent states that the righteousness by which God justifies us is that which He gives us when He renews us in the spirit of our minds, so that we are not merely accounted righteous, but are really so. This is known in theology as justification by infused or inherent righteousness. It is strange that even when the subject is first presented, it should be at all tolerated in a soul which has ever been truly convinced of sin, or in a conscience which has ever been brought before the bar of an infinitely holy and heart-searching God; or that it should ever be maintained in the face of New Testament declarations that we are justified freely, without works of law.
The Scriptures teach and the most experienced Christians admit that, even after regeneration, their obedience is unspeakably deficient in kind and degree; that in many things they all offend; that they are unprofitable servants, even after all their performances; that their highest affections fall short of supreme love; and that there is no command whose spirit they have not broken, nor any hour of their lives, or single act, on which they could rest their hope of justification in the sight of a holy God. Gratefully owning the influences of God’s Spirit, in renewing and gradually sanctifying their souls, they nevertheless find no inherent righteousness on which God could look with complacency for an instant.
On opening the New Testament, we are immediately struck with such passages as this: “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight”. To an unsophisticated mind, this would seem to settle the question; but such is the ingenuity of unbelief that we are constrained to spend some time in removing the ideas which have obscured the text.
When we are said to be justified without works, the works meant, say some, are those of the ceremonial law. This is not the most tenable position of our adversaries, so it is not their favourite one at present. The New Testament writers do not much refer to our modern distinction of ceremonial and moral law; but apart from this, the idea cannot be sustained. The Apostle Paul, who oftenest treats this doctrine, does not merely assert that salvation is without works, but in more than one instance proceeds to prove it. In every such case, his argument shows that he is not speaking of ritual or ceremonial works. Thus in Romans 3, when he concludes, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight,” the whole preceding argument is a series of charges against transgressors of moral precepts. There is not one word concerning the emptiness of rites, or even concerning their being fulfilled in Christ – points which would have been unavoidable if these only had been intended. If it had been his object to show that we are justified by moral works, not by ceremonial, he would necessarily have contrasted the moral and the ceremonial law.
On the contrary, the opposition which he establishes is between works and faith, between law and promise, between debt and grace. And his principal instance of justification without works is that of Abraham, which occurred long before the institution of the Levitical service. Indeed the presumption is so violent that it has long since been abandoned by the most able controversialists even on the Romish side.
A candid examination of Paul’s argument will show that, under the name of law and of works, he excludes moral as well as ceremonial requirements and obedience of every sort. This is apparent from the universal nature of the expressions, that we are justified “without the deeds of the law”, that “a man is not justified by the works of the law”, that “no man is justified by the law, in the sight of God”.
It has therefore been pretended that the works here excluded are works before regeneration, or without faith. So important a distinction could not have been left unexpressed. The opposition is not between one sort of works and another, but between debt and grace, between law and promise, between our own righteousness and the righteousness of God, between working and not working. The very tenor of his argument shows that it is the moral law which Paul excludes, for it is that law (Rom 3) which condemns both Jews and Gentiles: “There is none righteous, no, not one”. It is that law by which “is the knowledge of sin”. It is “the law of works” as opposed, not to ceremonies or imperfect obedience, but to “the law of faith”. It is that law which worketh wrath, and without which “there is no transgression”. It is that law which says, “Thou shalt not covet”, and those precepts by which “the man that doeth them shall live in them”. This can be no other than the moral law, in all its extent.
It is evident from the case of Abraham that Paul does not mean only to exclude such works as are done without faith and before regeneration. He argues that if Abraham was justified by works, he had whereof to glory. But he was justified as one who “worketh not”. Surely he of whom these things are spoken was not unregenerate or unbelieving. Calvin says, “Though the life of the patriarch was spiritual and almost angelical, yet his works did not possess sufficient merit to justify him before God”. Equally pertinent is the instance of David, who is adduced as describing “the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works”.
Here and elsewhere Paul opposes works to faith, and justification by works to justification by faith. By works he must therefore mean obedience of every kind. And when he excludes such works as might be matter of boasting, he manifestly excludes all works. The same thing is proved by the declarations: that we are justified freely, that we are justified by Christ, and that we are justified by faith. The conclusion seems unavoidable that we are justified by something outside ourselves, and that the matter of our justification is not something that we can render to the demands of the law. The ground of our acceptance must therefore be sought where the text places it: in the righteousness of another. But how can this be?
All the acts and declarations of God are according to truth. As the God of infinite justice, He sees and declares all things just as they are; He cannot pronounce him righteous who is unrighteous. As we have no righteousness of our own, it would for ever be impossible for us to be justified if God were not to look on us in another, rather than in ourselves. This is the great and precious mystery which deserves special consideration. God looks on His people as the body of Christ, as united to Him – as one with Him. Here we see the infinite importance of union with Christ. He not only represented His people but acted as their head. From the moment of union, His acts are accounted theirs.
We now ask, What is the Scripture method of justification? Here the reply of Scripture is perfectly intelligible. What justifies us is not the righteousness of law, the righteousness of works, or our own righteousness; but “the righteousness of God without the law”, “righteousness without works”, or “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Christ”, the “righteousness of faith”. It is the righteousness of Christ, for we are made “the righteousness of God in Him”. The two most important questions concerning this righteousness are: (1.) What it is. (2.) How it becomes ours.
1. What it is.
It requires little consideration to perceive that it is not the essential righteousness of the Divine nature in Christ, but His perfect satisfaction of the law in this world. The righteousness of Christ is His obedience, His obedience rendered for sinners. The whole of His subjection to the law was as mediator and representative. Except in the covenant of grace, the law made no demand that the Son of God should come under its yoke. In infinite mercy He took our nature, to render to the law every satisfaction which was necessary to our salvation. This satisfaction is called His righteousness. It is called the “righteousness of God” because He devised it and because He accepts it. The debt which sinful man owes consists of two parts – penalty and performance. The righteousness of Christ, to be available, must provide both. Accordingly He exhausted the penalty and fulfilled the precept. By the one, He provided for the remission of sins; by the other, He procured a right to salvation and reward. Justification is something more than the remission of sins: it includes both remission of sin and the right to eternal life. Both are procured by the righteousness of Christ.
That both are necessary may be seen in the case of Adam in Eden. At the very moment of his creation, he was perfectly innocent, and therefore in the state in which remission of sin places a sinner. But something more was necessary to give a right to the rewards of life: he needed obedience to a prescribed law. By remission of sins, the believer would at best be no further advanced than Adam was at the moment of his creation. By a title to the rewards of life, he attained that place in the sight of God which Adam would have reached at the close of his probationary obedience. Forgiveness was purchased for sinners by Christ their Surety enduring the penalty of the law; a title to the rewards by His performing all its requirements. Both are included under the term obedience. But while the righteousness of Christ is a resplendent whole, these parts may be considered separately, which we may now profitably contemplate.
(a) The Lord Jesus Christ, for the sake of His people, endured the penalty of the law.
This includes the whole of His mysterious suffering. “Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” This expresses all. The law demanded the death of the sinner; it is satisfied by the death of an infinite Substitute. The all-wise Jehovah, who best understands the claims of His own glory, is pleased to recognise the suffering of His Son as a more full satisfaction to the law than the eternal pains of His people. It is the infinite dignity of the Substitute which gives a value to temporal sufferings, making these more than equivalent, in the eye of the law, to the sufferings of creatures through all eternity. The crowning event of these sufferings was the death of Christ on the cross, and pardon is therefore ascribed to them above all the rest. This obedience of Christ to the penalty of the law was propitiatory or expiatory, washing away the guilt of sin. It was a proper sacrifice, which gave significance to all the sacrifices of the Levitical law.
For ages God had been educating His ancient Church in the persuasion that, without shedding of blood, there was no remission. Substitution was inscribed on every altar of the tabernacle and temple. The bloody services of the priesthood were, for ages, but a preparing of the way for the entrance of the great High Priest. And every unblemished animal which panted and bled in the Levitical courts foreshadowed the Lamb of God “slain from the foundation of the world”. The sinner, as he laid his hand on the head of the victim, typically transferred his guilt to it. The priest, as he sprinkled the blood on the sinner, typically absolved him. It was one being suffering for another. It was the death of the sacrifice for the death of the sinner.
All these shadows were accomplished in the death of Christ, who was both sacrifice and priest; and thus a glorious satisfaction was made to the law, in regard to its penalty. We are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot”; “who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree . . . by whose stripes ye were healed”. He was made sin for His people, a curse for them, that they might be the righteousness of God in Him. By His own blood, He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for them. This obedience of Christ unto death, whereby He made a full satisfaction to the law, as to its penalty, is known in theology as His passive obedience; and to this we owe the remission of our sins.
(b) The Lord Jesus Christ, for their sakes, fully obeyed the precept of the law.
This is what the law demanded of the creature, to constitute a title to the rewards of life. The infinite dignity of the Mediator made His obedience, though rendered in time, a more glorious and acceptable satisfaction to the law than the perfect obedience of all His people could have been. And it is quite as just and reasonable as what we have been considering. Yet, while all who admit a proper atonement agree that the sufferings and death of Christ were in order to the remission of our sins, there are many who deny that the personal holiness of Christ, and His subjection to the precept, had any similar intention. This is truly surprising, when we consider that it was no less necessary that the precept should be fulfilled in order to life, than that the penalty should be endured in order to pardon. Indeed, if the law demands one thing more than another, it is obedience.
If any reparation is to be made, we might expect it to be the reparation of due performance. The acts of the Surety, in what he did, are as available for us as His pains in what He suffered. Even His sufferings are included under the name of obedience – He was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”. It was to be expected that the Surety should fulfill for sinners all the demands of the law, precept as well as punishment. It is undeniable that the Lord Jesus Christ was made under the law, that He subjected Himself to it, and actually fulfilled it. It is reasonable to conclude that acts so important, in His mediatorial life, were a part of His suretyship and were rendered on their behalf. And unless these acts are the ground of our acceptance, we must resort to our own acts for this end.
But the Scriptures are too plain on this point to be mistaken. The obedience of Christ is expressly declared to be the ground of our acceptance, and the sufferings of Christ are but a part of that obedience, and receive this name only in a secondary sense. He is the Lord our Righteousness. He is made of God unto His people “righteousness”. And in terms which baffle all the ingenuity of opposers, we are told that, “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous”. It is this which is called the active obedience of Christ; and these two taken together, the active and passive obedience, constitute that one righteousness which is the sole meritorious ground of the acceptance of a sinner. What He did, and what He suffered, are but one object in the sight of the law – a glorious righteousness with which believers are graciously invested, wrought out by their Head, in their nature, but deriving infinite value from the hidden fountain of the Godhead.