BUT is there not another sense of the expression in Rom. 3:5? Unquestionably there “the righteousness of God” is employed with a different aim and connection. Even so it always leaves the same substantial sense of a quality of righteousness in Him, variously exercised of course. He may judge the world, as here; He may justify believers, as in verses 22-26; but it is in both cases His righteousness. Does not this commend itself to your conscience as being a truer, simpler, less forced explanation than the traditional interpolation of His law? It is assumed that God always justifies Himself. God is not responsible for man's evil; and the fact of man's unrighteousness being turned by Him to His own glory is no excuse for sins. It is the same fundamental truth, no matter how applied. If God displays His justice in judging the world, it is His righteousness, administered no doubt by Christ at His appearing. But this too has nothing to do with Christ's keeping the law. For what link has it with God's taking righteous vengeance on the guilty world? On the other hand, the sinner comes confessing his sins, fleeing for refuge to the blood of Christ, and God justifies him. He is righteous when He deals with impenitent unbelievers; He is equally righteous when He justifies the soul that repents and believes in Jesus. It is the righteousness of God in both cases. Thus there is the strongest confirmation of the truth, although the application be different. In either direction it is God righteous, and God displaying His righteousness. God's righteousness acts in view both of those who, in pride or indifference, despise Him, and are judged, and of those who, confessing their sins, betake themselves to the hiding-place of grace in Christ's blood and are saved. Everywhere God is just whether in judgment or in justification. He acts consistently with the relation in which He stands to both.
But does not such an expounding of divine righteousness in the gospel weaken the law? Assuredly it excludes boasting, since a man is thus justified by faith apart from works of law. It overthrows the distinctions of men; it bespeaks one God Who justifies Jews only by faith, and Gentiles too through their faith. It is instructive to observe that the apostle has to guard the true doctrine from this self-same charge: “Do we then make void the law through faith?” This he meets by an emphatic denial, as indeed the contrary is the fact: “we establish the law” or law as a principle. But how? Bring the law in as done by Christ for us, and it is difficult to see how the objection could have arisen. Paul could hardly have said absolutely that a man is justified by faith, apart from law-works; for according to this scheme the law-works were done all the same for the man, only by Another: a strange doctrine surely, for which one ought to have scripture before believing it! But the statement has a quite different sense, and intimates that faith, apart from works of law (let them be done by whom they may), is the true and only principle of our justification according to God's word. Yet by faith we establish law, instead of annulling it; for faith sees and rests on Jesus suffering unto death for sins under God's wrath, when sin was not only imputed to, but most really judged upon, Him on the cross. When, or where, had law so deep and divine a sanction? Never, we may answer, can there be elsewhere such a maintenance of its authority. Were we under the law for our walk, as is the Judaizing tradition of Christendom, we should make it void, if we fell into the vain conceit that we could break it and yet escape its curse. Faith sees the law established solemnly in the death of Christ, Who bore its curse.
Next we come to a distinct step, which gives occasion to ask, whether justification be only by the blood of Christ. Is this the sole measure and character and fruit of God's righteousness?
The object is not at all to reduce the blessing to naked forgiveness of sins, essential and precious as this may be; it is in no way or degree to deny the value of the life of Christ to the believer. On the contrary, the ordinary scheme of justification deprives one of realizing the richest privilege God would have him know and enjoy. If this be so, how it illustrates that God's way is always the best! But what is it in this case? With singular inconsistency, the system allows that one cannot do without the blood of Christ. Every Christian must admit it. But then, say they, your need righteousness besides; and for this God needs Christ to obey the law for you. And what does scripture say? It gives the life of Christ, but life on the other side; not Christ keeping for me the law on the earth, but Christ risen. It is life in resurrection. In point of fact there is no such thing as identification with Christ as a living man here below; which is, without intending it, a virtual denial of Christianity. We are not Jews. Union is not with the blessed Lord as under the law, but with Him risen and exalted on high.
There is no doubt as to what is taught in scripture. “He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit,” it is said. In what position is this union? Scripture leaves no question whatever. Thus the apostle Paul says: “Though we have known Christ after the flesh” [that is what the traditional righteousness amounts to], yet now henceforth know we him no more.” Did the inspired writer put a slight upon the Lord here below? Did he in any way dishonor the perfect walk of Christ as a man under law on the earth? God forbid! The truth is, that there and thus He was known as Messiah. There I ought to have regarded Him as a Being, however gracious, yet above and entirely aloof from me. I might believe in and love Him, follow Him, confess Him, obey Him, if I had life in my soul; I might be the object of His love and His gracious care; but I could in no just sense have been said to be of His body, a member united to the Head; I could have possessed no such actual oneness with Him. Peter, and James, and John, would have been horrified at any one telling them they were one with their Master. United to Him! a member of His body! who ever heard of such a near relation to Him.
The fact is, the basis on which union with Christ exists, and goes on was not even laid then. How could any soul be one with the blessed Lord when his sins were unatoned for and unremoved? More than this, Christ was not then standing in that power of resurrection-life in which He could take the place of bringing them into His own relationship to His God and His Father, free from sin and law. Directly He died and was risen, the first day (I might almost say the very first act), when He comes into the midst of His disciples, He breathes upon them, and says, “Peace be unto you.” He gives them the fullest assurance that all which pertained to the old man was gone, with peace not for themselves only, but for others also. “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” said the quickening Spirit, as He breathed upon them. “Whosesoever sins ye remit,” &c. Not only were they quit of their own sins, but, in virtue of His large and blessed work, they stood and went forth witnesses, administratively, of the same to others.
The Lord Jesus Christ acted from the resurrection side of the cross; for the believers had Him breathing life “more abundantly” upon them (John 20). It was life in resurrection, life now entirely apart from and above the earth or Judaism, in short above everything connected with the world or the law. Does this slight the law? Certainly not; but it exalts Christ, it asserts His supreme and incomparable worth. Do you mean to keep Christ under law after He rose from the dead? That is the question. If so, assuredly Scripture will not help you. It declares most plainly that now a new sight appeared. Not only was the rejected Messiah shedding His blood that God might righteously justify; but the character of the justification is according to the new place which Christ entered by resurrection. That is, it was not merely a justification in view of the old nature and all its effects and workings met by redemption, but an entirely new standing in which the believer is set by virtue of Christ's resurrection. This is begun to be treated in Rom. 4, being taken up in connection with the type of Abraham. In Rom. 3 God justifies by virtue of the blood of Jesus; in Rom. 4 God justifies by virtue of His resurrection, for He “was raised again for our justification.”
Such is the doctrine of scripture. Where is His obedience of the law in this? Here, if anywhere, one might expect it to be introduced, were the hypothesis only true and sound; for the point raised is not forgiveness barely but justification. It is presented in both its parts, exactly and fully in Rom. 3; 4. How comes it that there is not a word about Christ keeping the law for us? It is an unfortunate case, in sober truth, and piteously destitute, seeing that it has to go begging about the Bible, without getting even a single sure contribution in its favor. It there be, where is it? Not here; nay more, inconsistent with what is here. For “to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Why not, if true, tell us to believe on Jesus doing the works of the law for us? Why not tell us God imputes righteousness, not “without works,” but by Christ's working for us? Were it thus, the promise would then be through the law, and not through the righteousness of faith, in contradiction to Rom. 4; whereas it really is of faith, that it might be according to grace and not law.
( To be continued, D.V.)