It is known very generally that a serious question has been raised on the righteousness of God, and that it has given occasion to keen controversy. Nor is it too much to say, that those who have betrayed their feeling most have little understood its bearings. Such, certainly, is the fact with those who have made themselves conspicuous by violent language on the point. Their discussions, or rather their denunciations, are the strongest possible evidence that, far from having settled the question aright, they do not even know what it is that has to be settled. On the other hand, there are many who reject false views, and yet would find themselves at a loss, were they asked to explain what “the righteousness of God” really means. They know what it does not mean better than what it does—better than what God intended us to gather from the phrase throughout His word. Souls in such a state experience considerable difficulty in expounding divine righteousness to others, and have little clearness and decision as to its positive proper character in their own minds.
As it is now proposed but briefly to enter on this large and weighty theme, it will be my business to begin at once in the simplest way, reviewing some (at least) of the chief scriptures, if not all those in the New Testament, which take it up. This only is to be premised, that it is from no indisposition to look at the Old Testament, if less be said here about it; for, in point of fact, singular as it may appear to some, it is clear beyond controversy that the view which prevails among many modern theologians is not found there. For instance, nothing can be plainer than the passages in Isaiah, where Jehovah speaks of His righteousness as being near to come, and of His salvation as that which was about to be established for His people. Who can say that there is any question there of the Lord's walk under law on earth? It is Jehovah, as such, Who alludes to His own moral consistency with Himself; it is Jehovah Who proclaims His own salvation. In short, Jehovah speaks of His righteousness and the blessing of His people—not of the ground, real or supposed, on which He displays His righteousness, and they are thus blessed.
Understand well: the question is not at all whether there be not the absolute need of a basis on which there should be a display of divine righteousness in favor of His people. All agree in this—all who love the truth. There is no debate among believers, that without Christ, and without a work on His part which vindicates God in showing His infinite mercy, there could be no such thing as the justification of the ungodly. Further, it is to me no question between inherent righteousness, on the one hand, and God's imputing righteousness, on the other. From man as he is, inherent righteousness is excluded. For a sinful man all turns on this, whether in very deed God does reckon righteousness to him on his faith without work; and scripture emphatically declares that He does. How He does, on what righteous ground it is, remains to be seen.
I will endeavor to make as little reference to passing controversies as is desirable. The word of God, which judges the question, must not be avoided for the simple reason that these controversies exist. The rather is it of importance that the children of God should know simply, clearly, unhesitatingly, what His mind is, by virtue of which they may detect and refuse that injurious leaven of tradition, for which men so ardently contend.
It may be, perhaps, more satisfactory to begin with Rom. 3 rather than chap. i., because the one is as explicit as the other is brief and abstract. In Rom. 1:1717For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17) the Holy Ghost merely states the leading truth in the fewest possible words, as introductory to the subject. In chap. 3 He deals with it freely; not all at once, but laying down the grand foundation of God's righteousness. Inasmuch as this so far unfolds the subject, we do well to weigh the larger development of the Spirit of God, and to read the more concise statement in the light of that which is more completely opened. Error habitually takes advantage of an expression, which to some might seem obscure, to darken the clearer explanation by. It is our wisdom to accept all which the Spirit of God affords us. We have a right to assume, that the fullest statement of this or any other doctrine is the best help to the understanding of communications made in fewer words elsewhere.
Now, in the portion read, we have clearly the righteousness of God contrasted with law. He had said immediately before, that “what things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” The law, instead of justifying those that are under it, brings them in more guilty if possible. We can all understand it. Man being a sinner, the law, wherever it operates, cannot better his case; it does but prove his guilt; it can only pronounce upon it; for it measures each violation of God's commands. “The law is holy; and the commandment holy and just, and good.” It is impossible that a good law could save or acquit a bad man. The law of God, therefore, has for its effect in dealing with the evil to condemn them without hope to death. Not of course that this is all that God can do, but it is the only conceivable direct effect of God's law upon the guilty. A law which an evil man might escape could not be the law of God. It is to be regretted that a criminal should escape man's law: God's law he never can. The law therefore closes up in condemnation. The Jew had no difficulty at all about the Gentiles; for these worshipped idols, and wallowed in every kind of fleshly lust, caring little about conscience. Many enormities were lightly regarded. Fleshly uncleanness and drunkenness they connected with the very worship of their gods. On all this, accordingly, the Jew looked down with no small self-complacency.
But, argues the apostle, how is it with you? What does scripture say about yourself? What does your own law declare about your ways? God looked down from heaven, and says that “there is mine righteous, no, not one; none that doeth good, no, not one,” as it is summed up most emphatically. Now for the masterly proof (if I may use such a word about the apostle, remembering that the Holy Ghost employs that blessed man as the vessel of His reasoning): “What the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law.” Who can divert that solemn sentence of God to the Gentiles? You boast of your law: be it so. But “what the law saith, it speaketh to them who are under the law.” God, when He declares so strongly that “there is none that doeth good—none that is righteous, no, not one,” speaks not of Gentiles but Jews. Hence every mouth is stopped, and the whole world becomes guilty before God. For the Gentiles had been shown to be evidently guilty in chapter i.; the philosophers were proved to be no better in the beginning of chapter 2; and then the Jews, who had the law and dreamed of themselves as righteous, are brought in more guilty than any in the end of chapter 2 and in chapter 3. The very law of God it was, which manifested and proclaimed their exceeding iniquity in His sight. Thus every mouth is stopped.
But when man's mouth is closed in guilt, God can open His in grace; and so He does. He was entitled to require righteousness, though knowing perfectly there was no good in man, and so none to be got out. He had demonstrated that His law, instead of producing righteousness among the Jews, on the contrary only proved their evil more plainly, if there was a difference.
Now it becomes a question of another kind of righteousness altogether. Man is all wrong; there is no righteousness in him. This has been brought home already. The only righteousness possible is God's. What it fully means, what its basis is, and how it avails for the blessing of man, are other questions. But the first great truth asserted is, that (man as a whole, man in every grade and variety, being put down as destitute of righteousness according to God) it becomes a question of God showing His righteousness, if so it please Him. This He does, and most worthily of Himself.
But how is it done? If God were simply to act in His righteousness without Christ, what must be the effect on man? The whole race should be swept into hell. What does He then? He has acted in another way, and most righteously, that He may not consign the guiltiest to perdition. How can this be? Hearken then. There is no doubt man has deserved judgment. This has been proved unmistakably by the law in the favored people that were under it, as well in the Jews as in the lawless Gentiles. But now bursts forth the glorious truth” Righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ.” As he says here, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (not the putting away or the pardon of sin; for the law never pretended to do either). “But now,” says he, “God's righteousness” —mark the strength of the language— “without law,” etc. That the Savior came down from heaven and accomplished the law is certainly a plain fact. But is this what the Holy Ghost here presents as God's righteousness? Where is there a word about Christ's keeping the law for us, in order that this should be accepted in lieu of man's failure? In truth, the Jews only are meant by “those under law,” and in contrast with the Gentiles, who knew nothing of it.
But, waiving this at the present, surely here was the place to explain the importance of Christ's accomplishing pushing the law for man, had God's righteousness meant anything of the sort. How comes it that there is no trace of such a thought? Are we to believe the scriptures? Directly or indirectly shall we presume to mend them? Are we to supplement the written word, as if God did not know the truth better than we? Has it not come to a strange pass, that men now, instead of seeking to understand what Gods righteousness means, turn aside from the plain truth that the Holy Ghost is insisting on, and interpolate a doctrine not found here, and very hard to find anywhere else in the Bible? Indeed it is unknown and opposed to the word of God.
Here again let us understand each other. Do we deny for a moment the subjection of the Lord Jesus to the law of God? God forbid! He did fulfill the law, of course; He vindicated God in every possible way in the fulfillment of it. This is no matter of controversy for Christian men. He is no believer who supposes that Christ in any act of His life failed, that He did not entirely and blessedly accomplish the law of God (under which, as we are told, He was made), or that the result could be of small moment to God or man.
The question is, Has His accomplishment of the law of God the place which a certain school gives it? Is it God's righteousness as here taught of Him, or its revealed ground? Assuredly here we have the doctrine unfolded, and that for the permanent instruction of the Christian. It is the most elaborate statement of this truth that God's word contains. How comes so absolute a silence, where, if true, we could not but look for a clear decisive introduction of Christ's fulfillment of the law in lieu of our breach of it? For it is a question not of pardon only but of justification. To foist something in looks like a fable. Does it not suggest the suspicion, to say the least, that man unwittingly erred and invented the opinion? There may have been sincerity of course; but God's word is requisite.
Do I deny that the ways, the walk, the life of Jesus, the magnifying of God in all His ways are anything to our account? Far from it! We have the Lord Jesus wholly, and not in part; and we have Him everywhere. I am not contending in the least against the precious truth that, Christ being our acceptance, we have Him as a whole. His Obedience was unbroken through His entire life; and its savor to God is part of the blessing that belongs to every child of God. I believe it, rejoice in it, thank God for it (I trust) continually. But the question is wholly different. God does use for His own glory and for our souls all that Jesus did and suffered.
The true inquiry is, What is the righteousness of God? It must be settled not by notions, feelings, fancies, traditions; not by what is preached or received, but by what is written—by the word of God. Are you afraid of this test? Do you shrink back from the word which searches out what you hold as to the righteousness of God? It is to be supposed you have reason to fear the scrutiny. When a man shrinks from the Bible, it is because the Bible condemns him. It does not support speculations which he is not yet prepared to abandon. Certainly you are not asked to abandon anything that is of God. By all means hold fast Christ in all His ways magnifying God, and the blessedness of this for our acceptance before God. Still the question recurs, What is God's righteousness? Is there a legal ground laid for justification, as some suppose?
Here is God's answer. “Now,” it is said,” God's righteousness without law.” No language can be more absolute and precise. What the Holy Ghost employs is an expression which puts the law entirely aside, as far as divine righteousness is concerned. He had been speaking about the law, and the law condemning men. He had shown that the law required righteousness but could not get it. This is another order of righteousness, not man's but God's, and that too absolutely exclusive of law in any shape. How suitable a time to say, had it been the good news of God, that Jesus came to obey the law for us, and that God substitutes this as His righteousness for every man to stand on! Why is it not said then? Because it is not the ground, or character, or nature, of the righteousness of God. His righteousness is wholly apart from law.