Green Baggins

Leithart agrees with Gaffin’s exegesis, which says that Christ’s resurrection was, in a sense, His justification. Since that involved redemption from the state of death, therefore justification involves liberation, or deliverance, from our state of death, argues Leithart. Leithart coins the term “deliverdict” to describe this. I understand he is currently writing a book with that title.

Romans 4:25 is translated this way: “Who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for our justification.” The Greek is as follows: ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. What this says needs to be carefully argued. First of all, note that the first phrase and the second phrase are parallel: the handing over for our transgressions is parallel with the being raised for our justification. This indicates that the meaning of the two phrases should also be parallel. The force of the preposition “for” (διὰ) is vitally important. It could be translated “with a view to.” This should not be read as implying any kind of hypothetical aspect into the phrase. In other words, it expresses the infallible purpose of God, not some sort of contemplation by God of what Christ’s death and resurrection might possibly be useful to accomplish. The sins of the elect are taken care of by Christ’s being handed over. Similarly, the justification of the elect is in a sense accomplished by Christ’s resurrection (although, as Calvin very carefully notes, it is not as though Christ’s sacrifice contributes nothing to our justification, p. 185 of his commentary). So there is a definite link from Christ’s death to the forgiveness of our sins. There is a further link from Christ’s resurrection to our justification. The nature of the latter link should be at least analogous to the former link. Therefore, I am not sure that we can conclude from this text that Jesus’ resurrection was His justification. I do believe that 1 Timothy 3:16 says this. Calvin is on the right track here:

First, that our sins were expiated by the death of Christ, -and secondly, that by his resurrection was obtained our righteousness. But the meaning is, that when we possess the benefit of Christ’s death and resurrection, there is nothing wanting to the completion of perfect righteousness…the efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection. From page 185 of his commentary on Romans.

Furthermore, Calvin’s objection to the “renovation” view mitigate also against Leithart’s view:

But I cannot assent to those who refer this second clause to newneww of life; for of that the Apostle has not begun to speak; and further, it is certain that both clauses refer to the same thing. For if justification means renovation, then that he died for our sins must be taken in the same sense, as signifying, that he acquired for us grace to mortify the flesh; which no one admits.

The logic of Calvin’s argument can be used against Leithart’s position, as well (renovation being a synonym for deliverance from the power of death): the context of Romans 4 is plainly talking about the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (see verses 3-8, 11, 15). The aspect of sin in view in the context is not the enslaving power of sin, which, as Calvin notes, Paul has not begun to treat of yet (he starts that in chapter 6). Rather, the aspect of sin in view is the debt to the law (verse 15). Sin’s relationship to the law is therefore in view in verse 25. That means that the corresponding righteousness must also be related to the law. Christ’s resurrection, while it does indeed have implications for our deliverance from the power of sin, is nevertheless here spoken of in terms of Christ’s righteousness as being able to be imputed to us now that Christ has risen. A dead Messiah’s righteousness does no one any good. This interpretation is further confirmed by the following context (5:1), where peace with God (since the law’s demands have been fully met, both the penal demands of the law against sin and the positive demands of the law for righteousness) is now ours by faith. Peace with God is not directly related to being delivered from the power of sin. Rather, it is directly related to being delivered from the guilt of sin. We have not only peace with God, but also access into this grace by which we stand (verse 2). The peace was obtained by Christ’s death, and the access was obtained by Christ’s resurrection. The former corresponds to the propitiation that is Christ’s sacrifice, and the latter corresponds to the righteousness of Christ, which can only become ours because our Messiah is no longer dead.

Leithart has completely misappropriated Murray, in addition to having misunderstood Romans 6:7, which says this:

ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.  

He says that Murray’s take on Romans 6:7 is that the verdict of righteous takes the form of liberation from the power of sin (emphasis mine). Murray says no such thing. This is what he actually said:

The decisive breach with the reigning power of sin is viewed after the analogy of the kind of dismissal which a judge gives when an arraigned person is justified (LK, plainly viewing justification after the normal definition of judicial verdict). Sin has no further claim upon the person who is thus vindicated. This judicial aspect from which deliverance from the power of sin is to be viewed needs to be appreciated. It shows that the forensic is present not only in justification but also in that which lies at the basis of sanctification. (commentary on Romans 6:7, p. 222).

Leithart argues that the verdict takes the form of liberation from the power of sin. Murray takes it in the opposite direction: the forensic declaration of being not guilty has the added effect of being the basis of sanctification. Murray is echoing Hodge here, I believe, who has the very best explanation of this verse:

To be justified from sin (emphasis original) means to be delivered from sin by justification. And that deliverance is twofold; judicial deliverance from its penalty, and subjective deliverance from its power. Both are secured by justification; the former directly, the other consequentially, as a necessary sequence (pg. 199 of his commentary on Romans).

Look, all agree that justification and sanctification have a very close relationship one to the other. But both Murray and Hodge (as well as the WS, the 3FU, etc.) carefully distinguish between the two. Leithart is confusing the categories of justification and sanctification. There is no need whatsoever to do so.

In view of recent discussion on the Vos quotation, I thought this quotation from William Pemble’s outstanding book on justification would be helpful:

We argue thus: a man is justified either by the works of the law or by faith in Christ. But he is not justified by the works of the law. Ergo, he is justified only by faith in Christ. In this disjunctive syllogism, they cannot find fault with us for adding the word “only” in the conclusion, which was not in the premises. For reason will teach them that he two terms are immediately opposite; if one is taken away, the other remains alone. So in every disjunctive syllogism whose major proposition stands upon two terms immediately opposite, if one term is removed in the proposition, the conclusion is plainly equivalent to an exclusive proposition. For example, we argue thus: either the wicked are saved or the godly. But the wicked are not saved. Thence it follows in exclusive terms that the godly only are saved. Similarly, in this case, our adversaries cannot deny that the proposition (a man is justified either by works or by faith) consists of terms immediately opposite. For otherwise they accuse the Apostle Paul of a lack of logic who should conclude falsely that “a man is justified by faith without works” (Romans 3:2 if he is justified either by both together, or else by neither. (pp. 58-59 of The Justification of a Sinner).

Of course, this does not answer the question of what kind of works are excluded from justification. All the Reformers agree that it is all works which are excluded, not merely some works. N.T. Wright argues that the eta at the beginning of verse 29 indicates that, since the Jew/Gentile issue is brought to the fore in verses 29ff, that therefore the works of verse 28 that are excluded from justification are not all works, but merely the Jewish “badge” works. This argument is illegitimate, since the Gentiles did not have the Torah (although they did have the moral law imprinted on their conscience and revealed in nature: see verse 19). The question is the definition of “law” in verse 28. The context indicates that it is not merely the “badge” parts of the law that are indicated. Verse 31 has a distinctly inclusive stamp about its use of the term “law,” as does verse 21. After all, verses 9-20 just got finished telling us that Jew and Gentile are under the law. If they are both under it, then the law spoken of HAS to be the moral law, since the Gentiles were not under the badge parts of the law.

The only question remaining, then, is the question of the contrast of “law of works” and “law of faith” in verse 27. I believe that Paul is using the term “law” here for “principle.” The principle of faith inherently rules out boasting, since the righteousness we have by faith is not our own, but is rather Christ’s righteousness. Obviously, a principle of works (the “law of works”) would not rule out boasting. Verse 28 then goes back to the earlier definition of “law” to mean the moral law.

So that leaves us with the question of what to do with the eta of verse 29. The logic goes like this: the Jews are the only ones who have tried to justify themselves by the works of the moral law. The Gentiles haven’t even bothered to try. But if justification has to be by the works of the moral law, the Jews were the only ones who would have known about it. But God is not the God of the Jews only. Therefore, the way of salvation has to be a way that is open to Gentiles as well. That way is by faith alone, apart from works of the moral law.

There is a significant textual variant in Romans 5:1 that drastically affects the meaning of the verse. The variant that almost all translations have as their in-text printing is the indicative “we have peace.” The by far stronger manuscript support, however, is for the subjunctive (”let us have peace.”) The two readings side-by-side would then read, first “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” And second, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here we have a case where internal evidence (that is, evidence of probability) far outweighs the manuscript support (external evidence). Paul is writing in the indicative all the way through this section. He is not in the imperatival portion of the epistle yet. He is describing the indicative of our salvation. It would surely be completely out of character for Paul to say that we have justification, but then have to strive for peace with God. It contradicts everything else the apostle ever wrote about justification. Justification means that we do have peace with God. Add to this the other internal evidence of the similarity of vowels in the two readings (the two variants only differ by one vowel which sounds the same in both variants: omicron for the indicative, omega for the subjunctive), and one has enormous probability that the indicative is correct. I throw this variant out there to indicate the relative weight of various factors in textual criticism. Textual criticism has two sorts of evidence: internal and external, which correspond to transcriptional probability versus manuscript evidence. In general, I weight the external evidence more heavily, since it is much more verifiable. However, internal considerations cannot be discounted. The other place where internal evidence rules is in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer, which is much shorter than Matthew’s.

If we wanted to break down criteria for textual criticism, we could do it this way. In the external evidence side of things, there are several criteria we need to use in weighting manuscripts, none of which is absolute: age of manuscript (older is generally better); geographical distribution of readings (a more geographically diverse reading is much more likely to be original); family characteristics of manuscripts (a daughter manuscript (if proved to be a daughter) has no additional weight than the parent manuscript, unless corrected against another manuscript; number of manuscripts (the more the better: however, there are a significant number of qualifications on this one, since the vast majority of manuscripts of the NT are Byzantine in origin, and there are definitely family characteristics there. Furthermore, the Byzantine manuscripts are much younger than other text-types); tendencies of text-types (certain text-types are prone to expansion, others are prone to deletion, etc.). The internal evidence attempts to weigh transcriptional probability (what is most likely to have been written). It asks question such as these: “what is the more difficult reading (more likely to be original, since a scholar would be more likely to make a reading easier to understand than more difficult: however, this is not absolute),” “is there some error of copying that can explain the variants (same ending of words, same beginning of words, copying two identical words instead of one, omitting one of two identical words, same line ending, same line beginning, and so on).” This evidence is inevitably more subjective. However, as in the case above, internal evidence cannot be let go so easily. When weighing the variants, a dictum that is well-nigh absolute is this, “Does the reading I am leaning towards have the ability to explain how all the other readings arose?” This is an immensely important dictum in textual criticism. The best reading can explain how all the others arose. So textual criticism weighs internal and external evidence in attempting to find the original text.

Lest anyone have any misimpressions, very little of the NT is in any serious doubt as to what the original manuscript (the autograph) said. And of the texts that are in doubt, very few of those, in turn, have any significance for the meaning of the text. The dealt with above is one of the few.

I just received the latest edition of Modern Reformation in the mail. They have been going through Romans for this year. By the way, every one who calls themselves Reformed ought to subscribe to this magazine. This issue deals with Romans 12-16. I was reminded of a terrific sermon I heard on Romans 12:1-2 by Eric Alexander. It was during the Philadelphia Conference on Reformation Theology. I am going to summarize what he said there.

First the text: Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν: καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον.

And now, the interpretation. The οὖν is quite possible the most important “therefore” in all of Scripture, since its import encompasses the entirety of Romans 1-11. Paul summarizes the previous chapter with this phrase: “the mercies of God.” That is shorthand for all the spiritual blessings that he has been describing for the previous 11 chapters.

We don’t have to offer our bodies as a dead sacrifice, since Christ has already done that. So we offer ourselves as living sacrifices. This is λογικὴν. To this day, I cannot see why some translations have translated this as “spiritual.” It has much more to do with thoughtfulness (BDAG), or logicality. It is only logical, Paul says, to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, given what Jesus has done for us.

Then follows a couple of Greek verbs that are important to parse correctly. First off is συσχηματίζεσθε. This is a present middle/passive imperative, 2 person plural. I think the force is passive. It is well translated in the Phillips translation: “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold.” He uses 6 words to translate one Greek word, but that is fairly common. And it is a splendid rendition. The only thing I would change is that I think τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ means “this present age” rather than “this world.” It is a designation of time, not space. Paul is always contrasting the old age and the new age. This is especially evident in Romans 7:14ff, where the old “I” and the new “I” are duking it out. The next verb is μεταμορφοῦσθε, from which we get our word “metamorphosis.” This is a present passive imperative, 2 person plural. Note especially the force of the passive imperative. It is a command to us to have God transform us (it is a divine passive: God is doing the metamorphizing). The implications can hardly be over-estimated for our lives. Grammar here is necessary for God’s people to know. To have our minds transformed is the work of God, not of ourselves. This passage also implies that if we think the way this age does, then our minds are blinded. There is either an unrenewed mind or a renewed mind. Nothing in-between. Which are we?

First, a word about sacramental language. Oftentimes in Scripture, what is said of the sign actually refers to the thing signified (WCF 27.2). This is often missed in FV discussions, and in many discussions of Romans 6. For what Romans 6 is talking about is the thing signified by baptism, not so much the sign. This is evident, because the benefits described here are elsewhere attributed to the time-point of faith. For instance, faith-union with the risen Christ is described as being united with Christ in His resurrection in Colossians 2:5 together with 3:1 (and the entire passage in between is talking about the state of faith, not of baptism). Philippians 3 is even more clear: to be found in Him (vs 9) is functionally equivalent to faith in Christ (vs 9-10), which is functionally equivalent to participating in Christ’s death and resurrection (vs 10-11). Now, I do not want to draw too sharp a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Certainly, faith and regeneration can happen at the time-point of baptism. But I would argue that if it does, it is because faith is also present. Therefore, baptism all by itself, that is, the sign all by itself does not confer the blessings. This is clear from the language of the WCF 27:3, wherein there is a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. That implies by necessity that there is no promise of benefit to unworthy receivers. That follows logically and indisputably. As a matter of fact, baptism becomes condemnation to unworthy receivers. Of course, it is understood that we are all unworthy receivers of baptism, and can only be made worthy by God, just as faith also is a gift. The point of my argument here is that sacramental language (of ascribing the thing signified to the sign) does NOT mean that the thing signified actually occurs at the time point of the sign. It occurs when the baptism is improved, which can be simultaneous, but does not have to be. It should also be noted that faith is clearly in the context of Romans 6 in 5:17, where receiving the free gift of righteousness has to be defined by the time-point of faith. Then also, the main point of Romans 6 is sanctification, as is clear from verses 12ff, which no longer speak of baptism. Baptism then has a function in sanctification. I trust no one would deny this. However, in order for baptism to have its effect, it must be joined with faith, as 5:17 demonstrates.

I should also say a word about Galatians 3:27, which has also been quoted as saying that baptism puts us into union with Christ. Again, this is sacramental language that must also be interpreted in the immediate context. The immediately preceding verses all mention faith in its two-fold definition: the references in verse 23 and 25 refer to THE faith, as in the Christian religion in its eschatological revealing. That definition of faith, however, is closely connected to the personal definition of faith, which we see in verses 24 and 26, where we are said to be justified by faith, and that we are said to be sons of God (note especially the plural here) by faith. So faith most certainly qualifies the statement about baptism, since verse 27 is explicitly connected with what comes before by the particle gar. Baptism (the thing signified, not the bare sign) is then defined by faith. So, contrary to Todd Harris’s assertion (which was given without any exegesis at all), neither of these passages encourages the FV, but they both support the traditional Reformed view of baptism in its relationship to faith.

I have been accused of taking Romans 9 out of context. However, I do not believe that I have done so. Romans 9 is most certainly not speaking of merely Jews. This is crystal clear from the introduction of Pharaoh into the argument in verse 17, after which belongs verse 18, and the all important objections that Paul answers in verses 19ff. Verse 24 makes explicit the fact that Gentiles are included in his doctrine of predestination. Otherwise, what possible benefit would it be to Paul to quote Hosea 2:23 the way he does?

The other more common objection to seeing predestination in Romans 9 is the corporate/individual issue. This objection states that Romans 9 is only talking about peoples as a whole, and says nothing whatever about individuals. Now, we would certainly not want to ignore the very real corporate aspect of election that pervades Romans 9. However, to say that individuals are not in view here misses the point completely. Sometimes the fallacy of composition is cited here (that the properties of a group are not necessarily the same as the properties of the individuals within the group). However, people who argue that here are making the fallacy in reverse. To say that a statement must be about corporate concerns, and therefore not about individuals is making the fallacy in reverse. It is quite possible to speak about Americans, for instance, and talking about Americans’ duties as a whole, and mean simultaneously that individuals are to carry out those concerns as well. If only corporate concerns are in Paul’s mind here, why introduce Pharaoh at all? To say that Pharaoh represents a whole people is specious reasoning. When God says, “I raised you up…disply my power in you,” He is talking specifically to Pharaoh, not to Egypt as a whole. Individuality is further seen in the plural “objects” in verse 22 and 23. In other words, verses 22-23, at the very least, are not primarily dealing with corporate aspects of salvation but individuals. This is inescapable.

Now, I wish to lay out the Reformed doctrine of predestination in response to the idea that it isn’t fair of God to do such a thing. Paul answers this decisively in verses 19ff. I merely wish to correct a misapprehension of the doctrine common among Arminians. They think that we are saying that humanity is hovering in neutral between heaven and hell, and that we say that God splits some people out of their neutrality to go to heaven, and others out of their neutrality to go to hell. That is not what the Reformed position is. Everyone has chosen hell. Everyone has chosen to reject God. What God does is take some of those people who all deserve hell, and mercifully changes their hearts and minds. It is important to remember here that dead people cannot choose God (Ephesians 2 says that we were dead in our sins). that God should pass by some is merely His justice at work. That God should choose some to come to life is pure mercy. There is no injustice with God.

Romans 4:1-12
The great Romans commentator Robert Haldane once said that without the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, there would be no salvation. This doctrine is absolutely central to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and is therefore central to the Gospel. This doctrine is also under attack these days from various quarters. Some people think that because the righteousness belongs to God, that therefore it cannot belong to a child of God when that person comes to faith. They say that God’s righteousness is not some kind of gas that can be passed from one person to another. Some people thereby limit justification to the doctrine of the church. They say that it is not so much about how you come into relationship with God, as it is about how you tell who is part of the people of God. But what does our passage say?

In chapter three, Paul has been showing us that there is no one righteous. The Gentile is not righteous, and is without excuse. The Jew is not righteous, even though they have the law. God is righteous, because He is the One who justifies the ungodly through the redemption in Christ’s blood. Paul is arguing against legalism in the latter part of chapter 3, especially in verse 28, which says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” There has been considerable discussion concerning the phrase “works of the law.” Does this phrase mean that all works of the law are excluded from justification, or does it refer primarily to “boundary markers,” those ceremonial Jewish customs that marked Jews out as Jews? The NPP has argued that it refers primarily to boundary markers, to circumcision, dietary laws, anything particularly Jewish. They appeal to verse 29, which says, “Or is God the God of Jews only?” the idea being that God the boundary markers would have separated Jew from Gentile in justification. The problem with their appeal to this verse is that it doesn’t settle the matter at all. Paul could just as well say that if he was referring to all works of the law or to some of the works of the law. In the OT prophets, the Israelites were condemned for keeping the whole law to themselves, when they were supposed to be a light to the Gentiles. Since the Jews were hoarding up the law for themselves and not letting the Gentiles have it, Paul could well say, “Or is God the God of Jews only?” Paul is temporarily granting that justification by works is possible, only to crash it around their heads later on. The Jews were the only ones to have access to the law. If justification were by works, then Jews would be the only people to even have a prayer of being justified. Paul says that that is not the case. Now all people of the world can be justified. It is not limited to Jews.

The authors of the NPP also appeal to a Qumran document called 4QMMT to support their position. The phrase “works of the law” in 4QMMT, they say, clearly refer to the boundary markers of Judaism. However, the phrase in 4QMMT is NOT “works of the law” but “SOME of the works of the law.” N.T. Wright, for instance, has argued throughout his Romans commentary on this passage that the word “law” refers to the Torah, the OT law. How is it then, that “works of the law” could only refer to the ceremonial aspects of the law? So Paul is therefore arguing against legalism in Judaism.

Paul has finished saying that justification is by faith, and not by works. The Jew would immediately answer, “But what about Abraham? Wasn’t he justified by how good a life he led?” The Jews appealed to the example of Abraham to prove that they could be right with God by what they did. Paul answers with an emphatic “no.” Obviously, if even Abraham, who is undoubtedly a righteous man, had to be justified by faith, and not by works, then surely everyone else who wants to be right with God has to justified in the same way that Abraham was. The early church father Chrysostom puts like this: “For someone to be justified by faith if he had no works was unusual. But for one who had plenty of good works to delight in being justified not by works but by faith-that was something to cause amazement.” The premier example of righteousness for the Jew was Abraham. Therefore, Paul uses that very person as a counter-example. He takes the rug out from under the Jewish objector.

Paul starts out with an argument that takes the form of a modus tollens. If Abraham was justified by works, then there is something or him to boast about before God. Abraham has nothing about which he can boast before God. Therefore, Abraham was not justified by works. Instead, Abraham had faith.

Now we must understand how verse 3 functions in the context if we are to understand the passage at all. It says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. We might ask the question, “What is it that was counted as righteousness?” The Arminians say that it was faith. Faith was counted as righteousness. However, this cannot be, since faith is a receiving and resting on Christ for Christ’s righteousness. It might better be translated “It was counted to him for righteousness.” The reason for this is that “for righteousness” is a phrase that has some things left out of it. It really means, “God credited righteousness to Abraham by the instrumentality of faith.” It is not faith itself that is the ground of our righteousness before God. Faith is like two empty hands reaching out to receive something. Faith is not the ground but the instrument of justification. The real ground of our faith is Christ’s righteousness.

That is what Paul goes on to show in verses 4-5, where he introduces a bookkeeping metaphor. Paul says that grace and debt are mutually exclusive. If you earn it, then it can’t be given to you. This alone proves that it is not faith that imputed for righteousness. If it were, then faith would turned into a kind of work. Even the end of verse 5 does not shake us in this reading of the text, when it says, “his faith is counted as righteousness.” On the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, we must realize the nature of faith. Faith is not a thing. It doesn’t have a substance of its own. Faith is a dependence on God. Faith is trust. That is exactly what Paul says when he says “Trusts him who justifies the ungodly.” That is one of the most remarkable statements in all of Scripture. Scripture constantly tells us that it is utterly wrong to justify the ungodly, to acquit the wicked. That is what happens when the judge lets the guilty person go free. Proverbs 24:24 says, “Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations.” Proverbs 17:15 says, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” Exodus 23:7 says (the Lord is speaking!), “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.” Last but not least, is Isaiah 5:22-23: “Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right.” Well, God is obviously doing something new and different to be able to justify the ungodly. That new thing is the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our faith in Christ means that God can justify the ungodly while still remaining just and holy. Notice that in saying “the ungodly,” Paul is including Abraham in that category. What? Righteous Abraham ungodly? Yes. Paul has proved that in the first three chapters. There is no one who is righteous, no, not one. In case we didn’t get the fifth time, He says it about ten times more. And no, righteousness is not basically about the status of being a covenant member, as N.T. Wright says. Righteousness is about keeping God’s law. We haven’t kept it, and so we need to trust in someone who has. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the only righteousness available to us. We need a perfect righteousness, not merely a fairly good kind of righteousness, because God’s law is holy, just, and good.

Paul goes on to speak about the forgiveness of sins. How are justification and forgiveness related? Well, Paul says that they are two sides of the same coin. Notice how Paul interprets David: the forgiveness of sins described by David is called “the imputation of righteousness apart from works” by Paul. They are not exactly the same thing. What Paul is saying is that you cannot have the one without the other. F.F. Bruce puts it this way: “the non-imputation of sin, in which the psalmist rejoices, amounts to the positive imputation of righeousness…for there is no verdict of ‘Not proven’ in God’s court.” Another writer puts it this way, “Sins are not forgiven except in such a way that Christ’s righteousness is imputed.” In other words, you are either condemned or vindicated. If you are acquitted, then you have the status of righteousness. There is no such status as “merely forgiven.” If we are forgiven, then we are sons. If we have escaped hell, it is because we have been given heaven. The same act of God does both simultaneously.

Paul goes on to talk about circumcision. Is it possible to say that Abraham was justified because he was circumcised? Paul says no. Paul argues that Abraham was justified long before he was circumcised. The Jew would then ask, “Why did Abraham get circumcised at all?” The answer is so that Abraham would be the father of all who believe. Since Abraham was justified before he was cirucmcised, then Abraham was just like a Gentile who comes to faith and then becomes circumcised. Abraham wa cirucumcised so that he would be the father of the Jews who believe. So we can see that Abraham is the father of all who believe.

This has important implications for the debates swirling around us today. We believe, as good Reformed people, that baptism takes the place of circumcision. If that is true, then what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Justification does not happen at the time point of baptism. And faith may or not come at the time-point of baptism. Again, going back to Chrysostom, “Circumcision is meaningless if there is no faith within. It is a sign of righteousness, but if there is no righteousness, then there is no sign either.” Indeed, it is quite possible to have faith, never be baptized, and still have assurance of faith. When it comes to assurance, there we really see the payoff of the correct doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Whence comes our assurance? Chapter 18 of the WCF talks about assurance of faith. It does not mention baptism once. It says that “such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus (there is faith which justifies), and love Him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.” It goes on to say that the ground of assurance is founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that our baptisms mean nothing when it comes to assurance? No, it is one of the means of grace. However, since baptized people fall away from the faith, baptism is not a certain means of assurance. When we ask, “How can I know that I am saved?” the answer lies in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. It is because we do not earn it as wages due to us. It is because Christ has earned it for us. Augustine says it this way, “For Abraham was justified not by his own merit, as if by works, but by the grace of God through faith.”