"THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD:
What Is It?

by

William Kelly (1820 - 1906)

Part 1

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 explaining divine righteousness to others, and have little clearness and decision as to its positive, proper character in their own minds.

As there is but one occasion on which it is now proposed to enter upon 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 I say less 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 His salvation as that which was about to be established for His people. Who can say that there is any question here of the Lord Jesus Christ's walk upon 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 me 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 favour 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. For a sinful man all turns on this, whether in very deed God does reckon righteousness to him on his faith without works; and Scripture emphatically declares that He does. How He does, on what righteous ground, remains to be seen.

I will endeavour 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, which men so ardently contend for.

Romans 3:21-26

It may be, perhaps, more satisfactory to begin with Romans 3 rather than chapter 1, because the one is as explicit as the other is brief and abstract. In Romans 1:17, the Holy Ghost merely states the leading truth in the fewest possible words, as introductory of the subject. In chapter 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, if possible, more guilty. We can all understand it. Man being a sinner, the law, wherever it operates, cannot better his case: it can but prove his guilt; it can only pronounce upon it; for it measures each violation of God's commands. The law of God is "holy, just, and good;" and it is impossible that a good law could save or acquit a bad man. The law of God, therefore, has for its only 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 all 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 either. Many sins were lightly regarded; fleshly uncleanness and drunkenness were 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 yourselves? What does your own law declare about your ways? God looks down from heaven, and says that "there is none righteous, no, not one; none that doeth good, no, not one," as it is summed up most emphatically. Now for the masterly line of 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; for the Spirit of God does reason here): "What the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." You cannot throw that solemn sentence of God at the Gentiles. You boast of your law: be it so. But "what the law saith, it saith 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 1; the philosophers were proved to be no better in the beginning of chapter 2; and now the Jews, who had the law and thought themselves righteous, are brought in more guilty than any in the end of chapter 2. and in chapter 3. The very law it was that manifested and proclaimed their exceeding iniquity in God's sight. Thus every mouth is stopped.

But, beloved friends, when man's mouth is closed in guilt, God can open His in grace; and so He does. He was entitled to ask for righteousness. Though knowing perfectly there was no good in man, none to be got out of man, 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. That has been proved already. The only righteousness, therefore, 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 pleases 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 at once swept into hell! What does He, then? He has acted in another way, and most righteously, that He may not consign the guiltiest to hell. How can this be? Hearken, then. There is no doubt man has deserved judgment. This has been proved unmistakably by the law in the favoured people that were under it, as well in the Jews as in the lawless Gentiles. But now bursts forth the glorious truth—"The 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, "the righteousness of God"—mark the strength of the language—"without the law," etc. That the Saviour came down from heaven and accomplished the law is the certain truth of God. 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 about it. But, waiving this for a moment, surely here was the place to explain the importance of Christ's accomplishing 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 the righteousness of God means, turn aside from the plain truth that the Holy Ghost here insists on, and interpolate a doctrine not found here, and, I venture to add, very hard to find anywhere else in the Bible? Indeed, my conviction is, that 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 fulfil the law, of course; He glorified God in every possible way in the fulfilment 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 this 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 fulfilment of the law in place 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 invented the opinion? There may have been the best intention.

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? God forbid! We have Jesus wholly, and not in part; we have Jesus everywhere. I am not contending now at all against the precious truth that, Christ being our acceptance, we have Christ as a whole. We have His obedience unbroken through His entire life, and its savour unto 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 all that Jesus suffered.

The question 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, depend upon it, it is because the Bible condemns him. (emphasis added) It does not support speculations which he is not yet prepared to abandon. Certainly, I do not ask you 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, "the righteousness of God without the 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 man. 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 this, 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 in! Why is it not said, then? Because it is not the ground, nor character, nor nature of the righteousness of God. That righteousness is wholly apart from law.

Accordingly, this is what is here said, "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets." Observe the exceeding accuracy of the language. The law and the prophets did not manifest the righteousness of God: yet the law, in various forms, pointed to another kind of righteousness that was coming; the prophets brought it out, if possible, still more clearly in respect of language. The one furnished types, the others assured that Jehovah's righteousness was near to come. But now the gospel tells us it is come. Now divine righteousness is a revealed fact. The righteousness of God without the law was not only witnessed by the law and the prophets, but is actually manifested. There is no veil now; there was once, but the death of Christ rent it from top to bottom. The righteousness of God, therefore, is no longer a shadow of coming good, no longer a blessing locked up in promises or looming in a prediction, however truly the law and the prophets bore their witness all the way through, from the time that man broke down and his righteousness entirely failed. Now there is far more than a witness to it: there is a standing manifestation of it since the cross. Such is the present result of that great fact. Divine righteousness is not only being revealed (apokaluptetai) in the gospel; it has been and is manifested (pephanerotai).

The matter is more fully explained as "the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ." Here, then, was another place to have affirmed the value for our justification of what the Lord Jesus was doing when here below. Not one word is said about it. All that is added in the passage is the statement that God's righteousness (in contrast with man's, which is by his accomplishing the law) is "by faith of Jesus Christ." Still, one can understand the objection raised that this is not conclusive. Believing in Christ does not settle the point, they say; for all hold that it is by faith of Jesus Christ. But is it the value of what He was doing in His life, or is it the efficacy of His atonement—of His death? Is Scripture silent? It is, on the contrary, explicit against mixing up the law. It is most express against turning away the eye from Christ in His death.

Thus, at the very outset, if the object had been to withdraw attention, in the matter of righteousness, from the active life of Christ, and to fix it by faith upon His blood, how could the task have been accomplished more effectually than in the passage? Is not this an extraordinary way of handling the truth, if the ground of God's righteousness were Christ's obedience to the law? If it be the all-important point in order to justifying, if it be the great indispensable preparation, and the only solid ground, on which a man is righteous before God, how comes it that Scripture preserves such absolute and singular silence in the fullest passage where the Holy Ghost discusses the ground and means of justification before God?

It is not so that reasonable men would act. When we have to bring out a truth dear to us, and important for those to whom we are about to explain it, do we hide the most characteristic portion? do we omit the smallest reference to the very turning-point? Surely not. And does not God reveal His own truth infinitely better than we can explain it, or convey our own thoughts? Listen to the man who holds the popular doctrine on the subject: does he conceal the distinctive feature? Does he keep back Christ's observance of the law for us? On the contrary, it is the uppermost idea, and continually pressed in his discourses. It is the law kept by Christ, he tells you, which specially and alone constitutes the righteousness of the believer before God. He does not deny that the blood of Christ is the means of the sinner's pardon: but then it will never do, he argues, to approach heaven with pardon merely; one must have righteousness also, and this for him is found in the legal obedience of Christ. Thus, if it is a question of justifying (and in general the popular theologian sharply distinguishes between the two things), his justification is made to depend on the fact that Christ kept the law for him, which he could not keep for himself—that Christ omitted no duty of his, and performed all perfectly in which he himself failed.

But how comes it to pass that God does not put the matter thus? Because it is not the truth. Nothing more simple, if it be not the truth. It is the truth that man has failed in every way; it is the truth that Christ obeyed the law of God; it is not the truth that even His keeping of the law is the real sense of God's righteousness, or the ground of our justification before God. Let me press this upon every candid mind among our adversaries, who contend for this theory. Account for it if you can; account for it with the maintenance of the inspired character of God's word; account for it, that the Holy Ghost, who certainly understands justification in perfection, does not treat the subject as your system demands. Why? Because He and you do not agree. How awful that believers should, on so fundamental a truth, differ from the mind of the Spirit, and that man should prefer his own thoughts, because they are the common quasi-evangelical tradition, and a sort of "short cut" to understanding how a man is justified!

Now, it is the invariable fact, that where we are subject to God as to any truth, no matter what, God's way is always the best, although it may not be the most obvious way of bringing a soul into comfort and blessing to His own glory. Thus, in the present instance, the first thing that God proclaims when He is presenting His own righteousness, is this: "By faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe." "Unto all" is the direction which the righteousness of God takes. It is not limited to a particular people, as the law was to the Jew. Divine righteousness goes out, as far as its tendency is concerned, to every one without exception. So the Lord Himself said, "Preach the gospel to every creature." His message is just the manifestation of the righteousness of God. Accordingly, it is here said to be "unto all." But, then, every creature does not believe it, and consequently, we have the other side of the truth, that God's righteousness by faith of Jesus Christ is only "upon all them that believe;" "for," again, "there is no difference"—all have sinned and do come short of the glory of God. Hence grace is the only hope: "being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Thus, on the one hand, it is clear and certain that there is not a word about the keeping of the law; and, on the other, what the apostle does expatiate on is justification freely by God's grace (not law-keeping), and this through the redemption that is in Christ, not His legal observance. Hence, it is said further, "Whom God hath set forth a propitiatory."

Mark the place that God takes in all this. It is not that Christ put Himself forward, but God set Him forth. Why so? and what its importance? Because it is a question of the righteousness of God. There is no doubt that Christ was righteous, as no other ever was; yet Christ's righteousness is not the truth here affirmed, but God's. There is not the smallest doubt, as we all agree, that He fulfilled all righteousness; but is this to be a reason why any man should pervert Scripture? Why are divines not content to take the word as God has written it; and if He speak of His righteousness, why should they read it as the righteousness of Christ? Is it not to eke out a peculiar school of doctrine? What plainer than the truth, that God accounts us righteous by virtue of Christ's work? Can they not understand, that divine righteousness in so justifying us goes far beyond the righteousness of the law, even if we could have done it?

It is not that Scripture never speaks of the righteousness of Jesus.^[1] In 1 John 2 we read, that "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." It would be wrong to alter that Scripture, and to understand the righteousness of God here. Equally erroneous is it to say, that we have got the righteousness of Christ in Romans 3. The advocacy of "Jesus Christ the righteous" is the important truth in 1 John 2, because it is a question of One that acts for me, that undertakes my cause, if, alas! I break down as a follower and confessor of the Lord here below. Hence, I want a living person, active in love for me, before the Father; and such an One grace has provided for the need, even "Jesus Christ the righteous." "The righteousness of God" would not suffice for me, or suit me in my failure; other truth is that which my soul then wants. "The righteousness of God" one must know in order to be on the ground which, in case of inconsistency, needs "Jesus Christ the righteous;" but the two truths, though connected, are perfectly distinct and ought never to be confounded. Scripture does not sacrifice one to the other. In 1 John 2, we have Jesus Christ the righteous as our advocate with the Father—precious provision if any one sin; while in Romans 3, it is the character and application of God's righteousness which is in question.

[1] 2 Peter 1:1 does not touch on the ground of justification, but asserts that the saints he addressed obtained like precious faith with the apostles, in virtue of the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Even if we adopt the marginal suggestion, it would mean that our God and Saviour Jesus Christ took care, according to His faithful regard to the promises, that there should ever be a remnant according to the election of grace. Hence He, in His righteousness, secured that they should get faith. Christ's law-keeping is not in question: introduce it, and you spoil the sense. For how could His legal obedience bring any one to faith. But verse 2 confirms the English Bible against the margin. If the former be correct, there would be no possible place for the desired result; for nobody believes that God and Jesus kept the law either to make up a legal righteousness for others, or to give them faith. The later Puritans were the chief promoters, though not the authors, of the scheme which conceives our justification to consist of Christ's observance of the law imputed to us; but even their chief, Dr. John Owen, renounced the sense which modern Evangelicals try to fasten on 2 Peter 1:1.

The more we weigh the passage, the clearer is its import. "Whom [Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation," [a propitiatory or mercy-seat. It is the same word that is so translated in Hebrews 9,] "through faith in His blood." Can any proof more conclusive be conceived? How, if it be the truth, comes the absence of that which men now-a-days plead for? To what can one attribute the presence of that only which they would put in the shade? Certainly God's word is plain enough. Modern theology springs from the heart's natural opposition to the truth of God. Why should not believers accept what the word presents so plainly and definitely? Is it that it would shiver some favourite thoughts? Is it that it would open out new views of the ways of God? And why should an enlarging knowledge of His word be a matter of suspicion? Why should the ways and thoughts of man be pleasanter to them than the precious truth of God? Let them answer it for themselves. Account for their liking or disliking as they may, this is what Scripture says:—"Whom [Christ] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood." Indeed, what God gives, what He could not do without, is precisely what man wants, as a sinner. It is not well-doing, were it even the blessed Lord's, in place of our sins and guilt. The sinner wants a propitiatory before God, and finds it through faith in the blood of Jesus. As man, He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He was subject to the law; He wrought miracles; He walked in grace. But if we were to be justified, our ruin demanded a deeper dealing, even redemption, redemption through His blood.

Such, then, in part at least, is God's righteousness; and large and rich is the comfort of the truth. But the language is precise also. We have very distinct statements on the subject here. If God has set forth Christ as a propitiatory by faith in His blood, it is "to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Thus was God declared to be righteous in His ways toward the Old Testament believers (ver. 25), as well as at present (ver. 26). In the first case His righteousness was shown forth on account of the passing by the sins that had been before. He could not have justly remitted their sins, strictly speaking, for the atoning work was not yet done; but He did pretermit them, and this through His forbearance. In the second case He shows forth His righteousness in the present time, without question of forbearance, because now the work of atonement is done. For who speaks of the creditor's "forbearance" when the debt is paid in full? By the actual accomplishment of redemption, instead of barely passing the sins by, God is just, and justifies him that is [not of law-works, but] of faith in Jesus.

May I not ask any fair mind, Who is here meant? "That he might be just and the justifier," etc.,—that who might be just? Answer uprightly,—if possible, without reference to your previous thoughts, and before that word which will judge in the last day. "That he might be just." Who is He? Is it Christ just? or is it not God just by virtue of Christ? There can be no doubt in the world. No man who understands the Bible could give save one answer. It may seem a bold challenge, and some may think it too bold; but I am sure of my ground, and repeat that there is no man acquainted with the scriptures who would dare to say the assertion is wrong. It is, that God "might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." "It is God that justifieth" (Romans 8). It is, therefore, "the righteousness of God," without a hint of transferring to us the legal righteousness of Christ. It is by virtue of Christ, or God could not be thus righteous in behalf of the sinner. Redemption is the righteous groundwork. The blood of Christ deserves at God's hands that the believer should be justified, and God Himself is just in so justifying him.

Astonishing fact and truth! His is a new righteousness altogether. It is not God righteous apart from Jesus; it is the righteousness of God apart from law. It is God who has set Christ forth, but not merely as a righteous man, obeying Him in every thought, feeling, word, and way, manifesting perfect righteousness upon earth: even all this never made one sin of yours or mine a whit less in the sight of God. Our sins were as heavy after as they were before. I might almost venture to say that they pressed more heavily; for whatever we might say for ourselves, and however God might look down in pity upon poor sinful men upon the earth heaping up their sins before, what were those sins when Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God, the righteous, dependent man, the obedient servant, was here below? What was the effect of it? Light brought out the darkness of all others more conspicuously. It did not lighten their load; it rather proved how deep, dark, indelible, were the stains of sin. Had God merely acted after this sort, would it not have been comparing men in their sins with the perfect man without sin? How could He have such as we, or any others, companions of the Second Man, the Lord Jesus Christ? It could not be. This would have been very far from the righteousness of God. It might have been styled, if you please, the righteousness of Christ; but how could even this have availed to meet our desperate case? How could it have vindicated God as to sin? Christ was absolutely perfect; but "except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone." There was nothing to save us in the fact of His being the righteous man that obeyed God all His life.^[2] There was nothing in this which could get rid of our sins. There was nothing in this which could give us a standing apart from sin in the presence of God.

[2] The hypothesis of Justification by the law-keeping of Christ involves the extraordinary consequence that our righteousness is made out in the days of His flesh, before His blood was shed to procure our pardon! But when was a theological idol not mis-shapen and incongruous?

Hence came in another thing. God set Christ forth, it is said here, as a propitiatory. Christ became the true mercy-seat. God gave Him up as a sacrifice for sin, that through His body, offered once for all, every soul that believes on Him might be sanctified—nay, more than that, "by one offering perfected for ever." It is done in His death. He came to do, not merely the law, but the will of God, by the which will, the apostle carefully adds, we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Here, then, we have the righteousness of God developed in the simplest and clearest way. It means that God is just, and justifies in virtue of Christ. He is just, because sin has been met in the cross: sin has been judged of God; it has been suffered and atoned for by Christ. More than that: the Lord Jesus has so magnified God, and so glorified His character, that there is a positive debt now on the other side. Instead of the obligation being, as it was, altogether on man's side, who was accumulating that which never could be paid for by him, God now has interposed, and, having been so magnified in the man Christ Jesus in His death, He is now positively just when He justifies the soul that believes in Jesus. It is consequently the righteousness of God. For God is now approving Himself righteous to the claims of Christ. It is God now that owns and discharges His debt to Christ. Christ has undertaken the cause for God, and also for man. Very God, still He was a man; and it was in human nature, not before its assumption, that the wonderful work of atonement was done. The consequence is, although it was the witness of God's love that He gave His own Son, and gave His Son to become a man and die for men, that now the scale is turned. The debt of man to destroy him is not so great as that which Christ has paid to deliver him. Scripture makes it a matter of God righteously justifying him that believes, in virtue of what Christ has suffered for sins. Thus nothing can be clearer or fuller, nothing more blessed and precious, than the meaning of this remarkable expression. It is, indeed, a priceless treasure. What Christ did, as living here, is not the point; or surely, where we have the great unfolding of divine righteousness was just the place to bring in what occupied Christ in His life, if it were the ground of this truth.

But I go further. Show me anywhere an unambiguous portion of the word of God, where His fulfilling of the law is treated as a part of the righteousness of God. You can produce none. I can tell you some of those Scriptures which, perhaps, you think about; but I affirm that there is no proof whatever. It is better to be plain about that which is certain. Let others venture to say, if they will, what can be contradicted; it were well, in such a case, not to speak at all. But really there is no Scripture which makes what Christ was doing as under law,—I will not say the exclusive ground, but—any ground at all, of God's righteousness. Why not produce one?

Romans 1

I will now refer for a moment to Romans 1, having given my reason for beginning with the third chapter. There was no object beyond this, that it seemed to be the most straightforward course. But allow me to mention, by the way, that he who has been put forth as the most distinguished defender of the common view, is compelled to own that, in Romans 3:25, 26, God's acting righteously through Christ yields the easier, better sense.[3] Though arguing expressly in defence of the ordinary scheme, he is too candid to gainsay the evident bearing of the context. There need be no secret as to his name. He is a well-known person—the present Bishop of Ossory. He is supposed to have written the best modern book on justification by faith according to the theologians. Yet is he forced, by the plain, positive language of Scripture to admit, that in these verses "His righteousness" most naturally means, not a something that Christ did by keeping the law, but what God can be and is by virtue of redemption. His justice now justifies the believer. This, as far as it goes, is true. Not that Dr. O'Brien adequately understands the truth, still less is he able to develop it, according to the Scriptures. But he at least confesses that "His righteousness," in this palmary passage of the epistle to the Romans, points to the quality of divine righteousness, or God's justice; and this, because of what follows—"that He might be just," which, of course, means God being just, and not simply the Lord Jesus, or what He did as made of a woman, made under law. But this great passage, if conceded, seems at once to decide the question; because we have here not some text or phrase that can be debated. Whenever a doctrine claims examination, it is always a sign of weakness if men fly from the full and bright unfoldings of the truth in the word of God to supposed hints and obscure allusions. When you have got the truth, when you desire it and nothing else, you are not afraid to face the strongest assertions and the fullest communications of God's mind. When men overlook or evade the large and distinct instructions of Scripture, and hide behind some scrap wrested violently from its real connection, the presumption is that it can only be, because the truth is too strong for them, and they are not prepared to abandon their dogma.

[3] The following words contain the discussion referred to:—"Is it the righteousness (justice) of God regarded as a divine attribute, or the righteousness which is bestowed by God upon sinners believing in Christ? I think either gives a consistent interpretation of the passage. On the one hand, the righteousness which God bestows upon believers, derived as it is from the propitiatory offering of Christ, when rightly understood, shows how God is just when He justifies the sinner to whom it is given. And, on the other hand, when the righteousness of God which is manifested is understood to be His justice, the sense of the passage is still easier. Christ was the Lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was not to be sent into the world until the fulness of time was come. His sacrifice was from the first the ground of the forgiveness of sinners; but it was not distinctly made known as the ground upon which they were forgiven until the offering was actually made. And so, though God was really as just in the forgiveness of sin before as after the coming of Christ, yet His justice was not manifested until Christ was set forth to be a propitiatory offering through His blood—not set forth only to those who witnessed His death, but evidently set forth before the eyes of all to whom the Gospel was preached, crucified among them. So that though I have no doubt that the interpretation which makes the righteousness of God here spoken of the righteousness which He bestows on believers, is defensible, I think it is easier, and therefore better, to interpret it as His justice."—(An Attempt to Explain and Establish the Doctrine of Justification by Faith only, etc. By J. T. O'Brien, D.D., formerly Fellow, etc., now Bishop of Ossory, etc. Second edition, pp. 584, 585.)

For are we really to conceive that "the righteousness of God" means one thing in Romans 3:25, 26, and another thing in Romans. 1:17, if not also in Romans 3:21, 22? The notion is suicidal. Let us then observe the way in which God's righteousness first comes before us. The apostle says that he is not ashamed of the gospel; "for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith." Where is there any allusion to Christ's keeping the law of God? God has not spoken of it: why should we insert it? Our business is not to put notions into scripture, but to gather what God conveys to our souls. We are taught here, that in the gospel His righteousness is revealed from faith to faith. The expression may be somewhat difficult; but, in my judgment, there is no question whatever about law-keeping here, but a tacit contrast with legal requirement. The law demanded righteousness from man, but could get none. In the gospel God's righteousness is being revealed. What a change from the law, with its claim on man for a righteousness he had not! God's righteousness, he says, is revealed in the gospel, because the gospel supposes the redemption is accomplished; it therefore speaks of sin put away and forgiven: in short, it makes known God justifying him that believes. It is therefore God's righteousness, not man's, and is founded on Christ's expiation, "by faith in His blood." Observe, it is the righteousness of God, who justifies "him that believeth." In virtue of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, God is enabled justly, not only to forgive the believer, but to account him righteous in His own sight.

On what terms, then, does God reveal His righteousness in the gospel? It is revealed by faith; that is, it is not by works of law, but by reason of faith. There is not a trace here of Christ doing the works for us, as they say who plead the law. How easy to have told us so, had this been the meritorious title ! It is said to be by faith; and inasmuch as God's righteousness is revealed by faith, the blessing of His righteousness only comes to him who believes; that is to say, it is revealed to faith. Hence, as it is here expressed, "the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith." It is "by faith" on God's part, and therefore it is " to faith" on man's. Whoever has faith is the object for the righteousness of God. It addresses itself to all, without exception, but it is actually for the believer.

Whoever believes in Jesus is justified by God; or, as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, "All that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses." Why is there not a whisper about being justified by Christ keeping the law of Moses? Unless you can show it me from God's word, bear with me if I treat it as a myth. What is the value of a doctrine on so weighty a theme which does not come out of the Bible? It may be put forth sincerely, piously: no doubt men mean to exalt the Saviour by it; but, be assured, they have made a very great mistake in putting their hand to prop up the ark. Upon it God has sprinkled the blood of Christ; thereby, in virtue of that precious blood, He can be just in justifying him that believes. With this the teaching of Romans. 1:17 agrees, in my judgment. Clearly the meaning is, God righteous on the ground of faith, and consequently to faith. It is put in the most abstract form, because it is the expression of His terms as a principle, without defining any class of persons. This is supported by the prophet Habakkuk, who says, not that Christ kept the law for the unjust, but that "the just shall live by faith." Thus we see all thought of law-keeping for us by Christ is foreign to Romans 1:17, as we have seen it to be unknown to Romans 3:25, 26.

Part 2

Related article

 *     *     *
 Reprinted with permission from: 
"The Kelly Collection," STEM Publishing, L. Hodgett, 1998