Blackheath, August, 1875.
My Beloved Friends,
The first truth which I desire to explain, as I now understand it from the Scriptures, is that of justification by faith.
Most of you know that God, in His sovereign grace, used Luther to recover, in measure, this precious truth from the corruptions of Popery; that, as wielded by him, it was blessed of God to thousands of souls; and that, speaking generally, it still nominally characterizes the orthodox “churches” of the Reformation. I say nominally, because one cannot but sorrowfully observe that rationalism and superstition are fast regaining their supremacy, even in the very strongholds of Protestantism. I propose then to examine, first of all, this doctrine as commonly held by orthodox Protestants, whether in the Establishment or in Dissent.
Its keystone may be said to be the view that Christ, during His life on the earth, obeyed the law in our stead; and hence it is said that, when we believe, while the blood of Christ cleanses us from guilt, the obedience of Christ — His vicarious obedience to the law — is imputed to us for righteousness, and consequently we are justified before God by faith. Thus theologians speak of the active and the passive obedience of Christ: the active obedience being His obedience to the law, and the passive His sufferings on the cross; and they tell us that the passive availed for atonement, and the active avails for the imputation of righteousness, so that, as soon as I believe in Him, I stand before God in the value of both in the value of His sufferings for the remission of sin, and in the value of His substitutional obedience to the law for my righteousness, and that thus meeting all God's demands upon me, I am declared justified.
We have then to inquire whether this doctrine, as so stated, is according to the Word of God. You know that I formerly thought so; and, I may add, that I guarded myself on this point when I took my place with “Brethren,” though I was immediately told that a difference on such a point was no barrier to fellowship at the Lord's table. But soon after, on carefully reading the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, I was startled at the discovery that my views upon this subject had been grounded upon human teachings, and not upon the Scriptures. Instead therefore of a formal exposition, I will just state the process through which I was led on my re-examination of the subject.
1. In the first place, I saw that Abraham was said to be justified by faith four hundred and thirty years before the law was given; and thus that the law had nothing to do with his justification; and that the only ground of it was faith in God (Gal. 6-29; also Rom. 4). This is the more significant from the fact that Abraham's justification by faith is adduced as the pattern of our own, or rather the principle is asserted to be the same. (Read Rom. 4. 23-25; also Gal. 3:8-9.) Now, if Abraham were justified on faith in God without the imputation of any obedience to the law, and. we are justified on faith through the imputation of such obedience, we get at once two contrasted principles of justification, and the apostle's argument falls to the ground.
In the second place, I found it clearly stated that the Gentiles, and consequently we ourselves, were never under the law. Thus the apostle says, “When the Gentiles which, have not the law” (Rom. 2:14). Again, he contrasts those under the law with those not under it when he says, “The law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). And again he contrasts the Jews with the Gentiles, in this respect, when he says, “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law,” and so forth (1 Cor. 9:20-21). Everywhere, indeed, when treating of this subject, he makes this distinction; and it is because of this distinction that he shows that the justification of Abraham, before law, is the pattern of justification, both for the Jew under the law and for the Gentile without the law. The point however to be observed now is, that if the Gentiles were never under the law (as the apostle asserts continually), the imputation to a believing Gentile of obedience to the law could not be the ground of his justification before God.
I was struck with the fact, that the term, the righteousness of Christ, was never used in connection with the doctrine of justification; indeed the term is not found in the New Testament. On the other hand, I discovered that whenever this doctrine is stated the term used is, God's righteousness. (See Rom. 1:17; 3:21-22,25-26; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9.) This fact, you will admit, is peculiar, if at least it is the obedience of Christ which, imputed to us on faith, becomes our righteousness before God. For it were certainly strange that the Holy Ghost should invariably use the term “God's righteousness,” if He had intended to direct our minds to the righteousness of Christ.
But you may reply, “We have the obedience of Christ mentioned, and it is precisely that which constitutes our righteousness.” Let us then examine this phrase wherever it may be found. The most important place, however, as bearing on this question, is Romans 5:18-19 — “Therefore as by the offense of one [margin, one offense] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [margin, one righteousness] the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” First of all, let me call your attention to the fact that the marginal readings of the 18th verse are admitted by all students of the Scriptures, whatever their doctrinal views, as the correct renderings of the original; and hence the things compared, or rather contrasted, are the one act of transgression of the first Adam, and the one act of righteousness of the second Adam. This being so, the meaning (for the 19th verse is simply explanatory of the 18th) of the terms “disobedience” and “obedience” in the subsequent verse is evident. It has the act of disobedience on the part of Adam which brought in sin; and it was the act of obedience (that is, obedience unto death) on the part of Christ which brought in righteousness. That is to say, they are single acts, which are contrasted.
This will be rendered still more evident if we turn to another passage. The Lord Himself, speaking of His death, says, “Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of — My Father” (John 10:17-18). Clearly in this passage our Lord speaks of His death as an act of obedience. This conclusion will be confirmed beyond a doubt if we turn to Philippians There we are told, in that wondrous description of the humiliation of the Lord Jesus (a description, as others have often said, which also implies a contrast with Adam, who was disobedient unto death), that “He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death., even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:9). Both of these passages show us how to interpret Romans 5:19; for they teach that it is the Lord's obedience unto death which is in the view of the apostle, and that it is this which constitutes the ground of our justification before God. And I must remind you, in confirmation, that not a word is said about obedience to the law in the passage, nor even in the paragraph; but, as pointed out, the simple contrast is between Adam, who dishonored God by his disobedience, and Christ, who glorified God by His obedience unto death.
One other passage may perhaps occur to the minds of some. I refer to Hebrews 10, where the apostle brings in. Christ, saying, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:7-10). But the tenth verse explains this in perfect accordance with what we have already advanced — “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” The will of God was therefore accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ.
Having then looked at the several passages in which “the obedience of Christ” is adduced, we may also say that this obedience, in the sense of obedience to law, is never mentioned in connection with the justification of the believer. Let me not be mistaken. The Lord Jesus was always obedient to the Father, the only perfectly obedient One whom the world has ever seen; and He obeyed the law also in all its length, breadth, depth, and. height. In fact, He never did His own will; for it was His meat to do His Father's will, and to finish His work. But what I discovered was, that the Scripture never speaks of the living obedience of Christ — His obedience to the law as the ground of justification.
4. The apostle is careful to assert, over and over again, that righteousness did not, and could not, come by the law. Take an illustration or two of this. In the Epistle to the Romans, after showing that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified,” he proceeds, “But now the righteousness of God without the law [χωρὶς νόμου, that is, apart from law] is manifested.” Again, “If righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). And yet again, “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal. 3:21).
Now, if Christ had obeyed the law in our stead, and that obedience, so rendered, was imputed to the believer for righteousness, would not, I ask, righteousness have been by the law? And hence, had this been the teaching of Scripture, it was simply impossible for the apostle to have used these expressions. But you may say, He means that righteousness could not be obtained by man through obedience to the law. My answer is, This is not the apostle's meaning, or he would have made it plain. Had it been so, he would very carefully have explained that righteousness was by the law, though by the substitutionary obedience of Christ. But he makes the broadest 'possible statements as to the impossibility of righteousness coming through the law; does not even hint at the obedience of Christ to it; and indeed tells us distinctly that God's righteousness has been manifested altogether apart from law (χωρῖς νόμου).
5. These several points convinced me that the commonly received theological teaching on the subject had no foundation in Scripture. But other considerations pointed in the same direction. For instance, I asked myself, What was the aim and intention of the law? The answer to this question will be found in such passages as these: Romans 3:20; 5:20; 7:7-12; Galatians 3:19-25; and from them we may learn two things — first, that the law was the standard of God's requirements from man, a standard, in other words, of human righteousness; so that, had a man been able to keep the whole law, he would have only been a righteous man on the earth — as such entitled, of course, to all the promises connected with obedience to the law, but still he would have had nothing but a human righteousness; and secondly, that it was impossible for man to keep the law, for he had a sinful nature — he was flesh, and the mind of the flesh “is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). Hence God never expected Israel to keep the law, but its end was to give the knowledge of sin. It “entered, that the offense might abound” (Rom. 5:20). “It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19). God therefore never intended righteousness to come by the law; for the apostle says, “If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Gal. 3:18). For if it is contended that the inheritance comes to us through the substitutionary obedience of Christ to the law, then the inheritance does come through the law, and this is precisely the thing which the apostle contradicts.
But I need not pursue the subject farther in this direction, for you will now see how I learned that the theological definition of justification is entirely inconsistent with the Scriptures; and I have little doubt that it has sprung from an imperfect knowledge of the believer's true standing in Christ, from a false conception, in fact, of Christianity. For you will find that very few of the advocates of this doctrine know anything of the two natures, or of our being seated in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1), and, or indeed, of the full and complete deliverance of the Christian through the death and resurrection of Christ. Not only so; but I am sorry to add that this view of the doctrine is often associated with positive and dangerous error. Thus. I have a book before me, written by one of its most popular advocates, in which it is maintained that Jesus was subjected to the Father's wrath, during His life on the earth. And if you hold that He was a substitute throughout the whole of His life, I do not see how you can avoid this conclusion. It will show you that the slightest departure from the truth may land you in. the most deadly error.
Hoping to examine, in the next letter, the Scriptural representation of the doctrine, believe me, beloved friends,
Yours affectionately in Christ,
E. Dennett