Imputed Righteousness
By Johnny Elmore
There are some topics connected with this study that are truly deep and ponderous. In reading some of the writings of Calvin, Hodge, Shedd, Strong and others. I felt like the man who received as a gift a volume on Einstein’s theory of relativity. He confessed, “I found that I could identify all of the words, but when I started to read the book, I could not understand any of the sentences.” It surely must be obvious to all that the Bible does teach the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness. There is also a false doctrine of Imputed Righteousness taught in the world. I hope I can adequately set forth the Bible teaching and expose the false teaching on this subject.
Paul began his exposition of Imputed Righteousness in Romans 4:3, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted (same as “imputed”) unto him for righteousness.” Again in verse 5, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (The word counted” in Greek is the same word elsewhere rendered “imputed.”) Romans 4:9, “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (same word). Romans 4:11, “ And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.” Look also at Romans 4:22-24, “And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (form of the same word used three times).
There is also a passage in Galatians 3:6, “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Again in James 2:23, “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God.”
Meaning of Righteousness
The Hebrew word for “righteousness” is found in different forms hundreds of times in the Old Testament. It is defined by Gesenius as “rectitude, right.”1 In the New Testament, the word is found some ninety-two times. In the broadest sense of the term, according to Thayer, righteousness means, “The virtue or quality or state of him who is such as he ought to be, righteousness; the condition acceptable to God.”2 One of the simplest definitions is given by John: “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7).
God is the ultimate standard of righteousness. “For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright” (Ps. 11:7). Abraham asked, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). Jesus is absolutely righteous because He is perfect. He is called by inspiration, “Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). He is described by Paul as “the righteous judge” (2 Tim. 4:8). While on earth, friend and foe pronounced him “righteous” and “just.” Men are said to be righteous, but only in an accommodated sense. Romans 3:10, “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Solomon wrote, “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not” (Eccl. 7:20).
Since no humans are righteous by virtue of their own efforts, they must be “justified,” or “declared righteous.” The verb, to justify,” and the noun, “righteous,” are from the same original word and their meanings correspond. Luke 7:29 says, “And all the people that heard him [Jesus], and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.” How did they “justify” God? They declared him to be righteous or just. God is also said to “justify” the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). That is, God declares or pronounces them just or righteous. On Romans 4:5, Thayer says:
Especially is it so used, the technical phraseology of Paul, respecting God who judges and declares such men as put faith in Christ to be righteous and acceptable to him, and accordingly fit to receive the pardon of their sins and eternal life.3
Righteousness means “justification” or “forgiveness.” It is obtained through pardon. It is a state of justification. The Jews were ignorant of God’s righteousness. They did not submit to it but formulated their own. Note Paul’s words:
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:1-3).
In another passage, which we all know well, Paul said,
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: 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: as it is written, The just shall live by faith (Rom. 1:16-17).
The “righteousness” of God in these passages in not a reference to God’s character. The Jews were ignorant of God’s righteousness, but they were not ignorant of the fact that God is righteous. The gospel reveals how God makes men righteous, or how God forgives sinners. The Old Testament did not reveal it. In Galatians 3:21, Paul said, “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Note the double use of the word “given.” Moses’ Law was a “given” law, but this “given” law of God could not give righteousness. The only way for a person to be righteous under the law would have been to keep it perfectly without sinning even once. But the Law said that no one did that. So man had to be declared righteous. Let me give an illustration. There are only two ways that clothing may be clean—to never be soiled, or having been soiled, to be washed. In the same way there are only two ways for man to be righteous- -to never sin, or having sinned, to be forgiven. The gospel reveals that way of justification. Paul said, “For therein [in the gospel—je] is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith. The word for “to” in Greek is eis, so it means “in order to.” In other words, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith “in order to” faith—from the faith of the gospel to faith within the individual.
Imputed Righteousness
The word “impute” is defined by Thayer:
1. To reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over, hence; a) to take into account, to make account of . . . b) to number among, reckon with . . . 2. To reckon inwardly, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate.
Perhaps the most common meanings in the NT are “to calculate, to evaluate, to consider.”4
Girdlestone says that the word indicates,
What may be called a mental process whereby the love and mercy which exists in the Divine nature, and which was embodied in Christ, is brought to bear upon the case of every individual who believes (and acts upon) the word of God.5
The Greek word translated “impute” is used forty-one times in the NT, and eleven of these are in Romans 4. It is translated by three different English words in the KJV: count, reckon, and impute. The ASV renders it “reckon” each time.
An outstanding use of the word in this sense is the statement of David: “Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile” (Ps. 32:2). However, I fail to find any lexicographer who defined the word “imputeth” to mean “transfer.” Now, if we understand the word “righteousness” to mean “justification,” and the word “imputeth” to mean “account,” the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness is simply that those who are ungodly are reckoned or accounted justified through faith in Jesus. Obviously, we must understand that sometimes “faith” is a synecdoche, whereby a part of something is named to suggest the whole thing; faith, in this case, to suggest the obedience of faith.
What a wonderful and sublime thought—that with God, we can be accounted righteous, even though we have sinned. Alexander Campbell listed seven causes connected with justification. He illustrated our justification by a man on a seashore, who sees a ship-wrecked crew clinging to a wreck in the midst of an angry sea. He commands his son to take a boat and go to their rescue. Obediently, his son rows out to the almost fainting crew. He commands them to seize his arm and get into the boat. They obey, and he commands them to take oars and cooperate in seeking the safety of port. They cooperate and are saved. Spectators may have different views of the causes of their salvation, but all things done were necessary. The contemplative person would notice these concurrent causes: (1) the original cause was the kindness of the father; (2) the son was the efficient or meritorious cause; (3) the boat was the instrumental cause; (4) the knowledge of the men and the kind invitation was the disposing cause; (5) their consenting to the conditions was the formal cause; (6) their seizing the boat and getting in was the immediate cause; and (7) their cooperative rowing was the concurrent and effectual cause.
Campbell shows that in the same way, we may harmonize the seven statements found in the Bible which attribute salvation or justification to men. We are pardoned and treated as righteous, or we are justified by the grace of God the Father, as the original and moving cause; by Christ, His Son, and by His blood, or sacrifice, as the meritorious cause; by faith and knowledge as the instrumental cause; by our convictions of sin and penitence as the disposing cause; and by works as the concurrent or concomitant cause. Campbell’s conclusion: “Indeed, true faith necessarily works; therefore, a working faith is the only true, real, and proper faith in Divine or human esteem.” He continued to say: “The works of the law and the works of faith are as different as law and gospel.”6
How Can God Do It?
When man sinned, he violated God’s holiness, and God’s justice came into play. God’s decree is “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20). But because of God’s mercy (remember, he is infinite in all these qualities), His grace provided a way. We could not achieve righteousness on our own for “all our righteousness are as filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). If we could live a perfect life from now on, it would not atone for past sins, for we owed God perfect obedience. God could not overlook our sins, or forgive without grounds, for God is just. He must uphold the majesty of His law. A rice must be paid, but we have nothing wherewith to pay. The blood of bulls and goats would not do it; rivers of oil would not do it; our first-born would not suffice. What it takes is a sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice so great and so perfect that it is counted greater than all man’s sin, and only Jesus fits that description. Because of our faith in Him, we are accounted righteous, or justified. The sacrifice of Jesus is the basis of God’s accounting us righteous. I do not understand it; I am not worthy of it; but I am grateful and willing to receive it.
False Views of Imputation
If the Calvinist is allowed to define “imputation,” he will say it means “to transfer,” instead of “to reckon” or “to account.” When he is allowed to do this, he can sustain the idea of the five points of Calvinism. Calvin believed that man was unable to do anything good, due to his inherited depravity, but because the moral excellence of Christ was transferred to the sinner, man could be saved. When Calvin’s doctrines are summarized, he believed that three things are imputed: (1) the sins of Adam are imputed to mankind; (2) The sins of mankind are imputed to Christ; and (3) the personal righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. Some preachers have been teaching the third doctrine among churches of Christ. It seems to me that consistency demands that they accept the other imputations of Calvinism, if they accept number three.
Calvin’s Theory
The idea that number (1), the sins of Adam are imputed to mankind, simply is not taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that sins are imputed, that is, put to my account, but they are my own sins. Such passages as Galatians 6:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 negate the teaching of Calvinism on this point. Also, imputation does not mean “to transfer.” Albert Barnes, the famous commentator, was a Presbyterian and a Calvinist, but his scholarship was such that when he came to the doctrine of imputation, he struck down the idea of transferring guilt or innocence from one to another. Barnes gives a list of Scriptures where the principal word for “reckon” or “impute” is used in the OT. Barnes said:
I have examined all the passages, and as a result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man that which does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him that which ought to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. The word occurs about forty times (see Schmidius’ Concord), and in a similar signification. No doctrine of transferring or setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from the word. Whatever is meant by it here, it is evidently declared that the act of believing is that which is intended, both by Moses and by Paul.7
It is important to point out that the Calvinist editors who published Barnes’ Notes later were not satisfied, and added a long footnote trying to uphold the doctrine of transference. They say in the Preface:
The principal point, in which Barnes is supposed to differ from orthodox divines, in this country, is the doctrine of imputation, which occupies so conspicuous a place in the opening chapters of Romans, and is argued at great length in the fifth chapter. In some other points also, of less moment, he may be accused of using inaccurate or unguarded language. To remedy these defects, supplementary Notes have been added in several places throughout the volume.8
Thus, imputation (1) is simply denominational error.
But it is also taught that (2) the sins of mankind are imputed to Christ, that is, that the sins of mankind were transferred to Him. But the Bible nowhere says that. All the passages that speak of Christ taking upon Himself our sins, bearing our sins, and of our iniquity being laid on Him, are simply expressing the truth that Christ died for our sins. He took our punishment but not our guilt; otherwise, Ezekiel 18:20 would not teach the truth. He was punished for sins that were properly charged to us.
With reference to (3), that is, that the personal righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers, the basic mistake made on this point is the same as the others, in that “impute” is defined as “transfer. The Bible does teach that Jesus was sinless, that He rendered perfect obedience; if this were not true, Jesus would have died as the thieves did. His perfect life and atoning death paid the penalty for sins, but I do not read that the moral excellence of Christ enabled us to don a robe of Christ’s righteousness which covers our sins. When we respond to that sacrifice in the obedience of faith, God forgives those sins which had been put to our account. Since sins are forgiven, they are no longer imputed (Rom. 4:8), and God accounts men righteous on that basis.
Catholic Theory
Catholics believe that God imparts righteousness to the believer through “infused righteousness.” The Council of Trent, which was convened to counter the influence of the Reformation Movement, dealt with this doctrine. It is consistent with Catholic philosophy, which holds that certain works receive “credit” with God. The conclusion of the Council of Trent:
Hence in justification itself a person together with the remission of his sins, receives simultaneously infused into him through Jesus Christ—into whom he is engrafted—all the following: faith, hope and charity. For faith, unless there be added to it hope and charity, does not perfectly unite a person to Christ, nor does it make him a living member of His body; whence it is most truly said that faith without works is dead and unprofitable.9
However, the Bible teaches that it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:5).
Neo-Calvinist Theory
The Neo-Calvinist theory of imputation of righteousness is actually the same as the Calvinist theory. They hold that Christ’s personal, perfect righteousness is imputed to the believer, and that this covers the believer with an umbrella of grace and conceals his sins. In essence, the believer is not actually made righteous; he is only counted as if he were righteous. Christ’s righteousness has been transferred to the believer and what God sees when He looks at him is not his sins, but Christ’s righteousness. Some believe that the “umbrella” covers all kinds of sins, while others limit it to sins of ignorance. have already shown that this is denominational doctrine, but I want to quote Shedd: Christ’s perfect obedience which merits eternal life is not the sinner’s perfect obedience, but God imputes it to him; he calls it or reckons it his.10 Again: “All the sins of a believer, past, present, and future, are pardoned when he is justified.”11
Guy N. Woods presents a point well taken and I quote:
It requires the most elementary logic to observe that were premises true, once Christ’s righteousness had been received, the individual thus possessed [italic begin]is as good as he [Christ] and will thenceforth be privileged to appear before God on the basis of merit rather than mercy![italic end] Obviously, our Lord will not in judgment be required to justify his faithfulness in few or many things in the record books of life and, the foregoing conclusion being true, neither will those equally possessed of his character. What then of the Seer’s description in Revelation 20: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works”? Why according to their works, if no works of any kind are involved in the reception and possession of Christian life? If they have had transferred to themselves the righteousness Christ possesses, why won’t they be accepted on the same basis he is—actual merit?12
The Bible View
Man’s moral nature remains the same, whether saint or sinner, and is not corrupted, as both the Calvinists and Catholics teach. Man is not forced to sin—he chooses to do so. Paul said, “Awake to righteousness, and sin not” (1 Cor. 15:34). John said, “These things write I unto you, that ye sin not” (1 Jn. 2:1). This shows choice. When a man, by faith, obeys the gospel of Christ, he is justified, and it is the personal, subjective faith in Christ that brings about justification—God imputing righteousness. This faith is not “objective faith,” that is, outside of man, but subjective. Calvinists do not accept this, because faith id defined by Jesus as “a work of God” (Jn. 6:29). What kind of faith is it? It is more than mental assent, more than trust and reliance; it involves human effort—the life of faith.
Implications of Neo-Calvinism
Calvinists teach that Christ’s perfect life of obedience is imputed to the believer. Their purpose is to uphold the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, better known as “once saved, always saved.” Neo-Calvinists teach the doctrine, apparently, to broaden the base of fellowship. Their view is that no one keeps the law perfectly, i.e., none of us is a “hundred percenter,” but we do not have to be, because the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience covers sins of weakness and ignorance, enabling us to fellowship such things as the use of instrumental music in worship, Sunday school, individual cups, etc. We are called “legalists.” But we must not confuse legality with legalism. Legalism is the attempt to be justified on the basis of perfect law-keeping. We deny that, but do believe that conformity to law, legality, is involved in the life of faith in which we meet the conditions of the “law of Christ.” The issue is not: Is salvation made possible wholly by God’s grace? It is. But the issue is: Is Christ’s perfect obedience to God’s law while He was on earth imputed to the believer in Christ? The Bible does not teach it! If so, where?
Proof Texts Reviewed
The following are some of the Scriptures which are supposed to teach the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer.
1. Romans 4:3-8.
This is the place where this doctrine is supposed to be taught, but is says nothing about the perfect “doing and dying” of Christ being imputed or reckoned to the believer for righteousness. Verse 3. Abraham believed (and obeyed) God. This is a quote from Genesis 15:6, but Abraham had obeyed God before this was said (Gen. 12:1-8; Heb. 11:9-10; Jas. 2:21-24). Verse 4. By “works” is meant perfect obedience. If that were the case it would have been debt, not grace. Verse 5. “Worketh not,” i.e., not perfect obedience. Instead, he looks to God for salvation. Verse 6-8. This is about forgiveness. If it is forgiveness, it is not paying a debt for perfect obedience. Note some quotes from commentators on this passage.
& The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, as held by many, will not be readily found in this chapter, where it has been supposed to exist in all its proofs. It is repeatedly said that faith is imputed for righteousness; but in no place here, that Christ’s obedience to the moral law is imputed to any man (Adam Clark).13
& This doctrine, of the imputed righteousness of Christ, is capable of great abuse. To say that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to every true believer, is not scriptural: to say that he has fulfilled all righteousness for us, or in our stead, if by this is meant his fulfillment of all moral duties, is neither scriptural nor true (Adam Clark).14
& Further, as it is nowhere said in scripture, that Christ’s righteousness was imputed to Abraham, so neither is it said anywhere, that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers (MacKnight).15
& Observe that the believer’s own faith is reckoned as righteousness. “In no passage in Paul’s writings or in other parts of the New Testament, where the phrase ‘to reckon for’ or the verb ‘to reckon’ alone is used, is there a declaration that anything belonging to one person is imputed, accounted, or reckoned to another, or a formal statement that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers” (President Dwight, “Notes on Meyer”). (Vincent)16
& The Psalm, strictly speaking, says nothing of the imputation of righteousness, but it is implied by Paul, that the remission of sin is equivalent to the imputation of righteousness (Alford).17
2. Romans 5:18-19.
In Romans 5:12, Paul shows that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” Verse 18 takes up the same theme. It should be simple to see that Adam’s trespass is contrasted with Christ’s death. Paul is neither saying that Adam’s trespass was imputed to us not that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us. Is Paul saying it was Jesus’ life of perfect obedience or was “the obedience of one” Christ’s death on the cross? MacKnight says: “One act of righteousness . . . ‘Christ’s obedience of death” mentioned in Phil. 2:8, and called obedience simply in v. 19.”18 Vincent concurs, saying: “The righteousness of one . . . correctly , one act of righteousness.”19 Clarke: “One grand righteous act.”20 Just as “many were made sinners” by one disobedient act (sin got into the world), so by one act of righteousness “shall many be made righteous.”
3. 2 Corinthians 5:21
This passage does not imply that our sins were imputed to Christ. The word for “impute” is not in the text.
He hath made a sin offering. there are many passages in the Old Testament, where sin signifies a sin-offering . . . In the New Testament, likewise, the sin hath the same signification: Heb. 9:26, 28; 13:11. [2 Cor. 5;12, 15; Gal. 3;13-14; 1 Pet. 2:24 explains this perfectly] (MacKnight).21
4. Isaiah 53:6
“The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The word for “impute” is not in the text. This is another way of saying that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and that Jesus paid the price
(1 Pet. 2:24). He got the stripes, but we got the healing. Verse 10 says, “Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.” This does not help the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
5. Romans 3:22
“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.” Does this refer to the faith Christ had? Robertson: “Intermediate agency (dia) is faith and objective genitive, ‘in Jesus Christ,’ not subjective ‘of Jesus Christ.’ “22 Vincent: “Faith of Jesus Christ. A common form for ‘faith in Christ.’ “23 MacKnight: “The faith which Jesus Christ hath enjoined.”24 Some try to make this objective faith and fit it into their imputation theory, i.e., that the faith that Christ had is reckoned unto man for righteousness.
6. Romans 5:10
“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Question: Are we “saved by his life” before or after the cross? Robertson: “ ‘In his life,’ for he does live ‘ever living to intercede for them’ (Heb. 7:25).”25 There are many other Scriptures that are used as proof-texts, but none of them teach that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. For more on this topic, I recommend the reading of MacKnight on Romans 3:28.26 419 K Street, Ardmore, Oklahoma73401.
End Notes
1. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, 1979), p. 702.
2. Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon (Grand Rapids, 1977), p. 149
3. Ibid., p.150.
4. Ibid., p. 379.
5. Robert Baker Girdlestone, “Imputation,” Synonyms of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1981), p.174.
6. Alexander Campbell, “Justification,” Millennial Harbinger (Joplin, 1987), 1851, pp.321-323.
7. Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, 9th ed. (Grand Rapids, 1967), IV, p. 102.
8. Ibid., iii.
9. Council `of Trent, Session VI, Decretum de Justification, Chapter 7.
10. Dr. William G. T. Shedd, “Justification,” Dogmatic Theology (Nashville, 1980), II, p. 542.
11. Ibid., p. 545.
12. Guy N. Woods, Questions and Answers (Nashville, 1986), II, p. 116.
13. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (Philadelphia, 1838), VI, p. 34.
14. Ibid.
15. James MacKnight, MacKnight on the Epistles (Grand Rapids, n.d.), p. 75.
16. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1957), III, p. 53.
17. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, 1976), II, p. 348.
18. MacKnight, p. 83.
19. Vincent, p. 63.
20. Clarke, p. 38.
21. MacKnight, p. 227.
22. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, 1931), IV, p. 346.
23. Vincent, p. 41.
24. MacKnight, p. 71.
25. Robertson, V, p. 357.
26. MacKnight, p. 72.
Other Sources Consulted
Dye, Edgar J. “Imputed Righteousness.” Faith and Facts 15:29- 124. Roberts, Tom. Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ. Fairmount: Cogdill Foundation, 1980.
Spears, Dudley Ross. “Imputed Righteousness.” Guardian of Truth XXV:385-421.
Wallace, Foy E. Number One Gospel Sermons. Nashville: Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Publication, 1967.
Workman, Gary. “Imputed Righteousness.” Studies in 1, 2, 3 John. Ed. by Dub McClish. Denton: Valid Publications, Inc., 1987.