The Obedience of Christ

A Response to Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker

by Gregory A. Van Court

Introduction

Seventeenth-century covenant theologians bisected the imputation of Christ’s

righteousness to the believer, the bedrock of the Protestant doctrine of justification by
faith, into two distinct doctrines: the active obedience of Christ and the passive obedience
of Christ. Sinners were required by God’s covenant of works made with Adam, man’s
federal head, to both fulfill God’s moral demands and also pay the penalty for
transgressions against those moral demands in order to be acceptable in the presence of
God. Since the guilty were powerless to do either, reconciliation could be accomplished
only by God-incarnate acting as a substitute. Christ redeemed men both by fulfilling
God’s moral demands in their stead and by suffering their punishment. The former was
termed his active obedience, the latter his passive obedience.

A recent paper1 (L&V from here on) flatly rejects the imputation of Christ’s active
obedience to the believer while exalting the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience to
the believer as more than sufficient for justification. In response to this paper, there are
two points needing to be made based upon two primary audiences. In a day in which the
New Perspective on Paul is advancing a view of forensic justification quite different from
the formulation of the Reformers (one which excludes the imputation of Christ's
righteousness to the believer), there will surely be some who will automatically react to
L&V’s view by denouncing it as heresy. To this audience, it must be made clear that the
doctrine set forth by L&V can in no way be so regarded and so condemned. To the
second audience, to Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker themselves and to any other dear
brothers in the Lord who are persuaded of their view, the shortcomings of their
conclusions must be demonstrated in love.

A Brief History

Pre-Reformation
While the view put forth in L&V may at first appear a novel thing recently introduced
(akin to the New Perspective on Paul), history suggests otherwise. It is significant, for
instance, that where the Apostle’s Creed treats the person and work of Jesus Christ it
makes no mention of his law-keeping or of the life he lived at all, stating:

I believe . . . in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty
1
Lehrer, Steve and Volker, Geoff. “Examining the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ: A Study
in Calvinistic Sacred Cow-ism.” www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf May, 2004.
 From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

What is significant is the great leap from his birth to his death over the whole of his life,
which is tellingly omitted. The Nicene Creed likewise makes this omission. John
Calvin, as will be shortly noted, both repeats and explains this omission in his own work.
But it must first also be admitted that Anselm of Canterbury, whose insightful Cur Deus
Homo (Why God Became Man) was seminal to the Reformation view of the nature of the
atonement, saw in Christ’s sin-bearing alone the reconciliation of sinners to God.

Reformation

Calvin’s catechism (1541), an extract from his Institutes of the Christian Religion, was
arranged in questions and answers and was used for a long time in both churches and
schools before the Westminster catechisms gradually superceded it. It included an
exposition on the Apostle’s Creed.2 Calvin took obvious interest in the fact that the creed
made a great leap over Christ’s entire life, moving from his birth straight to his death. He
saw the omission as significant enough to include a question on it in his catechism.
Question fifty-five asks, “Why do you go immediately from His birth to His death,
passing over the whole history of His life?” Calvin’s answer is shocking. “Because
nothing is said here about what belongs properly to the substance of our redemption.”
Christ’s life, at least at this point of time in Calvin’s thinking, had nothing to do with our
salvation. It was enough that God had become man by the virgin birth and died a
substitutionary death for the sins of the elect on the cross. The final edition of Calvin’s
Institutes, however, did recognize the importance of Christ’s life of obedience.3

Post-Reformation and the Presbyterians

It is a little known fact that “the imputation of Christ’s active obedience was a matter of
prolonged debate at the [Westminster] Assembly.”4 A minority, most notably Thomas
Gataker (1574–1654), William Twisse (1578–1646) and Richard Vines (1600–1656),
believed that “Christ’s sufferings and death, or passive obedience, alone are imputed to
the believer.” When the “divines” were revising the Thirty-Nine Articles, this minority
successfully persuaded the assembly to delete the word “whole” from their revision of the
eleventh article: “His whole obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed to us.”
Moreover, chapter eleven in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) leaves out the
phrase “whole obedience” completely, and indeed it is not to be found anywhere else in
the WCF. Instead, there is the simple phrase “by imputing the obedience and satisfaction
of Christ unto them” (11.1). Dr. J.V. Fesko, pastor of Geneva OPC in Marietta, Georgia,
who refers to this omission as “a deficiency in the Confession,” regretfully admits, “This
clearly allows for the position of Gataker, Twisse, and Vines on this subject.”5 The
2
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Vol.8 § 83.
3
See particularly II:xvi:5.
4
Van Dixhoorn, Chad B., “The Making of the Westminster Larger Catechism,” Reformation and Revival
10:2 (Spring 2001) 106.
5
Fesko, J.V. (pastor of Geneva OPC in Marietta Georgia; Ph.D. from University of Aberdeen), “The Days
Of Creation And Confession Subscription In The OPC,” Westminster Theological Journal 63:2 (Fall 2001)
240.

2
Presbyterian standard of orthodoxy then, the WCF, allows for the position that it is not
the whole obedience of Christ but rather that one act of obedience in bearing the sins of
the elect which is imputed by God to the believer.

That said, however, it must not be overlooked that since drafting the WCF, the
overwhelming majority of Presbyterian theologians have taken the position that both the
active obedience of Christ and the passive obedience of Christ are by necessity imputed
to the believer. In truth, this thoroughly developed doctrine has become an essential part
of the intricate theological system of Covenant Theology, particularly respecting the
demands and curse of the “covenant of works.” As Greg Bahnsen puts it, “Christ’s
perfect obedience to the Law of God secures our release from the necessity of personally
keeping the Law as a condition of justification.”6

Post-Reformation and other Protestants

A survey of the creeds and writings of other Protestant denominations

demonstrates that the dichotomy of active/passive obedience with respect to the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer is essentially absent from the non-
Presbyterian vocabulary. The statement on justification in the Augsburg Confession of
the Lutherans asserts:

1] ... men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works,
but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that
they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who,
by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for
righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. (Article IV)

Article XI of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglicans states:

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we
are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort,
as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

The Baptist Faith and Message7 simply confesses:

Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His

righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the
believer into a relationship of peace and favor with God. (IV.A)

Specific opposition during the twentieth-century to the active/passive dichotomy of the

Presbyterians came mostly from evangelical Dispensationalists agitating against

6
Bahnsen, Greg L. Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1984) 128.
7
Adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention on May 9, 1963; revised June 10, 1998.

3
Covenant Theology. Representative of Dispensationalism is Robert P. Lightner. In
1970, he wrote:

First, the view fails to take into account that before the fall, Adam did not have a sin nature. Instead, it
assumes that to be rightly related to God, Adam and his posterity were required to render perfect
obedience to the commands of God . . . .It is not too much to say that the whole concept of the
vicarious nature of Christ’s active obedience rests primarily upon the idea of the covenant of works.
Since the supposed covenant promised eternal life for obedience and since Adam disobeyed and all his
posterity in him, Christ, the Last Adam, came to accomplish what the first Adam failed to do. The fact
that Adam came from the hands of the Creator, sinlessly perfect must not be overlooked. Thus the
command of God to obey Him was not designed to produce eternal life in him or to relate him rightly
to God. He already enjoyed a state of sinlessness and a proper relation to and right standing before his
Creator. Contrary to the contention of covenant theologians, Scripture does not say that Adam would
have inherited eternal life had he obeyed God. Human effort is never presented as a condition of
salvation in Scripture for any dispensation; rather, the command of God to Adam was designed to
demonstrate his submission to the authority of God. Second, the view amounts to a minimizing of the
cross work of Christ. . . . Thus, according to this view, the death of Christ on the cross was not the sole
basis upon which God provided redemption and everlasting life for man. If the life sufferings be
viewed as substitutionary and vicarious, then the Savior’s passive obedience in the shedding of His
blood on the cross must be viewed as less than the total or complete means by which God through His
Son atoned for sin. The blood shed at Calvary would then constitute only part of the payment for sin.
Third, the most serious weakness of all is the stark fact that no Scripture assigns substitution to the life
sufferings of Christ. On the contrary, Scripture abounds with evidence that through His substitutionary
death on the cross, and through that alone, He took the sinner’s place and died in the sinner’s stead (Isa
53:6–7; Rom 3:18, 3:24–25 , 5:7–9 ; 2 Cor 5:14–21; 1 Peter 2:24). The defense of the vicarious nature
of Christ’s active obedience for His suffering in life is voluminous, but scriptural proof is conspicuous
by its absence.8

In 1986, Dr. Lightner made a similar argument specifically against the imputation of
Christ’s active obedience to the believer while critiquing Theonomy:

A basic premise in the theological structure of theonomy, along with covenant Reformed theology, is
the belief that Christ’s active obedience to the Law during His life was as substitutionary as His
passive obedience in death. . . . That Christ obeyed perfectly the Law and suffered greatly during His
life is not denied or even disputed by dispensationalists. The crucial question, however, is, Why did He
suffer in life? What was accomplished by His obedience to the Law? Scripture simply does not teach
that the life sufferings of Christ were vicarious. Rather it stresses His death alone as a substitution for
sin and sinners. To be sure, the Savior’s sinless life demonstrated that He was qualified to be the
sinner’s Substitute, but He atoned for sin only on the cross, where He became a curse (Gal 3:13).
Viewing Christ’s active obedience in His life as substitutionary is the natural result of believing that
God promised Adam and his posterity eternal life if he would obey God’s command not to eat of the
forbidden fruit. Since Adam did not obey God’s command or law, Christ, the last Adam came and did
in His life what the first Adam failed to do—to earn righteousness for His own. In this view the death
of Christ was not the only basis on which God made substitution for man’s sin. Theonomy and
Reformed theology in general believe that through His active obedience the Savior carried His people
beyond the point where Adam was before he fell to give them a claim to eternal life. Dispensationalists
do not view the theological covenant of works as promising Adam and his posterity eternal life for
obedience. God promised Adam death for disobedience, not eternal life for obedience. Furthermore did
not Adam possess creaturely perfection as he came from the creative hand of God? Was not all that
God made “very good” (Gen 1:31), including man? Theonomy teaches that the way of salvation before

8
Lightner, Robert P., “The Savior’s Suffering in Life,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (1970) 33-34.

4
 the Fall differed from the way of salvation after the Fall. That is a strange doctrine coming from those
who falsely accuse dispensationalists of believing in more than one way of salvation.9

While most non-Presbyterian Protestant churches are either characterized by total

ignorance of the theologically bifurcated obedience of Christ into active and passive10 or
agitate against the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to the believer, there are those
today who have been favorably influenced by the Presbyterian concept, most notably Dr.
Wayne Grudem. In his Systematic Theology, Grudem accepts the active/passive
bifurcation and likewise predicates it upon his belief in the “covenant of works”:

If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt would
have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve before they had done
anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of probation successfully. To be established
in righteousness forever and to have their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had
to obey God perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful obedience
with pleasure and delight, and they would have lived with him in fellowship forever. For this reason,
Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to
obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would
be counted for us.11

In providing an overview of the history of this doctrine, it has been demonstrated that the
disagreements respecting it, which have been ongoing for centuries, have taken place
among brethren. To assert otherwise would be to damn the entirety of the early church
and the great majority of Protestant evangelicals, indeed almost everyone but
Presbyterians and those favorably influenced by them on the subject.

Theological Definitions and Terminology

One of the greatest dangers in using extra-biblical language to describe biblical truths is
that such terminology is often misunderstood or even redefined and used in ways never
intended by the theologians who first employed them. One of the greatest contributions
New Covenant Theology has made to the church has been its high view of Scripture over
tradition, insisting on using biblical terminology whenever possible to describe biblical
doctrine and on evaluating traditional theological terms and concepts in light of Scripture.
As Lehrer and Volker put it, “you must have the clear and unambiguous witness of
Scripture” in order to “establish a biblical doctrine or practice.”12 Of all the theological
concepts accompanied by its own extra-biblical terminology coming to us from the
Reformed tradition, the bifurcated obedience of Christ into active and passive is one of
the most confusing and misunderstood. It is confusing because of that unfortunate term
passive obedience. After all, when was Christ ever passive in his obedience to his
9
Lightner, Robert P., “A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” Bibliotheca Sacra 143:571 (1986) 233-
234.
10
Grudem points out as examples of theologians who have “not taught that Christ needed to achieve a
lifelong record of perfect obedience for us” both Lewis Sperry Chafer and Millard Erickson, whose
systematic theologies contain “no discussion of the active obedience of Christ.” Grudem, Wayne
Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994) 571n4.
11
Grudem, 570.
12
L&V, 16.

5
Father’s will? Certainly, he was in no way passive in his betrayal, arrest, crucifixion, and
resurrection. Jesus told Judas on the night before his arrest, “What you are about to do,
do quickly.” [New English Translation] 13 He had actively chosen Judas, knowing that he
would be betrayed by him in fulfillment of the Scriptures.14 Having escaped being seized
many times, Jesus reminded his disciples that twelve legions of angels could be
summoned if his arrest at Gethsemane had not been an active part of his work.15
Regarding the offering of his own life and his resurrection, Jesus said, “I lay down my
life, so that I may take it back again. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of
my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it
back again.”16 On the cross, he actively committed his spirit into his Father’s hands.17
Jesus Christ was not passive in anything he did. For this reason alone, the term passive
obedience is a poor one which should be abandoned, and it is for this reason that this
paper has received its present title. It must of course be acknowledged that Reformed
theologians, in speaking of Christ’s passive obedience, do not mean that Christ was
actually passive in any of his work. While the first mistake is to assume the natural
meaning of the word passive when considering Christ’s so-called passive obedience, it is
by no means the only or even the most common error. After reading Reformed
theologians’ writings on the subject, it is often assumed that what they mean by passive
obedience is Christ’s death on the cross as opposed to Christ’s perfect life, which is
likewise assumed to be his active obedience. This simplistic understanding, however, is
also gravely mistaken. It is a common error made not only by those who critique the
doctrine of the bifurcated obedience of Christ into active and passive but also by many of
those who purport to hold to it, particularly Reformed Baptists—a fact that underscores
the confusion surrounding the doctrine. John Murray carefully and accurately explains
what the doctrine is not teaching:

The term “passive obedience” does not mean that in anything Christ did was he passive, the
involuntary victim of obedience imposed upon him. It is obvious that any such conception would
contradict the very notion of obedience. … Neither are we to suppose that we can allocate certain
phases or acts of our Lord’s life on earth to the active obedience and certain other phases and acts to
the passive obedience. The distinction between the active and passive obedience is not a distinction of
periods. It is our Lord’s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active
and passive, and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the
obedience of his life and the passive to the obedience of his final sufferings and death.18

The common mistake, however, is to do just that. The poor terminology itself draws us
into dividing Christ’s obedience into two periods—that of his life and that of his death;
the former assumed to be his active obedience, the latter his passive. Regarding both the
so-called active and passive obedience of Christ, Louis Berkhof asserts, “The two
accompany each other at every point in the Savior’s life.”19 The common and
understandable mistake of applying the active to the obedience of his life and the passive

13
John 13:27 (All Scripture quotations are from the New English Translation unless otherwise indicated.)
14
John 6:70, 13:18-26, 17:12
15
Matthew 26:52-56
16
John 10:17-18
17
Luke 23:46
18
Murray, John Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1955) 20-21.
19
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 379.

6
to the obedience of his final sufferings and death is clearly a mistake made by Lehrer and
Volker who narrowly define active obedience as “the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to
the Mosaic Law” and passive obedience as “Christ’s sacrificial death by which He paid
the penalty for the sins of the elect.”20 Unfortunately, this error is multiplied throughout
their article and fundamentally tarnishes their essential conclusion. For example, they
use the phrase “the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ” synonymously with
such biblical terminology as “the sacrifice of Christ” and refer to the apostle Paul’s use of
the term “Christ crucified” as “an explicit reference to passive obedience.”21 By making
the crucifixion itself synonymous with passive obedience and relegating active obedience
entirely to an earlier phase in the life of Jesus, Lehrer and Volker then go about
demonstrating that every biblical discussion of Christ’s righteousness imputed to the
believer appears to be within the context of the cross and therefore must be respecting his
passive obedience alone. However, the greatest theologians of the Reformed tradition
would never so define the cross-work of Christ as to exclude the so-called active
obedience of Christ and, as seen above, would see both the active and passive obedience
of Christ in “his whole work,” in “every phase and period,” accompanying each other “at
every single point.” In fact, this is nowhere more powerfully displayed, they would note,
than on the cross. In his discourse on “Justification by Faith Alone,” Jonathan Edwards
writes:

It is true that Christ’s willingly undergoing those sufferings which he endured, is a great part of that
obedience or righteousness by which we are justified. The sufferings of Christ are respected in
Scripture under a twofold consideration, either merely as his being substituted for us, or put into our
stead, in suffering the penalty of the law. And so his sufferings are considered as a satisfaction and
propitiation for sin, or as he, in obedience to a law or a command of the Father, voluntarily submitted
himself to those sufferings, and actively yielded himself up to bear them. So they are considered as his
righteousness, and a part of his active obedience. Christ underwent death in obedience to the command
of the Father, Psa. 40:6-8, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened:
burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the
book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” John
10:17-18, “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 18:11, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
And this is part, and indeed the principal part, of that active obedience by which we are justified.22
[Emphasis mine]

Those Reformed theologians who give meaning to the terms active obedience and passive
obedience view the sacrifice of Christ on the cross not only as part of his active
obedience but as the principal part. In one crucial sense, this fact completely unravels
the fundamental argument of L&V as will be repeatedly seen later. In another sense,
however, it cannot be ignored that L&V, despite their understandable misunderstanding
of terms, are putting forth a genuine defense for the notion that the righteousness of
Christ imputed to his elect is a righteousness without any reference to his human
obedience to the expressed will of God. They readily admit that there is a perfect
righteousness belonging to his human nature, that he was completely obedient to God’s
20
L&V, 2.
21
Ibid, 3, 13.
22
Edwards, Jonathan The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,
1987) 638-639.

7
will, but they deny that this steadfast obedience was representative for or is imputed to
his elect. Put a different way, they appear to be arguing that the righteous standing of the
elect before God is solely effected by the imputation of the elect’s guilt to Christ. This is
an argument that must be carefully weighed and considered. Before doing so, it may
prove helpful to first define what Reformed theologians actually do mean by the
bifurcated obedience of Christ into both active and passive.

Simply put, seeing both a positive and a negative aspect to Christ’s obedience is a way of
acknowledging both the preceptive and the punitive demands of a holy and just God. To
him is owed perfect obedience because he is infinitely worthy, and to the disobedient is
owed full punishment for the same reason. Christ takes care of both debts by paying the
former and receiving the latter, both in behalf of his elect. As Murray puts it, “Christ’s
obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was
vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness. His obedience becomes
the ground of the remission of sin and of actual justification.”23 God reckons or counts
our entire sin to be Christ’s and Christ’s entire righteousness to be ours. This great
exchange provides the basis for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life. The
active/passive language is not just an attempt to describe the judicial character of
justification, and it is not just an imperfect and finite way to describe the breadth and the
depth of the perfect and infinite work of Christ on behalf of his sheep, though it is both
these things. It is also a means of articulating the holiness and infinite worth of God’s
character and the positive and negative aspect that is inherently and inseparably bound up
in all true obedience to his perfect will. For example, it is not enough to have no other
gods before him; if one is to be acceptable before holy God, he must love him with all his
heart, mind, and soul. It is not enough to refrain from committing adultery; if a husband
is to be obedient to God, he must love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave his
life for her. It is not enough to put off filthiness; one must also put on righteousness.
Righteousness is not merely the negative lack of what is bad but also the positive
fulfillment of what is good. It is this positive aspect of Christ’s obedience to the will of
the Father even unto and especially unto death that Reformed theologians have termed
active.

L&V have confused active obedience with “the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the
Mosaic law.” In doing so, they have both limited and simplified the actual meaning of
the term. They have limited and simplified it by the words “to the Mosaic law.” Christ
certainly never broke the Mosaic law, but Christ’s obedience on our behalf was never so
limited. It was, in fact, much higher. His perfect obedience to the Father’s will, in effect,
becomes the new standard for righteousness, the fullest revelation of the law of God, a
standard Scripture calls the law of Christ, which fulfills and supercedes the law of Moses.
This obedience has its single greatest expression in the giving of his life on the cross.
L&V have simplified the actual meaning by making the term refer merely to the formal
law-keeping of the Mosaic code so that whenever one finds an example in Scripture of
Jesus keeping one of the 613 statutes contained in the body of that law, it can be said that
there is found the active obedience of Christ. Murray shows that so minimal an
understanding is improper:
23
Murray, 22.

8
 We must not view this obedience in any artificial or mechanical sense. When we speak of Christ’s
obedience we must not think of it as consisting simply in formal fulfillment of the commandments of
God. What the obedience of Christ involved for him is perhaps nowhere more strikingly expressed
than in Hebrews 2:10-18; 5:8-10 where we are told that Jesus “learned obedience from the things
which he suffered,” that he was made perfect through sufferings, and that “being made perfect he
became to all who obey him the author of eternal salvation.”. . . For in these texts we are distinctly
informed that he learned obedience, and he learned this obedience from the things that he suffered. It
was requisite that he should have been made perfect through sufferings and become the author of
salvation through this perfecting. It was not, of course, a perfecting that required the sanctification
from sin to holiness. He was always holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. But there
was the perfecting of development and growth in the course and path of his obedience—he learned
obedience. The heart and mind and will of our Lord had been moulded—shall we not say forged?—in
the furnace of temptation and suffering. And it was in virtue of what he had learned in that experience
of temptation and suffering that he was able, at the climactic point fixed by the arrangements of
infallible wisdom and everlasting love, to be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.24

The positive aspect of Christ’s obedience is by no means limited to a mechanical keeping

of Mosaic statutes and cannot be separated out either from the negative aspect of his
obedience or from his death on the cross—a sacrifice in which both aspects find their
climactic expression. Lehrer and Volker err in thinking about the two aspects of Christ’s
obedience as distinct and separate, one limited to the Mosaic law-keeping of his life, the
other limited to his death. As has been shown, respected Reformed theologians never
meant for their terminology to be so understood. Given the propensity for error invoked
by the terms themselves, we would do well to follow the advice John Wesley gives in his
sermon “The Lord Our Righteousness” when he stated that “as the active and passive
righteousness of Christ were never, in fact, separated from each other, so we never need
separate them at all, either in speaking or even in thinking.”

Hebrews 10:11-14

The first passage L&V cite as a witness that Christ’s passive obedience alone is imputed
to the believer is Hebrews 10:11-14.

And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices
again and again—sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when this priest
had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of
God, where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.
For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy.

L&V, primarily interested in what is being taught contextually in verse 14, make
the following conclusions:

The sacrifice of Christ or the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ does two things for
the believer. First, it makes the believer perfect – that is the believer is viewed as though he had
obeyed the law perfectly (v. 14a). Second, it purchases a work of the Spirit in the life of the
believer that guarantees that he will grow in holiness (v. 14b). Our concern here is for the

24
Murray, 22-23.

9
 perfect status the believer is given because of the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ.
In the context of the book, “perfection” is referring to the state of moral innocence that allows
one to be accepted by God—to stand in the presence of God and to approach Him boldly for
grace and mercy in times of need. . . . Christ’s passive obedience imputed to us allows us into
the very presence of God! Notice that there is no mention of the active obedience of Christ
anywhere and yet the passive obedience of Christ is said to be the sum and substance of the
New Covenant and a guarantee that those who get this passive obedience imputed into their
account are right with God, perfect—justified.25

Equating “the sacrifice of Christ” with “the passive obedience of Christ” from the
start is the fatal error upon which Christ’s active obedience is improperly excluded
from this rich exposition of the cross. As has been previously shown, the active
obedience of Christ has been historically defined as to have its greatest fulfillment
in the sacrifice of Christ. Murray explains that, “It is our Lord’s whole work of
obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and passive, and we
must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the
obedience of his life and the passive to the obedience of his final sufferings and
death.”26 “The two accompany each other at every point in the Savior’s life,”
writes Berkhof.27 Edwards makes clear that the sacrifice of Christ is not merely
part but “indeed the principal part, of that active obedience by which we are
justified.”28 To exclude active obedience from the sacrifice of Christ and make the
sacrifice synonymous with passive obedience and passive obedience alone is to
completely redefine the active and passive obedience of Christ.

When L&V see “no mention of the active obedience of Christ anywhere,”
they are no doubt looking for a reference to Mosaic law-keeping. Yet, it is the
sacrifice of Christ that is the supreme act of Christ’s obedience in every aspect
according to those who have defined and employed the terms. Ellingworth, in his
commentary on the Greek text of this passage, writes: “In the present passage,
prosphora is essentially Christ’s death, understood by analogy with, and especially
in contrast to, OT sacrifices, and at its deepest level as an act of supreme
obedience. This act is explicitly connected with Christ’s exaltation; the rest of his
life on earth, though not excluded, is not in focus at present” (emphasis mine).29 It
is interesting to note that Ellingworth does not exclude here Christ’s life on earth,
especially considering how it is Christ’s life as contrasted to his death that is so
often misunderstood to be his active obedience. The key fact, however, is that the
sacrifice of Christ is the supreme, crowning act of his obedience to the Father in
both its positive and negative aspects. Therefore, it should be observed that any
argument that has his active obedience here excluded simply by redefining active
obedience to be an obedience that is necessarily excluded from his sacrifice rather
than necessarily included is patently vapid.

25
L&V, 3-4.
26
Murray, 21.
27
Berkhof, 379.
28
Edwards, 639.
29
Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: a commentary on the Greek text NIGTC (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 511.

10
Romans 3:21-26

The next passage L&V cite as a witness that Christ’s passive obedience alone is imputed
to the believer is Romans 3:21-26.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the
law and the prophets) has been disclosed—namely, the righteousness of God
through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no
distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God
publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith.
This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had
passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his
righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the
one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.

It should be noticed that L&V take pistis Christou in verse 22 as an objective genitive
(without discussion or explanation) where the New English Translation above rightly
takes it as a subjective genitive – a natural rendering of the Greek with strong exegetical
support based on recent scholarship.30 L&V rightly assert that this passage is “the
primary teaching passage on righteousness in the New Testament.”31 They begin by
setting this passage in its context, noting that “the wrath of God against sinful man is the
big problem highlighted in Romans up through chapter 3 and verse 20.”32 It should be
noticed, however, that alongside of God’s wrath against sin is also highlighted God’s
demand for obedience. Romans 2:6-8 says, “He will reward each one according to his
works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and
immortality, but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey
the truth but follow unrighteousness.” There is clearly the idea of wrath for disobedience
but also of the reward of eternal life for obedience. The thought is expressed again in
30
The NET translation note for Rom 3:22 explains: An increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that
πίστις Χριστου (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12;
Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G.
Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212–15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ; Morna
D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστου,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321–42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the
subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective
genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom
1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10;
2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has
its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248–63; J. D. G.
Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on
Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view. D. B. Wallace, who notes that the grammar is
not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a
Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather
than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful” (Exegetical
Syntax, 116). Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our
faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.
31
L&V, 4.
32
Ibid.

11
verse 13: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those
who do the law will be declared righteous.” Later in their article, L&V will admit that,
“Salvation can ‘theoretically’ be earned by perfect heart-act obedience to God. In
addition, even the smallest act of disobedience earns God’s infinite and eternal wrath.…
These statements actually have clear biblical foundations that can be verified by simple
exegesis.”33 Nevertheless, no one keeps the law so no one will be declared righteous by
works of the law (3:20). No one is righteous; all are under sin (3:9-10), and therefore
God’s wrath against sin is indeed the big problem highlighted in the early chapters of
Romans. L&V go on to assert that “the solution that this passage gives us to that problem
is the cross, which results in the believer becoming ‘righteous’ or ‘justified.’”34 It must
be remembered that L&V mistakenly view the cross as synonymous with passive
obedience and mistakenly see the nonexistence of Christ’s active obedience any place
where there is no clear reference to his Mosaic law-keeping. With this in mind, it is no
surprise that they arrive at the following two conclusions: 1) “in this passage, which is the
clearest passage in the New Testament about the acquisition of the righteousness of God,
there is nothing about the imputation of the active obedience of Christ” and 2) “this
passage is solely concerned with the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience.”35 They
base both conclusions entirely on the fact that the passage presents the cross as the
solution to God’s wrath.

There are two major problems with L&V’s treatment of this key passage. The
first problem should be obvious by now. The cross is the ultimate expression of both
Christ’s active and passive obedience as historically defined, and so the argument that
there is no reference to Christ’s active obedience here because the cross is in view simply
falls apart. The second problem is that more than the cross is in view here. As noted
above, the context is both God’s wrath against sin and his demand for righteousness.
“Now apart from the law the righteousness of God … has been disclosed” (v.21),
meaning that we can be declared righteous without personally having obeyed God
perfectly. The disobedient can be declared righteous. How? From an alien
righteousness imputed by God. What righteousness is that? “Namely, the righteousness
of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.” (v.22). The
righteousness of God for all who believe comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.
It is through the complete faithfulness of Jesus—a faithfulness that has its culmination in
his death on the cross—that God imputes righteousness to the believer.

Romans 5:18-19

The first passage L&V cite as traditionally supporting the imputation of Christ’s active
obedience is Romans 5:18-19.

Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one

transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading
to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man

33
L&V, 9.
34
L&V, 4.
35
L&V, 5.

12
 many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will
be made righteous.

L&V begin by citing Robert Reymond’s systematic theology, which supports the
view that “the one righteous act” of verse 18 refers to Christ’s entire life work. They
note: “If Reymond is correct, and these verses are referring to Christ’s entire life of
obedience, then the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is correct.”36 Their
argument against Reymond stands on three legs: (1) “the clear parallels between
Adam and Christ,” (2) “the near context in which the passive obedience of Christ is
mentioned in relation to justification,” and (3) “the reference to ‘one act’ concerning
both Adam and Christ.”37

What L&V mean by the parallel between Adam and Christ is that since
Adam’s “one act” clearly refers to his punctiliar act of eating the fruit then it only
logically follows that Christ’s “one act” must refer to a single event – namely, his
death on the cross. They present the case as follows:

As we make our way into the passage at hand, the contrast is made between Adam’s “one
act” and Christ’s “one act.” Everyone who has read the book of Genesis understands that
Adam’s one act of disobedience refers to when he ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. It
was not a reference to his entire life. One of the simple keys that tell us this is when Paul
writes “one act” in reference to Adam’s sin. I know of no interpreter who takes Adam’s
“one act” to refer to his entire life before God.38

How, it is then argued, can Christ’s contrasting obedience be referring to his

entire life before God? The answer is quite simple. Disobedience resulting in
condemnation, by its very nature, only comprises a single transgression.
Obedience resulting in eternal life, by its very nature, comprises a perfect life of
obedience from its beginning to its crowning end. God is so infinitely holy that a
single act of disobedience earns God’s eternal wrath. Likewise, God is so
infinitely holy that only a blameless life of perfect obedience from beginning to
end is worthy of God’s eternal favor. That Adam’s transgression resulting in
condemnation to all men comprised a single event in no way necessitates that
Christ’s obedience resulting in justification comprise a single event. This is based
simply on the nature of disobedience and obedience before a holy God. What
does God require? Unswerving faithfulness and condemnation to any who
swerve.

The second leg of the argument sees the context surrounding the passage as being
the “passive obedience of Christ,” by which they once again mean the cross. Paul
has just said back in verse 10 that “we were reconciled to God through the death
of his son.” At the risk of becoming tiresome, the reader is reminded that the
active obedience of Christ has been historically defined as to have its greatest
fulfillment in the sacrifice of Christ. Murray explains that, “It is our Lord’s whole

36
L&V, 11.
37
L&V, 12.
38
L&V, 12.

13
work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and
passive, and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience
applies to the obedience of his life and the passive to the obedience of his final
sufferings and death.”39 “The two accompany each other at every point in the
Savior’s life,” writes Berkhof.40 The sacrifice of Christ is not merely part but is,
writes Jonathan Edwards, “indeed the principal part, of that active obedience by
which we are justified.”41 Therefore, the reconciliation to God we have through
Christ’s death is the ideal context in which to discuss the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness respecting every aspect of his obedience.

The final leg supporting L&V’s argument is simply the reference to “one act”
concerning both Adam and Christ. The phrase itself, they suggest, carries a force
all its own. Apart from the citation of the passage itself, they repeat the phrase
“one act” eight times on one page in an effort to hammer this force home.
Admittedly, the phrase “one act” suggests a single event. Yet this force is not
necessarily present in the actual koine sentence. The KJV renders it this way:
“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one 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.” The English
phrase “the righteousness of one” is one of the acceptable ways to render the
Greek phrase henos dikaiōmatos, and this seems proper considering the context.
Further, it must be observed how Paul uses the word dikaiōmatos elsewhere.
John Piper notes:

The word translated ‘act of righteousness’ in verse 18, ESV (dikaiōmatos) is used in
Romans 8:4 to refer, in the singular, to the entire scope of what the law requires: ‘. . .
so that the requirement (dikaiōma) of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not
walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.’ This suggests that in Paul’s
mind the “one act of righteousness” that resulted in our justification may well refer
to the entire obedience of Jesus viewed as a single whole—as one great act of
righteousness—rather than any single act he did in life.42

While “one act of righteousness” is a valid translation, it must not be assumed to

carry the force that the English phrase suggests. There are no good reasons, either
by parallels between Adam’s and Christ’s work or by an examination of the
context or by word study, to exclude any aspect of Christ’s obedience from that
obedience through which “many will be made righteous.”

Philippians 3:7-11

The next passage L&V cite as traditionally supporting the imputation of Christ’s active
obedience is Philippians 3:7-11.

39
Murray, 21.
40
Berkhof, 379.
41
Edwards, 639.
42
Piper, John Counted Righteous in Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002) 112.

14
 But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More
than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater
value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of
all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I might gain Christ, and be
found in him, not because of having my own righteousness derived from the
law, but because of having the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s
faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s
faithfulness. My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his
resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death, and so,
somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

L&V begin their examination of this passage by pointing out what is missing from it:

Although there is no mention of a covenant of works and there is no mention of Christ’s

perfect law-keeping on behalf of sinners, the text does speak of righteousness. Paul does not
want a righteousness of his own “that comes from law.” Righteousness certainly can come
from perfect law-keeping, but Paul knows that obtaining such a righteousness is a fruitless
and faithless endeavor. Paul wants the righteousness that comes from God and is acquired by
faith in Christ. What is Christ’s righteousness? One interpretive option is that Christ’s
righteousness refers to Christ’s perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law which He imputes to all
those who trust in Him as Savior and Lord. Another interpretive option is that Christ’s
righteousness refers to the payment for sin which He made by His death on the cross and
imputes to all those who trust in Him as Savior and Lord. Which interpretation is right and
how do we decide?43

Once again, L&V are looking for references to Mosaic law-keeping. If no explicit
references are present, they conclude Christ’s active obedience is not in view. This
mistake stems from the fact that they have both limited and simplified the actual
meaning of the term active obedience. As noted earlier, they err in thinking about the
two aspects of Christ’s obedience as distinct and separate, one limited to the Mosaic
law-keeping of his life, the other limited to his death. This error can be seen above in
the false dichotomy they present as the two possible answers to the big question, “What
is Christ’s righteousness?” For them, Christ’s righteousness is either his Mosaic law
keeping, which they equate with active obedience, or his death on the cross, which they
equate with passive obedience. They go on to make their final conclusion based
entirely on their understanding of Romans 3:21-26:

In order to arrive at the correct conclusion we must go to the locus classicus regarding the
righteousness the believer acquires through faith in Christ. This passage is Romans 3.
Since we have already spent time in this passage above, we can come to some swift
conclusions. We found in Romans 3 that Paul only writes about the imputation of the
passive obedience of Christ--the payment for sins. Therefore, since the only place in
Scripture where Paul defines the righteousness of Christ is in reference to his passive
obedience, this should naturally be the default interpretation of the righteousness of
Christ in Philippians 3.44

43
L&V, 13.
44
Ibid.

15
This is their entire argument, one which unravels once Romans 3:21-26 is correctly
interpreted and understood. More importantly, they fail to wrestle with the text of
Philippians 3:7-11 at all and the problem it presents for them. Paul is speaking about
his union with Christ, being “found in him.” Was it by Paul’s own personal
righteousness? No, “not because of having my own righteousness derived from the
law.” How then would Paul be found “in him”? It was “because of having the
righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God
that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness.” L&V conclude this section by reminding
their reader that this passage makes no direct mention of Mosaic law-keeping, stating
“even if you are not convinced of our point of view, this text is not unambiguously
speaking about the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. If it does not speak
clearly to the issue, then it cannot serve as the textual foundation for this doctrine.”45
This argument cuts both ways and cuts even sharper against those who would limit
Christ’s imputed obedience. This passage is likewise not unambiguously speaking
about the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ as understood by L&V.
Therefore, there is no reason to so limit it. It simply speaks of “the righteousness that
comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based
on Christ’s faithfulness.”

1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21

The next two passages L&V cite as traditionally supporting the imputation of Christ’s
active obedience are 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21.

But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God
–and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. (NKJV)

God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we
would become the righteousness of God.

L&V once again make the same mistakes based on their misunderstanding of
the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience and of
Romans 3. With regard to 1Cor.1:30, they assert:

When Paul speaks of preaching the Gospel he talks about preaching “Christ
crucified” (v. 23) which is an explicit reference to passive obedience. The text says
that we should boast in the fact that Christ is our “righteousness.” We have already
belabored the fact that Paul defines the righteousness Christ gives the believer in
terms of His passive obedience. Without something in this text causing us to
question that clear definition found in Romans 3, we should assume that would be
Paul’s meaning here.46

Similarly, with respect to 2Cor.5:21, they simply state, “Of course the argument
turns on one’s definition of ‘righteousness.’ Since Paul uses this term to refer to

45
L&V, 13.
46
L&V, 13-14.

16
the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ, this text is best read as a
statement of that wonderful truth.”47 This is their sole basis for explaining away
these two passages. The author will refrain from repeating what has already
been belabored previously. Beyond these recurring errors, the key phrase L&V
fail to deal with satisfactorily here in both verses is “in him.” Because we are in
Christ Jesus, all four nouns of 1Cor.1:30, including righteousness, relate first to
him and then to us. He became, for us, righteousness. Our sin is imputed to
Christ so that it is then possible to be united with him—a result of which is that
all the righteousness belonging to him becomes ours. Union with Christ makes
the imputation of his righteousness possible. “Christ became sin for us, in order
that ‘in him we might become the righteousness of God,’” notes Stott on 2 Cor.
5:21. “In other words, our sins were imputed to the sinless Christ, in order that
we sinners, by being united to him, might receive as a free gift a standing
righteousness before God.”48 It is not merely in part of him that we have
become the righteousness of God, but completely in him. We are counted
righteous to the very same extent that Jesus is, in fact, righteous. To limit that,
to say that the entire righteousness of Christ as merited by his faithful obedience
to the Father in all things is not wholly reckoned to those who are in Christ is
either to deny that they are completely in Christ or to devalue the breadth and
the depth of the surpassing righteousness of Christ. James White’s insight here
is helpful:

While many accept the imputation of the righteousness of Christ relevant to the
remission of sins, they draw back from the idea of Christ’s active obedience toward
God being imputed as well. Frequently this problem is related to a misunderstanding
of the union with Christ that is the gracious gift to the elect. This union is important
in understanding the true nature of justification, the right standing that is given to
everyone who believes in Christ. To understand how the righteousness of Christ in
all its fullness can be the possession of the redeemed, it is important to recognize the
reality of the union of the elect with Christ. . . . So important is the union of Christ
with His people that “in Christ” or “in Him” is central to Paul’s theology of
salvation. He can say that the death of Christ was his death (Galatians 2:20), and the
resurrection of Christ his own resurrection (Ephesians 2:6). . . . “There is therefore
now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). The reason
for this is clear: all who are “in Christ” partake of His righteousness and have been
declared free from the curse of the law, and therefore there can be no possible
grounds of condemnation for them. Have they ever transgressed the law? Christ has
borne their penalty. Have they failed to love God as they should? Christ has loved
the Father perfectly in their place. The Judge has declared them just. His Son stands
in their place perfectly righteous. Who can possibly bring a charge, then, against
God’s elect (Romans 8:33)?49

If the elect are united with Christ and are therefore found in him, what aspects of his
righteousness have not been imputed to them? His entire obedience in all its
fullness is seen as their obedience in the same way that their entire sin has become

47
L&V, 14.
48
Stott, John R.W. The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986) 200.
49
White, James The God Who Justifies (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2001) 96-98.

17
his sin. That is the essence of 2 Corinthians 5:21. Stott examines the similarities
between this verse and Galatians 3:13-14:

Both verses [2Cor.5:21 & Gal.3:13] go beyond these negative truths (that he bore our
sin and curse to redeem us from them) to a positive counterpart. On the one hand he
bore the curse in order that we might inherit the blessing promised to Abraham (Gal.
3:14), and on the other, God made the sinless Christ to be sin for us, in order that ‘in
him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21). Both verses thus
indicate that when we are united to Christ a mysterious exchange takes place: he
took our curse, so that we may receive his blessing; he became sin with our sin, so
that we may become righteous with his righteousness. Elsewhere Paul writes of this
transfer in terms of ‘imputation’. On the one hand, God declined to ‘impute’ our sins
to us, or ‘count’ them against us (2 Cor. 5:19), with the implication that he imputed
them to Christ instead. On the other, God has imputed Christ’s righteousness to us.50

There is nothing in the context of either Corinthian passage to suggest that the
righteousness imputed to the elect is anything other than his entire righteousness.
They are entirely found in him by union with him. His entire righteousness is
reckoned as theirs.

Matthew 3:13-17

L&V dismiss as irrelevant Matthew 3:13-17.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John to be baptized by him in the Jordan
River. But John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by
you, and yet you come to me?” So Jesus replied to him, “Let it happen
now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John yielded to
him. After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water,
the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove
and coming on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my one dear
Son; in him I take great delight.”

Other than the keyword “righteousness,” argue L&V, this passage seems “totally
unrelated”51 to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. I must
respectfully disagree. Among the few accounts in the life of Jesus which liberal
scholars accept as historical, the baptism of Jesus is at the top of the list.52 The
reason for this fact is interesting. The baptism that John the Baptist was
administering was a baptism for repentance (Mat.3:11), and yet Jesus had nothing
of which to repent. Liberal scholars gleefully see this problem as a thorn in the
side of those who would affirm the sinlessness of Christ since those coming to be
baptized by John came confessing their sins (Matthew 3:6). However, this is a

50
Stott, 148.
51
L&V, 15.
52
Shutt, Timothy B. "The Christian Bible: The Gospels," Foundations of Western Thought: Hebrews,
Greeks, and Romans (Barnes & Noble, 2004) Audio Lecture 12.

18
problem that John the Baptist himself was the first to recognize. John had
declared that Jesus was the spotless lamb of God come to take away the sins of
the world. Asking “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?” is
another way of asking “Of what does the sinless one who comes to take away my
sin have to repent?” It is a very good question. It’s a difficult question. Many
attempts have been made to explain it.

Why did Jesus seek to be baptized? A proper understanding of baptism is the key
to answering that question. When a believer is baptized, that person is identified
with Jesus in his death and his resurrection. Identification is an essential aspect to
baptism. What Jesus is doing by being baptized is identifying himself with us.
There was nothing Jesus had to repent of and there was nothing baptism could add
to his perfect righteousness, but in his baptism Jesus identified himself with us in
our humanity that he might be our substitute—that he might be the second Adam.
He identified himself with us through baptism so that he might, in his own words,
“fulfill all righteousness.” He sanctified himself in our behalf. He submitted to
baptism so that he might fulfill all righteousness not for his own sake but for the
sake of his people, those with whom he identified in baptism. God then declared
that he was well-pleased in his Son just as all who are in him receive the good
pleasure of God. It is surely no coincidence that immediately after publicly taking
upon himself the obligation to fulfill all righteousness on behalf of his people, the
Spirit led him into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Before Jesus could
begin his public ministry, he had to be baptized, sanctified in our behalf,
identified with us, and then he had to meet the crafty serpent in the wilderness in
order to pick back up exactly where Adam failed. The baptism of Jesus
demonstrates that all which he suffered and all the righteousness he fulfilled, he
did vicariously on behalf of those he came to save. Jesus said in his high priestly
prayer (John 17:19) that he sanctified himself in behalf of his elect. Calvin
suggests that “this sanctification belongs to the whole life of Christ, yet the
highest illustration of it was given in the sacrifice of his death.”53

Old Testament Types

An often neglected subject from which one may gain insight into the work of Christ is the
area of typology in the Old Testament, particularly the OT sacrifices. There is limited
data on the first sacrifice in Genesis 3:21, but what little there is speaks volumes: “The
Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” Not only
was blood presumably shed, Adam and Eve were also clothed by the sacrifice. In this
short verse is found a wonderful foreshadowing of the great exchange which is prefigured
throughout the Old Testament.

Paul makes interesting use of two technical words from Jewish sacrificial terminology in
Ephesians 5:2: “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself
for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.” (KJV)
53
Calvin’s Commentary on John 17:19.

19
“Offering”— prosphora—usually indicates a non-bloody offering such as a grain
offering while “sacrifice”—thusia—indicates a bloody sin offering. On this verse,
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown offer the following insight:

"Offering" expresses . . . His presenting Himself to the Father, as the Representative . . .

including His life of obedience; though not excluding His offering of His body for us
(Hebrews 10:10). It is usually an unbloody offering, in the more limited sense. "Sacrifice"
refers to His death for us exclusively. Christ is here, in reference to Psalm 40:6 (quoted again
in Hebrews 10:5), represented as the antitype of all the offerings of the law, whether the
unbloody or bloody, eucharistical or propitiatory.54

It is not merely Paul’s use of these two terms which makes this verse interesting but also
the phrase “sweet-smelling savour.” Sacrifices in the Old Testament were either sweet-
smelling or not sweet-smelling. Prominent Dispensational theologians have done good
work in this area of Old Testament typology with respect to the sacrifices and the work of
Christ. Richard H. Seume of Dallas Theological Seminary wrote an article back in 1942
on divine propitiation in which he examines the Old Testament sacrifices. He states:

A thorough examination of the first five chapters of Leviticus will reveal that we have here
the most exhaustive presentation of the work of Christ in the whole canon of Scripture. The
five offerings there presented are: the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering,
the sin offering, and the trespass offering. The first three are called sweet savor offerings,
while the other two are classed as non-sweet savor offerings. . . . Standard theological
works are practically void of anything relative to the typical value of the sweet savor
offerings to the death of Christ. This omission is not commendable, for an examination of
these three offerings shows that they secure “the same sufficient legal ground for the
bestowment of merit as is provided in the non-sweet savor offerings aspect for the removal
of demerit.”55

In other words, there was both a positive aspect and a negative aspect to the Old
Testament sacrifices. The non-sweet savor offerings were the negative aspect,
typifying Christ taking the wrath of God in behalf of his elect. The sweet savor
offerings were the positive aspect, typifying Christ offering his perfect
righteousness to God in behalf of his elect. Lewis Sperry Chafer writes:

The five offerings are: the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the peace-offering, the sin-
offering, and the trespass-offering. These are properly classed as (a) sweet savor offerings,
which include the first three, and (b) non-sweet savor offerings, which include the last two.
Previously reference has been made to these five offerings and it will suffice at this point to
restate that the sweet savor offerings represent Christ offering Himself without spot to God
(Heb 9:14), and that this is substitutionary to the extent that, as the sinner is wholly void of
merit before God (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22), Christ has released and made available upon grounds
of perfect equity His own merit as the basis of the believer’s acceptance and standing before
God. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the non-sweet savor offerings represent
Christ as a sacrifice for sin, and as such the Father’s face is turned away and the Savior cries,
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Ps 22:1; Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34).56

54
Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; Brown, David A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on
the Old and New Testaments, Vol.III (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976) 415.
55
Seume, Richard Herman, “Divine Propitiation – Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 99:395 (1942) 360-361.
56
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, “Soteriology: The Savior – Things Accomplished by Christ in His Sufferings and
Death,” Bibliotheca Sacra 104:413 (1947) 18.

20
The Father poured out his wrath upon his Son. There was a non-sweet savor aspect to the
offering on the cross in which the Father forsook the Son and turned away his
countenance from him. All three synoptic gospels report that, though it was day, a
darkness covered the whole land for about three hours. “My God, my God, why have
you forsaken me?,” Jesus cried. He was forsaken in our behalf. Yet, there was more to
the cross than the bearing of God’s awful wrath. The Son was offering himself in all his
perfection to the Father. There was a sweet savor aspect to the offering in which Jesus
was not forsaken but ultimately accepted by the Father. “Father, into your hands I
commit my spirit!,” Jesus cried. He was accepted in our behalf. John F. Walvoord
writes, “Christ fulfilled that which was anticipated in both the sweet savor and the non-
sweet savor offerings which atoned for our guilt and provided a righteous basis by which
God could receive the believer in Christ.”57 The bearing of our guilt by Christ united us
with him so that his righteousness became ours in him. Jesus, the lamb without blemish,
is forsaken in our place but is ultimately accepted in our place. Infinitely forsaken but
only temporarily, Jesus emerges as the Son in whom God is well-pleased. This is why
Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians, employing Levitical vocabulary that speaks to both
aspects, can ultimately describe the offering Christ made on the cross as a “sweetsmelling
savour.” The Old Testament sacrifices have both their sweet and non-sweet fulfillment in
the whole obedience of Christ in his life and death.

Conclusion

Our Lord taught that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the
Pharisees, we will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Mat.5:20). He spoke these words
in the context of his own perfect fulfillment of the law in our behalf. “Do not think that I
have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill.”
(Mat.5:17) One need not embrace the doctrine of a covenant of works made with Adam
before the fall in order to embrace the truth that Christ fulfilled the law in order that we
may enter the kingdom of heaven with a righteousness that exceeds that of the meticulous
law-keeping scribes and Pharisees. “For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that
there is righteousness for everyone who believes.” (Rom.10:4) Many theologians
embracing Covenant Theology have linked Christ’s obedience with their belief in a
covenant of works and, in so doing, have either over-emphasized the law-keeping aspect
of Christ’s active obedience or have utterly reduced his active obedience to the formal
fulfillment of the so-called covenant of works. However, it is an overreaction against
Covenant Theology to thus conclude that the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ
imputed to the believer as historically defined is merely a system-driven, theological
sacred cow with no scriptural warrant. In evaluating the total work of Christ in light of
Old Testament types, prominent Dispensationalists have, on their own, arrived at the
same truth and have affirmed it using different terminology.

The Presbyterian’s terminology which bifurcates the obedience of Christ into active and,
particularly, passive is not helpful. It leads to confusion and a temptation to separate that
57
Walvoord, John F., “The Present Work of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122:485 (1965) 10.

21
which is inseparable. Richard Longenecker rightly stated that, “The sacrifice and the
obedience of Christ are corollaries which can never truly be separated.”58 In light of the
three great imputations taught in Scripture, it seems best to refer to Christ’s entire
obedience as active with both positive (sweet savor) and negative (non-sweet savor)
aspects which are inseparable. The first great imputation is Adam’s entire guilt from the
Fall to all people (Rom.5:12, 18a, 19a; Ps. 51:5). The second is the elect’s entire sin to
Christ (Isa. 53:4-6; Rom. 8:3-4; 1 Cor. 5:21a; Gal. 3:13). The third is Christ’s entire
righteousness to his elect (Rom. 3:21-22, 5:18a, 19b; 1 Cor.5:21b; Phil.3:9). At a time
when the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is being altogether denied by certain
theologians, it is not helpful to whittle away at or limit the righteousness of Christ that is
imputed to every believer, restricting it where Scripture does not do so. The Christian
relies not upon his own merits but upon the merits of Christ. He pretends no
righteousness of his own, but Christ is his righteousness. Eternal favor with God is not
earned by his own obedience, but the obedience of Christ guarantees God’s eternal favor
on his behalf. Martin Luther, who never employed the terms active and passive
obedience, proclaimed this glorious truth, “Lord Jesus, you are my righteousness, I am
your sin. You took on you what was mine; yet set on me what was yours.”59 Regardless
of the terminology we employ, that great truth must be embraced. Wesley said, “a
difference of expression does nor necessarily imply a difference of sentiment. Different
persons may use different expressions, and yet mean the same thing. Nothing is more
common than this, although we seldom make sufficient allowance for it. . . . Let them use
either this or such other expressions as they judge to be more exactly scriptural, provided
their heart rests only on what Christ hath done and suffered, for pardon, grace, and
glory.”60 Scripture clearly teaches that the sin of the elect is imputed to Christ and that
Christ’s righteousness is imputed to his elect (2 Cor.5:21). There is no scriptural warrant
to limit Christ’s righteousness to a righteousness without any reference to his total
obedience to the will of the Father.

The primary mistake that Lehrer and Volker make is two-fold. First, they equate the term
passive obedience with Christ’s death on the cross. Second, they equate the term active
obedience only with Christ’s Mosaic law-keeping. In holding fast to this simplistic and
flawed understanding of Reformed theology’s terms, they draw faulty conclusions from
their examination of Scripture. In every passage where the cross is front and center and
no mention is made of Christ’s keeping the laws of Moses, they repeatedly conclude that
the passive obedience is in view to the exclusion of the active. This is incorrect. Christ’s
active obedience, Reformed theologians have pointed out and Dispensationalists have
confirmed, is demonstrated most clearly in his sacrifice on the cross. Murray taught that,
“It is our Lord’s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as
active and passive, and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience
applies to the obedience of his life and the passive to the obedience of his final sufferings
and death.”61 “The two accompany each other at every point in the Savior’s life,” wrote

58
Longenecker, Richard. Paul, Apostle of Liberty (New York: Harper and Row, 1964) 152.
59
Luther, Martin Letters of Spiritual Counsel, 110.
60
Wesley, John “The Lord Our Righteousness”
61
Murray, 21.

22
Berkhof.62 Edwards concluded that the sacrifice of Christ is not merely part but “indeed
the principal part, of that active obedience by which we are justified.”63 Lewis Sperry
Chafer affirmed “that the sweet savor offerings represent Christ offering Himself without
spot to God (Heb 9:14), and that this is substitutionary to the extent that, as the sinner is
wholly void of merit before God (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22), Christ has released and made
available upon grounds of perfect equity His own merit as the basis of the believer’s
acceptance and standing before God.”64 John Piper acknowledges this historical
understanding, writing “Christ’s death itself both paid the penalty for sin and
accomplished our positive righteousness. This is one reason why in Scripture there is not
a significant distinction made between Christ’s life of obedience and Christ’s death. For
Christ’s death is his crowning act of obedience—the culminating act of obedience to the
will of God such that in it Jesus perfectly fulfills the law of God imposed upon him, such
that he achieves a positive righteousness for us.”65 To exclude active obedience from the
sacrifice of Christ and make the sacrifice synonymous with passive obedience alone is to
completely redefine the active and passive obedience of Christ. It is best to speak of the
obedience of Christ, meaning his obedience in the totality of his incarnate life, and thus
avoid the misunderstanding if not abuse of the active and passive terminology. In light of
this, Lehrer and Volker are called upon to rethink their position paper on the imputation
of the active obedience of Christ.

62
Berkhof, 379.
63
Edwards, 639.
64
Chafer, 18.
65
Piper, John Counted Righteous in Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002) 111 n58.

23