I honestly do not see how it can be considered possible to separate Christ from His benefits. So when I speak of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, this means that I am ultimately speaking of the imputation of Christ Himself, and there is no way to understand this apart from the Pauline idea of union with Christ. We may distinguish Christ and His benefits (as the Bible frequently does), but if we try to separate them, we are guilty of a very serious mistake.
We can see this clearly in Ephesians 6, where the apostle tells us to put on the full armor of God. Every piece in that panoply is given a separate name, as though it were a discrete thing. The breastplate is righteousness, the belt is truth, the helmet is salvation, and so on. But Jesus is our righteousness, Jesus is the truth, Jesus is our salvation. Putting on the armor of God is another metaphorical way to speak about putting on the Lord Jesus Himself, which we are told in numerous places to do. This is even clearer when we see the passage in Isaiah (59:16-21) where this image comes from — the Lord Himself is the one who puts on the armor. The Lord saw that there was no man, and so equipped with His own righteousness, He stepped into the breach. Paul then tells us to do the same thing, to put on that same righteousness. But it cannot be our own righteousness — the Lord is our righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 33:16).
After I wrote last week about the passage in Zechariah where Joshua the priest was clothed in a clean garment that was transferred to him (across the courtroom), I received an email from a friend, a fellow FVer. He said, “I don’t have a major objection to reading Zech. 3 as an ‘imputed righteousness’ passage . . . [but] it seems more fitting to see the rich robes with which Joshua is clothed as Christ himself, per Gal. 3, rather than merely Christ’s righteousness.” And my response to this is, “Well, certainly. Of course it is Christ Himself.” Honestly, it is has never occurred to me that the benefits that flow from Christ could ever be enjoyed outside His presence, or apart from Him.
And this leads me right back to the discussion of merit, and why I object to it. But further, lest I create more confusion in an already confused situation, let me say that my following description of merit is what I am objecting to, and if someone doesn’t hold to that which I am describing, but wants to use the word merit anyway, let’s shake and be friends. I don’t want to get into a wrangle over words merely.
At the same time, I believe there is a genuine substantive confusion going on here, and having this debate is a reasonable price to pay in order to get this confusion out of our system. I don’t ever want to use the word merit in a way that lends itself to the continuation of that confusion. In the medieval system (which continues down to the present in some quarters), merit was a quantifiable substance. In Roman Catholic theology, it is possible to have a resevoir of merit, into which the “merit” of works of supererogation can go. Merit is therefor a stackable, fungible and transferable substance, detachable from the persons who initially generated it. Merit is awarded to any action that is “above and beyond the call of duty.” In Roman Catholic theology, this resevoir can be drawn on by us, and can be contributed to by Mary, the saints, and other volunteers. In the world of good deeds, or so it is thought, it is possible to run a surplus and have a bunch left over — which other people can then use.
I imagine there are any number of criticisms that can be brought against this, and the central one of course is that it is not in the Bible. But I would like to bring a particular criticism that may help shed some light on this internal Protestant debate we are having. Works of supererogation depend upon a particular book-keeping mentality, one that depersonalizes the whole idea of obedience. My good works are in principle detachable from me, and could therefore be eventually put down in someone else’s account. Now we all agree (good Protestants all) that none of us gets any merit from Mary or the saints. But one of the FV concerns is that some Protestants have kept the medieval definition of merit itself, while limiting (in an important biblical direction) the number of people who are allowed to contribute to the pile of surplus merit. In this particular Protestant view, only Jesus generates surplus merit. Now if you must cast the debate this way, I am with them rather than with the other guys. We are saved by Christ alone, solus Christus. But further questions beg to be asked. Can we really detach Jesus from the merit of His obedience like this? I don’t believe so. This view (whether Protestant or Catholic) presupposes that merit can somehow be impersonal.
If you believe that in the life, death and resurrection of the Lord, God was operating a divine distillery through which He extracted the merit of Christ’s obedience from that obedience, storing it in a separate container in a separate place, then you hold to the view of merit that the FV is rejecting. If you don’t hold that, there is no need to get irate and post a hot comment, because if you don’t hold that, we are not rejecting it. If you hold that every blessing received by us is on the basis of God’s gift to us of Jesus Christ Himself, then you are in sympathy with one of the central FV concerns (whether you are comfortable with that sympathy or not).
One other thing. Union with Christ does not exclude the more traditional expressions of imputation. Rather, in my view, it provides a platfrom from which such expressions of imputation make better sense. This is important when we are talking about the differences between elect and non-elect covenant members. If I hold that non-elect covenant members can have union with Christ (in some sense), then is there a sense in which the elect covenant members receive something of Christ that the non-elect covenant members don’t? The answer that I would give here is an unambiguous yes. This is where the language of imputation (found in Westminster) gets pushed into the corners. A regenerate covenant member is justified (personally and individually) in a way that a non-elect covenant member is not, just like the Confession says. But I would also want to say that the justification of the elect covenant member is profoundly connected to his union with Christ. The imputation is personal, forensic, judicial and declaratory — all of that. But the imputation does not occur across an infinite distance. It is for someone, though once far off, who has been brought near.
Go back to the Jeremiah passages cited earlier. “The Lord our righteousness.” The prophet doesn’t say “The Lord has rightousness, better get some from Him.” The Lord, the Lord Himself is our righteousness. And in Him, we find all is ours (1 Cor. 3:21-23).