Marcus Friedrich Wendelin on Christ's Imputed Righteousness

See his Christianae Theologiae, Book 1, Ch. XXV.

THESIS VII. As far as the efficient cause of justification: Its material is usually called that through and on account of which we are absolved from the curse of the law before the divine tribunal and are considered innocent and just: it is the perfect satisfaction of Christ for us, by which he himself paid the penalties owed for our sins in our place. It is also called the passive justice and obedience of Christ.

EXPLANATION. I. When we call Christ’s satisfaction the material of our justification, we speak according to the common usage. The same is also rightly called the meritorious cause of our justification, since indeed we are judged just and absolved from the curse of the law on account of this imputed [satisfaction]. However, Christ’s merit is the cause of both calling and justification in different respects. For it is the cause of calling considered absolutely, since it precedes faith; it is the cause of justification considered relatively, that is, with respect to faith, because we are not justified by Christ’s merit unless it is apprehended by faith.

II. But here it should be observed: there is a twofold obedience of Christ, namely active and passive.

Active obedience is that by which Christ led a life conforming to divine law, perfectly observing all its commandments: hence it is said that “no deceit was found in him,” Isaiah 53:9. “He knew no sin,” 2 Corinthians 5:21. “He committed no sin,” 1 Peter 2:22. “He was tempted in every way, yet without sin,” Hebrews 4:15.

Passive obedience is that by which he bore in our place the curse of the law, to which we were liable because of sins, by suffering for us and dying, and thus paying the penalty in our place. Hence Paul says in Galatians 3:13, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.”

III. Both of these types of Christ’s obedience are absolutely necessary for our redemption and justification, but not in the same way: salvation flows to us from both, but not in the same manner. For active obedience is a condition required in the mediator, without which Christ could not have been our mediator, and could have merited nothing by his death. However, if we speak properly and accurately, this obedience is not the material of our justification, nor is it imputed to us in such a way that it is considered ours and our sins are forgiven because of it and the debt of the law is paid for us: just as the passive obedience is considered ours through imputation, and because of it our sins are forgiven, and the debt is paid in our place: this is proven:

[Arg.] (1) Christ, insofar as he was human, owed active obedience to the law for himself: for every creature is bound to obey its creator, nor can God indulge man to behave in a disorderly manner any more than he can overturn the order of his justice, as the Scholastics correctly teach.

Therefore, that obedience is not imputed to us.

The reason for the consequence is sought from parity: indeed, by the same reasoning: if Christ had owed death to the law for himself and had rendered it, he could not have imputed it to us, and could not have freed us through it.

It is objected: Christ became man not for himself, but for us. Therefore, he rendered active obedience to the law not for himself, but for us, that is, in our place.

Response. 1. The antecedent is ambiguous: If you say that Christ became man for us, that is, for our benefit, it is granted; if for us, that is, in our place, it is denied. For what Christ did and became in our place, we are not bound to do and become: just as he became a curse for us, so that we would not be and would not be bound to an eternal curse. But by his incarnation, Christ did not bring it about that we would no longer be humans, or that we would [not] be bound to do things congruent with human nature.

2. The consequence is denied. For even if Christ became man not for his own benefit, but for ours, nevertheless, after he became man, he was man in himself, and therefore in himself and for himself subject to the law, as a man: just as after he assumed a body subject to corruption in itself, he also needed food, drink, rest, etc. for himself.

[Arg.] (2) If Christ had rendered active obedience in our place, so that it would be imputed to us for righteousness, we would no longer be obligated to render active obedience to the law.

But the consequent is false. Therefore, the antecedent is also false.

The reason for the connection is likewise sought from parity: indeed, for this reason we are no longer obligated to endure eternal death, because Christ endured it in our place.

Some object: Christ rendered active obedience for us for the purpose of meriting eternal life: but on this account we are no longer obligated to obedience to the law.

Response: We deny that Christ rendered active obedience in our place for the purpose of meriting eternal life. The reason being because he simply owed it for himself as a creature, which [creature] cannot be lawless. Therefore he merited nothing for us through it, even though he rendered it for our greatest good.

Those who say that through Christ’s active obedience we have it that we are no longer obligated to that rigid and exact active obedience will scarcely reconcile their opinion with the truth. For if we were no longer obligated to exact obedience to the law, we certainly would not sin by its omission and neglect, which is false. Therefore, we are altogether obligated to it. But the defect is pardoned because of the imputed obedience of the mediator Christ, not active, but passive, and gradually it is supplied through sanctification, which the mediator also merited by his passion.

[Arg.] (3) Everywhere the scripture, when it speaks of our justification and purification from sins, and their remission, makes mention not of the active but of the passive obedience of Christ. Among other scriptural testimonies, notable in this regard are:

Isaiah 53:5–6: “By his bruises (namely of the Messiah) we are healed. He has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Romans 3:24–25: “All are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

Romans 5:9: “Having now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” And verse 10: “We were reconciled to God through the death of his Son.”

Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.”

1 John 1:7: “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.”

Similar passages occur frequently.

IV. Others argue for the contrary opinion as follows:

[Arg.] (1) Two things are required for our salvation: liberation from death and the gift of life; the former is obtained through the expiation of sin by passion, the latter through the gift of righteousness, or the imputed active obedience of Christ.

Response: Christ’s passive obedience both expiates sins and gives life, because life comes to us from Christ’s death: he died to free us from death and to give life to the dead.

[Arg.] (2) Christ not only offered himself to death for us, but also sanctified himself for us, that we might be sanctified through the truth. John 17:19.

Therefore, Christ's holiness and righteousness or active obedience is also imputed to us.

Response: The consequence is denied: 1. Christ’s holiness benefits us for sanctity, even if it is not imputed to us, as we explained above. 2. In the cited passage, by Christ’s “sanctification” is not meant his active obedience; but his designation and preparation for undertaking the priestly office.

[Arg.] (3) Adam’s actual disobedience constituted us sinners.

Therefore, Christ’s actual obedience constitutes us righteous.

Response: If in the consequent, by “Christ's actual obedience” is meant active obedience (for passive can also be called actual, because Christ suffered actually, not just potentially) and that imputed to us, we deny the consequence: For whatever we lost through Adam’s disobedience is restored to us through Christ’s imputed passive obedience, which alone he rendered in our place; although he also rendered active obedience for our benefit, as we said before.

[Arg.] (4) Christ’s passive obedience was also joined with active obedience. Therefore, one is not imputed to us without the other.

Response: The consequence is denied. For, even things that are joined are nevertheless distinct, and thus as one can be known without the other, so too can it be imputed. Meanwhile, we do not deny that Christ’s voluntary passion, that is, joined with an action and readiness of the will, is imputed to us. But this has nothing to do with Christ’s active obedience, of which we speak specifically here, which Christ owed to the law as a man. For, just as he was not obligated to death as a man, so neither was he obligated to a readiness to die.

[Arg.] (5) If only Christ’s passive obedience were imputed to us, it would follow that only half of Christ was given to us, namely the suffering Christ, not the acting Christ.

But the consequent is false. Therefore, the antecedent is also false.

The assumption is proved because the whole Christ was given to us: Isaiah 9:6.

Response: The consequence of the connection is denied. For, it is one thing to be given to us, another to be imputed to us. Even Christ’s humanity and Deity are given to us, yet neither is therefore imputed to us.

Certainly, the opinion of those who deny that Christ’s passive obedience is imputed to us for righteousness, and is the cause of reward or eternal life, is harsh. For how would the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin, if it were not the cause of our righteousness? How would Christ have given his flesh for the life of the world, if life were not restored to us through him? How would we be healed by the Messiah’s bruises if we were not sanctified through him? How would Christ’s death be our life, if life did not come to us through it? There is no middle state between absolution from the curse of the law and blessing and the right of eternal inheritance.

It is objected: By enduring punishment, the law is not fulfilled. Therefore, the endurance of punishment cannot be the cause of reward or eternal life.

The antecedent is proved because the Law and God’s commandments are the same. But punishments do not fulfill the commandments of the law, but satisfy the threats of the law.

Response: The antecedent is denied: by the endurance of punishment, the law is fulfilled by the Mediator partly formally, partly efficiently. Formally, insofar as the Mediator endured in our place the punishment dictated to us by the law. Efficiently, insofar as by his punishment he not only removed the curse from us, suffering for us what the law ordered us to suffer, but also acquired holiness for us by his passion, and with holiness, eternal life: so that we owe to Christ’s death justification, sanctification, and glorification.

The proof of the antecedent is also denied, as is clear from what has been said. When the threats of the law are satisfied, then what the law commands to be done is done, and thus, in this way, the law is to some extent fulfilled.