Jesus' Blood and Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Imputation

Trinity Journal, Fall 2007 by Fesko, J V

Brian Vickers. Jesus' Blood and Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Imputation. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006.254 pp. $14.99.

In the recent debates over the doctrine of justification in NT studies much attention has been devoted to the subject of the doctrine of imputation. While there have been articles and portions of monographs devoted to this subject, Brian Vickers offers one of the first book-length treatments of the subject in recent years. Not since John Murray's (1898-1975) The Imputation of Adam's Sin, has there been a detailed defense and exposition of the doctrine of imputation. Vickers's main thesis is that Paul teaches that both the active and passive obedience of Christ is imputed in justification, hence the title of his book. Vickers's work is divided into five main chapters in addition to an introduction and conclusion. Vickers covers the history of the doctrine, Romans 4, Rom 5:19, and 2 Cor 5:21, and then offers an exposition of the Pauline synthesis of the doctrine. In this way he covers the main texts in the Pauline corpus that deal with the doctrine of imputation.

Vickers's work has several noteworthy strengths. First, though the work was a dissertation in NT studies, Vickers spends an entire chapter rehearsing the history of the doctrine. This is a refreshing change from what one finds in much of the NT studies literature on the subject. Often authors are dismissive of the history of the doctrine and seem to approach the text unconcerned with how others have exegeted Paul on this matter. Moreover, he notes that the currently accepted paradigm of covenantal nomism, which states that perfect obedience to the law is not necessary, therefore renders the imputed righteousness of Christ superfluous. In other words, Vickers implicitly acknowledges that even those who claim only to exegete the text also bring systematic-theological presuppositions to the interpretive enterprise. Reformed theologians are not the only ones who do systematic theology.

Second, Vickers rightly interacts not only with issues related to the ordo salutis but also with matters relating to the historia salutis. Often many who have sympathies for Reformed theology look at the doctrine of imputation solely in terms of the ordo salutis, or the application of redemption to the individual. In this regard some Reformed theologians fall into the very pitfalls that some NT scholars criticize the tradition for, namely not accounting for redemptive history and issues beyond the salvation of the individual. This element of Vickers's work is particularly evident and relevant in his explanation of Rom 5:19. Here Vickers notes the redemptivehistorical connection between Adam and Christ. He points out that in many respects God's relationship to Adam is determinative for the work of Christ, something that few scholars note in the debates surrounding imputation. In other words, Vickers explains diat both Adam and Christ are covenantalheads for those whom tiiey represent. He argues, "What matters here is that Paul establishes the concept of representation as the most basic component of God's plan for creation and redemption" (pp. 150-51).

Third, Vickers's work is exegetically strong and comprehensive. Not only does he competently exegete the relevant texts under consideration, but he also looks into the OT backgrounds and likely subtexts. For example, in the disputed text 2 Cor 5:21, Vickers notes the likely OT subtext of Isaiah 40-55, specifically the passage concerning the suffering servant. This means that it is highly likely that when Paul wrote, "God made him sin, who knew no sin," that he had in mind such passages as Isa 53:6, 10-11, where the suffering servant would be a "guilt offering," would "justify many," and would "bear their sins." Seeing these likely OT subtexts strengthens Vickers's case that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a Pauline teaching.

There are some areas where the work could use some improvement or reconsideration. Minor areas of reconsideration are Vickers's treatment of the distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ and the relationship of eschatology to sanctification. Concerning the use of the distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ, it seems that Vickers is not completely aware of how Reformed theologians have employed it. For example, Vickers writes that the distinction is helpful but "should not be pressed to the point where it winds up with two mutually exclusive kinds of obedience" (p. 149). While medieval dieologians such as Anselm (1033-1104) have treated the distinction in this manner, historically Reformed theologians have not. Charles Hodge (1797-1878), for example, states that "the active and passive obedience of Christ, however, are only different phases or aspects of the same thing" (Systematic Theology, 3:143). And, in answering the objection that imputation leads to antinomianism, Vickers does not flesh out the connections between justification and eschatology, particularly the outpouring of the eschatological Spirit, which would have been helpful (pp. 228-32; cf. e.g., Gal 3:14; Ezekiel 37; Joel 2:28-32). In other words, the eschatological work of Christ in justification also brings about the outpouring of the Spirit, or the forensic leads to the transformative. Justification and the fruit of good works are inseparably joined together in the ordo and historia salutis.