Synopsis

The central teaching of the Reformation was that justification is “by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.” As the Reformers developed their explanation of precisely how our gracious justification occurs, they hit upon the idea that God imputes “the righteousness of Christ” to us. This novel idea of Alien Righteousness (i.e., the idea that someone else’s righteousness is credited to us) soon became an integral subsidiary doctrine to the Reformers’ larger doctrine of justification by faith. Thus, Alien Righteousness is taught by Lutheran and Reformed theologians to this day, and even Evangelicals who do not think of themselves as Reformed have appropriated the idea, teaching that God imputes “the righteousness of Christ” to us, and “thinks of us as righteous” (even though we are not) because He sees us as clothed in the righteous works of Jesus.

While this subsidiary doctrine of Alien Righteousness commendably exalts Christ and emphasizes the impossibility of justification apart from Him, it nevertheless lacks a biblical basis for its core idea of the imputation of “the righteousness of Christ.” The main proof text brought forward on this point, Romans 5.12-19, is a passage which simply cannot bear the theological weight that has been hoisted upon it.

Therefore, those who defend the idea of Alien Righteousness often do so by implying that the only doctrinal alternative is the Roman Catholic idea of “infused righteousness.” This is the idea that ethical righteousness is infused into the soul sacramentally so that it becomes inherent in us, producing good works which finally justify us. Since this Catholic doctrine of (in effect) saving one’s self is excluded by Scripture, Reformed and Evangelical theologians thereby feel that their case for Alien Righteousness is proven by default.

However, until recently the theological debate has failed to take into account a third view of how justification works. What if righteousness is not primarily ethically-based, but relationally-based? We discover that the Hebraic principle of redemption by a kinsman provides the essential background for an alternative interpretation of the NT passages about justification, including the pivotal Romans 5 text. If we understand righteousness as primarily relational rather than ethical, then when God receives us as righteous, we really are righteous — not because we have attained to flawless ethical behavior, but because we are properly related to God by a trusting relationship, and are now members of His family.

Besides lacking scriptural basis, the doctrine of Alien Righteousness is theologically problematic in that it portrays God as self-deluding: God engages in a legal fiction and tells Himself that believers are righteous when they are not. The best attempts at rebutting this criticism of the doctrine’s portrayal of God have failed completely. Proponents of Alien Righteousness have insisted that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is no fiction because “it is a real imputation,” but they have failed to see that they are begging the question and offering no rebuttal but a restatement of their own presupposition.

This brings us to the practical and pastoral concerns regarding the idea of Alien Righteousness. Portraying  the omniscient God of truth as One who fibs to Himself has not helped the Church think correctly about Him, Scripture, or morality. Also, our teaching that “God looks at us as clothed in the righteousness of Christ” has inadvertently made Western Evangelicals complacent about pursuing God’s “kingdom and His righteousness.”

When we look again at what the Scriptures tell us explicitly about justification, we find that the righteousness we receive in justification is indeed alien, but not in the way that is popularly believed. While the righteousness we receive by faith has alien aspects, it nevertheless becomes fully our own, such that we are truly righteous in God’s sight with no need for delusion on God’s part.

If the 500-year-old doctrine of Alien Righteousness has no biblical basis, why did it take such a hold on Protestant and Evangelical theology? The surprising answer is that it is a foundation stone required in the complex doctrinal edifice that supports an ancient Catholic practice, a practice that many Protestants have been loathe to leave behind.