1.21 blog

13 Responses to “Solus Christus”

1. I would argue that the notion of “active obedience” is not a Biblical concept. Yes, Christ did live a life of perfect obedience – but that is not the same as saying He did so in our place (i.e. to be imputed to us). Key texts like Romans 3:24-25 and 2 Cor 5:21 indicate that Christ’s death is the only thing required; reading ‘active obedience’ into the equation might be logical from a systematic theologians perspective, but not that of Scripture. For a concept so critical to justification, it’s odd that Paul never speaks of it.

   Nick said this on November 7, 2009 at 4:52 am | Reply

• The idea of active obedience runs throughout Scripture, Nick. It’s essential to a proper doctrine of justification. If Jesus only dies for my sins, then I’m forgiven, but I’m not righteous. God requires righteousness (iow, active obedience) (see, e.g., Psalm 40.6-8; Hebrews 10.1-18). Notice God doesn’t just want sacrifice and offering (Jesus’ passive obedience), he demands righteousness, which must either come through me, or from someone else. It can’t come from me because I’m a sinner. I will fail, I will be damned. And even if I succeed, then I’d be my Savior, at least in part. The active obedience of Jesus ensures that we are saved by Christ alone, and not by anything in ourselves. Jesus himself casts his life as “fulfilling all righteousness,” and his life, rather than merely his death is for accomplishing all that God has required (Matthew 3.15; 5.18; Luke 24.44; John 17.4-5, 19). And on Paul, he sure talks about righteousness a lot (and rarely mentions forgiveness). Philippians 3.9 indicates that he won’t stand on his own righteousness, but on the righteousness from God that depends on faith. How can Jesus be our “righteousness” (1 Cor 1.30) if his righteousness is not imputed to us?
  In light of this biblical testimony (which I’ve put together with some help from Wayne Grudem and Michael Horton), it seems that your readings of Romans 3.24-25 and 2 Cor 5.21 are deficient. Show me where they say that “only Jesus’ death was required.” No one is reading active obedience into the Bible. But plenty of people are intent on reading it out of the Bible.
  This is one of the aspects of the Reformation’s recovery of the gospel being under attack that I mentioned in earlier posts.

  Denying the active obedience of Christ reduces justification to an abridgment of God’s righteousness, and reduces Christian assurance from a place of having all the righteousness God requires (in just, legal reality, not just because God is a nice guy) to just not having God be mad at us over sin.

  geneschlesinger said this on November 7, 2009 at 10:04 am | Reply

• Hello again. Thank you for your comments.

  You say AO (Active Obedience) “runs throughout Scripture,” but that’s precisely what I’m saying I don’t see in Scripture! Romans 3:21-26 is probably the most critical passage in Romans as far as justification is concerned. Yet (as previously noted) only Christ’s death is in view here; no mention of AO, only “PO”.

  To say AO is “essential to a proper doctrine of justification” begs the question precisely because in discussing justification Paul never mentions it! Or is there are clear passage you know of where Paul advocates AO? I’ve searched the Bible and come up with nothing.

  I understand why theologians argue for the need of a ‘positive righteousness’ via AO, and it’s a logical argument – but it’s not an argument Scripture makes. One must take care not to let presuppositions of theologians drive our exegesis. The common theme in the NT (esp Paul) is that Christ’s Death is what makes up for our failure to keep the Law, thus removing our obligation to it. To keep the Law after it’s been abolished and atoned for is superfluous (indeed, a mockery to God, cf Heb 10:26-29). Note Gal 2:21 – ‘if righteousness came by keeping the Law, then Christ died for nothing’ – the contrast is keep the law to Christ dying, not you keep the law versus Christ keep the law.

  And let’s not forget, PO is Christ’s Righteousness par excellence! (Note the context of 1 Cor 1:30 = 1:18,23 ;2:2 = PO alone. Same with Phil 3:9 = 3:10,11.) So imputing that is very much a grounds for salvation; and I believe the only ground (a la Rom 3:21-26 & 2 Cor 5:21).

  You say my reading of Rom 3:21-26 and 2 Cor 5:21 is off the mark regarding PO alone, but I ask: where do they suggest anything more? From a plain reading of them, all they speak of is Christ’s death. I’m not trying to be heavy here, that’s honestly all I see, and my conscience wont just let me read AO into it to ‘satisfy’ a theologian’s formula. And please don’t get me wrong, nothing I’ve said makes me my own Savior; Christ’s role as Savior is precisely in His PO role, something I could never fulfill. God’s Righteousness is not abridged, but it is (in fact) only described as satisfied in relation to Christ’s death (which is what Rom 3:21-26 is about).

  I welcome any further comments.

  Nick said this on November 8, 2009 at 4:14 pm

• You’ve given a thoughtful response, but you’ve not responded to the substance of the verses I’ve cited, where God very clearly demands not just sinlessness (something negative), but obedience (something positive) (add to this Matthew 5.17-20; 19.16-22; 22.37-40). This is bound up in the Bible’s conception of righteousness. It’s not just being innocent or blameless, but rather of being righteous.

  Now, I admit that this is a logical argument. But I don’t see it as being exegetically invalid. It’s allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Here’s the syllogism: God demands righteousness of humanity (a positive life of obedience and praise). Christ provides Christians with their (his) righteousness (what Paul says). Therefore, Christ provides Christians with his positive life of obedience and praise. The only way to avoid this would be (1) to violate the hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, (2) pit Paul against the gospels and other texts, and/or (3) have Paul explicitly say that when he’s discussing righteousness he doesn’t mean a life of positive obedience and praise to God like the rest of the Bible means. You won’t get anywhere with options one or two, at least not unless you want to contest the unity of the Bible. And in the absence of number three, it’s exegetically irresponsible to remove the notion of active obedience from Paul’s conception of righteousness.

  The notion of law keeping actually further strengthens my point. Christ’s death does remove my obligation to keep the law for my righteousness. But it’s part of my gratitude towards God to keep it now (cf. John 14.15; also noting 1 Cor 9.22; Romans 7.12, 22). So obligation might not be the right word, but we should note that the Law is good. God doesn’t just dispense with it. He hasn’t changed his mind about it. He still requires perfect law keeping. It’s just that now it’s not me who must keep it, Christ has. And in him it’s as if I had. To deny the active obedience of Christ fails to account for the abiding significance of the law (cf. Matthew 5.17ff).

  geneschlesinger said this on November 8, 2009 at 4:59 pm

• I’d further argue that since in Romans 5, Jesus is depicted as the last Adam that we need to keep in view the Covenant of Works with Adam. Adam broke this covenant and failed the test. All humanity is under the covenant of works and condemned in Adam. Jesus comes as the second Adam and redeems humanity by fulfilling the covenant of works. His life merits salvation positively, while his death clears the way for it negatively.

  geneschlesinger said this on November 8, 2009 at 7:53 pm

2. I’m not sure which verses I have not sufficiently addressed, but I’ll briefly comment on the verses you listed:
   -Psalm 40.6-8; this is primarily speaking of Christ’s body prepared as a sacrifice, clearly more PO focused.
   -Hebrews 10.1-18; this quotes the above verses, Ps 40:6-8, but again is in the context of OT sacrifices and sacrificing Himself, the whole passage is PO par excellance.
   -Matthew 3.15; come to fulfill all righteousness means revealing Himself as the Messiah and fulfillment of OT types (eg only Christ is the Passover Lamb, not something he became because we couldn’t). Further, he is speaking in reference to the start of His public ministry, which means “now the time has come” cannot refer to AO (which would have begun at His infancy).
   -Matthew 5.18; again, this is about fulfilling the Law, which is not identical to AO at all (e.g. Jesus is the Bread of Heaven, fulfilling the Manna, not AO related at all). Further, he says that right as he’s about to give a whole new list of demands on His followers, superior to the OT Law demands.
   -Luke 24.44; this confirms everything I’ve said above regarding these verses, when it says “everything written about me must be fulfilled” it points to Christ being the full revelation of what the OT gave as a shadow or prophecy (e.g. Lk 9:22).
   -John 17.4-5, 19; this speaks of Jesus fulfilling the work He was sent to do, which most especially is speaking of His coming to die. It cannot simply be assumed this means keeping the Law in place of us.

   This is a far cry from evidence pointing to Christ keeping the Law in our place. As for your claims about how the Bible sees righteousness, you’ve got to be careful not to truncate the full range of it’s meaning. For Paul repeatedly talks of ‘righteousness’ ‘just’, ‘justification’, etc, but in contexts of a purely PO nature. (The term ‘righteousness of God’ appears in Rom 3:21-26 and 2 Cor 5:21).

   I understand the merits of making a logical argument and allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, but in this case of AO the Biblical evidence for PO is wildly abundant while the evidence presented for AO is scant. Thus all you have is a logical argument, but given the lack of clear AO evidence I’d say your fighting an uphill battle.

   Examining your syllogism:
   (1) God does demand righteousness in the form of obeying His Commandments.
   (2) Christ provides Christians with His Righteousness.
   (3) Thus Christ provides the AO Righteousness God demands.

   This is a logical argument, and stands true on it’s own. However, it doesn’t take into account sin and failing to be obedient – and that’s the hinge on which this turns. It is precisely because we failed in #1 that an alternative path had to be introduced, and the solution, described especially in terms of ‘righteousness’, was Christ’s death. What is key to remember is that PO is genuine obedience and righteousness.

   Given the fact you didn’t take the breaking of the Law into the equation, I cannot be (1) violating Scripture interprets Scripture, or (2) pitting Paul against other texts. To not take forgiveness of sin into account in that syllogism is like missing the foundation of the New Covenant (Mat 26:28; Heb 10:16-17; Jer 31:33-34). The New Covenant is founded upon forgiving sins and removing them from the obligation for perfect obedience. As for your point (3) on Paul saying he doesn’t mean ‘positive obedience’ when discussing righteousness, again he speaks of only Passive in key justification contexts, which is the strongest proof I can offer. Gal 2:21 is a very strong proof in terms of explicitness.

   You conclude by saying Christ’s death removes our obligation for perfect obedience and that we keep it out of gratitude. I give a heartfelt Amen to that, no disagreement. That only points us further away from AO, both logically and exegetically. For you to end up concluding God still requires perfect law keeping, I ask where does the Bible say this? It directly contradicts the notion we are dispensed from our obligation to the law, which you just affirmed. Breaking God’s law is like breaking a priceless vase, it cannot be undone, only a punishment/forgiveness can suffice. Upon punishment/forgiveness, your obligation to perfectly keeping the (already) broken law is dispensed by definition.

   I understand your Adam-Christ parallel argument, but again, with sin introduced in the equation it isn’t a direct parallel anymore. That’s why you must remember that Passive Obedience is genuine obedience, and in fact the only thing in reference when “obedience” is mentioned in Scripture: Phil 2:8; Heb 5:8.
   The Bible unequivocally states we’ve been reconciled to God by Christ’s death, meaning friendship has been restored, which is impossible if death simply puts one in a ‘neutral’ state still requiring a ‘positive’ law keeping righteousness.

   Nick said this on November 9, 2009 at 4:21 am | Reply

• OK…first of all, I don’t like the way wordpress is threading these comments. It makes it much harder to follow the argument. Apologies all around.

  Now, on to substantive matters.
  - On Psalm 40.6, you state that this is a reference to Christ’s body prepared as a sacrifice, but the verse actually says that God has not desired sacrifice and offering. So you’re misreading it. Sacrifice is good and necessary after the fall of man. But God’s design and desire is for obedience and righteousness. Further, in the Hebrew, it actually says, “You have given me an open ear.” This has to do with listening to God and responding to him in obedience.

  - On Hebrews 10, the same issue is involved as in Psalm 40. Also, I fail to see how a passage having Christ’s passive obedience in view denies his active obedience. These two can be distinguished but they should never be separated. The passive obedience of Christ, is actually the culmination of his active obedience. And the whole package is imputed to believers. But in explaining justification, it’s pedagogically helpful to distinguish between these two aspects.

  - On Matthew 3.15, Jesus, who needs no repentance, is baptized with a baptism of repentance. He is showing solidarity with us in his human life. He is fulfilling the requirements of the law in our place. The idea that he’s fulfilling the types of the OT makes no sense, as John’s baptism was somewhat of a novum, and isn’t in the OT. Also absent are references to Passover and Manna (unless you count John’s identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God in John’s Gospel. And even if you do, that doesn’t do away with the point Jesus is making in Matthew). Further, as to it being at the beginning of the public ministry, that’s not a problem. I just said it’s an example of his active obedience, not the sum of it, nor the beginning of it.

  - On Matthew 5.18. You are confusing Law with Old Testament. Not only is there no reference to the Bread of Heaven in this text, but Jesus specifically refers to commandments. The Manna was a provision, not a commandment. He has ethical obedience to the law in view here. Further, it’s a hermeneutical mistake to say that he’s about to give a new list of demands to his followers. Instead, he’s showing them what the true significance of the Law is. He’s showing them how hard it’s really been all along. The law is summed up in the Great Commandments to love God wholeheartedly and constantly, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22). That’s essentially what Jesus is getting at here. “You think you are law keepers, but you fall abysmally short.”

  - Luke 24.44, OK, here you can finally make your typology argument. Yes, Jesus is the True Manna, Lamb, Temple, Priest, Prophet, King, etc. But he’s also the fulfillment of the law in its ethical sense. He says EVERYTHING. Not just “every type.”

  - John 17.4-5, 19. If this is a reference to Jesus’ death, in what sense has he completed it? He hasn’t died yet. He hasn’t even been arrested yet. He has LIVED the LIFE he was required to.

  On truncating righteousness. I’m not truncating it. I’m allowing the full range of the biblical testimony to speak. It’s truncating it to read the Pauline statements in ISOLATION from the testimony of the rest of Scripture. Because the Bible speaks of righteousness in the sense I’m arguing, then Paul, who is steeped in the Bible himself, should be assumed to be as well. Which means that these are texts that aren’t of a “purely PO nature.” The death of Christ is the ground upon which the life of Christ can be imputed to those who grasp him by faith.

  Now, as far as my syllogism not taking sin into account, I had assumed that since we both agreed on the necessity of Christ’s passive obedience, I didn’t have to belabor that point. However, since you’ve brought it up, there are some unstated premises to the syllogism as well. Such as, “Mankind, as sinners, are incapable of offering this requisite righteousness to God.” And “Because of their breach of righteousness, death is required.” This doesn’t change the syllogism, though.

  Further, God offering an “alternate way” is problematic. Did God make a mistake by entering a Covenant of Works with Adam? Will he abandon his fixed purposes, which are in accord with his eternal nature? By conceiving of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ in terms of the covenant of works, we see that God DOESN’T have to change his mind. We’re saved in the same way, but a different Adam saves us now.

  To your further points, as I’ve shown, I’ve not failed to take sin or forgiveness of sin into account. Instead, these matters were never in dispute and therefore didn’t need to be treated explicitly. Moreover, your argument is a non-sequitor. Even if I HAD failed to take them into account, that doesn’t mean that you’ve not violated the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, nor that you’ve not pitted Paul against other texts, and so on. The one has no logical bearing on the other. Finally, I’ve pointed out that the rest of Scripture DEMANDS that we understand righteousness in the sense of positive obedience. Therefore, Paul doesn’t have to explicitly point it out. We should assume he’s thinking within a biblical framework. Yours is an argument from silence. And it’s only an argument from silence in CERTAIN TEXTS, not the whole of Scripture.

  God requires perfect law keeping because it’s in his nature as a just and righteous God. This requirement IS still in force. But it’s a requirement that’s been met in the case of believers BY CHRIST. All who are outside of Christ are still under the terms of the Covenant of Works with Adam, and must keep the law perfectly themselves. All who are in Christ, are under the terms of the covenant of grace, and have had Christ keep the law in their place. God hasn’t relaxed his standards. Instead, he has met his own standards. And now, in Christ, I have kept the law perfectly, at least so far as God is concerned. I am simul iustus et peccator.

  The Adam-Christ argument isn’t mine. It’s Paul’s (see Romans 5). It is a direct parallel. Because though Adam sinned and failed, Christ succeeded. He has MERITED eternal life for all whom he represents. Just like Adam would have. And he has died, to remove the barrier of sin introduced by Adam.

  I agree that Passive obedience is genuine obedience. But you still have to take into account the rest of Scripture (which I have shown you haven’t in my response to your treatment of the verses above). Therefore, PO isn’t the only thing in reference when obedience is mentioned.

  geneschlesinger said this on November 9, 2009 at 10:53 am | Reply

• Ps 40:6 apparently has a textual variant, because the version I’ve always seen is “but a body you have prepared for me.” But either way, the sacrifices “not desired” are in reference to the Levitical ones, not Christ’s sacrifice. Since this passage is directly quoted in Heb 10, I’m reading it through the context of Heb 10.

  Hebrews 10 is concerned strictly with PO: “8When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. … when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins”
  Note how “do your will” of Ps 40 is directly fulfilled in Christ sacrificing Himself. I’m not so much saying it denies AO, but rather I’m saying AO is non-existent. There is a clear distinction between coming to die for us and keeping the Law for us. I understand how *IF* both were true, they could be taking place concurrently, but there is still a distinction rather than conflation: keeping the Law perfectly never required someone to suffer/die (that’s the point!), so AO cannot be conflated with PO; it cannot be the ‘culmination of’ AO.
  What I’m trying to get across is that (from my perspective) I read the text as if AO doesn’t exist, so I don’t have the burden of proving AO is implied in any given text, especially in texts where PO is solidly established.

  Matthew 3.15. Are you suggesting Jesus was Baptized for us? That cannot be right for multiple reasons, especially considering we get Baptized ourselves (and thus cannot have been done by proxy).
  I agree that John’s Baptism was a “new thing” – a thing especially focused on ushering in the Messiah, getting people focused on a radical change to come. But this only serves to discredit the notion of AO, because it’s not a law per se, and thus He’s ‘actively obeying’ something not technically required.
  My point was not that He was fulfilling a specific OT type (though He could have been), but rather that His Baptism was His official start of His public ministry. For 30 years His life remained hidden away, and now it’s time to reveal Himself.

  Matthew 5.18. You said I am “confusing Law with Old Testament,” and that there is no reference to Bread of Heaven but rather commandments. I see what you mean, my point was simply that “fulfill” is *not* synonymous with “keep in our place.” As Jesus goes on in the Sermon, using the format of “You have heard it said…but I say to you,” that is fulfilling the Law in the sense of bringing out it’s fullest meaning, not about keeping those laws in our place. His demands are higher than the demands of the OT Law; it’s a new list under a new covenant. Take his example of Divorce (5:32): you could legally divorce your wife in the Old Covenant and still be a righteous individual (Mat 1:19); that’s no longer true under Christ.
  I also disagree with the notion of “you think you are lawkeepers, but you fall abysmally short” for that’s not indicated in the text. He is only displeased with the Pharisees, who do things with the wrong motives.

  Luke 24.44. You’re still misreading this. The point is “everything written about *ME* in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” It’s not about “ethical” requirements of the Law but rather all things foreshadowing or prophesying of Christ. These applied to Christ and only to Christ. Being a fulfillment of something is not synonymous with ‘substitute’.

  John 17.4-5, 19. You said: “If this is a reference to Jesus’ death, in what sense has he completed it? He hasn’t died yet. He hasn’t even been arrested yet. He has LIVED the LIFE he was required to.”
  This cuts both ways, for if He hasn’t even been arrested/died/etc yet, then it’s impossible that His AO was completed. The only option is a definitive break, making everything after this apply to PO only.
  The understanding being conveyed is that: (1) “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you”(v1), meaning the imminent hour of Him dying has arrived. (2) “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world” (v6), indicating the conclusion of Jesus’ public ministry.

  When I spoke of “truncating” the range of the term “righteousness,” my point was that Paul speaks of ‘righteousness’ in contexts relating to dying only. The ‘keeping of the law’ righteousness is not the same type of righteousness relating to dying for sin; they’re of a different nature (Gal 2:21). It’s not a matter of isolating it from the rest of Scripture, but rather reading Paul in his own thought and parameters. We can’t just say since ‘righteousness’ is applied to ‘keeping the law’ that it must contain that meaning whenever it’s used elsewhere.

  One thing that might clear up the issue is this question: What is Galatians 2:21 saying?
  I read it as saying saving righteousness comes by Christ’s death, not keeping the Law (with emphasis on the contrast between keep the Law versus die).

  As for the syllogism, while it might not change for your framework, it certainly does for mine. In the PO only framework, PO is the only solution to breaking of the Law *and* ground for reconciliation. Now while you don’t agree that it is an “alternative way,” that’s how the PO only framework sees it.

  God did not make a mistake with His demands on Adam, but I don’t even see how that’s relevant. He can have demands for Adam, but that doesn’t logically necessitate the demands still apply upon violating God’s orders. Are we still required not to eat of the tree? That wasn’t directed at us, nor is it even an option anymore. Experiencing Eden is removed as an option today. Demands can and do change. This does not violate God’s nature either, for as long as a demand (e.g. forbidding eating a fruit) is not contrary to His nature, it is good and just. I think you got it very wrong to suggest “we’re saved in the same way,” for the salvation in Adam had nothing to do with death and resurrection where as that’s what Christ’s salvation is all about (Rom 4:25).

  You went onto say how Rom 5 is a “direct parallel,” but it cannot be without turning Jesus into a mere man who just happened to get it right. The salvation merited by Christ is superior to that of Adam – for example it includes Resurrection from the dead! 1 Cor 15:45- “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” Adam could only pass on earthly life or death; Jesus could pass on Supernatural Life.

  Lastly, since you agree that PO is genuine obedience, distinct from AO obedience, then the burden is on you to show the two are being combined or spoken of at the same time in any given text. Genuine obedience/righteousness stands on its own, else it’s not genuine; so when you read a given individual occurrence of the term as a conflated/concurrent account of the two, that burden is on you to prove such.

  My position relies on three solid principles, directly affirmed from clear Scriptural texts:
  (1) PO is the only thing mentioned in key justification texts.
  (2) No clear evidence in the form of “Christ kept the Law in your place” can be found.
  (3) Keeping the Law is contrasted to Christ dying.

  The only merits of your position is the logical argument based on Adam needing ‘perfect law keeping righteousness’ so – if this “covenant of works” remains binding – Christ needs to supply it for us.

  While that is logical (I admit), I don’t believe it is Scriptural (based on the 3 principles I just gave); and Scriptural trumps philosophical every time.

  Nick said this on November 9, 2009 at 5:16 pm

• I hope to respond to this sometime tomorrow before I leave town for a couple of days. However, I’m a pastor, and not just a freelance theologian, so I have other duties than carrying on theological debate. Just wanted to be sure you know that if I don’t get to it you’re not being ignored.

  geneschlesinger said this on November 9, 2009 at 5:46 pm

• Before I begin, I need to say that this has been a stimulating debate, but that the time for it to end is near. I have multiple responsibilities and cannot devote the requisite time to responding to things over and over again. I think by this point, we’ll have made our cases, so I don’t feel I’m ending things prematurely. This doesn’t have to be the last post, but the last post is coming soon. And when the debate ends, I need to be the one to have the last word. This is because as an elder of my church, I am charged to teach sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it (Titus 1.9). Therefore, I cannot allow challenges to what our elders have determined to be sound teaching to go unresponded to on our official church blog. I hope you will understand and respect this.

  Now on to the debate.

  I see that saying the PO of Jesus was the culmination of his AO was not the best way to put it. Here’s what I’m trying to get at: what’s imputed to us is the obedience of Jesus, the whole obedience of Christ. In a sense it’s all active obedience, because there’s no point where he’s passive, even in his death. But in any case, if the whole obedience of Jesus is imputed to us, then that must include what we commonly refer to as his active obedience, unless you deny that his obedience to God was not actual obedience. We cannot separate and abstract his life from his death. “Active obedience” is a way of talking about how he has fulfilled the positive requirements of the law. “Passive obedience” is a way of talking about how he has fulfilled the negative requirements of the law (penalties). They cannot be separated. If you say Jesus’ obedience is imputed to us, that must include his “active obedience” as that is actual obedience on his part, and his works cannot be separated from himself.

  On Matthew 3 Yes, Jesus was baptized for us. You have to remember that the Baptism of John is not the same as Christian Baptism. John’s baptism was a symbolic act of repentance. Jesus needs no repentance, and he’s still being baptized to fulfill all righteousness. He is showing his solidarity with us. He is going through what we are required to do. Your reading still fails to take into account the exchange between Jesus and John, where John needs baptism but Jesus doesn’t, and yet Jesus is baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

  I think your reading of the Sermon on the Mount is strained. Jesus says he’s going to fulfill the law. The natural understanding of this would be to meet its requirements, not to explain them. I can explain something without fulfilling it. I disagree with your understanding of divorce in this passage. Jesus is explaining the restrictions that were always there in the Mosaic Law. Divorce is permissible only on grounds of sexual immorality (which, incidentally, Joseph thought was going on). But that’s a side issue. I think that the notion of falling short of the law is very clearly in view. Jesus says our righteousness must exceed the most “righteous” people around (the Pharisees). He says we must be perfect as the Father in Heaven is Perfect. Tell me you’re doing that and not falling short, abysmally short. This is also the point of the story of the rich young ruler. He thought he was keeping the law, but fell abysmally short.

  On Luke 24, I would say that ALL of Scripture is about Christ. This is the hermeneutic he himself introduces in Luke 24.27; John 5.39. Even the ethical requirements of the law point us to Christ, because we can’t keep them. We need Christ.

  On John 17, I still think your reading is unnatural. And to say that it’s the only reading is an overstatement. Jesus is constantly talking about how he does the will of the one who sent him. Now he’s completed it. It’s a stretch to apply this solely to the cross. It’s like you’re saying that his “active obedience” isn’t real obedience.

  On Paul and righteousness, You have to take into account that Paul doesn’t live in a vacuum, he’s a product of his culture, living as a first century Jew, whose categories are influenced by the Scriptures, which speak of righteousness in terms of positive obedience. It’s the most natural reading to assume that a first century Jew will think of righteousness in these terms, unless he explicitly says otherwise. Seen in this light, we can understand Paul to be saying that this righteousness (as if we’d kept the law) comes to us on the basis of Christ’s death (because he did keep the law). The angle of it coming through the death of Christ is Paul’s unique emphasis in relation to his culture. But the idea of what righteousness actually is, should be understood in terms of how Paul as a first century Jew would have viewed it.

  On Galatians 2.21, we’re basically given two options, be righteous by perfectly keeping the law, or on the basis of Christ’s death. But that doesn’t mean that righteousness isn’t a result of law-keeping. It’s just that it’s not our law keeping. We’re righteous by Christ’s work on our behalf. But Christ is righteous by his keeping of the law. Otherwise you’re saying that God (not just Paul) defines righteousness in contradictory ways. Because we’re talking about righteousness BEFORE GOD here.

  On Adam and God’s demands, you miss the point, the Covenant of Works was made with Adam. We, as his descendants, are implicated in it. His failure was our failure. As a result, we’re condemned to sin and misery. It doesn’t matter whether or not we eat the fruit, because in Adam, we all ate the fruit. And now we’re sinners by nature, and by our own actual sins. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Romans 5 does not contrast Adam and Christ, showing that Christ has succeeded where Adam failed and restored what Adam ruined. Further, by saying that this parallel is invalid because of a lack of death and resurrection is to make the same mistake you accused me of, ignoring the reality of sin. Death and resurrection are only necessary after the fall, because death is the consequence of breaking the covenant of works.

  Paralleling Adam and Christ does not make Jesus a mere man, who happened to get it right. Your proof of this is nonsensical. You point to the resurrection of the dead. But this is only necessary after the fall. There would be no need for Adam’s success to have included the resurrection of the dead because there would have been no dead. Christ undoes the effects of Adam’s transgression, albeit in a much greater way. What we gain in Christ is better than what we lost in Adam. But had Adam passed the test, he and his descendants would have eaten the Tree of Life and been confirmed in everlasting blessedness. Christ doesn’t return us to a natural/neutral Edenic state. Eden was probationary. Christ gives what we would have gained had Adam succeeded.\

  \As regards PO being genuine, surely you agree that AO is genuine obedience as well. If Christ’s obedience is imputed to us, then surely you cannot separate one “aspect” of it, as it were, from the other. This is what I mean by the two being distinguished, not that they are distinct, but that Christ’s obedience encompasses both perfect obedience to the law, and perfect satisfaction of the law’s penalties.

  Finally, you write
  My position relies on three solid principles, directly affirmed from clear Scriptural texts:
  (1) PO is the only thing mentioned in key justification texts.
  But Paul as a first century Jew would have understood righteousness as meaning positive obedience, not just innocence.
  (2) No clear evidence in the form of “Christ kept the Law in your place” can be found.
  If Christ did perfectly keep the law (which you maintain). And if his righteousness is imputed (which you maintain), then I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that either his obedience can be divided and separated, and that only his death is imputed rather than the entire package.
  (3) Keeping the Law is contrasted to Christ dying.
  Our keeping the law is contrasted to Christ dying, not to Christ’s keeping the law, or keeping the law in general.

  geneschlesinger said this on November 10, 2009 at 11:50 am

• I thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues, and I recognize you’re need (and right!) to have the last word. Thus these are my final comments, I’ll be as brief as I can:

  (1) I agree that even PO can be described as ‘active’ in that He willfully suffered from start to finish, but that’s not how ‘active’ is used in AO. In AO, ‘active’ is in reference to the need for a perfect law-keeping record. Jesus certainly kept the law perfectly, but my position states this ‘perfect law keeping record’ is not a component in our justification (based on the numerous texts mentioning only PO).

  (2) Jesus was Baptized ‘for us’, but not ‘in place of us’, else it’s illogical for Him to demand Baptism of us (which I didn’t see you respond to). Further, it was not a Mosaic legal demand, so it technically doesn’t contribute to a perfect law keeping record. Jesus’ Baptism was a Theophany more than anything, so what He says to John is not about ‘doing it in John’s place’.

  (3) There is a dispute over what ‘fulfill the law’ means. You seem to indicate it means/includes ‘keep the law perfectly’, but I don’t believe that fits (for Jesus goes on in ch5-7 to teach the fulfilled OT demands rather than say/indicate He’s going to keep it for them). Places like Romans 13:8-13 (speaking to Christians) says “love is the fulfillment of the law,” and this fits the Sermon on the Mount fulfilled OT requirements, but it doesn’t fit Jesus keeping the Law for us. Love is the fulfillment means Christian Love gets at the true heart of the Law, and is impossible without agape. Paul calls Christians to fulfill the Law here (which certainly doesn’t mean never sin again). As for the divorce situation, the Mosaic Law allowed divorce for a range of things, Jesus did not allow such a ‘freedom’: Mat 19:3-9 gives the full details, saying Moses gave this ‘freedom’ due to hardness of hearts, Jesus overturns this (and rightly so).
  About the Pharisees, they were only outwardly righteous (Mt 23:28,35), thus what is to be ‘exceeded’ is demonstrating a inward righteousness (see esp Matt 6).
  The Rich Young Man kept all of Christ’s first set of demands, but didn’t keep the final demand (Mk 10:21-22).

  (4) Lk 24 is speaking of foreshadowings of Christ, that’s as much as can be granted. Anything else is gratuitous.
  Note even the context:
  “44He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
  Nothing in the form of AO is mentioned, only PO.

  (5) John 17 is going to have to be a stalemate: Whatever Jesus “completed” (if understood in an absolute rather than elastic sense), it couldn’t be either AO or PO, for the simple reason it was only the Last Supper and a whole day of obedience still awaited Him.

  (6) Agreed that Paul didn’t live in a vacuum and his view of righteousness was not unaware of the ‘positive law keeping’ sense. But there is also strong sense of ‘righteousness’ beyond that, especially in the Prophets, where “righteousness” takes on a sense of ‘deliverer’ (Jer 33:14-18). And just how God delivered man, through Jesus, totally transformed Paul’s thinking, showing it’s the heavenly righteousness that saves, not the earthly: Rom 10:5-10 contrasts the ‘righteousness of the law’ to the ‘righteousness of faith’, two different beasts (Phil 3:6,9). The latter is wholly apart from the law (Rom 3:23; 4:10; Gal 2:21). And certainly the “Righteousness of God” is not one that God earned by keeping the Law, rather it’s a righteousness according to His nature. The way righteousness is tied to Christ’s death is too radical and unique to simply say AO must be implied in the mere mention of righteousness.

  (7) You said: “On Galatians 2.21, we’re basically given two options, be righteous by perfectly keeping the law, or on the basis of Christ’s death. But that doesn’t mean that righteousness isn’t a result of law-keeping. It’s just that it’s not our law keeping.”

  The problem with that is that the wording shouldn’t speak of Christ’s death but rather Christ keeping it for us, if your assertion is true. The contrast of us keeping the Law versus Christ dying doesn’t allow “and/or Christ keeping the law in our place.” Christ’s death did away with the Law, so it makes no sense to require keeping it – in fact it would be more logical to keep the Law forever intact if Christ is keeping it in our place. The righteousness the law offers is not the saving righteousness we need, that’s precisely what Phil 3:6,9-11 is saying.

  (8) The point of eating the fruit was that such prohibitions only applied to Adam, not us or Christ. Christ didn’t pass Adam’s test, he was born under the Mosaic Law and thus subject to a whole slew of demands not required of Adam (Gal 4:4-5). Romans 5:6-11 puts the whole salvation/reconciliation in light of Christ’s death, which is then recapitulated in Rom 5:19, otherwise Paul is pulling AO out of nowhere when it never was mentioned prior.
  As for death being the consequence of sin, that’s true, but the whole notion of “grace abounded all the more” is that whatever bad God allows to happen, a much greater good emerges than possible beforehand. Thus Salvation in Christ is superior to what Adam could provide.

  (9) As for AO being genuine obedience, I deny in so far I don’t see AO as part of the picture. Sure Jesus perfectly kept the law, but that obedience isn’t imputed. That obedience only entitled Him to be the Spotless Lamb and High Priest, but it was only necessary in that limited sense, just as Christ’s human body was necessary for Him to be able to experience death though the death itself is where the imputed component rests.

  (10) Finally:
  (a)”Paul as a first century Jew would have understood righteousness as meaning positive obedience, not just innocence.”
  This doesn’t take into account the alternate meaning of ‘righteousness’, which the Prophets clearly explain as God’s ‘deliverance’. That’s what Paul had in mind. And righteousness relating to death is certainly a brand new take on everything, so saying AO has to be implied is unwarranted.

  (b) “If Christ did perfectly keep the law (which you maintain). And if his righteousness is imputed (which you maintain), then I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that either his obedience can be divided and separated, and that only his death is imputed rather than the entire package.”
  We would think there would be at least ONE clear passage indicating AO. We shouldn’t have to rely on back door approaches like this. His sinlessness is only ‘necessary’ in the limited sense it was a requisite for Him to be a worthy sacrifice. Take this example: a hero needs food to live, it is ‘necessary’ for him to eat and thus act heroically, but only a heroic deed qualifies him to be a hero. Apart from Rom 5:19, the only other time “obedience” is applied to Christ are in contexts that disallow AO: Phil 2:8,’obedience unto death, even death on a cross’ doesn’t allow inserting “AO unto death”; as does Heb 5:8, ‘he learned obedience from what he suffered’ disallows “learned AO from suffering”.

  (3) “Our keeping the law is contrasted to Christ dying, not to Christ’s keeping the law, or keeping the law in general.”
  That’s my point though, Christ keeping the Law is a non factor.
  Also, I don’t remember your comments ever incorporating the fact the Law is abolished by His death, so using it as a standard by which to justify is illogical.

  The Cross Alone is powerfully portrayed in Gal 6:
  “14May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.”
  The Law couldn’t do that, it couldn’t make a new creation, and circumcision means nothing as far as new creation is concerned.

  Nick said this on November 11, 2009 at 7:27 am

• Thanks for your understanding on this matter. I appreciate the way you’ve approached our interactions, and hope that this can serve as an example of how people who strongly disagree about substantive issues can engage in a respectful civil dialogue and even debate about them.

  To your point one, in describing PO as “active” I was simply pointing out that active and passive are heuristic categories to describe what’s going on. There’s a sense in which they are helpful. There’s a sense in which they are not. This discussion highlights one of the ways they are not helpful labels. I still fail to see how we can really separate the “active” and “passive” aspects of Christ’s obedience. They’re all of a piece. True, the Bible mentions his death without explicitly mentioning his life. But I think it’s an invalid separation of his obedient life from his obedient death to say that only his death is imputed to us. If God imputes the obedience of Jesus to us, why would he only impute part of that obedience?

  To point two, I thought I had responded to the fact that we are baptized as well. But perhaps it slipped my mind (there are a lot of balls in the air here). We must remember that John’s baptism and Christian baptism are treated as different rites in the NT (see especially acts). By demanding Christian baptism, God is not contradicting anything. It’s a different rite. Furthermore, God still demands that I not kill my neighbor or commit adultery. These don’t contradict the death of Jesus on my behalf (or his keeping the law perfectly in my place). We have to remember the distinction between law and gospel in dealing with this. Law says, don’t kill. Gospel says, even murderers are brought back to God on the basis of what Christ has done. It does not say, God now allows murder. The sacraments are an interesting intersection of the two. They are a law, in that God tells us to do them. But they are also gospel because God works through them to confirm and seal his promises to us. But that’s a different conversation. I would still say , though, that if John’s baptism is a baptism of repentance (and it is), and if Jesus didn’t need to repent (and he didn’t), and if he said that his submission to baptism was to fulfill all righteousness (and he did), then it makes sense to read this as being somehow in our place. It wasn’t just to reveal himself.

  To your point three, the near context of Christ’s statement that he will fulfill the law has to do specifically with keeping the commandments (see verses 17-19). It may include more than perfect law-keeping. But it doesn’t mean less. And love is the fulfillment of the law because, as you said, it gets to the heart of the law. The 10 Commandments, for example, show us what loving God and neighbor looks like. But to keep them without love is not to keep them at all, because the law is not just about externals, but about the heart. On calling Christians to fulfill the law, and how that doesn’t mean, “Never sin again.” I both agree and disagree. We are called to keep the law, to love God and neighbor, to let the law guide our lives. However, we’ll always do this imperfectly. That’s why Christ’s perfect law keeping in our place (meeting the requirement), and dying in our place (paying the penalty) is so important. We imperfectly keep the law, but because we are justified in Christ, God accepts us and our imperfections. He doesn’t relax the requirements or do away with them. He keeps them perfectly in Christ so that we don’t have to. This is what we want in life: someone who accepts us no matter what, but also someone who has some standards, who doesn’t just say, “Well, I guess I’ll settle for you.”

  To point four, I suppose this is a stalemate. I still think it shows that Christ has fulfilled all the Scriptures (including law and gospel). But it’s not as clear as some of the above passages. I would say there’s some accumulative weight and a trajectory in them that would push it towards me. However, the other texts are (to my mind) clearer on their own. We can let it be a stalemate.

  My thoughts on your point five are the same as point four. I think the trajectory of other texts points in my favor, but we can leave it as a stalemate.

  On point six, I agree that in the prophets righteousness can mean deliverance, etc. However, if we are counted as righteous in justification, it’s equivocation to say that this sense is in play. God does not impute deliverance to us. He imputes righteousness and obedience to us. Further, I would say that the deliverance sense of righteousness points to the idea of Romans 3.26, where God is just and the justifier of the one with faith in Jesus. God delivers righteously. And he delivers righteously by not lessening the requirements of the law. They were fully kept, just not by me. It would be unjust for God to require less than perfect obedience. It would also be unjust for him not to require the death penalty for violations of the law. Jesus does both for me. God’s righteousness may be the righteousness appropriate to his nature. But we are not God. He requires human righteousness from us, not divine righteousness. That’s why the human (and divine) Jesus fulfilled human righteousness for human people to be justified. But as far as the contrast between righteousness of faith and righteousness of the law, that’s the case from our perspective, as sinners, as far as our options go. We can’t be righteous by our keeping of the law, but only through faith on the basis of Jesus’ work (Paul’s point). But that doesn’t mean that the nature of righteousness changes. It was still procured in the same way. Just not by us. It’s not a righteousness we can gain ourselves, but only receive from the one who has gained it.

  On point seven, a lot of this is echoed in my response to point six. However, I will say that Christ’s death doesn’t do away with the law as such. Look at Romans 7; Matthew 5; etc. The law is still the standard of righteousness and the measure of obedience. What Christ’s death has done away with is the law as a means of righteousness (not that it ever actually was such a means).

  On point 8, true Christ didn’t fulfill the exact same test as Adam. But here’s the thing, Adam’s requirement was to perfectly obey God. Israel’s requirement was to perfectly obey God. Christ’s requirement was to perfectly obey God. But Jesus succeeded where all others had failed. And according to Paul’s logic, this does not prevent him from playing Adam and Christ off of each other as representative heads of their people, whose obedience or disobedience is the factor deciding the fate of all those covenantally united to them. I disagree that AO is not mentioned prior to Romans 5. He speaks of righteousness in the sense of law keeping (with reference to us) repeatedly in Romans 2-3. But his point is that none of us live up to this. Therefore we must receive righteousness from Christ. The means of reception is completely different. But the nature of righteousness must be the same, else how could it meet God’s requirements. My pointing out death as the consequence of sin was that you cannot allow Christ’s death and resurrection to deny the parallel with Adam (who didn’t die for his people). That wasn’t part of Adam’s test. However, it was a consequence of Adam’s failure. Christ takes care of the problem Adam brought us.

  As to point nine, this leads to you separating the life of Jesus from his death, and giving him two kinds of obedience (note, I say his obedience is one whole, but can be seen in different ways), or saying that God only imputes a part of Christ’s obedience. You need much stronger biblical evidence than an argument from silence to establish this. His person and work (all of his work) are inseparable. We cannot receive the benefits of his work without his person. We cannot receive his person without his work. Further, the body wasn’t just so he could die. It was so a representative man could live and die. Jesus’ humanity is more than just an apparatus in which to die. God is interested in the life lived, not just death and penalties.

  On point 10a, again, you have to equivocate to make the point you are making. In what sense can God impute deliverance to us, or reckon us deliverance? God can accomplish deliverance. But it’s somewhat nonsensical to have him crediting it to our account. I fail to see how the problem of us being disobedient can be solved by saying, “Yes they’ve broken the law, but I will account them delivered.” Non-Protestants frequently accuse our doctrine of justification as being based on a “legal fiction.” This, however, is the true legal fiction. God is just counting people delivered, and sort of changing the rules in the middle of the game. God can however, impute obedience to us. And this makes sense. It meets the original requirement, and it gives an actual foundation, which can avoid the charge of legal fiction.

  On point 10b, I would think you’d say that it is indeed quite heroic for Jesus to live a life of perfect obedience and righteousness. Certainly no one else has. It’s like scaling the top of Everest (which, of course, now people have), but you get the point: it was a grueling ordeal and he succeeded where no one else had or could. In what sense is that not heroic? Further, “Obedience to the point of death,” certainly would allow for obedience leading up to death. The point isn’t, “Only Jesus’ death matters.” The point is, Jesus was perfectly obedient, and look at his death as the paradigmatic example of how obedient he was. Finally Hebrews 5.8 would certainly include Christ’s whole life, where he frequently suffered. Look at his constantly being persecuted, misunderstood, going homeless, being betrayed, agony in the garden. All these things aren’t his death. And they are true suffering, and in them he renders true obedience.

  On point 10c(3?), I assure you, I wasn’t making your point for you. Just because our keeping the law is contrasted to Christ’s death, doesn’t mean that Christ’s keeping the law is a non-factor, or that in general God doesn’t require law-keeping. I’ve made my case above for Christ’s keeping the law being an important part of his work. I won’t reiterate it here, except to say that if Christ’s keeping the law isn’t part of our righteousness, then God changes the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate us. This may seem gracious, but it is not righteous. The concept of active obedience allows him to redeem those who don’t keep the law, and uphold his own standards. He is just and the justifier of those with faith. And on the idea of the abiding significance and validity of the law (as a standard of righteousness, not a means of it), see my argument above, especially under points 6-7.

  And on Galatians 6, you’re right, the law cannot make a new creation. It cannot make us righteous because it is weakened by the flesh (Romans 8.1-3). But our inability to be justified by the law does not mean that God stops requiring the law. Instead, he finds a way to uphold its exacting standards, and count us righteous. This is accomplished in Christ.

  At the end of the day, denying the imputation of his perfect life is to separate his person and his work. It is to divide his whole, complete obedience, it is to have God credit us with only part of what Jesus accomplished. And it is to have God lessen the law’s demands, compromising his justice. Denying the Active Obedience loses all these. And I fail to see what it gains.

  Again, Nick, I want to thank you for the respectful way you’ve conducted yourself. And though we didn’t get to the point where we see eye to eye on this, hopefully we both understand one another better, and will have benefited from this conversation. God bless.

  geneschlesinger said this on November 13, 2009 at 9:51 am

• The spacing on my last post doesn’t appear to have shown up properly. The whole post looks like one long paragraph without clean breaks.

  Nick said this on November 9, 2009 at 5:18 pm