Forensic Justification of sinners!

[JonC]

Jesus endured the wrath of God towards all sins, correct? If Jesus had failed to keep te Law one time, e fofeid being Saviour, correct? So there is a salvation by works , Covenant of works as Adam had, but NONE but Jesus could meet that requirement, so His sinlessness and Law keeping obedince was credited towards us now?

No, there is no salvation by works. Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind, atoning for the sins of those who believe. The requirement was obedience, and this is an obedience that is within the power of man to accomplish (to borrow from Jonathan Edwards). But we are cannot because we will not. Jesus did. And it is this faithful obedience, even to death on a cross, is that affirmation (that was Philippians I was quoting in the last post). So no, it is not Jesus' sinlessness and Law keeping that is credited to us (God does not look at us as sinless law-keepers) but that we are in Christ. Jesus ended the curse, paid the price, conquered sin and death, is the "Last Adam" - there is now "man" in glory and there resides our hope.

There is no biblical justification for viewing the Law as the criteria of salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jon, I am going to switch some things around in your reply so that I can deal with your objections in a better order.

No, sin is not “the violation of the Law”...... Before the Law was given sin was still in the world.

We have a very serious obstacle here. Sin is the violation of the Law. You are confusing the Law in its summarized form in Genesis 2:15 and the Law in its more expanded Mosaic Covenant form in Exodus 20. It is the very same law and very same Law giver. The Sabbath Law existed before its Mosaic covenant institutional form. The law of murder existed long before the Mosaic covenant institutional form. Any command by God is law as that is the whole issue of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" determining who has the right to establish Law. All Law originating from God is moral as sin is a moral issue defined negatively as immorality cannot originate from a non-moral standard or law.

Men who did not transgress the Law (their sin was not counted as a transgression as Adam’s sin, or as Israel under the Law) were still sinners. So no, sin is exceeds the definition of being a violation of the Law. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness (our “sin”, or our “fallen natures”).

All men sinned in Adam when Adam sinned and therefore all men were condemned by "one man's sin" and so the condemnation that Christ must reconcile is the Adamic sin. Personal sins are merely the manifestations of the condemned fallen nature regardless if that is sin against a covenant form of God's Law or against light of conscience.

This is a huge problem, so I am not even going a step further until this is resolved.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I am going to switch some things around in your reply so that I can deal with your objections in a better order.



We have a very serious obstacle here. Sin is the violation of the Law. You are confusing the Law in its summarized form in Genesis 2:15 and the Law in its more expanded Mosaic Covenant form in Exodus 20. It is the very same law and very same Law giver. The Sabbath Law existed before its Mosaic covenant institutional form. The law of murder existed long before the Mosaic covenant institutional form. Any command by God is law as that is the whole issue of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" determining who has the right to establish Law. All Law originating from God is moral as sin is a moral issue defined negatively as immorality cannot originate from a non-moral standard or law.




All men sinned in Adam when Adam sinned and therefore all men were condemned by "one man's sin" and so the condemnation that Christ must reconcile is the Adamic sin. Personal sins are merely the manifestations of the condemned fallen nature regardless if that is sin against a covenant form of God's Law or against light of conscience.

This is a huge problem, so I am not even going a step further until this is resolved.

No one is declared righteous by the works of the Law. That was not the purpose of the Law. The Law was purposed to make men conscious of sin. The Law holds mankind accountable to God because it shows us our sinfulness. The righteousness of God is through faith, not the law.

You seem to be missing the fact that the Law (Torah) is an expression of God’s nature but it is not all inclusive of that nature. The Law is moral, ceremonial, and civil – and it all demonstrates God’s nature (even the incense in the Tabernacle points to God’s nature) to the point that God is revealed in the Law. But God is not encapsulated in the Law. Instead, the Law shows us our unrighteousness based on God’s own covenantal righteousness.

What mankind has broken is not God’s moral or ethical law. It is a religious law, a covenantal law. It is a law based on God, not godly behavior (moral equates to behavior, as you said earlier). Our unrighteousness extends beyond obedience to God’s command. Our disobedience demonstrates misplaced faith, and this is truly the problem. It is not our sin, but our sinfulness (something that you have already affirmed). The problem, then, is not based on the Law (the Law demonstrates sins which are but manifestations of our nature). If our condemnation then is not truly based on the Law but on our nature, then Christ’s righteousness can’t be his keeping the Law but his faith in the Father. His keeping the Law was a manifestation of His faithfulness just as our disobedience to the Law (or God’s law) is a manifestation of our unfaithfulness.

And Scripture confirms this as Jesus emptied himself and humbled himself, and was obedient to God unto death, even the death on a cross – wherefore God exalted Him. What does Scripture say? Does Scripture say that this was because Jesus satisfied the demands of the Law? No, of course not. So why should we say it? Scripture says that it was because Jesus “emptied himself”, “became a servant”, “humbled himself”, and became obedient even to the death of a cross. This is not satisfying the moral demands of the Law. This is faith in God. And our righteousness is faith in Christ.

I know that you are not Reformed, but consider Reformed Theology for a moment (because they have it right on this one). In Reformed Theology the core of sin is unbelief. This they identify in Genesis 3 as Adam trusting the word of the serpent over God. Sin is unbelief, a lack of faith. And this unbelief, this “Sin”, manifests itself in sins (sinful actions, law breaking). The problem is unbelief, not Law-breaking. And the solution is faith, based on the faithful obedience of the Son and the gracious mercy of the Father.

 

[The Biblicist]

No one is declared righteous by the works of the Law. That was not the purpose of the Law.

No, it is not the purpose of the law to obtain life BECAUSE man has sinned and the flesh is incapable of obtaining life by law keeping. However, the Jews of Christ's day and Christ believed it was the standard for justification as Christ when asked how to inherit eternal life pointed to keeping the Law and explicitly said "this do and ye shall live" and "if you will be perfect" then DO this. Paul said explicitly that it is those who DO the law "that shall be justified" by the Law (Rom.2:12). Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the Law was not viewed by first century Jews and Christians as God's standard for justification even though impossible for fallen nature and therefore in light of fallen nature it was not given to obtain life. This truth destroys the whole foundation of Wright Eucharistic Soteriology. The Law was given and recognized as the standard of justification by the Jews, by Christ and by Paul.

Lu 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?......28 And he said to him, You have answered right: this do, and you shall live.


Lu 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?.....Mt.19:Jesus said to him, If you will be perfect,

Rom. 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:
8 But to them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

The clear necessary inference of these texts is that justification can come by law in a DECLARATIVE sense for sinless people. That is why Jesus was justified (declared) to be righteous by the Law as a lamb without spot or blemish. Jesus was righteous by nature from birth and so he did not obtain righteousness by obedience to the law but he was declared to be righteous by obedience to the Law. Paul says that Jesus was "made under the law" in order redeem them that were "made under the law." Paul said the whole world was under the law (Rom. 3:9,19-20) and every mouth is shut by the law. Thus, the term "law" is all inclusive of the law in Genesis 2:17, the law of conscience, and the Jewish form of law under Moses. It is in reference to being "made under the Law" that Jesus "learned" obedience and was obedient "unto death." He obeyed the law of conscience, the Law of Moses and the law in Genesis 2:17.

The Law in Genesis 2:17 is about whose will is supreme! Who has the right to determine the standard or knowlege of what is to be regarded as good or evil. Jesus emphasized this one thing throughout his ministry:

Mt 7:21 Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mr 3:35 For whoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Joh 4:34 Jesus said to them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Joh 5:30 I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me.

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

The Law in Genesis 2:17 is about one issue and one issue only - obedience to the will of God or self-rule (self-God). The basis of Law is simply God's revealed will of right and wrong. Rebellion against the revealed will of God is the issue of Genesis 2:17, it is the issue of law of conscience. It is the issue of the Mosaic Law. This single issue is the foundation of MORALITY of right and wrong behavior.

 

[The Biblicist]

You seem to be missing the fact that the Law (Torah) is an expression of God’s nature but it is not all inclusive of that nature.

This is a false argument! The law is the revelation of ALL OF GOD'S MORAL NATURE - His holiness. The terms "righteous....righteousness....God's glory....holiness....sin" are all moral terms and have to do with moral nature and are only definable by God's revealed will (His law). No one argues that the Law is a revelation of all of God's nature, just his moral nature - his holiness - and Romans 3:23 proves that as sin is defined of coming "short of the GLORY of God." His glory is the standard of holiness or righteousness or right and wrong behavior because it is summed up in one MORAL term "God is LOVE" and love is a "moral"behavioral term and "keeping his commandments" is also defined as "love" "for this is the love of God that we keep his commandments" (1 Jn. 5:3) and keeping commandments is a behavioral issue.

The Mosaic law in covenant form is merely the expansion of the Moral law into civil and ceremonial applications. However, God's command in Genesis 2:17 is the summary of God's Law and expression of His MORAL nature as it is about one issue and one issue only - WHOSE WILL IS SUPREME. The LAW of Conscience is moral law. The Law of Moses is moral law. Moral Law is the basis of all Law as ultimately any disobedience of any law of God is moral issue called "sin."

What mankind has broken is not God’s moral or ethical law. It is a religious law, a covenantal law.

Another false argument! All mankind was condemned by one act of Adam which is the root of all moral rebellion against God as it challenged God's right to be final law giver or God. Sin entered the world by this one rebellious act and all mankind was condemned by this one act LONG BEFORE Mosaic covenant law was instituted. Sin is a moral issue as sin is evil works and works have their root in the human HEART which is the MORAL CENTER of man's being (Mt. 15:18-19). Works originate with the determined thoughts of the heart regardless if they are made manifest in words or deeds. God's law originates from his HEART and is expressive of his determined thoughts,words and deeds. All behavior, human and divine is a MORAL issue of right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousnes, holiy and unholiness.

Your view is not based merely on a misunderstanding of the nature of sin, but the moral nature of God.

It is a law based on God, not godly behavior (moral equates to behavior, as you said earlier). Our unrighteousness extends beyond obedience to God’s command. Our disobedience demonstrates misplaced faith, and this is truly the problem. It is not our sin, but our sinfulness (something that you have already affirmed).

This is another false argument based upon irrational thinking. First sin is a moral issue and the inseparable cause of our sinfulness which is immoral behavior. Immoral behavior does not originate from amoral sources as your rationale demands.It is a law based upon God's MORAL nature as all of God's words and works are expressions of HIS HEART or the moral seat of His nature, just as it is in all his rational creatures (Mt. 15:18-19).

Second, our unrighteousness NEVER extends beyond disobedience to God's command. Genesis 2:17 is all about whose revealed will is supreme. This is the essence of divine law- God's will versus the will of the creature. The tree of knowlege of Good and Evil is all about who has the right to determine the knowledge of right and wrong as whoever does that is proclaiming themselves to be God. Is it you or your Creator? Is it you or your conscience? Is it you or God's revealed will in whatever form it comes? This is the ultimate MORAL issue - the right to determine good and evil!

The problem, then, is not based on the Law (the Law demonstrates sins which are but manifestations of our nature).

No one has suggested the problem lies with the Law. Our issue is properly defining the nature of the Law as an expression of God's holiness which is the MORAL nature of God. Nobody is arguing the Law is expressive of the WHOLE nature of God but only of His HOLINESSS or MORAL nature. You are making the irrational argument that disobedient behavior is not a moral issue, or to say it another way, that sin is not a moral issue when in fact sin is an issue of the human HEART which is the moral center of man's nature and from which all determined thoughts, words and actions are derived (Mt. 15:18-19) just as it is true in the case of God's determined thoughts, words and actions or what the Bible calls works.

If our condemnation then is not truly based on the Law but on our nature,

Our nature is the result of sin (Rom.5:12) or violation of God's Law in Genesis 2:17.The entrance of the Mosaic covenant form of law merely made the Jewish condition more pronounced. However, no Jews existed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 25. Gentiles prior to the giving of the Mosaic covenant form both before and after Moses violated God's natural LAW of Conscience and it is still called "sin" and it is still God's Law (Rom. 2:14-15; 3:9 "Jews and Gentiles") and thus "all the world" is condemned as law breakers (Rom.3:19-20) including all "flesh" so that "every mouth" is condemned by what? By what? BY THE LAW of God - proving the Law of God is far more inclusive than the Mosaic form but yet who can deny that the conscience is MORAL law? Who can deny that rebellion against God's law is a behavior problem?

We are sinful because we are sinners by nature and it is all tracable to one man's "SIN" (Rom.5:12). So your whole line of reasoning collapses because you deny "our condemnation then is not truly based on the law as "sin is the transgression of the law" whether it be law of conscience, or a prescribed law (Gen. 2;15) or a covenant expression of law (Moses) because all law has its origin with God's moral nature - HIS HEART.

then Christ’s righteousness can’t be his keeping the Law but his faith in the Father.

Another false argument. No one has suggested that Christ ATTAINED or OBTAINED righteousness by law keeping - no one! My position has consistently been that he was righteous by nature from birth as a man and that the Law simply DECLARED him such! Justification is about DECLARING one righteous or unrighteous. Condemnation of the Law comes by being unrighteous and unrighteous is defined by the standard of the Law. Righteous persons are not under the condemnation of the Law but will be justified (Rom.2:12). If you are not under the condemnation of the Law then you are without sin and therefore not subject to death as death is the result of condemnation. So Jesus tells the Jews "this do and ye shall live." Paul tells the Romans "doers of the law" "shall be justified by the Law" on judgement day rather than condemned unto death.

His keeping the Law was a manifestation of His faithfulness just as our disobedience to the Law (or God’s law) is a manifestation of our unfaithfulness.

Faithfulness and unfaithfulness are BEHAVIORAL terms and Behavior is definable as right and wrong and it is the law (specific law - Gen.2) and natural law (Rom.2:14-15) and covenant law that defines righteousness and unrighteousness.

And Scripture confirms this as Jesus emptied himself and humbled himself, and was obedient to God unto death, even the death on a cross – wherefore God exalted Him. What does Scripture say? Does Scripture say that this was because Jesus satisfied the demands of the Law? No, of course not. So why should we say it? Scripture says that it was because Jesus “emptied himself”, “became a servant”, “humbled himself”, and became obedient even to the death of a cross. This is not satisfying the moral demands of the Law. This is faith in God. And our righteousness is faith in Christ.

He emptied himself of manifest glory of deity.

Ga 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Ga 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

His obedience is defined by being "made under the law" just as disobedience is defined by being "under the law." Why did "them" need redeeming? Because they were disobedient "under the law." Hence, "under the law" demands being made subject to the standard of the Law. Jesus was made subject to the standard of the law and proved to be obedient to that standard.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know that you are not Reformed, but consider Reformed Theology for a moment (because they have it right on this one). In Reformed Theology the core of sin is unbelief. This they identify in Genesis 3 as Adam trusting the word of the serpent over God. Sin is unbelief, a lack of faith. And this unbelief, this “Sin”, manifests itself in sins (sinful actions, law breaking). The problem is unbelief, not Law-breaking. And the solution is faith, based on the faithful obedience of the Son and the gracious mercy of the Father.

Yes, faithfulness or unfaithfulness in one sense only. Whose will is to be recognized to be supreme is the issue of Genesis 2:17. Whose will is LAW? Whoever's will is Law is declaring themselves to be God. Who has the right to determine the knowledge of what is right and wrong. Partaking of the tree was the declaration of the supremacy of human will over the revealed will of God.

If by "faithfulness" and "unfaithfulness" you mean obedient or disobedient to God as final law giver then that is correct, but if you are attempting to define "faithfulness" and "unfaithfulness" apart from DIVINE REVEALED LAW then you are incorrect. Faithfulness and unfaithfulness are meaningless apart from some STANDARD that distinguishes them from each other. That standard is God's Law (His revealed will), whether revealed in His command about not eating a certain tree or revealed in the law of conscience, or revealed in covenant form.

Since, the Law of God is the standard of defining faithfulness versus unfaithfulness.Hence the law of God is the revelation of His will toward his creatures. Their response to his revealed will is their manifest BEHAVIOR or "works" which have their root in the human heart manifested by determined thoughts, words and actions which are either righteous or unrighteous (Mt. 15:18-19). Likewise, the law of God has its roots in the HEART of God which is his MORAL faculty and is the expression of his determined thoughts, words and actions. So law is a moral expression that defines moral behavior in moral terms of right and wrong. Therefore, the law of God can be summarized in one moral term "love" as God IS "love" and obeying his revealed will in whatever form it comes to us (specified - Gen.2:17; covenant - Ex. 20 or conscience Rom. 2:14-15) is defined as "this is THE LOVE of God that we keep his commandments."

 

[The Biblicist]

God's Law = God's standard of right and wrong (Gen.2:17). His will is REVEALED in forms of specific command (Gen.2:17), by conscience, by covenant expressions. God's revealed will has it source of origin with God's moral faculty, HIS HEART. His heart is the source of God's determined thoughts expressed in words and actions. His will does not originate with any other attribute of his nature other than HIS HEART. It does not originate with non-moral attributes such as eternal existence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutability, etc. His heart is his moral faculty or moral nature and everything that issues forth from the heart of God is moral in nature. Not all of God's determined thoughts are REVEALED to us but all that is revealed is LAW because it is his revealed WILL and His will is LAW. Regardless of the application of His will it is always a moral behavioralissue because the issue is always a matter of submission or rebellion against his revealed will no matter what kind of application it may or may no have. It is always a moral behavioral issue as it always demands recognition of God's will to be final (law) which is manifested in submission or self-rule declared by disobedience. God's law is therefore God's reveal right to be recognized as God over his own kingdom by moral creatures within his kingdom.

Sin is not merely violation of a law, but a denial that your creator is God and has the right to determine a standard of right and law as that is what law is - a standard of right versus wrong. Therefore, sin is the declaration of self-rule or the right to determine your own standard of right and wrong and thus declaring yourself to be God. Nothing could be more IMMORAL as that kind of declaration. Therefore, no matter what law it is that God has established, specified law (Gen. 2;17) law of conscience, or covenant law, the underlying moral issue is the same - is the creature God or is Jehovah God? It is always a behavioral issue regardless of the application of law. Therefore to sin in any point is to violate the whole law as the whole law has only one real issue at heart - who is God?


In order for Christ to perform his covenant obligations as redeemer, he must first establish who is the true God and that is not done by disobeying God's law at any point. He must vindicate God's law and only by his obedience can that be done. His obedience did not make him righteous but it declared him to be righteous by the standard of the law but more importantly it declared God to be righteous as the sole determiner of right and wrong. For him to willfully violate the law at any point would be the same rebellion performed by Adam.

Going to the cross was not his WILLFUL desire but he expressly asked to be spared from partaking of that cup. The cross was the Father's will, and thus LAW for His Son. Therefore, he responded, "not my will be done, but thy will be done."

He did not nail himself to the cross. It was not his doing but was done by sinners to him. He was "made" to be sin for us. To argue that Christ violated the law by the cross is to attribute to Christ what God attributed to his own determinate counsel exercised through the hands of wicked men:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: - Acts 2:22

To even infer, or suggest, much less to assert that Christ himself willfully violated the law is to make him guilty of the very first sin by Adam and therefore no better than Adam - a sinner - and thereby disqualify him as no better than just another sinner justly condemned by the law.

The law never extends beyond moral behavior because the law regardless of what application it may have can always in every instance be reduced to one elementary issue - HIS WILL OR YOUR WILL - who is God, and that is the essence of moral determination.

 

[JonC]

the Jews of Christ's day and Christ believed it [the Law] was the standard for justification as Christ when asked how to inherit eternal life pointed to keeping the Law and explicitly said "this do and ye shall live" and "if you will be perfect" then DO this. Paul said explicitly that it is those who DO the law "that shall be justified" by the Law (Rom.2:12). Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the Law was not viewed by first century Jews and Christians as God's standard for justification even though impossible for fallen nature and therefore in light of fallen nature it was not given to obtain life.

Wait a moment. I never claimed that the Jews rejected a justification through obedience to the Law. I have claimed that the Jews did not look to the Law in order to merit or gain salvation. They believe that they were members of the covenant by birth. But the covenant of Moses (the Law) carried with it both a blessing and a curse:Deuteronomy 11:26-28 "See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known.”

They viewed obedience to the Law as determining if, under the covenant, they would be blessed or cursed. We know that all of mankind falls under the curse (even Christ became a curse for us, for cursed is anyone who is hanged from a tree (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). And we know that all Israel is not Israel (Rom 9:6) but all Israel (true Israel) will be saved (Rom 11:26). All of mankind falls under the curse of the Law, to include Jesus Christ who became a curse for us (under the Law – Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13). But while falling under the curse of the Law (Gal: 1:13) Christ fulfilled the Law and in Christ the law of God is fulfilled. This is covenantal, it is legal, and I grant that it inclusive of the moral law. And this is an issue for man because God says “My covenant I will not violate, nor will I alter the utterance of My lips.” (Ps. 89:31).

On behalf of mankind, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, the Law, to include the moral aspects of the Law but also the Law as a whole. We, as “true Israel” do not sacrifice animals because this command has been fulfilled in Christ. We do not refrain from killing because of the Law, but because this command is fulfilled in Christ. All of the Law is fulfilled in Christ (not just the moral aspects of God’s covenant with Moses).

This truth destroys the whole foundation of Wright Eucharistic Soteriology. The Law was given and recognized as the standard of justification by the Jews, by Christ and by Paul.

I am not sure why you, and Y1, are so fascinated with N.T. Wright. I am also not sure why you bring him up in this thread as I have neither referenced the man nor his theology. I’ve leaned a little on F.F. Bruce and John Stott on that last post, but not Wright. N.T. Wright is Anglican. I am Baptist. You are Baptist. What does Wright (who also insists that the Law is the standard of justification, and has been criticized for holding a works-based justification for the belief) have to do with the conversation between you and I? (i.e., this is a diversion from the topic we are discussing as N.T. Wright has nothing to do with either of our beliefs here).

The clear necessary inference of these texts is that justification can come by law in a DECLARATIVE sense for sinless people. That is why Jesus was justified (declared) to be righteous by the Law as a lamb without spot or blemish. Jesus was righteous by nature from birth and so he did not obtain righteousness by obedience to the law but he was declared to be righteous by obedience to the Law.

The clear “inference”?

You and I already agreed that sins are manifestations of our sinful nature. Are you suggesting that righteous only addresses the symptom and not the “sickness”?

We have agreed that Law was intended to demonstrate our unrighteousness (to reveal to us our sins). If this is the case, the best the Law could do in terms of righteousness is show that a man (if he is obedient to the Law) is righteous in accordance with the Law. I think that we agree here – the Law evidenced the righteousness of Christ because it evidenced his obedience to God’s command (the Law). I think we agree here.

Where we disagree is that I believe our righteousness is not based on Christ’s obedience to the Law, but the Son’s obedience to the Father in that he humbled himself and was obedient to death, even the death of the cross. And the Father demonstrated Jesus righteous by the Resurrection (again, this is covenantal). What we have is Jesus as man fulfilling the requirements of God’s law (God’s covenantal law, which include Torah). This is not a moral righteousness based on the Law (although it fulfills the Law). The Law is but a part. It is a righteousness based on the Cross – the Son’s faith in the Father, Jesus’ faith (as a human being) in God, his faithful obedience even to death on a cross.

Adam became a living soul, but Christ (the last Adam) became a life-giving spirit.

 

[JonC]

God's Law = God's standard of right and wrong (Gen.2:17). His will is REVEALED in forms of specific command (Gen.2:17), by conscience, by covenant expressions. God's revealed will has it source of origin with God's moral faculty, HIS HEART. His heart is the source of God's determined thoughts expressed in words and actions. His will does not originate with any other attribute of his nature other than HIS HEART. It does not originate with non-moral attributes such as eternal existence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutability, etc. His heart is his moral faculty or moral nature and everything that issues forth from the heart of God is moral in nature. Not all of God's determined thoughts are REVEALED to us but all that is revealed is LAW because it is his revealed WILL and His will is LAW. Regardless of the application of His will it is always a moral behavioralissue because the issue is always a matter of submission or rebellion against his revealed will no matter what kind of application it may or may no have. It is always a moral behavioral issue as it always demands recognition of God's will to be final (law) which is manifested in submission or self-rule declared by disobedience. God's law is therefore God's reveal right to be recognized as God over his own kingdom by moral creatures within his kingdom.

Sin is not merely violation of a law, but a denial that your creator is God and has the right to determine a standard of right and law as that is what law is - a standard of right versus wrong. Therefore, sin is the declaration of self-rule or the right to determine your own standard of right and wrong and thus declaring yourself to be God. Nothing could be more IMMORAL as that kind of declaration. Therefore, no matter what law it is that God has established, specified law (Gen. 2;17) law of conscience, or covenant law, the underlying moral issue is the same - is the creature God or is Jehovah God? It is always a behavioral issue regardless of the application of law. Therefore to sin in any point is to violate the whole law as the whole law has only one real issue at heart - who is God?


In order for Christ to perform his covenant obligations as redeemer, he must first establish who is the true God and that is not done by disobeying God's law at any point. He must vindicate God's law and only by his obedience can that be done. His obedience did not make him righteous but it declared him to be righteous by the standard of the law but more importantly it declared God to be righteous as the sole determiner of right and wrong. For him to willfully violate the law at any point would be the same rebellion performed by Adam.

Going to the cross was not his WILLFUL desire but he expressly asked to be spared from partaking of that cup. The cross was the Father's will, and thus LAW for His Son. Therefore, he responded, "not my will be done, but thy will be done."

He did not nail himself to the cross. It was not his doing but was done by sinners to him. He was "made" to be sin for us. To argue that Christ violated the law by the cross is to attribute to Christ what God attributed to his own determinate counsel exercised through the hands of wicked men:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: - Acts 2:22

To even infer, or suggest, much less to assert that Christ himself willfully violated the law is to make him guilty of the very first sin by Adam and therefore no better than Adam - a sinner - and thereby disqualify him as no better than just another sinner justly condemned by the law.

The law never extends beyond moral behavior because the law regardless of what application it may have can always in every instance be reduced to one elementary issue - HIS WILL OR YOUR WILL - who is God, and that is the essence of moral determination.

For clarity, when you say "the Law" are you speaking of Torah or God's law?

I have understood you to be referring to Torah, and that is why I have considered your position as the tail wagging the dog. But, after more consideration I am not sure that you're referring to Torah (the Law) or if you are referring to God's eternal law expressed ultimately in Christ ( righteousness in terms of God / man rather than man / Law)

 

[The Biblicist]

Wait a moment. I never claimed that the Jews rejected a justification through obedience to the Law. I have claimed that the Jews did not look to the Law in order to merit or gain salvation.

Christ's own words "do this and thou shalt LIVE' proves that you are wrong. If your view (aka Wright) was correct the Lawyer and rich young ruler would not be still looking for a way to gain eternal life. So justification by the law and obtaining eternal life by obedience to the Law were synonymous and the Lord's own words prove that.

Where we disagree is that I believe our righteousness is not based on Christ’s obedience to the Law, but the Son’s obedience to the Father in that he humbled himself and was obedient to death, even the death of the cross.

The Law declares Christ as a fit substitute or to put it in ceremonial terms declares him to be without spot or blemish. How many times must I repeat that Christ did not obtain his righteousness by his obedience to the law but was righteous by nature and the law merely declared it so!

However, what you are missing is that the WHOLE law can be summed up in two great commandmetns and the WHOLE law can be summed up in one word just as the WHOLE nature of God can be - "God is LOVE." That is the WHOLE law and prophets.

Moreover, the WHOLE law is moral (love) because to fail in ANY POINT of the WHOLE Law is to fail the WHOLE law. Why, because the essence of Law is the WILL OF GOD and violation of His will at any point is to rebel against HIM - THE PERSON as God. Therefore, the WHOLE law is a MORAL issue.

And the Father demonstrated Jesus righteous by the Resurrection (again, this is covenantal).

The Father demonstrated by the resurrection that sin had been paid in full because he was no longer subject to death as the power of death is sin. The resurrection demonstrated God had accepted his sacrifice based upon its satisfaction of all of the Law's demands, as it is the law that had been violated and must be satisfied both its righteous standard and its penalty

What we have is Jesus as man fulfilling the requirements of God’s law (God’s covenantal law, which include Torah). This is not a moral righteousness based on the Law (although it fulfills the Law). The Law is but a part. It is a righteousness based on the Cross – the Son’s faith in the Father, Jesus’ faith (as a human being) in God, his faithful obedience even to death on a cross.

Adam became a living soul, but Christ (the last Adam) became a life-giving spirit.

What you are saying is oxymoronic and self-contradictory! First God's "law"is not restricted to the Mosaic law. Law is God's standard of right and wrong in whatever form it is manifested (Gen. 2:17; Rom.2:14-15). Romans 3:9-20 proves it is not COVENANTAL law as Gentiles and "all the world" is included so that "every mouth" and all "flesh" is inclusive. So much for your covenant restrictions with regard to satisfying the law by Christ. Christ satisfied the Law as violated by Adam and in Adam which is all inclusive of His revealed will and the WHOLE is moral as the issue is NEVER particular application but submission or rebellion against His will/law.

 

[The Biblicist]

For clarity, when you say "the Law" are you speaking of Torah or God's law?

I have understood you to be referring to Torah, and that is why I have considered your position as the tail wagging the dog. But, after more consideration I am not sure that you're referring to Torah (the Law) or if you are referring to God's eternal law expressed ultimately in Christ ( righteousness in terms of God / man rather than man / Law)

No! When I speak of God's law I am referring to an all inclusive whatsoever he has revealed as His will because the issue is NEVER specific application but the issue is always one and the same thing - Submission (Rom. 8:7) or rebellion whether it is Gen. 2:17, whether it is Romans 2:14-15 law of conscience or whether it is Mosaic law. It is always the very same MORAL ISSUE - His way or your way and that is why Romans 3:9-20 defines sin broader than you do and defines law broader than you do as all inclusive of "all the world" "every mouth" so that "no flesh" is excluded.

Your definition is restricted to Moses. The law of Moses was to demonstrate that Gods people TYPIFIED by Israel cannot meet ANY COVENANT OBLIGATION because of their heart condition (Deut. 5:29; 29:4) but only the Triune God can meet those obligations (Ezek. 36:26-27) as typified in the sacrifices and temple administrations.

Let me repeat for emphasis, Mosaic Law was a COVENANT TYPE (moses a type of Christ, Israel a type of the elect, Tabernacle/temple type of the everlasting covenant, wherein no fallen human being is a participant or can meet any obligation but the participants are the Divine Trinity and the total obligations and fulfillment is wholly by God. The Mosaic covenant was designed to prove NO FALLEN HUMAN BEING can meet ANY OBLIGATIONS demanded by the everlasting Covenant.

Every single covenant God has made with man is a TYPE of the everlasting covenant, either in one of two respects. (1) God's unconditional covenant provisions; (2) Fallen mans inability to fulfill ANY covenant obligation.

Every single covenant entered into by fallen man, fallen man has ALWAYS failed to meet his covenant obligations. That is why the "everlasting" covenant of redemption has no fallen man as a participant but is restricted to the Three Divine Persons and their unfailing covenant obligations to save the elect.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, the emphasis (in the Bible) is on the Resurrection. Jesus, having become man, humbled himself by becoming obedient to the death on a cross (he became a curse, under the Law, for mankind). For this reason God exalted him and gave him a name above every name. Jesus was obedient with the obedience that eluded Adam. It is not about the Law, it is about the reconciliation of mankind through and in Jesus Christ and his obedience unto death (not his moral justness in obeying the demands of the Law).

Jesus death was in payment fo our sins, in ourplace, so is obedience wasin keeping the Law of God perfectly, and that is what God credits to us when he declares us right and saved!
And His shed bllood death on the Cross as th atonement to God provides my salvation, not the resurrection by itself!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, there is no salvation by works. Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind, atoning for the sins of those who believe. The requirement was obedience, and this is an obedience that is within the power of man to accomplish (to borrow from Jonathan Edwards). But we are cannot because we will not. Jesus did. And it is this faithful obedience, even to death on a cross, is that affirmation (that was Philippians I was quoting in the last post). So no, it is not Jesus' sinlessness and Law keeping that is credited to us (God does not look at us as sinless law-keepers) but that we are in Christ. Jesus ended the curse, paid the price, conquered sin and death, is the "Last Adam" - there is now "man" in glory and there resides our hope.

There is no biblical justification for viewing the Law as the criteria of salvation.

Adam was under a Covenant of works before he fell, and when yo say Jesus paid for salvation by Hos obedience, He as obedient to what? Keeping the Law of God...God declares us righ as Jesus was/is in keeping Hislaw, as that is rthe basis God determined to savelost sinners upon, I do not need to mrit/earn salvation, s Jesus obeyed the Law perfectly, and THAT is credited to me forever, as God still demands that a person must be sinless perfection to live, and either Jesu an do that or I haveto!

 

[The Biblicist]

God's will is God's law and God's law is God's will irrespective of application (religious, ceremonial, civil, individualized, covenant law, conscience, etc.), the issue is always the same issue - MY WILL(submission) or your will (rebellion)! Sin is the declaration of MY WILL and the repudiation that Jehovah is God but that I AM GOD! Satan knew this and told Eve this - "you shall be as God." The plural is used for the singular God and that was his point you will replace God as God.

God's Law must be vindicated for God to be recognized as His will is His glory and that is why sin is defined as coming "short of the GLORY of God."

Therefore, the righteousness of the law is the righteousness of God as His will is the expression of His very heart. His righteousness is MORAL as His will is the expression of His heart (determined thoughts, words and actions).

Christ MUST satisfy the Law/will of God as a man through SUBMISSION as all other man have REBELLED against it. The law must be vindicated both as to SUBMISSION and as Penalty or God no longer has the RIGHT to be recognized as God as He will is equivilent to his very Being.

 

[Yeshua1]

God's will is God's law and God's law is God's will irrespective of application (religious, ceremonial, civil, individualized, covenant law, conscience, etc.), the issue is always the same issue - MY WILL(submission) or your will (rebellion)! Sin is the declaration of MY WILL and the repudiation that Jehovah is God but that I AM GOD! Satan knew this and told Eve this - "you shall be as God." The plural is used for the singular God and that was his point you will replace God as God.

God's Law must be vindicated for God to be recognized as His will is His glory and that is why sin is defined as coming "short of the GLORY of God."

Therefore, the righteousness of the law is the righteousness of God as His will is the expression of His very heart. His righteousness is MORAL as His will is the expression of His heart (determined thoughts, words and actions).

Christ MUST satisfy the Law/will of God as a man through SUBMISSION as all other man have REBELLED against it. The law must be vindicated both as to SUBMISSION and as Penalty or God no longer has the RIGHT to be recognized as God as He will is equivilent to his very Being.

I am still trying to understand how Jon sees Jesus obedience as basis to save us, but odedience is somehow not found in keeping law of God? If not obeying the Law, than obedeint to what?

 

[JonC]

Adam was under a Covenant of works before he fell, and when yo say Jesus paid for salvation by Hos obedience, He as obedient to what? Keeping the Law of God...God declares us righ as Jesus was/is in keeping Hislaw, as that is rthe basis God determined to savelost sinners upon, I do not need to mrit/earn salvation, s Jesus obeyed the Law perfectly, and THAT is credited to me forever, as God still demands that a person must be sinless perfection to live, and either Jesu an do that or I haveto!

I do not hold to Covenant Theology. While I believe God has revealed himself in various ways at various times, I believe that God's work in creation and in redemption is one continual act. The Law was a fuller revelation than what had been. But God's fullest revelation of Himself is in his Son Jesus Christ.

Man's righteousness is faith. It always has been. Abraham showed this as he was willing to sacrifice Isaac, with the faith that God indeed is faithful to his own promises. More importantly, Jesus fulfilled this through his faithful obedience even unto death. Our righteousness is faith in Christ. It is dying to the flesh, with the faith and hope in Christ, looking to the resurrection.

Righteousness results in law-keeping. Obedience is the fruit not the Vine.

 

[JonC]

I am still trying to understand how Jon sees Jesus obedience as basis to save us, but odedience is somehow not found in keeping law of God? If not obeying the Law, than obedeint to what?

In Philippians Paul tells us that Jesus humbled himself and became obedient to God to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

The difference between you and is that you believe that Jesus humbled himself and became obedient to the Law. I believe that Jesus humbled himself in obedience to the Father with the obvious result of fulfilling the Law.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In Philippians Paul tells us that Jesus humbled himself and became obedient to God to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

The difference between you and [me] is that you believe that Jesus humbled himself and became obedient to the Law. I believe that Jesus humbled himself in obedience to the Father with the obvious result of fulfilling the Law.

I've been trying to resist being drawn into this discussion, but I've just succumbed.
Consider Matthew 5:17-20.
When the Lord Jesus says that He came to fulfil the law, what do you think He meant?
If our righteousness has to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Luke 18:11-12), what sort of righteousness do you think we need?

 

[JonC]

Jesus death was in payment fo our sins, in ourplace, so is obedience wasin keeping the Law of God perfectly, and that is what God credits to us when he declares us right and saved!
And His shed bllood death on the Cross as th atonement to God provides my salvation, not the resurrection by itself!

To highlight our differences, I do not believe that on the cross God separated from Jesus. I believe that on the cross Jesus remained faithfully obedient through the Spirit. The Cross is the perfect example of the Trinity working out your salvation.

But you believe that on the Cross God departed from Jesus. Our positions here cannot be reconciled.

 

[JonC]

I've been trying to resist being drawn into this discussion, but I've just succumbed.
Consider Matthew 5:17-20.
When the Lord Jesus says that He came to fulfil the law, what do you think He meant?
If our righteousness has to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Luke 18:11-12), what sort of righteousness do you think we need?

I believe that Jesus came to fulfill the law.

Our faith produces good works (works of the Spirit). Our object is not works but Christ. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to be enslaved by the law. He humbled himself and became obedient to God the Father. This is faith in God, obedience to God, even unto death, the death of the cross. And this fulfills the Law ( not just the moral Parts, the whole thing ).

In other words, to love God with all of our heart, all of our mind, and all of our strength fulfills the Law. Obedience is descriptive of this love. The Son loved the Father. The Son emptied himself in submission to the Father (faith) and became obedient (a result of that faith).

But you are not talking about Jesus fulfilling the Law. For that the Law would have to point to Christ. You are talking about Jesus submitting not to the Father completely (thereby fulfilling the Law) but to moral compliance with Torah to be transferred to man. Again, this is the tail wagging the dog.