Featured Forensic Justification of sinners!

No, you are mistaking here Y1. Jesus’ life on earth was one of humble submission to the Father. You are missing an key point of salvation.

Jesus came here to do God's will, not his own. He did not seek his will but the will of God, and he did nothing of his own initiative and his judgments were just because they were not of his will but of the Fathers. The works of Christ were those things that the Father had given him to accomplish. That is what he did. They are not witnesses of Jesus’ power, but instead testify that God has sent him. And God exalted Jesus because he had humbled himself and became obedient.

 

You are missing the point. When you say that Jesus humbled himself to come to earth, but that his life here was not one of humility, you corrupt the gospel and his fulfilling of the Law.

Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was inherent in his submission to the Father. Jesus did not act of his own initiative but in all things remained submissive to the Father. Thus the Law is fulfilled - not only the Ten Commandments, but the laws and statutes God gave to Moses when Israel went back to their tents (to include the greatest commandment).

But your position is problematic and is to be strongly rejected. You have the opinion that Jesus came to earth in order to perfectly obey the Ten Commandments. Eight are passive ("thou shalt not"), leaving two direct commands. Jesus did not (1) worship another God, (2) make idols, (3) take God's name in vain, (6) murder, (7)cheat on his wife, (8) steal, (9) lie, or (10) covet his neighbor's stuff. Jesus did keep the sabbath day holy (4), and honor his parents (5). And since Jesus keeps the Law of his own initiative, this counts as righteousness and is ultimately counted as our righteousness as "law-keepers".

You deny that Jesus' entire life here was one of submission to the Father. You turn his fulfillment of the Law into "he kept the Ten Commandments". And you object to this "obedience to the Ten Commandments" being implied in Jesus' fulfillment of the Law, not of his own will but in submission to the will of the Father.

Can you show me one time in Scripture where Jesus, in his earthly ministry, acts (as you insist he had to) of his own initiative (rather than in submission to the Father) in obeying either the Ten Commandments, the Law, or God's law?

 

John 6:35-40 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 8:25-30 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them,"What have I been saying to you from the beginning? I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world." They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father. So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him." As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.

Philippians 2:5-11 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reasonalso, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

John 5:25 I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.


Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."

 

He did all in submission to the Father. You may not be able to reconcile that with your position, but how do you address those passages?

Sent from my Alcatel_5056O using Tapatalk

 

No. The difference is I believe Christ's Righteous was both "active" and "passive" obedience, inseparable and throughout his life. You sent the latter to emphasize the former.

Sent from my Alcatel_5056O using Tapatalk

 

Not the way that you have insisted that Jesus came to obey the Ten Commandments, no. We both agree that Christ fulfilled the Law, but there is a world of difference.

To illustrate – you and I see another who is working hard for the Kingdom. His work is undeniable and we know him to be a brother in Christ. The principle you set forth is the man has earned his salvation by works. I am insisting that the man has a faith (one of yielding his own will to the Father’s) that produces these works.

Jesus declared several times that what he does is not of his will but of the Father. Jesus came here to do the will of the Father.

Justin Taylor (PhD, writes for TGC, VP of Crossway, wrote/edited several books with Piper) has noted that the Reformed have historically considered Christ’s “passive” and “active” obedience to be complementary and necessary aspects of Christ’s work as a whole.

Louis Berkhof notes that the “two accompany each other at every point in the Saviour’s life.” (Systematic Theology)

John Murray comments that “passive” and “active” obedience emphasizes the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience” noting that “Christ as the vicar of his people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness.”

Taylor insists that the “New Testament clearly teaches the lifelong passive obedience of Christ (his penalty-bearing work) and the lifelong active obedience of Christ (his will-of -God-obeying work), culminating in the Cross. We then receive the benefit of this through the imputation of the obedience of Christ (the reckoning of Christ’s complete work to our account when we trust in him for salvation and are united to him”.

Historically the Reformed argue for both-and, not “either-or”. I am not Reformed but I argue for both-and, not either-or. But you accept only a fraction of one aspect and deny the other altogether. Your view is not biblical.

 

Working through several comments, I think that you could narrow our disagreement largely to one of definitions or words (although I am sure we also have legitimate disagreements). What you define as "moral righteousness" I have been calling "covenantal". I grant that my wording may not be the best, but submit that "moral" cannot mean only behavior when it comes to the righteousness of Christ (except that "submission to the will of God" be considered "behavior"...in which case I agree). I even agree that the covenants are a type of an eternal covenant, an eternal plan and purpose. In the end, I think we are saying the same thing in that Jesus had to and did fulfill all that the Father requires.

I agree righteousness demands God's law be met. It means obedience - Jesus fulfilled God's law. I'm there 100%. What I am saying is that righteousness includes both Christ's active and passive obedience in of submission to the Father's will, of becoming flesh, of growing in wisdom and stature, of laying down his life. All of this is a part of Christ's righteousness and all of this is the righteousness in which we are clothed. My position is that Christ's submission to the Father cannot be separated from his obedience to God. I believe that "imputed" righteousness speaks not only of Christ's fulfillment of the Law but also of his submission to God (not only the Law but also the Cross). What God sees when he looks at us, then, is more than "people who kept the Ten Commandments". He sees children who are his children because they are "in Christ" rather than "in Adam".

Do you agree with the others (at least Y1) that Jesus' submission to the will of the Father ended at the Incarnation, and his earthly ministry was of his own initiative and not in submission to the Father?

 

It may be a difference without a distinction in terms of behavior, but there is a difference. Did Christ become man and fulfill God’s law of his own initiative or did he lay aside his own will and come to do the will of the Father? Jesus is God, so I understand the objection that this would be a distinction without a difference – except that Jesus insists otherwise as he finds it important to note it is of the will of the Father and not of his own accord that he acts.

The difference is not in what would be fulfilled, but in how it would be fulfilled. I believe that Jesus emphasized his actions as the will of the Father rather than his will in order to emphasize his humanity and demonstrate his obedience as one through faith and trust in God. Jesus, being completely man, relied on the Father’s will rather than his own. It is a distinction behind the perfect obedience and fulfillment of God’s law.