Featured Forensic Justification of sinners!

Here is what I mean, MartinM, (and I apologize for the length, but I want to be as clear as I am able):

I believe that the term “justify” and “righteousness” are terms describing our relationship to God. The relationship between man and God is covenantal. Men know God through his revelation. God has established the terms upon which he will dwell with man. This revelation is a covenant.

In the Garden God made a covenant with Adam. Implied was that God would dwell with Adam in the Garden, the condition is obedience. With the Fall, this covenant turned into a curse – but a curse with the promise of God’s Provision and a reconciliation. God would once again dwell with man. To Abraham God made a covenant, promising many things. God would make Abraham the father of many nations, but more importantly is that this Provision will come though Abraham.

The Mosaic Covenant is often considered a conditional covenant. Men are either cursed or blessed through the Law. But Paul informs us that the Law was never intended as salvific. Instead the Law served as descriptive, to magnify sin so that all under the Law realize the curse and know their sin. The Law does not show us the righteousness of God (not that the Law is unrighteous, but that God’s righteousness exceeds the Law), but the unrighteousness of men. The Law foreshadows, points to, the Provision promised in Genesis 3. The Davidic Covenant amplifies the coming Messiah.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus became man, completely God and completely man. Jesus did nothing of his own accord, but was obedient to the Father and dependent on the Spirit. Here is the faithful obedience that Adam lacked in the Garden. Jesus was fully human, and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. He was presented as a sin offering, yet had not sinned. And becoming human means being condemned under the covenant, under the curse. Jesus had no sin, yet even without the sins of other men accounted to him (in your system) Jesus fell under condemned, accursed under the Law. The Law says that one who is hanged on a tree is accursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal 3:13). Jesus had no sin, but he became a curse for us under the Law.

Where we depart is that I believe that the Atonement and righteousness has in mind God’s covenant and God’s Provision. Jesus was obedient to death, even the death of the cross. He became man, became a curse for man, and is the “Last Adam”. His death is substitutionary and penal for he lay down his life, sinless, and took upon himself the curse of humanity. And the Father vindicated his Son and raised him on the third day.

I don’t want to bore you, but I did want you to understand why I say that we affirm the same Scripture. We do so in a different context. In your view Jesus cannot be guilty under the Law if we are justified based on a moral righteousness, except that sinless God accounts our sins as having been committed by Jesus. But it is under the Law that Jesus is deemed accursed – not because he is charged with our crimes but because he is in violation of that covenantal declaration “cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree”. The Law as a whole, so Jesus can be viewed as the representative of mankind and condemned (yet sinless). God is both Just and Justifier of sinners.

 

Thank you for the reply. I've printed off your post so that I can consider it in detail (I'm at work at the moment so I can't give it the time it deserves). But I will work through your comments and consider your observations. At a glance, I do think that we agree more than it first appeared as we may be looking at or defining a few things differently. I am sure that we also disagree but am looking forward to sifting through our positions. Thanks again.

 

But that is, probably, one of the major differences in our position. Those verses have everything to do with the covenant if righteousness is based on God’s covenant with man (expressed negatively with Adam, positively through Christ). God will dwell with man, mankind’s “part” is faithful obedience. In Adam all of mankind fell (they were not faithful), but in Christ we find redemption for mankind (Jesus was faithful even to death on a cross). In my understanding, the focus of righteousness is God (the object, God dwelling with man), not the Law with the object of being “morally right”.

I am still considering The_Biblicist’s position, but at this time I can safely say that I do not see the righteousness and justice of God as being derived from or expressed in the Law. Rather, I view the Law as “keeping Israel captive”, as showing us our sin, and as such as demonstrating our unrighteousness. With Christ, his faithful obedience to the Law pointed to his righteousness, but was not the basis for righteousness.

The language in those passages is judicial, yes. But this does not mean that it is not “covenantal language”. A covenant is a legal agreement, and God’s covenants are just as much so with the exception that his covenants are founded in divine righteousness rather than civil laws. My argument is that those who are considered “just” are so based on their standing within God’s covenant, God’s own Word, and not based on the Law.

I agree. I would never consider “arguing away” any of those texts. What I am arguing against is that words have the Law ultimately in mind. Christ was pierced for our transgressions, and when He makes His soul an offering for sin, He shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities. Jesus Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree. He became a curse for us, because under the Law one is cursed who hangs on a tree.

The Atonement is a movement of God to man. I understand your explanation of the atonement to be a sort of reconciliation between the concepts of divine love and divine justice. But at the same time I appreciate Martin Luther’s concept of Deus Absconditus , and his famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) statement that the God of revelation is not the god of reason. I am not saying that the Atonement is not something to be understood (don’t get me wrong here), but I am saying that the Atonement is more than the Latin view allows.

 

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I am not saying that God's righteousness is derived or based on God's covenant any more than you are saying that God's righteousness is based on the Law.

I am saying that men are justified as being "right" in accord with God's covenant. Men are counted as right by faith in Christ, and this righteousness is based in Christ's obedience as the "Righteous One" to death, even the death on a cross.

And no, I have not dismissed even one of the passages you provided. I am, in fact, thankful that you took the time to do so. Basically, if you substitute "the Law" with "God's covenant" then you come close to what I am saying. The verses apply the exact same way, but the conclusions are different.

 

There are no quotation of "law", so I grant I may have misunderstood you. Regardless, what I mean as my position stands, to include the clarification that I am not basing God's righteousness as being derived from his covenants but rather that that God's promises are righteousness because God is righteous. The righteousness of mankind is, however, dependent on God as he has expressed himself to mankind. Mankind, with Adam as it's head, has fallen because of Adam's disobedience. But through the obedience of Christ, mankind can once again be "righteous" but only "in Christ" as "God's Righteous One".

 

Amen! I agree. Not only do we get caught up (sometimes) in one covenant but we sometimes the “grand scheme” (if you will) of redemption. God’s covenant with Abraham is, in a real sense, a revelation (in part) of His plan of reconciliation.

I agree. I think it descriptive (Abraham’s “part” of the covenant is simply faith in God to be faithful to His word, His covenant). This, I believe, highlights the distinctiveness of the Mosaic Covenant (it was not things to do in order to be saved, but rather pointed to Christ and revealed to man his unrighteousness).

I am going to have to think about this some more (I’m a bit thick in the head). I agree with you on one head – and to support your position, Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the earth. But I also see this Covenant as being inclusive of mankind (as a whole), as Jesus is that Lamb, the Son of Man, within this Covenant.

As you describe this Covenant between the Trinity, I think that it is what I have considered as an “eternal purpose”. All of Creation was made looking to reconciliation in Christ.

Accepting this Covenant between the members of the Trinity, I disagree that “the covenant obligation is to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law’s requirement.”

One reason is that I see the Law as given specifically to Moses and Israel at that time (Deuteronomy 5:3 specifies – “The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.”). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were never under the Law. Noah was not under the Law.

Instead, I believe that Scripture bears out that the Law was to “keep” Israel “locked” in sin. It was to demonstrate man’s unrighteousness rather than serve as a plan of redemption.

The Mosaic Covenant (the Law) is given under the Abrahamic Covenant to a specific people and for a specific purpose. I believe that, using the Covenant between the Trinity language, Jesus’ obligation was the faithful obedience that Adam lacked. And this is why righteousness is not a “moral righteousness”, and justification is not the forensic justification of sinners. It is, first and foremost, a matter of faith (and the type of faith that yields faithful obedience).

God will give us a new heart and a new spirit. He will put His Spirit in us, cause us to walk in His statutes, and we will obey. Just as with Abraham, we are “reckoned” righteous based on faith in God’s faithfulness to His Word (to His Covenant, to this “Covenant between the Trinity”).

I am not certain about the language. I believe that all of the covenants – from Adam to the New Covenant – exist within this larger Covenant to which you point…or perhaps it is how this “eternal Covenant” is worked out among mankind. But I believe we are in agreement here.

Again, I have to consider this a bit more. But I think that, while I may not use the same language as you, we largely agree. The whole purpose of the covenants given to man are to point to God, and that redemption is of God and not man. Faith has always been the only requirement (a faithfulness, or trust, in God’s on faithfulness to His Word). Scripture often emphasizes the obedience of Christ, that our redemption was dependent on the faithful obedience of the Son, and in the Old Testament the faith and obedience of God’s Anointed One, His Righteous One.

Our major difference is in the “obligation” of the Son. You state it is “to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law’s requirement” while I believe it is a matter of faithful obedience as the representative of mankind. The criteria for you seems to be the Law, but for me it is faith in God’s own faithfulness to this Covenant.

 

Yes, sin is a legal issue. It is a covenantal issue that has in view God’s own righteousness. Sin is man’s rebellion against God, man’s failure to merit righteousness.

No, sin is not “the violation of the Law”. Before the Law was given sin was still in the world. 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”). The Law was given to magnify sin, to show us our unrighteousness, to point to a deeper problem than moral behavior.

Christ did satisfy this legal issue. Our transgressions are canceled, the Law being nailed to the cross. But this is not a moral issue based on the Law. It is a legal issue based on the relationship through which God has determined to dwell with man. Jesus willingly lay down his life and was hung on a tree, becoming cursed under the Law, but without sin. It is not an issue of morality, but an issue of unrighteousness.

I completely agree. But the Law is not to be interpreted outside of the Mosaic covenant.

No, the Law points out the unrighteousness of mankind. Jesus, God’s “Anointed”, His “Righteous One”, is not sent to complete the demands of the Law but to fulfill the Law. The Law does not pose a demand on Christ, but instead points to the Son as “the Righteous One” of God.

I agree, but not a violation of the Law (nowhere in the Law is man commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Adam transgressed God’s command, and those who sinned from Adam to the giving of the Law sinned apart from the Law. But Adam’s transgression was a violation of God’s command. This was covenantal, not moral.

Our salvation is not based on Christ vindicating the Law. It is not based on Christ fully satisfying the Law. It is based on Christ’s faithfulness and faithful obedience to the Father (what Adam failed to do) as the representative of mankind in order to save man. Christ became man, took the curse of man, so that man might be reconciled to God.

And I appreciate very much the time you took to explain your position. I know we are not trying to convince the other, but are offering our views openly so that we can honestly understand the other. And I know that we disagree. I like your points about the “fathers” and the “eternal covenant”. Our disagreement remains that I believe the “problem” with mankind extends far beyond the Law and moral behavior.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

 

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).