What was Jesus being odedient to ? If you say to the will of the Father, would Him perfectly keeping the Law of God not fulfill that?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Forensic Justification of sinners!
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
What was Jesus being odedient to ? If you say to the will of the Father, would Him perfectly keeping the Law of God not fulfill that?
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?
He humbled Himself right from the start, by allowing Himself to come in human flesh, correct?
And there was no sin found in Him, as He never broke the law of God, which reveals the moral code of God, correct?
And John used his miracles as proof that He was the Son of God, correct?
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."
Jesus was always in the Will of His Father, as being God Himself, how could He not always be? He became a human in order to suffer and die on the behalf of those like you and me that had no hope of being perfect, as God demands that for a person to live by we must beperfect in all our ways, so God credits to us his merits, as he kept for us to God what none of us can!
Jesu keep the Command ofGod as to the Law perfectly, in both mind and body always, how could he ever disobey when doing that?
The will of the Father would be to have Jesus kept and obey fully tjh Law, correct? Is that not including loving God. lovingoters, obeying for right reasins etc?
Whatever comes forth from God's heart is God's will and whatever is God's will is God's law. Regardless of the final expression of that law (ten commandments, ceremonial, civil, covenant, conscience).
All of God's law is God's will and all of God's will originates with God's moral faculty (His heart). His heart consists of his determined thoughts, manifest in words and actions.
The whole issue of sin is who is God? This is in its entirety a moral issue, and ALL OF LAW originates solely and only from God's moral faculty - His heart.
However, His law in the form of the Old Covenant is a composite TYPE that by design has two major points. (1) It is to demonstrate that no fallen human can enter into any kind of LAW covenant with God and keep it -( moral, civil,and ceremonial laws); (2) That only the Persons of the Godhead fulfill all obligations of the eternal covenant of redemption of the elect. In all aspects of the ceremonial law fallen humans are only recipients but God in his diverse Persons are the covenant actors who entirely fulfill all redemptive obligations expressed in the everlasting covenant.
All of God's law is God's will and all of God's will originates with God's moral faculty (His heart). His heart consists of his determined thoughts, manifest in words and actions.
The whole issue of sin is who is God? This is in its entirety a moral issue, and ALL OF LAW originates solely and only from God's moral faculty - His heart.
However, His law in the form of the Old Covenant is a composite TYPE that by design has two major points. (1) It is to demonstrate that no fallen human can enter into any kind of LAW covenant with God and keep it -( moral, civil,and ceremonial laws); (2) That only the Persons of the Godhead fulfill all obligations of the eternal covenant of redemption of the elect. In all aspects of the ceremonial law fallen humans are only recipients but God in his diverse Persons are the covenant actors who entirely fulfill all redemptive obligations expressed in the everlasting covenant.
Do we all agree on there being an everlast Covenant, as we cannot seem to agree on what the Law is!
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
By fulfilling and keep the Law of the Father all ways, he was in obedience to Him always!
All that is called "the law of God" ultimately is God's will. God's will is the determined thoughts of God's heart expressed in words and/or actions. So all of God's law is moral in its origin as the heart of God is God's moral faculty.
All of God's law can be summarized in one word "love" and that one word can summarize God's Being for "God IS love." That one word can be further divided into two great commandments. Those two can be further divided into ten commandments. Those ten can be divided into civil and ceremonial type laws. However, ultimately God's law is indivisible from God's MORAL nature.
Regardless how God's law is manifested (individualized, the work of conscience, in covenant form) it all has the same origin with his moral nature - his heart.
Sin is the attempt to replace God with self and elevate self-will above God's will and thus declare self to be god.
God MUST vindicate/satisfy His law or else he forfeits His kingdom or right to be recognized as ruler and king over this world.
His own righteousness is nothing more or less than what issues forth from his own heart as determined thoughts manifest in words and actions = His will and His will is the Law of God. His righteousness is entirally MORAL in all of its essence as it is nothing more or less than His DETERMINED HEART EXPRESSION = His will.
Thus sin is entirely a moral issue that repudiates the will/law/heart of God. Therefore, the Messiah MUST manifest the SAME MORAL EQUALITY found in God's heart or else He too sets up another whole system of law/will/heart in opposition to God. God's law must be vindicated in the heart of the Messiah - His determined thoughts, words and deeds, so that he can say "I do ONLY those things that please my Father" and "I came not to do MY WILL but THY WILL" as any other manifest expression of WILL/LAW'HEART is rebelllion against God and an attempt to replace usurp God.Therefore, the MANIFEST LIFE of the Messiah is a NECESSITY for justification before God/heart/will/law, because any kind of manifest life that comes "short of the glory of God" = God's own manifest heart/will/law will be condemned by the Law. If the Messiah does not satisfy that righteousness IN BEHALF of sinners they will never be justified before God and enter into heaven even if all their past sins have been remitted. They must have the righteousness of God as the very basis for fellowship, must less justification for entrance into heaven.
Second, the Messiah MUST satisfy the fully penalty of violating the law in the behalf of sinners or else they remain under the law's condemnation forever.
To claim the covenant of redemption is not ENTIRELY A MORAL RIGHTEOUS ISSUE is to fail to understand God's own heart and the very issue of God's right to rule.
Is that the main difference between us and Jon on this issue then?
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
Again, would he not be doing both of that while keeping the Law of God fully?
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.
As I understand Jon's view, he claims the law of God is broader than than the moral righteousness of God. Instead the righteousness provided by Christ is more comprehensive of the law of God which he defines as "covenant faithfulness" and that the elect is a covenant participant with covenant obligations. I believe he is mistaken on all three counts.
I do not believe anything called "the law of God" is broader than moral righteousness but all of God's law is the expression of his will which is the determinate thoughts of God's heart or his moral nature. I do not believe that any creature is a covenant partner, or has covenant obligations to fulfill in the everlasting covenant of redemption but the ONLY participants with covenant obligations are the Triune Persons of the Godhead, and that is why the covenant is sure. I do not believe there is any other covenant righteousness than the "blood of the everlasting covenant" which was secured fully and wholly by Christ through active obedience, while the satisfaction of the law's penalty was satisfied through his passive obedience. Both his active and passive obedience was completely and entirely substitutionary in nature and that no fallen man played any role or any part, or provided anything to satisfy or secure the eternal covenant, but all obligations of the eternal covenant was completely satisfied, secured by the Trinune Persons of the Godhead.
I believe the Old Covenant was a TYPE of the everlasting covenant in two major respects.With respect to fallen man it thoroughly demonstrated that fallen man cannot fulfill any covenant obligation - none. With respect to the ceremonial aspect of the Old Covenant it provides in type that all obligations of the everlasting covenant are exclusively and entirely fulfilled by the Trinue God.
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?
Last edited:
Of course I believe his moral righteousness was part of his covenant obligation in the everlasting covenant so I too place his righteousness within a covenant framework. I think your distinction between "behavior" and "submission" is a distinction without a difference as both his active and passive righteousness were behavioral in nature.
ok
Ok. I agree there is an active and passive side of his obedience and together it is the righteousness of Christ that satisfies the full demands of God's will/law.
Ok
If that is their actual position, no, I don't agree with that position.
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.
- Status