Forensic Justification of sinners!

[The Biblicist]

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.

He is merely disclaiming independent action when he says "not my will but thy will." In other words, unlike the first Adam, he was not going to follow his own agenda. When he asked to have this cup removed, he was asking something consistent with his previous practice and holy nature as it would be inconsistent of a holy nature to seek to be made sin. However, in concluding "thy will be done" he was denying independency from God's agenda for the redemption of sinners. So this statement provides the demarcation between his active and passive obedience.

 

[JonC]

He is merely disclaiming independent action when he says "not my will but thy will." In other words, unlike the first Adam, he was not going to follow his own agenda. When he asked to have this cup removed, he was asking something consistent with his previous practice and holy nature as it would be inconsistent of a holy nature to seek to be made sin. However, in concluding "thy will be done" he was denying independency from God's agenda for the redemption of sinners. So this statement provides the demarcation between his active and passive obedience.

I believe this is Jesus living as we should have lived, not seeking the will of the will of his flesh (which woud not include being nailed to a cross) but the will of God. Through his ministry (even at the start) he tells us he was not acting of his own initiative.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe this is Jesus living as we should have lived, not seeking the will of the will of his flesh (which woud not include being nailed to a cross) but the will of God. Through his ministry (even at the start) he tells us he was not acting of his own initiative.

I don't believe that there is a duplicity or dichotomy of wills existent in Christ. I don't believe there is ever a single solitary second that his bodily cravings were ever under the rule of sin but always were under the leadership of the Spirit. I believe he is referring to his righteous holy disposition that always resisted sin but now knowing he must be made the very thing he has always resisted. Therefore, it is perfectly righteous for him to say "Not my will" meaning my will has always been contrary to sin in all forms and but now I must be made sin in order to redeem the elect according to God's eternal purpose of redemption, thus I must be made the very thing that I have resisted being. Hence, it is righteous for "my will" to resist sin but "not my will" in this instance but "thy will be done" in becoming sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

The cross was never plan B, but was always the ONLY plan:

From that time forth began Jesus to show to his disciples, how that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. - Mt. 16:21

Joh 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I to this hour.

There was never any vacillating in Christ concerning the cross. Basically your interpretation of Christ's words "not my will" is "Father, save me from this hour" because as my flesh is recoiling from this physical horror.

His flesh was under the control of His Spirit at all times with but this one purpose in view. However, it would have been inconsistent with his holy nature under the leadership of the Spirit to not to express unwillingness to become the very thing his holy nature had resisted - sin, as sin is incompatible with his own holiness. It is consistent for him to express it is not his will to become sin, but nevertheless, submitting to the will of the Father in being made sin in order to destroy sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

You aren ot stating my belief correctly here, as I hold that Jesus always obeyed the Father, was In His will at all times, due to Him perfectly keeping thLaw as God intended Adam to do it, and thus, He was qualifed to be Messiah due to sinless life, keeping the Law of God, and also by virtue of being God Incannate, so God declares me right with him, due to their being one who bore my sin in full and qualified to do that!
esus keepinfully te Law of God was both passive and active, as he had to choose to keep doing /acting/thinking/saying right things all thetime!

 

[JonC]

You aren ot stating my belief correctly here, as I hold that Jesus always obeyed the Father, was In His will at all times, due to Him perfectly keeping thLaw as God intended Adam to do it, and thus, He was qualifed to be Messiah due to sinless life, keeping the Law of God, and also by virtue of being God Incannate, so God declares me right with him, due to their being one who bore my sin in full and qualified to do that!
esus keepinfully te Law of God was both passive and active, as he had to choose to keep doing /acting/thinking/saying right things all thetime!

There is a difference between saying that Jesus always obeyed the Father and saying that Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, even to the death of the cross. The point here is that Jesus was in full submission to the Father, not as some super-human but as man. And as man Jesus fulfilled what we could not. This is a part of the redemption of mankind. The sacrifice, the laying down of his life, the atonement...this does not begin on the cross - it is much more than just moving the "sin debt" from one column on a ledger to another. The cross is the apex of this sacrifice. When Jesus cries "It is finished" he is speaking of redemption as a process - his entire life and ministry on this earth and the cross as it's climax.

You are the one, not I, who said that this humbling ended with the Incarnation. If you changed your mind about that, then wonderful. If you misstated your position, then great. But don't accuse me of misstating what you posted. I do not know what you believe except as you have posted on this forum.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Never Stated that! My answer was in regards to you stating that Jesus was humble to point of death on Cross. my point was tht Jesu major humbling was when e Incarnted as a Human being, and chose to be a man, and we do agreethat Jesus had to both passive and active in obeying God, bu we see Him as fulfilling both of those aspects by keeping keeping theLaw of God!

 

[JonC]

I don't believe that there is a duplicity or dichotomy of wills existent in Christ. I don't believe there is ever a single solitary second that his bodily cravings were ever under the rule of sin but always were under the leadership of the Spirit. I believe he is referring to his righteous holy disposition that always resisted sin but now knowing he must be made the very thing he has always resisted. Therefore, it is perfectly righteous for him to say "Not my will" meaning my will has always been contrary to sin in all forms and but now I must be made sin in order to redeem the elect according to God's eternal purpose of redemption, thus I must be made the very thing that I have resisted being. Hence, it is righteous for "my will" to resist sin but "not my will" in this instance but "thy will be done" in becoming sin.

I don't believe Jesus was tempted to sin either. The "lusts of the flesh" (or human desires) are not inherently sinful. James tells us sin is conceived when we are tempted and give into temptation to satisfy those lusts. So I believe that Jesus did, in fact, hunger and thirst. I believe that his will was not to die and not to suffer. I also believe he refused to turn the stone to bread because it was not his will but the will of the Father than he came to accomplish.

I do not see how you can legitimately interpret "not my will but the will of the Father" to mean "my will as always been contrary to sin in all forms but now I must be made sin" when the Garden was far from the first time Jesus spoke those words. Add to that Scripture stating that Jesus humbled himself by becoming man, did nothing of his own initiative, and that the work of the Cross was accomplished "through the Spirit" and your definition seems forced.

 

[JonC]

Never Stated that! My answer was in regards to you stating that Jesus was humble to point of death on Cross. my point was tht Jesu major humbling was when e Incarnted as a Human being, and chose to be a man, and we do agreethat Jesus had to both passive and active in obeying God, bu we see Him as fulfilling both of those aspects by keeping keeping theLaw of God!

Ok, let's play a game. One of these things is not like the other. Tell me, can you pick which one?

Jesus accepted to becoming Human, God Incarnted, and that was what was limiting Him... He was God in human flesh, so why did he need to have the Holy Spiit empowering Him? If it wasin order to do miracles an iter things, He till as different in hat then you or me, snce he had a sinless nature and was fully God? Think his humblingwas not in His life on earth, but in accepting to being Incarnated itself!

Philippians 2:5-11Have 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 reason also, 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 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.

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.

Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a difference between saying that Jesus always obeyed the Father and saying that Jesus humbled himself and became obedient, even to the death of the cross. The point here is that Jesus was in full submission to the Father, not as some super-human but as man. And as man Jesus fulfilled what we could not. This is a part of the redemption of mankind. The sacrifice, the laying down of his life, the atonement...this does not begin on the cross - it is much more than just moving the "sin debt" from one column on a ledger to another. The cross is the apex of this sacrifice. When Jesus cries "It is finished" he is speaking of redemption as a process - his entire life and ministry on this earth and the cross as it's climax.

You are the one, not I, who said that this humbling ended with the Incarnation. If you changed your mind about that, then wonderful. If you misstated your position, then great. But don't accuse me of misstating what you posted. I do not know what you believe except as you have posted on this forum.

His gretaest humbling was before he came, as becoming a human after being always God was most humbling act of all!
And while Jesus always obeyed his Father, by keeping the Law and being always submissive, He could do that becauseHe was God Incarnate, as NO other person woul always being able to do that, even with the Spirit, as NONE of us can reach a sinless perfection state here!

 

[JonC]

His gretaest humbling was before he came, as becoming a human after being always God was most humbling act of all!
And while Jesus always obeyed his Father, by keeping the Law and being always submissive, He could do that becauseHe was God Incarnate, as NO other person woul always being able to do that, even with the Spirit, as NONE of us can reach a sinless perfection state here!

I am not in the position to determine what his "greatest humbling" would be. But the point of Christ's ministry was that everyone could live as he lived on earth, except they won't. You have to understand this to understand salvation. Jesus' life on earth was completely as man, submitted to the Father and through the Spirit. Otherwise the cross is meaningless to us. Jesus' perfect obedience cannot be separated from his perfect submission, and this is our example through Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't believe Jesus was tempted to sin either. The "lusts of the flesh" (or human desires) are not inherently sinful. James tells us sin is conceived when we are tempted and give into temptation to satisfy those lusts. So I believe that Jesus did, in fact, hunger and thirst. I believe that his will was not to die and not to suffer. I also believe he refused to turn the stone to bread because it was not his will but the will of the Father than he came to accomplish.

I believe the same thing.

I do not see how you can legitimately interpret "not my will but the will of the Father" to mean "my will as always been contrary to sin in all forms but now I must be made sin" when the Garden was far from the first time Jesus spoke those words. Add to that Scripture stating that Jesus humbled himself by becoming man, did nothing of his own initiative, and that the work of the Cross was accomplished "through the Spirit" and your definition seems forced.

Previously his assertions denied independent action from the Father and therefore "I always do what pleases my Father." However, in the Garden is a different context completely and the issue is the satisfaction of God's wrath which he would be the focus and made the object of wrath and justly so, as he became sin legally in our position. Therefore,it is perfectly consistent with his holy nature in view of imminently being made to be sin that his holy nature would say "if it is possible" remove this cup as a holy man never wishes to be identified with sin, much less made to be sin. That is the just and right response from a holy nature. But it was not possible to redeem fallen man any other way.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe Jesus was tempted to sin either. The "lusts of the flesh" (or human desires) are not inherently sinful. James tells us sin is conceived when we are tempted and give into temptation to satisfy those lusts. So I believe that Jesus did, in fact, hunger and thirst. I believe that his will was not to die and not to suffer. I also believe he refused to turn the stone to bread because it was not his will but the will of the Father than he came to accomplish.

I do not see how you can legitimately interpret "not my will but the will of the Father" to mean "my will as always been contrary to sin in all forms but now I must be made sin" when the Garden was far from the first time Jesus spoke those words. Add to that Scripture stating that Jesus humbled himself by becoming man, did nothing of his own initiative, and that the work of the Cross was accomplished "through the Spirit" and your definition seems forced.

Jesus experience real temttion common to all men, andhe sinned not. Jesus could not ever sin, but did not mean was not tempted in a real sense!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ok, let's play a game. One of these things is not like the other. Tell me, can you pick which one?



Philippians 2:5-11Have 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 reason also, 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 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.

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.

Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus humbling Himself by allowing Himself to bcame huma being was when he accepted all of those limitaionstat would involve, so His humbling started then at his birth , as he would have that same mind he had while in Heaen while here on earth!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not in the position to determine what his "greatest humbling" would be. But the point of Christ's ministry was that everyone could live as he lived on earth, except they won't. You have to understand this to understand salvation. Jesus' life on earth was completely as man, submitted to the Father and through the Spirit. Otherwise the cross is meaningless to us. Jesus' perfect obedience cannot be separated from his perfect submission, and this is our example through Christ.

None of us could have done that though, as we are sinners and are not God!
Jesus qualified to b theMessiah du toHim being both God and man, as he keptthe Law asa Man, but was able to do that sinve e was also God!

Both aspects of His natures ere involvedin this salvation process!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the same thing.



Previously his assertions denied independent action from the Father and therefore "I always do what pleases my Father." However, in the Garden is a different context completely and the issue is the satisfaction of God's wrath which he would be the focus and made the object of wrath and justly so, as he became sin legally in our position. Therefore,it is perfectly consistent with his holy nature in view of imminently being made to be sin that his holy nature would say "if it is possible" remove this cup as a holy man never wishes to be identified with sin, much less made to be sin. That is the just and right response from a holy nature. But it was not possible to redeem fallen man any other way.

Jesus in His deity would have recoiled at the notion of becoming the sin bearer on our behalf,a s that would make necessary that he woudl for the only time in all history feel estranged/forsaken by His Fathr just a sinner will!

 

[JonC]

None of us could have done that though, as we are sinners dnd are not God!

We could have done that. That is the point, and the condemnation. We could but we wouldn't. Obedience and submission is not, as Edwards pointed out, outside of our power. It is outside of our will and desire. Jesus had the same nature that we have, but he was without sin.

 

[JonC]

Jesus in His deity would have recoiled at the notion of becoming the sin bearer on our behalf,a s that would make necessary that he woudl for the only time in all history feel estranged/forsaken by His Fathr just a sinner will!

We can't say "Jesus in his deity" and then "Jesus in his humanity". This is neither biblical nor logical.

 

[Yeshua1]

We can't say "Jesus in his deity" and then "Jesus in his humanity". This is neither biblical nor logical.

How so? Jesus was able to fully obey th Father due to Him being God incarnte, correct? And h did moravles from His deity, and felt sleeping, tired , felt pain in his humanity, correct? His deity was veliedinHuman flesh, but still as God, correct?