Justification and Law in Paul

[Andre]

Your chosen translation is even inferior to the Watchtower translation. Your translation does not translate the Greek text properly. Both the Critical Text and the Received text have the words "but is passed from death unto life" but your translation omits them entirely.

The NET translation is a scholarly, respected translation.

You are illustrating exactly what I have said. You will do ANYTHING to defend you interpretation of Romans 2:6-10 - ANYTHING!

Argumentative speculation for which you obviously have no evidence. You have no access to my internal motivations and are speculating, incorrectly I might add, that I am motivated to engage in dubious arguments merely to support my position.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No I did not agree that no "Jew could be justified under the Law of Moses". I have asserted, and have yet to provide the argument, that no Jew who pursued the Law of Moses in a manner which sought to restrict salvation to Jews could be justified under the Law of Moses.

I will implicitly address all your other points when I get around to making my arguments.

I have never said that one can be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. In fact, I agree that it is impossible to be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. - Andre (post 185 - The Accursed Gospel of Works)

 

[Andre]

Here is the problem with asserting that the Christian will not be subject to a judgement: Paul clearly says that they will:

For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” 8 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, 16 so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil

Do you agree that there will at least be some kind of judgement at which the Christian will appear?

 

[Andre]

I have never said that one can be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. In fact, I agree that it is impossible to be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. - Andre (post 185 - The Accursed Gospel of Works)

That was poor wording on my part. In this thread, I have stated that no Jew who pursued the Law of Moses in a manner which sought to restrict salvation to Jews could be justified under the Law of Moses

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here is the problem with asserting that the Christian will not be subject to a judgement: Paul clearly says that they will:

For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” 8 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, 16 so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil

Do you agree that there will at least be some kind of judgement at which the Christian will appear?

The judgement of saints is for REWARDS not issues of LIFE versus DEATH (I Cor. 13:14-15).

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That was poor wording on my part. In this thread, I have stated that no Jew who pursued the Law of Moses in a manner which sought to restrict salvation to Jews could be justified under the Law of Moses

Absolute hogwash! That is not "poor wording" that is very clear, unambiguous and precise wording! Anyone who has two grains of common sense between their ears recognizes such language as emphatic, explicit and designed to be unambigious!

 

[Andre]

Absolute hogwash! That is not "poor wording" that is very clear, unambiguous and precise wording! Anyone who has two grains of common sense between their ears recognizes such language as emphatic, explicit and designed to be unambigious!

No.

You need to accept that I am telling the truth - which I am. When I wrote the statement you quoted, I made an error in how I expressed myself. There are some very fine nuances here and I concede that my wording does not always reflect my intent.

 

[Andre]

The judgement of saints is for REWARDS not issues of LIFE versus DEATH (I Cor. 13:14-15).

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

There are two problems with your position here:

1. I suggest that you will not be able to make a strong Biblical case of this separate "rewards, not eternal life" judgement. I suggest that the 2 judgement model is not strongly supported in the Bible. Rather, it is a model that work if only certain prior assumptions are made. There are, I suggest, no texts that directly make the case for this "rewards, not eternal life" distinction - it is something you more or less need to read in.

2. Now about 1 Corinthians 13: (Sorry about the font - I have no idea why this is happening)

People will often use material in 1 Corinthians 13 to support the argument that there will be a “rewards” judgement – based on works – at which eternal life itself is not at stake. However, the text in question is specifically directed at church leaders and teachers. It is telling them that they will not lose their salvation if they bungle their responsibilities to build the church. But this hardly means that that they will not be judged according to good works and receive eternal life on that basis.

Here is the text, set in context:

For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? 5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. 10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

In verse 9, Paul clearly sets the "we" who are leaders against the "you" who are the members of the church. The argument goes on to say something about the "we" - the leaders. Paul has identified himself and Apollos as the "we" here. The "we" are not, repeat not, all believers. And, of course, the text goes to say something about this "we" - that if they do not build in the right manner, this "we" will still be saved.

This text nowhere addresses any person, in specific relation to the concluding statement about salvation, who is not charged with church leadership, or any task that is not a church leadership task.

The text is what it is - to generalize what Paul is saying is not proper exegesis. Paul is addressing a very specific issue – the responsibilities of church leaders and how they will not lose their salvation if they fail at those specific responsibilities. He is not making a general theological statement – that is something people “read in”.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There are two problems with your position here:

1. I suggest that you will not be able to make a strong Biblical case of this separate "rewards, not eternal life" judgement. I suggest that the 2 judgement model is not strongly supported in the Bible. Rather, it is a model that work if only certain prior assumptions are made. There are, I suggest, no texts that directly make the case for this "rewards, not eternal life" distinction - it is something you more or less need to read in.

Don't need a two separated judgment to establish this position. Even in a single judgement position, the saints are not there to have their works judged for the same reason the lost are. The righteous are separated from the lost even in a single judgement scenario and they are separated as sheep are separated from goats or as wheat from tares and judgement of each fits the condition of each (Mt. 13; 25).

2. Now about 1 Corinthians 13: (Sorry about the font - I have no idea why this is happening)

You mean I Corithians 3 not "13."

FONT=Calibri]People will often use material in 1 Corinthians 13 to support the argument that there will be a “rewards” judgement – based on works – at which eternal life itself is not at stake. However, the text in question is specifically directed at church leaders and teachers.

So, you take the rediculous position that simply because the MANNER OF WORKS for God that characterize their Christian calling means this cannot be applied to all Christians in regard to the MANNER OF WORKS for God that characterize the common Christian calling to serve God???? Think about how silly of a position that is!!!

Second, Paul clearly defines the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and stuble as all representing "works" that judgement will determine to be good or bad.

Third, Paul explicitly states what is approved by judgement receives "rewards" in contrast with suffering "loss".

Fourth, Paul explicitly makes it a point to clarify this is not a judgement upon the "soul" of the saved but upon the "works" of the saved.

Fifth, Paul makes it clear this is the day of judgement upon the works of the saved.

This text is so clear and explicit that you must intentionally FORCE it to mean something other than what it naturally says. However, that is your modus operandi!

 

[Andre]

Don't need a two separated judgment to establish this position. Even in a single judgement position, the saints are not there to have their works judged for the same reason the lost are. The righteous are separated from the lost even in a single judgement scenario and they are separated as sheep are separated from goats or as wheat from tares and judgement of each fits the condition of each (Mt. 13; 25).

Even so, please show me a text where it is clear that the Christian is judged in any manner where eternal life is not at stake.

So, you take the rediculous position that simply because the MANNER OF WORKS for God that characterize their Christian calling means this cannot be applied to all Christians in regard to the MANNER OF WORKS for God that characterize the common Christian calling to serve God???? Think about how silly of a position that is!!!

If you want to call careful attention to what Paul actually writes, then, yes, I am indeed being silly.

As my argument shows, Paul is addressing church leaders and assuring them that their salvation is not at risk if they fail as leaders. Going beyond that is to read something in to the text.

Second, Paul clearly defines the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and stuble as all representing "works" that judgement will determine to be good or bad.

But, again, as my argument shows, this statement is made in specific relation to the "works" that church leaders perform in their specific role as church leaders.

Third, Paul explicitly states what is approved by judgement receives "rewards" in contrast with suffering "loss".

Again, the context is what it is - Paul is speaking specifically to church leaders only.

Fourth, Paul explicitly makes it a point to clarify this is not a judgement upon the "soul" of the saved but upon the "works" of the saved.

I agree, but, yet again, he is making this statement in specific relation to church leaders and telling them that their final salvation is not in jeopardy if they fail as leaders.

He is not telling them that they will not be subjected to a "good works" judgement.

This text is so clear and explicit that you must intentionally FORCE it to mean something other than what it naturally says. However, that is your modus operandi!

Incorrect - you have simply not engaged the actual content of my argument.

You will not be able to provide a single scintilla of textual evidence that sustains your view that Paul is speaking generally here.

And you have precisely zero evidence that I have ever "forced" texts to mean something other than what the writer intended. It is one thing to claim that I have done this, it is quite another to defend such a claim.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul certainly thinks that some will come into judgement and "pass":

He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality

True indeed and Paul says IN that text that those who pass are "the Jew first and also the Gentile". Believe it! It is true! God's Word cannot be broken.

I am not entirely sure I understand how you deal with this text, although you probably have addressed it with arguments that I have not yet had time to entirely deal with.

I would not bet the farm on that one just yet.

in christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am very aware of Romans 3:31.

I do not have the time to get into the details here, but I believe that the "law" that is established is something other than the written code of the Law of Moses, even though it is closely related to it.

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" -- are you thinking that Paul is sidestepping scripture and is talking about Commandments that are not the Commandments Christ mentioned - pre-cross and not the commandments found in the Scriptures that Paul had in his hands?

In Romans 7 Paul "gives examples" of the Law of God - turns out they are from the Ten Commandments.

James gives examples of the Law of God in James 2 - also from the Ten Commandments.

Paul gives more "examples" in Rom 13 -- from the Ten Commandments.

In Eph 6:3-4 Paul says that the 5th commandment is the "First commandment with a promise" -- that is only true if you are looking at scripture - and specifically looking at "the unit of Ten".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the problem with asserting that the Christian will not be subject to a judgement: Paul clearly says that they will:

For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” 8 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, 16 so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil

Do you agree that there will at least be some kind of judgement at which the Christian will appear?

Andre - you have to look at context to see which meaning is given to "judgment".

As you point out in 2Cor 5 and in Romans 2:13-16 are examples of impartial judgment where some pass and some fail.

In John 5 we have the context where "condemnation" is the right meaning


24 ""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

“Judgment” is used in vs 24 and in vs 29 in the sense of “condemnation”. (A bad thing). The promise is that the saints do not come into judgment – the condemnation of death which is upon all mankind for all have sinned.

29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Judgment used to convey “condemnation” is seen in vs 24, 27, 29 and also in He4, 10:27, 2Peter 2:4, 1Cor 11:29, James 5:12

Judgment used to convey righteous – salvation – Dan 7:22, Ps 9:8, 36:6, 103:6, 48:11
Judgment of the saints – Rom 14:10 2Cor 5:10, 1Peter 4:17,

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

1. Where there is no law there is no sin.

2. Where there is law, that law is the standard of righteousness

3. The Jew had such a standard

4. The Gentile had such a standard

5. In order for Christ to redeem both Gentile and Jew, He would have to satisfy both the righteousness of those standards as well as their violation.

6. Christ was born "under the law" - The Jewish standard

7. Christ fulfilled the Jewish standard - He did no sin under that standard

8. Hence, the Jewish standard had to be inclusive of any and all other Gentile standards or Gentiles cannot be redeemed because no one has satisfied the standard they have violated.

9. Hence, the Gentile standard is written on their conscience and is the same basic standard as written on tablets of stone for the Jews and thus the more comprehensive Jewish standard includes all lessor standards.

10. Thus when Paul denies that "no flesh" and "every mouth" and "all the world" cannot be justified by "the law" (Rom. 3:19-20) then "the law" must be the Jewish standard which comprehends all lessor standards of law as greater includes lessor.

11. Therefore when Paul denies that anyone is justified by "the law of works" in Romans 3:27 he is speaking of all standards of law (Gentile/Jewish) as they have all been satisfied by Christ's life and death as greater comprehends lessor.

12. Thus when he says we are justified by faith "without the deeds of the law" he is exluding all standards of righteousness with the deeds required to measure up to such standards.

If you deny the Jewish law comprehends all lessor standards of righteousness then there can be no salvation provided by Christ except for the Jews as the Jewish law was the only standard Jesus was born "under" and claimed He had come to "fulfill" and claimed He did not violate by His life.

If you admit that all lessor laws are comprehended in the greater Jewish law then the words "without the deeds of the Law" comprehend all such laws and their requirements necessary not to violate them.

 

[Andre]

1. Where there is no law there is no sin.

2. Where there is law, that law is the standard of righteousness

3. The Jew had such a standard

4. The Gentile had such a standard

5. In order for Christ to redeem both Gentile and Jew, He would have to satisfy both the righteousness of those standards as well as their violation.

You assume that Christ came to "satisfy" such standards. I suggest that the Scriptures do not really support this position. A case can be made that Jesus did come to be obedient to any law - even though he did not sin - but rather to be obedient to the covenantal vocation of Israel.

6. Christ was born "under the law" - The Jewish standard

7. Christ fulfilled the Jewish standard - He did no sin under that standard

Even if Jesus did not "break" the Law of Moses (I think He did, but that's another story), this does not mean that Jesus' keeping of the Law somehow is the basis for our justification. I suggest that you are assuming the truth of certain reformed ideas that, when carefully examined, have some major problems.

 

[Dr. Walter]

no sir, a case cannot be established that Christ satisfied some other law than the Mosaic law unless you completely ignore the Scriptures or completely redefine terms and do it contrary to the immediate context they are found.

For example,

Mt. 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Verse 17 defines the law he has come to fulfill. The phrase "the law and the prophets" were well know descriptives for the first five books of the Old Testament and the prophets who wrote the rest of the Old Testament scriptuers and expounded the Law of Moses.

Verses 21-32 explicitly include the Ten Comandments as part of the law he can to fulfil.

For example,

Ga 4:4 But when the fulness 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.

The law in question is first introduced in Galatians 2:10 as the law WRITTEN IN THE BOOK which when violated brings a CURSE that is also written in the book:

Gal. 2:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Galatians 5:17-24 demands this same law was given 430 years after Abraham and it is the Mosaic Law.

The above scriptures prove Christ was born under the Mosaic law in order to redeem us from the curse of that law and that Christ became a curse under that law. It was that law that Jesus was born under and came to fulfil.

This is the just the tip of the iceberg to prove your position is completely foreign to the Scriptures.

You assume that Christ came to "satisfy" such standards. I suggest that the Scriptures do not really support this position. A case can be made that Jesus did come to be obedient to any law - even though he did not sin - but rather to be obedient to the covenantal vocation of Israel.


Even if Jesus did not "break" the Law of Moses (I think He did, but that's another story), this does not mean that Jesus' keeping of the Law somehow is the basis for our justification. I suggest that you are assuming the truth of certain reformed ideas that, when carefully examined, have some major problems.

 

[Andre]

no sir, a case cannot be established that Christ satisfied some other law than the Mosaic law unless you completely ignore the Scriptures or completely redefine terms and do it contrary to the immediate context they are found.

There was a typo in my original statement. It should have read as follows:

You assume that Christ came to "satisfy" such standards. I suggest that the Scriptures do not really support this position. A case can be made that Jesus did not come to be obedient to any law - even though he did not sin - but rather to be obedient to the covenantal vocation of Israel

For example,

Mt. 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Verse 17 defines the law he has come to fulfill. The phrase "the law and the prophets" were well know descriptives for the first five books of the Old Testament and the prophets who wrote the rest of the Old Testament scriptuers and expounded the Law of Moses.

No. When Jesus says He came to fufill the Law, this does not require us to understand this a statement that obeying the Law was the thing He was primarily sent to do in terms of "being obedient". I suggest instead that Jesus' fundamental obedience was an obedience to the covenantal obligations of Israel.

I am well aware that many in the reformed tradition understand that when Paul talks about Jesus' obedience, as here:

For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous

......he (Paul) is referring to Jesus' obedience to the Law of Moses. That is not the only possibility. I suggest that what Paul is talking about here is that Jesus was obedient to the covenant obligations of Israel that she (Israel) had not fulfilled.

But the concept of "fulfilling the law" can be understood as "achieving the goal of the law". And Jesus certainly can do that through means other than simply "obeying" it. You are, I suggest, forcing the concept "fulfill the Law" to mean "obey the Law".

That is not legitimate. Suppose that there was some law in place whose goal is to make a certain society free of crime. Fine. Now suppose someone comes along and gives everyone a miracle drug that transforms them into nice people. That person has "fulfilled the law" in the sense that he has done something that has achieved the intent of the Law.

Was that achieved by obedience to the law? No. It was achieved by something else.

And I suggest that this is the case with Jesus. While it can be argued that He obeyed the Law, we do not need to understand this to constitute the important aspect of Jesus' obedience (as per Romans 5). I suggest that the central aspect of Jesus' obedience was to the covenant obligations of Israel.

 

[Andre]

Sorry for the length. This material addresses the issue of "what" Jesus was primarily "obedient" to.

Consider this famous statement from Paul in Romans 5:

For as through the one man's disobedience (AM)the many (AN)were made sinners, even so through (AO)the obedience of the One (AP)the many will be made righteous.

What is Jesus obedient to here? Many, if not most, think that Paul is referring to Jesus’ perfect obedience to the Law of Moses. By contrast, I believe that Jesus was obedient to Israel's covenant obligations, thereby fulfilling the long plan of God to use Israel to solve the problems of sin and death.

In the book of Romans, Paul speaks at several points of the righteousness of God. One particularly relevant example is this text from Romans 3:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Now many of your translations will have “righteousness from God” and / or “faith in Jesus Christ”. Huge difference in implied meaning don’t you think? The NET translation which I have provided describes righteous acts that God and Christ perform, where as “righteousness from God” renderings line up with what I have to come to believe is a non-Biblical position – that the believer is imputed the righteousness of Christ. I will not argue the point as to why I think the NET rendering is correct, but I can upon request. So, in summary, these verses are asserting that God’s righteousness is revealed through Jesus’ faithful actions.

Can we narrow in more precisely on what Paul means here by “righteousness”? - In what exact sense is God, through Christ, being righteous? I believe that we get an insight in Romans 10 – the only place later in the letter where the phrase “righteousness of God” appears:

For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.[/COLOR]

Paul is talking about the Jews here, commenting that they have not understood how God is acting in history in this “righteous” manner whose sense we are pursuing. Note, what Paul goes on to write:

But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "(H)DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE (I)ABYSS?' (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead)." 8But what does it say? "(K)THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,

Paul gets this text from Deuteronomy 30. And what is Deuteronomy 30 all about? It is about the covenant, and more specifically about its renewal. This section of Romans 10 is a kind of nexus for a number of theological themes. But for our present purposes, note that immediately after having referred to the “righteousness of God”, Paul quotes from a passage that concludes the great covenantal block of chapters running from Deuteronomy 27 to 30.

How likely does it seem to you that Paul would be referring to something other than God’s fidelity to His covenant here in the phrase “righteousness of God”. Not likely, I suggest. His mind is clearly tuned to Deuteronomy 30, which is all about God’s promises in the specific context of the covenant.

Besides, look at Romans 9 – it is clearly a treatment of God’s covenant dealings with Israel. At the very outset we get a huge hint as to what is on Paul’s mind: “But it is not as though (Q)the word of God has failed”. What can this “word” be except the covenantal promises. And that the covenant is in view by the immediately following references to promises made in respect to Abraham’s descendents. Note also that we get all the key players and events, in the right sequence: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Pharaoh, Moses, the exodus, threat of exile and now, here in Romans 10, covenant renewal. And notice what we get later in Romans 10 – the very blessing of the Gentile nations which are part of the covenant (refer Genesis 12, 22, etc).

This is simply too much to be coincidence – Paul is clearly absorbed in God’s covenant dealings with Israel here. So it would be an odd departure from that argument to refer to the “righteousness of God” in some non-covenantal sense. Good writers do not do things like that – and Paul is a very good writer.

So to conclude, we return to Romans 3 where this same phrase “righteousness of God” is said to be fulfilled by the faithfulness of Jesus.

So what is Jesus being faithful to? He is faithful to the covenant, fulfilling Israel’s covenant obligations. There is this interesting sense in which Jesus takes on the role of Israel, God’s covenant partner and does what Israel was supposed to do.

 

[Dr. Walter]

We are justified by His "righteousness" and there is no such thing as "righteouness" where there is no standard to define righteous from non-righteous. That standard is the law.

There is no "sin" where there is no law and the Bible clearly says that Jesus did not commit 'sin" which demands he conformed to the law's standards.

Therefore, your position that Christ came only to fullfil Israel's "vocation" is completely false and bankrupt UNLESS that "vocation" was obeying the Mosaic Law he was born under and the Bible explicitly says he was born "under" the law and that is precisely why the Bible says he did no "sin" as "sin" has no other reference or existence apart from the Law.

There was a typo in my original statement. It should have read as follows:

You assume that Christ came to "satisfy" such standards. I suggest that the Scriptures do not really support this position. A case can be made that Jesus did not come to be obedient to any law - even though he did not sin - but rather to be obedient to the covenantal vocation of Israel


No. When Jesus says He came to fufill the Law, this does not require us to understand this a statement that obeying the Law was the thing He was primarily sent to do in terms of "being obedient". I suggest instead that Jesus' fundamental obedience was an obedience to the covenantal obligations of Israel.

I am well aware that many in the reformed tradition understand that when Paul talks about Jesus' obedience, as here:

For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous

......he (Paul) is referring to Jesus' obedience to the Law of Moses. That is not the only possibility. I suggest that what Paul is talking about here is that Jesus was obedient to the covenant obligations of Israel that she (Israel) had not fulfilled.

But the concept of "fulfilling the law" can be understood as "achieving the goal of the law". And Jesus certainly can do that through means other than simply "obeying" it. You are, I suggest, forcing the concept "fulfill the Law" to mean "obey the Law".

That is not legitimate. Suppose that there was some law in place whose goal is to make a certain society free of crime. Fine. Now suppose someone comes along and gives everyone a miracle drug that transforms them into nice people. That person has "fulfilled the law" in the sense that he has done something that has achieved the intent of the Law.

Was that achieved by obedience to the law? No. It was achieved by something else.

And I suggest that this is the case with Jesus. While it can be argued that He obeyed the Law, we do not need to understand this to constitute the important aspect of Jesus' obedience (as per Romans 5). I suggest that the central aspect of Jesus' obedience was to the covenant obligations of Israel.

 

[Andre]

We are justified by His "righteousness" and there is no such thing as "righteouness" where there is no standard to define righteous from non-righteous. That standard is the law.

You are ignoring another possibility: that when it comes to statements about Jesus being "righteous" or "obedient", Paul is referring to Jesus' obedience to Israel's covenantal obligations.

You cannot simply sweep such a possibility off the table. I have presented it and, in my last post, I argued for it at some length.

There is no "sin" where there is no law and the Bible clearly says that Jesus did not commit 'sin" which demands he conformed to the law's standards.

I was not talking about Jesus and the Law of Moses. I was merely asserting that statements about Jesus' obedience (by Paul) are not statements about His obedience to the Law of Moses - they are instead statements to the effect that Jesus took the role of Israel, and was obedient to her covenantal obligations.

What was Israel's covenant obligation? To be a blessing to the world. How did Jesus "obey" this obligation? By going to the cross and dying for the world.

Therefore, your position that Christ came only to fullfil Israel's "vocation" is completely false and bankrupt UNLESS that "vocation" was obeying the Mosaic Law he was born under and the Bible explicitly says he was born "under" the law and that is precisely why the Bible says he did no "sin" as "sin" has no other reference or existence apart from the Law.

No - as already argued.