Reformed people are familiar with J. Gresham Machen’s quote from his telegram to Dr. John Murray, “I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” We surely must be thankful for Jesus’ “active” obedience, but it is equally true (as Machen well understood) that this alone brings no hope. Unless our sinless Savior had voluntarily laid down His life on the cross, we would all be without hope. But if we stop at the cross, we still have no hope. What about the resurrection? Apart from it, our Savior’s life and death would be worthless to us. “Thank God for the resurrection of Christ. No hope without it.” Yes, but what about having the benefits of His work applied to us? Apart from faith, we cannot partake of the blessings of Jesus’ work. Ok, then, “Thank God for faith. No hope without it!” True indeed, but, one can’t believe without also repenting, so, “Thank God for repentance. No hope without it!” And we’re just beginning. Think of all the other things Jesus tells us are necessary for us to enter the kingdom or to see life. Here are a few more things without which, according to Jesus, we have no hope (and note: I’ve put them in slogan format, which apparently is the way to communicate effectively nowadays):
“Righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, no hope without it!” (Matt. 5:20)
“Plucking out the right eye and cutting off the right hand, no hope without it!” (Matt. 5:29-30)
“Forgiving other men their trespasses, no hope without it!” (Matt. 6:14-15)
“Doing the will of the Father, no hope without it!” (Matt. 7:21-23)
“Refusing to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, no hope without it!” (Matt. 12:31-32)
“Losing your life for Jesus’ sake, no hope without it!” (Matt. 16:24-25)
“Becoming like little children, no hope without it!” (Matt. 18:2-3)
“Serving your brothers, even the least of them, no hope without it!” (Matt. 25:44-46)
“Eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His blood, no hope without it!” (John 6:53)
and there are many more . . . . . . .
Unless you are mistaken for preaching cannibalism, you haven’t preached communion with Christ.
I understand that Christ can’t be broken in pieces. However, one can distinguish between the basis of salvation, the means and the effects, no? One should rightly praise God for all of them, indeed! One should (maybe?) be quick to isolate the basis of that salvation (Jesus Christ himself – his life, death, resurrection, and enthronement). One might be apt to isolate it even further: Our problem is that we (as fallen men) are actively wicked before a holy God. So, what aspect(s) of Christ’s person and earthly ministry deals with 1) paying the penalty for that wickedness and 2) procuring a perfect righteousness in which we stand before God? 1) Christ’s death (passive obedience, if you will) and 2) Christ’s obedience to the Law of God (his active obedience, if you will) would be my answers. Thus, the AOX can be seen (if a bit cerebrally) as 1/2 of the basis of our salvation. My question to you, Pastor, is: Can ya dig it?
“The Church of Jesus Christ. No Hope without it.” (The Bible)
Tim writes: “Thus, the AOX can be seen (if a bit cerebrally) as 1/2 of the basis of our salvation. My question to you, Pastor, is: Can ya dig it?”
Tim, I’m diggin’ it like a mole on steroids. My point was that our hope is in Christ alone in the fullness of His work (His full obedience — sinless life, death, resurrection, ascension, and in the outpouring of His Spirit enabling us to repent, believe, obey, follow, commune, turn from sin, etc., etc., etc.). No hope without it all.
can you dig dat?
(and Uri, you got it!)
Mole on steroids – very scary. VERY scary.
Hey, listen, a package deal’s a package deal. That’s digable, and necessarily so. Logical distinctions are just that, but they’re important – even as an understanding of the whole is important. My major point was the distinction ‘twixt basis, means, and effects of our wonderful salvation. First things first, right? The basis is more fundamental than the means, and the means more fundamental than the effects. Meanwhile, the whole goes down together… like Scooby’s sandwiches. No hope without the bologna, lettuce, mayo, etc….
-Tim
The problem, other Tim, is that the Bible nowhere suggests that Christ’s obedience to the law of God is the basis of our procuring a perfect righteousness. The Gospels – which surely is where we would expect to see plenty of evidence – aren’t structured that way at all (they’re much more concerned with recapitulation than demonstrating that Jesus kept the various demands of the law; if anything, they bring into question His Sabbatarianism).
Now, without doubt, Jesus’ sinlessness is a sine qua non in the justification process: only a spotless Lamb could stand in for us. But according to Rom 4.25, cleansing from our sins is procured via the cross, and positive justification is on the basis of the resurrection, not Jesus’ law-keeping.
FWIW.
Other Tim (and anyone else interested):
Thanks for the thoughts. I am VERY interested in learning more about recapitulation – I’m convinced that the gospels (esp., Matthew [if I recall]) present Jesus as the new Abraham, Israel, Moses, Aaron… all kinds of stuff. I’m lovin’ that and I want to know more.
I don’t think that making a false dichotomy between recapitulation and other aspects/considerations of Christ’s ministry is at all helpful. I think the Bible clearly tells us that we both lack and desperately need righteousness. We lack what Adam had and then lost. Christ’s sacrifice is one of propitiation, no argument from me. Thus, by his death, our sins and guilt are expiated – but where, then, is the positive righteousness? Where is the covenant faithfulness? Conceptually, (without the IXAO) we have neutral folks, never having kept God’s law, but not guilty from breaking it, either. That positive righteousness, as I’ve been taught from my infancy, is found in the double imputation – God imputes our sins to Christ, who dies for them. God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, and we live because of it. Thus, we have sinner both forgiven on the one hand and counted holy on the other.
I will, however, do some research and see if the Bible doesn’t teach the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. It seems like a sacred cow… those are scary things to take to slaughter, don’t ya know?
Thanks for taking the time to chat!
Heh. I realize it’s a bit of a sacred cow in some quarters. But I believe the Gospels would be very different if they aimed at showing Jesus as the Perfect Substitutionary Lawkeeper.
I’m not saying there aren’t better writers to read, but I’ve written something on the subject here:
http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/covenant/iao-letter.htm
See what you think….
I’ve not read the link yet, but it is interesting that you zero in so closely and particularly on the narrative, gospel accounts and not the more theologically didactic epistles. Narrative, ISTM, tells us more what happened, while the epistles tell us more why it happened and what it means. Anyway, just a thought. I hope I can make some time tomorrow to ready your article. Between work and preparing Sunday school… tomorrow’ll be tight!
Blessings, Tim
Tim, I don’t zero in on the Gospels in order to exclude the epistles. (The epistles simply do not teach IAO either.) In truth, Paul is probably my primary biblical studies interest.
But I do believe it’s the wrong approach to give special privilege to the “theologically didactic” parts of Scripture. Actually, if we are to learn from those parts, we discover that Paul et al built a great deal precisely upon the narrative of Scripture (see how Paul reads the Abraham story).
This reminds us that the Gospels themselves are not bare facts, and the epistles interpret THIS life that Jesus lived; they don’t present some other revelation with an altogether different perspective.
But do read the article; although it isn’t very lengthy, I think it will provide more fodder than I can provide in a brief blog comment. Blessings on your Lord’s Day.
I was somewhat dismayed to learn that Auburn Avenue has left the PCA. I was hoping the PCA would grow very fast and make PCUSA the second largest group of Presbyterians.
Rex
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints