Passive Obedience

[Guido's Brother]

In the May/June 2007 issue of Modern Reformation there's an interesting article by J.V. Fesko, A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ.

At one point in the article he says, "The term passive obedience comes from the Latin word passio, which means suffering."

I have read this elsewhere from other authors. On the other hand, there are many writers who seem to think that (in reference to Christ's obedience) passive is the direct opposite of active.

So, what is it now: not-active or suffering?

 

[MW]

Traditionally the terms were only relative to the precept and the penalty of the law. John Murray (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pp. 21-22):

Murray: “The distinction between the active and passive obedience is not a distinction of periods. It is our Lord’s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and passive, and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the obedience of his life and the passive obedience to the obedience of his final sufferings and death.
The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience. The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands. It demands not only the full discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. 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. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter.”

 

[eternallifeinchrist]

Is this a newer term? Can you let me know who Murrey is, and when he was around?

 

[Guido's Brother]

Thanks for the reference to Murray. I did a bit of digging in Bavinck (Magnalia Dei). He distinguishes between "lijdelijke" (suffering) and "dadelijke" (active) obedience. It would seem to me that Fesko is right.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

For what it's worth. The forthcoming issue of The Confessional Presbyterian will have an expanded version of an article by Wes White on "The Denial of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ: Piscator on Justification."

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Active and Passive Obedience

There is an entire essay devoted to these questions here:

 

[Guido's Brother]

Thanks, Scott. Your essay is one of the places where I read that definition of passive obedience. However, I found it odd that Guy Waters quotes James Jordan's misconstrual of passive obedience ("The merit theology sometimes assumes that Jesus actively earned a reward and passively went to the cross") but doesn't seem to take him to task for it (p.39 of The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology). Same with Leithart on page 56. Perhaps I missed Waters' critique on this point along the way somewhere...

 

[eternallifeinchrist]

And another
John Murray
Thank you! Maybe I'll rememberc that!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Dr. John Murray

I believe it is always "Professor Murray"; no Dr. I'm surprised no Murray fan has caught that; at least I was always told that.

 

[MW]

James Buchanan (Justification, p. 307):

Divines have generally made a distinction between what is called the active and passive obedience of Christ; and this distinction is both legitimate and useful, when it is correctly understood, and judiciously applied. It is not to be interpreted as if it meant, that His passive obedience consisted in mere suffering, or that His active obedience consisted in mere service; for it implies obedience in both, and excludes suffering from neither. Nor is it to be interpreted as if it meant, that the two might be so separated from each other, as to admit of His mere sufferings being imputed to us, without any part of His obedience; for if His death be reckoned to us at all, it must necessarily include both the pains which He endured, and the obedience which he rendered, in dying. But the distinction may be understood in a sense which serves to discriminate, merely, one part of His work from another, without destroying their indissoluble union; and to exhibit them in the relation which they severally bear to the penal and preceptive requirements of the divine Law. That Law required the punishment of sin, and in the sufferings and death of Christ we see its penalty fulfilled; it required also perfect righteousness, and in the lifelong obedience of Christ, – but especially in His death as the crowning act of His obedience, – we see its precept fulfilled; and by thus connecting His penal sufferings with the evil desert of sin, and His vicarious obedience with the righteousness which the Law requires, we are enabled to apprehend more clearly our need of both, and also the suitableness and fulness of the provision which has thus been made for our acceptance with God.