SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Ok. I've taken some of the comments and suggestions into consideration and I've slightly modified my article. I don't want it to be too long, so I can't say all that could be said. My intention is simply to get evangelicals to consider that it wasn't enough for Jesus to simply "die in our place."
Additional comments are welcome. Oh... and thank you, Andrew, for that Machen quote... I'd forgotten all about it!
Additional comments are welcome. Oh... and thank you, Andrew, for that Machen quote... I'd forgotten all about it!
Theologians have long approached the subject of Christ´s earthly life by distinguishing two aspects of it. The term "œactive obedience" is given to that aspect of His earthly life in which He fulfilled the law of God in its entirety by his thoughts, words, and deeds. The second facet of Jesus´ life on earth is labeled his "œpassive obedience." This term is used to describe Jesus´ Passion and death on the cross. The term is employed to describe the fact that in his suffering Jesus was obedient by allowing others to do to him. Of course, the term is somewhat of a misnomer because even in Jesus "œpassivity" He was actually quite active. For instance, in John 10:18 Jesus clearly repudiates the notion that his life is being "œtaken" from Him. In fact, there is a sense in which Jesus´ life is simply one of obedience without distinction between "œactive" and "œpassive." This is true because at one level everything Jesus did and allowed to happen was a product of his intentional and active submission to the will of the Father. At the same time, the entirety of Jesus´ life was characterized by suffering and humiliation. However, despite the potential for some misunderstanding by employing the terms "œactive" and "œpassive," it is helpful to delineate between the two when approaching the subject of what Christ did for our salvation.
When discussing the work of Christ among evangelicals it is relatively common to find some who believe that Jesus´ "œpassive obedience," that is his suffering on the cross, was all that was necessary for our salvation. In other words, all that was required of Jesus in order for us to be saved was for him to suffer the penalty for our sins. According to this line of thought, aside from the Passion of Jesus, the preceding thirty-three years of Jesus´ life, or the period marked by his "œactive obedience," is thought to have little or no salvific purpose. Proponents grant that Jesus may have done great and important things in his earthly ministry, but in terms of purchasing our pardon, Jesus work on the cross was all that was needed. In what follows I will attempt to set forth why the commonly designated "œactive obedience" of Christ was just as necessary for our salvation as was his suffering and death on the cross. It should be noted that I am in no way attempting to say that one aspect of Jesus´ obedience was more necessary for our salvation than the other. On the contrary, I hope to show how Jesus´ "œactive" and "œpassive" obedience work together to secure our salvation.
Evangelicals agree that there is an absolute, unchanging moral law that provides the basis for God´s judgment of all people. This law is immutable, perfect and holy (Rom 7:12) because it flows from the unchanging moral character of God himself: God expects us to be holy because He is holy. (Lev 19:2, Matt 5:48, 1 Peter 1:15-16) Every person has an awareness of this moral/legal requirement built into the fabric of their being. (Rom 2:14-15) Additionally, the Bible indicates that humans also understand, at least to some degree, that there is a penalty for disobeying God´s moral law. (Rom 1:32)
The Bible closely associates the knowledge of God´s holy moral law with each person´s accountability to God for their sinfulness, or failure to conform to the precepts of God. (Rom 3:19) Indeed, sin is nothing other than failing to keep the law of God. (1 John 3:4) We see this truth also manifest in the fact that Jesus says that it is the "œlaw-breakers" who will be cast out of the Kingdom. (Matt 7:23, 13:41) Additionally, the relationship between the concepts of "œsin" and "œlawlessness" is evident in that Titus 2:14 testifies to the redemption from the latter just as Ephesians 1:7 refers to deliverance from the former.
When we speak of "œlaws" there are always two components: first is that which the law commands. Second is the penalty for noncompliance with that law. This is true in regards to both biblical as well as modern civil law. So, for example, consider the law "œDo not steal." In order for one to positively keep the law, that is, to do that which the law commands, one must not engage in thievery. However, if someone does steal then he or she has broken the law and is liable to incur the punishment related to that law. In the Bible, the language that is often associated with being subjected to the penalties of the law is that of "œcursedness." (Deut 27:26, Gal 3:10) So when Christ is said to have "œredeemed us from the curse of the law," Paul is saying that Christ saved us from experiencing the legal penalty we rightly deserve for breaking the law of God. (Gal 3:13)
As was mentioned above, there is agreement among evangelicals that Jesus´ death on the cross, which was on our behalf, satisfied the punitive component of the law. In other words, Jesus suffered the penalty we deserved. As a result, we are spared from the divine punishment our sins deserve. However, as we have just seen, there are two components of a law: the thing required and the punishment for noncompliance. If Jesus simply took our punishment, then as far as we´re concerned, the law which we broke "“ leading to the penalty "“ has not been obeyed because only the second component of the law has been fulfilled. By way of illustration, suppose I tell my kids to clean their room. A half hour later I check on their progress only to discover that they have utterly ignored my command. I then discipline them, which is the penalty for their noncompliance. Suppose that after disciplining my kids I stop at that point and I don´t revisit the issue of getting the room cleaned. Has the command been obeyed? Has the room been cleaned? No. Punishment has occurred, but the command remains violated. What proponents of the "œpassive obedience only" position leave us with is a situation in which God considers us as being punished, so we are spared, but then God has to look at the room and disregard the fact that it is still a mess. The question then becomes: If God can overlook the requirement of the law ("œclean the room") then why can He not choose to overlook the penalty for disobedience? However, as we have seen, God´s laws flow from His own character and being. Furthermore, Scripture reveals that God cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13) If God was to disregard His law at either the preceptive or penal points this would be tantamount to God denying himself.
God´s unwavering commitment to His character is such that positive obedience to his law is requisite for fellowship with Him. (John 15:10) In fact, Rom 2:13 indicates that it is the doers of the law who will be justified. Of course, Paul goes on to spend much energy showing that no one can keep the law, but the principle remains: God´s law must be kept in order for us to be justified. Thankfully, the Bible speaks of Jesus´ obedience as resulting in our righteousness. (Rom 5:19) In other words, it is because of what Jesus has done on our behalf that we are declared righteous. (1 Cor 1:30, 2 Cor 5:21, 2 Peter 1:1) It is important to note that the concept of "œrighteousness" carries, from its earliest usage, the notion of fulfilling ones obligations towards God and man. To synthesize, Jesus is seen as not only having taken our punishment upon himself, but also having fulfilled "“ or kept "“ God´s law on our behalf.
We see that Jesus not only died as our representative and substitute, but He also lived his life as our representative and substitute: He kept the law of God, in its entirety, on our behalf. This explains why Jesus was baptized as necessary to "œfulfill all righteousness" (Matt 3:15) despite the fact that John the Baptist´s baptism is expressly declared to be a baptism of repentance, and Jesus, being sinless, had no personal reason to repent of anything! That Jesus lived his entire life as our representative, fulfilling the law on our behalf, also clears up why Luke traces Jesus´ genealogy back to Adam and places it immediately prior to Jesus´ temptation: Jesus was about to undo what Adam had done. Additionally, it explains why Galatians 4:3-6 links Jesus´ birth "œunder the law" with his redeeming those "œunder the law."
Finally, it is significant to note that Romans 5:10 declares that we are saved by both Jesus´ death and his life. It is probably significant that Jesus´ death is listed first in this verse because this creates a chiastic structure in regards to Christ´s work being applied to us as it pertains to the guilt we inherited from Adam´s sin:
ïƒ Adam´s disobedience (sin) breaks fellowship with God
ïƒ Adam´s sin leads to death penalty
ïƒ Christ´s death satisfies death penalty
ïƒ Christ´s life of obedience keeps fellowship with God
In conclusion, Jesus not only paid the penalty for our sins, but He also kept the law on our behalf so that we would be declared "œrighteous" and able to have fellowship with God. His "œpassive obedience" paid the penalty for our failure to keep God´s law while His "œactive obedience" satisfied the stated requirements of God´s law. We should fall to our knees in praise that Christ´s obedience was credited to our account so that when God looks at us He sees people who have fully satisfied the requirements of God´s moral commandments. We would be wise to remember the dying words of J. Gresham Machen who, in a telegram to his friend John Murray, wrote, "œI´m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope ithout it." Amen!
