The Lord Jesus is the second Adam. As the second Adam, he is the corporate head of a new humanity, the new Israel. All the orthodox acknowledge that Messiah Jesus suffered and died as the substitute of his people to remove their sins and God's wrath. Sometimes this suffering is called Jesus' passive obedience (which is not a good term, but we'll live with the terminology). What is then called his active obedience pertains to his life of doing the will of the Father prior to his substitutionary sufferings on the cross.
Now, did the Lord Jesus obey the Father only to be a spotless sacrifice for our sins? Or was his obedience also intended to be counted as our obedience? That is to say, did the Lord Jesus obey in our place such that his righteous life would be imputed to the account of all those who are united with him through faith?
Apart from careful, rigorous exegesis of particular texts, I think that the answer to this question also really does require the hard biblical-theological work of discerning how the Messiah functions as a second Adam. Where are there correspondences with the original Adam? (Warranted and drawn out by the sacred Scriptures themselves, not just the theologian's brains.) We know that the first Adam was not given eternal life immediately. Entrance into eternal life was dependent upon his obedience at the first tree in a garden, even as entering into eternal life for Jesus and for us was dependent upon Jesus' obedience at the second tree in a wilderness. Adam needed, it would seem, an active obedience (I don't really care for this language, as I said, but I'll use it to make the point) to persist in or enter into life everlasting.
So the question then is this: do we need a life of active obedience to enter into eternal life, or do we only need our failings to be forgiven and forgotten? I cannot see any reason why we should suppose that the first Adam needed to live flawlessly sinlessly and obediently to obtain everlasting life, but we don't. One sin disqualified him. One disqualifies us. Lacking an obedient righteousness appears to have meant and to mean lacking what was and is needed to enter everlasting life.
So did the second Adam also have to have an active obedience for himself and for us for both him and us to enter into everlasting life? Given the given structures of biblical theology, I cannot imagine why anyone would answer in the negative. Consequently, if the correspondences are sound, the whole life of Christ lived well as the head of a new humanity is considered by God as their whole life lived well, that is, perfectly obedient, perfectly righteous to all of God's commands and demands. That is, we are counted righteous with the representative righteousness of Christ.
Hallelujah! What a Savior! Hallelujah! What a Head!
2 comments:
In my study on this topic of imputed righteousness, the Greek term “logizomai” is the English term for “reckon/impute/credit/etc,” (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular lexicon here is what it is defined as:
—————-
QUOTE: “This word deals with reality. If I “logizomai” or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”
http://tinyurl.com/r92dch
—————-
The lexicon states this term first and foremost refers to the actual status of something. So if Abraham’s faith is “logizomai as righteousness,” it must be an actually righteous act of faith, otherwise (as the Lexicon says) “I am deceiving myself.” This seems to rule out any notion of an alien righteousness, and instead points to a local/inherent righteousness.
The Lexicon gives other examples where “logizomai” appears, here are some examples:
——————-
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted [logizomai] as a gift but as his due.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
——————-
Notice in these examples that “logizomai” means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul ‘reckons’ faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 4:4 the worker’s wages are ‘reckoned’ as a debt because the boss is in debt to the worker, not giving a gift to him. In 6:11 the Christian is ‘reckoned’ dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul ‘reckons’ the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.
To use logizomai in the “alien status” way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn’t really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 4:4 the boss gives payment to the worker as a gift rather than obligation/debt; (3) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (4) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven’s glory.
This cannot be right.
So when the text plainly says “faith is logizomai as righteousness,” I must read that as ‘faith is reckoned as a truly righteous act’, and that is precisely how Paul explains that phrase in 4:18-22. That despite the doubts that could be raised in Abraham’s heart, his faith grew strong and convinced and “that is why his faith was credited as righteousness” (v4:22). This is also confirmed by noting the only other time “credited as righteousness” appears in Scripture, Psalm 106:30-31, where Phinehas’ righteous action was reckoned as such. This is confirmed even more when one compares another similar passage, Hebrews 11:4, where by faith Abel was commended as righteous.
Nick,
Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure what lexicon you're using, but you should probably check out the standard scholarly BDAG. It is the authoritative source. And it makes clear what you seem to ignore: words are not always (or even usually) used univocally.
There is a range of meanings for logizomai (again, see BDAG). And the meaning in any given text is ultimately determined by context, not lexicography. Your error is an old linguistic error. Read virtually any of the recent literature on hermeneutics and linguistics. They all make this point. You can't simply plop a dictionary definition into a text.
Moreover, the point of the post was that canonical context is also significant in understanding what the second Adam has done for his people.
Contextually, legal crediting, counting, or imputing is undoubtedly the correct nuance in Rom. 4, for example. The context makes this crystal clear. It is legal! Accounting is in view! Wages and debts are in view! In fact, BDAG (the authoritative lexicon) points out that logizomai is being used in this legal sense. And it gives a legal sense as the first entry (it is the most common usage, if I'm not mistaken). Moreover, not working is in view! (Rom. 4:5). No wage is due. To the one who does not work! Righteousness is a free gift.
You also err in your understanding of the nature of faith. It looks away--to Another. It does not look inwardly. That is unbelief. Faith looks to the LORD our rightousness, who has accomplished all that concerns us. If you'll have it. If not, you're on your own at the judgment.
Plenty more on this in the future, no doubt. The Reformation is not over.
Post a Comment