Summer in the Systematics – Christology (Part 7): The Obedience of Christ

Transcript

JRS 47
08/04/2024
Summer in the Systematics – Christology (Part 7): The Obedience of Christ.
Selected Scriptures
Jesse Randolph

Alright again, well, welcome back to evening service. And to “Summer in the Systematics,” installment number 7 for the year 2024. And by way of reminder, so far in our study of Christology we have looked at “The Preexistence of Christ,” “The Deity of Christ,” “The Humanity of Christ,” “The Natures of Christ,” “The Incarnation of Christ,” and most recently a couple weeks ago, we looked at “The Life of Christ.” So we’re six lessons in. And tonight in lesson number seven we’re going to get into a topic which I think naturally flows out of the life of Christ. That being, “The Obedience of Christ.”

You’ll recall last time one of the topics we covered was the sinlessness of Christ. What theologians call “the impeccability of Christ.” Where we saw that Jesus lived one perfect, sinless life. And He, on account of His deity, on account of His Godness, could have only lived a perfect and sinless life. We saw last time that He was not only able not to sin, He was not able to sin. But all would affirm and acknowledge and agree, at least those who have set up shop within the boundaries of orthodoxy, that Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life. Yes, He was tempted, but He was without sin. Hebrews 4:15, “we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things like we are, yet without sin.” He was holy, and blameless, and pure as Hebrews 7 notes. “For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” Jesus could sternly say to his opponents that He could not be proven guilty of sin. John 8:46, “Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?”

We’ve seen in the gospel of Luke that Jesus was described in Luke 1:35 as a “holy Child.” He never did anything that displeased God. He only did those things which pleased the Father. In fact, speaking of the Father, He says here in John 8:29, “I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” He kept the Father’s commandment. John 15, “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” There is no record of Jesus ever offering sacrifices in the Temple. And why? Because He had no sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” More on that verse later.

He committed no sin. There was no deceit found in His mouth. That’s what’s said here in 1 Peter 2, “For to this you have been called, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps, who did no sin, nor was any deceit in His mouth.” He was a lamb without blemish. A lamb without spot as we see in 1 Peter 1:18 and 19, “you were not redeemed with corruptible things like silver or gold from your futile conduct inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” And then this one, 1 John 3:5, “in Him there was no sin.” “And you know that He was manifested in order to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin.” There is no record in the Scriptures of Jesus ever feeling guilty about anything. Or regretting anything. Or wishing He had done something differently. Or seeking forgiveness from anyone. Or confessing to any wrongdoing. Rather, everything He did, or thought, or said conformed exactly to the will of God the Father.

So that’s understood. That’s common ground within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy that Jesus lived a perfect life. He obeyed His Father perfectly during His life on earth. And indeed He did keep the Law perfectly during His earthly ministry. He was obedient. He was perfectly obedient. He was fully obedient. Now, that brings us to the big question on the table for us tonight. Which is this. What does Jesus’ perfect life of obedience mean for us? Did He, by living a perfect life, merit anything for us? Did He, by keeping the Law, earn something for us?

And that brings us to a topic for this evening which admittedly is going to be somewhat of a deeper dive on the active obedience of Christ. This is a doctrine that’s out there that is known as “the active obedience of Christ.” When you leave here tonight you will all be experts on the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. Which is often referred to as the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ.” That’s what theologians call it. The doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. But in church circles and behind pulpits and in books and conferences, it’s typically camouflaged in other language. Language that you’re probably much more familiar with like, “Jesus lived the perfect life for you that you should have lived, but didn’t.” Or, “When we put our faith in Jesus, our sin is placed in Jesus’ account, and His righteousness is placed in ours.” Now, at first glance, those references might seem to be okay. They might sound innocuous. Because it is true that Jesus did live a perfect life. And it is true that we have not lived perfect lives. And it is true that Jesus, as God, is inherently righteous and perfect. And it is true that we, as fallen and sinful creatures, are not inherently righteous and perfect. And it is true that we do need a sacrificial and sinless substitute to stand in our place. And it is true, as Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:21, that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

But that still doesn’t answer the ultimate question. The question that’s on the table tonight. Again, what does Jesus’ perfect life of obedience mean for us? What we’re going to hear this evening, is looking biblically at that question. We’re going to look at whether it is in any way true. That it is through Christ’s life, and specifically through His life of law-keeping, that we are justified. And made righteous before the holy God of heaven. Or instead, whether it is through His death and only His death that our eternal hope is anchored.

Using the words of the old hymn, is our hope built on Jesus’ blood and righteousness? Or is it built only on His blood? What He accomplished at Calvary. In the cross. In His death. In His burial. And ultimately in His resurrection.

Well, this is a topic that could have just as easily fit in our study of Soteriology. The doctrine of salvation. Which, Lord willing, we will cover in the year 2030. I think that’s how I calculated it. But I thought it would fit tonight under this umbrella of Christology for a couple of reasons. First, we have just looked at the life of Christ. So it is natural to follow up and look into what, if anything, Christ’s perfect life merited us. Specifically as it relates to His keeping of the Law. And it makes sense logically to explore what His obedience to the Father looks like and what it meant for us, if anything. Second, as I’ve already alluded to, this doctrine of the active obedience of Christ -- which holds that Christ somehow earned righteousness through His perfect keeping of the Law during His life -- has in recent years become more and more commonly embraced by theologians of various tribes and of various tradition and various convictions and by churches of various denominations and stripes and persuasions.

In fact, in these next several slides, I’m going to put up some names of individuals and groups that you’re likely familiar with to give us all a flavor of what’s being taught out there these days. And then from there we’ll get into the main points for this evening’s message.

We’ll start with R.C. Sproul. Founder of the Ligonier Academy, first in Pennsylvania, then Ligonier Ministries down in Florida. He’s a true heavyweight in the realm of Reformed theology over the past fifty years. And is a man who many would credit with the resurgence of Reformed theology in the last half century. And Sproul said this in his book “Faith Alone” in 1995, he says, “The cross alone, however, does not justify us. We are justified not only by the death of Christ, but also by the life of Christ. Christ's mission of redemption was not limited to the cross. To save us He had to live a life of perfect righteousness. His perfect, active obedience was necessary for His and our salvation. We are constituted as righteous by the obedience of Christ which is imputed to us by faith.” Some ten years or so after Sproul wrote those words. The leaders of the “The Gospel Coalition” said something similar. This is from TGC’s Confessional Statement #8. They say “By his,” that’s referring to Christ, “perfect obedience, He satisfied the just demands of God on our behalf, since by faith alone that perfect obedience is credited to all who trust in Christ alone for their acceptance with God.” Those “just demands of God on our behalf” right away would be a reference to the Law.

Then in 2009, Richard P. Belcher Jr. of Reformed Theological Seminary said, “If not for Christ’s active obedience and righteousness, received through faith alone, no one would receive eternal life.” And men like Sproul and Belcher here, and many other Reformed theologians like them, they often go back to an infamous quote of J. Gresham Machen, the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary. And the author of the excellent book called “Christianity and Liberalism.” Who on his deathbed, it is said, famously sent this telegram to his good friend John Murray, where he said, “I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”

There have been many men, in other words, as I’ve just quoted for you a few of them here, well-respected men in broader evangelicalism, who have embraced this doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. And these men believe, and this is really what’s at the heart of the issue, the heart of this doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, that our hope is not only in Jesus’ death on the cross, but our hope is in His life and His life specifically of perfect law-keeping. These men that believe, as we would believe ultimately, that Jesus did perfectly keep the Law of Moses -- not only though because He was God which is what we would say, He’s perfect so therefore He perfectly kept the Law -- but they would say He did so in a way to merit, or to earn, righteousness, on our behalf.

Now so far with these quotes I’ve only brought us up to around the year 2009. That was 15 years ago if you can believe that. But its still prevalent and it’s gaining momentum in the year 2024. It’s a belief system that is escalating not only in terms of the number of individuals who are holding to this doctrine. But now who are actually insisting that others do so. Or else, they accuse men like me, of preaching a half-gospel. For instance, here’s Matthew Johnston. He’s a pastor down in New Zealand and he says, “If you think the imputation of Christ’s righteousness based on His perfect law keeping for us is adding to the Gospel (as you’re going to hear a bit later that’s what I would say) then I cannot help you any other way besides calling to you repent of your half-gospel.” That is very highly-charged language. Since a half-gospel, of course, is no gospel at all. We think of Paul’s jarring words here in Galatians 1:8 where he says, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed.” A half-gospel, in other words, condemns. A half-gospel damns. And what those who are aggressively pushing the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ are doing and saying, they’re saying that if you don’t accept their cherished doctrine you are walking on dangerous ground. In fact, you may not even be saved.

Well, so far, I’ve quoted largely a bunch of Presbyterians. Machen. Belcher. Sproul. All Presbyterians. Surely this doctrine of active obedience hasn’t crossed over into the Bible church world right? Wrong. Phil Johnson from “Grace to You” is one of the more vocal proponents of this doctrine. Peter Sammons, who most recently was at “The Master’s Seminary,” wrote extensively on this doctrine. Matthew Johnston, who I just quoted, is a Masters Seminary graduate. And Grace Community Church where of course John MacArthur has been pastoring for now 55 years, in March of this year updated their doctrinal statement. It’s up here on the screen. It says “We teach that salvation is wholly of God by grace on the basis of the redemption of Jesus Christ. The merits both of His life of perfect righteousness and His atoning blood, and not on the basis of human merits or works.” Those underlined words there “the merits both of His life of perfect righteousness and His atoning blood,” that’s a new addition. This is updated language as you can see there as of March of 2024. And in their updated doctrinal statement we see this in footnote 43 to that doctrinal change. They explain why they have made the change. They say, “Rather than merely ‘the merit of [Christ’s] shed blood,’ we added, “the merits both of His life of perfect righteousness and His atoning blood,” in order to represent both the active and passive obedience of Christ. His ‘blood and righteousness,’ as we sing.” Now, Grace Community Church obviously is a faithful church. It is a respected church all around the world. And what they’re doing here is making clear their position as this faithful, respected, impactful church, that the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, they’re saying is a necessary component of the gospel. This fits into their statement about salvation. In other words, this doctrine is now not only being taught in Presbyterian churches, it’s moved over to the Bible church world, to churches like Grace Community Church.

Now I don’t know of anyone today, who is a more aggressive and vocal proponent of this doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ than Pat Abendroth. Pat is a Master’s Seminary graduate himself, he’s the pastor of Omaha Bible Church, just up the road from us. And in fact, earlier this year, he self-published a short little book, more like a pamphlet, called “The Active Obedience of Christ.” And there are many in the Reformed world and many in Bible church land who are championing and celebrating and promoting this book. So obviously I had to read it. And I had to read it several times. And I did read it several times and I scribbled all over its margins. I’m not going to do a full length book review up here tonight. I’ll save that for my pen later. But I will share with you a few quotes from Pat Abendroth’s book and give a little bit of color commentary along the way. First, the book is replete with statements like this. He says “You see, justification is genuinely based upon something, and that something is the perfect righteousness of Christ,” and then look at this parenthesis, “(i.e., His perfect obedience to the law).” Now I will represent to you that there’s no citation given here. There’s no background given here. There’s just this citation here made by Pastor Abendroth with no biblical backing and no biblical support.

Back in my law practicing days, if I was just to make a statement in front of a court of law and say, “Your Honor it is what it is because I say what it is,” the Honor would say, “Counsel that is ipse dixit.” Ipse dixit, it’s a Latin term and it means ‘he himself said it.’ It means it’s an assertion of statement that’s not supported by anything. It’s just a person’s opinion. It’s an unsupported statement. And then that judge would tell me to sit down and go home. That’s what we have here with quote’s like these. Quotes that have no support. There just statements. It’s writing words and filling pages and selling books. Second, this book by Abendroth called “The Act of Obedience of Christ” is laden with appeals to popularity. For instance, in chapter 4 of the book, Pastor Abendroth devotes the whole chapter to mentioning various men who over the course of history have held to this active obedience view. He starts by quoting all kinds of confessional documents. The Lutheran Book of Concord, The Belgic Confession, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Savoy Declaration, The Second London Baptist Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism. Then he gets into some of the big names like Martin Luther and John Calvin and John Owen and John Bunyan. And the man that Abendroth got his dissertation under, R.C. Sproul. And then he writes this. “Other contemporary well-known figures upholding the active obedience of Christ include Michael Horton, and Sinclair Ferguson, and Jerry Bridges. John MacArthur even preached the active obedience of Christ to Larry King on CNN.” And my response to that would be “So what?” I mean, that’s not serious scholarship. That’s not exegesis. That’s just unfurling your roll call of big names to support what you believe is the doctrine that you need to hold to. I mean, really none of us ought to care which big name is supporting whatever doctrine anybody is purporting to support or advocate. Everything, of course, needs to be brought in line with what the Bible teaches.

Third, this book, “The Act of Obedience of Christ,” is chock full of appeals to emotion. Namely, Pastor Abendroth’s own emotion. When he makes statements like this. He says, “I have been appalled to learn of professing Christians and Christian theologians whom I once trusted opposing the active obedience of Christ and thereby bringing harm to the Lord’s sheep.” Who Pastor Abendroth “once trusted.” And what he is now personally appalled by is… it’s of zero relevance to whether the doctrine he is advocating is biblically supportable. Our North Star is not any man’s personal convictions. Whether Pastor Abendroth’s or mine or yours or John MacArthur’s or Gil Rugh’s. Our compass, rather, is the Word of God. And what we’re called to do is study what God has said to see if any of these doctrines that we promote have any weight.

And what we’re going to find this evening is that the Bible does not support the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Did Christ life a perfect life? Absolutely He did. Did Christ obey the Law perfectly? Yes, of course He did, see answer number one, He was perfect. Is Christ inherently righteous? The Scriptures say this is so. 1 John 2:1, righteousness is who Jesus is, He’s “Jesus Christ the righteous.” But what about this matter of active obedience? Did Jesus keep the Law as a means of imparting His righteousness to us? No, the Bible never says such a thing.

What we’re going to see tonight (and these are the three blanks on your worksheet) is that this doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, number one, misapplies the Law, that would be your first blank there, the Law. Number two, it minimizes the cross, that’s your second blank. And third, it misinterprets Scripture. So it misapplies the Law, it minimizes the cross, and it misinterprets Scripture.

Let’s start with that first one. Which is that this doctrine of active obedience misapplies the Law. As we touched upon briefly last time, the Law of Moses, which I’ll just shorten and call ‘the Law’ tonight, was still operative during Christ’s life on earth. We know that the Law was inaugurated for Israel through Moses and it was still in effect during the life of Christ. Meaning during His earthly ministry Jesus lived under the jurisdiction of the Law. Galatians 3:23 says, “before faith came, we were held in custody under the Law, being shut up for the coming faith to be revealed.” And then Galatians 4:4, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” So Jesus lived in the era of the Law. He taught on the Law. He interpreted the Law. That’s what He was doing when he said, “you have heard it said, but I say.” And, ultimately, we know that Jesus fulfilled the Law. He said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” And not only that, He was “the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes,” as it says here in Romans 10:4.

So, Jesus lived during this time that the Law was still in effect. But here’s big problem number one with this doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. It places undue emphasis on the Law and its role in the believer’s justification today. Here’s what I mean by that. No matter what theological camp that you land in, as Protestant believers we would all hold the view that no one is saved by keeping the Law. Meaning, the Law of Moses. The Law God gave the Israelites during the days of Moses. And we would all hold to that because the Scriptures are so clear on this point. Romans 4:5 says, “But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” Galatians 2:16, “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” Galatians 3:11, “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident.” And we read this during the Scripture reading, “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

Now what happens is in this strange twist to those who hold to this doctrine of active obedience -- though they would agree that nobody could ever be justified by our own keeping of the Law, like these verses indicate --they also say that we are somehow counted righteous by the Law-keeping of another. Namely, Christ. It is said by those who hold this view that He kept the Law in our stead. In our place. And what He stored up in His keeping of the Law was righteousness. And that righteousness is imputed to us. Placed in our account as the vernacular says today.

Here’s J. I. Packer. Godly man and from the Reformed camp. He says, “the phrase ‘the imputation of Christ's righteousness,’ means, namely, that believers are righteous and have righteousness before God for no other reason than that Christ, their head, was righteous before God, and they are one with Him, sharers of His status and acceptance. God justifies them by passing on them, for Christ’s sake, the verdict which Christ's obedience merited. God declares them to be righteous because He reckons them to be righteous; and He reckons righteousness to them, not because He accounts them to have kept His law personally, but because He accounts them to be united to the one who kept it representatively.” Note the assumption here. We were according to Packer, to “have kept [God’s Law] personally.” But we didn’t. Christ did so instead. And He did so in our place.

But note the assumption that undergirds all of this. He’s assuming what? He’s assuming that the Law applies to the Christian today. And where does his assumption come from? Well, that assumption comes from Packer’s commitment to covenant theology. See, this whole doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, is a distinctly covenant theology-infused doctrine. Pat Abendroth concedes as much. He says, “yes, indeed, the active obedience of Christ is inseparably linked to covenant theology.”

And what is covenant theology? Well, this church is well taught and I’m not going to have time to go exhaustively into every aspect of covenant theology tonight. But I will give some highlights. Some basics. The whole system of covenant theology rests on three pillars. Which are those three supposed covenants that Reformed theologians have extrapolated from the Bible. And those three theological covenants are the way that Reformed theologians attempt to describe how God’s plan of salvation came about and how God’s plan of salvation is being carried out. And, I should say, that Reformed theologians, they view personal salvation, Individual personal salvation through Christ, as being of primary importance when we read the Scripture. That is the central theme of Scripture for the covenant theologian, that it is salvation through Christ. So whether you’re engaging with the Old Testament or the New Testament, the theme is Christ. And salvation of individuals like you and me through Christ.

So according to the covenant theologian, God’s overarching plan of salvation through Christ is the theme, and that it’s carried out through these three covenants. The covenant of works. The covenant of redemption. And the covenant of grace. Let’s go through a very basic definitions of all three starting with the covenant of works.

Here’s J.V. Fesko. He says, “the covenant of works is God’s agreement with Adam that he
would grant him eternal life on the condition of his obedience to his commands. To fill the earth and subdue it and not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Obedience would bring great blessing, but disobedience would bring death for Adam and his offspring.” That’s a really basic definition here of the covenant of works. And it was obviously violated when Adam sinned in the Garden. Then you have the covenant of redemption. It’s defined here by Louis Berkhof. He says, “The covenant of redemption may be defined as the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.”

So putting those two covenants together in this system. Adam failed. He plunges mankind into sin. So God the Father covenants, so they say, with God the Son to redeem a certain group of elect sinners. And then the third piece of the covenantal puzzle is the covenant of grace. Which is quoted here in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. “God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” For the sake of time, I really can’t give a whole course on covenant theology tonight but that is the general framework of the three pillars, the three covenants, that they would say support their system. And it is important to note those covenants, and I’ve said it before, certainly Gil has said it before many years before me, those covenants are mentioned nowhere on the pages of Scripture. No, the covenants of covenant theology are not biblical covenants. They are theological constructs. Charles Ryrie notes, they’re “deductions, not inductions, from Scripture. The existence of the covenants,” he’s talking about the covenants of covenant theology, “is not found by an inductive examination of passages.” Meaning if you just open up your Bible and look for those covenants, you wouldn’t find them. They’re not there.

Why do I bring up this matter of covenant theology this evening when we’re talking about there, the active obedience of Christ? I bring it up because there is a link between the covenant of works from covenant theology, and this doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. I’m going to put a series of quotes up from Larry Pettegrew who was not a covenant theologian. He just went home to be with the Lord earlier this year. He says “In covenant theology the only way for a human being to gain eternal life is to keep perfectly the covenant of works as formulated into law.” That’s a very important observation here by Pettegrew because it establishes how important law-keeping is in the whole system of covenant theology. And that’s not just Pettegrew’s wild opinion. There are actually many covenant theologians who say that very thing. Here’s Charles Hodge, a covenant theologian. He says, “The law demands, and from the nature of God, must demand perfect obedience. No man since the fall is able to fulfill these demands, yet he must fulfill them or perish.” You see the emphasis on law-keeping there. Or the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “Wherein is the law summarily comprehended? Answer: the moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.” Emphasis on law-keeping. Back to Dr. Pettegrew. He says… This is him tying together the covenant of works and that relationship with that covenant to the whole reformed or covenantal idea of law-keeping for the Christian and its connection to this active obedience doctrine. He says, “So, keeping the covenant of works, as formulated primarily in the ten commandments of the Mosaic Law, is an absolute necessity for salvation. The Mosaic Law also serves as the ethical standard for Christians.”

He goes on to say, “Covenantalists teach that God covenanted with His Son to earn righteousness for us through His life of law-keeping and then suffer eternal death on the cross for us so that God could forgive our sins. These two provisions provided for us by Christ. Law-keeping and substitutionary death are often described as the active and passive obedience of Christ.” We’re looking at the active obedience tonight. “In covenantalism, therefore, it is through the active and passive obedience of the substitute, Jesus Christ, that God justifies the sinner and considers him to have kept the covenant of works.” So Adam failed. But through Christ and His perfect Law-keeping, we’re deemed to have kept the covenant of works.

If I can attempt to summarize what Dr. Pettegrew was pointing out here. It’s this, that those in the Reformed camp, influenced by principles of covenant theology, what they’re doing is they’re conflating and they’re commingling the Law that the Israelites were under and the era of grace in which we live. They’re really failing to see the distinctions given to us in God’s Word that relate to those passages and provisions that relate to Israel as it lived under that Law and the church and how it’s to live and how we are to live in this era of grace. They drag the Law back into this era of grace. And they assume that we in the church age need law-keeping. Not our own. But that of Christ. And we need that law-keeping of Christ in order to render us righteous in the eyes of God.

Now what that means is that according to their system, salvation really is not purely of grace. But it is in a sense, of works. Christ’s works. Christ’s law-keeping. And that reality is picked up in a couple more quotes here. Myron Houghton says, “in much Reformed thinking, the gospel includes more than the death and resurrection of Christ. It also includes His perfect keeping of the law on behalf of believers. It is this human righteousness of Jesus that is credited, they teach, to the believer’s account in justification. Christ’s keeping of the covenant of works (i.e., the law) on behalf of the believer is incorporated into the covenant of grace.” And here’s Pettegrew again and he says, “for covenantalism, there is a sort of Protestant ‘treasury of merit,’ so to speak, containing the infinite righteousness that Christ earned by keeping the covenant of works, not for Himself, but for others. God withdraws from this infinite ‘treasury of righteousness,’ when He justifies the repentant sinner.”

He's not exaggerating here. And I’m not exaggerating here because even Reformed and covenantal theologians will concede that theirs is ultimately a works-based belief system. With the works being those of Christ. Not our own. But those of Christ who fulfills this so-called covenant of works that God made with Adam in the Garden. I’m going to skip right to this quote from Michael Horton who says, “we are indeed saved by works, but by Christ’s fulfillment of the law as the Last Adam, our covenant head.” I mean, there you go. You have the root issue here. He says, “we are indeed saved by works.” Christianity then is just another works-based religion. It’s not our works. It’s Christ’s works. His works in keeping the Law. And here’s Pat Abendroth again. He says, “The work of Jesus provides for the believer the removal of guilt for violations against God’s law.” So it’s not only the cross of Jesus. It’s the work of Jesus in keeping the Law that justifies us.

I appreciate what William Newell says on this subject contrary to all these men I’ve been quoting. He says, “Do you not see that those who claim that our Lord's righteous life under Moses' Law is reckoned to us for our “active” righteousness; while His death in which He put away our sins, is, as they claim, the “passive” side, are really leaving you, and the Lord too, under the authority of the Law?” That’s really the issue. Are we under Law? Or are we under grace? And the Scriptures are clear. John 1:17 again, “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Romans 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Romans 3:21, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested.”

Weighing these matters out, then, of the Law and its application or lack thereof to Christians today, and the so-called covenant of works and how it factors in or doesn’t factor in, I end up here with John Nelson Darby. He says, “I simply, very openly, deny this doctrine of the justifying vicariousness of Christ’s life as under the law.” That Christ perfectly kept the Law. That He perfectly fulfilled the Law does not mean that His life of obedience in any sense justifies us or redeems us or reconciles us to the God who gave His Law to Israel. The risen Christ Himself is our righteousness. Our righteousness isn’t found in Christ fulfilling the Law in our place.

Well, we’ve seen point one, that this doctrine of the active obedience of Christ “Misapplies the Law.” Number two, it “Minimizes the Cross.” Now I will say in fairness, no matter what side of the line you are on this issue, whether you believe in the doctrine of active obedience or not, you’re not going to find anyone who would deny the importance of the cross of Jesus Christ in our justification, in our redemption, in our forgiveness, in our salvation. I’m not saying that those who hold an active obedience don’t believe in the cross. That’s not true. But when you start digging into this doctrine, you do start hitting some snags and you do start hitting some problems.

For instance, those who hold to this doctrine of active obedience, they do hold up John Calvin as one of their theological heroes. I mean John Calvin, if I can just say this for a moment, he’s one of those men in the pantheon of Protestantism where its okay, it’s been deemed okay to give homage to him as though he’s infallible. Well, he’s not infallible. No man is infallible. And though he is fallible, Calvin was a brilliant man. In fact, he wrote his first edition of the “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” this massive tone when he was only 26 years old. In his “Institutes” though, he embraces this doctrine of active obedience. Here’s some of his words on the subject. He says, “when it is asked how Christ, by abolishing sin, removed the enmity between God and us, and purchased a righteousness which made him favorable and kind to us, it may be answered generally, that he accomplished this by the whole course of his obedience.” He’s not talking about His death. He’s talking about His whole life. He's saying very openly here that it’s not the death of Christ alone that justifies us. Or redeems us. It’s also everything He endured in His life. His sufferings. Every active obedience He demonstrated in His life before the cross, Calvin would say, plays a part in our redemption and our justification.

That means He was, in some sense, “paying the price of our deliverance” even as a child and throughout His life, not just in His death. Here’s Reformed theologian, Horatius Bonar, who lived in the 1800s. He says something similar. He says, “Christ's vicarious life began in the manger… there his sin bearing had begun… when He was circumcised and baptized it was as a substitute… and He was always the sinless One bearing our sins.” A.A. Hodge another reformed theologian says, “The Scriptures teach us plainly that Christ's obedience was as truly vicarious as was his suffering, and that he reconciled us to the Father by the one as well as the other.” He’s saying that Christ’s obedience in life, was just as vicarious, just as substitutionary as was His death. It has an effect upon our redemption and an effect upon our salvation.

Now, that leads to another question that I would have. Which is this. If Christ’s life was in any sense vicarious, if it was in any sense substitutionary, if, as Hodge says, it was as though He was already reconciling us to the Father through His life -- then why did Christ have to die? If He was already going to justify us through His life, then why did He have to die? If justification comes through keeping the Law -- and we saw earlier from Michael Horton that Christ did perfectly keep the Law and He even called it a salvation by works, Christ’s works -- if the merits of Christ’s obedience to the Law through His perfect law-keeping in any way justify or redeem or contribute to our salvation, and He did it perfectly, then again why did He have to die?

In fact, Paul moved by the Spirit can say it a lot better than I can. We know Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” But then look at this, he says, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Meaning, if Christ’s perfect life of Law-keeping could truly merit or earn us righteousness, then Christ died for no reason. He could have simply kept the Law. He didn’t have to die. John Ritchie (this is not an original idea to me) he says, “If God reckons the sinner to have kept the law because Christ kept the law for him, then righteousness surely comes by law, and the death of Christ was ‘in vain,’ ” citing that very Galatians 2 passage. So, the active obedience doctrine. It really finds himself backed into the corner here. People who hold to this view have to explain how, if, at all, the cross was necessary if Christ’s perfect law-keeping was vicarious and substitutionary.

I’m going to skip ahead for time sake. You’ll have to look at these slides later. We’ve seen that this doctrine “Misapplies the Law” and we’ve seen that it “Minimizes the Cross.” Here’s our third one, it “Misinterprets the Scriptures.” Now this is really where the rubber meets the road. Now again I don’t want to be mischaracterized. I don’t want to be accused to being unfair here. So don’t get me wrong. The men who hold to this doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, by and large, they would say and we would take them at face value on this, that they are Bible men. They know the Word. They are proponents of the Word. They preach and teach the Word. And they quote the Word even in support of their positions. But as we work through their biblical arguments in support of their position, I’m going to show you how they misinterpret the Word in arriving at these conclusions.

For instance, one common text that those who hold to this view go to is Matthew 3:15. This is where Jesus in speaking of His own baptism; says to John the Baptist that He’s going to submit himself to baptism. He’s going to “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” And the suggestion is often made by those who hold to active obedience that Christ here was undergoing this baptism -- not by way of necessity because He didn’t need to be baptized in keeping with repentance, He had no sin -- but rather He had to be baptized as a matter of perfect Law-keeping. Which would then be credited to future believers accounts. That’s the whole notion of active obedience. And that’s why what they say is meant here, by it was done to “fulfill all righteousness.” It was to comply with the Law.

Well, for starters, Christ’s baptism couldn’t have been about keeping the Law. Because there was no aspect of the Law that mandated baptism. So that can’t be so. There was no provision of the Law that mandated baptism so to be baptized in keeping with the Law to fulfill all righteousness just doesn’t add up. It doesn’t fit. So what does it mean then that He was fulfilling all righteousness through His baptism? Well, we saw this actually last time in our study of the life of Christ. We saw that when Jesus was baptized there was no sin in Him. He did live a perfect life. There was no sin that needed to be cleansed or washed away. What He was doing in His baptism as He fulfilled all righteousness was number one, identifying Himself with the people He had come for, the people of Israel. But He was also demonstrating His overall willingness to do the will of God. His baptism fits perfectly with the whole Philippians 2 account of His humiliation in His incarnation. Where He was “made in the likeness of men.” As we see here. And He was “found in the appearance of man.” Same passage. And where He did take “the form of a slave.” That’s all tied into what He was doing there when He was fulfilling all righteousness. It wasn’t keeping the Law’s demands to credit righteousness to our account. He was showing Himself to be this Israelite and a humble servant.

And then there are some, like actually Phil Johnson of “Grace to You,” who will point to passages like this. Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but fulfill.” And Johnson will say “those who deny Christ’s active obedience are teaching that redemption is accomplished by the setting aside of the law’s absolute demand, not by Christ’s perfectly fulfilling the law on our behalf.” But what Phil Johnson is doing here is really confusing two different concepts. No one is denying that Christ did obey the Law. Or that His obedience to the Law was necessary, for reasons I’ll give in a minute, to be that sinless sacrifice. Or that He actually fulfilled the Law and kept it perfectly. All those statements are true. And we affirm them. Jesus did keep the Law as an aspect of His perfect Deity. The real question is, what was the purpose of His Law-keeping? Was it to qualify Him to be our sinless sacrifice, the spotless lamb? That’s the position we would hold. Or was it instead to merit for us righteousness, for the purpose of contributing to our salvation? I would say the former is the right one, to be the spotless lamb, not the latter. You know, we’re going to go through the passages that establish that in just a moment.


Another common text that those who support active obedience will go to is 2 Corinthians 5:21. We’ve quoted it for a couple of other reasons earlier. But “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” And the argument that’s going to be made here by those who hold the active obedience -- they’ll use this first and they’ll say that in the same way or similar way that sin and guilt was imputed to Christ through our lives of sin. (We live sinful lives. That sin was imputed to Christ, laid on His shoulders.) In a parallel way, His perfect life is now credited to us. So His righteousness, which they’ll say stems from His perfect keeping of the Law is imputed to us. It’s credited to us. It’s a double imputation idea. We violated the Law. And then that Law was imputed to Christ. And then He perfectly fulfilled the Law. And now His righteousness is imputed to us. And it sounds logically compelling on first read. It sounds symmetrical. It sounds parallel. It does sound like that “great exchange.” The only problem is the position that I just articulated rests on this unfounded assumption. And that unfounded assumption is that we as Christ’s followers are still under the Law.

And we already addressed that under our first heading. That the whole doctrine of active obedience “Misapplies the Law.” But another big problem with this view of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that it entirely disregards the context of 2 Corinthians 5. In this second letter to the Corinthians, Paul is not at all zeroing in the righteous life of Christ. He is instead zeroing in on the Lord’s atoning death. Just up the page in 2 Corinthians 5:14. He says, “one died for all, therefore all died. And He died for all, so that they who live would no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” What that tells us, in terms of how we are to interpret 2 Corinthians 5:21, is that through Christ’s death the believer is made as it says there, the righteousness of God. Meaning He is made righteous, positionally righteous, as a result of the imputation of Christ’s sacrificial act on the cross. There is nothing in 2 Corinthians 5:21 about Christ’s perfect life of Law-keeping. It said about His perfect sacrifice as the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world.

Here's our next one. Another common verse that’s pointed to by those who hold to active obedience. It’s Romans 5:19. You see it there. It says, “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be appointed righteous.” And you might be thinking, “Oh, oh, that sinks our case. It says it right there, ‘through the obedience of the One the many will be appointed righteous.’ ” But context matters. And the immediate context of Romans 5 is Paul’s description of the obedient death of Christ. Not His perfect life. In fact, if we go back one verse, to Romans 5:18, it becomes clear. Paul says, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” That “one transgression” there is referring to Adam’s sin. And that “one act of righteousness” is the death of Christ. Paul is staying on that very train of thought in the very next verse, verse 19, where he says, “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be appointed righteous.”

I’m going to try to highlight this visually through my very primitive slides here. You see here, putting verses 18 and 19 side by side or top to bottom. You have the “one transgression” in verse 18, and then you have the “one man’s disobedience” in verse 19. They’re referring to the same singular act, that being Adam’s sin. And then there’s another parallel between these two verses. Then Paul refers to “the one act of righteousness” in verse 18 and he talks about “the obedience of the One” in verse 19. Again those are referring to the same and singular act. Meaning Christ’s death on the cross. Paul is comparing the one act of Adam, his sin, with the one act of Christ, His death. Those two statements in those two verses run perfectly parallel to each other. And the setting again in Romans 5 in general is the death of Christ. To think that Paul would have just interrupted his train of thought when he is on this one train state-of-mind here about the death of Christ and suddenly just tie in Jesus’ righteous Law-keeping would be a major exegetical leap.

One more. Another argument that’s made by those who hold the active obedience. They’ll cite Philippians 2:8. It says, “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” And the argument it seems (this is me speaking to those who are in the active obedience camp) is that Christ’s death was merely an aspect of His overall life of obedience. Perhaps even the crowning aspect of His life of obedience, the main idea that those who hold to this view of this passage. What they’ll say is the main idea here is that Christ was obedient. Obedient to the Law. Which just happened to culminate in His death. “Death on a cross.” Again look at this quote from Pat Abendroth. He says, “the active obedience of Christ,” know what’s highlighted here and what’s in first position, “the active obedience of Christ culminated in the cross work of Christ.” And he goes on to cite Philippians 2:8. But this interpretation of Philippians 2:8 as though this passage in Philippians 2 is about Christ’s active keeping of the Law which just happened to culminate in His death is really missing the point of this entire passage. The main point of Philippians 2 is what? Christ’s death. That’s His ultimate act of humbling. That’s His ultimate act of servanthood. The ultimate act that Philippians 2:8 is pointing to is that Jesus died. Why did God highly exalt Jesus? Because He actively kept the Law? No. Because He died. Why did God bestow on Jesus the name that is above every name? Because He perfectly kept the Law? No. Because He died. Why will knees bow and tongues confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father? Would that be because He kept the Law? No. Its because Jesus died. Did He live a perfect life? He sure did. But Philippians 2 is not about Jesus’ perfect life ultimately. It’s about His death.

I’m going to wind down our time tonight with a quote here by W.E. Vine. He of the famous Bible dictionary. And I’ll give us a lightning round of biblical citations which tell us what the focus of the New Testament actually is on as it relates to Jesus’ life or His death. But look at this quote. He says, “it is nowhere said in the New Testament that Christ kept the law for us. Only His death is vicarious, or substitutionary. He is not said to have borne sin during any part of His life;” that’s what Calvin argued, “it was at the cross that He became the sinbearer.” But that line I just underlined is telling, isn’t it? It is “nowhere said in the New Testament that Christ kept the law for us.” And it’s true. And those who hold to the active obedience of Christ, they’ve got the burden of proof here because there’s no Scriptural support. No direct statement that says Christ kept the Law for the believer. So what they do and what we’ve seen here this evening is that they have to piece together this patchwork of Scripture to build their case. But there’s no Scripture that ultimately says that Christ kept the Law for us.

Well, if that’s so, what do the Scriptures actually teach us about Christ and His work and how we receive justification and redemption and the like? Well, the Scriptures do teach that we need righteousness. We need to have righteousness imputed to us. Psalm 32:2 says, “How blessed is the man whose iniquity Yahweh will not take into account.” But what we have imputed to us when we repent and believe in the Gospel is the righteousness of God through Christ’s death as we saw in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

And what the Scriptures teach is that the basis of the believer’s justification over and over and over (I’ll go through these quickly) is Christ vicarious, substitutionary death on the cross. So we have not one Scripture that says Christ kept the Law for the believer. But note now many Scriptures we have here that says that Christ’s shed blood and the forgiveness, the redemption, the justification that comes from it.

Hebrews 9:22, “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Colossians 1:19, “For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace by the blood of His cross.” 1 Peter 3:18, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that He might bring you to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” Romans 5:9, “having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.” Hebrews 9:28, “Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” Hebrews 10, “He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will.’ By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The evidence is all in one column. And then, of course, when we think about what the core message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is. It is the gospel. When you go out when our Wednesday night crew or Friday morning crew goes out and shares the gospel, do we say you need to believe that Jesus kept the Law for you, you didn’t keep the Law so He did it for you? Go home and trust in that truth. No. We preach 1 Corinthians 15, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” Or then think about the ordinances that we celebrate here. The two that the Lord has given to the church. Baptism and communion. Baptism points to the believer’s union with Christ in His death and in His resurrection. Communion, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, what do we say every time we take communion? When we take communion we are “proclaiming the Lord’s perfect keeping of the…” No. We’re proclaiming the Lord’s death. That tells us something. That the very things we celebrate as believers in Jesus Christ when we remember what He did for us as we proclaim His death. We remember His death. We reflect upon His death.

Jesus did live a life of obedience. (You see me skipping through slides here.) Jesus did live a perfect life. In fact, borrowing from a MacArthur book, he writes a book called “One Perfect Life.” We affirm that. However, our Lord’s one perfect life and specifically, His perfect keeping of the Law, never justified or redeemed any man, or woman, or child from a single sin. Rather, if there was a work that saved us, it was Christ’s work on the cross. By which He secured salvation for us. That’s the Ryrie quote here. He says, “Strictly speaking, then, only the sufferings of the cross were atoning. It was during the three hours of darkness when God laid on Christ the sins of the world that Atonement was being made.” The abuse and scourgings that proceeded His time on the cross were part of the sufferings of His life. The basis of our justification then is found not in the life of Christ but in His death.

And while those who are opposite of me and who are on the other side of this debate who will cite the J. Gresham Machen’s telegram here and they’ll go back to this and say, “I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” I’m sticking with these words and I’m going to close with them tonight; this is from Philip Bliss, a 19th century American hymnwriter and composer. Who says, “Free from the law, O happy condition, Jesus has bled and there is remission, Cursed by the law and bruised by the fall, Grace hath redeemed us once for all.

Let’s pray. Lord, thank You for opportunity tonight to go through a doctrine that I know is got some depth to it and some specificity to it. But it’s important. It’s important to remember that we are saved by grace alone and through faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross. I hope what has been taken away tonight is that there is strong biblical evidence and basis for seeing that our hope, our justification, our salvation, our redemption, is all found and all centered upon the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ. It’s all found in His blood. We’ve been redeemed through the precious blood of Jesus Christ. We’re so grateful for the perfect life that was lived by Christ. It’s a wonderful truth to know that through His perfect life our Lord certified that He really was that perfect, spotless, sinless lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world. And we also know as 1 John 2:6 says that we are to walk as He walked. To follow His perfect example. There are benefits to the fact that Christ lived a perfect life. But may we not confuse that with what ultimately justifies us, and redeems us, and saves us, which is what He did for us on the cross. God, thank You for this time together. May You be glorified in the week ahead in our lives. In Jesus name. Amen.