| | |
| |
|
| Saturday October 23rd 2004 |
|
[9:42 pm]
Does it bother anyone else...
...that we say that Jesus earned our inheritance for us by keeping the law on our behalf - and meanwhile, Paul says that if the inheritance comes through the law, then the promise is made void (Gal 3.17-18)?
I well enough know the standard response to this, namely, that if we receive the inheritance by law, the promise is void, but that it is given to us precisely by Christ's law-keeping.
But there is a wee problem with this solution: in the very preceding verse (3.16), Paul has just identified Jesus as the recipient of the promise.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't this mean that Paul is saying that Jesus Himself did not receive the promise by law-keeping, but by inheritance? |
|
| | |
| | |
| |
|
| 15 comments |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Tim, could you point us to a commentary or essay or such that goes through this issue in more depth? Thanks.
Posted by Tommy Viola on 10.27.04 at 8:42 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Tommy, I don't think so. When I did my independent study on Galatians 3 back in my last year of seminary, I went through about 30 commentaries, and I don't remember seeing anyone bring up the issue.
Posted by Tim on 10.27.04 at 1:04 pm |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
I could also point to Hebrews 1, which says that "by inheritance" Jesus has obtained a more excellent name than the angels. And the obedience of Christ is described in Phi 2.5-11 as humbling Himself to the point of death, not as law-keeping.
Anyone have a definitive passage which demonstrates that Christ's obedience consisted in law-keeping? Nothing is coming to me at present.
Posted by Tim on 10.27.04 at 1:06 pm |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
I don't know for sure.
It may help to clarify what is meant by inheritance.
Also, consider whether Christ alone is the beneficiary of the inheritance, or whether the body (or those in Christ) is implied.
Again, also, (realizing the focus is elsewhere) does Ursinus' discussion -p.308- have any bearing on the issue?
"Although God does not extend unto us the forgiveness of sins, unless a sufficient satisfaction be made, yet he nevertheless grants remission FREEly, because he does not demand satifaction from us, but from Christ upon whom our sins were laid.
Obj. But if God forgive sins for the sake of the satisfaction of Christ, it is not FREE. Ans. It is, indeed, FREE in respect to us; for it is without any satisfaction on our part, although not without the satisfaction of another. To this it is objected; he that grants pardon upon this condition does not grant it FREEly; for it is an established rule, That whatever anyone does through another, he seems to do through himself. Therefore we ourselves give this satisfaction, by paying it through Christ. Ans. But God also gives this price, or ransom for us, that is, he GAVE Christ to be our satisfier and mediator; for he was not purchased by US. 'God so loved the world htat he gave his,' &c. (John 3:16.)" - [CAPS mine]
Posted by Harry on 10.28.04 at 12:07 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Harry, I don't see how the things you mention have any bearing on the point in Galatians. And Ursinus's point is well-taken, but is not what I am talking about.
As I noted, Christ Himself is specifically identified as the recipient of the promise in Gal 3.16. Thus the discussion of Ursinus is beside the particular point I'm working with here.
Once more, here is the data from Gal 3.16ff
1. Christ is the "real" recipient of the promise.
2. If the promise comes through the law then the promise is void; inheritance is no longer by promise.
This is said, before Paul even gets to the issue of inclusion of others into Christ (which occurs in 3.26ff), and therefore, into the promise.
Understand, I am not at all calling into question either Jesus' vicarious role in regard to us, nor His sin-bearing. But that still does not demonstrate that the promise was possessed through the law.
Posted by Tim on 10.28.04 at 12:55 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
How was it possessed then?
What did Christ's keeping the law effect?
I agree, Christ is the real recipient.
What of promiseS in vs.16. Is this alluding to the manifold promiseS of blessing in the OT? Is there a transition to a singular promise?
As you know, I use AV, so I see plural promises (noun) in vs.16, and in vs.18 a singular promise (verb?).
of promise = as announced/aassured?
by promise = according to the announcement?
Perhaps, vs.16 refers to the repeated announcements throughout the OT?
So, as elsewhere indicated, the promise is apart from the law. So, the promise will arrive/occur/be fulfilled in Christ, despite the law. And, we will partake/benefit/enjoy the promise as we are united in Christ.
So, why was Christ made "under the law," and why did he keep the law? Is it possible that he, being the second Adam, had to conform/be identified (somehow) with the law, in order that upon his death (wherein the old covenant died) we became free to wed the new covenant? So that we would be free of the curse and bondage of the law, and able to become one with Christ (receive the promise)?
So, perhaps, saying 'Christ earned our inheritance by keeping the law,' should be interpreted to say:'Christ, by fulfilling the law, that is being subject/conformed to it, and yet blameless, superseded the law (defeated it?) on man's behalf (as he was a man), in order that the promise may be applied to us. (The law, having one purpose to expose/fester the sin in man, was baffled/defeated/had nothing on Christ.)
So, the promise was not possessed through the law!
Re: Ursinus
I just thought that this showed that although Christ met demands/requirements, he was freely given by God (ie: law was satisfied; yet grace - as promised - was the vehicle).
blah, blah, blah....
if this makes any sense, at this time of night
:-)
Posted by Harry on 10.28.04 at 2:41 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Thanks, Harry. I think some of your ruminations are somewhere along the direction of my own trajectory.
A necessity to be born under the law need not imply a necessity for law-keeping to earn salvation. As you are well aware, there are numerous kinds of necessity.
I should note that in Philippians 2, where it says that God "gave" Jesus a name higher than any other name, it literally says that God "graced" Him with this. The Greek word is charizomai, the verb form of charis (grace).
Posted by Tim on 10.28.04 at 12:01 pm |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Hi Tim.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make for quite some time concerning Jesus' merits.
The question, 'Did Jesus earn our salvation?' is simply foreign to the Bible's covenantal framework. Jesus fits inside that covenantal framework -- inside the history of Israel and Adam, so to speak -- even as he transcends it. If we ask the question, the answer is 'yes,' to be sure. But if we do ask it, it is proof that we are coming at the text with foreign presuppositions.
Keep up the good work.
RL
Posted by RL on 10.29.04 at 8:10 pm |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Posted by phentermine on 11.25.04 at 10:42 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Short, if somewhat late, response- Keep the implicit historia salutis of the text in mind. The declaration of righteousness, i.e., justification, which is Christ's by virtue of keeping the law and ours by virtue of faith in the person and work of Christ, is not the same thing as the promised inheritance, which belongs both to Christ and to us by virtue of his having been declared "the Son of God with power" at his resurrection.
Posted by Kevin on 01.15.05 at 4:29 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Posted by strip poker free rolls on 03.30.05 at 7:28 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Posted by bridge loan terms on 04.13.05 at 4:20 pm |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Posted by seroquel on 04.19.05 at 7:20 pm |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Posted by rules of party poker deposit on 09.22.05 at 2:33 am |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
You may find it interesting to visit the pages about reviews online poker ...
Posted by games on 09.23.05 at 9:10 am | |
| | |
| | |
| | | | |
| | |
|