Faith fulfilled by works (Part II)

Previous parts: Part I

The Larger Context

James is encouraging his readers to reconsider their lives and to adopt various types of good practices -- works -- as normative for themselves. In particular, he wants to communicate that what they "believe" must work its way into their fingers; else, their belief is worthless (1.22, 1.26, 3.13, 4.17). These practices include enduring testing and temptation (1.2-18), bridling the tongue (1.20; ch. 3), care for the poor (1.27-2.9), and walking away from worldly desires (4.1-6, 5.1-6).

In this context, the thesis of 2.14-26 is right at home: "faith, if it does not have works, is dead by itself." Apparently, a teaching had been circulating that faith alone is salvific, regardless of whether it is accompanied by works or not. This teaching appears to have been a distortion of the contents of Romans 4, although it is unlikely that James was reacting directly to that letter, which was published around 57-59. One indication that James is reacting to (a possibly garbled version of) Paul's teaching is his pointed repetition of the phrase "justified by works", a direct contrast to Paul's insistence that Abraham was not justified by works in Rom. 4.2.

Over against the teaching that "mere faith" is salvific, James raises the constantly repeated proposition that faith without works is unable to save because it is dead. This thesis is repeated in various ways in vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, and 26. These repetitions bracket four separate arguments.

First Argument

First, James makes an argument by analogy:

¹⁵ If a brother or a sister are naked and lacking in the daily necessities, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warm and satisfied", but does not give to them the necessities of the body, what's it worth? ¹⁷ Thus also faith, if it does not have works, is dead by itself.

James kills two birds with this argument, reminding his readers about their obligations to the poor while simultaneously pointing out the connection between words and actions. In this scenario, the right words are spoken, but the words themselves are left uncompleted by the actions. So the rhetorical question is raised: "What's it worth?" The force of the argument is that the action of neglect tells us what the words truly mean: nothing.

In like fashion, a lack of deeds tells us what the faith is really like: dead. And it is understood here in v. 17 that a dead faith cannot save.

Second Argument

Now, James turns to two possible objections. First up:

¹⁸ But if someone says, "You have faith, and I have works" – show me your faith without the works and by my works I will show you my faith.

The idea behind the objection is that faith and works are two different characteristics. Perhaps then they are independent of each other? Maybe some people have more faith, but other people have more works, and God accepts them all.

James responds with a dare: go ahead and show me your faith without works. Of course, it is impossible for the objector to comply, for the only demonstration of faith is ... works! Meanwhile, says James, I will show you that I have faith by demonstrating the fruit of faith. He shuts the door to the possibility of dividing faith from works as if they were independent qualities. Instead, what faith "looks like" is works. (This point will require further development when we consider the relationship of James to Pauline teaching in the next post.)

It would be a mistake here to imagine that James is equating all works with a demonstration of faith; certainly, false works are possible as Jesus often declared. The point here is simply that faith cannot be demonstrated except by its fruit.

But now, the objector takes refuge in orthodoxy:

¹⁹ "You believe that God is one." Nicely done. The demons also believe – and tremble.

Here, our objector appeals to Deut. 6.4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God." This statement was a Jewish shorthand for the statement, "I affirm the truth about God", which is then supposed by the objector to be a proof of faith.

James is rather caustic in response: "Good job." But the demons also believe that God is one, and their "faith" leads them to tremble at the certainty of their destruction. Unspoken by James but clearly implied is that the demon's belief is hardly a saving faith.

Thus, orthodoxy is no certain test of saving faith.

Third Argument

Now, James turns to the case of Abraham. This is a rich subject, because Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of his belief in Genesis 15. In fact, Abraham is precisely the example chosen by Paul in Romans 4 to demonstrate that we are justified by faith apart from works¹. This remarkable coincidence of topic and example serves as strong evidence that James was aware of some version of Paul's teaching and was anxious to qualify it.

²⁰ Do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is worthless? ²¹ Abraham our father, was he not justified by works after he gave up Isaac his son upon the altar?

James begins by affirming something remarkable: that Abraham was justified "by works." Two puzzles immediately emerge. First, the affirmation of "justified by works" is very different from the thesis that James has been advancing so far, that a living, saving faith is accompanied by works. We might expect him to say that Abraham was justified "by faith that was accompanied by works", but it is a strange shift on his part to move from saving faith to justifying works. Second, James' statement at face value contradicts both the narrator of Genesis and also Paul's commentary on Abraham in Romans 4.

To see this clearly, we need to reconstruct the timeline of Abraham's introduction to the covenant. Because we don't have certain dates for his life, we will take year 0 to be his birth. Then, from Genesis 12.4, 16.3, 16.16, 17.1, 21.5 we can construct this sequence:

Year 75: Abraham leaves Haran
Year 76: Abraham receives the covenant promise
Year 86: Abraham sires Ishmael
Year 100: Abraham and Sarah have Isaac
Some time later: Abraham offers up Isaac.

We don't have a date for the last event, but Isaac seems old enough to know the pattern for sacrifice (22.7) but not old enough to resist Abraham or make a break for it (though perhaps he, also, trusted that he would be raised from the dead -- Heb. 11.17-19). For the sake of round numbers, we can put this event 30 years after the covenant promise (when Isaac is 6), understanding that this is only approximate. So, roughly, the events on Mount Moriah occur in Year 106.

Now here's the problem with James' statement, taken at face value: the narrator of Genesis stipulates that in 76, Abraham believed God and his belief was credited as righteousness. Paul affirms that Abraham was justified at that time (Rom 4.5,9,22-24). But James here states that Abraham was justified in 106, after (or "as a result of") his work of offering Isaac. It appears that there is a conflict between James and the others as to whether Abraham was justified in 76 or 106.

What are the possible solutions? The two most common are that either (a) James is talking about a second justification event, or (b) Paul and James are using the word "justify" in two different senses. These solutions are not incompatible, and some would combine them.

But now the puzzle gets even more curious:

²² You see, the faith worked together with his works, and the works completed the faith. ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled, the one that said, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness", and he was called "God's friend." ²⁴ You see, by works a man is justified, and not solely by faith.

The faith that Abraham had in year 76 is said to work together with his work in 106! Somehow, the faith that caused Abraham to be declared righteous in 76 and to be called God's friend worked together with an event thirty years in the future.

Well ... how do we know that James is talking about the faith in year 76? Perhaps he meant Abraham's continuing faith, so that at the moment of near-sacrifice, his faith and actions were working together? That would certainly be a more reasonable statement of events: that the faith and the works both occurred in 106.

But three facts rule out this interpretation of James.

(1) James explicitly states that the faith that was completed is that mentioned in Genesis 15, year 76.

(2) The outcome of that faith, according to James, is that Abraham was called "God's friend." Yet, Abraham's covenantal relationship with God begins in year 76. It is certainly not the case that Abraham was something other than God's friend between 76-106! It is certainly not the case that Abraham changed or improved his status with God on Mount Moriah. In fact, Genesis 22.15-18 is a reaffirmation of the covenant promises made in Genesis 15; this is further evidence that Abraham's action in Genesis 22 completed the faith in Genesis 15. Here it is worth considering that God was "testing" Abraham (Gen. 22.1) on Mount Moriah. The outcome of that test was already known, but its function was to confirm the covenant relationship between Abraham and God. No additional justification is said to take place in Genesis 22; rather, Abraham's action fulfills his faith.

(3) James' overall thesis is that saving faith is a faith accompanied by works. The faith that saves Abraham begins in Genesis 15; yet the work cited by James occurs three decades later. It is unthinkable that Abraham's faith was "worthless" and non-salvific prior to year 106. It must instead be the case that the faith in 76 is salvific because it *is* accompanied by works; specifically, the work on Mount Moriah in 106.

What can we say then? James, in the mode of wisdom writers, is creating a paradox. Abraham's faith in 76 is working together with his actions in 106 to produce a living, salvific faith.

What is the point of the paradox, then? What wisdom are we to learn from it? How do we untangle the puzzle?

Several options need to be eliminated here. First, many Protestant commentators will assert that James is speaking of justification before men (by means of outward actions), whereas Paul is speaking of justification before God (by means of faith). While this approach is plausible if one emphasizes v. 18 in isolation, it is clear here that Abraham is not being justified before men. For one thing, the only "man" who knows of Abraham's deed is Isaac. Additionally, Genesis 22 explicitly notes that God is "testing" Abraham; this rules out some demonstration before men. And finally, James' overall point is clear: a faith without works is not a saving faith. James is talking about deliverance from God's wrath (v. 19), not vindication before men.

Second, Catholic commentators will cite this as an example of "initial justification" and "subsequent justification." In this view, God creates righteousness in us at initial justification, but that righteousness is tarnished by sin. As a result, subsequent receptions of righteousness (through the sacraments) are needed in order to be righteous.

The problem here is three-fold. (a) There is no indication in the texts of Genesis or James that his work of sacrificing Isaac restored some lost righteousness; nor was it a sacramental act. (b) There is also no indication that James views this as a subsequent justification. Rather, he declares the action as a completion of the faith, uniting both in a single act of justification. (c) Subsequent justification would be a significant tangent in an otherwise tight, disciplined argument. James' thesis, reaffirmed with regard to Abraham in v. 20, is that "faith without works is worthless", not that "works finish what faith started."

A more recent solution has come to my attention, that of Rich Lusk. According to Lusk², there are various justifying acts throughout the life of a believer. Citing Calvin at points, Lusk argues that we need continual forgiveness of our sins, and that the justification that James speaks of is a subsequent justification.

I would dispute that James means this, for the reasons given above. It seems clear to me that James is unifying the act with the faith; one completes the other. Rather than two acts of justification, there is only one.

It seems much better to read 21-23 thus: saving faith justifies. But saving faith itself will grow and will of necessity mature into the fruit of works. From this perspective, there is a unity between faith and works. We might pause to consider here the images that Jesus used to describe real, saving faith: trees that bear good fruit, wheat as opposed to tares, vines that bear fruit, plants in good soil that bear fruit. James learned this way of thinking from his brother!

And so he expresses the unity of faith and works in a rhetorical hyperbole: "the works do the justifying." And in his example, the works justify "pre-facto" -- Abraham is justified in year 76 by a work he did in year 106.

James' outrageous, mind-bending claim is the clue: James is being rhetorical. He doesn't literally mean that the works justify. He doesn't mean that Abraham was declared righteous once and then was made righteous in a different way thirty years later.

Instead, he wants his readers to be impressed with the indivisibility of faith and works. The works "justify" in the sense that without them, the faith does not justify.

Fourth Argument

Rahab (v 25) now serves as a test case for our reading. What does James say? That Rahab was "justified by works" when she received the spies and sent them off the other way. When we compare James now to Hebrews 11.31, we find that the same action is described as the "faith" of Rahab. It's not that she received two different types of justification here. Rather, she was justified by her faith that was completed by her works. Here again there is a unity of faith and action.

Conclusion

What can we say about James' message? James is trying to impress on his readers that faith cannot in any way be apart from works. To do so, he uses a variety of arguments, including a rhetorical re-analysis of Abraham that deliberately flouts the language of Paul and outrageously attributes Abraham's justification to a work committed thirty years in the future. All of this is an attempt to get at one truth: Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

The next post will examine the relationship of James to Romans 4, Ephesians 2, and various systematic concerns.

JRC

1Some would limit the works under discussion in Romans 4 to "works of the law" to make room for James at this point. Such a limitation is not warranted, since there was no Law at the time of Abraham and therefore Paul's discussion of circumcision would be nonsensical under such a limitation. But neither is the limitation necessary, as is shown above.

2 Lusk, The Tenses of Justification. Lusk has also graciously interacted with me on this point, with discussion found here.
Read more...

Faith fulfilled by works (Part I)

James 2.14-26 clearly teaches that a saving faith is a working faith. It has long been a passage of debate because it presents such an apparently different take from Paul on the role of works in justification. The next couple of posts will seek to explore this crucial passage, attempting a close reading to understand what James is saying and then connecting it to the Pauline doctrine of justification. This post presents background information, a translation of the passage, and analysis of its structure; the next provides exegesis; and the last compares James to Paul.

The author is "James, the servant of the Lord." Carson et. al. walk through possible Jameses and conclude that the best fit is James, the half-brother of Jesus on the grounds that the epistle shows linguistic similarities to James' speech in Acts 15 and that the other candidates are either too obscure or else died too early (CMM, An Introduction to the New Testament 410-413).

I agree, and would add this: The writer of this epistle could easily have spent significant time with Jesus. He seems to be familiar with Jesus' teachings in a way that does not simply parrot the gospels (4.11-12; 5.2,12), and he also shows similarities in his use of imagery and in his analysis to Jesus' teachings and interactions (compare for example Jas. 4.13-17 to Luke 12.15-21, or Jas. 4.4 to Matt. 6.24). I would estimate that James has more allusions per verse to Jesus' teachings than any other of the NT epistles.

The date is contested. Many would give it a date in the 40s; CMM takes this approach (414) on the supposition that James is reacting to a distorted form of Pauline teaching without having the benefit of having spoken to Paul directly. This is plausible, but so is the argument that James is writing at a time when there are Christians scattered far abroad, and when enough time has elapsed for Paul's teachings to become distorted. Such reasoning would place James in the late 50s, with a terminus ad quem in 62, when (as Josephus records), James was killed. I prefer the later date, but it makes little difference.

What seems beyond doubt is this: James 2.14-26, by its concern over "faith apart from works" and by its choice of Abraham as an example, seems familiar with a basic argument of Pauline theology. He is in some way countering teaching that was current within the churches, and this teaching bears the unmistakable echoes of Romans 4, though it was clearly a distortion of Paul's gospel. This point will be important for connecting the message of James together with the message of Paul.

The other crucial preliminary is that James is a New Testament example of wisdom literature. That is, James is written in the mode of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, conveying truth by means of practical advice and certain unmistakable literary techniques.

James' advice echoes that of Proverbs. The topics of wisdom (1.5), the tongue (1.19-27; ch. 3), and wealth (2.1-9; 5.1-7) are prominent. Likewise, James makes use of the "wisdom" literary techniques: strong imagery (3.6-8 and 5.2, e.g.), paradox (1.2; 1.10-11; 2.13; 4.11), hyperbole (4.9), and riddle (2.10; 3.11-12) are all part of his method.

Of these, the riddle is most important for our passage. In Proverbs, truth is often expressed in terms of a riddle; wisdom comes from figuring out the meaning of the riddle (e.g., Prov. 14.4). As we shall see, James 2.14-26 contains a riddle that must be puzzled out.

The text itself is found here:

James 2.14-26 in Greek, NASB, and ESV

My own translation, which attempts to capture some of the word play involved:

¹⁴ What's it worth, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no works? Such faith is not able to save, is it? ¹⁵ If a brother or a sister are naked and lacking in the daily necessities, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warm and satisfied", but does not give to them the necessities of the body, what's it worth? ¹⁷ Thus also faith, if it does not have works, is dead by itself. ¹⁸ But if someone says, "You have faith, and I have works" – show me your faith without the works and by my works I will show you my faith. ¹⁹ "You believe that God is one." Nicely done. The demons also believe – and tremble. ²⁰ Do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is worthless? ²¹ Abraham our father, was he not justified by works after he gave up Isaac his son upon the altar? ²² You see, the faith worked together with his works, and the works completed the faith. ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled, the one that said, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness", and he was called "God's friend." ²⁴ You see, by works a man is justified, and not solely by faith. ²⁵ Likewise also, Rahab the prostitute, was she not justified by works after receiving the messengers and sending them off in a different direction? ²⁶ Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Here, I've made some translation decisions that need justifying.

In v. 18, I take James to be quoting a possible objection, and then responding to it. Hence, the quoted objection should end at 18a, with James' response in 18b.

In v. 19, the second half appears to be a sarcastic response to the first; I take it to be parallel in structure to v. 18.

Verse 24 the major Protestant translations translate as "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone", which is a faithful literal translation. It suffers from the disadvantage of leaving the door open to the reading "By works, you see that a man is justified...", which some commentators have taken. As shall be argued later, this is not a possible reading. Most telling at the translation level is that v. 22 and v. 24 have the same sentence structure, and in v 22, the οτι clearly extends to the end of the sentence. Hence, I've tried to render the two verses in parallel ways.

Also, the verbs βλεπεις (22) and ορατε (24) are not perfectly parallel, and they are technically in the indicative mood (the first for certain; the second by extension). Nevertheless, the sense in English is the language of proof: "You see that..." (drawing on the question in v 20). Hence, I've rendered them both in a colloquial "You see, ...", which lingers somewhere between the indicative and imperative.

Finally, the structure of this passage is fairly clear:

thesis: faith without works cannot save (14)
     argument by analogy (15-16)
 restatement of thesis (17)
     objections answered (18-19)
 restatement of thesis (20)
     example of Abraham (21-23)
 restatement of thesis (24)
     example of Rahab (25)
 summary restatement of thesis (26)

The thesis, "faith without works cannot save", is restated in various ways as a kind of chorus. It develops throughout this section into "faith without works is dead", a strong expression of the fact that a worksless faith is not a saving faith.

JRC
Read more...

The Case For Covenant Communion -- A Review

Rayburn, et al. The Case For Covenant Communion. Edited by Gregg Strawbridge. Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2006. 210 pp. with foreward, appendix, and Scripture index. $14.95 (paper) ISBN 0-9753914-3-7.

CFCC presents a forceful case that covenant children within the church should be allowed to participate in communion. The case presented here is grounded in Scripture, history, and covenant theology, and is in general well-argued. Though the various arguments are not entirely dispositive, they are nevertheless the ones to be reckoned with by those who think about communion in Reformed Churches.

The book consists of a series of essays by various contributors. The first article, by Robert Rayburn, sets forth the framework of the argument. As Rayburn sees it, children should be admitted to the table because (pp. 14-15)

* Children of believers have always participated in covenant meals and been nourished thereby,
* The theology of covenant children demands participation,
* The sole argument against paedocommunion, from 1 Cor 11, is based on a misreading, and
* Paedocommunion was the practice of the early church.

The articles that follow then flesh out Rayburn's skeleton. Jordan demonstrates that children participated in Passover and the other OT feast meals; Leithart explores the theology of those meals. Gallant, Sutton, and Lusk argue for childrens' participation in communion as a necessary consequence of covenant theology. Meyers and Strawbridge deconstruct the objections to paedocommunion. The article by Blake Purcell attempts to demonstrate that paedocommunion was practiced as early as the first century.

These articles are followed by a fascinating reprint of Rayburn's article in Presbyterion 22.2 of the development of the Presbyterian theology of covenant children, which includes details about the 1857 controversy between Charles Hodge and Thornwell concerning the status of unbelieving covenant children. Included are a set of excellent questions and objections by V. Philips Long which were part of the original Presbyterion article.

The book's case is stimulating and persuasive, but not finally compelling. Meyer's argument helped me to rethink the current communion practices at our church and to strongly consider a lower age for the communion table. Jordan's argument is speculative at points, but his central claim, that children did partake of the Passover, is quite well-established and demolishes Murray's contention that only adults participated. On the other hand, Purcell's attempt to push the date of paedocommunion to the first century is strikingly unpersuasive, as the evidence prior to Cyprian (AD 250) is simply too thin to bear the weight he wishes to place on it.

In the end, the central issue appears to be one's reading of 1 Cor 11.

If in fact 1 Cor 11.28 means "examine yourselves", then all of the other arguments can be seen in other lights. Perhaps the Passover has been modified in the New Covenant to require evidence of the circumcision of the heart. Or perhaps the children that participated in Passover were young, but not infants. Perhaps the theology of covenant children demands that we prepare children to partake, rather than give them communion as early as possible. These hypotheses are but examples of the routes one is compelled to take if 1 Cor 11.28 is indeed a command to be followed by all who partake.

But if on the other hand 1 Cor 11.28 is directed solely at the misbehaving Corinthian adults (so Rayburn), or means "prove yourselves" (so Meyers), then the objections to paedocommunion evaporate entirely.

This point needs to be discussed further. The current weight of translation work lies heavily on the side of self-inspection; yet Rayburn's argument that the command is directed towards the miscreants at Corinth is compelling. Whatever the case, we can be grateful to the authors for bringing the discussion to the fore and providing substantial food for thought.

One question that I brought to the book was its degree of entanglement with Federal Vision theology. Since so many of the contributors are also signatories to the Federal Vision Statement, and since that same statement explicitly advocates paedocommunion, I found myself approaching the book wondering to what extent I would have to evaluate its arguments without the benefit of accepting or understanding all of the Federal Vision.

To my pleasant surprise, I found that the arguments stand more or less on their own. The case for paedocommunion is argued almost entirely within the bounds of theology that is common to the Reformed community.

An experienced churchman might ask, "Why revisit the issue at this time, since both the PCA and OPC have considered and rejected paedocommunion in the past?" The answer appears to be this: even if paedocommunion is not the answer, the unacceptably long period of time that our children wait to take communion is a problem. This book serves as a stimulus to reconsider that problem afresh.

JRC

For further reading:
1987 OPC report on Paedocommunion
1988 PCA report on Paedocommunion.
Read more...

The Role of Love in Debate

Eph. 4.14-16

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Here in Ephesians, Paul pronounces the eschatological destiny of the church: to grow up.

What is notable is that the growth occurs by means of speaking the truth in love and working to build itself up in love.

Here, "in love" is adverbial; it is the manner in which we speak and work. Love is the motive that supplies the context for our speech and actions, and only that motive will suffice to cause growth (cf. 1 Cor 13).

Love is the frame in which our truth rests. Without that frame, our "truths" are not Truly True.

It's that simple: speak the truth *outside* of a motive to love, and you've failed to tell the whole truth.

And so we have

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. (4.25-27)

and again,

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (4.29, and 30-31 prob. relevant as well)

At some point in the future, I'd like to explore here the connections between speech and love in the context of theological debate. I need to explore, for the sake of my soul, the ways in which I fail to frame my "truths" in love -- and hence fail to tell True Truth.

At issue are passages like 1 Cor 13 and 14, James 3, and the odd connection of phrase between James 5.19-20 ("whoever turns a sinner from his ways ... will cover over a multitude of sins") and 1 Peter 4.8 ("Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.") Perhaps other passages will surface also.

JRC
Read more...

The Obedience of Christ in Hebrews

As I've tried to wrap my mind around the food fight known as "The Federal Vision Controversy", one point stands out. Some who identify themselves with The Federal Vision believe that it is a mistake to speak of Christ's active obedience imputed to us:

We deny that faithfulness to the gospel message requires any particular doctrinal
formulation of the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ.” What matters is that we confess that our salvation is all of Christ, and not from us. FV Statement 6

In my reading, I have understood their reluctance to stem from a controversy between Kline and Murray concerning the appropriateness of the term "Covenant of Works" to describe Adam's covenantal situation in the Garden: Do Adam's and Christ's works "merit" damnation and salvation, respectively, OR do Adam's and Christ's statuses secure damnation and salvation? That's probably an oversimplification, and for those who don't know the inside baseball (I'm a novice!), the appropriate question is probably "Who cares?!"

In any event, the argument has then proceeded on systematic lines. IF we abandon active obedience, the Kline camp urges, then we abandon the gospel. No, IF we allow for Adam to "merit" something in the Garden, then we make God beholden to His creation, say the Murrayites. Part of this discussion can be found here and here.

Hold the phone...here is a discussion in which Anthony Cowley examines precisely the passages I was thinking about in worship this morning. But he goes in a different direction with it, so I'll keep writing.

Anyways, what I wanted to say is this: I think the book of Hebrews provides a sufficient basis for a legitimate use of the phrase "Imputation of Active Obedience of Christ."

And here's the case:

During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Heb. 5.7-10.

Important to the writer of the Hebrews is this point: though Jesus already had the status of Son, he went beyond this status and actively obeyed God, reaching some state of "perfection" or "completion." What that state is and how it goes beyond being the eternal son of God (Heb 1.2-3), the author doesn't say. But his obedience is needed in order for him to have the status of our high priest.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. Heb 7.23-28

Here, our salvation is necessarily contingent on Jesus' particular characteristics: ever-livingness, holiness, blamelessness, etc., down to being exalted above the heavens. Notably, he is appointed because he had previously been made perfect, which connects back to his obedience from chapter 5.

...How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. Heb 9.14-15.

Here, the author develops the idea of our salvation. We are saved (a) because our consciences have been cleansed, because (b) Jesus the unblemished sacrifice -- connecting back to the language of ch. 7, which in turn rests on ch. 5 -- offered himself for us.

And then finally,

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "

First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb. 10.5-10

Here the author makes explicit that Jesus' obedience to God's will not only qualifies him to be our sacrifice (as developed in ch. 5-->7-->9), but also that his sacrifice makes us holy.

What can we conclude from this? First, that Jesus' righteousness includes, as one aspect, his active obedience to the Father. Above and beyond his nature as the second person of the Trinity, above and beyond his status as Messiah (Phil. 2.9), he also acted in a way that resulted in his worthiness as our sacrifice.

Second, that Jesus' righteousness becomes ours and makes us holy.

Put it together, and we have this: Jesus' active obedience becomes a part of the package by which I am reckoned -- logizomai -- to be holy.

Hence, in this sense at least, Christ's active obedience is imputed to me.

Does this answer the question of mechanism? No. Does it settle the dispute over merit? No.

But what is clear from the Scriptures is that there is a legitimate sense in which Christ's active obedience is imputed to me. For those who dislike an Anselmian sense of merit, or a Thomistic sense of merit, or a Klinian sense of merit -- here's your antidote: Affirm the IAOC in the sense that the author to the Hebrews affirms it.

JRC
Read more...

The magisterial authority of Rome?

Fellow blogger Bryan, a Covenant grad and now member of the Roman Catholic church, has challenged some of us Presbyterians with the notion that we cannot escape the Gnostic mentality if we refuse the magisterial authority of Rome.

While I do not agree with this concept, I am willing to listen. Bryan, are you willing to grace this blog with your thoughts?

JRC Read more...

Paedocommunion -- A Modest Proposal

No, it isn't what you readers of Jonathan Swift are thinking.

It's just this: as I've been thinking about the issue of paedocommunion in regard to Federal Vision and whatnot, I've been struck by the case of my own three-year-old daughter.

One of her recent questions: "Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for me?"

Now it strikes me that at a developmentally appropriate level of understanding, she's a believer. I honestly feel uncomfortable with the fact that she doesn't receive communion when it is served (when I help distribute it, no less!).

First question: what do the standards have to say about it?

BCO 12-5:

The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual
government of the church, for which purpose it has power:
a. To inquire into the knowledge, principles and Christian conduct of
the church members under its care; to censure those found
delinquent; to see that parents do not neglect to present their children
for Baptism; to receive members into the communion of the Church;
to remove them for just cause; to grant letters of dismissal to other
churches, which when given to parents, shall always include the
names of their non-communing, baptized children;

BCO 57:

57-1. Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially those
dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under the care of
the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to obey and serve the
Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand the Gospel, they should
be earnestly reminded that they are members of the Church by birthright, and
that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, to confess Him
before men, and to seek admission to the Lord’s Supper.
57-2. The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel cannot
be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the Session, whose
office it is to judge, after careful examination, the qualifications of those who
apply for admission to sealing ordinances...

57-4. It is recommended, as edifying and proper, that baptized persons,
when admitted by the Session to the Lord’s Supper, make a public profession
of their faith in the presence of the congregation. But in all cases, there
should be a clear recognition of their previous relation to the church as
baptized members.

BCO 58:

58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's
Supper.

Larger Catechism:

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

So what are the underlying Scriptural arguments here? The PCA position paper outlines the primary lines of thought. On the one hand, as per the majority position, the Reformed theologians have traditionally insisted that children be capable of fulfilling Paul's command to examine oneself:

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions. 1 Cor 11.17-33 NIV

The majority felt simply that young children are incapable of examining themselves.

The minority responded unsuccessfully that the parallel between Passover and Communion is strong enough to require parallel practices also. Since children were admitted to Passover, they should be admitted to Communion also. (Aside: Murray denies that children were admitted to Passover in a footnote in Christian Baptism that I don't have in front of me, stressing the 'you' in Ex. 12.26, "why do you do this?" That argument seems thin to me.)

The second majority argument, developing out of Calvin's theology of communion, was that communion is not effective ex operato, but only through faith. Thus, communion (unlike baptism) requires an active response of faith.

(It is this argument that no doubt led to Wilson's rude title of one of the articles in Credenda, "Give 'em the bread, you lumpy anabaptists!")

What to make of this in light of 1 Cor 11?

First, it will not do to argue that all kids, regardless of expressed faith or otherwise, should have communion. To so argue makes light of Paul's warning, "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." If this warning has any force as a warning, it must mean that we make some effort to fence the table from the "ignorant and scandalous"; else, we are like the man in Proverbs who sees danger and fails to warn of it. Children unable to express faith of any sort should probably not receive communion.

But second, it will not do to deny believing children access to communion for up to 10 years of their lives just so that we can verify that they really are Jacobs instead of Esaus. That's an unacceptably long time of "covenantal probation."

So here's the proposal: allow sessions, as per BCO 12-5, to develop developmentally appropriate examination questions for kids, to be asked prior to admitting them to communion. And then keeping examining them every two years, again with developmentally appropriate questions, so that they can continue to see that they are in the faith. Or not, which is a kindness as well.

As I read it, this proposal is in line with the standards, fulfills the requirements of 1 Cor 11, and also fulfills Jesus' command to let the little children come to Him in Mark 10.13-16.

JRC
Read more...