Why did Jesus keep the law?

[from scratch]

It cannot be gotten by the Law and yet unrighteousness-sin-is lawlessness. So even thought the law cannot justify it nevertheless tells us in some basic ways what justice "looks like". Love/grace. is what our justice consists of and is the only way it can actually be accomplished in man, the only way the law can be fulfilled IOW. And that's how Jesus fulfilled it.

Would you mind restating this in different words? Thanks

 

[from scratch]

And yet the righteousness required fulfills the law.

Side stepping is a fine art here. Where does that righteousness come from? Is it obedience to the law? No! See Phil 3:9 and Romans 4.

 

[fhansen]

Side stepping is a fine art here. Where does that righteousness come from? Is it obedience to the law? No! See Phil 3:9 and Romans 4.

The righteousness of God in Phil 3 is the righteousness God has always intended for man. It's reflected in the law even though man cannot achieve it, on his own, by his own efforts, apart from God IOW. This is because man must be partnered with God, subjugated to and in communion with Him-not separated from Him, as Adam chose to be-in order for any authentic righteousness to exist in man. This union begins with and is effected by faith. Abraham's righteousness was the same. By trusting in God, God's righteousness rather than his own, ruled the day. Abraham's faith was born out by-and would've been meaningless without-his obedience.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed the question under confused smiley. We'll, there should be many who've met God "face to face" by now.

interesting!

including david?

Acts 2:29,34(NKJV)
29“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 34“For David did not ascend into the heavens,...

remember that peter spoke these words after Christ's ascension.

 

[fhansen]

Would you mind restating this in different words? Thanks

Love, alone, fulfills the law, i.e. makes us just.

 

[fhansen]

interesting!

including david?

Acts 2:29,34(NKJV)
29“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 34“For David did not ascend into the heavens,...

remember that peter spoke these words after Christ's ascension.

I wouldn't know the fate of david, but my guess would be yes. David's had plenty of time between then and now.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I wouldn't know the fate of david, but my guess would be yes. David's had plenty of time between then and now.

interesting!

 

[Optimax]

I'm interested in both Biblical reasons and unsupported opinions.

Why did Jesus keep the law?

So we would not have to, cause we can't.

 

[jimbattle]

One reason was so He would be qualified to pay for ours sins. How can a sinner pay for somebody else's sins when he has sins of his own that need to be paid for?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Hey this looks like a topic we could discuss and profit from, given that there are so many videos and articles by Venema, a friend of Carson and Piper, on the 'Net on it. And we definitely have the qualifications to take it on.

The short answer, God provoked Adam to sin and created a situation to show men their inadequacy and consequent need for Him. This need being met when Christ was sent and completed His work, part of it being keeping the law perfectly. IOW, God planned everything, the Lamb of God was sacrificed before the foundation of the World.
As opposed to the Reformed view of God being caught out by surprise at Adam's failure or to the New Perspective view, where God sends Abraham as a contingency for it.

The long answer:

N.T. WRIGHT ON ROMANS 5:12-21 AND JUSTIFICATION: A CASE STUDY IN EXEGESIS, THEOLOGICAL METHOD,AND THE “NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL” by Cornelis P. Venema

http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/16/venema.pdf

Quote
To paraphrase the language of Chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the original covenant relationship between God and man required that Adam obey God perfectly and thereby enjoy life and blessedness in communion with him.

Though the covenant relationship was initiated by way of a “voluntary condescension” on God’s part, it did stipulate as its condition “perfect and personal obedience” on Adam’s part. By virtue of Adam’s sin and disobedience, the way of life and blessedness, which was promised to Adam upon condition of obedience, was closed to him and his posterity. However, in the covenant of grace, God graciously provides a Mediator, Christ as the “second Adam,” who fulfills all the obligations of the law of God on behalf of his people.

Upon the basis of Christ’s righteousness, which consists in his active obedience to the law’s requirements and his substitutionary endurance of the law’s sanction, beli evers are justified. Christ’s work as the second Adam, accordingly, fulfills the law of God on behalf of believers and thereby restores them to life and blessedness. In this traditional understanding of Reformed theology, Romans 5:12-21 constitutes a key biblical testimony to the nature of Christ’s saving work, particularly in the justification of believers through the imputation to them of Christ’s righteousness. Whereas condemnation and death come to all human beings through the sin and disobedience of Adam, righteousness and life come to believers who benefit from the obedience and cross of Christ in their place.


During the last several decades, however, this longstanding consensus in Reformed theology regarding the significance of Romans 5:12-21 for our understanding of the work of Christ has been challenged from a number of directions. One of the more significant challenges has surfaced within the orbit of what is commonly termed the “new perspective on Paul.” N. T. Wright, perhaps the most influential advocate of a form of this new perspective on Paul, has offered an interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that illustrates some of the principal differences between the older, Reformation view and the newer view.

Wright’s treatment of Romans 5:12-21 provides an interesting case study in the contemporary debate regarding the apostle Paul’s understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly his understanding of the doctrine of justification. In Wright’s estimation, the traditional Reformed treatment of this passage requires considerable modification.

Due to the importance of this passage to the traditional Reformed view of Christ’s work in the justification of believers, Wright’s revisionist reading presen ts an illuminating window into the present debates swirling about regarding the doctrine of justification. It will be our purpose in this article, therefore, to examine Wright’s reading of this passage as a kind of test case for some of the claims of the new perspective. By treating Wright’s handling of this passage, we will be able to illumine some of the key differences between the historic Reformed view and some emphases of authors of new persp ective. We will also be able to consider how Wright’s exegesis of this passage reflects a number of important features of his exegetical and theological method.

Our procedure in this article will be to begin with an exposition of Wright’s interpretation of Romans 5:12-21. After we summarize Wright’s handling of this passage, we will offer a series of exegetical and theological observations that illustrate the differences between his reading and that of more traditional Reformed theology.

1. N. T. Wright’s Interpretation of Romans 5:12-21

Before plunging into an exposition of Wright’s reading of Romans 5:12-21, we need to prepare the way by noting how Wright understands the theme of Romans and the place of this passage in the flow of the narrative. In his consideration of this passage, Wright insists that it must be inte rpreted, not in isolation from what precedes and follows it, but in terms of its contribution to the overall argument of the epistle. Furthermore, Wright also maintains that an important key to the interpretation of this passage lies in the traditional understanding of Adam and Israel within Judaism.

Biblical theology requires that the Pauline texts be read within the context of their historical setting and Paul’s background within the period of Second Temple Judaism. If we are to avoid an unduly abstract and de-contextualized reading of Paul’s argument in this passage, these considerations must be borne in mind.

A.
The Theme of Romans: God’s Faithfulness to His Covenant with Israel

In Wright’s analysis of the theme and structure of the book of Romans, a very different picture emerges. Though Wright grants that the “righteousness of God” is the theme of the book (1:17), he argues that the Reformers misunder stood this language. When Paul speaks of the “righteousness of God,” he is speaking the language of a first-century Jew who would understand it to refer to God’s faithfulness to his covenant promise to his people Israel. Rather than referring abstractly to God’s granting individual sinners a status of acceptance, this language announces the theme of Romans to be the way in which God has in Christ fulfilled his promises to Abraham.

5
The promises of God to his covenant people Israel gave birth to the expectation of a future day of blessing that would follow their exile. In the day of th e fulfilment of his promises, God would demonstrate his loyalty to the covenant by restoring his people from exile, and “setting the world to rights” in demonstration of his justice or righteousness.

6
The language of the “righteousness of God” combines these themes of covenant loyalty and restorative justice in a way that, according to Wright, has not often been appreciated in the interpretation of Romans. On the one hand, it speaks of God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises to Israel; on the other hand, it speaks of a “vindication” of the cause of the righteous people of God in a world that is being corrupted and ruined through human sin and disobedience. Summarizing his understanding of the theme of Romans, Wright notes that [c]ovenant and lawcourt are far more closely linked than often imagined. Behind both categories th ere stands a fundamental Jewish self-perception, which, if we grasp it, will enable us to understand things Paul holds together in ma ny passages in Romans, but which interpreters have consistently separated. Through many and various expressions of covenant theology in the biblical and post-biblical periods, a theme emerges that, though by no means central in all Second Temple Judaism, has a claim to represent a deep-rooted and biblical viewpoint. It can be stated thus: The covenant between God and Israel was established in the first place in order to deal with the problem of the world as a whole. Or, as one rabbi put it, God decided to make Adam first, knowing that if he went to the bad God would send Abraham to sort things out. The covenant, in other words, was established so that the creator God could rescue the creation from evil, corrupti on, and disintegration and in particular could rescue hu mans from sin and death.

7
This comprehensive understanding of the theme of Romans forms the background to, and interpretive matrix for, a proper reading of Paul’s teaching about the work of Christ in Romans 5:12-21.

 

[from scratch]

Hey this looks like a topic we could discuss and profit from, given that there are so many videos and articles by Venema, a friend of Carson and Piper, on the 'Net on it. And we definitely have the qualifications to take it on.

The short answer, God provoked Adam to sin and created a situation to show men their inadequacy and consequent need for Him. This need being met when Christ was sent and completed His work, part of it being keeping the law perfectly. IOW, God planned everything, the Lamb of God was sacrificed before the foundation of the World.
As opposed to the Reformed view of God being caught out by surprise at Adam's failure or to the New Perspective view, where God sends Abraham as a contingency for it.

The long answer:

N.T. WRIGHT ON ROMANS 5:12-21 AND JUSTIFICATION: A CASE STUDY IN EXEGESIS, THEOLOGICAL METHOD,AND THE “NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL” by Cornelis P. Venema

http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/16/venema.pdf

Quote
To paraphrase the language of Chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the original covenant relationship between God and man required that Adam obey God perfectly and thereby enjoy life and blessedness in communion with him.

Though the covenant relationship was initiated by way of a “voluntary condescension” on God’s part, it did stipulate as its condition “perfect and personal obedience” on Adam’s part. By virtue of Adam’s sin and disobedience, the way of life and blessedness, which was promised to Adam upon condition of obedience, was closed to him and his posterity. However, in the covenant of grace, God graciously provides a Mediator, Christ as the “second Adam,” who fulfills all the obligations of the law of God on behalf of his people.

Upon the basis of Christ’s righteousness, which consists in his active obedience to the law’s requirements and his substitutionary endurance of the law’s sanction, beli evers are justified. Christ’s work as the second Adam, accordingly, fulfills the law of God on behalf of believers and thereby restores them to life and blessedness. In this traditional understanding of Reformed theology, Romans 5:12-21 constitutes a key biblical testimony to the nature of Christ’s saving work, particularly in the justification of believers through the imputation to them of Christ’s righteousness. Whereas condemnation and death come to all human beings through the sin and disobedience of Adam, righteousness and life come to believers who benefit from the obedience and cross of Christ in their place.


During the last several decades, however, this longstanding consensus in Reformed theology regarding the significance of Romans 5:12-21 for our understanding of the work of Christ has been challenged from a number of directions. One of the more significant challenges has surfaced within the orbit of what is commonly termed the “new perspective on Paul.” N. T. Wright, perhaps the most influential advocate of a form of this new perspective on Paul, has offered an interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that illustrates some of the principal differences between the older, Reformation view and the newer view.

Wright’s treatment of Romans 5:12-21 provides an interesting case study in the contemporary debate regarding the apostle Paul’s understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly his understanding of the doctrine of justification. In Wright’s estimation, the traditional Reformed treatment of this passage requires considerable modification.

Due to the importance of this passage to the traditional Reformed view of Christ’s work in the justification of believers, Wright’s revisionist reading presen ts an illuminating window into the present debates swirling about regarding the doctrine of justification. It will be our purpose in this article, therefore, to examine Wright’s reading of this passage as a kind of test case for some of the claims of the new perspective. By treating Wright’s handling of this passage, we will be able to illumine some of the key differences between the historic Reformed view and some emphases of authors of new persp ective. We will also be able to consider how Wright’s exegesis of this passage reflects a number of important features of his exegetical and theological method.

Our procedure in this article will be to begin with an exposition of Wright’s interpretation of Romans 5:12-21. After we summarize Wright’s handling of this passage, we will offer a series of exegetical and theological observations that illustrate the differences between his reading and that of more traditional Reformed theology.

1. N. T. Wright’s Interpretation of Romans 5:12-21

Before plunging into an exposition of Wright’s reading of Romans 5:12-21, we need to prepare the way by noting how Wright understands the theme of Romans and the place of this passage in the flow of the narrative. In his consideration of this passage, Wright insists that it must be inte rpreted, not in isolation from what precedes and follows it, but in terms of its contribution to the overall argument of the epistle. Furthermore, Wright also maintains that an important key to the interpretation of this passage lies in the traditional understanding of Adam and Israel within Judaism.

Biblical theology requires that the Pauline texts be read within the context of their historical setting and Paul’s background within the period of Second Temple Judaism. If we are to avoid an unduly abstract and de-contextualized reading of Paul’s argument in this passage, these considerations must be borne in mind.

A.
The Theme of Romans: God’s Faithfulness to His Covenant with Israel

In Wright’s analysis of the theme and structure of the book of Romans, a very different picture emerges. Though Wright grants that the “righteousness of God” is the theme of the book (1:17), he argues that the Reformers misunder stood this language. When Paul speaks of the “righteousness of God,” he is speaking the language of a first-century Jew who would understand it to refer to God’s faithfulness to his covenant promise to his people Israel. Rather than referring abstractly to God’s granting individual sinners a status of acceptance, this language announces the theme of Romans to be the way in which God has in Christ fulfilled his promises to Abraham.

5
The promises of God to his covenant people Israel gave birth to the expectation of a future day of blessing that would follow their exile. In the day of th e fulfilment of his promises, God would demonstrate his loyalty to the covenant by restoring his people from exile, and “setting the world to rights” in demonstration of his justice or righteousness.

6
The language of the “righteousness of God” combines these themes of covenant loyalty and restorative justice in a way that, according to Wright, has not often been appreciated in the interpretation of Romans. On the one hand, it speaks of God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises to Israel; on the other hand, it speaks of a “vindication” of the cause of the righteous people of God in a world that is being corrupted and ruined through human sin and disobedience. Summarizing his understanding of the theme of Romans, Wright notes that [c]ovenant and lawcourt are far more closely linked than often imagined. Behind both categories th ere stands a fundamental Jewish self-perception, which, if we grasp it, will enable us to understand things Paul holds together in ma ny passages in Romans, but which interpreters have consistently separated. Through many and various expressions of covenant theology in the biblical and post-biblical periods, a theme emerges that, though by no means central in all Second Temple Judaism, has a claim to represent a deep-rooted and biblical viewpoint. It can be stated thus: The covenant between God and Israel was established in the first place in order to deal with the problem of the world as a whole. Or, as one rabbi put it, God decided to make Adam first, knowing that if he went to the bad God would send Abraham to sort things out. The covenant, in other words, was established so that the creator God could rescue the creation from evil, corrupti on, and disintegration and in particular could rescue hu mans from sin and death.

7
This comprehensive understanding of the theme of Romans forms the background to, and interpretive matrix for, a proper reading of Paul’s teaching about the work of Christ in Romans 5:12-21.

I'm not really interested in discussing NT Wright as your quoted source is.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm interested in both Biblical reasons and unsupported opinions.

Did he?

According to the Jews of that time Christ God broke the law several times.

examples:

Matthew 12:1

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

John 5:16

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

John 8:7

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Did he?.

Good point.

The Sinaitic Law required interpretation as can be seen by the action of the elders, chosen by Moses on the advice of Jethro and who were the ancestors of the judges, the rabbis of Judaism, who immediately sat down to study application of the Law given by Moses, beginning the formation of the Oral Law.

Most scholars agree that the laws that required harsh punishment in Torah were interpreted by replacing them with softer equivalents, most commonly by requiring monetary compensation for the loss. Thus the retaliatory laws of eye for eye , etc, lex talionis, were generally converted into calculations for the loss of income incurred by the injured party over his lifetime as a result of his wound, to be paid by the accused.

Jesus also points out that the Pharisees' and scribes' own interpretation allowed them to untie animals for feeding and watering on the Sabbath, thus allowing Him the same leeway in the healing of the sick and crippled.

As for the incident of the woman caught in adultery, the men needed to produce the partner of the adulteress and since it was probably a set up, producing the man would have implicated the plotters. Apparently, Jesus was engaged in writing down the part of the law pertinent to the infraction in the sand, which required the capture of the man involved. Explaining the swift decampment of the plotters from the scene.

Ask the Alliance: Would Moses have stoned the woman caught in adultery? - The Christian Apologetics Alliance

Since the sin offering had to be free of blemishes, Jesus, God's Sin Offering, had to be fully compliant with the Law. So yes, Jesus did keep the interpreted law fully.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Wordkeeper

Hey this looks like a topic we could discuss and profit from, given that there are so many videos and articles by Venema, a friend of Carson and Piper, on the 'Net on it. And we definitely have the qualifications to take it on.............

​

I'm not really interested in discussing NT Wright as your quoted source is.

I haven't really read much from any of those.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6399198/
John Piper vs. N T Wright


.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I'm surprised that most objections to Wright hang on his ignoring imputation of righteousness.

Wright objects to imputation: in a court of law, you can't transfer the judge's innocence to the accused.

However, if you show loyalty and dependence on God, He would justify (adopt you as a family member) you and then work out a deal with the prosecutor, at a price.

That fits nicely. Abraham showed loyalty and need for God and God gave him the label (reputation, identity) of family member.

Witherington explains that Erasmus used the Vulgate, where Abe's belief was reputatum (reckoned) to him as eligiblty for adoption ("righteousness" just confuses the issue: Abe was still a sinner, as David noted, "Happy is a man whom the Lord counts not his transgressions against him"). Reckoned is an accounting term, such as when the bank considers a payment as a credit, reckoned as a credit. Actual physical cash (label of adoption, not innocence) is available by transference.

Unfortunately, Erasmus used the word imputatum, which means inference, when an accused's successful defence against prosecution is considered as innocence. The defence's successful presentation of innocence is inferred to the accused. The success of the defence is borrowed by the accused. OJ comes to mind.

Luther picked up on Erasmus's boo boo.

I haven't really read much from any of those.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6399198/
John Piper vs. N T Wright


.

 

[from scratch]

I'm surprised that most objections to Wright hang on his ignoring imputation of righteousness.

Wright objects to imputation: in a court of law, you can't transfer the judge's innocence to the accused.

However, if you show loyalty and dependence on God, He would justify (adopt you as a family member) you and then work out a deal with the prosecutor, at a price.

That fits nicely. Abraham showed loyalty and need for God and God gave him the label (reputation, identity) of family member.

Witherington explains that Erasmus used the Vulgate, where Abe's belief was reputatum (reckoned) to him as eligiblty for adoption ("righteousness" just confuses the issue: Abe was still a sinner, as David noted, "Happy is a man whom the Lord counts not his transgressions against him"). Reckoned is an accounting term, such as when the bank considers a payment as a credit, reckoned as a credit. Actual physical cash (label of adoption, not innocence) is available by transference.

Unfortunately, Erasmus used the word imputatum, which means inference, when an accused's successful defence against prosecution is considered as innocence. The defence's successful presentation of innocence is inferred to the accused. The success of the defence is borrowed by the accused. OJ comes to mind.

Luther picked up on Erasmus's boo boo.

Did you miss my post?