Christology, Part7: The Obedience of Christ | Jesse Randolph | 8.4.24 PM

Here are some ways to connect with us at IHCC:
🌐 Visit Our Website - www.ihcc.org
🎥 Subscribe to our Bible resource ministry, Sound Words - bit.ly/3xflgrN
👍 Like on Facebook - bit.ly/3YIWFaj
📷 Follow on Instagram - bit.ly/3YCHv6I
🐦 Follow on Twitter - bit.ly/3rvE8D7
🧵 Follow on Threads - bit.ly/3Y0e2V0
#IHCC #IndianHillsCommunityChurch #Church #ExpositoryPreaching #Sermons

[@junkerjorg6310]

Dispensationalists argue that Christ's obedience during His life was not necessary for our salvation, but rather demonstrated His sinlessness and qualified Him to be the perfect sacrifice. So if it wasn't necessary for Him to be obedient, which attributed to him being sinless for our salvation, then what if he did sin? Then it would have disqualified him from being the perfect sacrifice, which defeats the distinction that dispensationalists want to draw to support their system. Christ was the spotless lamb, not just a lamb. Without law, there is no need for grace.

[@Feralfax]

The question for me is whether Adam was created righteous already or only innocent but not righteous. If he was created already righteous then Christ’s death returns us to that original righteousness. Christs perfect life was then a vindication of that righteousness not a precondition for it.

[@LegacyAtty]

I have enjoyed many of Jesse’s sermons, but he missed the mark on this one. The perfection of Christ under the law cannot be so neatly separated from His atoning death as Randolph seems to suggest (1 Peter 1:18-19). Both are required. In fact, His final sacrifice is his ultimate demonstration of obedience to the Father and the law (Phil 2:1-11). I would point to Phil 2:1-11; 3:9; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:15-16; Rom 5:12-21 in support of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us. The presuppositions articulated by Randolph in his message (many of which are factually false or logically fallacious) prevent him from accepting these passages at face value. - He says that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us is founded upon the assumption that Christians today must keep the law - This assumption, though possible, is not necessary to the doctrine. I believe that the proper assumption is not that we must keep the law and therefore Christ had to keep the law, but that before Christ’s atoning sacrifice it was the obligation of all followers of Yahweh to keep the law, including Christ. Additionally, absent Christ’s perfect obedience to the law and sacrificial death for us, we would have been required to keep the law today. - From a dispensational perspective, this assertion (that imputation is founded upon our present obligation to keep the law) commits the fallacy of begging the question. It is true that Christians today are not obligated to keep the law. But why? Because Christ kept the law perfectly and abolished our obligation to it in this age by his death (Eph 2). The only reason we are not obligated to keep the law is the very thing Randolph is trying to deny: the perfect obedience of Christ to the law which merited to Him experiential righteousness (though as God He had always been righteous), which righteousness is imputed to those who believe. - Randolph dismisses 2 Cor 5:21 because he mistakenly believes that the doctrine of imputation is founded on this assumption. His attempt to argue from context that this verse is not about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is unpersuasive. The context is not about the death of Christ, but reconciliation to God (18-21). Verse 21 explicitly incorporates both Christ’s atoning sacrifice and His imputation of righteousness to us as elements of that reconciliation. - He says that the active obedience of Christ is inseparably linked to covenant theology and the covenant of works - This is factually incorrect. While covenantalists, like those quoted by Randolph like to argue this, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is actually founded on the doctrines of imputation and representation. See, e.g. MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017, p. 464-66. These are critical components of biblical soteriology and do not require the covenant of works or covenant theology. - I concur that the covenant of works and covenant theology as a whole are extra-biblical theological constructs that lack support in Scripture. But that does not disprove the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us as it is not dependent on those doctrines. - He asks if we are under the law or under grace, and then seeks to apply that question to Christ to show that he could not have merited righteousness by obedience to the law. But he makes 2 different category mistakes (false assumptions) with that line of argument. - First, Christ did not live under grace. Christ lived under the law and was obligated to obey it perfectly, which he did. We do not live under the law, but only because Christ perfectly obeyed it and abolished the requirements of the law by his death (Eph 2). - Second, he assumes that no one can earn righteousness by obedience to the law. Separately, he argues that this is supported by Gal 2:20-21, implying that if Christ earned righteousness by obedience to the law, then he need not have died. But this wrongly assumes that Christ is included in the audience that Paul is addressing. Not only is Christ not a member of the Galatian church, His human experience is radically different from ours. As we interact with the law, the law serves only to show us our sin (Rom 2, 7). But the God/man did not have that problem because he was perfect from inception. Christ’s interaction with the law was only obedience, meriting righteousness. Finally, the notion that a perfect life under the law would not merit righteousness seems contrary to Scripture (e.g. Lev18:5; Gal 5:3; Rom 2:25; 7:10; 10:5; James 2:10). Our problem is that perfection is an insurmountable obstacle for us because we are conceived sinful having inherited Adam’s moral corruption, but that is not so for Christ. - He asks if Christ’s righteousness were imputed to us, then why did he have to die? But this is a straw man (logical fallacy). - The question assumes that someone is arguing the efficacious atonement of Christ’s righteousness apart from His atoning death, which to my knowledge, no one is arguing. - The question also falsely assumes that because Christ had to die to atone for sin (again no one is disputing that, to my knowledge), that Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to us. But this is a logical fallacy because the premise that Christ had to die to atone for sin does not logically necessitate the lack of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. - Finally, the Randolph's argument rests upon some fundamental misunderstandings of the biblical text: - Randolph denies that Jesus will be exalted for His obedience (Phil 2), but instead will be exalted only because of His death. This is false. Very clearly Phil 2 has in view the humility of Christ demonstrated by his life of obedience, the ultimate example of His obedience to the Father being his atoning death on the cross. To suggest that Christ is exalted only for his death and not for his humble obedience (ultimately including his death) misses the point of the passage. - Randolph cites Gal 2:20-21 for the proposition that if righteousness comes through the law then Christ died needlessly, implying that if Christ earned righteousness by obedience to the law, then he need not have died. I have mentioned this already, but it is worth repeating. This cannot apply to Christ, because as the perfect God-man, Christ’s relationship to the law is not the same as any other human’s. Christ’s experiential righteousness did come through obedience to the law, fulfilling the requirement that humans had toward God. That righteousness is imputed to those who believe.

[@EasyRiderBob]

This theological hair splitting can be frustrating when the world is crumbling around us and the church appears to be in poor condition…but I think this pastor’s earnestness is warranted. How does the Law of Moses apply to Jesus when: we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers… Still, Jesus was born under the law, in order to redeem those under the law. And it was impossible for death to hold Jesus, because he had committed no sin- but I don’t think the pastor disagreed with that. It was just a bit unclear to me his distinction between obedience to the Father in general vs obedience to the Law.