To What Was Jesus Obedient?

[LaCrum]

I think you're looking at the Law of Moses when in reality you're actually referring to the Mosaic Covenant. And, within that Covenant, the laws were established for Israel to abide by.

Now, with Jesus, we have the abolishing of the Old Covenant, mainly, the Mosaic Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant through Jesus.

This is explained clearly in Hebrews 8:7-13

7) For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

8) But God foun fault with the people and said (quoting Jer. 31:31-24) The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

9) It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them declares the Lord.

10) This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will by their God and they will be my people.

11) No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother saying 'Know the Lord' because they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest.

12) For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.

13) By calling this covenant "new", he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Essentially we now have a different relationship to God with the New Covenant. So instead of having to please God through laws and sacrificial requirements, Jesus came and fulfilled those requirements perfectly requiring us only to have faith for salvation. Instead of having to adhere to external rules, God puts the law inside of us through his Holy Spirit. Bottom line is, the Holy Spirit will guide you towards obedience, and will let you know if you're doing something that displeases him because through accepting him, you are in the New Covenant with him.

 

[Drew]

As for the rest, I'm in agreement, Jesus' coming fulfilled the Law. It's not abolished, it is fulfilled.

Well we don't agree about this. Please re-read my last post carefully. I am saying that the Law is indeed abolished precisely because it is fulfilled.

 

[glorydaz]

I think you're looking at the Law of Moses when in reality you're actually referring to the Mosaic Covenant. And, within that Covenant, the laws were established for Israel to abide by.

Now, with Jesus, we have the abolishing of the Old Covenant, mainly, the Mosaic Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant through Jesus.

This is explained clearly in Hebrews 8:7-13

7) For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

8) But God foun fault with the people and said (quoting Jer. 31:31-24) The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

9) It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them declares the Lord.

10) This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will by their God and they will be my people.

11) No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother saying 'Know the Lord' because they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest.

12) For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.

13) By calling this covenant "new", he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Essentially we now have a different relationship to God with the New Covenant. So instead of having to please God through laws and sacrificial requirements, Jesus came and fulfilled those requirements perfectly requiring us only to have faith for salvation. Instead of having to adhere to external rules, God puts the law inside of us through his Holy Spirit. Bottom line is, the Holy Spirit will guide you towards obedience, and will let you know if you're doing something that displeases him because through accepting him, you are in the New Covenant with him.

Amen, sister.

 

[Drew]

Essentially we now have a different relationship to God with the New Covenant. So instead of having to please God through laws and sacrificial requirements, Jesus came and fulfilled those requirements perfectly requiring us only to have faith for salvation.

I do not think that the Bible teaches this - in other words, in my OP I take basically the opposite position to what you are saying here. No time to elaborate right now, but I will come back to this.

 

[LaCrum]

Essentially we now have a different relationship to God with the New Covenant. So instead of having to please God through laws and sacrificial requirements, Jesus came and fulfilled those requirements perfectly requiring us only to have faith for salvation.

I do not think that the Bible teaches this - in other words, in my OP I take basically the opposite position to what you are saying here. No time to elaborate right now, but I will come back to this.

I look forward to hearing your point of view on the matter, I love studying the Old verse New Covenant, it's definitely my favorite Biblical topic.

You believe that the fulfillment of the Law by Jesus meant in relation to the Mosaic Covenant with Israel, which I agree with, I'm saying that within that the Mosaic Law is encompassed because their obedience to those Laws was part of the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant.

Although don't get me wrong, I still think Christians need to follow the Ten Commandments, but I think that is best expressed through Jesus telling us to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That pretty much sums them all up.

 

[Drew]

Many in the Reformed tradition seem to believe that because Jesus perfectly obeyed the law, we do not have to. So, in extremely broad compass, we have:

1. Adam's sin is imputed to all men;
2. Our sin is imputed to Jesus;
3. Jesus was perfectly obedient to the Law of Moses, and the righteousness of Jesus in this respect is imputed to us.

I think that this not the Biblical picture. I see evidence that Jesus "broke" the Law of Moses (I believe He does this to declare that its time has come to an end). And I see no BIblical evidence that we are imputed with Jesus' righteousness, even though I am aware how widely held this view is.

As per Romans 5:19, we are indeed told that Jesus was perfectly obedient. So I certainly do not dispute this. What is up for debate is what He was obedient to. Many believe that He was obedient to the law of Moses - I believe that He was the one faithful or obedient Israelite - the only Jew who actually obeys the Abrahamic covenant which was always there to solve the Adamic sin problem for the entire world.

More later.....

 

[Drew]

You believe that the fulfillment of the Law by Jesus meant in relation to the Mosaic Covenant with Israel, which I agree with,

Well, I need to clarify. I believe that Jesus fulfills the Law, but in relation to Romans 5:19, which talks about Christ's obedience, I am saying that what Jesus was "obedient to" was not the Law of Moses but rather Israel's covenantal responsibilty to be a blessing to the nations. I should add that this only makes sense if we understand that the destiny of Israel devolves unto Jesus and He acts as Israel "rolled up into one person".

 

[LaCrum]

Well, I need to clarify. I believe that Jesus fulfills the Law, but in relation to Romans 5:19, which talks about Christ's obedience, I am saying that what Jesus was "obedient to" was not the Law of Moses but rather Israel's covenantal responsibilty to be a blessing to the nations. I should add that this only makes sense if we understand that the destiny of Israel devolves unto Jesus and He acts as Israel "rolled up into one person".

I agree that he was obedient to the terms of the Covenant, and I believe that it was all encompassing of all aspects of it.

Now, you speak of "Israel's convenantal responsibility to be a blessing to the nations", where exactly in the OT when God is laying out the guidelines of the Mosaic Covenant is this said, or where is this inferred in maybe other OT scriptures? This is just something I haven't heard before which is why I'm curious, I have always understood the Mosaic Covenant to be about God and Israel's relationship, not Israel's relationship to other nations. That makes the most sense in respect to the definition of what a Blood Covenant was.

 

[Drew]

Now, you speak of "Israel's convenantal responsibility to be a blessing to the nations", where exactly in the OT when God is laying out the guidelines of the Mosaic Covenant is this said, or where is this inferred in maybe other OT scriptures?

Here are some texts which strongly suggest that the covenant with Abraham was not simply about Israel, but the larger world as well:

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you,

The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

The LORD will have compassion on Jacob;
once again he will choose Israel
and will settle them in their own land.
Aliens will join them
and unite with the house of Jacob.

And there are many more texts like these. The Old Testemant paints a picture wherein God uses Israel as the means to bless the wider world. And Paul strongly echoes this theme - that Israel had a covenantal duty to be a blessing to the nations, but failed in that responsibility.

 

[Drew]

Hello LaCrum:

As I posted my preceding post, it occurred to me that you might argue that the Mosaic covenant was a "separate" covenant than the one made with Abraham. I would fundamentally disagree with that and see more or less a single unified thread of God and Israel in a covenant relationship. Now, of course, the giving of the Mosaic Law was one distinct element of that, but I see no reason at all to think of that as anything other that the unfolding of a single continuous plan for God to use Israel for His purposes.

I think the church often misunderstands the centrality of Israel in the overall plan of redemption. I believe that God uses Israel as the very means to solve the problem of sin and death. That is, when God promises Abraham that he will be a blessing to the nations, this means that God will use Israel to deal with sin and death.

How does this play out? Well, as the Bible shows, Israel is unfaithful to the covenant plan. So does God abandon the plan to use Israel to solve the problem of sin and death? No. He finds the one lone faithful Israelite who can fulfill it - Jesus the Messiah.

Jesus acts as Israel, fulfilling her covenantal oblibations and bringing the great plan to its climax.

 

[Caroline H]

I believe that Jesus WAS obedient to the "law". David admitted in Psalm 51that it is not the sacrifice (physical obedience to the law) that God requires, but rather a broken and contrite heart. Outward obedience to the "law" never saved anyone, but the understanding of what the "law" illustrated was counted as faith, and was accepted by God. Jesus didn't need to obey the "law" to the letter to be obedient, because that was not what God established it for in the first place. Didn't David eat the bread from the alter because he was hungry? Yes, and that was ok because the "law" is not more important than the spirit of the law. Jesus did the same things, healing on the Sabbath, allowing his disciples to gather grain on the Sabbath, etc. But in all of this they did not sin against the "law". Circumcision is a symbol of what should happen to the heart, and if one is circumcised but does not have his heart circumcised he is still lost. Jesus didn't do away with the "law" at all, he fulfilled it, but that doesn't mean it is gone. He showed us how it is to be interpreted, and I think that by saying that we are no longer under the "law" we misunderstand the whole meaning of it. The New Covenant and the old are one in the same, as Jesus said that to love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself is a summation of the 10 Commandments. He was saying that if we understand the point behind them, to show us how to love God and our neighbour, then we are fulfilling the will of God.

 

[LostSoul]

The New Covenant and the old are one in the same, as Jesus said that to love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself is a summation of the 10 Commandments. He was saying that if we understand the point behind them, to show us how to love God and our neighbour, then we are fulfilling the will of God.

That is honestly how I have always interpretted it. Just did not want to be accused of twisting scripture to suit my devices. Though I will admit, I am very much fascinated by other points of view that have been offered here. Can even see the logic in them too.

 

[Drew]

I believe that Jesus WAS obedient to the "law".

Well, Jesus overturned the written Law of Moses, not least by declaring that all foods were clean to eat - in direct contravention to the Law. Not to mention breaking the Sabbath, touching corpses, menstruating women. Besides, He pronounced judgement on the Temple.

All these things show one thing - Jesus, as one with authority to do so - was declaring that the time of the Law had come to an end. So I am not sure what you mean when you say that Jesus was obedient to the Law, given that He widely acted in ways that declared its abolition (however please see what I write later in this post.

This is not a denial that He fulfilled the Law as per earlier posts.

Jesus didn't do away with the "law" at all, he fulfilled it, but that doesn't mean it is gone. He showed us how it is to be interpreted, and I think that by saying that we are no longer under the "law" we misunderstand the whole meaning of it.

Well I kind of agree with this, although I think we use different terminology. One thing is clear - the written code of the Law of Moses is declared abolished by both Jesus and Paul. But I certainly agree that the "essence" or "heart" of the Law of Moses is established (Romans 3:31) in exactly the manner you describe in your post.

 

[Caroline H]

Well I kind of agree with this, although I think we use different terminology. One thing is clear - the written code of the Law of Moses is declared abolished by both Jesus and Paul. But I certainly agree that the "essence" or "heart" of the Law of Moses is established (Romans 3:31) in exactly the manner you describe in your post.

In my understanding, it is the heart and essence of the "law" that saved people in the first place, not the actual to-the-letter observance. As I said in my post, David did the same thing Jesus did, but that was before Jesus ever came. He broke the law physically, but kept it in his heart. What I am saying is that just because Jesus broke some of the regulations of the "law" he still kept it because it never was about obedience to the letter, but to the spirit of the 'law'. The Hebrew word that we translate as "law" is better understood as instruction, as you probably know already. Everything in the Torah was an illustration of the Messiah, and that we fall short of His righteousness on our own. So to obey the "law" to the letter was impossible anyway, but obedience in the spirit, or essnece, of the "law" was sufficient to save men because they understood that it was about God's righteousness covering their sins. In this essence Jesus didn't negate the "law" at all, nor did Paul. I think they were saying to those who missed the point "hey, it's not about the actions, it's about the heart".

 

[Drew]

Good quality arguments, well supported by Scripture are often long. In order to deal with this, the present post will present a very high level statement of a position, without supporting argument. The supporting arguments may follow, especially if someone asks for them. So here goes - what I asserting here is that Jesus was obedient to Israel's covenant obligations, thereby fulfilling the long plan of God to use Israel to solve the problems of sin and death.

In the book of Romans, Paul speaks at several points of the righteousness of God. One particularly relevant example is this text from Romans 3:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Now many of your translations will have “righteousness from God†and / or “faith in Jesus Christâ€. Huge difference in implied meaning don’t you think? The NET translation which I have provided describes righteous acts that God and Christ perform, where as “righteousness from God†renderings line up with what I have to come to believe is a non-Biblical position – that the believer is imputed the righteousness of Christ. I will not argue the point as to why I think the NET rendering is correct, but I can upon request. So, in summary, these verses are asserting that God’s righteousness is revealed through Jesus’ faithful actions.

Can we narrow in more precisely on what Paul means here by “righteousness� - In what exact sense is God, through Christ, being righteous? I believe that we get an insight in Romans 10 – the only place later in the letter where the phrase “righteousness of God†appears:

For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

Paul is talking about the Jews here, commenting that they have not understood how God is acting in history in this “righteous†manner whose sense we are pursuing. Note, what Paul goes on to write:

But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "(H)DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE (I)ABYSS?' (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead)." 8But what does it say? "(K)THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,

Paul gets this text from Deuteronomy 30. And what is Deuteronomy 30 all about? It is about the covenant, and more specifically about its renewal. This section of Romans 10 is a kind of nexus for a number of theological themes. But for our present purposes, note that immediately after having referred to the “righteousness of Godâ€, Paul quotes from a passage that concludes the great covenantal block of chapters running from Deuteronomy 27 to 30.

How likely does it seem to you that Paul would be referring to something other than God’s fidelity to His covenant here in the phrase “righteousness of Godâ€. Not likely, I suggest. His mind is clearly tuned to Deuteronomy 30, which is all about God’s promises in the specific context of the covenant.

Besides, look at Romans 9 – it is clearly a treatment of God’s covenant dealings with Israel. We get all the key players and events, in the right sequence: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Pharaoh, Moses, the exodus, threat of exile and now, here in Romans 10, covenant renewal. And notice what we get later in Romans 10 – the very blessing of the Gentile nations which are part of the covenant (refer Genesis 12, 22, etc).

This is simply too much to be coincidence – Paul is clearly absorbed in God’s covenant dealings with Israel here. So it would be an odd departure from that argument to refer to the “righteousness of God†in some non-covenantal sense. Good writers do not do things like that – and Paul is a very good writer.

So to conclude, we return to Romans 3 where this same phrase “righteousness of God†is said to be fulfilled by the faithfulness of Jesus.

So what is Jesus being faithful to? He is faithful to the covenant, fulfilling Israel’s covenant obligations. There is this interesting sense in which Jesus takes on the role of Israel, God’s covenant partner and does what Israel was supposed to do.

 

[LaCrum]

And there are many more texts like these. The Old Testemant paints a picture wherein God uses Israel as the means to bless the wider world. And Paul strongly echoes this theme - that Israel had a covenantal duty to be a blessing to the nations, but failed in that responsibility.

I always viewed those statements from the OT as prophetic in nature, meaning through Abraham all nations would be blessed because from his seed would come Jesus.

Hello LaCrum:

As I posted my preceding post, it occurred to me that you might argue that the Mosaic covenant was a "separate" covenant than the one made with Abraham. I would fundamentally disagree with that and see more or less a single unified thread of God and Israel in a covenant relationship. Now, of course, the giving of the Mosaic Law was one distinct element of that, but I see no reason at all to think of that as anything other that the unfolding of a single continuous plan for God to use Israel for His purposes.

I think the church often misunderstands the centrality of Israel in the overall plan of redemption. I believe that God uses Israel as the very means to solve the problem of sin and death. That is, when God promises Abraham that he will be a blessing to the nations, this means that God will use Israel to deal with sin and death.

How does this play out? Well, as the Bible shows, Israel is unfaithful to the covenant plan. So does God abandon the plan to use Israel to solve the problem of sin and death? No. He finds the one lone faithful Israelite who can fulfill it - Jesus the Messiah.

Jesus acts as Israel, fulfilling her covenantal oblibations and bringing the great plan to its climax.

I agree with you, I don’t view them as different covenants, but rather as the Mosaic Covenant being an expansion upon the one to Abraham since both deal with Israel, and both point to Jesus.

Now, Israel broke covenant with God repeatedly in the OT, hence the final pouring out of wrath against them through the Babylonian captivity. But I will take it one step further and say Jesus acts as head covenant for all mankind through his perfect obedience to God which is represented by abiding by the spirit of the law laid out in the Mosaic Covenant. The Old Covenant showed us that humans cannot fulfill their obligations to the covenant because our ways are set against God’s ways. Thus, Jesus comes down and acts as our human covenant head so the proper relationship could be re-established.

I think the great plan you speak of is the establishment of a New Covenant, which in turn leads to the blessing of all nations.

I feel like we’re essentially saying the same thing, I don’t really see where we disagree.

 

[LaCrum]

So what is Jesus being faithful to? He is faithful to the covenant, fulfilling Israel’s covenant obligations. There is this interesting sense in which Jesus takes on the role of Israel, God’s covenant partner and does what Israel was supposed to do.

Wait I think I might see what you’re trying to say.

So you believe that God’s plan was to use the nation Israel to redeem mankind?

I think it was God’s intention all along to use Jesus to do this, not the actual nation of Israel. Hence Genesis 3:15. The Old Covenant was not set up to have the nation Israel redeem mankind, but was set up to have Jesus redeem mankind.

Am I correctly interpreting what you are saying, and how I see it differently? Or, are you saying the same thing as me?

 

[Drew]

So what is Jesus being faithful to? He is faithful to the covenant, fulfilling Israel’s covenant obligations. There is this interesting sense in which Jesus takes on the role of Israel, God’s covenant partner and does what Israel was supposed to do.

Wait I think I might see what you’re trying to say.

So you believe that God’s plan was to use the nation Israel to redeem mankind?

Yes, that is what I am saying, although I entirely affirm that Jesus redeems mankind. Does that seem like a contradiction? Well, please give me some time to explain. I will start by addressing the famous suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53. But this is a complicated matter and I may need to make a number of further posts to clarify what I mean:

On the matter of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. I believe that is Biblically correct to see the servant as Israel. One cannot simply "retroject" Jesus into that role and ignore the Old Testament context. Note this from Isaiah 41:

But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
Descendant of Abraham My friend,
You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its remotest parts
And said to you, 'You are My servant,...

And this text from Isaiah 42 is even more telling. Note how the first few verses echo the suffering servant of chapter 53. Now who is this servant? It is the one who is appointed to be a light unto the nations. Biblically, this is Israel – it is Israel that has the covenant role of being a light to the nations.

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My (D)soul delights
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2"He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3"A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.
4"He will not be disheartened or crushed
Until He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law."
5Thus says God the LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it,
6"I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations, ...

Now to be clear, I do indeed think that there is a way where we can, from the post-cross perspective, legitimately see the suffering servant as Jesus. But this analysis really does require us to see Jesus as the embodiment of Israel, the one who bears Israel’s destiny.

 

[LaCrum]

So what is Jesus being faithful to? He is faithful to the covenant, fulfilling Israel’s covenant obligations. There is this interesting sense in which Jesus takes on the role of Israel, God’s covenant partner and does what Israel was supposed to do.

Wait I think I might see what you’re trying to say.

So you believe that God’s plan was to use the nation Israel to redeem mankind?

Yes, that is what I am saying, although I entirely affirm that Jesus redeems mankind. Does that seem like a contradiction? Well, please give me some time to explain. I will start by addressing the famous suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53. But this is a complicated matter and I may need to make a number of further posts to clarify what I mean:

On the matter of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. I believe that is Biblically correct to see the servant as Israel. One cannot simply "retroject" Jesus into that role and ignore the Old Testament context. Note this from Isaiah 41:

But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
Descendant of Abraham My friend,
You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its remotest parts
And said to you, 'You are My servant,...

And this text from Isaiah 42 is even more telling. Note how the first few verses echo the suffering servant of chapter 53. Now who is this servant? It is the one who is appointed to be a light unto the nations. Biblically, this is Israel – it is Israel that has the covenant role of being a light to the nations.

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My (D)soul delights
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2"He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3"A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.
4"He will not be disheartened or crushed
Until He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law."
5Thus says God the LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it,
6"I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations, ...

Now to be clear, I do indeed think that there is a way where we can, from the post-cross perspective, legitimately see the suffering servant as Jesus. But this analysis really does require us to see Jesus as the embodiment of Israel, the one who bears Israel’s destiny.

Okay good, I just wanted to make that clear that this is indeed what you were saying.

I’m going to disagree that it was through Israel which we are redeemed, but rather through Jesus. It seems like you’re giving Israel as a nation too much credit. They are human, they are fallible, they are not perfect, they are against God and all his ways. God would never have intended us to be saved through imperfect beings in a way you are describing, hence why he had to send Jesus.

Israel could never exist as the Covenant Head for mankind as you are describing it. Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting your statements.

Another question, why, in your view, was the Mosaic Covenant with Israel originally established?