I understand the point and agree with it.

I wanted to mention that, even though the NT strictly refers our union with Christ as being to His death, burial, resurrection, etc…and not to his incarnation or lifetime, does not exclude the possibility of Christ’s resurrection status as the righteous first man of the new race being incorporated to all who are united to him.

In other words, even though we are not united with Christ as He ran the course of His life, we may still share in the status of righteousness which He has being the risen Lord.

But this is just a thought.

back from holiday – good rest. Didn’t read as much as I would have liked but read more closely Vickers and Bird’s The saving Righteousness…’ Vickers works hard at being fair with the text. The trouble is he pretty well that none of the texts he examines teach the imputation of Christ’s life, however, he then goes on to argue, illogically in my view, that put together these texts lead to the conclusion that imputation of Christ’s life is legitimate. I also read Carson’s essay on imputation.

Erick’s comment above is valuable. ‘I found Piper’s book, Vickers’ book, and Carson’s essay to be extremely persuasive on the truth of the “imputation of righteousness”, but not persuasive on the imputation of “Christ’s” righteousness.’

Vickers makes heavy weather of the Roms 4:4 text which unambiguously sees justification in terms of sins not imputed.

A point or two from last few posts. Erick White’s observation is one I think needs explored. ‘This can be also fairly doubted since when Paul speaks of our union with Christ, it is usually in terms of His death, burial, resurrection, exaltation, sonship, etc,etc. It never speaks of our being unified with His incarnation and lifetime.’

This is a view I have frequently reflected on yet rarely hear mooted. If we think in terms of old and new creation then union can only be with death and resurrection. Before we could become a new creation, the old creation had to die. This could only happen at the cross where condemnation and death were meted on my Adamic-person. My Christ-person is spiritual. It is united not not to Christ, ‘after the flesh’ but to Christ in resurrection, Christ in resurrection and living in the Spirit.

Our only possible union with Christ as a man in Adam is in his death. Our only possible union as a new creation is with a resurrected Christ. Our life is the eschatological life of new creation, life beyond death, an heavenly.

The earthly life of Christ is viewed in Hebrews as Christ’s identifying with us but not our union with Christ. The title ‘Christ’ in ‘union with Christ’ suggests a union with a reigning King.

Re the ‘probationary period’ of the representative head, I consider this as to some extent legitimate (Jesus is made perfect through suffering), however, it too raises questions. Since Christ was clearly righteous in his ‘probation’ (ooo..I don’t like that expression of our Lord) surely it is possible to view Adam as righteous prior to the fall?

Incidently, I agrre with above comments about Christ’s obedience being beyond the obedience to Law. It is obedience to the Father’s will which goes beyond law-duty into sacrificial laying down of his life.

I know thios thread has probably run its course. Thanks to those who commented, they have helped me considerably.

Thanks for the reply. I think that we’re about to that point where different persuasions about how to synthesize the biblical material comes into play.

About the only thing that I have to add in addition to what I have stated above is that I think that the role given to Adam is not recapitulated only in Christ. The way I put things together, being the obedient Adam and the true Israelite are the same thing (being the obedient Son of God) because Adam’s role had been passed on to Israel, and even before that, it had been passed on to Noah, who also failed to obey. Here, I am in basic agreement with N. T. Wright’s essay in The Climax of the Covenant, where he traces the passing on the original commission/blessing given to Adam through Noah, the patriarchs, and Israel. Wright, however, ends up using this correspondence to reduce Paul’s Adam-Christology in Romans 5 to Israel-Christology, and thus the significance that he attaches to Christ’s obedience is the fulfillment of God’s plan to rescue the world through Israel rather than a more truly Adamic function. (Thus, I thought that one of the best moments in the panel was Vickers’s question, “Where is Adam?”) I think that Paul does link Jesus’ obedience (with his death standing as the representative of the whole because it is the climax) with a performing of what Adam should have done, and I think that his obedience functions representatively for us because it is the basis for God’s pronouncement of his verdict regarding Christ, within which we stand.

I should add that I agree with the assessment above that this means that what makes Jesus’ obedience significant is not that it is “obedience to the law” because there is no requirement within the law for one to go to Jerusalem and die willingly. But, with respect to the substance of what proponents of imputation want to affirm (that Jesus’ life of perfect obedience stands as the basis for God viewing believers as righteous), I think that the biblical evidence as a whole points in that direction.

Jesus’ resurrection status does bear for our status as justified.
Paul makes references to the obedience of Jesus, the blood/death of Jesus, and then the death, ress, and present intercessory work as Priest.

All work together for our justification

For starters, the author to the Hebrews belabors the point that Christ is the King-Priest who presently sits at God’s right-hand making intercession for us (atonement and fellowship). The high-priest in Israel functioned to go between God and the people, in order to provide the sacrifice by which atonement can be successfully made, and the relationship thus sustained. So also, Christ SITS as high priest having already provided the sacrifice one and for all that connects God and humanity.

In a context which is heavily interested in the legal standing of the believer, Paul says:

“Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies, who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is risen, and who is even at the right hand of God, making intercession for us” (Rom

Paul is here clearly concerned with the believer’s justification, and the death of Jesus is not the only element mentioned to provide force to the argument. It is Christ’s death, resurrection, and present intercessory work in Heaven. Other places, Paul is not bothered by only mentioning Christ’s blood to ground the believers justification (rom 5:9), but in other places…it is grounded on Jesus’ obedience (Rom 5:19), and in this above cited text, it is the death, resurrection, and priestly intercession that grounds the sure justification of believers.

How should we understand this? Well, we should read all these varigated texts and note what is certain of them and what they are communicating on the truth of our justification. In our concern, what is clear is that Jesus’ obedience, blood/death, resurrection, and priestly intercession all work together to both provide and eternally sustain our status as justified individuals.

What the texts do not tell us is that Christ’s present moral righteousness is vicarious for the church so that the church is continuously being reckoned as doing what Christ does. Or that Christ’s resurrection righteousness (in the strict, specific, and narrow sense) is then reckoned to believers. This is a logical construct of the individual parts of scripture, but it is never supported as a straightfoward teaching of the biblical authors. Mind you, it does not make it incorrect, however.

With regard to the gospel accounts of Jesus being the Son of God who is pleasing to the LORD and overcomes temptation where Adam and Israel failed. This is all too clear in my reading of the gospels. Jesus is taking up the role of Adam (the first human) and Israel. Jesus continues to please God by fulfilling His mission as the LORD’s servant, proclaiming light, sight, and freedom…instituting the new covenant, and finally laying His life down for the sins ofthe world. This is all obedience to God and of which provide Him the resurrection and eternal life. However, even if this is true, that Jesus is the successful new Adam and successful true Israel, who ushers in salvation for Israel and the nations, how does this construct tell us that all the obedient works that He did are reckoned to the account of the church, so that she is legally pronounced having done what He did? Of course, we reap of the benefits of His obedienct life and death, resurrection, etc….but I find it hard to affirm the exegetical clarity that all the specific good works that made up Jesus’ lifetime on earth are vicarious in the sense of imputation.

This can be also fairly doubted since when Paul speaks of our union with Christ, it is usually in terms of His death, burial, resurrection, exaltation, sonship, etc,etc. It never speaks of our being unified with His incarnation and lifetime.

These are the few thoughts that swirl in my mind, please provide comments.

Where to begin…

Well, I would like to say that I particularly like Gaffin’s construal of things. His way of interpreting Rom 4:25 seems the most feasible, in my estimation. The other interpretations don’t seem to link justification and Christ’s resurrection in a way that legitimates the phrase “raised for our justification.”

However, if that were all of the evidence for the view, then I would still find it doubtful. It seems that such an important connection would need to be mentioned more than once by Paul, and there is perhaps evidence that it has been.

In particular, I have in mind Gal 2:20. Carson suggests (in his essay, “The Vindication of Imputation”) that the phrase “Christ lives in me” refers not to Christ living within the believer through the medium of the Holy Spirit, but rather that “in me” should be translated as a dative of respect (similar to how the “in me” is understood at the end of Gal 1:24). Carson suggests a translation along the lines of “Christ lives with respect to me.” Unfortunately, Carson does not tease out the implications of this translation very far, but I would want to suggest that here Paul invests the resurrection-life of Christ with forensic significance with respect to the believer’s moral standing before God. It comes, after all, in the midst of his explanation of how he is “justified in Christ.”

My wife says that it is time for dinner. Perhaps more will come later.

It was nice talking to you
God bless you !
and Good night