This is an unbelievable quotaton from John Owen:
There is yet something more required; it is not enough that we are not guilty, we must also be actually righteous–not only all sin is to be answered for, but all righteousness is to be fulfilled. By taking away the guilt of sin, we are as persons innocent; but something more is required to make us to be considered as persons obedient. I know nothing to teach me that an innocent person shall go to heaven, be rewarded, if he be no more but so. Adam was innocent at his first creation, but he was to “do this,” to “keep the commandments,” before he entered into “life:” he had no title to life by innocence. This, then, moreover, is required, that the whole law be fulfilled, and all the obedience performed that God requires at our hands. This is the soul’s second inquiry; and it finds a resolution only in the Lord Christ: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10). His death reconciled us; then are we saved by his life. The actual obedience which he yielded to the whole law of God, is that righteousness whereby we are saved; if so be we are found in him, not having on our own righteousness which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of God by faith (Phil. 3:9).
Is there any Reformed commentary that does not admit that Romans 5.10 is referring to Christ’s new life by resurrection? And by the way, Adam was not merely created as “innocent.” He was created in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.
Please, if this is “the traditional view,” no wonder there is a market for something “new.” (Of course, as the quotations marks indicate, I don’t believe these are actually our choices.)
Note: I change the title of this post from “Was Owen on drugs or something?” because someone made me realize my feelings are hurt when someone speaks that way about me. I’ve interacted a bit on the subject in my comment to this post. Beyond that, my only excuse is that I thought that, since John Owen is dead, his feelings weren’t a consideration. I would delete the offending title entirely, except that I wouldn’t want to be accused of hiding anything.
Note 2: I apologize in advance to the Reformed masculinity promoters, since by being considerate of the feelings of others, in theological writing, I have shown an utter disregard for acting according to my gender. However, I’m not sure that the model of discourse being held up, which I have too often modeled myself, is really especially masculine or Biblical. I may be wrong. There may have been nothing wrong with my original title. But I have enough doubts now that I can’t keep it up there “from faith.” Feminine or not, it would be sin.
Note 3: (I am infested with afterthoughts and qualifications today). I think there is nothing wrong with seeing an affirmation of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ and posting it without giving much thought to the exegesis involved. No disrespect is intended to the blogger because I didn’t like his quote. Of course, no one should think otherwise, but in our present environment I can’t take anything for granted, so I thought I had better affirm this for the record.
I see Fred Greco is upset with me. But, I can react emotionally when someone stumbles, without writing off everything about the man. And in the case of Owen, I surely do not write him off. Owen did great work, but I can still be freaked out when he writes nonsense. Owen was a great man and I can appreciate him and respect him without pretending there is any rational excuse for the above sort of argumentation. And I have every reason to react when the very worst possible exegesis is posted as a great idea for us all to pay attention to. Would John Piper ever be caught dead using that sort of argument for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ? Would anyone?
I don’t think so. But I have every reason to think that might change like other things have changed. I have to admit, for better or for worse fear motivated my brief comment.
But, beyond that, I think I am well within bounds getting tired of the way Owen and a few others are virtually deified in some circles, and treated with velvet gloves when they articulated boneheaded ideas. As far as I’m concerned, we could use a little less deference to the dead and a little more respect for the living. My opinion, though I shudder to think how I forget it under certain circumstances.
Mark,
A thot (warning I am not very perspicuous on the fly– too many drugs).
The rez of Christ is not simply continuity with his previous state as the incarnate God-man. It is not simply the case that he was born, died and then was raised. He is raised as the one who fulfilled the Father’s directive. There is not simply a succession of states (alive, dead, raised to new life). Rather there is an accomplishment (alive, did the work of messiah, raised to new life). There is a very real continuity between the actions before the rez and the rez itself.
Isn’t this basic to the notion of the rez being his own justification? Justification is a declaration that follows upon not simply someone’s existence but the course of their life. It is inherently a climax regarding that person’s lifetime, not just a change of state. [Call me unreconstructed.]
If something like this is wholesome, then wouldn’t it make sense to say that a reference to his rez could easily be a reference to quality of his life activity– that quality being declared in the act of rez, or that the quality of his living activity issued in justification?
I think folk who don’t hold to actobd (i.e. other than me, and I think you) could easily reason out of the theological conclusion of Owen from such an exegesis. Other issues are involved. But, I can’t see how out of hand you reject the suggestion that Rez as justification or outcome of justification is a reference to the life and quality of the life preceding it.
I’m not asking you to affirm Owen’s exegesis. I’m just questioning why it seems so utterly impossible to you? I have been mulling this point for a while in thinking about texts just like this, and not from reading Owen.
Ben, would anyone outside the Reformed hall of hagiography get this sort of special pleading? I think we should be more impartial than this. Owen makes “life” refer to pre-resurrection obedience when it obviously does not. Blogger who is obviously well-read, and would know better except for the saintly status of Owen and the need to assert the doctrine by any means necessary, posts this for admiration.
I think I’m supposed to oppose this sort of thing if I want to be faithful as a pastor.
For what it is worth, that is my present opinion.
Mark,
For my part, I wasn’t special pleading for a man who already possesses a better vindication. I was articulating a question I have nursed for a little while.
Clarity ain’t my strong suit: I was surprised that you summarily rejected it out of hand. Not because someone we admire/idolize said it, but because it doesn’t seem obvious to me that it fails exegetically.
I have been pondering such texts in NT and haven’t come to conclusion. It may be facile– theologically coherent but not corresponding to the coherence of that particular author. Yet, simply denying it may be facile too.
I didn’t get it from Owen. In fact, maybe if I had picked up somewhere I might have settled my question.
So, not to be annoying: I still don’t know why you reject it out of hand.
Ben, I have to confess that I’m not sure what it is I’m rejecting, out of hand or not.
If you mean there is in the resurrection a legal verdict on Christ’s whole life, a righteousness imputed to us, I have argued that very thing.
But it still looks to me like Owen was explicitly departing from a host of Reformed exegets (as well as every other kind of exegete) when he interpreted “life” as Jesus’ pre-cross 33 years of obedience.
Indeed, Owen certainly isn’t here in keeping with what I am accustomed to hearing. But, I am encouraged because now my nursing of the thought has commendation from a somewhat reliable exegete.
I have in part been puzzled that people don’t read such references to the resurrection as Owen apparently did.
Some thoughts, so you might reject the notion after having it in hand.
(Pardon me, playful wit doesn’t work on-line: I am being playful and not wishing to press in a forceful way these thoughts).
1) The rez body/person is characterized by constitutional continuity with the created body. We can perhaps use Wright’s term “transphysical” but part of the point is substantial continuity.
2) Justification as forensic implies some before and after, such that a new state affairs is brought about passed on judicial consideration of the previous state of affairs. The course of life assessed, then receives something of a reply that determines subsequent events. I like that term “reply” because it expresses both continuity with the course of life and something additional to it. It is not simply a mirror, or an echo.
3) Rez and jstfctn bound together (as I think is obvious) suggests that to speak of someone as raised and justified is to speak of someone in a state that issues forth from the previous course of life.
4) So to speak of Christ’s rez-life as referential to his life during the state of humiliation does not seem a conceptual stretch (leaving aside affirming that in any text this is how the writer actually speaks). It would be not simply a case of synechdoche. It would not even be synechdoche by way of preeminence– Jesus lived, and is most alive after the Rez. Instead it would be synechdoche by mention of the outcome.
Now this falls quite neatly into some form of imputed/-able active obedience. I think those who don’t buy actobd could on their patterns of thought take the exegetical claim and still keep their position. That is not at the moment on my mind.
Just this: I find the exegetical turn of Owen here quite promising. It seems to feed on the larger issues of Paul’s theology. I do wonder if it is true: i.e. in working through the weave of Paul’s expression in Romans, that this is not only conceptually possible but actually constructed in the discourse.
I appreciate your fervor, frankness and willingness to take matters seriously without pretending that you have it all sewn up.
Thanks, Ben.
The question is: is resurrection the legally mandated payment for meeting the condition of perfect obedience to law/torah, or is resurrection the promised reward for being cursed by law/torah even though perfectly obedient.
That is a helpful question. Thank you.
I find it difficult to think that perfect obedience could ever provoke a curse, which is different than thinking it reasonable that perfect obedience would ever issue in something greater than its inherent delights and benefits. I am fairly unreconstructed.
Would like to give in return, or at least try.
Is restoration to the land (of the living) the promised reward to the one who goes into exile (of death) with faith in God’s mercy, or is it a gift greater than justice given to the one in exile who takes the curse to heart, repents and loves God with his all and keeps his commandments? (Dt 30)
This is NOT a parry, but a wish to compete only in giving. I will keep your question. Thanks.