Jacombe:

Obj. 10. This makes Christ to have done that very thing (for matter) which we ourselves should, that he paid that very debt of obedience in kind (and not in value only) which the law required, and which we should have paid; which if so, and that that be reckoned to us, we are then justified by works, our righteousness is legal rather than evangelical.

Ans. I have had occasion, in what went before, to speak a little of the idem and tantundem, as they refer to Christ’s sufferings, in answer to that question, “Whether he suffered the self-same penalty which threatened and the sinner himself should have endured? or whether he suffered only that which was equivalent thereunto?” In the deciding of which I closed with the common determination, that Christ’s sufferings, for kind and substance, were the same which the law threatened; but as to some certain circumstances and accidents they were but equivalent. The same resolution I shall give concerning the idem and tantundem with respect to his active obedience. As to the substantial duties required by the moral law, and them in kind he submitted, and to that very obedience which we were obliged unto; so it was the idem. By then there were some circumstances (arising from some special considerations about his person) which in other things made a difference; with respect to which it was but the tantundem. What all were bound to do in the great and indispensable duties of the law (as holiness, love to God, &c.,) that Christ did; but what some only are bound to do, upon certain special obligations lying upon them as they stand in such and such relations (as magistrates, husbands, &c.,), that was not done by Christ in specie (he not standing in those relationships). In the substantial duties of the law, and in those acts of obedience which were in general necessary, Christ did just that which we should have done; (understand me that I speak of legal, not of evangelical obedience; for though Christ did that for us which the law demanded, yet he did not do that for us which the gospel demands.) But as to some particular duties of the law proper to such persons in such circumstances, those he, not being under those circumstances, did not do; and yet there is no defect in his obedience, the want of this particular being supplied and made up by his general obedience. The text says “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us”; now why may we not content ourselves with this, that Christ fulfilled the law’s righteousness, without running of ourselves upon perplexing debates about the idem and the tantundem? The case (in brief) stands thus: the law must be obeyed, in ourselves we neither did nor could obey it, our surety, therefore, must do it for us. He doing it for us, his obedience must be imputed to us. This imputation must be of that very obedience which we were bound unto; otherwise, (this, and not something else in the lieu of it, being demanded by the law,) we are yet debtors to the law. Therefore it follows that Christ did the idem which we should have done. For as he delivered us from the curse of the law by bearing that very curse in his own person which we should have borne, so he fulfilled the righteousness of the law for us by conforming to that very righteousness in his own person which we should have come up to.

Thomas Jacomb, Several Sermons Preach’d on the whole Eighth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (London: Printed by W. Godbid, and are to be Sold by M. Pitt at the White-Hart in Little-Britain, and R. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown, and J. Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Pauls Church yard, 1672), 608-609. [Some spelling modernized, and italics original]

Read the rest of this entry »

Maden:

And again, he shows that the Scripture does so describe the antecedent love of God towards mankind, as that there are certain degrees of love to be acknowledged in it, whereof the first is more general, and belongs to all, and out of this love he sends Christ into the world, to pay a sufficient price for the redemption of all, and by that payment to make them capable of salvation, upon such conditions as are expressed in the new covenant: and out of this love it is that he wills the salvation of all, and so accordingly calls them to repentance, that they might be saved. As it is amongst men, he that uses all fitting and convenient means to gain another man’s good opinion of him, and to draw his love and affection towards him, and for that end, makes a signification of the goodwill and affection he bears him, and shows himself ready upon all occasions to do any good office for him; and withal, show him such arguments and reasons, such motives and inducements, as are in their own nature apt to persuade him thereunto, he may be truly said to desire his love and friendship; though he do not prevail with him for the obtaining of it, he has sufficiently managed and officiated his part, without omitting of anything that was fit and requisite for him to do: and the fault and hindrance lies wholly in him that was so inflexible, that no means could prevail with him, or move him to embrace such a friendly motion. Even so the case stands between God and man, in respect of that general goodwill and affection that God bears to him: God speaks unto him, and deals with him, as with a reasonable creature; and if he does not prevail with him, the fault is not in God, or in the means that are used by him, but only in man, who will not apply himself unto God, and serve his providence in that way and course that is taken for his good: and he [Cameron] illustrates this by two similitudes: First of the sun, which affords and sends forth sufficient light to all, and yet gives no light to those that wink with their eyes, and shut those windows against the light, not through any defect, or want of light in the sun, but only through his fault, who will not make use of that benefit which is afforded to him; so it is with the benefits of Christ’s death and passion, which though they be upon some condition applicable unto all; yet are they effectual for the salvation of none, save only those who do embrace and lay hold on them by a lively faith.

Richard Maden, Christs Love and Affection Towards Jerusalem (London: Printed by M.F. for John Clark, and are to be sold at his shop under S. Peters Church in Cornhill, 1637), 21-22. (c3ff). [Some spelling modernized; original italics removed; some reformatting; pages numbered manually from title page; Latin marginal quotation of John Cameron not included; and underlining mine].

A.E.

M[aster]. Give me hen out of what thou has hitherto said, a definition of that same lively and true Christian faith?

S[tudent]. Faith is an assured knowledge of the Fatherly goodwill of God towards us through Christ, and an affiance in the same goodness, as it is witnessed in the gospel, which faith hath coupled with it an endeavour of godly li[f]e, that is, to obey the Will of God the Father.

A.E. The Watch-Mans Lanthorn, Being a Summ of Divinity. In a short very plaine Exposition of the Ten Commandments, the Lords Prayer, and the Creed (Printed for T.R. for Nath. Ekins, at the Sign of the Gun in Pauls Church-Yard, 1655), 60. [Marginal Scripture references not included.]

Murray:

Deuteronomy 5:29 (26 in Heb.); 32:29; Psalm 81:13ff. (14ff.); Isaiah 48:18. The purpose of adducing these texts is to note the optative force of that which is expressed. There can be no reasonable question as to the optative force of Deuteronomy 5:29 (26). It is introduced by the idiom mi yitten which literally means “who will give?” but is really a strong optative expression meaning “Oh that there were!” Consequently the text reads, “Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” It is the Lord who is speaking and we shall have to conclude that here we have the expression of earnest desire or wish or will that the people of Israel were of a heart to fear him and keep all his commandments always. It is apparent from the book of Deuteronomy itself (cf. 31:24-29) and from the whole history of Israel that they did not have a heart to fear God and to keep all his commandments always. Since they did not fulfil that which was optatively expressed in 5:29 (26), we must conclude that God had not decreed that they should have such a heart. If God had decreed it, it would have been so. Here therefore we have an instance of desire on the part of God for the fulfilment of that which he had not decreed; in other words, a will on the part of God to that which he had not decretively willed.

In Deuteronomy 32:29 the construction is somewhat different. In our English versions it is translated, “Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end.” This rendering is distinctly optative and has the same effect as Deuteronomy 5:29 (26), considered above. It must be admitted that this is a perfectly legitimate rendering and interpretation. The conjunction lu with which the verse begins has undoubtedly this optative force. It has such force unquestionably in Genesis 17:18; Numb. 14:2, 20:3; 22:29; Joshua 7:7; Isaiah 63:19, and possibly, if not probably, in Genesis 23:13, 30:34. When lu has this optative force it means “Oh that” or “if only” and expresses strong desire. In view of what we found in Deut. 5:26 there is no reason why the optative force of lu should not be adopted here. We may not, however, insist that lu must have optative force here because lu is also used with conditional force, as in Judges 8:19; 13:23; II Samuel 18:12 and elsewhere. If lu is understood conditionally, Deut. 32:29 would be rendered as follows: “If they were wise they would understand this, they would consider their latter end.” This, however, is not the most natural rendering. The optative interpretation is smoother and more meaningful in the context. If this more natural construction is followed it shows the same thing as we found in Deut. 5:26, that earnest desire is expressed for what is contrary to fact (cf. v. 28).

Read the rest of this entry »