Philosophical Theology

Let’s consider afresh the relationship of pactum merit with respect to Adam in the covenant of works and how that relates to strict merit in redemption. With respect to Adam the reward of living forever would have been disproportionate to the finite work performed.

In other words, the justice of life-eternal would not have been according to strict justice but rather according to a sovereignly imposed covenantal compact to over reward Adam for obedience; a pact of sorts was at play. That is to say, the value of Adam’s obedience would not have been of intrinsic worth as it relates to the meritorious reward of unending life.

I do find, however, that in the economy of redemption our reward, though received by grace alone, is according to principles of strict justice. Where we might locate the appropriateness (or congruity) of the forever-reward is the question.

Framing the issue:

Let me try frame the dilemma and then try to offer a solution by drawing from the ordo salutis. In so doing, I’ll try to address the easier part first, having to do with strict justice as it relates to Christ’s passive obedience and our demerit.

The one time sacrifice of Christ was sufficient to satisfy God’s strict justice, render God propitious, and reconcile God to the elect in Christ. Although Christ is the kinsman redeemer, Christ’s divine nature was necessary for redemption accomplished and for there to be intrinsic worth as it relates to Christ’s mediatory work. Our demerit needed the incarnate Son of God to pay for our sins, for one thing to keep the human nature from sinking under the wrath of God. Christ could render God propitious and provide full satisfaction for the sins of many because Christ is both God and man. That’s the more obvious part. No issues there I trust.

The passive obedience part of redemption, which for our purposes narrowly deals with sinners’ demerit and payment for sins, is more obvious perhaps. Yet when it comes to what positively fits redeemed sinners for heaven, I find that to narrowly focus on Christ’s active obedience as a human being is to overlook the broader ground upon which the reward of everlasting life and inheritance can be found.

The dilemma:

The eternal Son eternally assumed the terms of the covenant of works that offered disproportionate reward of life for work done as a human being. So, regarding the active obedience part, pactum merit cannot be avoided and strict justice obtained if what fits us for glory is predicated solely on Christ fulfilling the original terms of the covenant and we grant that those original terms were according to pactum merit. That would appear to be the implication of a position that limits our standing before God to that which we receive only by the active and passive obedience of Christ. If the Son took on the terms of the original covenant of works and if those terms offered disproportionate reward via pactum, then it stands to reason that what fits us for glory is not according to what is strictly just but only according to pactum unless something beyond the merit gained through the last Adam’s obedience is included.

Looking at this from another angle:

Although the required work was essentially* the same for both Adams and, therefore, disproportionate to the reward of everlasting life – in being united to the person of Christ (and not merely being justified in the economy of redemption) we can find the basis for our eternal reward in our justification and legal adoption through existential union with the Son. In other words, by gracious adoption sinners become co-heirs of the entailments of the heavenly Jerusalem not by the Son’s human work alone but by our spiritual union with the architect himself, a divine person who has performed the works in the flesh by the Spirit. It is in and through legal adoption in the Son, which is made possible by forensic justification, that we are graciously accounted as identical in status to the eternal Son of God. Accordingly, if we want to speak of our reward of all things in Christ being strictly just as it relates the person and work of Christ, then we must jettison any notion of merely the imputation of Christ’s work that fits us for glory; we must begin thinking in terms of the person of the Son being received by sinners in their existential union with Christ. It is not merely the vicarious work of the last Adam on our behalf but also the Son’s relationship to the Father (filiation) that fits believers for heaven. Justification in Christ paves the theological way in the ordo salutis to our receiving by the Holy Spirit our adoptive status and perpetual sonship in the Son himself.

An analogy of sorts:

Imagine a king offered a peasant boy a kingdom for a day’s work in the field. Given the terms of the compact the boy could justly earn the kingdom upon completing his part of the agreement. In this respect, the reward could be earned although not strictly commensurate to the work performed. In other words, the king would be magnanimous in bestowing such a reward under such conditions. (The reward would not be strictly merited.) However, if the boy were not simply any boy but a true son of the king (by legal adoption or natural generation), then there would be something fitting about the boy receiving his father’s kingdom. The reward would be a familial inheritance, although released upon certain conditions having been met by a son of the king. (In redemption believers are the recipients of the kingdom yet the conditions are met by their elder brother.)

Recognizing that analogies break down if pressed too far, in the administration of redemption the person of the Son is not by inheritance but by nature the rightful owner of all things. Notwithstanding, given the hypostatic union (two natures, one Person) there is an inheritance that becomes the incarnate Christ’s through the Son’s fulfillment of the terms and obligations of the covenant as a human being. (Psalm 2:8; Ephesians 1:8) After finishing the work given to the incarnate Son, the Father could thereby glorify his Son – but with the rightful glory he had before the world began. (John 17:4-5) In other words, in the hypostatic union, humanity was taken into union with the preexisting and eternal glory of the Son who is now glorified as the God-man in the vindicating resurrection and ascension to the Father’s right hand. Moreover, it is by covenantal extension that believers will be glorified and share as co-heirs in the Son’s inheritance but by gracious adoption.

What fits Christ’s humanity and ours for glory is the entailments of the hypostatic and adoptive unions respectively. Consequently, as adopted sons, believers are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. (John 1:12; Romans 8:17; 1 Peter 1:4) The significance of this often neglected doctrine is further punctuated when we begin to see that in gracious adoption we find the source of our assurance and the telos of our predestination. (Romans 8:15-16; Ephesians 1:5)

Closing:

I fear that the totality of the source of our inheritance in Christ is sometimes eclipsed in certain quarters. Where might we ground our inheritance in the Son if all Christ did was obey as the last Adam in our stead as opposed to taking us into regenerative union with himself – the One by whom all things were made? (Colossians 1:16) Again, pactum merit cannot be avoided and strict justice obtained if what fits us for glory is predicated solely on Christ fulfilling the original terms of the covenant and we grant that those original terms were according to pactum merit.

Indeed, we have by gracious adoption what the Son has by nature. It is not merely according to covenantal promise, forgiveness and imputed righteousness that we receive our inheritance in Christ but as justified sinners who by grace have been adopted in union with the only begotten Son of God. Yet some constructs that emphasize imputation through active obedience can fail to do justice to the implications of our spiritual union with Christ, which includes yet exceeds the vitalness of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. There is not a strict one-to-one parallel between the first and last Adam, nor is there one to be found in Romans 5. Believers are fitted for heaven because of all the entailments of union with the last and faithful Adam who as Son is very God of very God.** It is in union with Christ, the only begotten Son, that we are justified, adopted and as co-heirs receive our inheritance as sons of the Most High.

You have raised our human nature
on the clouds to God’s right hand;
there we’ll sit in heav’nly places,
there with you in glory stand.
Jesus reigns, adored by angels,
man with God is on the throne;
mighty Lord, in your ascension
we by faith behold our own.

See, The Conqueror Mounts in Triumph, Christopher Wordsworth

Footnotes:

*Of course Christ had a harder task. For one thing, Adam had to be obedient in a world with the serpent but not in a world with human disciples of the serpent.

**Some have posited that the eternal Son was adopted in the resurrection. However, that would entail either a novel interpretation of adoption or else an affirmation that in some sense the incarnate Christ was a spiritual orphan prior to the resurrection. Moreover, if persons and not natures are the only candidates for adoption, then for the eternally begotten Son to be adopted by the Father is to attribute a plurality of persons to the Son, which if true would undermine the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In other words, the Son cannot be adopted by the Father lest (a) we equivocate on the meaning of adoption or else (b) attribute a second person to the Son whereby adoption becomes possible.+

We must maintain that the hypostatic union entails that the eternally begotten Son became the incarnate Son in becoming man. (At the incarnation nothing remained incomplete with respect to Christ’s sonship, just like there is not a “not yet” aspect to the believer’s justification! In both cases what is the case becomes declared and publicly known to be the case.)

+The adoption of the Son is not analogous to the Son thirsting or weeping in his humanity. Indeed, the eternal Son (one person) truly thirsted and wept in his humanity. It is theologically proper to predicate to the divine Person acts of Christ, a human being, in this way. Whereas to assert that the Son was adopted in his humanity at the resurrection is to suggest that the incarnate Son, prior to the resurrection, was not yet the Son of the Father in some sense. But in what unequivocal sense did the Son’s sonship ever await him in his humanity? And if we don’t equivocate over the Son’s adoption, yet are unable to predicate to the Second Person non-sonship between the time of his incarnation and resurrection, then how are we not left to attribute personhood to the humanity of the Son in order that we might predicate a moment of adoption to Christ, which presupposes a time of non-sonship?

Whatever we want to make of the declaration that the Son of God was the Son of God in power by the resurrection, we may not establish in any orthodox sense Christ’s adoption by the Father, let alone at the resurrection. The hypostatic union does not afford it. In the simplest (and common sense) terms, he who was known as a descendant of David was declared to be the Son of God, evidenced by the resurrection!

That Christ’s messianic sonship entails stages (e.g., humiliation and exaltation) should not lead us to rework the Son’s relation to his Father or miss the glorious implications of the hypostatic union. At the very least, prior to his resurrection the man Christ Jesus prayed and taught his disciples to pray to his Father in heaven. Accordingly, if the Son was adopted in the resurrection, then the man Christ Jesus was adopted after he had enjoyed a prayerful relationship with his Father. Indeed, even on the cross the Son prayed in his humanity that his Father would forgive his enemies.