Perfection In Christ

Consider the verse:

Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (KJV)

The purpose of Christ fulfilling the law was not only the redemption of Israel, but of the law itself. Israel, set aside as a light to the gentiles had fallen into condemnation under the law and had lost its saltiness, the correct faith which characterised the righteousness of the original patriarchs. In order to keep Israel as a light to the world, the law had to be shown to be effective as well as possible to keep. Christ fulfilled every condition of the law in order to redeem the people of Israel under the better promises of the new covenant of which he taught.

Christ died even to show the ultimate standard of obedience to all and was raised blameless, witnessing that His promises made were not blasphemy but rather the intent of our creator. Israel as a nation, a spiritual nation of faith was redeemed. Moreover He fulfilled many prophecies, giveing the more sure word that He was the one to be expected.

But then if Christ is perfect, does that not indicate that he has access to positive properties to which we do not? If we do not have those properties, Can Christ through anything except blamelessness justify men through faith? If it is merely that we are justified by being brought into obedience, then we are indeed redeemed. Yet, if it is a fact that unless we were God ourselves we could not keep the law then we are indeed not blessed at all. We could not ever keep the law, with any amount of help or predestination.

So even though Christ was God, he must have been completely human. How can we show this?

If the complete and full set of virtues of Christ in His divinity is q, and the subset of human virtues constrained by God's commandments are q₀ then we wish to infer that the virtues in q \ q₀ are beyond all men and that Christ must have put these virtues (as higher ways of God than ours) completely aside, and indeed humbled himself as a man.

How come? Well we state that L(G) is a virtue - so does not and can not private God of any positive property. Likewise it is then over-constraint if L(G) results in a set of virtues becoming unattainable to God (it has privated virtue!). We use Christ as the case in point: He would both have to be limited to q₀ as well as to be in possession of all in q \ q₀ (but under L(G)) as if he were humbled as a man.

If Christ came to fulfil the law and Himself exercised virtue above the law in the sense that the constraints of those virtues upon Christ, (the commandments restricting q \ q₀) were broken, then Christ could not even fulfil the law Himself. Thus Christ was only ever expected to keep the virtues required of men, and not to alter the commandments with His own authority L(G). So q contains q₀ with Christ only capable of employing q₀. Christ humbled himself "to our level".

But if L(G) is such as to constrain virtue on Christ: then it must be positive for men to be privated of some virtue. However L(G) becomes the virtue which deprives Christ and us of positive properties! So L(G) should not private Christ of positive properties since Jesus is God. (And God knows the inward heart of man.) If Christ was a lawbreaker even in heart, he could not have fulfilled the law.

We simply infer that God will make laws that are possible for Him to keep and His attributes that imply virtue beyond those of men are left intact without constraint of law. If a virtue may not be attainable by men, it is enough to say there is no commandment excluding it.

So the set q \ q₀ is not constrained by any commandment, and we have the one set of universally correct virtues q.

If virtues in q \ q₀ are constrained by the law, then Christ may not exemplify those virtues: yet they in q \ q₀ as virtues private no positive property, and every positive property over q must also be a positive property over q \ q₀ and q₀; (because q₀ is a subset of q and privates no virtue in q \ q₀.) Therefore the set of laws constraining q \ q₀ is empty.

I.e. All virtues in q private no positive properties and thus no more than by q₀.(Which likewise private none.) We therefore ensure that God is perfectly consistent in his positive statements. (Why make a law to private an otherwise positive statement you are yourself in agreement with and be inconsistent? God is not the author of confusion.)

In effect all laws over q₀ must either constrain those in q \ q₀ only if q = q₀ or that there are no laws constraining any virtue in q. If those virtues in q \ q₀ are pleasing to God, then they are always positive and there should be no commandment to private them. Then we have a domain of virtue not attainable by men but that may be exercised freely by Jesus Christ in His ministry.

We see this in many examples in the gospels, the picking of corn on the sabbath as well as healings on the sabbath and the forgiving of sins. If indeed these things were given to Christ, then they are open to us also: yet the virtues of Christ are not privated by the law. Virtues are themselves positive properties and if L(G) restrains the correct legal virtues under God, then L(G) is become no virtue.

So then, did Christ fulfil the law? Yes! He did! He also did it in a manner as to make it possible for us also with better promises from a new covenant. In resisting the temptation of Satan in the wilderness, Christ Himself stated that "Man shall not live by bread alone...". Christ effectively lived under L(G) rather than the word of the commandment, and did so perfecting our faith.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV)

Then q = q₀ as under the law of L(G) to all, both men and God.

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page