Q. How does the holy conception and birth of Christ benefit you?
A. He is our mediator, and with his innocence and perfect holiness he removes from God’s sight my sin—mine since I was conceived.
Theological: Three things come to mind: 1) The innocence of Christ (especially with reference to his conception and virgin birth) is a statement that he, touching his humanity, was born in the same state as the unfallen Adam. Adam’s innocence and Christ’s innocence are parallel; they were both morally upright and sinless. 2) The perfect holiness of Christ, I suspect, refers to what theologians call his “active obedience,” which is his keeping of the law of God perfectly. (Christ’s “passive obedience” was his suffering and death, or his passion. His active obedience requires the miracle of the virgin birth. If Christ were polluted with corruption of nature common to all other men (called original sin), there’s no way he could keep the law perfectly. 3) The Catechism says that Christ, specifically by his innocence and holiness, removes my sin from God’s sight. This, it seems to me, is a curious way to articulate the effects of Christ’s redemptive work… follow me here. The Reformed understanding of justification (which, I submit, is the Biblical one) includes a double imputation: our sins to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to us. Our sins are “removed” from God’s sight as Christ, in his suffering and death (passive obedience), has taken them upon himself (via imputation) and completely paid for them. Now, if this were all the effect of Christ’s work upon us, we’d be sinless, but not righteous. God, however, requires perfect righteousness. Thus, the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, and in that the believer is not just found “Not Guilty,” but is counted as perfectly righteous in God’s sight. Praise God! Now, the Catechism seems to link the “not guilty” side of things with the innocence and holiness, but I think it should rather be linked with the sacrificial death side of things. Do you see what I’m getting at? There’s no reason whatever to say that the Catechism is wrong, as the work of Christ is all one glorious package, wrapped up in his person. It does seem to me, however, that the articulation could be a little sharper. Maybe one of you Heidelberg scholars (like Dr. Scott Clark) could set me straight, if I’m messed up.
Practical: Every sermon must address the person and work of Jesus Christ, but not every aspect of the person and work. Over the course of time, however, all the aspects should be covered and covered again. Preachers of the Word ought to be able to link what seem like the small parts of Christ’s person and work to the salvation of the world. Nothing is insignificant. All must be preached and taught. Further, all must be preached with vigor and interest. Theological details are not just I’s to be dotted and T’s to be crossed on licensure exams, they are lively and important things to be preached with joy.
RSC doesn’t notice a blog post until the comments number in the high double digits. This is me doing my part!
Hi Tim. I’d say that the innocence and perfect holiness is crucial since the double imputation includes Christ’s righteous life. In that way, our sins are covered and we also have perfect law keeping reckoned to us.
I think you agree when you say,
“Our sins are “removed” from God’s sight as Christ, in his suffering and death (passive obedience), has taken them upon himself (via imputation) and completely paid for them. Now, if this were all the effect of Christ’s work upon us, we’d be sinless, but not righteous. God, however, requires perfect righteousness. Thus, the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, and in that the believer is not just found “Not Guilty,” but is counted as perfectly righteous in God’s sight.”
I can see your point, though, that we would normally see the “removal” connected to the vicarious, propitiatory nature of the Cross. I have some Heidelberg resources so I’ll see what I find.
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (II Cor. 5:21)
Hi Tim,
Just reading through your thoughts on Q&A 36. You raise an interesting question, but I’m wondering if the answer to the “dilemma” lies in the word “holiness?” Is it correct to limit Christ’s “holiness” to His active (or passive) obedience? The basic idea of holiness is “set apart from the world to God for service.”
I was just going over some seminary notes on the holiness of the church in which Dr. Kloosterman notes that God’s holiness refers, in part, to His uniqueness as Creator. Nobody or nothing compares to God. And Christ’s is a one-of-a-kind-holiness in that He was set apart totally and perfectly to the work of redemption. He was anointed for that work by the Spirit who was given to Him without measure…a work that included both His active and passive obedience. In fact, we could say that it was his “holiness” as God’s Son come in the flesh especially that enabled Him to complete the work of redemption in every part.
It’s with that in mind that I believe we can correctly say that it is by His innocence and perfect holiness that He removes from God’s sight my sin – mine since I was conceived…and continues to do this work perfectly and beautifully as our Mediator.
Your brother in Christ,
Al Camarigg
P.S. Please excuse the double posting of the same comment, but I just realized that I left this comment for R-O-R the first time around!
Pastor, I’m wondering, too. I appreciate your thoughts, and I think they are helpful. I don’t like the tendency in theology toward many and fine distinctions. And my post was moving that direction. Distinctions aside: Jesus Christ, the God-man, was set apart by God to redeem his people from sin and to present us holy to God. It’s the mechanics of it that get us all wrapped up.
In the wake of FV/NPP/Shepherd/whatnot there has been such a push to fine tune our articulation of the doctrine of justification (which is good). It’s from that mindset that I was reading the Catechism. That might have me simply asking the wrong questions of the Catechism. In any event, I appreciate your input.
Hi Tim. I also want to point out that “he removes” does not accurately reflect the German version of the Catechism. The German version has “bedecket,” a form of the verb “bedecken” which means “to cover.” I think it makes much more sense if we say that Christ covers our sin with innocence and perfect holiness.