"The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event"

One of the most significant books in the 1980’s to impact evangelicalism and still reverberating to this day is John MacArthur’s “The Gospel According to Jesus”. It was the biggest volley in a debate over what has since been dubbed “Lordship Salvation”. Given the easy-believism against which it was aimed, there has been much good accomplished by MacArthur and the book (as well as its sequel, “Faith Works”). But it is also possible to step back and suggest that one must not take the Lordship Salvation so far down the road that Christ is eclipsed.

MacArthur and his Lordship Salvation gave us this: “Right motives must be expressed in right action”. This is a truism, for sure. But it is only partly true. Not only *must* right motives be expressed in right action, right motives *will be* expressed in right action. There is a common exegetical fallacy made in conseravtive evangelical circles. The fallacy tends to read *imperative* in the text where there is indicative. For example, Revelation 14:12 is taken to mean that saints must keep the commandments of God and keep their faith in Jesus. Yet that’s not what this passage is saying. The passage is detailing what is characteristic of those who have the mark of the Lamb, not commanding what those who have the mark of the Lamb should be like. We cannot make the leap from description to commandment without violating the gist of the text. Once we allow these descriptions their place in the text, we begin to realize that it is our union in Christ and what has been done for us in Christ that is the point of the entire canon. Our actions merely "flow" from the one great indicative in Christ.

Walter Marshall gets it right in "Gospel Mystery of Sanctification", esp. chapter 12. Not only does Marshall time and again point out that the text's emphasis is "our new state in Christ" by way of the gospel, he points out that the majority of the imperatives parallel the "union in Christ" indicatives. Marshall explains that "our old natural state is that which we derived from the first Adam by natural generation, and it is called in the Scripture 'the old man'; and while we be in it, we are said to be 'in the flesh'. And our new state is that which we receive from the second Adam, Jesus Christ, by being new-born in union and fellowship with Him through faith; and it is called in Scripture 'the new man' and, when we are in it, we are said to be 'in the Spirit'. The principles and means of practice belonging to a natural state are such as persons do or may attain and make use of before they are in Christ by faith. Such as belong properly to the new state are the manifold holy endowments, privileges and enjoyments which we partake of in Christ by faith, such as have already appeared to be the only effectual means of a holy life. We are said to walk according to either of these states, or to the principles and means that belong to either of them, when we are moved and guided by virtue of them to such actings as are agreeable to them."

Marshall also points out that the vast majority of the indicatives in the New Covenant ethic are given in terms of "'living by faith' (Hab. 2:4; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 10: 38); 'walking by faith' (2 Cor. 5:7); 'faith working by love' (Gal. 5:6); 'overcoming the world by faith' (1 John 5:4); 'quenching all the fiery darts of the wicked, by the shield of faith' (Eph. 6:16)...'walking, rooted and built up in Christ' (Col. 2:6, 7); 'living to God, and not to ourselves but to have Christ living in us' (Gal. 2:19, 20); 'good conversation in Christ' (1 Peter 3:16); 'putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, that we may walk honestly, as in the day' (Rom. 13:13, 14); 'being strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might' (Eph. 6:10); 'doing all things in the name of Christ' (Col. 3:17)...'being strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus' (2 Tim. 2:1); 'having our conversation in the world, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God' (2 Cor. 1:12); 'having or holding fast grace, that we may serve God acceptably, labouring abundantly,' in such manner as that the whole work is not performed by us, but 'by the grace of God that is with us' (1 Cor. 15:10)...'to know Christ, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death; if by any means we may attain unto the resurrection of the dead,' and to increase and press forward in this kind of knowledge (Phil. 3:10-12, 14)."

These are the great imperatives of the New Covenant. The few instances in which adornment or other specifics are mentioned fade in comparison. So yes, God is concerned about "actions", but not in the way it has tends to be presented by those who claim that God is *as* concerned about the external as he is about the internal. The overwhelming majority of "actions" as they are presented in the New Covenant text has as their grounds a direct correlation with our union in Christ by faith because that's where the emphasis is.

Further, even the negative imperatives are couched in terms of our union in Christ. Marshall says "We are to understand the same thing when we are taught not 'to walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit', that we may be 'free from the law of sin', and 'that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us' (Rom. 8:1, 2, 3); and, 'through the Spirit, to mortify the deeds of the body'; and 'to be led by the Spirit', because we 'live by the Spirit', and have 'crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts' (Gal. 5:24). The apostle shows by these expressions not only that we are to practice holiness, but also by what means we may do it effectually. By 'flesh' is meant our old nature, derived from the first Adam; and by 'Spirit' is meant the Spirit of Christ and that new nature which we have by Him dwelling in us. We are said to walk after either of these natures, when we make the properties or qualifications of either of them to be the principles of our practice."

And along those lines, the emphasis isn't even on the internal; it's in the heavenlies. It would be a mischaracterization to suggest that the text emphasizes the internal to the neglect of the external. The text emphasizes the heavenlies where Christ is seated, in union with our internal, from whence all externals flow. Actions flow from the heart (which is why I believe these posts are in error; that actions flow from the heart de facto means externals or actions are secondary...The scriptures have much more to say about self-control and lust than they do about how women adorn themselves. The causality of all sin lies in the heart -- Matthew 7:15-20, 12:33-37, 13:15, 15:10-20, Mark 7:14-23, Luke 11:37-41, Romans 6:17, 2 Cor. 3:2-3, Ephesians 6:6 and Hebrews 3:12. Christ wants us to understand that the heart, not the actions, is of primary import. The actions are merely a signpost), a heart that is united to Christ in the heavenlies.

On Colossians 3:1-18, David Roth writes: "our ethics and morals are expressions of the life of Christ in us. For it is not out of Christ's life that we draw selfishness, rudeness, lies, pigheadedness or anything like that. But we do draw from his life love, kindness, gentleness, self-control and truth. They are evidence of our being in heaven, because these things are of heaven and not the earth. You see, there is no way we can rely on a supposed remoteness of heaven (either in time or place), to soften the guilt of doing evil here and now. For we are not, in fact, remote from heaven and the presence of God. And this is Paul's point. The issue isn't what you have to do to cope with this life while waiting for the next one to come. It has more to do with just where your life is right now and what that life means here and now. And, again, Paul's point is that having our life hid in Christ, being a new man, being in heavenly places, this all means that the things of heaven must replace the things of earth. The new man must replace the old man. Love and kindness, truth and gentleness must replace greed and selfishness, lies and malice. Our life is not in the food we eat, the house we call home, the friends we keep, the children, our vacations, our accomplishments, nor in the daily routines and ruts we find ourselves in. If you take from me my wife, my kids, my home, my food, my vacations, my accomplishments, my routines and my self-esteem, I will still be alive. Even if you try to take the life that is in my blood, I will still flourish with life. I live because the fountain of my life—the fountain of your life too—is in our Lord and Savior. Our life is in Christ."

Roth is writing as the 21st century Marshall. The point of emphasis in the text, even when the actions are mentioned, is my life in Christ. To suggest that externals are equal in emphasis to the internals is to so be distracted (like the OT Israelites and the Pharisees) by the mention of the externals that one misses the primary point of the text, and thus, God's *primary* concern.

Does not God care about specific actions? Not as much as he is concerned about the heart behind the actions. The point of sin being addressed in the Bible in terms of specific outward actions is not *primarily* that God cares about specific actions, but that he *primarily* cares about the heart (and its position *in Christ*) that produces such actions. He isn't so much interested in the actions as He is about His relationship with those who are producing those actions. This was the exegetical fallacy of the Pharisees in reading the OT (I will grant that the codification of the Mosaic Covenant had an emphasis on externals. But I also believe that *that* emphasis on externals was a divine stumbling block; it should have driven Israel to the sacrifice for mercy. Instead, most of Israel, like the Pharisees, wrongly concluded that God was primarily interested in the externals, when it was the opposite. Those wrong conclusions led them to be legalists.). And again, as has been mentioned already, most of the time that sin is mentioned, it is mentioned in description form, not imperative form. It is an exegetical fallacy to then assume that the emphasis is on action when in fact the descriptor is serving another purpose of the author: pointing us to our union in Christ and the the non-union "in Christ" of those who are being described.

In light of recent discussion about modesty and lust, it is true that the Bible speaks some about our appearance. Clothing does matter. But it doesn't follow that "clothing matters" is an "equal" point of emphasis in the text. William Dennison rightly points out that "for the Christian, living the moral life by faith is interwoven into the very fabric of Biblical revelation and redemption in Christ; living the moral life is only possible through being in union with the active obedience of our Savior, Jesus Christ...In the Biblical text, morality is grounded in history, or more precisely, the moral life of the believer is grounded in the redemptive-historical work of God in Christ's death and resurrection...the saving work of Christ's death and resurrection (the event) is the ground for the life of faith (moral obedience). There is no life of faith without the power of the cross and the resurrection. There is no moral Christian life without union with Christ. The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event. Moreover, the believer is to see himself as a participant in the saving work of Christ; the believer is not a spectator. Hence, the confession of the believer is this: 'When Christ died, I died; when Christ arose, I arose.' The faithful obedience of the beliver is grounded in (implied in) and flows out of Christ's work. The death and resurrection effects or is the source of an active living faith." -- William Dennison, "Biblical Theology and the Issue of Application in Preaching" in "Reformed Spirituality", pp. 144, 147, 149

Most of us would agree that there is no moral Christian life without union in Christ. Many might agree that the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event. But......if the death and resurrection of Christ *effects* or is *the source* of the imperatives, it does not follow that the imperatives are equally emphasized... it is the death and resurrection of Christ and our union to it that is of primary import in the text.

Roth continues in his essay on Colossians 3: "Paul says, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus ...." This is not a reference to eloquence in our words or craftsmanship in our deeds. Indeed, this is not a proof text on "excellence" at all. Paul is not so much concerned here with earthly performance of tasks as he is with our seeking the things above. The point is not the quality of the "whatsoever we do," it is the motive, the internal principle that animates the "whatsoever we do" that concerns Paul here. It is as an expression of our conscious presence before God, in Christ, that wives ought to be subject to their husbands; that husbands ought to love their wives; that children ought to be obedient to their parents; and so on (vv. 18f.). These things arise out of our plan to glorify God, our "seeking the things above." These things arise out of an attitude bent on Christ. And so things like this are heavenly. In so conducting ourselves we are walking in heavenly places. These are the heavenly things that we are supposed to be devoted to. Not as acts belonging to an ivory tower or idle speculations on another world. They are practical, here and now kinds of things. They are the practical response to reality. And they are things done in thankfulness to God rather than as ways of coping with a remote deity or an active conscience. We are to be so heavenly minded that we actually end up being of great earthly good!"

Right motives must be expressed in right actions. But even more importantly, right motives *will be* expressed by right actions and those actions will be set in the context of our union in Christ. Every imperative given in the New Covenant is given against the backdrop of "walking in heavenly places" with an "attitude bent on Christ". It is our union in Christ that is the point of emphasis, not the imperative itself. The text of scripture is not anthropocentric (contra John Carrick, "The Imperative of Preaching"). The sacred writings are Christocentric. We *act* only because God first *acted* in Christ. Christ's perfect obedience to the imperatives that *effects* our own obedience. The moment we begin thinking there is equal point of emphasis between the two is the moment we fail to grasp the significance (implication) of God's great Act in Christ.