Inspiration is not "ahistorical, oracular, dictation"

"Implicit in some discussions of the issue (understanding the Old Testament's relationship to the New) is the assumption that inerrancy necessarily involves a ‘dictation” theory of inspiration. Bruce Vawter, arguing that the New Testament exhibits great freedom in interpreting the Old Testament as a witness to Christ, goes on to say: “Clearly this was not done out of any belief that the prophetic word that it adapted so plastically was in any sense the oracular utterance of a delphic spirit, a word voiced from heaven fixed and immutable, once for all.”

Now, as is well known, the vast majority of inerrantists do not assume a mechanical, dictation-type of inspiration theory such as Vawter’s quotation implies. The words of Scripture are viewed as the product of a “concursive” operation whereby the human author freely wrote what he wanted while the divine author at the same time superintended and guided that writing. Once it is recognized, then, that the view of inspiration held by inerrantists does not entail the notion of an ahistorical, “oracular” process, scope for flexibility in quotation and attention to historical context can be allowed without invalidating inerrancy. This, of course, does not solve all the problems that Vawter finds, but it does remove at least one of his objections." -- Douglas Moo, "The Problem of Sensus Plenior", "Hermeneutics, Authority, Canon", D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge, ed.

Christ's obedience: "cumulative"

"(opponent X of active obedience) argues from “the absence of any contextual indication that Christ’s obedience included his previous life of obedience to the law.” To this I would give four responses.

"First, does not the word “obedience” in Romans 5:19 without any limitation itself provide that clue? (opponent X of active obedience) gives the impression that it is easy and natural to picture Christ’s death as a single act of obedience. But is it? Were there not many acts of obedience in Jesus’ final days and hours? Are we to think of the obedience of Gethsemane, or the obedience when the mob took him away, or the obedience when he was interrogated, or the obedience when he was crowned with thorns, or the obedience when he was flogged, or the obedience when he was nailed to the cross, or the obedience when he spoke words of love to his ene­mies, or the obedience when he offered up his spirit to his Father? Is not (opponent X of active obedience) treating the death of Christ as a unified act involv­ing many acts of obedience? If so, then it seems arbitrary to draw the line at some point in the final hours or days of Jesus’ life and say that the obedience before that hour was not part of the righteousness that “leads to justification” (v. 18) or part of the “obedience” that constitutes many righteous (v. 19).

"Second, the word translated “act of righteousness” in verse 18, ESV (dikaiomatos) is used in Romans 8:4 to refer; in the singular; to the entire scope of what the law requires: ..... so that the requirement (dikaioma) of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” This suggests that in Paul’s mind the “one act of righ­teousness” that resulted in our justification may well refer to the entire obedience of Jesus viewed as a single whole—as one great act of righteousness—rather than any single act he did in life.

"Third, keep in mind the parallel between verses 16 and 18. In verse 16 Paul spoke of the “free gift [of righteousness]" that “brought justification.” In verse 18 he speaks of “one act of righ­teousness resulting in justification.” So we should adjust our thinking to see the righteousness and obedience of Christ as a gift. Then we should keep in mind the contextual demand that this gift of righteousness is the positive counterpart to the sin of Adam, which was imputed to those who are in him. This shows us that it is not arbitrary or foreign to the context to see the obedience of Christ as a gift that is imputed to us, resulting in justification. In fact, I think Paul wrote this entire paragraph to make this point.

"Fourth, any act of disobedience or unrighteousness in Jesus’ life would have disqualified him from being our righteousness (or our substitutionary sacrifice), not just disobedience at the end of his life. In Matthew 3:15, at his baptism, Jesus said to John the Baptist, “In this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” So from beginning to the end in his ministry Jesus was fulfilling one great “requirement of righteousness” (which is probably what [dikaidmatos] means in Romans 5:18).

"...(opponent X of active obedience) points out “the extremely scant attention that Paul pays elsewhere to Christ’s previous life, and the extremely heavy emphasis that Paul lays elsewhere on the death of Christ.”

"The theological importance of the perfect life of Jesus does not depend on any extensive treatment of that life. And I have no quarrel that the death of Jesus has central stage in Paul’s the­ology and is the climax and consummation of Christ’s obedience, so that it receives greater attention.

"Further, (opponent X of active obedience) refers to “the present antithetical parallel with Adam’s transgression, which hardly refers to a whole life of sinning but refers instead to the original sin in Eden.”

"This is not compelling because in the nature of the two cases (of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience) something dif­ferent is called for to bring about the result. For Adam, one sin­gle sin brought condemnation immediately, so that the rest of his life was lived under that condemnation as the penalty of it. He did not have to live a life of disobedience to bring condemnation on himself and his posterity. But this is not the case with Christ’s obedience. A period of obedience in Jesus’ life that was followed by any act of disobedience would have disqualified Christ as the ground of our justification. Therefore the very nature of the two cases demands that Adam’s disobedience be singular and Christ’s obedience be cumulative.

"Finally, (opponent X of active obedience) observes “the singularizing of both Adam’s transgression and Christ’s act of righteousness by the modifier ‘one.”’ This is not significantly different from the preceding obser­vation, and I have given my essential answer to it there and in the answer to his second observation above. I will simply add here John Murray’s answer to a similar objection: "If the question be asked how the righteousness of Christ could be defined as “one righteous act,” the answer is that the righ­teousness of Christ is regarded in its compact unity in parallelism with the one trespass, and there is good reason for speaking of it as the one righteous act because, as the one trespass is the tres­pass of the one, so that one righteousness is the righteousness of the one and the unity of the person and his accomplishment must always be assumed (Murray, Romans, vol. 1, pp. 201-202)." -- John Piper, "Counted Righteous in Christ", pp. 111-114