Christ's faithfulness

Gal. 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Now the promise in that verse is the Holy Spirit. And that it might be given, is predicated upon something.

Jesus told his disciples that if he did not go away the Holy Spirit could not come. Why could it not come?
It was to Abraham and his one seed Christ, the Word made flesh that the promises were made. Why would any kind of promise have to be made to God, the Word made flesh the Christ? The Holy Spirit could not cone because the Christ had not yet received it. Christ is Faith what he did was faith. Once Faith came this applied: Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, This verse says the exact same thing: Titus 3:5 by the washing of regeneration, (Faith) and renewing of the Holy Ghost; That is received it from the Father. Then the balance of Acts 2:33 can take place as he told his disciples: he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Titus 3:6 says the exact same thing: Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
For by grace are he saved through Christ.
For by grace are ye saved by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
For by grace, if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Which should shed light on Romans 3:25-31

 

If by 'churchman' you mean a member of the Church of England, you could hardly be more insulting. Consider my nom de Plume, Mar-prelate- one who mars or opposes the prelates. The original Martin Marprelate wrote anonymous tracts against the bishops during the reign of Elizabeth I.
To be sure, a knowledge of Greek is not a guarantee of orthodoxy, but I am not the only person on the board to comment on the Greek; why pick on me?
Finally, I have opposed Skandalon on sevaral occasions on my short time on this board, but he is undoubtedly right when he speaks of the absolute necessity of faith in Christ.

I hope it may qualify me in a small way to help those who are struggling to interpret Scripture.

I'm not sure that you have any right to question my orthodoxy on this board. However, to oblige you, certainly Christ was obedient to the Father (Phil 2:7-8), but what I think you are looking for is His active obedience being imputed to those who believe. On the cross, all our sins were laid on His sinless shoulders and His perfect righteousness and obedience is credited to us who believe.
However, we do not need to mess about by turning our faith into His faithfulness in order to establish this doctrine. It is amply proved by such verses as Rom 5:18-19; 1Cor 1:30, and 2Cor 5:21.

The simplest way of explaining this is with reference to the stilling of the storm (Matt 8:23-27 etc.). Our Lord was tired and needed to sleep. Elsewhere we read of Him being hungry; doubtless He suffered occasionally from headaches and needed to use the bathroom etc. He was a man; man as if He were not God. But when the disciples awoke Him, 'He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.' Only God controls the weather with a word. Jesus is God; God as if He were not man.

You're welcome.

It is thought that the original Martin Marprelate was John Penry, who was executed under Elizabeth I around 1590. Penry was a Welshman, but I'm not, so I'm afraid your Welsh is wasted on me.

Steve