Featured The Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees

Its an apt analogy: it is the lifting up in view I refer to.

Just because the same word for rest is used, we still see in the context that the Seventh Day Sabbath is not what the Writer is saying the two "rests" are.

It is mentioned as an example to illustrate "not working," and in fact the Writer often warns of abandoning the Law as a means of relationship with God.


God bless.

 

Good grief. There's nobody here that holds to salvation by grace more than me.

2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat:
3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. Mt 23

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2

The story of the good Samaritan perfectly demonstrates this. The priest, and then the Levite, went to the other side of the road and walked on by him that desperately needed help, but it was a Samaritan, one that the priest and the Levite would consider a dog, that had compassion, "proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers", and exemplified the golden rule.

12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. Mt 7

8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

 

From a spiritual perspective, agreed, for we are made one with Christ.

From a physical perspective, though, Jews remain Jews, and Gentiles remain Gentiles.

And not sure what that has to do with my statement, lol.

That is more to the point I was making. Meaning, I think many take an antinomian position as though that magnifies the Gospel, when Ezekiel 36:27 speaks of God enabling us to walk in His statutes and keep His judgments.

God bless.

 

Another telling fact Darrell is that in the following verse where "rest" is the translation of sabbatismos (verse 9)

Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God
Hebrews 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

In this passage "rest" is a completely different word Verb form - katapauo to put to rest noun - katapausis a putting to rest.

This church age in which Jesus has commanded us to "Occupy till I come" IS the NC Sabbath in which we are to rest in His finished work.

HankD

 

Isn't it a fact that that the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, the righteousness of God without the law?

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom 3;21

Is that the righteousness, Jesus is speaking of?

 

IMO the book of Hebrews is addressed to the church at Jerusalem (First Baptist of Jerusalem) which came into being in Acts chapter 2 on the day(s) of Pentecost.

It was comprised of believing Jews and proselytes and possibly a handful of Gentiles (e.g. Cornelius).
It was before the sack of Jerusalem, many were discouraged and returning to the temple, temple sacrifices, sabbath keeping, Torah observance, etc, still believing on Christ but for expediency's sake and social pressure they were returning to the temple and Judaism.

IMO the Book of Hebrews was written to show them the folly of such a decision.

The law of Moses vs the glory of Jesus Christ.
Aaron vs Melchizedek.
Etc.

HankD

 

Yes, written by the finger of God on stone. This is the ministry of death, in contrast to the ministry of the Spirit which is written on the "fleshy tables of the heart".

"And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

Does Paul say anything further here about the Law written on stones? Yes. Everything that is underlined is Paul's expounding of the Law, written in stone. Can we find anything good in what he writes?

"[O]ur sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

"Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory." 2.Cor. 3:5b-9

The Law is of the letter, not of the Spirit.
It kills. The Spirit gives life.
It is - at best - a ministry of death.
It is a ministry of condemnation.
It has a termination point. None of it has survived this side of AD 70.

Now, concerning your first paragraph, you still have not shown a biblical reason why part of the Law can be done away with and not the rest. I believe it is as integrated and unified as the cloak of Jesus was. It cannot be divided. When any jot or tittle is fulfilled all of it is. This is what Matt. 5:18 is teaching.

"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

This is to say that ALL of the Law is in effect until the very point when NONE of the Law is in effect. There is no wiggle room here for partial abrogation/partial observance.

So if we are still obligated to, say, observe the Sabbath, we are just as obligated to be circumcised on the eighth day.

Those who might say that the Law here referred to by our Lord in Matthew 5 is strictly the Decalogue, and thus it is still in effect "until heaven and earth has passed away" (more on that misunderstood phrase below) have never really looked at this chapter very carefully. The Law he references is wider than just those Ten Commandments. See vs. 38-39:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Where is this in the Decalogue? It isn't. But it is all part of what Christ had in mind when He speaks of the "Law". And it is part of what will continue to stay in effect "until heaven and earth has passed away".

"Heaven and earth" is a Biblical term referring to the Jewish Dispensation.
In Deuteronomy 32:1 God speaks to Israel: "Give ear, 0 ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, 0 earth, the words of my mouth".

This all passed away, and the New Heaven and New Earth of the Christian dispensation have replaced it. (But I will not go further on this in this thread, so as not to derail the OP)

In sum: We are not obligated to any part of the Decalogue - as it is written. Christ said that the Law is summed up in loving God with all of your mind, heart, soul, and strength. And loving our neighbor as we love ourselves.

The Holy Spirit guides us in all this. Every day.

 

....."they say, and do not". Mt 23:3.

And "saved" is not to be found in the text.

14 I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Lu 18

17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God? Ro 2
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. Ro 2

This is a nasty attitude towards this most basic truth, the essence, of both the law and the religion of Jesus Christ: agape, i.e., charity, thinking of others. Is this not complex enough for you? Too simple?

Who do you think it is that, by His grace alone, quickens and equips His children with the circumcised heart with the law written upon it and a desire to live by the golden rule?

And "saved" is not to be found in the text.

Again, more nasty attitude towards wonderful revelation from scripture.

And "saved" is not to be found in the text.

 

8 Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: Ja 2

 

So IMO the righteousness of the Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees was one of rote, memory and checking a list of mitvouth to see what is allowed or disallowed.

The righteousness of Christ comes forth from a cleansed heart, the birth from above, freely, spontaneously with joy being led of the Spirit not from a list of do/don't.

HankD

 

AMEN HANK! THIS you have just rightly divided:

...the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:13

...by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3:20

 

I am debating someone in Other Denominations who, because the word "glory" is used in Luke 9 in regards to Moses and Elijah, believes they were in glorified form prior to the Cross and Resurrection. The problem with that is that Paul makes it clear that Christ is the Firstfruits from the dead, and the Firstborn from the dead, and this in a sequential context:


1 Corinthians 15:20-23
King James Version (KJV)

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


So just because we have the same word used somewhere else, doesn't mean we can equate the use of that word in all passages.

In regards to sabbatismos being different than God's Rest, it would seem to work towards supporting what I have already said, because this word is equated to the rest looked to by Israel in the wirderness, whereas the Rest that was still pending after entrance to Canaan (with Joshua) should not be equated to a weekly rest, which is itself earthly, temporal, and part of man's physical existence, and related directly to that existence.

This is the only place Strong's lists it as appearing. So how is that "rest" equated to the weekly sabbath?


God bless.

 

I think like most Epistles it was meant to be circulated among the churches. And since we are expressing opinions it is my belief Paul wrote it. Anonymously because many Jews, and probably even many Christians, hated him. One for persecuting the Church, one for being a turncoat. And then those in the middle, Christians still practicing Judaism.

But Proselytes and Gentiles have no bearing on the Book of Hebrews. Only Israel in view. For example, the Tabernacle was in view, I believe because it makes what is discussed exclusive to Israel under the Law.

Agreed. It is my view that "crucifying Christ to one's self again is continuing to offer up sacrifice under the Law. Those sacrifices were a picture, a figure of the Sacrifice of Christ, and to repeat them was to "crucify Christ...again."

It is very much about convincing Jews under the Law that the Covenant of Law was no longer a viable option for relationship with God.

See that here:


Hebrews 10:26-29
King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


That emboldened are what the Old Testament counterpart, those rejecting the Covenant of Law, and the New Testament rejecter are rejecting.

This is a comparison of those who reject, rather than Christians sinning. The punishment is more severe because it is God Himself (in the ministry of Comforter) that men are rejecting.

The Covenant of Law vs. the New Covenant. An oft repeated contrast.

Here's another one:


Hebrews 12:18-24
King James Version (KJV)

18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

I don't really see it that way, but rather Aaron contrasted with Christ. Christ is said to be of that "order," but ultimately we do not equate the Priesthood of Christ with an earthly Priest. Compare, but not equate, which is what I see some do.


God bless.

 

IF a person was able to keep the Law in the exact way intended to by God, they could be saved, but NO sinner will ever be able to do that, as we are born already corrupted and in rebellion against God and His ways!
ANY ONE able to get to Heaven apart from what Jesus did on the Cross for them would make the Cross null and voided, and that person could boast that they saved themselves, but paul in romans denies that as ever a possibility!

 

Only Jesus, as of yet, has received that glorified Body!

 

Has anyone presented this notion on this thread?