The Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees

[Darrell C]

None will be saved by keeping the Law of God on their hearts, as salvation is by Grace alone faith alone!

Those who performed the Law written on their hearts were justified...

Romans 2:13
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


That Justification was by the grace of God, as all His mercies towards man are.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Those who performed the Law written on their hearts were justified...

So they didn't need Jesus? So we shouldn't send missionaries out to non-Christian countries, or to pagans living in our own, but just tell them to obey the law and they'll be OK?
Romans 2:13
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified).
That Justification was by the grace of God, as all His mercies towards man are.
God bless.[/QUOTE]
The whole argument of Paul from Romans 1:18 to 3:20 is that no one 'does' the law.

 

[Deacon]

I seem to have missed this thread started earlier in the week. Good post Martin

There are numerous themes that interweave themselves in Matthew’s Gospel.
You’ve hit some key ones in the opening post, righteousness, justice, mercy.

It is key to the message proclaimed by Jesus and his disciples that although the mingling of these is seemingly impossible [camel through a needle], God achieved the impossible through the grace obtained by the sacrificial work of Jesus.
No wonder the Pharisees couldn't fathom the message and the angels marveled as it was revealed.

Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
my beloved in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
He will not argue or shout,
and no one will hear his voice in the streets.
He will not break a bruised reed,
and he will not put out a smoldering wick,
until he has led justice to victory.
The nations will put their hope in his name.
Matthew 12:18-21 CSB
​

Rob

 

[HankD]

Some take that view, but I do not. Melchisadec was a flesh and blood Priest in Abraham's day, nothing more.

I think it borderline heresy to equate Christ with a man.

You need to understand that prior to that body being created in Mary's womb...there was no Jesus Christ. He has, as the Savior of the World, a beginning in time.

It is the Son of God that is Eternal, and in fact the Creator. And even if Melchisadec was a Christophany, that is no more Jesus Christ than the body He took upon Himself when He visits Abraham in Genesis 18.

I believe it was a theophany of Christ.

I emboldened your statement above because I am wondering - Is/was Jesus the eternal Logos (Second person of the Trinity) made flesh Darrell? Thanks. Your statement could be misunderstood as it is standing alone.

I don't think a protraction of the debate as to the Melchizedek persona would be profitable.

It does have scholar support either way. Folks who have an interest can research on the web.
Granted most of the support agrees with your view.

Several others and I do not.

I am glad however we have agreement concerning the marvel of the book/epistle/letter to the Hebrews.

It is a Theological wonder, and in my view, the crown jewel of the New Testament. This book enlightens one to an understanding of the Old Testament, and bridges figure with reality, the giving of Promise and the bestowal of those Promises. It is a straightforward declaration of the necessity to embrace the New Covenant, and to understand the more complete knowledge of Christ.

Agreed!

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

So they didn't need Jesus?

Everyone needs Jesus Christ, Martin.

However, the fact remains we have an entire Old Testament with a cast innumerable who fell under the Grace of God...apart from the Gospel Mystery.

The Mystery of the Gospel has been revealed to us by the Comforter, Who came on the Day of Pentecost. Prior to that men were justified by Grace through faith, thus securing their eternal destinies.

Think about it. That is why there is no contradiction between James and Paul (by faith alone/by works)...because they are both speaking of men being Justified in the Old Testament...

...not eternally redeemed.

That began when Jesus Christ (Who the whole world needs) died on the Cross in the stead of the sinner. That includes Abraham, my friend, for the last sacrifice for sins available to Abraham before he died was that of an animal. And that sacrifice did not bring about completion in regards to remission of sins, only the Offering of Christ Himself (which the whole world needs) can:


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Paul makes a similar statement here:


Romans 3:20-25
King James Version (KJV)

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

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

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


And I think this last should also have an emphasis thus:


25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


Because that is the same thing we see in Hebrews, the retroactive remission of sins for the Old Testament Saint.

Abraham was justified for his faith, but Abraham, not having the Revelation of the Gospel Mystery, was not justified through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ...yet.

That, my friend, is how a man's righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees and the Saducees.

So we shouldn't send missionaries out to non-Christian countries, or to pagans living in our own,

Of course we should. Every believer has enough people to witness to in whatever sphere God has placed them. And if they don't, those who desire to witness will go out to find them.

but just tell them to obey the law and they'll be OK?

We have to distinguish between Paul's historical reflection and this current Age. Two entirely different Dispensations. We know we do not point people to the Law, we have an entire New Testament which has that as a major theme.


2 Corinthians 3:5-6
King James Version (KJV)

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


And for those who read newer translations...


2 Corinthians 3:5-6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,

6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


...who might not understand that it is the New Covenant and the Holy Spirit Paul speaks about.

Romans 2:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified).

That Justification was by the grace of God, as all His mercies towards man are.
God bless.

The whole argument of Paul from Romans 1:18 to 3:20 is that no one 'does' the law.

No, that is not the whole argument.

The one argument I will emphasize is that those who came under Judgment...

...knew the truth and disobeyed:


Romans 1:18-21
King James Version (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


The point is not "no one 'does' the law," the point is that they had the knowledge of God, which He had given them, and they rejected it, thus bringing about judgment.

Secondly, that "no-one does the Law" is not seen in this passage:


Romans 2:13-15
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)


No-one is suggesting these Gentiles were eternally redeemed by doing, by nature, the things contained in the Law which were written in their hearts, because we are looking at the Age of Law, at which time the Law was in effect. The bottom line being the Law was never meant as a means of Eternal Redemption, God has always meant to eternally redeem men through the Work of Jesus Christ (which the whole world needs).


God bless.

 

[kyredneck]

But why is the man not saved?

“Saved” is not to be found in the text.

Who are you to say that he didn't do everything he said he did?

Even if he did Christ doesn’t leave us hanging, the man was exalting himself, from the law, just as described concerning the Jew in Romans 2:

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?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. Ro 2

His was not the demeanor of one born from above.

Ah! Now we're getting to the point! Why did the tax-collector go away justified?
He had no works to offer (or if he did, he didn't offer them). He cried out to God and trusted in Him to justify him.

His was the demeanor of one born from above.

He was saved by grace through faith.

“Saved” is not to be found in the text.

'Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified, for by the law is the knowledge of sin' (Romans 3:20). The Pharisee looked at the law and thought he could be saved by it; the tax-collector looked at the law and saw himself condemned, but to him 'a righteousness apart from the law' [was] revealed' (v.21).

The two demeanors are revealing.

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.
13 But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.
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

There is no mention of “saved”, or of the gospel, in the text. The truth revealed in this parable was just as pertinent in 500 B.C. as it was in Christ’s day.

Well you are the acknowledged king of the snide remark and casual abuse so I suppose you would know.
But I refer you to your remark on an earlier thread.

Ok. I guess I was surprised that you took offense at this (I’ll be gentler with you in the future) :

Take your 'sola fide' blinders off, stifle your aversion to any mention of works in relation to our justification, and try to rightly divide this:

...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

Incidentally, HankD did rightly divided this in post # 34.

Nonetheless, if I can be justified by love, I don't need Jesus Christ.

“...the doers of the law shall be justified”. This is a statement of fact. It’s descriptive, not instructive. Paul lets us off the hook by defining it: “he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law”. This inclination comes NATURALLY to all those whom God has wrought in. The golden rule is an 'easy yoke' compared to the 'yoke' "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear".

 

[Darrell C]

Is/was Jesus the eternal Logos (Second person of the Trinity) made flesh Darrell?

No.

The Son of God is the Eternal Logos.

Thanks. Your statement could be misunderstood as it is standing alone.

I know.




God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry, Jesus Christ did not appear as the Angel of the Lord.

That was the Son of God prior to His Incarnation.




God bless.

Correct, that would be God the Son appearing temp in human form, as he had not been Incarnated yet in history as Jesus of Nazareth!

 

[Yeshua1]

No.

The Son of GOd is the Eternal Logos.






I know.




God bless.

Yes, as before he became forever incarnated as Jesus, was :just" God the Son!

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, as before he became forever incarnated as Jesus, was :just" God the Son!

You know, I wonder about that:


1 Corinthians 15:27-28
King James Version (KJV)

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


This is way up there on my List of Intriguing Statements in Scripture.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

You know, I wonder about that:


1 Corinthians 15:27-28
King James Version (KJV)

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


This is way up there on my List of Intriguing Statements in Scripture.


God bless.

God in that sense would seem to be the Father Himself!

 

[Darrell C]

God in that sense would seem to be the Father Himself!

The Son is stated as the Creator in John 1, and here...


John 14:8-10
King James Version (KJV)

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


...the Son clarifies His unity with the Father, that they are One.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

“Saved” is not to be found in the text.

If you want to substitute 'justified' for 'saved' in my post, I have no objection.

Even if he did Christ doesn’t leave us hanging, the man was exalting himself, from the law, just as described concerning the Jew in Romans 2:

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?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. Ro 2

But suppose it was true; suppose this man never extorted money, was always just, had never so much as looked at another woman, was punctilious in his church attendance and was generous in his giving, would that save him? Yes or no?

His was not the demeanor of one born from above.

OK. Well let's all thank God that we're not like him.

The two demeanors are revealing.

They certainly are. One man had no good works to offer, and one had plenty. Which one was declared righteous by God?

There is no mention of “saved”, or of the gospel, in the text. The truth revealed in this parable was just as pertinent in 500 B.C. as it was in Christ’s day.

There is mention of 'justified.'

Ok. I guess I was surprised that you took offense at this (I’ll be gentler with you in the future)

It costs nothing to be polite.

Incidentally, HankD did rightly divided this in post # 34.

I may have missed it; I'll have a look later.

“...the doers of the law shall be justified”. This is a statement of fact. It’s descriptive, not instructive.

But there is nobody that 'does' the law. 'For we have already charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written, "there is none righteous, no not one"............Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight for by the law comes the knowledge of sin' (Romans 3:9-10, 20).[QUOTE]
Paul lets us off the hook by defining it: “he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law”. This inclination comes NATURALLY to all those whom God has wrought in. The golden rule is an 'easy yoke' compared to the 'yoke' "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear".[/QUOTE]
But what level of love do we need? There's a song that goes, "Everybody loves somebody sometime!" Is everybody saved? If you have lots of love can you be justified without trusting in Christ? Yes or no? But in fact, love is the fruit of the Spirit.(Galatians 5:22). It does indeed come naturally, but only to those who have been justified by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you want to substitute 'justified' for 'saved' in my post, I have no objection.

But suppose it was true; suppose this man never extorted money, was always just, had never so much as looked at another woman, was punctilious in his church attendance and was generous in his giving, would that save him? Yes or no?

OK. Well let's all thank God that we're not like him.

They certainly are. One man had no good works to offer, and one had plenty. Which one was declared righteous by God?

There is mention of 'justified.'

It costs nothing to be polite.

I may have missed it; I'll have a look later.

But there is nobody that 'does' the law. 'For we have already charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written, "there is none righteous, no not one"............Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight for by the law comes the knowledge of sin' (Romans 3:9-10, 20).[QUOTE]
Paul lets us off the hook by defining it: “he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law”. This inclination comes NATURALLY to all those whom God has wrought in. The golden rule is an 'easy yoke' compared to the 'yoke' "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear".

But what level of love do we need? There's a song that goes, "Everybody loves somebody sometime!" Is everybody saved? If you have lots of love can you be justified without trusting in Christ? Yes or no? But in fact, love is the fruit of the Spirit.(Galatians 5:22). It does indeed come naturally, but only to those who have been justified by grace alone through faith alone.[/QUOTE]
Even IF a sinner could live perfectly from birth forward, they still owe to God the sin debt problem they were born into as being in Adam by the flesh!

 

[FollowTheWay]

Some take that view, but I do not. Melchisadec was a flesh and blood Priest in Abraham's day, nothing more.

I think it borderline heresy to equate Christ with a man.

You need to understand that prior to that body being created in Mary's womb...there was no Jesus Christ. He has, as the Savior of the World, a beginning in time.

It is the Son of God that is Eternal, and in fact the Creator. And even if Melchisadec was a Christophany, that is no more Jesus Christ than the body He took upon Himself when He visits Abraham in Genesis 18.




I might suggest the same.






It is a Theological wonder, and in my view, the crown jewel of the New Testament. This book enlightens one to an understanding of the Old Testament, and bridges figure with reality, the giving of Promise and the bestowal of those Promises. It is a straightforward declaration of the necessity to embrace the New Covenant, and to understand the more complete knowledge of Christ.




Agreed.

If you would like to start a thread and present why you make Melchisadec Christ, I'll be happy to participate. But I think it better not to depart further from the scope of the OP oif this thread.


God bless.

I agree with your interpretation of the role and the person of Melchisadec. So does A.R. Fausset in his commentary on Hebrews Chap. 7.
Commentary on Hebrews 7 by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

" 3. Without father, &c.--explained by "without genealogy" (so the Greek is for "without descent); compare Hbr 7:6, that is, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priest could not dispense with the proof of his descent.
having neither beginning of days nor end of life--namely, history not having recorded his beginning nor end, as it has the beginning and end of Aaron. The Greek idiom expressed by "without father," &c., one whose parentage was humble or unknown. "Days" mean his time of discharging his function. So the eternity spoken of in Psa 110:4 is that of the priestly office chiefly."

made like--It is not said that he was absolutely "like." Made like, namely, in the particulars here specified. Nothing is said in Genesis of the end of his priesthood, or of his having had in his priesthood either predecessor or successor, which, in a typical point of view, represents Christ's eternal priesthood, without beginning or end. Aaron's end is recorded; Melchisedec's not: typically significant. "The Son of God" is not said to be made like unto Melchisedec, but Melchisedec to be "made like the Son of God."

I agree that it is "borderline heresy to equate Christ with a man" but I would not use the qualifier "borderline." Of course if the argument is that it was indeed the Son appearing in the old Testament as He does many times that's a different discussion. I don't think that is the case either and think Melchisadec was used in Hebrews as an example of a priest unlike the priests of the Jews which all came from the Tribe of Levi (or were Aaron's sons).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry Hank! I overlooked this post. @kyredneck reminded me of it.

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.

True, but we are also called upon to remember. 'And remember the words of the Lord Jesus Christ.....' (Acts 20:35). 'And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as sons.....' (Hebrews 12:5). The difference is that we are not trusting in our own righteousness to save us, but in Christ.

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.

The righteousness of Christ is an 'alien' righteousness which is imputed to us.
'......Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God-- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption..........'
See also 2 Corinthians 5:21; 2 Peter 1:1.
'........That, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."' (1 Corinthians 1:30-31).
'Not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.'

You are right that Christians seek to obey Christ freely, spontaneously and with joy being led by the Spirit (1 John 1:7), but that is not the righteousness that saves us, nor can it save us, because it will always be imperfect (1 John 1:8). We are saved by the blood of Christ, appropriated by faith.

 

[HankD]

You are right that Christians seek to obey Christ freely, spontaneously and with joy being led by the Spirit (1 John 1:7), but that is not the righteousness that saves us, nor can it save us, because it will always be imperfect (1 John 1:8). We are saved by the blood of Christ, appropriated by faith.

Agreed, Martin, what I am proposing is for the saved.

The lost cannot do righteousness except by rote or compliance to a list of do/don't.

Even at best their good deeds are "filthy rags".

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

'Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them............Who, knowing the righteous judgement of God that those who practise such things are worthy of death......... for when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things of the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them' (Romans 1:19, 32; 2:14-15).

To put it 'gently', you've ripped Ro 2:14-15 out of context. This is no 'universal moral code' that Paul's writing about, it's THE LAW:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
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?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.
25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.
26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

 

[Darrell C]

I agree with your interpretation of the role and the person of Melchisadec. So does A.R. Fausset in his commentary on Hebrews Chap. 7.
Commentary on Hebrews 7 by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

" 3. Without father, &c.--explained by "without genealogy" (so the Greek is for "without descent); compare Hbr 7:6, that is, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priest could not dispense with the proof of his descent.
having neither beginning of days nor end of life--namely, history not having recorded his beginning nor end, as it has the beginning and end of Aaron. The Greek idiom expressed by "without father," &c., one whose parentage was humble or unknown. "Days" mean his time of discharging his function. So the eternity spoken of in Psa 110:4 is that of the priestly office chiefly."

made like--It is not said that he was absolutely "like." Made like, namely, in the particulars here specified. Nothing is said in Genesis of the end of his priesthood, or of his having had in his priesthood either predecessor or successor, which, in a typical point of view, represents Christ's eternal priesthood, without beginning or end. Aaron's end is recorded; Melchisedec's not: typically significant. "The Son of God" is not said to be made like unto Melchisedec, but Melchisedec to be "made like the Son of God."

I agree that it is "borderline heresy to equate Christ with a man" but I would not use the qualifier "borderline." Of course if the argument is that it was indeed the Son appearing in the old Testament as He does many times that's a different discussion. I don't think that is the case either and think Melchisadec was used in Hebrews as an example of a priest unlike the priests of the Jews which all came from the Tribe of Levi (or were Aaron's sons).

Excellent post, Follow the Way.

I agree that it is "borderline heresy to equate Christ with a man" but I would not use the qualifier "borderline." Of course if the argument is that it was indeed the Son appearing in the old Testament as He does many times that's a different discussion. I don't think that is the case either and think Melchisadec was used in Hebrews as an example of a priest unlike the priests of the Jews which all came from the Tribe of Levi (or were Aaron's sons).

That is why I said borderline. Many view Melchisedec to be either a Christophany, or attribute him as being the model Christ follows, when in fact he is simply a type. I can understand why people can embrace such a view, but, we know Christ stands alone in regard to His Peroan and Priesthood. That is what the Writer seeks to do, convince his brethren of what is New, and what is Better (than the Law).


God bless.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Excellent post, Follow the Way.




That is why I said borderline. Many view Melchisedec to be either a Christophany, or attribute him as being the model Christ follows, when in fact he is simply a type. I can understand why people can embrace such a view, but, we know Christ stands alone in regard to His Peroan and Priesthood. That is what the Writer seeks to do, convince his brethren of what is New, and what is Better (than the Law).


God bless.

Thanks. This was an interesting passage to investigate when I taught the book of Hebrews. I learned a lot from that study.