Chad:The canon was never intended to be read this way. Hebrews 5:8-9, while serving an immediate purpose for the original hearers, also plays a foundational role for the doctrine in the rest of scripture. So while imputation might not be at the forefront of the writer of Hebrews minds... *if* he is invoking the idea in support of something, then it certainly becomes a consideration for the other passages where imputation *is* primary in a biblical author's mind. No passage is ever isolated from the rest of the canon. Christ never intended his revelation to be used that way. Steve: I am afraid he might have misunderstood what I wrote. I agree with what he wrote above. The issue is that the purpose of the passage is not to teach about imputation and the references that might be to imputation cannot be nailed down. The passage is not explicit enough. Then he snipped my point that "Christ was made perfect by another" Chad: Well, no, not *another*. The immediate antecedent is suffering obedience... Christ's being made perfect is "passive", but the source of the action is the obedience learned through suffering. Steve:He is right. I was wrong. Good point. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him Christ was made perfect by His obedience that he learned through suffering. Those who hold to the imputation of the active obedience of Christ read it this way or at least this seems to be the basic thought paraphrase "Through Christ's life of suffering he learned to perfectly obey the Mosaic Law and once he had passed the probationary period he was made (pronounced?) perfectly obedient and then he became the source of eternal life by the legal merit he accrued that He then imputes to all His people." I think this is reading into the text far too much. He snipped me writing: >It was through "suffering" not obedience to the law. Chad: This isn't what the text says. "Obedience to the law" is the context for the entire section that begins in 3:7 and is the antecedent for the "perfection" in question. Christ's obedience is set over against Israel's disbobedience to the Law. The Law and its test at Kadesh Barnea is the immediate context for Christ's "obedience" through suffering. Further, this statement above makes a false distinction between "suffering" and "obedience" when the language of the paragraph says that Christ's "suffering" was His obedience to the law. The two are cause and effect in this passage. Suffering was the catalyst for learning obedience to the law. Steve: The question is what is the relationship of "obedience" to "made perfect." In addition, even if Christ is made perfect through obedience to the Mosaic Law (which I wholeheartedly affirm that He did perfectly obey), the question is does the text say that His legal perfection is imputed to us? Steve: I don't agree that the context for the section is obedience to the law. I do agree that there is a tie in with temptation, faithfulness and obedience. Jesus was all of those, in addition to being both God and man. All these things make him better than Moses and the angels and make him more qualified to be the perfect hight priest. I think that is the issue at hand in the text. He first says that "his suffering was his obedience to the law." This is likely a misstatement. He later makes the point that Christ's suffering taught him obedience, unlike the Hebrews who were suffering and deciding to rebel by not persevering. I agree with that. Chad: Further, as your friend has pointed out, the writer of Hebrews is going to bring this to bear again in chapter 10, where the readers themselves are called to obedience through suffering. But contrary to his position.... the context is still obedience to *a* Law, albeit it's not the same, but a parallel. The context is no longer obedience to the Mosaic Law, but obedience to the New Torah (10:29). Steve: I am not arguing that there is a strong urgency in the book of Hebrews for them to listen to the Son and that is a call to obedience to law. But, I think this is the wrong way to go in this discussion. Christ was obedient to the Mosaic Law. We all agree. But what does it mean that He was made perfect in those verses? What is the relationship of obedience to that perfection? The first speaks about Christ's perfection in relation to his priesthood in 5:8-9. Then 7:18-19 tell us that the law could make nothing perfect. 7:28 tells us that Christ who was appointed on oath was "made perfect forever" as the great Melchizedekian priest. Then again he makes His people "perfect" through His one priestly sacrifice (10:14). The issue is priesthood that runs through all of this language of perfection. Jesus' obedience makes him the "perfect" high priest and the "perfect" once for all time sacrifice. He certainly obtained his perfection through obedience to the law, as well as suffering temptation, taking on flesh, and being from the tribe of Judah. The question is whether imputation is taught anywhere in 5:8-9. I don't see it. I think 10:14 is so important in this debate because perfection is actually granted to Christ's people only it is solely in the context of Christ's sacrifice. He became perfect through obedience among other things, but we become perfect through blood. Chad Richard Bresson <breusswane@...> wrote:----- Original Message ----- From: "H Dorrington" > These verses certainly could be in agreement with the teaching of the imputation of Christ's law-keeping. But they do not >*teach* the doctrine. So 5:8-9 could be an affirmation of the doctrine if it was actually taught somewhere else in >Scripture....But the bottom line is that Hebrews 5:8-9 is not a passage that is about the imputation of the active obedience >of Christ so it cannot be used to as a foundational passage in support of that doctrine. The canon was never intended to be read this way. Hebrews 5:8-9, while serving an immediate purpose for the original hearers, also plays a foundational role for the doctrine in the rest of scripture. So while imputation might not be at the forefront of the writer of Hebrews minds... *if* he is invoking the idea in support of something, then it certainly becomes a consideration for the other passages where imputation *is* primary in a biblical author's mind. No passage is ever isolated from the rest of the canon. Christ never intended his revelation to be used that way. Chad Bresson Xenia, OH --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! -- Read the Sound of Grace pages at http://www.soundofgrace.com To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... To view our online archive go to our web page at http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace