----- Original Message ----- 
From: "H Dorrington" <hjdinfl@...>
> Someone suggested to me that logical interpolation is not exegesis.

That's absolutely true.  But Biblical theology is not interpolation.  It's
exegetically extracting the metanarrative that is embedded in the text...
the interpretation arises from the text in Biblical theology:
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/gvbiblical.htm

Chad

> "Where is there a word about Christ's keeping the law for us, in order
that this should be accepted in lieu of man's failure? >Are we to supplement
the written word, as if God did not know the truth better than we?"

The questions arise from a false view of the canon and hermeneutics... the
denial that God reveals himself in the implied as much as the explicit.
Christ's keeping the law is not supplemental... it is exegesis of the text
in understanding the Old Testament in light of the New.  The Old
Concealed... the New Revealed.

> Looking back at the book of Hebrews of which we have been talking, check
out 2:9,10; 9:26; 13:12.  These verses >show that Jesus' suffering and his
obedience are in relation to his sacrificial death.

This is only partly true.  Christ's suffering and his obedience are not
*only* in relation to his sacrificial death.The Kadesh Barnea template of
the Hebrews writer involves much more than the sacrificial death.
"Suffering" does not = "death" in every passage of Hebrews.  That hasn't
been proven... it is in fact, interpolation of the text, to use someone
else's words.

>They reveal how strong this tie is. But even if we down play these verses
and say His entire life should be regarded as >suffering it still does not
prove that Christ kept the law in lieu of man's failure so that He may earn
additional righteousness >to be imputed to His elect.

True.  This is proven in Romans 5:10, John 10:14 and elsewhere.  Hebrews 5
is support of other passages in the canon in its suggestion that Christ's
lifelong obedience to the law through suffering *made* him perfect in order
to be the perfect high priest and perfect sacrifice.  *Perfect*, anywhere
and everywhere in Hebrews, has absolutely no meaning apart from the Law.  It
is a legal/forensic term... unless one is an Auburnite or NPP.

> "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
attested to by the law and the prophets." The >righteousness of God,
therefore, is no longer like Joseph, a shadow of coming good but is
manifested in the person of the >incarnate Son of God. Notice the Holy
Spirit chose to describe it as "without the law" rather than saying it was
earned by >the law.

That's an interesting way of interpreting that verse.  "without the law" has
nothing to do with whether or not Christ had to earn salvation through
obedience to the law.  This passage is not about Christ's relationship to
the law, but the sinner's.  The law kills the sinner.  So salvation must
come to the sinner "without the law".  Christ, as the righteousness of God,
has been revealed to the sinner as a way of salvation in which he does not
have to meet the law's standards.  Christ has already done so... and Paul
anticipates your objection by rebutting it two chapters later.

In fact, both Christ and Paul state precisely the opposite of your
interpretation in Matthew 19:17 and Romans 10:5... passages where both
Christ and Paul are exegeting Leviticus 18:5 (Lev. 18:5 is the "don't eat
and live" recapitulation for the Mosaic covenant... in fact, Christ uses the
Genesis 2 language in his words with the lawyer where "don't eat" = "do
this").  The *only* way to salvation is through keeping the law perfectly.

>Even verse 25 says what I have been saying about Christ,  whom God
displayed publicly "to demonstrate His >righteousness"

Right... God's righteousness, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Christ was inherently righteous.  But the inherently righteous had to "learn
righteousness" in order to be the perfect sacrifice.  This verse isn't the
end-all, be-all to the discussion.

>and again in verse 26 of Romans 3:21-26 "to demonstrate at the present time
His righteousness" He didn't earn our >righteousness through active
obedience but He demonstrated His righteousness by His obedience to the law
because His >righteousness is apart from the law not because of it!

Nowhere does it say Christ's righteousness is apart from the law.  That's
misuse of this text.  In fact, such a proposition is nonsense.
Righteousness is defined by the law.  Christ both demonstrated righteousness
and learned righteousness.  One does not negate the other.

>Did the law make Him sinless did the law find no fault in Him because He
was sinless?

Neither.  Such a question is sense because it posits two ideas that are not
necessarily opposites.

>It declared Him sinless because His righteousness is apart from the law. It
is the tutor who points to Him. It testifies of >Him but no where does it
directly say that it earns us our righteousness, does it?

No... but rather it says eternal life only comes through perfect obedience
to the law (Lev. 18, Neh. 9, Ezekiel 20, Matt. 19, Luke 10, Romans 10,
Galatians 3).

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH