Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

On the matter of oikoumene, I think we’re reduced to nit-picking, so I won’t pursue that any further. I’m going to jump into the middle of Ben’s posting and focus on the essence of this whole document:



Once again, this is a narrowly semantic argument, and inaccurate, if you are claiming that the heavenly venue in which Christ offers his blood is simply heaven itself, and not a heavenly sanctuary. Let’s look at the wider context.

8:5 – “They [the earthly high priests of verse 4] serve at an earthly sanctuary which is a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things…”

The earthly sanctuary in the Temple is hardly going to be spoken of as a copy and shadow of heaven itself, but of a heavenly sanctuary. This is spelled out using that term in the next chapter:

9:11 – “…[Christ entered] through the greater and more perfect tabernacle [sknvns] not made by hands, that is, not a part of this creation…”

Even in the verse you quote, the implication is of a place in heaven. Again, he speaks of a “man-made sanctuary [on earth] merely a copy of the true one” implying a heavenly sanctuary. Since Christ is performing the prototype action of the high priest on earth, this has to entail him entering a heavenly sanctuary and there offering his blood, as the earthly priests enter the Temple Holy of Holies and offer the blood of animals. For the writer to say he “entered heaven itself” is simply a broader way of saying the same thing. He is emphasizing that this was done in heaven rather than on earth.

Now, you ask where the “sacrifice” takes place, since Christ is bringing into the sanctuary the blood which has already been shed? This attempt at compartmentalizing gets you into trouble on whatever side you want to come down on. First of all, it is clear that the writer regards Christ’s entry into the heavenly tabernacle with the offering of his blood as at least part of the “sacrifice.” Indeed, it is the only part he ever applies that term to. Part of the problem is that you are confusing the other, day-to-day sacrifices in the Temple with this special occasion in which the priests enter the inner sanctuary and make a special offering there. In the former cases, the sacrifice takes place entirely outside, in the slaughter of the animal and the burning of it. In the latter case, the “sacrifice” is entirely (or at least completed by) the entry into the sanctuary and offering the blood there. That is the type of sacrifice that Christ’s in heaven is being compared to. 9:12 says: “…the blood of his sacrifice is his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves; and thus he has entered the holy place once and for all and secured an eternal deliverance.” The key act, and thus the “sacrifice” takes place not outside, but comprises the act of entry with the blood and its offering to God there. (Good grief, what a primitive concept, whether it takes place on Calvary or in heaven, and we are still defending this as the essence of eternal truth and salvation??!!...But I digress.)

Thus I have to object in this case that the concept of “sacrifice” is confined only to outside the sanctuary, on the alter of slaughter. Otherwise, the entry into the tabernacle would be redundant, an afterthought, whereas in the thinking of this writer it is the essence of the whole process, and where Christ in heaven is concerned the act which provides salvation. You are trying to find an “implication” that the sacrifice takes place previously, and further that it takes place on earth, but neither of those implications is present in the text, but only in the preconceptions that you bring to it. In fact it is conspicuous by its absence. As I have said ad nauseum, if “the sacrifice did not take place in heaven” how could the author so thoroughly ignore that dimension? How can he use the word and concept of “sacrifice” so many times and never mention the earthly dimension of it? (I am not saying that the writer could not have had the actual ‘death’ of Christ which produced the blood in mind in the background of his thought, but since it plays no role in his soteriological picture it can hardly square with the concept that it was something that took place in recent history in an identifiable place and to a man with an earthly identity, all things which show up nowhere throughout the epistle.)

And even if, for the sake of argument, we were to regard the “sacrifice” as taking place on earth, then you are still between a rock and a hard place, because then all those problems and contradictions we have been discussing surrounding 8:4 come back into play. If the sacrifice took place on earth, how is the dichotomy preserved between the heavenly High Priest and the earthly high priests, the functioning of their separate activities, since they would both be taking place on earth? This cannot be resolved in any fashion which preserves a crucifixion on Calvary.

But let’s go back to our heavenly scene in chapter 9. I have long pointed this out, but have never received a rebuttal. As I said, the “sacrifice” as portrayed by the writer is consistently the ENTRY into the heavenly tabernacle and the OFFERING of the blood. This is an action performed in heaven, in the spiritual dimension. (And by the way, it is in association with that entry that the writer uses the phrase (10:20), “the curtain of his flesh,” referring to the curtain of the sanctuary, namely the heavenly sanctuary. This places the term and concept of Christ’s “flesh” in a spiritual dimension, with an entirely mystical meaning.)

In view of that “entry” and “offering” as the act of “sacrifice”, let’s look at the key paragraph of 9:23-26, and I’ll bold the essential sentences so we can see the connections. (And note once again the linking of the idea of “sacrifices” with the heavenly sanctuary in verse 23):

23. If then, these sacrifices cleanse the copies of heavenly things, those heavenly things themselves require better sacrifices to cleanse them. 24. For Christ has entered, not that sanctuary made by men’s hands which is only a symbol of the reality, but heaven itself, to appear now before God on our behalf. 25. Nor is he there to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the sanctuary year by year with blood not his own. 26. If that were so, he would have had to suffer many times since the world was made. But as it is, he has appeared once and for all at the climax of history to abolish sin by the sacrifice of himself. [NEB translation]

How does Christ “abolish sin”? By offering his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. The “appearing to abolish sin” of verse 26 is in the same category as the “appearing before God” in verse 24, and as the “offering himself” of verse 25. It is all focused on the same act in heaven. This is further strengthened by verse 28a: “so Christ was offered once to bear the burden of men’s sins…” Again, the “offering” takes place in the heavenly sanctuary, which is the act which is stated as removing sins. It is all of a piece. Nowhere is there a reference to an earthly event. Within this “piece”, verse 26b cannot simply be taken out of context and labeled a reference to Christ’s incarnation and life on earth. Again, that is what is known as consistency and makes for a secure interpretation along mythicist lines, including the suggested meaning of 8:4.

(If you want to raise the question of 28b, with its alleged reference to a “second” coming, I’ll simply point you to my discussion of that mistaken interpretation in the Epilogue to my website Article No. 7. And just prior to that, you’ll find a full discussion of why the writer speaks of Christ’s offering as “once” and “once for all”, and why he places it in the present time.)



And again, you are still missing the point. The author never defines or shows an understanding of Christ “being a priest” in relation to before or after his death. How can it be “plain in the epistle” when such a matter or definition is never raised? It is anything but “plain” since it is never discussed, and that in itself would be unusual in an orthodox scenario. It is “plain” to you only within the context of the preconceptions you are bringing to the epistle, which you are reading into it. Let me keep reiterating this until you can grasp it. If the writer had a concept of Jesus having been on earth and having performed his sacrifice on Calvary, then he would have had to clarify that he was not a “priest” until after his death; he would have to clarify the natural confusion that would be created by his exclusive focus of the “sacrifice” and the abolishing of sin as an act in heaven. He would have had to talk about Calvary somewhere along the line, since (as you yourself demonstrate) that would be natural and expected. He would never present his soteriological picture the way he has if that dramatic Gospel picture of the crucifixion on Calvary lay in the background of his awareness.

When you link this silence with the silence in chapter 1, which I have repeatedly referred to without eliciting any attempted explanation from you, with the silence in chapter 12 on the Mount of Calvary as an antitype to Mount Sinai (instead, the scene of the new covenant is Mt. Zion!!!), with the silence in chapter 11 on Jesus as a prime example of all those models of “faith” in the power of God, and so on. There is not a word about anything Christ said or did on earth.

Does all this not bother you, Ben? I forgot—even if there were a thousand such silences, you would not be troubled. You live in a different conceptual universe. Believe me, I am not taunting you. I am trying to demonstrate how this stance of yours is beyond reason, beyond common sense. You asked about 5:7, or said that you didn’t understand my point. I pointed out how mainstream commentators have identified the ‘material’ referred to in 5:7 as dependent on scripture, that it is derived from it, from two phrases in the Psalms. Why would the writer do this? Why pass up referring to something historical (just as he does in chapter 2 in quoting scripture instead of sayings of Jesus), even to make a specific point? Would there have been no tradition (even if he didn’t know any Gospels) that Jesus had ever prayed to God?

Look back to 5:4. The writer is making the point that every high priest, including Jesus, gets to be “called by God.” A prior example: “as indeed Aaron was.” Aaron was an historical man. He goes on to say: “So it is with Christ.” Wouldn’t the most natural thing be to provide a parallel historical example of Christ being called by God? Does he do that? No, the parallel in regard to Christ is in scripture! Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4. When he goes on in 5:7 to give an example of Christ praying to God (“in the days of his flesh”), it is again in scripture. This should tell us at least one thing. That the writer has no problem in placing historical prototypes with scriptural/mythological antitypes (in contradiction to what someone like Buchanan claims is going on in this epistle). Aaron living in history can be compared/equated to Christ living in scripture. This is the mindset and view of reality which throws everyone, which makes it so difficult for the literalists (like yourself) to understand what is going on here. In order to enter that mindset, you have to step outside your orthodox, Gospel-induced box. You have to enter the thoroughly mystical world-view of these writers, a world-view we find throughout the epistles, and in other documents like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Odes of Solomon (and much of the early Gnostic writings as well), all of which contain no historical view of Jesus. Until you make an effort to do that, you and I, historicists and mythicists will continually talk past each other.

While we’re in chapter 5, what do you make of verse 12: “you need someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God again…”? He is referring to the discussion he has just given about Christ and Melchizedek taken from scripture. Then he sums up in 6:1 that these are “the rudiments of the word about Christ”. He is saying that everything about Christ is known from scripture; nothing is presented throughout the epistle as known from historical tradition. And none of these “rudiments” come from the teachings of Christ himself, on earth. This is not mere “silence.” It falls into that category of what I have called “positive silence” (despite Kevin’s misgivings about this term). Hebrews is a picture complete, coherent, and consistent in itself. This community views Christ as an entity revealed by scripture, and perhaps visionary revelation. He has arisen out of Platonic-Logos and Jewish-Wisdom thinking, the fundamental philosophical concept of the age. They have interpreted his acts of salvation according to scripture. Every opportunity, and necessity, to mention anything to do with a supposed earthly career, is ignored. If this were any other area or discipline than Christianity, we would use what is said in the epistle itself to create a picture of its ancient faith and thought processes. As it is, you are engaged in a vast exercise to introduce into it what is clearly not there, and me to try to get you to see that it is entirely unjustified and unnecessary.

I have no doubt that I am going to fail. But perhaps I have been able along the way to get others who are not so locked into the same box to see what is going on here, and perhaps influence their view of things.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I pointed out how mainstream commentators have identified the ‘material’ referred to in 5:7 as dependent on scripture, that it is derived from it, from two phrases in the Psalms. Why would the writer do this? Why pass up referring to something historical (just as he does in chapter 2 in quoting scripture instead of sayings of Jesus), even to make a specific point? ... This is the mindset and view of reality which throws everyone, which makes it so difficult for the literalists (like yourself) to understand what is going on here. In order to enter that mindset, you have to step outside your orthodox, Gospel-induced box.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

there are obvious silences in Paul that suggest that some details of the Gospel Jesus were unknown to him. [Emphasis added]

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Nice understatement.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
Acts 17:11-12:

"But the people of Beroea were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, and gladly listened to the message. They searched the Scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and Silas' statements, to see if they were really so." 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

Acts makes the point that Paul's listeners checked Scriptures "day by day to see if they were really so", and that many of them believed from that. (Interestingly enough, that happens even today). While not against mythicism, it shows that there was pressure to find Christ prefigured in the OT, and this pressure extended until the 2nd C CE:

Ignatius (writing in the first half of the Second Century):

"And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved."

Again, we see the pressure to prove Christ through the OT. The Gospel message could only be justified if found in the OT.

Justin Martyr (writing around 150 CE):

"For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man."

If there were any controversy over Christ being the Messiah prophecised in the Scriptures, how would Paul highlighting information about Christ that wasn't found in the OT have helped him? Would you expect Paul to say, "Well, this isn't EXACTLY what you'll find in the OT..."?

It wasn't until the Gospels gained their own reputation around the end of the 2nd C that we see it starting to be used on the same level as the OT.

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The reason why the author of Hebres used "in the days of his flesh" is because the author of Hebrews and many other early Christians argue that once Jesus died, he became spirit, i.e. he was flesh but soon lost it. We see the exact same thing in Paul.

In both cases, the evidence stands strongly that Jesus was once a man who became spirit.

But since I'm ignoring the problem, obviously none of this counts.

Oh, and of course, there is nothing in Earl's post defending a Platonic Hebrews, but merely an analogy to Josephus. Substance, people, substance!

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

On the question of "why", I think there is a very good reason for the use of scriptural quotes instead of to real-life events, esp if those real-life events couldn't be matched back to the OT. Let's look at 3 statements from writings that are from historicist sources:

Acts 17:11-12:
"But the people of Beroea were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica, and gladly listened to the message. They searched the Scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and Silas' statements, to see if they were really so." 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.