EarlDoherty

Too many problems here, Ted. First of all, any role of Jesus as High Priest in the continuing present can relate only to his duty of intercession. Where Jesus is concerned, intercession is not performed through an act of sacrifice, or even of “offering”. In relation to Jesus, the writer consistently uses the latter term in connection with the offering of the blood. When Jesus “offers” something it is always his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. Offering, for him, has nothing to do with intercession, nor vice-versa.

Second, that intercessory duty is defined as something that takes place in heaven following the sacrifice. There is simply no thought, opportunity or consideration of him performing an intercessory duty in earth. So why would the writer even think of spelling out that he could not be a priest in regard to his intercessory duty on earth, and certainly not because there are priests on earth doing both sacrifice and intercession? It would be a complete non-sequitur and make no sense within his overall scenario of Jesus the High Priest.

Now, I am not sure where you get a count of 12 present tense verses in 8:1-6. Here is my count:

(1) 8:1 – “exomen”…”we have a high priest…” As a reference to the general state of the present situation, the present tense is natural. The following “who sat down at the right hand…” is an aorist (past) tense, since it is referring to a past act of Jesus.

(2) 8:2 – there is no present tense in this verse. It refers to Jesus as “a minister” (a noun) in the heavenly sanctuary. What is the time frame of that? It could be related back to the presence of Jesus now in heaven in verse 1, which would imply that Jesus making intercession is somehow performed in the sanctuary. But that is far from clear, and it could be a look back at the past sacrifice in the sanctuary as another descriptive of the subject of High Priest introduced in verse 1. Even if the writer is implying that Jesus “intercedes” in the sanctuary rather than by God’s side in the throne room (which doesn’t make a lot of sense, and is not quite compatible with saying that after his sacrifice he sat down at God’s right hand, the point in time at which his intercessory duties commence), such intercession if done within the sanctuary does not include sacrifice of any sort.

(3) Verse 3 has a second present tense: “every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices…” But as I have said more than once, a present tense here is not only natural, it’s really the only choice, because the writer is speaking of a general situation which continues into the present. That in no way means that to compare Jesus with this general ongoing situation necessarily means that he will be spoken of as offering his own ‘gifts and sacrifices’ in the present, especially when there can be no thought of him doing any such thing. I gave several analogies demonstrating the combination of a general present situation with a specific past situation with which it is being compared.

In verse 3b, there is no verb, literally it reads: “it necessary to have something to offer”. The “to have” is a present infinitive, but like a present participle, it adopts the tense understanding of the verb it is attached to. Unfortunately, that verb is not stated, it is understood. And if the situation clearly points, as verse 3b does, to a past event and only a past event, then the meaning should be understood in the past (the only offering, and the only possible offering, by Jesus took place in the past), and consequently the attached participle or infinitive adopts that understanding.

(4) Now we get to verse 4. The two “en” verbs are in the imperfect—which in contrafactual situations are ambiguous: they can have a present meaning or a past meaning (Carrier notwithstanding). I have suggested that because this contrafactual is being explained by another ongoing past-into-present situation (the high priests on earth being here and continuing their duties of sacrifice), this pulled the Jesus thought into the imperfect tense rather than the aorist. Here we have another situation in which a present sense representing an ongoing situation (and here the two ‘present’s are not even verbs but present participles, which could even be optionally seen as adopting the same sense as the contrafactual statement, though not necessarily) is found in combination with a past sense referring to a specific past event. Completely natural, again as I illustrated by multiple analogies in past postings. So like verse 3a, the present tense here represents an ongoing situation in regard to the earthly high priests.

Besides, everything to do with Jesus as a priest has been related by this writer to actions performed in heaven, both sacrifice of his blood and intercession with God. There is no thought introduced anywhere that Jesus did or could perform these duties on earth, and certainly not in the present. Why, then, even think of making such a statement about a present situation? It isn’t even possible theoretically. Ironically, the only time when that could have been conceived was in the past, even though that remains incompatible with locating such activities by Jesus solely in heaven, as the writer has done.

(5) Verse 5’s present tense verb again refers to the ongoing duties of the earthly priests, and is related to a comparison with Moses in the past (combination of past and present senses in one verse…imagine!), but this present tense does nothing to cast light on the question of Jesus.

(6) Verse 6’s verb “tetuxen” is actually the perfect tense (“has obtained”) which shows that ongoing past-to-present situation. Like verse 1-2, the writer is now summing up the present status of Jesus: he has received a superior ministry, he is mediator of the new covenant, and that has been founded on the promises of God in scripture. There is nothing there which has to reflect back on the previous remarks about Jesus’ sacrifice or being a priest on earth. You (or Bernard) can’t just point to the existence of present tenses in some cases throughout this paragraph (and they number nowhere near 12) and think that this automatically governs or tells you anything about the meaning of other statements. That is not an argument at all, let alone a strong one. It is not grammatical or literary scholarship. You have to parse the passage, and if you do that you can see that you cannot end up with a present-day understanding for 8:4a.

I think I have exhausted the number of ways I can make or summarize my argument for 8:4. To the more open-minded reader, I am sure I have made my point.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

All you have done is to ignore the statements in Hebrews and the Canon that imply or claim that Jesus the Son of God was on earth and selected an ambiguous passage.

You do not seem to understand that you have not presented any corroborative evidence at all that Jesus the Son of God was NOT believed to be on earth by early Christians and was believed to be crucified in the heavens.

You cannot produce a single early Christian source from the 1st century and cannot produce any 1st century Christian that claim Jesus the Son of God was never on earth and was crucified in the sub-lunar.

Hebrews 8.4 is not the only verse in the Epistle. There are multiple verses that clearly imply that Jesus, the Son of God, was on earth and suffered on earth.

Bernard Muller

Emphasis mine

It seems that Doherty is avoiding to comment on Heb 7:14, which would destroy his very complicated theory about 8:14. So I'll bring it on again:

“For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” Heb 7:14

Doherty wrote, regarding Heb 7:14 (without providing any evidence):
“Melchizedek was traditionally seen as part of pre-Abrahamic (thus Canaanite) dynasty of priest kings, a line that continued through David when he conquered Jerusalem, and thus Melchizedek's line became associated with the tribe of Judah.”

I object: this Melchizedek, not even an Israelite, could not be associated with the tribe of Judah (which did not exist yet). And in the OT, he is never connected to any tribe, and never said part of the same line as the one of David.

Then Doherty followed through this unevidenced (and illogical) assumption later:
“The scriptural Melchizedek has provided this new High Priest [Jesus] with a tribe, that of Judah”

Then Doherty mentioned some Qumran scrolls, 2 Enoch, other little known Jewish texts (not in the OT) and associated scholarly speculations who would have Melchizedek as a messianic, possibly angelic figure and a priest in Heaven.
He wrote next: “Beside, if a Melchizedek in Heaven could be identified with the tribe of Judah, there seems little reason to deny that convenience to the High Priest Jesus”

The problem here is that the author of 'Hebrews' never described Melchizedek (besides not identified with the tribe of Judah) as operating as a priest in Heaven. Instead, in 7:1-10 (except for priest forever), he kept very close to the OT description, with Melchizedek being always a human.

The point that the author was making is that Melchizedek, just like Jesus (7:13, 14), was not from the Levite tribe (7:6, 10) and therefore both were rather unique (not associated with those who made Jewish animal sacrifices for centuries) “you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (7:17)

And that Jesus from the tribe of Judah was evident (according to 'Hebrews'). But Doherty wrote "it is evident" (prodelon) of 7:14 needs to be seen as a reference to the clarity bestowed by scripture.”

What scriptures? Sectarian ones (that is later not classified as canonical) that the author cannot be proven to know or follow? That his audience was unlikely to know about.
And no OT scripture has Melchizedek associated with the tribe of Judah, which did not exist yet.

But why would it be so evident? Jesus was then believed to be a (himself from the tribe of Judah). Even Paul had to accept that (Ro 1:3 & 5:12). But the author of Hebrews (and Paul) never saw Jesus as a King (in past, present and future), so he had no reason to mention a descendance from David and that was not part of the point he was making. All he needed was Jesus being from a different tribe than the Levites. And if it was evident that Jesus came from David's descent, then the same could be told about Jesus being from David's tribe, Judah.

Doherty asked his readers to make several leaps of faith, including:
a) Melchizedek being thought closely associated with the tribe of Judah.
b) The author and his audience knowing & accepting Melchizedek in heaven as a priest (stated from texts outside the scriptures)
c) Because both Jesus and Melchizedek being priest in heaven, Jesus would have inherited from Melchizedek being from the Judah tribe.

Even if, as Doherty already stated, the recipients of the letter would be already mythicists, believing Jesus never set foot on earth, so they would not be shocked when hearing 7:14. But how could they not be stunned:
“For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.”

Of course, for an ancient audience who thought Jesus had been on earth as a regular human, that statement would not cause any commotion. But that's probably too simplistic for Doherty.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

Hebrews is NOT about a regular human being. Hebrew's Jesus is God INCARNATE--the Son of God who came in the Flesh.

Hebrews 4:14 KJVHebrews 5 Epistle Hebrews is compatible with the Canon and the teachings of the Church--Jesus was the Son of God was manifested in the flesh.

The Epistle Hebrews would have been rejected as fiction if Jesus was a known man.

Hebrews only makes sense or appears plausible if Jesus was believed to be God Incarnate.

EarlDoherty

I have resolved not to bother answering Bernard's postings in comprehensive detail, since it has proven to be a pointless exercise, but when time permits I will point out where he is egregiously at fault. One element of his lastest posting deserves comment. His central focus is upon the statement in 7:14 that Jesus was descended from Judah:

First of all, he is using an English translation here. The Greek is "prodēlon gar hoti ex Iouda anatetalken ho kurios hēmōn”, literally: “for it is clear that out of Judah has arisen the Lord of us.” Not “descended from Judah.” In fact, this is what Buchanan (Anchor Bible, epistle to the Hebrews, p.124-5) has to say about the verb “anatellein”:

The point is that the writer is NOT saying that Jesus was “descended” from Judah, but that he “arose”. This is somewhat reminiscent of Paul in Galatians 4:4 allegedly saying that the Son was “born of woman” using not gennaō, which would be the normal word for “born” but ginomai which means more "to come into existence" or “arise”.

Bernard, on the other hand, is arguing from the position of a “descended” meaning. Now, I have labelled him an atomist, in that he seizes on words or phrases (usually in English) and invests them with the meaning and significance he wants. And yet I don’t think it is too much to expect even an atomist to notice that literally within a few inches of the word or phrase he seizes on there is another phrase which directly contradicts it.

So within half a hop from Bernard's “our Lord was descended from Judah,” we find this statement in verse 16:

So the writer has immediately disassociated himself with legitimizing Jesus’ priesthood according to any law of physical descent, and declares that it is on the basis of his ‘likeness’ to Melchizedek in regard to “the power of an indestructible life”. And the latter is entirely demonstrated by the quote from Psalm 110:1, “thou art a priest forever.” This the author in no way illustrates by Jesus’ resurrection from his earthly grave, but by his link to Melchizedek whom he has deduced from scripture enjoyed neither a birth nor a death:

Not only has the writer not thought to appeal to a resurrection of a human man from the dead as a demonstration of indestructible life, he declares that Melchizedek, in having neither father, mother, genealogy, neither a beginning of days nor end of life, has been made like the Son of God . How could the writer have styled his Jesus this way, without a word of qualification or explanation, if that Jesus had been born of a mother/woman, had a father, had a genealogy, and definitely a beginning of his days and an end of that earthly life?

Like I have said, Bernard thinks things through, and drills down into the text, to a depth of about a quarter of an inch.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Your claim is erroneous. There is NO known scripture that Melchizedek neither enjoyed birth or death. It is Jesus the Son of God that is claimed to be from the beginning and was before anything was made and was resurrected.

Melchizedek was a human being in Hebrew Scripture and is only mentioned TWICE--ONCE in Genesis 14 and the other in Psalms 110. We know NOTHING about Melchizedek except it was claimed he was King of Salem and a High Priest.

Genesis 14:18 KJVPsalm 110:4 KJV Hebrews 7.3 is about the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Melchisedek was a human being.

It is the Son of God who remains a High Priest forever.

Melchizedek King of Salem, the High Priest was ALREADY dead before Hebrews was written.

maryhelena

I already posted the quote, below, from Philo. (post #296)

I'm doing so again to suggest that all this back and forth with Doherty is proving not only to be futile but is also allowing Doherty to demean and ridicule those who have opposed his interpretation of Hebrews 8:4.

Doherty is running with a 'past' interpretation of Heb.8:4. Other posters here want to run with a 'present' interpretation of Heb.8:4. The passage is ambigious - allowing both sides to continue this back and forth for evermore.

If, as has happened here, Doherty seeks to belittle his opponents - surely, people, why continue to take it? For myself - I try - but when all I get in return is ridicule for my ideas - I'm not prepared to seek further exchange on the presented ideas. I don't take kindly to being dismissed by one who strikes out with such haughty disdain to his challengers. 'Truth' does not need to be supported by intimidation and bullying tactics. 'Truth', as the saying goes, will out. It is errors of judgement that require all of the haughty display of 'right' that their misguided proponents can marshal.

As to Hebrews 8:4 - and actually to Hebrews in general: This quote from Philo says about all that needs to be said - and used - in the interpretation of that writing:

Bernard Muller

Emphasis mine

to Doherty:

"for [it is] evident that out of Judah hath arisen our Lord, in regard to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." 7:14 YLT
it is obvious that the author meant Jesus had his human origin from the tribe of Judah, a tribe which did not provide priests. Another way of saying Jesus was not a Levite, just like Melchizedek. So "was descended from", "arose out of" or "sprung out of" is the same in this case.

Your two other quotes are ambiguous in order to prove anything.

But I note, for 7:16 "if another priest like Melchizedek arises": Melchizedek is described in the OT & 'Hebrews' as human. So this other priest certainly could have been the same.

For 7:3, the author reflected on what is not said in the OT about Melchizedek. As a human, certainly he had mother, father, genealogy, beginning and end of life, but the OT did not say it.
"but having been made like the Son of God" is explained by what follows "he (Melchizedek) remains a priest forever"
The author took advantage of the death of Melchizedek being not stated in the OT, to say he remained a priest forever. Therefore "having been made" (perfect tense: action completed in the past with continuing results) "like the Son of God" looks only relative of Melchizebek being a priest forever. But I have no problem about Melchizebek being made like the Son of God, because Melchizebek is human in the OT and "Hebrews" as also Jesus in "Hebrews", in the past (7:14, 2:14-17, 5:7).

I notice you are not defending your explanations from JNGNM. Yes, they look pretty bad.

Cordially, Bernard

Clivedurdle

I understand the Eucharist as continually repeating the sacrifice of Christ's blood in the heavens. Earl, you have Church history and practice supporting you!


The Church continually muddles the past and the present, and the future.

Kapyong

Gday all,

Hmmm... quite an interesting piece.
And not a bad analogy either :-)

I'm glad you're hanging in there still, there are still those who read your work and think about it - much of it is beyond me of course, not knowing the Greek.

Kapyong