EarlDoherty

Herewith my long-delayed response to TedM’s rebuttal to my “Hebrews 8:4 Challenge”. I will not necessarily follow the order of his remarks in the posting which he has “brought forward” from September 26 last.

He thinks to claim a ‘balance of probability’ for the application of the general grammatical rule regarding contrafactual statements:

First of all, I’m glad he says “based on grammar alone,” which is all that he addresses in his post. We are still lacking any response to my contention that, regardless of grammar considerations, the passage in a present sense makes no sense and is even contrary to the logic of the situation. And I don’t think that appealing to some kind of percentage of possibility is a very compelling argument. As long as there is a sizeable group of usages which run counter to the general grammatical usage, that would be shaky grounds for arguing that it must fall into the general category.

Later in his posting, Ted uses the word “exception.” But that’s a bit of a misleading term. Let me repeat what Paul Ellingworth says on the matter:

The second difficulty concerns the meaning of the two occurrences of ēn. The imperfect in unreal [contrafactual] conditions is temporally ambiguous (BD §360 [3]), so that NEB ‘Now if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest’ (so Attridge) is grammatically possible. However, it goes against the context, in at least apparently excluding Christ’s present ministry, and it could also be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never ‘been on earth.’ Most versions accordingly render: ‘If he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all’ (REB, NJB; similarly RSV, TEV, NIV…).

Note that Ellingworth does not use the word “exception.” It is a case of this particular structure in some cases having the quality of being ambiguous. (My own thinking is that when one element of the comparison extends into the present—as I have and will further point out which is the case for the earthly priests who are still performing their sacrifices—the natural option to choose is the one using the imperfect tense, since its present continuation can only be expressed using the imperfect tense option.) And why does Ellingworth balk at opting for the NEB’s past tense translation? Not because it’s more probable, percentage-wise, to understand the present, but because it could be “misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had ever been on earth.” A clear case of preconception and Gospel-oriented tradition governing scholarly exegesis.

Further, as I have pointed out (JNGNM, endnote 87), right in Hebrews (7:11 and 8:7), the imperfect-tense option is used in a context where it is clear that a past sense is meant and required. It would seem that the “exception” to the “general rule” is actually quite exceptionally frequent. So Ted’s argument here has little if any force.

In delving into the passage itself, I will use the NEB translation, since it is the one which opts for the past sense rendering in verse 4. First, back up to 7:26. The writer has just been lauding Jesus the new High Priest, talking of his priesthood and his qualities for filling that role (including God’s guarantee found in scripture and the superiority of his covenant):

26 – Such a high priest does indeed fit our condition—devout, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, raised [or, exalted] high above the heavens. 27 – He has no need to offer sacrifices daily, as the high priests do, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; for this he did once and for all when he offered up himself. 28 – The high priests made by the Law are men in all their frailty; but the priest appointed by the words of the oath which supersedes the Law is the Son, made perfect now for ever….

Before going on, note that there is no hint here that this new high priest was ever among “men in all their frailty” or shared in the weaknesses of that frail flesh. In fact, v.28 calls him “the Son” (no ‘the former Jesus of Nazareth’ here) and he was appointed solely in a heavenly—that is, a scriptural—context, by the words of God in scripture. Note also in v.27, that the Son’s sacrificial activity is confined to the past, even in theory: he does not even in theory offer sacrifices in the present, since he has done that “once for all when he offered up himself.” In that connection, note the use of the word “offer” (the verb anapherō). It refers to sacrifices and to Jesus’ own sacrifice of his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be important to remember a few verses later.

8:1 – Now this is my main point: just such a high priest we have, and he has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heavens, 2 - a ministrant in the real sanctuary, the tent pitched by the Lord and not by man…

Ted’s parsing of the whole passage leading to 8:4 is heavily dependent on claiming that there is a mix of past and present tenses/senses throughout. I don’t deny the latter, although this feature does not do the job he is trying to make it do. One minor point I will note here. In 8:1, some translations (including Ted’s preference, the NASB) render the verb in the perfect tense (in italics above) which has a present-including connotation, but the verb in the Greek is actually past (aorist): “…who sat (down) at the right hand of the throne…” (so NIV). Verse 2, in fact, has a bit of shift sideways, or rather backwards, for it speaks of this high priest as being a minister in the “real sanctuary,” the “tent” pitched by the Lord. Now, since ministering in the heavenly sanctuary relates specifically and solely to the Son’s sacrifice, prior to his taking a seat beside God (see 1:3b), we can see that the writer is somewhat jumping around between different aspects of the high priest’s work. What can we identify as the part of that work which can be seen to relate to an ongoing present sense? Not the sacrifice. Not the offering. It is the other aspect of the Son’s activity on behalf of humanity which the writer occasionally speaks of: intercession. That continues to take place in the present. But the sacrifice, the offering, does not.

Let’s look back even further to a couple of verses which Ted actually appeals to in his argument about the presence of the present tense/sense in our passage:

7:24 – but the priesthood which Jesus holds is perpetual, because he remains for ever. 25 - That is why he is also able to save absolutely those who approach God through him; he is always living to plead on their behalf.

Yes, this is a present tense thought. That is why Jesus continues to serve as High Priest in heaven: he fills the role of intercessor, in parallel with that aspect of the high priests’ duties on earth who also intercede with God on the people’s behalf. But the writer has been careful to point out, including in our passage, that Jesus the High Priest performs his intercession not through sacrifices, since his single, once-for-all sacrifice (to establish the new covenant and eternally purge sin) has already taken place and need not and cannot be repeated.

So in a passage in which the writer is touching all bases in regard to the heavenly Jesus’ high priestly activities, it is natural that there will be a mix of present and past tenses, and Ted cannot use the presence of a couple of the former to impose that sense on those parts which, for their own reasons, must be taken in an actual past sense.

Now, I pointed out that between 8:1 and 8:2, the writer changes gears. From speaking of “just such a high priest we have [present],” he switches gears to refer to his past ministrant duty in the heavenly sanctuary:

…a ministrant in the real sanctuary, the tent pitched by the Lord and not by man.

The NIV gives us a rather misleading translation: “…who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.” There is no verb “serves” in the Greek to place the thought of being a “ministrant” in the sanctuary in the present. Besides, even Christ’s intercessory duties are never said to take place in the heavenly sanctuary. In fact, he is said to intercede with God from his position of being beside him on the throne. This is another distinction between earth and heaven. The high priests do “intercede” with God through the process of offering sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary, both Sinai tent and Jerusalem temple. But Jesus in heaven does it not through his sacrifice. The latter is for the “purgation of sins” (1:3, cf. 9:22).

So the writer’s thought is now back in the realm of the sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, Jesus’ offering of his blood there. When the writer goes on to say,

Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: hence, this one too must have [NEB footnote: Or, must have had] something to offer.

he is clearly still in that realm. This is clinched by not only the word “sacrifices”, but the verb “offer”, which relates only to the offering of blood; in the case of Jesus, the offering of his own blood. There is no “offering” involved in Jesus the High Priest’s intercessory duties.

Now, Ted has made a big deal out of the “every high priest is appointed…” Why not, he asks, if the comparison to Jesus entails a past location in time, as I claim, does he not use the past tense, “every high priest was appointed…”?

But even as a generality, the past tense would be awkward. This part of the verse is a general statement. There is no reason to think that it does not merit a present tense, much less that it creates confusion, as Ted claims. If I say, “No one should drive drunk, so you should not have driven home from the bar yesterday,” that is perfectly natural. It sets a generality which applies to all times against a specificity in the past. To say, “No one should have driven drunk, so you should not have driven home from the bar yesterday,” would be less natural to say the least. “Everyone wears black to a funeral, so it was fitting that I wore black at my mother’s funeral.” A general past/present set against a past specific. The examples could be endless.

So as I maintain, the specific “must have had something to offer” works in perfect harmony with a general statement preceding it in the present tense, with no confusion. And Jesus’ sacrifice, his “something to offer,” was specific, a once-for-all occurrence which has already taken place and cannot be repeated. Ted objects:

But he does mention a sacrifice. By using the word “offer” he is implying sacrifice. It cannot be intercession, because there is no offering involved in that aspect of his post-sacrifice duties. (And note that they are post-sacrifice.) Jesus does not fulfill his intercessory role until after the sacrifice when he joins God in the throne room, where he remains. And surely it is really reaching for it by asking that he repeat the word “sacrifice” right after he has just said that “every high priest [which includes Jesus, as the rest of the sentence shows he is part of that group] is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.” Again,

is not “vague” at all. The preceding clause makes it clear that this is in fact the “something” he is “referring to.” Both are indeed in the same verse. And there is nothing that Christ has “to offer on an ongoing basis.” The “offering” is restricted to the act in the heavenly sanctuary. To repeat, in Jesus’ case there is no “offering” involved in his interceding.

Now Ted jumps ahead a few verses and quotes verse 6:

But in fact the ministry which has fallen to Jesus is as far superior to theirs [i.e., the high priests on earth] as are the covenant he mediates and the promises upon which it is legally secured.

Ted somehow wants to have a present tense comparison here reflect back on the specifics of verse 4 to impose a present sense there. But verse 6 is simply a summary statement about the overall status of the High Priest Jesus as superior to the status of the still-ongoing ministry of the earthly high priests. And in fact, verse 5 intervenes as a way of stating that superiority by comparing the sanctuary in heaven with the one on earth which was built according to God’s instructions. Despite the latter, the writer is saying, since the old covenant is superseded by the new covenant established by Jesus, his ministry and his covenant is superior to theirs. He would hardly have said that his ministry and covenant was superior to theirs. That would imply it no longer is, and anyway, the present sense is perfectly natural. Ted’s appeal to the “But, now” which begins verse 6 is a “but” concerning the value and status of the new covenant “now” to be set against and supersede the old one established by Moses. It hardly skips back over verse 5 to place a past event (Jesus’ sacrifice) in a present context of activities by the present high priests. It is simply a summary from a present-time vantage point.

So now let’s move on to the key verse 4. It follows “Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: hence, this one too must have had something to offer….”

Now if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes…”

The “now” (ei men oun [lit., “if…(particle)…therefore]) makes it clear that verse 4 follows upon the thought of verse 3. The writer is not changing gears here. He has just spoken about Jesus needing to have had something to offer in the way of “gifts and sacrifices,” IOW, his own sacrifice of his blood in the heavenly sanctuary, a past event, a past reference. It would do violence to the text to think that he would suddenly turn to addressing a completely non-applicable, and non-sequitur, thought relating to some present situation which does not involve his sacrifice. That is what Ted is trying to force the text to say.

Apart from all the logical reasons why a thought in the present sense makes no sense (which he has not yet addressed at all, and I will not bother to repeat here) such a forcing simply contravenes the grammatical structure itself. The particle “men” sets apart a distinctive thought “in the sequel” sense; it is consequent on the preceding thought. Now, I have said that the thought of verse 4 is trivial. Verse 3 has just said that just as the earthly high priests had the duty of sacrifices, so must the heavenly High Priest have had a sacrifice to offer (and that sacrifice was unmistakeably made in heaven, as the entire epistle presents it). But verse 4 goes on to point out that not only did the two have their respective sacrifices, they had to perform them in their respective territories.

Digression: Whether that would make sense is beside the point, this is what the writer is saying. And it can only be claimed not to make sense on the assumption that Jesus was historical and died on earth—which is begging the question. If that assumption is not made, then the Platonic principles under which the writer is operating, which he presents to us throughout his entire description of the respective activities of earthly and heavenly high priests (“a sanctuary [i.e., the earthly high priests’ one] which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly”), show that the thought is perfectly apt. Platonic principles as well as the “paradigmatic parallel” concept require that the perfect sacrifice be made in heaven to supplant the imperfect ones made on earth. Though it was really unnecessary for the writer to point this out by now, he stressed his earthly/heavenly territories separation by giving us verse 4: if he had been on earth, he couldn’t have conducted his role as priest [i.e., in regard to the sacrifices which are referred to in verse 3, and further paralleled by the reference to “gifts” in the latter half of verse 4] because in the earthly venue it is the earthly high priests who do that sort of thing. (“Gifts” is used in the same sense as “sacrifices,” since there is otherwise no possible parallel to Jesus’ case. Jesus never offered gifts of the harvest, or a pair of socks at Christmas.) End of digression.

Furthermore, verse 4a’s reference to Jesus not being a priest has to refer to being a priest in terms of his sacrifice, not of his intercessory duties, for the latter have been clearly stated not to have started until after his sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, when he is and remains in heaven. It would be a complete non-sequitur for the writer to make any reference to even a theoretical intercessor-ship on earth in the present time. (That’s just to cover any potentially-claimed interpretation of 4a in that direction.)

Ted has really gone off the rails here:

Sorry, but that is exactly what the stated reason is, whether in English or in Greek. Why does Ted think he can override what the text clearly says? He claims it is because “that’s no explanation.” But the question he asks I have already answered: because he cannot operate in the same territory. His sacrifice is superior, and everything that this writer says (see, for best example, 9:11-14) shows that being superior requires it to be performed in the heavenly sanctuary, not on earth. And because of that definition of superiority, we are further made to see that the crucifixion as well could not have taken place on earth. First of all, if it had, I think there is little doubt that such a vivid remembered event in history would have led him—forced him—to regard and include the cross as part of the sacrifice which forgives sin…which he does not; and then that would require him to have been “a priest on earth.” But a sacrifice, even part of it, especially in shedding his blood on Calvary, would contravene his Platonic principle of superiority. It couldn’t have had the effect he is allotting to Christ’s sacrifice.

I have read this passage several times, but I’m not sure I grasp the sense Ted is aiming for. In fact, it seems to work against him. He is admitting that Jesus’ own “job” is not something performed on earth, it is performed in heaven. And as in all attempts to contort verse 4 into a present application, it simply makes no sense that the writer would try or bother to make the statement that Ted is trying to present. (Jesus wouldn’t be doing his job on earth now because the earthly priests are doing their own job and not his? That’s gibberish.) What relationship would it have to his comparison between earth and heaven? At least in a past sense for Jesus, though it’s a trivial and unnecessary statement, and not phrased as effectively as it could have been, it does serve a purpose in delineating the principle of separate territories, of emphasizing the writer’s major motif throughout this section of the epistle, that Jesus’ sacrifice took place in heaven (which in the absence of any clarification would suggest that he regarded the crucifixion as also taking place in the heavens) as a Platonic counterpart to the sacrifices by the high priests on earth. And that served purpose operates only in the past, since it has not even a theoretical application in the present.

Ted rejects that requirement because he fails or refuses to see the Platonic principles under which the writer is presenting his picture. And I’m glad he admits that the perfect parallel requires that Jesus lived and died in the heavens, but I cannot see any necessity for him to have also been fully human. And the reference to “sinners in heaven” is an appeal to a separate passage in a later chapter, a tactic not quite legitimate in arguing against my reading of 8:4, especially since it can be a misreading of the reference in question (12:3, which I deal with, too, in the book).

Well, it might work for Ted, but it doesn’t work for the text itself, which never even hints at such a thing and contains incompatibilities with it. That’s forcing the Gospels onto the epistles.

The sacrifice was made in heaven. I think Ted meant to say “crucifixion”. It certainly would have helped, but I have also turned the coin around and suggested that if the crucifixion actually took place on earth, it would require that the writer make it part of his sacrifice and clearly locate the cross on earth. It would require that he eliminate the contradictions that arise between a crucifixion on earth and his Platonic presentation. That is a blatantly missing piece that really would have helped Ted's case.

I have spent roughly five hours on this response and cannot spare that time every day. I will respond further only to actual counter-arguments spelled out against my own arguments and rebuttal. Simple dismissal or appeals to personal incredulity (such as “I was not convinced”) will not cut it—from anyone.

Earl Doherty

TedM

Thanks Earl. That's a lot of work, and I appreciate it. I probably won't go through it very soon, but I didn't see where you addressed what I thought was a fairly strong point regarding the idea of intercession as being an ongoing 'offering' to God. Here's what I wrote:

Simply, the author could have decided to compare the ongoing intercessional 'offerings' of Jesus to ongoing offerings of priests on earth, via 8:4. They offer gifts according to the law, but due to his sacrifice of his own blood he has more to offer in heaven -- his own prayers to God in heaven(intercession) for the salvation of souls through faith.

EarlDoherty

should have hit "quote all".

EarlDoherty

Your first example is 5:7, not 5:13. And wherever your second one is, it is not 13:5. Yes, the Greek word (at least in the first) is the same, but the context is entirely different. And I have definitely addressed the impossibility of 8:4a referring to intercessionary duties. I showed that the context simply does not allow for that.

You have a tendency to be atomistic, Ted, though you are not alone. One cannot simply take a term or phrase out of context and allot to it some meaning that you would prefer. (I realize, of course, that Christianity itself was guilty of that in spades, taking OT passages out of context and labeling them "prophecies" of Jesus, so you are in a hallowed line of predecessors.)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Just noted that Roo Bookaroo has tuned in. Finding me a little too wordy in my response to Ted, Roo? Sorry to put demands on your attention span and comprehension abilities, but this is a complicated field. I notice that very few people who have read your reviews and comments on Amazon have judged them informative. Maybe you're being a little too wordy yourself and over the top. Not to mention that your personal prejudice is showing in spades and your obvious contortion of so-called 'quotes' from me, mostly from FRDB.

(You diss me and I'll diss you.)

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

That's 13:15. The common factor here is not sacrifice for sins, but attitude that is pleasing. The word sacrifice' is used because, even though they had done nothing to atone for sins, animal sacrifices had pleased God, due to the faithful attitude of those offering sacrifices. What was important for Israel was intention, expression of faith in future atonement. So pleasing prayer from the saints expressed faith, now from those who expressed gratitude for atonement now appropriated.

'Through him, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise — the fruit of lips that confess his name.' Heb 13:15

The author here probably has Hosea 14:2 in mind:

'Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips."' (NIV)

So here is prophecy fulfilled, and to be fulfilled, in the author's view, because now sins have been fully forgiven, sinners reconciled, and 'lip fruits', grateful thanks, are due from his readers. No prayer, whoever offers it, could have effected forgiveness before the crucifixion; and now, post-crucifixion, no prayer was necessary, and Jesus would blaspheme his own righteousness if he even imagined that his own prayer could effect it.

TedM

Is Hebrews 7:25 referring to a passive role, or an active role?:
If active, what does it entail?

sotto voce

The author was using a poetic figure of speech here, contrasting Aaronic priests, who die (and who were shortly to die out), with the priesthood of Jesus, which is perpetual and quite beyond any supersession or gainsaying. There is no praying, no making of a plea, nothing remotely like that, because it's a 'done deal'. It would be like a businessman negotiating a contract that is already signed and sealed if there was actual intercession, even Jesus talking to himself. The work of Christ is done, the author says, it's now just a matter of applying the terms of the contract, because Jesus is divine, and is never going to die, rendering the contract void. Here is Christ's past action, he wrote, that applies to every person born, even, as we know, those who lived a million years ago, and all who will ever be born. Atonement is timeless, cosmic, determined 'before the world was made'. It is the 'blood' (i.e. the death) that always justifies, because it imparts righteousness to all who have faith, whenever they have it.

The word 'intercedes' is used because humans live in time, not because deity does. So the author was saying that the salvation due to Jesus is immutable, and completely safe. He was really repeating Jesus' statement that he would never reject anyone; not because he would control any whims, but because he could not throw anyone out, even if he wanted to. He could not refuse his own righteousness. The crucifixion could not be undone. That's the message here; the divine part of the deal is rock solid, it's now up to the readers to do their bit. So the author was not describing any activity on the part of Jesus, but describing the need for humanity to take advantage of atonement already achieved.

TedM

Thank you for your interpretation. I don't know how well Hebrews supports it, am unwilling to check into it at this time, though.

sotto voce

I could have gone on, and on, from Hebrews. But restrained myself.