TedM

Earl has challenged anyone to dispute his findings with regard to Hebrew 8:4, described here https://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/06...16/#more-28558, which he argues can only be logically interpreted as implying that Jesus had never been on earth.

I have decided to take on Earl's challenge.

Earl begins:


General Grammatical rule

The general grammatical rule does not support Earl's position. Earl appears to accept the fact that the general rule supports a translation of supposing Jesus to be on earth in the present. This is contrary to his own interpretation, which he admits would be an 'exception' to the general rule.


Does a present understanding make sense?

Earl's position is that it does not:



Even though Earl believes the context supports a shift to the past, it appears to me that the context very clearly shows that the author is discussing the present. I've highlighted this focus by bolding, while skipping doing so for the part of the verse in question (4):

The bolded tenses of verses both before and after make it crystal clear that the author is talking about the situation that existed AFTER Jesus' sacrifice was made: The current earthly priests and their ongoing roles, as well as the current NEW high priest and his new 'more excellent' ongoing ministry in heaven.

How more clear can it be, I ask?

Under this interpretation the meaning of verse 4 is crystal clear: If Jesus were on earth NOW, he wouldn't be a priest like those still operating under the Law, who are still serving a copy of heavenly things. The writer then answers the question --Why wouldn't he be one of those earthly priests? in verse 6: Because he has obtained a more excellent ministry as high priest in heaven. While this may be seen as somewhat repetitive writing, that is certainly not something writers of the time were innocent of, and should not be considered 'ludicrous'!


Earl continues:

I agree. Not only is it trivial, it would be out of context since as I showed above the verses surrounding verse 4 are talking about the present condition--the ongoing earthly priesthood and the ongoing new high priesthood of Jesus.


Earl is still ignoring the clear markers that he is talking about the present. "Christ having operated in heaven" is a past tense phrase, yet as I pointed out the author is now talking about Christ's ONGOING ministry operating in heaven.


Earl goes on..
Verses 1-6 are not talking about Jesus' sacrifice. If they were then this argument from silence might work better. But as I showed above, these verses are talking about the situation AFTER Jesus' sacrifice was completed and he was in heaven. Earl seems to not recognize that Jesus, according to the author, had an ongoing role after the sacrifice was completed.


No one claims the parallel has to be perfect, but it still wouldn't be 'foiled' if the writer indicates that the offering of Himself was actually made in the temple in heaven after he had died on earth. The location of the death on earth doesn't foil things as long as the writer still claims the actual 'offering' was made in heaven. Which, he does.



and

Earl is concentrating on the idea that verse 4 is talking about Jesus sacrificing himself on earth as fulfillment of his role as priest on earth. But as I said above, the OFFER of his sacrifice takes place in heaven. Priests OFFER the sacrifices. Jesus OFFERED his crucified body. Where? In heaven. Not on earth. The idea that Jesus was crucified on earth does not make the offer of his blood in heaven non-sensical. Earl seems to require that the sacrifice be made in heaven. This would make for a more perfect parallel but what Earl can't do is point to a single verse in Hebrews that says Jesus sacrificed his body, was crucified, in heaven. That's the missing piece Earl needs.


I've shown above that it would not be gibberish. As long as there were ongoing priests still offering sacrifices under the Law and a new high priest Jesus in heaven offering up intercessions as mediator for sinners in his ongoing 'ministry' it is not gibberish.


In conclusion, both the grammar and the supporting context support a present tense understanding. Verse 4 makes sense as long as one is not hung up on the idea that 'would not be a priest' doesn't equal 'would not make a sacrifice on earth'. When one realizes that the sacrificial offering of his body could have taken place in heaven, as the author states elsewhere, one sees that there is no conflict. Earl's smoking gun may have misfired.

outhouse

hebrews 8 talks of jesus after his death sitting on the right hand of gods throne. post death.


the context has the author pushing for a better covenant, after jesus dieing for everyones sins besides its central message


this is plain as day, unless your trying to promote mythicism, and ignoring the proper context, if you have to write that long of a excuse to back your point, do you really have a credible one???

stephan huller

The most likely reading was that the author was a Samaritan - http://books.google.com/books?id=bMZ...aritan&f=false

outhouse

that is a decent opinion.


it was never typical hellenistic scripture, that one could use to lump in all christians together

ApostateAbe

TedM, you make good points--a past tense does not fit the immediate context of the phrase in question--but you need to also take into account the eloquence and overbearing huff of Earl Doherty's advertisements.

Vorkosigan

LOL. Is this post-70?

Vorkosigan

TedM

Good question. The context would suggest that it is not--unless priests were offering sacrifices somewhere still after the temple destruction..from my brief reading the issue of the time of composition is debated..earlychristianwritings.com puts it from 50-95AD. I think Earl considers it to be one of the very earliest christian writings..

Vorkosigan

Modern scholarship has determined that sacrifices were ongoing in the temple even after 70.

It seems to me after reading through Heb 7-9 that your interpretation is correct and Earl is overemphasizing this.

Vorkosigan

EarlDoherty

Nice try, Ted. But you’ve committed so many fallacies and so mangled the texts that I don’t know where to start.

First of all, it’s clear you have not worked from the Greek, but your own preferred translation. You’ve ignored the fact that a competent Greek scholar (considering that you don’t think I’m one) has declared the tense of the key parts of verse 4 ambiguous. And I’ve clearly pointed out that the general grammatical rule in the use of the imperfect tense would place the thought in the present. The problem is, the general grammatical rule is not secure here, and an understanding in the past would be just as legitimate as one in the present. If you don’t believe me, believe Ellingworth or the translators of the NEB.

But this quote of yours of the opening verses of Hebrews imposes your own preferences:

You fail to distinguish that the first “is” of verse 3 is speaking of the general role of high priests in Jewish history, and thus is in the present tense because it is referring to the general history of the Temple sacrifices up to and including the present, and so an “is” is natural there. The second “is”, if you had looked at the Greek text or even at my discussion of the point, is also ambiguous because there is no verb there. As I pointed out that the NEB points out, it could have either an “is” or a “was” understanding. The succeeding “have something” is not a present tense but an infinitive, whose understanding and placement in time is determined by whatever is understood by “it…necessary”, past or present.

At the same time, you ignore my argument that simply speaking in verse 3 of “sacrifices” and “something to offer” points to the subject of the sacrifices, whether of animals or of Jesus’ own blood, and since the latter’s sacrifice—once for all, as the writer continually stresses—took place in the past and could not be repeated in the present, any comparison in regard to respective sacrifices has to relate to the past. The thought of Jesus making another sacrifice in the present would be inapplicable, ludicrous and a non-sequitur. Thus the “it…necessary” can only make sense as: “it was necessary.” You have missed that point of my argument completely.

Now, when we get to verse 4, you once again fail to see that the present tense “are those who offer gifts according to the Law” does not drag Jesus into the present (where, as I say, any thought of him offering another sacrifice of his blood would be inapplicable even in theory, so that the writer would have no reason to express such an idea—it would indeed be gibberish), because the present tense, once again, is being used because the “offering” of the gifts and sacrifices by the earthly high priests is still going on and has been throughout Jewish history. So that it makes perfect sense if the writer is saying: “If Jesus had been on earth he would not have been a priest, for there are earthly high priests who offer gifts according to the Law.” The present tense is speaking of that span of history into the present. The writer does not have to use a past tense in regard to the latter even if he is speaking of a Jesus in the past. A past tense would have made it sound like the high priests no longer offer sacrifices. (Both my book and the Vridar chapter make the argument that Hebrews must be dated prior to 70.)

The other huge mistake you make is that you confuse Christ’s ongoing ministry in heaven with his past singular sacrifice. Intercession by the High Priest Jesus with God on behalf of humanity is distinct from the sacrifice he performed “once for all” to redeem sin. It is the former that is ongoing and continues after the sacrifice. But in an overall passage where he refers to both, it is important to realize where he is talking about the one, and where he is talking about the other. I demonstrated that in the key verses 3 and 4, and a couple in the preceding part of chapter 7, the writer is clearly addressing the sacrifice, not the intercession. And it is in regard to the sacrifice that the thought of verse 4 is being applied.

Finally, you really do twist the text to make it say what you want it to say:

Sorry, but verse 6 does not say “Because he has obtained…” as though to explain why he can’t be a priest on earth. Verse 6 actually begins a new thought, and there is no visible connection between it and verse 4, and certainly not as an explanation for verse 4. In fact, it clearly introduces a new argument about Jesus being the mediator of a new covenant which is superior to the old one and its mediator(s). Besides, verse 4 already contains the explanation for why Jesus could not have been a priest on earth. Not because of superiority or a more excellent ministry, but because there were already priests operating on earth. That’s as clear as a bell. It is stated clearly. And that reason has nothing to do with what you are trying to impose on it. And as I say, if Jesus could not be a priest on earth in the present because there are already priests operating on earth, why did that exclusivity of territory situation not operate in the past when he WAS presumably on earth?

And you seem not to be able to recognize that most of 8:1-6 IS about sacrifices. The very word is used. And Jesus does not continue to serve in the sanctuary. He does his intercession from the divine throne room (see the final part of 1:3). The writer’s focus in 8:5 is directly upon the respective sanctuaries. Jesus had reason to enter the heavenly sanctuary only once, with his own blood, and that relates directly to the sacrifice, not to his ongoing ministry of intercession. That parallel between the high priests on earth offering the blood of sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary is directly contrasted with Jesus offering his blood of sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary. The latter, I repeat, was performed once and only once—and that “once” was IN THE PAST. No thought of any further sacrifice or any further parallel on that score between heaven and earth was possible. Therefore, the comparison in verse 4 must relate to the past. And since it is a contrafactual statement, the “if he had been on earth” declares that Jesus was never on earth.

I have made the point that if a crucifixion had taken place on earth, with the shedding of his blood on the cross on Calvary, the situation would have demanded that this event would be made part of the sacrifice. The writer could not have ignored it, as he does. The shedding of the blood on Calvary would have intruded on the Platonic comparisons he makes and foiled his scenario of heavenly-earthly parallels and the contrast between earthly animal blood and the spiritual blood of Christ. (How did the earthly blood on Calvary get transformed into spiritual blood and get carried up to heaven?) This is a “missing piece” which is far more destructive to historicism than the failure of the writer to specifically stipulate that the crucifixion (the “cross” in 12:2) also took place in the heavens. Even the events of his “in the days of his flesh” (5:7) are actions placed in and taken out of scripture, as is the ‘taking on of a “body”’ in 10:5. Many other indicators in the text also tell us that the writer sees a Christ who operates entirely in a spiritual dimension. Even the ‘voice of the Son’ (1:2) is never placed on earth in an earthly ministry. The description of the Son in 1:3 gives us a Logos entity, but not a murmur of incarnation or an identity on earth. The Son is superior to the angels based entirely on heavenly scenarios in scripture. What was his resurrection from the tomb? Chopped liver?

There are a host of missing pieces which Ted needs.

Any other takers?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

See my response to Ted.

It is impossible to analyze this passage if one can't do so in the Greek. Translations will invariably impose Gospel understandings in one way or another.

Earl Doherty