From Mid-America Reform Seminary, this is Marscast, and I'm your host, Jared Luchobor. In this episode, Dr. Menninger continues our examination of the Book of Hebrews and its historical context, specifically addressing the ongoing debate about whether it was written before or after 70 AD and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. But more importantly, we'll discuss why this question, while interesting, might not be as crucial as some interpreters suggest. Here's Dr. Menninger. Well, in today's episode, we're going to continue talking about the question of, was the Book of Hebrews written before or after 70 AD? What are we able to know about that? With how much certainty can we say one thing or the other? But then also, in particular today, how much exactly does it matter? We're relating this to the question of preterist interpretation, because it's a question that comes up within that interpretive system. Preterist interpretation tends by its very nature to be persuaded that such questions matter greatly before 70 AD, after 70 AD. In other words, that a huge part of what's at issue in Hebrews or other parts of Scripture is if and when and how the Jerusalem temple will be destroyed. fulfillment of prophecy. Now that question we've said is a legitimate question. Some passages of Scripture clearly do relate to it, but a Preterist interpretive approach tends to put maximal emphasis on that and other similar things as quite important, and so we want to interact with that here. What we've said so far in the prior two episodes is that evidence in Hebrews regarding Roman persecution of Christians, on the one hand, and regarding the Old Covenant sacrificial system and whether it's being described as still going on, evidence about both those things tends to weigh in favor of the likelihood that Hebrews was written before 70 AD. In other words, that the Jerusalem temple is still operating, it hasn't yet been destroyed, but we want to also step back and ask how certain are we of that? And again, how much does it matter or what does that really impact? Is it important to answer that question with certainty one way or the other in order to understand Hebrews and benefit from it. Does Hebrews itself place an emphasis on the sorts of things that would answer that question and show it to be quite significant? So here I want to start us off by thinking about an interesting question. Some have said that there's a significant third kind of evidence in Hebrews showing that it was written before 70 AD, and that is evidence from silence, meaning that Hebrews never states anywhere that the temple had been destroyed and the argument goes given the kind of argument given the kind of point that Hebrews is trying to make about the New Covenant being superior to the Old Covenant people would say that if the temple had been destroyed already by the time the author wrote he certainly would have mentioned it because it would help his point so much and And so because he doesn't mention it's having been destroyed, that strongly shows that it hasn't yet been destroyed. Is that a legitimate argument or not? Clearly the author to the Hebrews is making an extended argument seeking to show many numerous ways in which the new covenant and its priestly system and the one sacrifice of Christ and etc the tabernacle in heaven is superior to as a replacement for the old covenant sacrificial system. And so, again, if he's going to great lengths to show why the new and its priestly system is superior to the old, would he not have mentioned that the temple had been destroyed if, in fact, it had been? Now, I think that there's some plausibility here. Yes, we would tend to expect that he would have, but this isn't at all entirely convincing either as we reflect on it more deeply, and the reasons for that are important for us to understand. As reasonable as it sounds to say that this is an important argument from silence, the author really certainly would have mentioned this if it had occurred, it actually doesn't hold as much water as we might at first think. We need to exercise caution here because various observations that we can make from the book of Hebrews problematize the logic used in this argument from silence. For example, at whatever time the author of Hebrews wrote this great letter, he certainly lived after the time of the destruction of the first temple built by Solomon, because that temple was destroyed in 586 BC, and of course we see that recorded in the Old Testament, right? how the Babylonians came and destroyed that temple, that is clearly passed for the author to the Hebrews, the first destruction of the first temple, yet he also nowhere mentions that. Wouldn't that also have been a useful plank in his argument, showing the fragility, the impermanence of the earthly temple since it had been destroyed before, yet he doesn't mention it? He also makes no clear mention in his letter prospectively looking ahead towards how the second temple would someday be destroyed as Jesus himself had prophesied in Matthew chapter 24. In other words, even if the author of Hebrews did write before 70 AD, before the temple was destroyed, He could have referred to the fact that Jesus had told the church that that temple would eventually be destroyed. He could at least appeal to that. the still coming destruction of the temple, which shows its impermanence and therefore its inferiority to Christ's current priesthood, but he doesn't do that either. Evidently then, we can observe from the arguments that the author of Hebrews does make that this is simply not where he is focusing. The physical standing or non-standing of the temple structure in Jerusalem which was built by Solomon and then destroyed by the Babylonians in 586, and then rebuilt by Ezra and Nehemiah, and then eventually was or would be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, none of this is ever referred to retrospectively or prospectively. In fact, here we can even go further and notice that in Hebrews, the author actually never refers to the temple itself using that word. He only ever refers to the tent or tabernacle, meaning the first structure set up under Moses, not even the building structure set up by Solomon later. He uses a much more dated term to refer to the Old Covenant worship space, again, as a tabernacle, not even as a fixed temple building at all. Now, why does the author do that? That's another question that we don't have time to get into. Why does he always say tabernacle instead of temple? It probably has to do with a few different things relating to his great interest in the events that occurred under Moses and the temptation outside of the land of Canaan, which he describes in Hebrews 3 and 4, as well as interest in what it signifies when a dwelling place is tent kind of dwelling place like Abraham occupied rather than a building he makes that point in a different respect in Hebrews 11 regarding Abraham's pilgrimage on earth but for whatever the reason is why whatever the reason is for his always referring to tabernacle instead of temple the fact that he never directly refers to the temple itself again should give us pause on And it tends, again, to suggest that the exact form of the earthly place of worship, whether a tent or a building, is not of very much importance to him, so much as the fact that it is an earthly, temporary copy of God's original heavenly dwelling place above. That is a point he clearly makes repeatedly in the book as a whole. So the term tent then is used because the earthly dwelling place, the temple, the tabernacle or temple, is inherently fragile and temporary simply because it's earthly. not because Babylon might overturn it, or Rome might overturn it, or had overturned it already. It's fragile and temporary in its very nature, quite apart from the question of the exploits of major earthly empires. In that sense, we could say that the temple in Jerusalem is inherently fragile, and therefore its inferiority is built into the very nature of the thing, regardless also of whether it were ever to still be rebuilt in the future, at some point future to our own day. The life history of that structure on Earth, which didn't exist for many centuries, then was built under Moses and destroyed under the Babylonians, then rebuilt under Ezra Nehemiah and destroyed by the Romans and still today this day has never been rebuilt but in theory could be rebuilt none of all of that is quite directly to the point for the author again he doesn't refer to any of those changes and the ones that are clearly passed to him, or the ones that are still future to him. And in fact, we can see evidence in Jewish history that in the year 132 AD, meaning clearly after the author to the Hebrews wrote, various Jews did try to regain political control of Jerusalem against the Romans and to reestablish Davidic kingship and temple there in Jerusalem. That, too, isn't quite to the point for this author. Again, to put it this way, the specific life history of the temple structure, which had many phases to it, never seems to come up, whether retrospectively or prospectively. And so that leads us to our bigger question. How important is this issue really for Hebrews itself? When we pose a question to a text like, was Hebrews written before or after 70 AD, we should also ask ourselves, is this a good question? Or in other words, is it an important question one way or the other for this text either? Is the category that we're using before 70 AD, after 70 AD, is that distinction a crucial one for the worldview of this author? Again, we tend to assume that our questions bring up something important, but we shouldn't assume. There are many binary questions that we can pose. Is something this or is it that, which may not really be relevant. And I don't want to be too facetious here because this is an exaggeration, but if we were to say, does the author of Hebrews prefer cats or dogs, we might quickly realize, yeah, it doesn't really matter very much to our text, right? Now, the issue of the temple isn't quite in that category, but still, we should ask ourselves, how important is this issue that's on our minds to this biblical author or not? And once we ask that additional question, Is this important to Hebrews or not? We should say a few things. Even if a pre-70 AD date of writing seems more likely for Hebrews, and it does, I do think it's more likely, still, whenever the letter was written, The author's main point about the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant, and of Christ's priesthood to the Levitical priesthood, and of the heavenly tabernacle to the earthly tabernacle or temple, that point is still clearly, solidly, and repeatedly made and proven through arguments about things that are more fundamental and abiding than the vicissitudes of the life of the Temple in Jerusalem. In other words, the author appeals to more fundamental and abiding reasons than whether or not the Roman army had or exactly when it would destroy the Jerusalem Temple. The reasons that the author does give clearly highlight the superiority of Christ's work in ways that make that superiority already true and fully valid before the temple was destroyed, and it remains valid after the temple was destroyed. In other words, nothing fundamental changed regarding the full inauguration of the new covenant and its superiority as a replacement to the old before or after 70. And so, whether he's writing before or after 70 isn't of the greatest moment. So, those interpreters for whom 70 AD is a constant preoccupation or a controlling topic, something that they're really committed to the importance of, those interpreters would really do well to see how, for this particular author, his arguments are based on more transcendent and abiding reasons. It's almost as if this document would respond to the question about 70 AD by saying, huh? Or, well, that doesn't seem really all that relevant compared to what we've been saying. Or, why are you changing the topic? Now again, I might be a little overstated, but because this author is preoccupied with reasons for Christ's superiority that are fundamental and abiding, based on transcendent truths, such as the qualitative distinction between Earth as a whole and Heaven as a whole, reasons such as the nature of Christ's person as both preexistent, divine, and the perfect Davidic descendant, based on things that were true before and after, or even quite apart from 70 AD ever occurring, It just doesn't seem like this issue of the temples being toppled really is all that relevant to his concerns. The categories of central concern to Hebrews don't overlap significantly with the categories of central concern to Preterist interpreters, and that is something I think we need to reflect on. It's not that it's an illegitimate or improper question. It's a fine enough question before 70 AD or after 70 AD, but it also just might not be the most relevant question. And this is the case in the book of the New Testament that reflects most clearly and at greatest length on the very issue of how the Old Covenant priesthood relates to the New Covenant priesthood. In that book, The topic of 70 AD is never so much as directly referenced, whether, again, retrospectively looking back on 70, or prospectively speaking clearly about how it would still yet occur. All of this should give us pause and make us reflect on what may be our own assumptions when we read passages of Scripture. not appear to be a letter in which 70 AD is of central or constitutive importance one way or the other. Yes, 70 AD is an event in redemptive history. Jesus prophesies that it will occur and it does occur, yet the things that Hebrews is concerned with are true, indisputably true, permanently true for or after 70 AD. And in fact, whether 70 had in fact ever occurred, what Hebrews argues is still true, whether the Jerusalem temple would ever still be rebuilt, all the arguments of Hebrews are still true. The Old Covenant is still replaced by the better permanent New Covenant. Here we can think about what the author says in Hebrews chapter 13 verse 14. Some of what he reflects on there is, he says, for here we have no continuing city, but we seek the city that is to come. In other words, we, like Abraham before and many saints from the Old Covenant described in Hebrews 11, Have an inheritance that is kept in heaven for us look and long for a city that is above Which God has built and not man, which is a heavenly city and not an earthly one and because of that Jesus having now gone into heaven being seated there at God's right hand as a priest for us, a priest who is now the same yesterday, today, and forever, always lives to intercede for us in a sympathetic and merciful way. These things are abidingly true and are the bedrock of why we say that the new covenant is superior to the old. So before we ask questions of scripture and insist on an answer, it's also good for us to say, is this a good question for this text? Or am I asking about something that isn't entirely relevant or at least centrally important? The big picture, the point that I've made here is that evidence in Hebrews does tend to suggest the likelihood that Hebrews was written before 70 A.D. Evidence about Roman persecution, evidence about the statements he makes regarding priests who may well still be offering sacrifices in Jerusalem, both of those things seem to point to a pre-70 A.D. time. Given what we said previously about Nero and about Claudius and those different persecutions in Italy, It might make the most sense conjecturally, tentatively, to put the book in the late 50s or the early 60s. Still, though, in the end, the date of the book remains unknown, and the date of the book, at least so far as it respects pre-70 and post-70, may not really be that significant. What real impact does it make on the letter to the Hebrews and the kinds of reasons it gives for Christ's unique superiority if the book was written in the early, middle, or late part of the first century? The author to the Hebrews' worldview tends to relativize such topics to a position of lesser importance, and this ought to be instructive for us as we learn to think about interpretation and consider how and when and why we suppose that 70 AD is actually significant or not. As we conclude this series on the book of Hebrews, we're reminded that whether written before or after the temple's destruction, Hebrews presents us with timeless revelations about Christ's superiority, the nature of the new covenant, and our heavenly inheritance. These truths remain as relevant today as they were in the first century. The questions we've explored together help us understand not just when and why Hebrews was written, but how to approach scripture with both scholarly rigor and spiritual wisdom. Sometimes the most important lesson is learning which questions truly matter for our faith and understanding. Looking ahead, we're excited to announce that Dr. Alan Strange will continue our church history series, taking us on a journey through medieval Christianity. He'll explore the influence of Thomas Aquinas, examine the courageous forerunners of the Reformation, and discover how God continued to preserve and guide his church through the centuries. This has been MarzCast from Mid-America Reform Seminary. I'm Jared Luchibor signing off for now. Thank you for listening. I'll see you next time.