From Mid-America Reform Seminary, this is Marscast, and I'm your host, Jared Luchibor. In this episode, we'll be continuing our discussion on the Preterist interpretation of the book of Hebrews. Last time, we looked at some evidence from Hebrews related to the persecution of Christians and how that might suggest the book was written before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. Well, today we're going to dig a little deeper into the text of Hebrews itself, examining whether the author's descriptions of the temple sacrificial system indicate it was still ongoing at the time of writing. Professor of New Testament Studies, Dr. Marcus Menninger, will walk us through some of the key passages in Hebrews and the nuances of the Greek language that shed light on the timing of when this epistle was composed. He'll weigh the evidence and consider how much this dating question really matters for how we interpret the message and theology of Hebrews. Well, today we're going to resume looking at the question of preterist interpretation of Hebrews, which, for our purposes, we'll define as, was the book of Hebrews written before or after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD? And does this really matter very much to know the answer one way or the other? Last time we sketched out those issues a bit more and the issue then somewhat comes down to, is Hebrews interpreted better or is it important to interpret it with an interest in what will happen in 70 AD or not? are the issues that it's describing and the points that it's making crucially centered around what would happen in 70 AD with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant there by Rome. Last time we looked at some of the evidence in Hebrews and from the broader historical time period of the first century regarding persecution. and said that evidence regarding Romans purposely persecuting Christians as Christians might suggest that Hebrews was written sometime perhaps in the late 50s or the early 60s, but that we can't be sure. Today we're going to center on another set of evidence in Hebrews, not regarding persecution itself, but whether statements that occur in the book of Hebrews show that the author is describing the sacrificial system in the temple as something that's still operating, still continuing. we'll dig into that as kind of the second big piece of evidence before we step back and then reflect more broadly on how much this matters. So the continuing presence of the sacrificial system in the Jerusalem Temple, was it still taking place, still being used, priests of the Old Covenant still operating there and offering sacrifices because the not doing that because the temple's already been destroyed. The main thing that we want to look at here today is the positive evidence in Hebrews. Meaning, does Hebrews say things that suggest or show that the temple is still in operation? And here there's a whole chain of instances in Hebrews that have been discussed and debated. but a lot of it comes down to is the way that Hebrews speaks telling us that the temple Old Covenant priesthood, the Old Covenant priesthood in the temple, is being spoken of in the present tense as still operating. So we're going to look at some of the author's verbs, and the verbs occur in the present tense, many of them, such as in Hebrews 8.4 and Hebrews 13.10 and other places that have been debated. So let me give you an example of this, an important one comes in Hebrews 8.4, where the author to the Hebrews says that if he, meaning Christ, were on earth, of course he's reflecting on how Christ has ascended to heaven and is at God's right hand as a priest in the heavenly tabernacle, and that's very crucial to the author's overall argument, a priest according to the order of Melchizedek and so forth. So Christ is in heaven, functioning there as a priest, having gone there with his own blood after having died on the cross and been raised and so forth. And so that's what actually is. But the author in 8.4 asks a question or makes a statement regarding some other possibility. He says, if he, Christ, were on earth rather than in heaven, he would not be a priest, because there are those who offer gifts and sacrifices according to the law. Now, let me translate that a little bit more literally out of the Greeks, because we're gonna have to talk about some of the details here. You could render it this way. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, there being those who offer gifts according to the law. That's the crucial phrase, there being those who offer gifts according to the law. The present tense phrase that we're concerned with then is that last one, there being those who offer gifts. Does that phrase show that when the author wrote, he's describing that at that very time when he wrote, people are still offering those gifts according to the law, or does the phrase not tell us that? The answer, essentially, is maybe. It's not entirely clear. And here we'll get into a little bit of detail, but I think it's understandable regarding the grammar. Greek verbs, and of course, Hebrews like the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek, Greek verbs have a significant range of possible meaning. It's actually not very dissimilar to English verbs. And so, present tense verbs in Greek like in English, can actually refer to a lot of different time periods. They may be describing things that are occurring right now in the present, or they may not be. So, for example, when Jesus says, a good tree bears good fruit, he's using a present tense verb, bears. A good tree bears good fruit. However, that is not a statement that's saying A good tree is bearing good fruit right now in the present. it's instead saying something general that applies whenever that sort of thing happens, but it might not be happening right now. So if I'm saying that statement in the middle of winter, a good tree is not bearing good fruit right at this moment, but it does bear good fruit as its general pattern or due to its nature because it's a good tree. This is what it does when it does it, right? So that present tense verb bears, may or may not be describing what's happening at the moment when it's uttered. Again, that's true in both English and Greek. So, the Greek present tense verbs have flexibility. A second thing to notice here is that this particular Greek verb that we're considering in Hebrews 8.4 isn't what's called an indicative verb but it's a participle it's an ing verb or a verb ending in ing we said there being those who offer gifts according to the law you can hear that ing ending and so it doesn't say because there are those who offer gifts it says there being those who offer gifts and the issue there is that participles in Greek get their time reference from the main verb that they're connected to but the main verb in this instance is a verb whose time reference isn't very specific because the main verb is he would not be that's it's the main verb so the sentence again you can read it in Hebrews 8 for he were on earth that's the if statement he Christ would not be a priest that's the main verb he would not be there being those who offer gifts right so we're kind of working backwards and this is maybe the part that's a little bit harder to understand if you don't know Greek but the verb being is a participle and it gets its reference in time from the main verb but the main verb is is actually describing something that's not true. Christ is a priest, and he is a priest in heaven. The main verb, though, is saying, if he were on earth, then he would not be a priest. Long and short of it is that the main sentence is what's called a condition contrary to fact. It's stating something that isn't true. And that means it isn't true recently or often to the future. It still won't be true. It doesn't have a very specific time reference because it's essentially saying something that wouldn't ever be true if something else were the case, but that something else isn't the case. So it's complicated, of course, but let me put it this way. In the condition contrary to fact, for those of you who are more familiar with Greek, Ernest DeWitt Burton notes that the main verb is in the imperfect tense, but in a condition contrary to fact, which is what this construction is stating, the imperfect tense verb does not have its own specific time reference, but the time reference is implied in the context. So what do we get from all of that? Well, if Christ were on earth, since he's from the tribe of Judah and not from the tribe of Levi, he wouldn't be a priest, but he isn't a priest on earth, he's a priest in heaven from the order of Melchizedek, and so none of that actually pertains. The condition contrary to fact is contrary to fact, as it's stated. So the upshot of that is then this. The statement in Hebrews 8.4 isn't clear with its specific time reference. Is it stating what is currently going on when the author wrote? Or is it stating more of a generalization, right? If Christ were on earth, which he's not, he wouldn't be a priest at all, which he is, because there is another class of people who fills that earthly priesthood, the Levitical priests, right? None of that tells us is that class of people currently offering sacrifices or not. It just says they are of the sort who do that whenever they do it, right? We don't get very far in our query. Other passages in Hebrews speak about, come up on this topic as well. Is the temple sacrificial system still going on while Hebrews writes, does what Hebrews says about the Old Covenant show that temple sacrifices are still being offered or have perhaps ceased? Hebrews chapter 8 verse 13 comes up. It says there Hebrews 8 13 and speaking of a new covenant God makes the first covenant obsolete and what is becoming obsolete is and growing old is ready to vanish away." There, the statement, some have said, well, see that shows that the Old Covenant is ready to vanish away, but it hasn't vanished yet. Again, that's possible, but it's not entirely clear because this particular verse, Hebrews 8.13, is reflecting on a quote from Jeremiah 31. And it's really the time reference then is to what happened when God uttered the words in Jeremiah 31. Once God said that he would send a new covenant, and he said that in Jeremiah 31, from that time point on, the first covenant was from then on an old covenant because something new had been promised. By promising something new, he makes, from that very time point in Jeremiah 31, the first one old. And so from that same time point, meaning when Jeremiah 31 was uttered, the old is old, it's becoming obsolete, and it's ready to vanish. So, again, this statement in 8.13 doesn't narrow us down to what was or wasn't the case in the author's own time period. It's stating something broader that was true ever since Jeremiah 31 was spoken. We can move on. Hebrews 9, 8 through 10 also, again, speaks about the Old Covenant arrangement of gifts and sacrifices. And in Hebrews 9, the author describes at some length that whole Levitical system and the design of the Old Covenant tabernacle, etc. And then he says, according to this arrangement, that was set up in Leviticus. Gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings. Regulations for the body impose until the time of Reformation. So it's clearly saying that this old covenant system was temporary, and that there was a time point at which it would no longer be needed, no longer be relevant, and so forth. And so you can again get into questions of, is it implying that those sacrifices are still going on at the time the author wrote, but would eventually vanish sometime still future to him? And you get into the details there. Again, the answer becomes, It could be that his statement implies that, but it's not entirely clear. And in this case, for those of you who are into the Greek, it's partly because the present tense verbs there in Hebrews 9.9 and 9.10 are connected to imperfect tense verbs that proceed some of which were historical presence, meaning present tense verb referring to something still that was past. And the author doesn't ever make a clear transition away from that to say, no, I'm not describing this whole past scenario anymore and what was true of it, but I'm definitely now instead describing what is happening right now in my own present tense. The big one though, and the one that I think gives the strongest evidence for likely showing that the author wrote before 70 AD, comes in Hebrews 13 verse 10. These other texts to me are much less clear, and this one isn't entirely clear, but it shows a stronger amount of evidence. Hebrews 13 10. says this, we have an altar, we Christians have an altar, from which those serving the tent have no right to eat. We have an altar from which those serving the tent have no right to eat. Here it seems we have the most possibility of there being a clear time reference to the author's own present time. In other words, what's happening at the very time that he wrote. The main verb, we have an altar, seems like it is a present and continuing description. We right now, even as the author wrote, have this altar. And therefore, the next set of verbs, the participle that goes with it, those serving, would likely also have a reference to the author's present as well. It could be that that participle has more of a timeless reference referring just again to the category the general category of those who serve the tent but in the immediate context the author is actually giving an exhortation to his own audience not to be drawn away to other table fellowship or other food fellowship that does tempt them because We, Christians, have an altar that we have a right to eat at. That would be the altar in heaven. And those serving the tent don't have that same right. Again, all this seems to be very here and now, describing the audience, what tempts the audience, but what shouldn't tempt the audience, and why they can have a confidence that those who serve the earthly altar, that they seem to be tempted to go eat with. In other words, go eat at the temple, or go eat at a synagogue service of the sort. Those people are not people that they should go and eat with in those religious ceremonies because we Christians have a different altar that we eat at and we need to be clear about that and we need to be clear that Those who continue to serve the earthly temple don't have that same right. In other words, they're not Christians. They're not a part of the enduring community of faith who have their inheritance in heaven at the heavenly altar. So Hebrews 13.10 seems to me to be the place where the present time of the author's own situation and the audience's own situation peeks through most clearly. And it seems then likely that the way that he words things in Hebrews 13.10 suggests that he did write before the time of 70 AD. What we've looked at then so far is evidence in Hebrews about persecution and evidence in Hebrews about descriptions of the Old Covenant sacrificial system and whether it's still in operation when he wrote. And both sets of evidence give some indication that the author may in fact be writing before 70 AD. In other words, that seems more likely than the possibility that he's writing after 70 AD. But neither set of evidence is clear and strong and indisputable. And so in the next episode, we'll think a little bit more about some of what we don't still know about this topic, and then also about how much the whole question really matters. In this part of our discussion on the Preterist interpretation of Hebrews, we've wrestled with a thorny question of whether the book was written before or after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. Well, in our next episode, Dr. Menninger reflects on how the Preterist approach and its emphasis on 70 AD may not actually align with the central concerns of the book of Hebrews itself. Be sure to join us then. This has been MarzCast from MidAmerica Reform Seminary. I'm Jared Luchobor signing off for now. Thank you for listening. I'll see you next time.