Hebrews 9:11
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here
I noticed today that the NIV footnote mentions some early manuscripts render this in the future tense and the KJV actually uses the future tense.
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come
Is it possible that the original (and first copies) used the phrase 'to come' b/c they were written prior to AD70 whereas later copies edited the phrase to 'already here' b/c they viewed AD70 as the transition from Temple-centered-worship to a more Christ-centered-worship?
Isn't it true that many Christians continued to utilize the temple in worship until just before its demise?
Thanks,
matthew
Hebrews 9:11
Hebrews 9:11
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Any thoughts on this?
No rush.
No rush.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I just happen to be on line at the moment and I looked at this question earlier so I will make a response here.
Firstly , I am not a preterist and so I don't think 70 AD had anything to do with this verse.
Secondly, even if I was a preterist, I don't think the writers of the scriptures had any right whatsoever to change the tense of a verb in the scriptures because they thought that the particular item in question had come to pass since the first recording of it and that now they must record it as a past event and not a future event.
I believe the translaters job is to give us the most accurate reading of the scriptures from the original text and not to mess with it in any way so that it lines up with how the translater happens to believe.
Firstly , I am not a preterist and so I don't think 70 AD had anything to do with this verse.
Secondly, even if I was a preterist, I don't think the writers of the scriptures had any right whatsoever to change the tense of a verb in the scriptures because they thought that the particular item in question had come to pass since the first recording of it and that now they must record it as a past event and not a future event.
I believe the translaters job is to give us the most accurate reading of the scriptures from the original text and not to mess with it in any way so that it lines up with how the translater happens to believe.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
1. I am not claiming the biblical writers changed the tense of the verb
2. It is simply fact that some of the copyists DID. Rightly or wrongly. I agree with you that they shouldn't have.
So I agree with you and yet some copies did alter the verse. My question is why.
2. It is simply fact that some of the copyists DID. Rightly or wrongly. I agree with you that they shouldn't have.
So I agree with you and yet some copies did alter the verse. My question is why.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Matt,
I don't know whether your suggestion is correct of not. I suppose it could be, and that may be the most we can say about it. It is an interesting thought.
Roger,
One does not have to be a preterist in order to recognize that something very significant (i.e., the destruction of the temple, the end of Old Testament Judaism, and the dispersion of the Jews) occurred in AD 70. That is merely a matter of historical reality, not biblical interpretation.
Preterism is the belief in the past fulfillment of certain prophecies. Those who are preterists with reference to Revelation and the Olivet Discourse generally identify the fulfillment of these prophecies with the significant events of AD 70.
There is not such a thing as a preterist view of Hebrews 9:11, since there is no prophecy in that verse to be fulfilled, either in the past or in the future.
The reference to "good things to come" or "good things that have come" (depending on the preferred manuscript reading), in Hebrews 9:11, has an echo in Hebrews 10:1, where all manuscripts read, "good things to come"—which argues for the same reading in Hebrerws 9:11, as well (a support for the Textus Receptus, in this case).
The expression "things to come," in 10:1, is referring to things that were "to come" (or future) from the standpoint of the giving of the law at Sinai. This strongly suggests a similar referent in 9:11. From our point of view, of course, those things have already come, as the writer of Hebrews points out—especially the antitype of the animal sacrifices and the high priestly ministry of Christ in heaven, as the fulfillment of the law's Yom Kippur.
Obviously, this had already occurred also in the time of the writer of Hebrews, though he may have been viewing the impending destruction of Jerusalem as the visible proof that this transition had occurred, and, thus, might have been referring to that event as a future "coming" of the good things to which he alluded (I personally doubt this, but it is possible).
I think the author is simply referring to "good things [that were] to come" from the standpoint of Moses' day. The reasons for some manuscripts altering the phrase to "that have come" remains mysterious.
I don't know whether your suggestion is correct of not. I suppose it could be, and that may be the most we can say about it. It is an interesting thought.
Roger,
One does not have to be a preterist in order to recognize that something very significant (i.e., the destruction of the temple, the end of Old Testament Judaism, and the dispersion of the Jews) occurred in AD 70. That is merely a matter of historical reality, not biblical interpretation.
Preterism is the belief in the past fulfillment of certain prophecies. Those who are preterists with reference to Revelation and the Olivet Discourse generally identify the fulfillment of these prophecies with the significant events of AD 70.
There is not such a thing as a preterist view of Hebrews 9:11, since there is no prophecy in that verse to be fulfilled, either in the past or in the future.
The reference to "good things to come" or "good things that have come" (depending on the preferred manuscript reading), in Hebrews 9:11, has an echo in Hebrews 10:1, where all manuscripts read, "good things to come"—which argues for the same reading in Hebrerws 9:11, as well (a support for the Textus Receptus, in this case).
The expression "things to come," in 10:1, is referring to things that were "to come" (or future) from the standpoint of the giving of the law at Sinai. This strongly suggests a similar referent in 9:11. From our point of view, of course, those things have already come, as the writer of Hebrews points out—especially the antitype of the animal sacrifices and the high priestly ministry of Christ in heaven, as the fulfillment of the law's Yom Kippur.
Obviously, this had already occurred also in the time of the writer of Hebrews, though he may have been viewing the impending destruction of Jerusalem as the visible proof that this transition had occurred, and, thus, might have been referring to that event as a future "coming" of the good things to which he alluded (I personally doubt this, but it is possible).
I think the author is simply referring to "good things [that were] to come" from the standpoint of Moses' day. The reasons for some manuscripts altering the phrase to "that have come" remains mysterious.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I understand your point Steve....and I thank you....I was just responding to Matt's referrence to Ad 70 and if it had an affect on this verse, unless I misunderstood what he was asking.
I am well aware of the significant events around this time and I owe a lot of that to listening to your live broadcast and also to some of your taped messages. By the way....even though I still am inclined towards more of a futurist explanation to much of the prophetic words in the scriptures I listen to your radio broadcast as much as I can and enjoy it a lot.
I also appreciate all the interaction of those participating in this forum.
Roger
I am well aware of the significant events around this time and I owe a lot of that to listening to your live broadcast and also to some of your taped messages. By the way....even though I still am inclined towards more of a futurist explanation to much of the prophetic words in the scriptures I listen to your radio broadcast as much as I can and enjoy it a lot.
I also appreciate all the interaction of those participating in this forum.
Roger
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hey Matt....I have read your original post again and I understand that you have brought a point to our attention that some early manuscripts have a difference here in this verse. I guess the thing that threw me was your asking if the events of AD 70 have any correlation to this. I hope I am understanding you correctly. I have also read eight different english translations to see what they say here. Now the main point here is .....WHY.....are the early manuscripts different on this point. What I don't understand clearly yet is ....WHY.....are you connecting AD 70 to a difference in early manuscripts. It leaves the impression that the events of AD 70 had an affect on the translators or the writers.
Help me out here would you please........sorry for my thick skull.
Help me out here would you please........sorry for my thick skull.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
hey roger,
since we can't know for sure WHY the manuscripts differ on this verse, i was making a hypothesis that, perhaps, some copyists viewed AD70 as (as steve put it) "visible proof that this transition" from temple-centered worship TO Christ-centered worship "had occurred".
If a post AD70 copyist saw the "good things to come" as having come (at least in a visible way) in AD70, then perhaps he would have altered the text to say the good things "are already here".
Just a theory attempting to explain the textual discrepancy. Could be way off.
God bless,
matthew
since we can't know for sure WHY the manuscripts differ on this verse, i was making a hypothesis that, perhaps, some copyists viewed AD70 as (as steve put it) "visible proof that this transition" from temple-centered worship TO Christ-centered worship "had occurred".
If a post AD70 copyist saw the "good things to come" as having come (at least in a visible way) in AD70, then perhaps he would have altered the text to say the good things "are already here".
Just a theory attempting to explain the textual discrepancy. Could be way off.
God bless,
matthew
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I understand what you are saying.....the problem I have is with the thought of "altering the text". But hey....I didn't live back then so all I really have is my personal thought here and now. I could be way off too.
But thanks for bringing it up so we all could be aware of it.
But thanks for bringing it up so we all could be aware of it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I agree they shouldn't have altered the text. I'm just not sure which version is altered. I would tend to agree with Steve that the KJV and NIV footnote contains the original phrase since 10:1 also uses the future tense.
If so, then the theories as to WHY some copyists altered 9:11 to be past tense would include the following:
1. They simply made a mistake
2. They viewed AD70 as the transition date and felt the need to alter the text accordingly
3. Other theory I haven't thought of
If, however, the past tense version was in the original, I suppose the difference with 10:1 could be explained by the fact that in one sense the good things came by the cross (past) and in another sense they were yet to come.
If so the errant manuscripts could simply be a copyist mistake or an attempt to 'match' the phrases for failure to see both 'senses'
If so, then the theories as to WHY some copyists altered 9:11 to be past tense would include the following:
1. They simply made a mistake
2. They viewed AD70 as the transition date and felt the need to alter the text accordingly
3. Other theory I haven't thought of
If, however, the past tense version was in the original, I suppose the difference with 10:1 could be explained by the fact that in one sense the good things came by the cross (past) and in another sense they were yet to come.
If so the errant manuscripts could simply be a copyist mistake or an attempt to 'match' the phrases for failure to see both 'senses'
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)