A brief note on Hebrews 9.27-28 (an interpolation?).

[Ben C. Smith]

Bernard Muller makes an interesting case for regarding Hebrews 9.27-28 as an interpolation:

On the subject of addition, it is rather obvious that the following verses is also one of those:

• Heb9:27-28 "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

a) "Just as a man is destined to die once, and after to face judgment":
Judgment to follow death is never a concept exposed in this letter. Rather, the author emphasized his contemporary faithfuls were living in the "last days" (1:2) and destined to enter "Today" (4:7) God's rest (4:6,11) very soon "in just a very little while" (10:35-39) as "you see the Day approaching" (10:25). Then the Judgment would be applied to only the (alive) sinners and/or defectors (10:26-27,30-31,39).

b) Here Christ is offered for sacrifice but in the rest of the letter, it is Christ who is offering himself for sacrifice, such as in:

1. Heb7:27b "for this He [Jesus] did once for all when He offered up Himself."
2. Heb10:5-10 and
3. Heb10:12 "But this Man [Jesus], after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God"

c) "he [Christ] will appear a second time" seems to have been written to "correct" "he [Christ] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages" (10:26), only two verses earlier.

In 'Hebrews' Christ has no role to play during the "Day of the Lord":

God administers the final Judgment (10:30-31,12:23), delivers the rewards (11:40) and disposes of Christ's enemies (1:13). Meanwhile, "Since that time [the sacrifice on the cross] he [Christ] waits for his enemies to be made his footstool" (10:13).

Then, the Christians, through raptures, are to join Christ, God and angels in the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-24). No second coming here!

However the "second coming" (on earth) will be prominently featured later on (Mt25:31-32, Ac1:11, Rev19:11-16).

Note: the notion of "second coming" did not start immediately among Gentile Christians. Paul had only a half way second coming of Jesus, down to the clouds below heaven (1Th4:16-17). This is echoed in GMark (13:26-27).

(No attempt here to preserve the original formatting, and some of the formatting above is mine to make it easier to read on this forum.)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea?

Ben.

[Tenorikuma]

I can't find anything on this, but it makes a lot of sense. I would also suggest that 10:1 continues the argument more smoothly if 9.27–28 are interpolated.

[Ben C. Smith]

I can't find anything on this, but it makes a lot of sense. I would also suggest that 10:1 continues the argument more smoothly if 9.27–28 are interpolated.

I looked for more on this, as well. It may be a Bernard original. (Bernard, I know you must be reading this.... Is this your own idea? Or did you get it from somewhere?)

Hebrews 10.1 does flow smoothly from 9.26; of course, ancient texts do not have parentheses, footnotes, or consistent paragraphing to indicate authorial deviations from the main theme, so there are lots of passages that could be removed smoothly in the average text; but yes, that remaining smoothness is something you like to see when arguing for an interpolation.

I had noticed the passive voice of the action of being offered in 9.28, and knew that it was the only passive applied to Jesus in this particular respect.

I had not noticed the stuff that Bernard adduces about judgment after death; it does seem like this concern reflects a conceptually later situation than the assumptions made elsewhere about how soon the day will be. Still thinking about that one, though; the imminence of that day and an admission that some have already died before it are not at all mutually exclusive, and the epistle elsewhere shows awareness of people who have died... and Bernard also calls those passages insertions.

Most interesting to me, however, is the explanation for why these verses may have been added: to clear up any possible confusion from the once in 9.26.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

I looked for more on this, as well. It may be a Bernard original. (Bernard, I know you must be reading this.... Is this your own idea? Or did you get it from somewhere?)

That was long ago, but I do not think I got that from somebody else. But it jumped at me when I read Hebrews and I would not be surprised if a scholar or more made the same observation.

Cordially, Bernard