Thank you for the interpretation question on Hebrews 2:14, “Why does the later part of Heb 2:14 have different tense ‘has’/had from different versions? Does it mean that the writers changed to go with what they felt will go with their doctrines?”
THE NASB-NIV PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH translates the Greek text in this manners:
vs 13 “and again: I will be (V-FIM-IS) (having trusted (V-RPA-NMS) on (in) him; and again: Behold (V-AMA-2S) I and the children whom to me gave/has given (V-AIA-3S) the God.” vs 14 “Since therefore the children has/ve partaken (V-RIA-3S) of blood and of flesh, and/also (him)self in like manner he shared (V-AIA-3S) the same things, in order that through the death he might destroy (V-ASA-3S) the (one) the might having (V-PPA-AMS) of death, this is (VPIA-3S) the devil,..”
The translators of the NASB translated the Greek text in this manner: vs. 13, “And again, “I will put my trust in him. Behold, I and the children whom God has given me.” vs 14 “Since then the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is the devil;”
The translators of the NIV translated the Greek text in this manner: vs. 13, “And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” vs. 14, Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power off death-that is the devil-”
As one compares the differences, the Greek text translates the verb, partake, in the perfect active tense while the NASB translates the verb in the present tense while the NIV in the past tense.
For one’s consideration for the translated verbs: has/have partaken.
A. The translators could have translated it literally, has/have partaken.
If the translator were to set aside their theological prejudices or position by translating the verb literally, the reader will still have to make a theological or biblical interpretation.
Was the writer of Hebrew saying that the children still have or still do not have flesh and blood? The implication is that if the children do not have flesh and blood, does it mean that Jesus didn’t have flesh and blood? Jesus had flesh and blood. He was hungry. He ate. He slept. He asked Thomas to put his finger into the hand of Jesus’ side and into the nail holes. A reader might wrongly interpret that “the Christ” came and left Jesus.
On the flip side of the question, is the verb saying that the present or future children of God do not have flesh and blood since the verb is in the perfect present tense? The answer is not.
The words by Jesus, “No flesh and blood can inherit the Kingdom of God.” may be interpreted to affirm that children of God are not physical beings. In my interpretation, Jesus is declaring that one needs a spiritual birth, not just a physical birth to enter the Kingdom of God. Note carefully the text states that the individuals are children of God, not becoming the children of God. They have a new spiritual from their heavenly Father as well as a physical birth from their earthly parents. They have been set free from the dominion of Satan and death. Since Jesus lives, so the ones who believes in him will live too. They have eternal life in the Son of God.
Thus Bible translators made a decision to translate the verb in the presence tense and or past tense to reflect that the children of God has flesh and blood just as Jesus had flesh and blood.
SUMMARY: Each verse has both biblical and theological implication while being studied in light of the context and of the content of the Scriptures.
For further perspectives: