Review Essay: On Earth as It Is In Heaven?

NEVER GIVE UP! THE MESSAGE OF HEBREWS

PHILIP CHURCH

TYRANNUS TEXTBOOK SERIES

EUGENE, OR: WIPF & STOCK, 2023. 299 PP. ISBN 978-1-6667-5364-6.

Beginning the Ascent

If books of the Bible are like geological features, then Hebrews is surely an Everest (or worse, a K2!). Not for the faint of heart, the author of Hebrews demands much from his readers, expecting both familiarity with the broad sweeping narratives and liturgical material of the Scriptures, but also painstaking attentiveness to his quotations and allusions as he intricately weaves his exegetical arguments. The author also reflects the interpretive world of Second Temple Judaism, deploying interpretive techniques that often leave modern readers puzzled.  For those willing to attempt the climb, Philip Church’s accessible, one-volume commentary is an excellent guide. Clearly written and carefully researched, Church draws on his extensive experience of studying the letter to guide his readers up the mountain, verse by verse.

Though this commentary would be accessible to any interested reader, those with a little knowledge of biblical Greek will benefit most. Church frequently refers to the Greek text, providing assistance where it is particularly difficult, obscure, or debated. At points where scholarship is divided over how a passage should be translated, Church explains these debates and provides reasons for his preferred interpretation. Those who have not studied Greek will be able to follow the broad contours of these discussions, but those with a little Greek will be able to engage with these debates more fully. 

The commentary shines most in its analyses of how the author of Hebrews uses the Old Testament in his quotations, allusions, and argument. Church is attentive to the meaning of quoted material in its original context but also to its use in Hebrews. For readers less familiar with the Old Testament, these background explanations are gold. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hebrews scholars hotly debate many aspects of this letter.  Church concisely represents these debates.  He concludes rightly, in my opinion, that the letter was probably written before 70 CE, reflecting a time when the Jerusalem temple was active (11–13).  He also believes that it was written to a group of Jewish Christians, who were perhaps in Jerusalem, from an author who may have been located in Rome (14–16). 

With suitable background laid out in Lesson One, he proceeds through the letter.  He writes, “The superiority of Christ the great high priest and his sacrifice is the main theme of Hebrews” (5).  Though the structure of Hebrews is famously difficult (5–8), Church guides his reader through the extended argument of Hebrews, which carefully unfolds like a blooming flower.  Slowly, the reader learns how Jesus, who was not a descendant of Levi, is nonetheless a high priest according to the mysterious order of Melchizedek.  Just as the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the priesthood of Levi, so is the offering of Christ superior to the sacrifices of the Jerusalem temple.  As both priest and sacrifice, Jesus is able to offer himself as an offering for sin, once for all in perpetuity.  As the argument of the letter develops, the author explains to Jewish Christians, who may have been tempted to participate in the sacrificial system of the Jerusalem temple, that Jesus’ sacrifice inaugurates a new covenant, which achieves what the former covenant was unable to do (1). Throughout the letter, the author of Hebrews repeatedly pauses his argument to encourage or warn his recipients not to fall away, but to persevere. These exhortatory pauses underscore the intensely pastoral dimension of Hebrews, to which Church is very sensitive. The recipients of the letter need no longer be concerned with the offering of sacrifices on the Day of the Atonement; atonement has been achieved once and for all by Christ.

              

It would not be possible (or perhaps even desirable) for a reviewer to agree with all of a commentator’s interpretive decisions.  However, this reviewer takes a different opinion to Church on one particular point. Church states explicitly that he does not think that the earthly temple is based on the model or pattern of a heavenly temple.[1] He instead argues through the commentary that “the Jerusalem Temple…was a ‘symbolic foreshadowing’ of the eschatological dwelling of God with his people” (ix). In part, Church sees his commentary as a thorough testing of this hypothesis (ix). Given that this is one of, if not the distinguishing feature this commentary, I would like to explain why I disagree with Church here and how it affects the interpretation of the letter.  

 

The Archetypal Temple in Heaven 

After the Exodus from Egypt, God gave Moses instructions for building the tabernacle, a portable, temporary sanctuary. In Exodus 25, the text specifies that the structure of the tabernacle is based on a pattern (תַּבְנִית; tavnith; LXX παράδειγμα; paradeigma in 25:9 (LXX: 25:8) twice; τυπόν; tupon in 25:40) that God revealed to Moses (Exod 25:9 twice, 40).  When Solomon eventually began to build a temple in Jerusalem, it was based on a divinely revealed pattern given to his father David (1 Chr 28:11-19).  Exodus and Chronicles both state the tabernacle and the temple are based on a divinely-revealed pattern, using the same Hebrew word (תַּבְנִית; tavnith).  This Hebrew word is also used in 2 Kings 16:10 to indicate an exemplar from which a copy is made:

When King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet King Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria, he saw the altar that was at Damascus. King Ahaz sent to the priest Uriah a model of the altar, and its pattern, exact in all details. (NRSV)

In 2 Kings 16:10, King Ahaz used the altar in Damascus as an exemplar, or model, on which to base his own altar. The model of the Damascus altar and its pattern was then used by Uriah to build an altar. Ahaz’s model was based on a real altar (i.e., the one in Damascus). The same dynamic is at work in divinely-revealed patterns of the tabernacle and temple.  Church, by contrast, does not find this evidence in the Hebrew Bible compelling.[2] According to the index, Exod 25:9 is not referred to at all, and 1 Chr. 28 only in a footnote.[3]    

Though biblical authors do not explicitly state that the source or exemplar for the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple was God’s temple in heaven, some OT texts may hint at this, and later Jewish texts from the Second Temple period clearly take that view (for example, 1 Enoch, Testament of Levi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and others).[4]  Church is aware of this evidence, but does not think it reflects what is happening in Hebrews.[5]

Many Jews in the Second Temple period believed that the earthy sanctuaries (the tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, and the Second temple) were built according to a divinely revealed pattern based on God’s temple in heaven. In some mysterious way, the sanctuary on earth mirrors and participates in the activities of God’s heavenly temple. The earthly and heavenly temples are analogues, the former being based on the pattern of the latter. 

That the author of Hebrews was operating with this analogous (not metaphorical) understanding of the earthly and heavenly temples is made explicit in Hebrews 8:5, which states:

They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect a tent, was warned, “See that you make everything according to the pattern (τύποs) that was shown you on the mountain.” (NRSV)

In this verse, the author of Hebrews explicitly interprets Exodus 25 to mean that God showed Moses a pattern for the tabernacle that was based on God’s temple in heaven.  David Moffitt explains,

As his interpretation of Exodus 25:40 in Hebrews 8:5 indicates, the heavenly tabernacle served as a source for the earthly structure… This analogy further implies, however, a fitting set of correspondences or analogies between, on the one hand, the earthly tabernacle and the activities that take place within it and, on the other hand, the heavenly tabernacle and the activities that occur there.[6]  

As Moffitt explains, the author of Hebrews can use metaphor, but it is a relationship of analogy (not metaphor) that exists between the earthly and heavenly temples.[7] What does all of this mean for the interpretation of Hebrews? Very much indeed.   

 

The axis of Hebrews pivots again and again on the comparison of the greater to the lesser. The status of son is greater than that of servants (or angels), the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than that of Levi, the temple in heaven is greater than that in Jerusalem, and finally, Jesus’ sacrifice of atonement, as a priest in the line of Melchizedek, offered to God once in his heavenly temple, is ultimately and supremely greater than the Day of Atonement sacrifices offered by Levitical priests in Jerusalem year after year. 

The theology of Hebrews is built on arguments from greater to lesser. Jesus is not a Levitical priest because he is not a descendant of Levi. He is, however, a real priest according to the order of Melchizedek, who is able to offer himself as both priest and victim, in the real temple in heaven, of which the earthly temple is the “antitype,” purifying it of the tarnish of sin in perpetuity.[8] Believers can be confident of their salvation because Jesus is a high priest forever, which means that his sacrifice is valid in perpetuity in God’s heavenly temple. Significantly, this is not a metaphor, but a reality. Thus, Jesus’ sacrifice is able to make perpetual atonement for sin because it is a real (not a metaphorical) sacrifice.[9] 

By contrast, Church views Jesus’ high-priesthood as functioning metaphorically (3). Jesus’ sacrificial death is thus achieved on the cross and in the conscience of the believer. Speaking of Christ as the forerunner and pioneer of salvation, Church writes,

The writer refers to this goal as “the world to come,” “God’s rest,” “the city to come,” “the heavenly sanctuary,” “Mount Zion,” and “the heavenly Jerusalem.”  All these expressions refer to the eschatological dwelling of God with his people, that is, the eschatological temple, in the new heaven and earth (although he does not use this precise terminology), where Jesus is now enthroned.[10]

In a footnote, Church further explains that by “eschatological temple” he does not mean a physical building, but “God dwelling with his people in the new heaven and earth.”[11]  Thus, Church does not read Hebrews in light of a heavenly, prototype temple of which the earthly temple is a copy or shadow. 

In my opinion, this leads Church to make some strange statements.  For example, in the quoted statement above, it is not clear how Christ could be enthroned in the present in the eschatological dwelling of God with his people in the new heavens and new earth. If these are eschatological, future realities, where is Christ now? Or, does Church understand these terms to refer to heaven, which anticipates a future eschatological reality?  In any event, it does not seem possible for Christ to be currently enthroned in the new heavens and the new earth. The terms listed above do not therefore all refer to the same thing, and this has significant implications for the interpretation of Hebrews.

 

A Closer Look at Hebrews 8:4-6

Hebrews 8:4-6 states of Jesus,

If he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.  They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow[ὑποδείγμάτι καὶ σκιᾷ] (hypodeigmati kai skia)of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent, was warned, “See that you make everything according to the pattern [κατὰ τὸν τύπον] katá ton typon that was shown you on the mountain.” (NRSV)

In these verses, briefly discussed above, the author of Hebrews explains how Jesus did not qualify to be a Levitical priest (cf. 7:13-14). He is, instead, a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. By contrast, Levitical priests serve in a temple that is only a “sketch and shadow” of the heavenly one.  In order for these comparisons to work, there must be two sets of the same kinds of things: priesthoods, temples, and sacrifices. 

 

Hebrews 7-8 pivots around the comparison of two types of priesthood. If my car gets a flat tyre, I can replace it with a different brand or style of tyre, but it must still be some kind of tyre, not something else (and definitely not a metaphorical tyre). If I have a flat tyre, then how amazing would it be if I replaced it with a new, superior tyre that never wore out? Applied to Hebrews, what this means is that the author of Hebrews considers all of the following things to be real, superior alternatives to the Jerusalem temple: Jesus’ priesthood, the heavenly temple, and Jesus’ perpetually efficacious offering of himself. 

By contrast, Church interprets the key phrase “sketch and shadow” as a hendiadys to mean “symbolic foreshadowing.”[12] Church is correct that ὑπόδειγμα (hypodeigma) properly means example, model, or pattern.[13] However, Church emphasizes the future orientation of the word to argue that it is looking forward to something in the future, which he takes to be God’s eschatological dwelling with his people. He similarly takes “shadow” (σκιά) [skia] eschatologically, to mean foreshadowing.  He concludes,

Thus I argue that the text presents the temple not as a “mere shadowy copy” of the heavenly temple, but as a “symbolic foreshadowing” of the heavenly things (ta epourania).  These are the good things that were to come with the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God “in these last days.”[14]

 The problem with this is that there has been no indication in Hebrews that the reality of the heavenly temple should be taken any differently than the reality of Jesus’ Melchizedek priesthood or sacrificial self-offering. If Jesus is really a priest making an offering, then he needs a temple in which to perform this function. Hebrews 8 clearly explains that the temple where this presentation happens is the temple of the Most High God in heaven. 

 

A Closer Look at Hebrews 9:23-24

These dynamics also impact the interpretation of Hebrews 9:11-14, where the author of Hebrews contrasts the Day of Atonement offerings made by Levitical priests with Jesus’ self-offering of himself. This leads Church to conclude that Jesus’ presentation of his own blood (9:13-14) should be read as a metaphor for death.[15]  However, this seems to underplay the significance of what is described in Hebrews 9:23-24,

Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things [τὰ μεν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς τούτοις] (ta men hypodeigmata tōn en tois ouranois toutois) to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves [αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια] need better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one [ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν], but he entered heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. (NRSV)

 Church instead concludes,

As in 8:5, so also in 9:23 the earthly sanctuary is seen as a pointer to the heavenly realities that have now come in Christ. In the final analysis, the reference is to the cleansing of the human conscience that comes with the self-offering of Christ.[16]

 But the text says nothing here about the cleansing of the human conscience (though this is in view later in 9:9, 14; and 10:22). This seems to dampen the rhetorical climax of this part of the letter. Instead, the most-straightforward reading of the text is that what is cleansed is the heavenly temple, which is purified by Christ’s offering of himself. In the Jewish sacrificial system, blood has the power to cleanse or purify the tarnish of sin. Jesus’ offering of himself thus purifies the heavenly temple of sin.   

 

Church identifies Christ’s offering of the sacrifice as taking place on the cross.[17]This contrasts with David Moffitt, who has extensively argued for the importance of the resurrection in Hebrews, arguing that Christ’s presentation of himself as a sacrifice occurs in heaven after the resurrection.[18] Moffitt argues that emphasizing the death of Christ on the cross misunderstands sacrifice, particularly the Day of Atonement, where the focus is not on the death of the animal, but on the sprinkling of its blood in order to purify the sanctuary. This is exactly how the author of Hebrews depicts Christ functioning as both priest and victim, presenting himself as a living sacrifice in God’s heavenly temple, as an offering that is valid in perpetuity, eternally purifying God’s heavenly temple of the defilement of sin. 

It is only fair to acknowledge that the metaphorical, interior-focused reading advocated by Church finds its fullest support in Hebrews 10:22, but also in 9:9, 14.[19] These verses do speak of “our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” (NRSV). While they do use sacrificial language metaphorically, they do not outweigh the rest of the argument of Hebrews. 

 

Keep Climbing!

This book could be used profitably by individuals, but would also work well as an undergraduate textbook at the tertiary level. Alternatively, it would be well suited to a church Bible study setting. Each chapter (called “Lessons” throughout) concludes with helpful discussion questions that would benefit a study group or classroom. For reasons explained above, some readers may benefit from reading this commentary alongside others.

 

Church argues that one of the main messages of Hebrews is “Never Give Up!”–a call for the letter’s recipients to endure and persevere.  The call also serves to encourage the modern reader to keep climbing: the view from the top is worth it, but you must keep going! Church’s commentary does not intend (and should not be used) to replace diligent, painstaking attentiveness to the text of Hebrews. Church’s commentary cannot shrink Everest, but what it can do is to provide the climber with a trustworthy, experienced companion and guide up the mountain.  Onward and upward!

 

Katie Marcar is a Senior Teaching Fellow and Research Fellow in Biblical Studies at the

University of Otago, Dunedin.

Philip Church Responds:

On Earth as it is in Heaven? A Response to Katie Marcar.

I am grateful to Katie Marcar for taking the time to work with my recent textbook on Hebrews.[20] I am also grateful for her kind and generous comments on the book and the gracious way in which she has raised her critique of some of my readings of Hebrews. As Marcar says, “It would not be possible (or perhaps even desirable) for a reviewer to agree with all of a commentator’s interpretive decisions.” It is similarly undesirable for an author to agree with all a reviewer’s comments! I am grateful, then, to the editors of Stimulus for giving me the opportunity to respond.

A Temple in Heaven?

Our main point of disagreement relates to the existence or otherwise of an archetypal temple in heaven. To set the scene, it is important to clarify at the outset that a temple is a place of encounter with God. This is clear from Exod 25:8, where God introduces the instructions concerning the design of the tabernacle by saying to Moses, “And they shall make me a sanctuary so that I may dwell among them” (NRSVUE) This sanctuary (מִקְדַּשׁ, miqdash, LXX, ἁγίασμα, hagiasma) would be the dwelling place of God on earth, while a heavenly temple is God’s heavenly dwelling place. While those to whom Hebrews was written thought God was encountered in the Jerusalem temple, the writer shows that through the self-offering of Jesus access to God is now available in the present without reference to that temple (4:14–16; 10:19–25; 12:22–24) and in the eschaton, where it is described (among other things) as God’s rest (3:17—4:11).[21]

Interestingly, the writer of Hebrews never refers to the temple using the usual terms for temple, ναός (naos) or ἱρεόν (hieron). Rather, he routinely refers to Israel’s earthly sanctuaries and parts of them, and the heavenly sanctuary as the “tent” (σκηνή, skēnē), or with the neuter plural of ἅγιος (hagios, translated as a singular in English ‘sanctuary’, cf. the ESV of Heb 8:2 where this word is translated “holy places”). For his readers, the terms “tent” and “sanctuary” would have functioned as the names of the loci where God was to be encountered. Consequently, we need to recognise that a temple is not primarily a place of sacrifice. While sacrifice is associated with the temple, that is somewhat ancillary in that sacrifice is necessary to enable those who would encounter God in that sanctuary to achieve the required purity.

As Marcar points out, some literature from the Second Temple period, notably 1 Enoch, the Testament of Levi and the Dead Sea Scrolls, envisage a temple in heaven, and “many Jews in the Second Temple period believed that the earthly sanctuaries … were built according to a divinely revealed pattern based on God’s temple in heaven.” I have dealt with this literature at some length in my earlier work, Hebrews and the Temple,[22] and while it is true that some of it does envisage a temple in heaven, this is not the only schema that is found. Moreover, where there is a temple in heaven, both Enoch and Levi take a heavenly journey to access this temple and gain entry to the presence of God; in Hebrews, the faithful have access to God’s presence while on earth (4:14–16; 10:19–25).[23] Enoch sees two houses in heaven, with God enthroned in the second, greater, indescribable house that angels may not enter, although Enoch himself is bidden to do so (1 En. 14:8–23). This “temple” in heaven loosely reflects the Jerusalem temple, but not in any precise detail apart from the existence of two compartments.[24] For Levi, it is quite different. Here there are levels of heaven with increasing levels of holiness from the bottom to the top, and God dwells in the uppermost heaven (T. Levi 2:5–3:10). Again, this schema does not accurately reflect the Jerusalem temple.[25]

Sometimes, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the heavenly temple is not pictured as being “up in heaven”, and access to that temple on the part of the community does not involve a heavenly journey.[26] Rather, this temple seems to encompass heaven and earth in a similar way that the OT pictures the temple, for example, in Isaiah 6, where it is impossible to tell whether Isaiah is in the temple or in heaven, and in Genesis 28, where Jacob exclaims concerning the staircase reaching from earth to heaven, “This is none other than the house of God, this is the gate of heaven” (Gen 28:17). And, indeed, the idea of a temple in heaven corresponding to the earthly temple is a Second Temple period phenomenon, not found in the OT.[27] Of course, Hebrews is also Jewish literature from the Second Temple period, but given the writer’s deep attachment to the OT, there is no reason why he should be expected (a priori) to reflect other Second Temple period literature at this point.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain other ideas of heaven. One document, 4Q174,[28] anticipates an eschatological temple, as well as referring to an interim temple of people and the defiled Jerusalem temple. As I have argued elsewhere, these three temples bear a closer relationship to Hebrews than any of the temples in 1 Enoch and the Testament of Levi.[29] I argue there and in other places that Hebrews contains polemic against the Jerusalem temple and its priesthood,[30] that it sees the community itself as a temple so that the realm of cultic is transferred to the everyday life of the community (see e.g. Heb 13:10–19),[31] and that the writer and his readers anticipated an eschatological temple.

The debate in Hebrews swings on the interplay of the vertical and spatial (cosmological) and horizontal and temporal (eschatological) relationship between heaven and earth. Some scholars consider that both must be held in tension, and it is mistaken to subordinate one to the other.[32] While in most of my work I have emphasised the eschatological relationship. I now think that I could have been more balanced, and wonder if, when thinking of Jesus, the writer thinks in spatial terms (Jesus is exalted to the right hand of God), and when thinking of humanity, he thinks in temporal terms (we await the city to come, Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem). I also think Andreas-Christian Heidel is on the right lines when he says that “concentrating on individual texts could give the impression that the vertical dimension is more strongly emphasised in Hebrews, while the overall view of the whole letter could emphasise the horizontal dimension.”[33] Perhaps I have concentrated on the overall tenor of the book and downplayed some of the individual texts where the vertical dimension is present.

What about Hebrews 8:4–5?

Marcar and I disagree in my reading of Hebrews 8:4–5, where the temple in which the Levitical priests serve is described as a ὑπόδειγμα καί σκιά (hypodeigma kai skia) of τὰ ἐπουράνια (ta epourania), variously translated as “a copy and shadow of what is in heaven” (NIV) or “a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one” (NRSVUE). I have argued that a better way to translate this expression is “a symbolic foreshadowing of the heavenly things.”

This is not the forum for a comprehensive discussion, but I make a few points.[34] I note that τὰ ἐπουράνια (ta epourania) is a neuter plural substantival adjective, while both the NIV and the NRSVUE read it as though it was singular. The translators probably consider that this adjective qualifies the neuter plural expression τὰ ἁγία (ta hagia), “the sanctuary” in heaven in Heb 8:2, of which Christ is a minister. This is not the only way to read this adjective, and I prefer to read it as a reference to the heavenly things, the good things that have come with the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God, including Christ’s role as mediator of the new covenant, which is how his better ministry is described in Heb 8:6.

As for ὑπόδειγμα καί σκιά (hypodeigma kai skia), Lincoln D. Hurst argued over thirty years ago that ὑπόδειγμα (hypodeigma) nowhere has the sense of ‘copy’ in ancient Greek literature.[35] As BDAG shows, it is an indication of something that appears at a later time, an “outline, sketch [or] symbol.”[36] This word, along with σκιά (skia), with the sense of foreshadowing,[37] forms a hendiadys with the sense of “symbolic foreshadowing.”[38] Consequently, I read this verse as saying that the Jerusalem temple “is a symbolic foreshadowing of the heavenly things,” the good things that have now come with the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God. As Chrysostom said commenting on this verse, “The Church is heavenly, and nothing other than Heaven”.[39]

The problem with this reading comes in the second half of the verse where the writer supports his claim that these priests serve in a [temple that is a] “symbolic foreshadowing of the heavenly things” with a quote from the authoritative Torah about the design of the tabernacle,

just as Moses was warned when he was about to erect the tent. For, God said, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain” (Heb 8:5b, NRSVUE).

There are several issues with my reading. First, I propose that Heb 8:5a refers to the temple, but the reference to the “tent” and to Moses in 8:5b seems to be a clear reference to the tabernacle, and “according to the pattern” seems to indicate that the relationship of the temple to “the heavenly one” (NRSVUE) expressed by ὑπόδειγμα καί σκιά (“sketch and shadow”) indicates that the tabernacle (and temple) in some way reflect the heavenly temple.

By way of a response, I note that it is unclear what God showed Moses.[40] Clearly, God explained the design of the tabernacle (Exodus 25–27), but what was the “pattern” (תַּבְנִית; tavnith; LXX παράδειγμα; paradeigma, v. 9, τύπος, tupos, v. 40) shown to Moses?[41] Marcar cites David Moffitt as saying that for the writer of Hebrews, “the heavenly tabernacle served as a source for the earthly structure.”[42] But can this really be extracted from the statement that God showed Moses “the pattern” (of the earthly tabernacle)? It is not obvious to me that the “pattern” is “based on God’s temple in heaven”, as Marcar maintains. I have suggested (somewhat speculatively), that “God showed Moses the heavenly things to come, that is, the eschatological sanctuary, and told him to build a tabernacle to prefigure that,”[43] although perhaps I would now replace the words “the eschatological sanctuary” with “the eschatological realities.”

A Metaphorical Priest and a Metaphorical Sanctuary?

I turn now to the question of metaphor. I have suggested that the priesthood of Jesus was a metaphor following Alexander Nairne, who wrote, “Think of Him as a priest and I can make you understand.”[44] The writer wants his readers to understand Jesus’s sacrifice as a typological fulfilment of the Day of Atonement ritual. But there was no one-to-one correspondence between the type and the antitype. A bull and a goat did not die; a human did. There was no Levitical priest executing him, and there was no goat driven into the wilderness. Even though he was executed by Roman soldiers, the writer of Hebrews wants his readers to see him as both priest and victim being slain for our salvation. To that extent, priesthood is figurative language. He was not literally a priest; he was a condemned criminal (unjustly condemned, to be sure). His sacrifice did not take place in the holy environs of the Jerusalem temple but in a place of uncleanness and defilement (13:12). Now, as a priest and as God’s royal Son, he sits at God’s right hand in heaven. Even that, too, is figurative language. In Psalm 110, it was ancient Near Eastern royal court hyperbole as the Davidic king was invited to rule the nations alongside God. With Jesus, it is the reality, but unless there is a large two-seater couch in the sky, it is a figurative way to say that Jesus rules the universe with the power and authority of God and alongside God.[45]

So, while I continue to think that seeing Jesus as a priest is metaphorical language to assist the readers in understanding how Jesus has enabled them to have access to the presence of God, I am grateful to Marcar for drawing attention to some of the ways I refer to metaphor, where my language probably needs to be more precise.[46] I refer to the language of “perfection” as a “metaphor for consecration” (56). That is not the case; it is rather a technical term in the Pentateuch for the consecration of a priest. I refer to the spatial language in 8:1–2 as “figurative and metaphorical” since “the writer of Hebrews knew as well as we do, that we do not inhabit a three-story universe” (78). I am not sure that this language is as precise as it could have been.

On the other hand, the writer of Hebrews emphasises that by Jesus’s sacrifice, believers have free and open access to God, and he uses cultic language to express that.[47] He explains that believers can approach the throne of grace (4:14–16) and can have confidence to enter the sanctuary (10:19–20). When it refers to believers, I maintain that this language is metaphorical.[48] We do not enter a literal sanctuary when we approach God in prayer, and we do not need to take a heavenly journey to a temple in heaven as did Enoch and Levi. Neither do we “imagine” we are in the presence of God. Rather, heaven is God’s space, and earth is our space, and in prayer (and in Christian worship, if that is what Heb 12:22–24 describes), God’s space and our space merge and we have access to God. The writer uses the metaphorical language of sanctuary to express that.

A Sacrifice in Heaven?

Critiquing my language of metaphor, Marcar suggests that “If Jesus is really a priest making an offering, then he needs a temple in which to perform this function.” In this, she follows David Moffitt, who has argued at length in a variety of publications that Jesus’s self-offering did not consist of his death. His death was preparatory to his real offering that takes place in the heavenly temple.[49] Moffitt’s thesis is that the writer of Hebrews uses the Day of Atonement ceremony to understand the sacrifice of Jesus and that the most significant part of that ceremony was the entrance of the high priest into the holy of holies where blood was sprinkled on the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Leviticus 16). While he does not see Jesus sprinkling his blood in the heavenly holy of holies, Moffitt does see the self-offering of Christ taking place before God as he presents his resurrected life there.

This is not the forum in which to engage at length with Moffitt’s thesis, and indeed, this has recently been done by William Loader.[50] Here, I put forward a few points for consideration. As Loader points out, while “blood” may have connotations of life in a variety of OT texts,[51] there are numerous NT texts where “blood” has connotations of death, some of which imply that human salvation is specifically connected with the death of Jesus.[52] Loader finds it very likely that the writer of Hebrews knew of these traditions and that “Christ’s death is likely to have been central to the author’s faith.”[53] Moreover, Heb 13:11–12, Jesus suffers “outside the gate” (of Jerusalem) “in order to sanctify the people through his own blood”, and this is the motivation for his people to follow him “outside the camp.” Here, as Moffitt himself suggests, Jesus’s death is referred to with the metaphor of “blood,”[54] and is correlated with the disposal of the sacrificial animals “outside the camp” (Lev 16:27–28). 

The detailed comparison of the Day of Atonement ritual with the self-offering of Jesus appears in Hebrews 9. The writer explains in 9:7 that the High Priest enters the holy of holies annually “not without blood” (οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος, ou chōris haimatos), which he “offers” (προσφέρω, prospherō) for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. Only here in Scripture is the Day of Atonement aspersion of blood referred to as “offering.”[55] Hebrews 9:8–10 explains that the design of the tabernacle and the things that take place daily and annually there are a “parable” anticipating the coming of the time to set things right (much like I have argued that Israel’s earthly sanctuaries in Heb 8:5 foreshadow the heavenly realities). Then, with an adversative particle in v. 11, the writer turns to Christ. But here, the language is different. Christ enters the “greater and more perfect tent,”[56] but (despite the NRSV and the NRSVUE) he does not enter “with” his blood; he enters “by means of his blood” (NIV).[57] Nor does he offer his blood as the high priest was said to do in 9:7;[58] Jesus offers “himself” (9:14).

Blood does appear in 9:12 in the expression, “… how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God purify our consciences …” (NRSVUE). And while the verse could suggest that it is the subsequent offering of blood that affects this purification, that is not the most obvious reading since the next verse reads, “For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, because a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant (9:15, NRSVUE, emphasis added).[59] As Young points out,

It is not the type which dictates our author's exegesis; quite the reverse. He has daringly described the typical annual sprinkling of blood on the earthly mercy-seat as a προσφέρειν to facilitate his application of this zenith of the old order's atoning ritual to the προσφέρειν of Christ on the cross.[60]

While I value Moffit’s work, I remain unconvinced that the decisive moment of the self-offering of Jesus took place (and takes place perpetually) in the heavenly sanctuary as the antitype of the Day of Atonement ritual.

 What about Hebrews 9:23–24?

These enigmatic verses have caused a quandary for readers of Hebrews with their suggestion that in some way the heavenly sanctuary is defiled and needs cleansing. I quote them here with vv. 19–22 to set the context,

For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the sketches of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf (NRSVUE).

The writer is discussing the inauguration of the Sinai covenant in Exod 24:1–18, from where he takes the words of Moses from Exod 24:8 (“This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you”) and incorporates them into his discourse. He describes how Moses sprinkled blood on the scroll, the tent and πάντα τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας (panta ta skeuē tēs leitourgias) “all the equipment used in cultic service”.[61] A glance at Exodus 24, however, will show that the writer has conflated numerous OT rituals into his account. In Exodus 24 oxen are sacrificed, and half of their blood is thrown on the altar and the other half thrown on the people. According to Hebrews, there is “the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop”, and it is sprinkled on the scroll tent and the cultic equipment. This conflation of details leads to the statement that, “under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.”

I make three points. The first is that in this text, forgiveness is related not to the sprinkling of blood, but to the “shedding of blood.” Here, the writer uses the word αἱματεκχυσία (haimatekchusia), which he may have coined. Etymologically it is probably a combination of haima (“blood”) and ekchusis (“outpouring”), a combination that appears in 1 Kgs 18:28 (where it refers to blood gushing out when the prophets of Baal were self-flagellating to get their god’s attention) and Sir 27:15 where “strife leads to bloodshed.” This is not the sprinkling of blood, but death.

Second, the reference to death continues into vv. 25–28, which is a description of the cleansing of the heavenly things. It was not to offer himself many times, for that would have meant he had to suffer many times. Rather, he has appeared once and for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice (θυσία, thusia) of himself. This could be read as an offering in heaven itself (v. 24), subsequent to his death. But I think the language of sacrifice and of bloodshed makes that difficult. Then in vv. 27–28 death comes to the fore again, where humans die once, and Christ is offered once. As Loader suggests,

What is equated here is people’s dying once with Christ’s being offered up once as a sacrifice for sins, referring to his death. Christ’s sacrifice, specifically in 9,26 and generically in 9,23, refers to his death The passive προσενεχθείς may well allude to tradition with which the author is familiar which depicted Christ’s death as a sacrifice. In the light of this it is difficult to see how the author could be reducing the significance of Christ’s death to something preliminary or preparatory rather than the act that achieves salvation.[62]

Thirdly, there is the cleansing the heavenly things? In vv. 19–23 the scroll, the tent and the implements of worship are described as the “sketches” (ὑποδείγματα, hypodeigmata) of the heavenly things. This is the same word as in 8:5 where it is coupled with skia, in a construction I read as “symbolic foreshadowing”. These are the things that symbolise (or sketch) the heavenly things,[63] which (I argue) are the good things that have come with the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God. Perhaps the majority of scholars, along with Moffitt and Marcar, see this as the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.[64] On the other hand, I am not alone in seeing a reference to the cleansing of the human conscience through the forgiveness that comes from the sacrifice of Christ.[65] Both readings are possible, and while most scholars seem to prefer the former, I do have an issue with imagining a set of “equipment for cultic service” in heaven (as the NIV implies when it translates hypodeigmata in 9:22 with “copies). But maybe that is a metaphor!

In Conclusion

I conclude by once again expressing my gratitude to Katie Marcar for the thorough and generous way in which she has engaged with my work. She has done me a great honour. It has been my privilege to engage with Hebrews for over forty years, and often when I look at some text a little deeper, I find that my earlier readings need to be modified. Marcar has led me to reevaluate some of the ways I have spoken about metaphor and has sent me back to engage more closely with the text. For that I am grateful. Nevertheless, I still think “symbolic foreshadowing” is preferable to “copy and shadow” and “sketch and shadow” in Heb 8:5. And if that is the case, then I am still unsure that we can find the idea in Hebrews that the temple (or the tabernacle), are based on some heavenly archetype. But as Marcar concludes her essay, I will keep climbing.

Philip Church is a Senior Research Fellow at Laidlaw College, Auckland.

 

[1] For example, see Church, Hebrews, 5, 78, 81, 106-107. 

[2] Church, Hebrews, 78.

[3] Church refers to 1 Chr. 28 in fn. 82 on pg. 127.  In that footnote, Church rejects the position that Solomon’s temple was built according to a divinely-revealed pattern.  He writes, “First Chronicles 28:11-19 refers to a plan for Solomon’s Temple, but that was David’s plan (v. 22).”  In other words, the plan was fully David’s (and not God’s).  However, in 1 Chr. 28:19 (NRSV), David, referring to the temple plans, states, “All this, in writing at the LORD’s direction, he made clear to me—the plan of all the works.” I interpret these verses according to their plain-sense reading—God gave the temple plan to David, who passed it on to his son Solomon. 

[4] Attridge, Harold W, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 222.

[5] Cf. Church, “Additional Note on the Heavenly Temple and the Cosmos of Hebrews,” Hebrews, 84-85.

[6] David M. Moffitt., Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’ Death, Resurrection, and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2022), 131.

[7] Moffitt, Atonement, 117-134. 

[8] Church takes the opposite view, writing, “Of course, Jesus is not literally a priest….In calling Jesus a priest, the writer is using a metaphor,” Hebrews, 91. As is surely apparent by now, I do not think Jesus’ priesthood is metaphorical.    

[9] Those who would like to learn more about this are directed to the extensive work of David Moffitt.

[10] Church, Hebrews, 5

[11] Church, Hebrews, fn.7, 5.

[12] Church, Hebrews, 128.

[13] BDAG, 1037. 

[14] Church, Hebrews, 129.

[15] Church, Hebrews, 147.

[16] Church, Hebrews, 153.

[17] Church, Hebrews, 155.

[18] Church at one point summarizes Moffitt’s position and states, “Moffitt argues his case persuasively and may well be right, although I have some lingering doubts,” Hebrews, 163.  See, David M. Moffit, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011).

[19] Church, Hebrews, 170-171.

[20] Philip Church, Never Give Up! The Message of Hebrews (Tyrannus Textbook Series; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2023).

[21]For detailed augmentation for this see Church, Never Give Up!, 63–73.

[22]Philip Church, Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews (NovTSup 171; Leiden: Brill, 2017). For 1 Enoch, see pp. 145–70, for T. Levi, see pp. 182–91, and for the Dead Sea Scrolls, see pp. 79–143.

[23]Most scholars see Jesus taking heavenly journey such as that undertaken by Enoch and Levi in Heb 4:14. I read this text quite differently, see Church, Never Give Up!, 81–84

[24]Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 154–56. Recently, Philip F. Esler, God's Court and Courtiers in the Book of the Watchers: Re-interpreting Heaven in 1 Enoch 1–36 (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 136–52 has argued that 1 Enoch describes not a temple but a royal palace.

[25]Depending on which recension of Levi is adopted there are either three or seven levels of heaven.

[26] The texts I refer to include the Hodayot, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the Rule of Benedictions (1QSb), 4QBerakhot (4Q286–290), 4QDaily Prayers (4Q503), and the Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511). I deal with these texts in Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 110–43.

[27] Carol A. Newsom, The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985),60.

[28] This scroll is referred to by various names. It was originally named 4QFlorilegium, but I prefer 4Q Eschatological Midrash(a). See Annette Steudel, “4QMidrEschat: ‘A Midrash on Eschatology’ (4Q174 + 4Q177),” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March, 1991 (eds. Julio Trebolle Barrerra and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11 vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 531–41.

[29] Philip Church, “4Q174 and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Keter Shem Tov: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown (eds. Shani Tzoref and Ian Young; PHSC 20; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013), 333–60.

[30] See e.g. Philip Church,“The Temple in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in Hebrews,” TynBul 64 (2013) 109–28. Here I differ from many scholars who think the writer of Hebrews deals with the tabernacle.

[31] Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 358–67.

[32] Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989), 224.

[33] Andreas-Christian Heidel, “Between Times and Spaces: The Understanding of Reality in the Letter to the Hebrews as the Fundamental Framework of Its Interpretation,” NovT 62(2020) 433.

[34] For a fuller treatment see Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 394–411.

[35] Lincoln D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 13. The NRSV translation “sketch” is as a result of Hurst’s work. See Hurst, Hebrews, 136 note 47.

[36] BDAG 1037, s.v. ὑπόδειγμα, 2.

[37] BADG 755, s.v. σκιά, 2 (BDAG 929–30 does not include this sense, but see MGS, s.v. σκιά.)

[38] I argue for this sense in Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 404–11.

[39] Chrysostom, Hom. Heb. XIV, 3.

[40] See Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical TUPOS Structures (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series II; Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 336–88. See also Attridge, Hebrews, 220 and the Excursus on pp. 222–24.

[41] The writer of Hebrews cites the Greek OT rather than the Hebrew Bible, and rather than quoting Exod 25:9 (which renders תבנית, tabnith with παράδειγμα, paradeigma), he quotes Exod 25:40, where תבנית (tabnith) is rendered with τύπος (typos). It seems that this is because he had used ὑπόδειγμα (hypodeigma) in Heb 8:5a to describe the temple or tabernacle and could not support that with a text that used its near synonym παράδειγμα (paradeigma) to describe the pattern that Moses saw, on which he was to base the tabernacle. This is why Exod 25:9 does not appear in my Index.

[42] David M. Moffitt, Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus's Death, Resurrection, and Ascension (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 131.

[43] Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 410. In footnote 194 on that page, I refer to “the list of things shown to Moses in LAB 19:12–13, including the eschatological temple. To be sure, this is Mt Nebo rather than Sinai, but it does reflect a tradition that God showed Moses eschatological realities.”

[44] Alexander Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913), 23, 36.

[45] Marcar wonders “how Christ could be enthroned in the present in the eschatological dwelling of God with his people in the new heavens and new earth.” Hebrews 1:1–14 clearly has Jesus enthroned in the οἰκουμένη (oikoumenē, “world”) in the present, and in Heb 2:5 the writer explains that this “world” is the “world to come” (ἡ οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλων, hē oikoumenē hē mellōn). As he states at the outset, the last days began with the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God, with the implication that the world to come has broken into the present.

[46] I don’t think I have ever suggested that Jesus’s sacrifice is a metaphorical sacrifice, as Marcar implies.

[47] See William R. G. Loader, “Revisiting High Priesthood Christology in Hebrews,” ZNW 109 (2018) 256–58

[48] See Church, Never Give Up!, 170, where I refer to the “sanctuary” as “a metaphor for our free and open access to the presence of God in prayer.”

[49] See David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011), and Moffitt, Rethinking the Atonement, .

[50] Loader, “Revisiting,” 235–83.

[51] See Moffitt, Atonement, 42.

[52] Loader, “Revisiting,” 251. Loader cites the eucharistic traditions in the NT, including Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, as well as other texts such as Matt 27:24–25; Acts 5:28; 20:28; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Col 1:20; Eph 1:7; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14.

[53] Loader, “Revisiting,” 251.

[54] Moffitt, Atonement, 219. On p. 277, Moffitt suggests that Jesus’s “death puts into motion the sequence of events that results in the crucial atoning moment—the presentation was blood/life before God in heaven.” On the other hand, Christopher A. Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 3, 228; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 44–45 connects 13:12 with 10:10 where sanctification comes through the offering of the body of Jesus. Richardson suggests, “It is the whole person of Christ that was offered in death, in order sanctify the people and expiate the sins of the people” (p. 44).

[55] Norman H. Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” NTS 27 (1981)207–8.

[56] This is another way to describe the “true tent pitched by the Lord in 8:2.

[57] The Greek preposition is dia followed by the genitive case that has either a spatial sense “through” or an instrumental sense “by means of.” Dia nowhere has the sense of accompaniment. For this, see Moffitt, Atonement, 222. While I agree with Moffitt on this point, I disagree with him when he maintains that the first of the three occurrences of dia in this sentence has a spatial sense. To read it with this sense the NIV supplies an extra verb in v. 11 (“he went”) in addition to the verb εἰσέρχομαι (eiserchomai, to enter) in v. 13. Moffitt, Atonement, 221–22 seems to give the aorist participle παραγενόμενος (paragenomenos, “to come alongside, to be present, to arrive”) the sense of “to go (through)”. He translates “but when Christ, the high priest of the good things now available, went through (παραγενόμενος … διά) the greater and more perfect tabernacle” (pp. 219–20). Παραγίνομαι (paraginomai) does not have this sense anywhere else in the NT. For the sense “go through” in Hebrews, see 4:14, where the verb is διέρεχομαι (dierchomai), although I translate this verse differently, see Church, Never Give Up!, 81–84. Nowhere in the Bible is the high priest ever said to go through the outer tent to reach into the inner tent. That would be additional tautologous information.

[58] Moffitt, Atonement, 229 proposes that in 9:12, 14; 13:12 Jesus offers his blood. On p. 279 he suggests that in Hebrews “Jesus’ “blood” and “self” are basically equivalent terms.” On the other hand, Loader, “Revisiting,” 264 writes, “The shift of emphasis from the sprinkling as the salvific act to Jesus’ death in all probability accounts for his apparently deliberate avoidance of anything that matches the high priest’s taking blood with him into the Holiest place and sprinkling it on the mercy seat. Christ’s entry is related to his blood in the author’s typology not as an accompaniment but as a cause or basis for his entry.”

[59] See Loader, “Revisiting,” 257.

[60] Young, “Gospel,” 208.

[61] This quote from BDAG 927.

[62] Loader, “Revisiting,” 260

[63] They are not copies as the NIV would have it.

[64] Loader, “Revisiting,” 259 note 102 lists several scholars who hold to this view. See also Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 477; Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 416–17; Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2023), 458.

[66] See Attridge, Hebrews, 262; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 337; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised ed.  NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 228–29.