Eamon Younis: Two Atonement Realms: Reconciling Sacrifice In Ezekiel And Hebrews

By Jerry M. Hullinger, Th.D.

[Bible Faculty, Pensacola Theological Seminary]

In his book Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, the author referred to dispensational premillennialism as novel, innovative, and something which has sidetracked many Christians for 150 years. The system was diagnosed as being “filled with many contradictions.”[1] One of these apparent contradictions involves Ezekiel 40—48 and Hebrews 9—10. Ezekiel witnessed a functioning eschatological Temple, while the writer of Hebrews affirmed Christ’s offering to be final.[2]

Consequently, John Schmitt asked, “Is it heretical to believe that a Temple and sacrifices will once again exist?” His answer is accurate.

Ezekiel himself believed it was a reality and the future home of Messiah. Then, it becomes not heresy to believe that a Temple and sacrifices will exist; rather, it is almost a heresy not to believe this, especially because it is a part of God’s infallible word. The burden on us is to determine how it fits—not its reality.[3]

It is the “burden” of this article to suggest how these two passages fit together.[4] Two lines of argument have been pursued in doing this: 1) to show that Hebrews 9—10 cannot be understood fully unless the Day of Atonement background is understood. This will be shown by presenting eighteen allusions to the Day of Atonement in Hebrews 9—10. And, 2) to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice operated in a different sphere and for different purposes than did the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. A common misperception is that Mosaic sacrifice was impotent to accomplish its task, and therefore Christ’s greater sacrifice was necessary. This goes contrary to the book of Hebrews.[5]

The Day of Atonement Ritual

The pinnacle of the Mosaic sacrificial system was the Day of Atonement. It has been correctly termed the “Good Friday” of the Old Testament, and the rabbis simply called it “the day.”[6] Herr agreed that this was the “most important day of the liturgical year.”[7] However, this facet of God’s revelation is not complete until it is correlated with Hebrews 9—10, for these two chapters are the New Testament commentary on the Old Testament Day.

The Purpose of the Day of Atonement

There are two demonstrable purposes for the Day of Atonement. First and foremost, this was the day when the sanctuary was cleansed from the various pollutions that had infiltrated it due to the sin and uncleanness of the congregation and priests (Lev 16:16, 19).[8] This would then permit the holy presence of God to continue dwelling among the people.

Second, the Day of Atonement was the culminating day of sacrifice in the Mosaic system. Gayford has commented that the offerings of this day were “the highest in importance of all the atoning sacrifices; they summed up all the atoning power of the others.”[9] Likewise Kurtz stated, “it was the highest, most perfect, and most comprehensive of all the acts of expiation.”[10] And finally Ringgren wrote, “This comprises a large number of expiatory practices to atone for sins of the high priest and the people during the preceding year.”[11] The sacrifice on this occasion was the most potent blood manipulation possible.[12]

The Ritual of the Day of Atonement

The central passage for examining the Day of Atonement is Leviticus 16.[13] Leviticus 16:1–10 provides a general description of the ritual. The description is introduced with a warning: Aaron was not to come into the Holy of Holies whenever he chose.[14] This was due to God's presence above the mercy seat which would result in Aaron’s death if he entered without proper preparation. Therefore, the rest of the chapter explains how he was to make his entrance.

A detailing of the ritual is found in Leviticus 16:11–28. The first part of the ritual was the offering of the bullock (16:11–14) by Aaron to make atonement for his own sins. He took the blood of the bull along with a censer full of hot coals into the Holy of Holies. While Keil suggested that the incense was to prevent God from seeing the sinner, it seems better to understand this act with Hertz and Hoffmann as an attempt to protect the high priest from gazing on the divine presence and thereby averting his death.[15] This appears to be the idea of verse 13 which says that the smoke covers the mercy seat rather than the high priest.[16] Consequently, the result was that “the high priest was unable to see the Lord, and this fact saved his life.”[17] When he had entered the inner sanctuary, the high priest sprinkled some of the blood of the bull on the mercy seat and some in front of the mercy seat.

The second part of the ritual dealt with the offering of the first goat (16:15–19) on behalf of the nation. Interestingly, no mention is made of the ceremony of the casting of lots regarding the two goats (cf. 16:8–9). Perhaps this casting of lots was done during the preparation phase of the ceremony. The lots were drawn and one was placed on the head of each goat.[18]

At this point, the high priest killed the goat, which was designated for the Lord, in order to offer it for the people. He then took its blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled it in the same manner as he had the blood of the bull (16:15). Additionally, the sanctuary of the Holy Place needed to be cleansed (16:16). The text states that the holy place was defiled by the sin of the people. Morris explained: “The point of this is that the circumstances of everyday life made it easy for people to contract forms of ceremonial defilement. .. All this meant that they had defiled the place where they came to worship and this part of the day’s ceremonies was directed to removing uncleanness.”[19]

The third part of the Day of Atonement ritual was the sending away of the second, live goat into the wilderness (16:20–22). This part of the ceremony had two phases. In the first, the high priest laid both of his hands on the goat’s head while confessing the sins of the people (16:21a). This symbolized the transference of the guilt of the people to the goat (16:21b; cf. Isa 53:4).[20] The second aspect of this part of the ritual involved the actual sending of the goat into the wilderness by a man appointed specifically for this job (16:21c–22).[21] While there has been considerable debate regarding the term “Azazel” (scapegoat) and the sending of the goat into the desert, what is being portrayed is clear.[22] The dismissal of this goat signified to the people that the consequences of their sins were removed from the presence of the Lord (cf. Psa 103:12). W. Moeller summarized the meaning of the dismissal of this goat.

In order to make this transfer all the more impressive, both the hands are here brought into action, while in Leviticus 1:4 only one hand is used. The fact that the goat is accompanied by somebody and that it is to be taken to an uninhabited place is to indicate the absolute impossibility of its return, i.e., the guilt has been absolutely forgiven and erased, a deep thought made objectively evident in a transparent manner and in dependently of the explanation of Azazel.[23]

It is probably best to see the two goats of this part of the ceremony as forming one offering. It is clearly stated in 16:5 that the two goats constituted a sin offering.[24] Crawford suggested consequently that the two goats embodied two aspects of one sacrifice; the first exhibited the means, and the other the results of the atonement.[25] Erdman corroborated this thought. “The first goat signified the means of reconciliation to God, namely, by the death and sprinkled blood of a vicarious offering, so the dismissal of the second goat typified the effect of the expiation in the removal of the sin from the presence of a holy God.”[26]

Following the ritual of the two goats, the next stage of the procedure was the washing of the participants (16:23–28) so that new contamination to areas just cleansed would be prevented. Therefore, all who were involved in the activities were required to wash their clothes and flesh. The high priest at this point removed his white garments and put on his normal priestly garb (16:23–24). The fat of the sin offering was then burned on the altar while the bull and first goat were burned outside the camp.

The final part of the ritual involved duties incumbent on the people. First, they were to observe this day once each year on the given date. Second, they were to “afflict themselves.” This probably carried the idea of self-examination, prayer, and fasting.[27] Third, they were to do no work on this day.

The Day of Atonement and Hebrews 9:1—10:18

As the author of the epistle unfolded his argument in chapters 9—10, he was preoccupied with the work of Christ and the Day of Atonement (or purgation).[28] Fowler explained, “the divinely inspired commentary on this chapter [Lev 16] is found in Hebrews 9:1–10:25.”[29] Likewise Barclay wrote, “It is of the ceremonies of that Day that the writer to the Hebrews is here thinking. .. If we are to understand the thought of the writer. .. we must have a picture of them in our minds.”[30] In light of the fact that the Day of Atonement is in the mind of the writer, the balance of this section will examine the allusions made in Hebrews 9—10 to that Day as they are contrasted with the work of Christ on the cross.

The High Priest Entered the Holy of Holies Alone (Heb 9:7a)

In the first six verses of Hebrews 9, the writer recalled the layout and the furniture of the Old Testament tabernacle.[31] Verse seven records the first allusion to the Day of Atonement where it is said “into the second went the high priest alone.”[32] The δευτέραν (second) is the Holy of Holies (9:3, 7b) representing the immediate presence of God (9:5).[33] Therefore, in the whole congregation of Israel only one man had the awesome honor of entering into the divine presence. This recalls the scene in Leviticus 16 when the High Priest alone entered the Holy of Holies. This amounts to the fact, as noted by Westcott, that “the people had access to the presence of God in the person of the High Priest.”[34] By contrast, however, is the new order in which all believers have access into God’s presence. Morris explained this contrast.

The old rite gave access into a tiny chamber which symbolized the presence of God, Christ’s sacrifice of Himself gave access into the very Presence itself. .. Under the former system the access secured was very limited, the most that can be said being that the High Priest himself with the due exercise of stringent precautions, was able to enter the Holy of Holies on behalf of the people for a short time. .. The people must be forever content with access by proxy. By contrast the access secured by Christ is for all His people, and it is no hesitant approach made in timidity behind a cloud of incense.[35]

There are other primary references in Hebrews 9—10 that refer to the free access of the new order in contrast to the limited access of the old order. The first of these is 10:19. The present participle ἔχοντες is causal and has the idea of “since we have.” The object of the participle is παρρησίαν (boldness, confidence—modified by the instrumental use of έν with the dative—by means of the blood of Jesus) and is probably best understood in an objective rather than subjective sense. While the former would include the latter, the idea seems to be authorization or permission for access which was secured by the sacrifice of Christ.[36] Therefore Dahl observed: “Through Christ, their high priest, Christians may approach God in the sanctuary of heaven and of the world to come. In their worship they participate in the heavenly worship of the angels and of the perfect saints. Having in prayer access to God through Christ, they have already a share in the life of the new, eschatological world.”[37]

The second key text is 10:20. This verse continues the thought of access into God’s presence by discussing the means which made that available. It is through the sacrifice of Christ’s own body that true access to the heavenly sanctuary is accomplished.[38] There has been disagreement on how to understand the use of the genitive in the phrase διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αύτοῦͅ (“through the veil, that is to say, his flesh”). Andriessen and Lenglet have argued that other uses of τοῦτ’ ἔστιν in Hebrews does not support the appositional view of the phrase.[39] However, Young offered convincing proof supporting the appositional view and concluded that “the grammatical grounds for taking τῆς αύτοῦͅ as an appositional explicative of καταπετάσματος are coercive.”[40] He then proposed that the “flesh” of Christ is not to be understood as a “barrier” but rather as a “means of access” to God’s presence. Likewise Moffatt stated that “Christ’s flesh had to be rent before the blood could be shed, which enabled him to enter and open God’s presence for the people. It is a daring poetical touch, and the parallelism is not to be prosaically pressed into any suggestion that the human nature in Jesus hid God from men or that he ceased to be truly human when he sacrificed himself.”[41]

Another verse speaking of the access into God’s presence is 10:22 which uses the word προσερχώμεθα (“draw near”). While this word was often used with a secular meaning, it is also used (especially in the Septuagint, but also in nonbiblical Greek) of an individual’s approach to God. This approach could be made through prayer (Jer 7:16), or more generally in worship (Sir 2:1; Deut 4:11; Exod 16:9). However, as noted by Best, the word is frequently used to describe the approach “made by the priest rather than by the people in the sacrificial cultus. The priest draws near to God with the offering.”[42] Likewise, Spicq remarked: “Dans l’Ancien Testament, c’etait deja un terme technique pour designer le pretre venant accomplir son ministere dans le Temple et s’approchant de l’autel afin d’offrir un sacrifice.”[43] Thus the right of priestly approach to God's throne is now extended to all believers through the sacrifice of Christ.[44] So it is seen that “the first aspect of the general priesthood of believers in the Epistle to the Hebrews is entrance into the sanctuary.”[45]

However, the question arises as to how this freedom of access presented in Hebrews is any different than that enjoyed by the Psalmist in the Old Testament as he approached God through prayer. The answer to this question seems to lie in the pilgrimage and the vertical motifs as found in the epistle to the Hebrews.[46] Regarding the pilgrimage motif this means that though the believer has access to God by means of prayer during the present earthly life as a result of the death of Christ, the death of Christ also has secured a place in the immediate presence of God when the believer dies. This is access par excellence, for animal sacrifices in the old administration could never have provided this.

The vertical motif in Hebrews is positing that Christ’s work had effects related to the heavenly realm. The time-continuum of Hebrews includes both horizontal and vertical modes. Therefore, while Christ’s work actually occurred on earth, it had tremendous impact in the heavenly realm. In contrast, animal sacrifices took place on earth and only had impact in the earthly realm.

The High Priest Entered Once a Year (Heb 9:7b)

Not only was access into the Holy of Holies limited to the high priest, but even he could enter only on the annual Day of Atonement. Thus, except on this day, the way into the presence of God was barred for all Israel, even the High Priest. So, not only was access nonexistent for the whole congregation, it was limited for the one who had any access at all.

The High Priest Used What Was Outside Himself (Heb 9:7c)

The author presented another contrast between Christ and the Day of Atonement; namely, in order for the high priest to enter the Holy of Holies, he had to bring with him the blood of an animal. The point then is “even he entered only in the power of another life.”[47] This is reminiscent of the fact that each time the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies it was with the blood of an animal. The implicit superiority of Christ (to be seen later in 9:12) is that He entered the presence of God through His own blood rather than with the blood of an animal.

The High Priest Offered for Himself (Heb 9:7d)

Another reference to the Day of Atonement is found in this part of the verse where it is mentioned that the high priest offered sacrifice for himself.[48] This would be referring to his first entrance into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the bull. This reveals that the high priest was a sinner and subject to the same uncleanness as the rest of the people.

He had no right of entry on the basis of his own holiness, for he, like the rest of the people, was a sinner in need of atonement. .. The high priest who represented them before God was himself incapacitated by his own imperfection from effecting fully and finally that reconciliation which they needed, for, as we have mentioned, he, like them, was a sinner in need of forgiveness, and accordingly he offered the blood of sacrifice for himself.[49]

The Levitical System Was Weak (Heb 9:8–9)

It is plainly evident from the discussion thus far that the Levitical system was weak. This does not mean that the system was bad or that it did not accomplish the purpose for which God instituted it. One of the weaknesses was the problem of access into the presence of God (9:8).[50] As Bruce reiterated: “The whole arrangement was eloquent of the difficulty of access to God; this access was more difficult, more beset with restrictions, the farther in one proceeded, until entrance into the inner shrine, the throne room of God, was permitted to one man only, and that but once a year.”[51] The factor which impeded access is now dealt with by the author in 9:9, and this will be dealt with in two sequential parts.[52]

The first is the problem of perfection. Even on its climactic day, the old system could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper. What is meant by τελειῶσαι (“perfect”) is somewhat problematic in that the usage of the word in Hebrews does not necessarily follow the usage elsewhere. In Classical Greek the word originally had the idea of a “turning point, hinge, the culminating point at which one stage ends and another begins.”[53] Later the word had the idea of a goal or the end of something.[54]

There is strong support, however, for the thesis that τέλος in Hebrews had acquired a technical meaning borrowed from the Septuagint which has the idea of inward fitness to approach God. Gerhard Delling marshaled the evidence for this view by noting that in Exodus 29 the word is used of the priestly consecration of Aaron and his sons (esp. vv. 9, 29, 33, 35). The Hebrew idiom in these passages (“to fill the hand”) is translated by the Septuagint as τελειώσεις τὰς χεῖραςand clearly means to qualify someone for priestly service.[55] However, Silva has interjected an important caveat on the word. “We cannot assume, however, that these passages provide the linguistic background to the use of the verb in Hebrews unless we can show: 1) that [τελειόω] by itself could be used in this cultic sense, and 2) that such a use is called for by the contexts of the verb in Hebrews. Fortunately, we can meet both of these requirements.”[56] Even if there would be instances in the book where the words had a different meaning, the non-technical use of a word by an author would not rule out the possibility of the same author using the word technically elsewhere.

Just as the flesh could be defiled and therefore inimical to Yahweh in the Old Testament arrangement, so defilement could be spread to the inner soul of a man and therefore bar him from approaching God. Consequently, the perfection “of the saints in Hebrews is, by virtue of its Old Testament roots and the consummation of Christ, a soteriological. .. concept. .. Perfection on this analogy is described as the expiation for sin.”[57] Or, as Manson suggested, “the complete facilitation of our approach to God.”[58] And as Michel argued, “the issue is not the fulfillment of the promise but the qualification for heavenly sacrifice and priestly service, the definitive consecration.”[59]

The text clearly indicated that the animal sacrifices of the old system were inadequate in providing this type of perfection for all believers at all times. It is equally clear that it is the sacrifice of Christ that has provided this perfection for the present-day believer. Delling summarized the discussion.

God has qualified Jesus. .. to come before him in priestly action. He has done so by the suffering in which Jesus confirmed his obedience. As the one qualified for priestly ministry before God, as the One eternally qualified. .. he is the high priest. By his high-priestly work. .. before God Christ has once and for all qualified those for whom he acts to come directly before God in the heavenly sanctuary as men whose sin is expiated.[60]

The second issue related to impeded access is the problem of conscience. The object of this perfection is the conscience, meaning that it is one of the major obstacles to worship which the sacrifices of animals could not assuage.In Classical Greek, the verbal form σύνοιδα can mean ”to share the knowledge of” and ”to be conscious of” (in the reflexive form).[61] The nature of the word is seen in Greek literature through a variety of figures of speech related to the court of law (such as a judge, witness, accuser, and punisher), and others including an ”inner watcher” and a ”child's nurse.”[62] Especially rich is the language of Philo. “Established in the soul like a judge, [it] is never abashed in administering reproofs, sometimes employing sharper threats, sometimes gentler admonitions; threats where the wrongdoing appeared to be deliberate, admonitions to guard against a like lapse in the future, when the misconduct seemed unintentional and the result of a want of caution.”[63]

Philo also spoke of the conscience as a “stern accuser” and of a person who stands “convicted at the bar of his conscience.”[64] The writer to the Hebrews viewed the conscience as that which remembers past sins, while Paul used the word to refer to a moral guide.[65] As Selby observed, “Συνείδησις is for the writer of Hebrews that internal awareness of sin.”[66] Lane explained, “It is the uneasy conscience with its internal witness that defilement extends to the heart and mind. It is not engaged in moral decision making, but in remembering. Although the ritual of the Day of Atonement might effect temporary relief, the renewal was short lived.”[67] Pierce commented, “conscience. .. is the painful reaction of man’s nature as morally responsible, against infringements of its created limits.”[68] Selby summarized the matter.

The Mosaic cult did not allow real entrance into the presence of God because it could not cleanse the worshiper’s conscience. The writer thus establishes the fundamental weakness of the old system.. .. This meant that with each offering, there was the expectation of new sin and guilt and hence the need for still more sacrifice. Even as the worshiper stood offering a sacrifice for his past sins, he would know that tomorrow he would sin again and be guilty again and would need to return and seek atonement once more. Such a system offered no real cleansing of the conscience. .. In fact, the writer argues, the continual offering of the same sacrifices year after year had the opposite effect: it kept the people’s sin and guilt ever before them.[69]

Thus the old system, because it was primarily external and ceremonial, could not resolve the problem of a guilty conscience. This is why the much greater sacrifice of Christ was necessary.

The Outward Cleansing of the Levitical Sacrifices (Heb 9:10, 13)

In these verses, the writer stated that the Levitical offerings related to “ceremonial washings,” “external regulations,” and the sprinkling of blood and the ashes of a heifer on those ceremonially unclean so they would be sanctified and made “outwardly clean.” Oftentimes this outward cleansing achieved by Old Testament sacrifices is disdained and regarded in a pejorative manner. Lunemann referred to these sacrifices as a “rudely sensuous means.”[70] Hering associated the cult with a “magical conception of religion.”[71] Thompson wrote that because the institutions of the Mosaic system are material, they “are not efficacious” and are referenced by the author of Hebrews with “pejorative terms.”[72] However, animal sacrifices were efficacious in removing ceremonial uncleanness. This is one of the major reasons they were instituted by God, and they accomplished His purposes. While the author of Hebrews is admittedly demonstrating the superiority of Christ over this, the fact should not be lost that animal sacrifices did cleanse the flesh and remove outward defilement in the earthly sphere.[73]

Σάρξ (“flesh”) and συνείδησις (“conscience”) constitute the two sides of human existence for the author of Hebrews.[74] The earthly side of σάρξ could be cleansed by the earthly cultus[75] whereas the συνείδησις side of human existence required a superior sacrifice.[76] Hebrews clearly states, on the one hand, the blood of bulls and of goats did purify the flesh (9:13); however, on the other hand, it could not perfect the conscience since it dealt with external cleansing only (9:9–10).[77] A fitting conclusion and summary to this section is provided by Whitcomb.

Only Christ’s sacrifice was of the kind that could form the basis for eternal and spiritual salvation. But this in no way refutes the. .. efficacy in the Old Testament sacrifices. Those sacrifices had to do with the covenant relationship between God and the nation of Israel. Eternal or spiritual salvation was not the issue. Therefore, the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament and the sacrifice of Christ in the New Testament were effective at their own respective and totally different levels.[78]

The Greater Tabernacle (Heb 9:11)

During the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, sacrifice was made in a literal tabernacle in the desert. However, this is declared to be only a shadow (9:9). In contrast, Christ’s priestly work is seen to be superior because it involves a ‘greater and more perfect tabernacle.”[79] Having mentioned the high priesthood of Christ in 9:11a, the author then presented several subordinate clauses in 9:11b–12a to “establish why Christ’s high priestly ministry was fully effective as opposed to the ministration of the high priest on the Day of Atonement.”[80] These verses present several cruces and they will be examined here.

The first problem is to identify what the “more perfect tabernacle” means. There are at least six views as to its meaning.[81] The most satisfactory view is to see the tabernacle as heaven itself, the very dwelling place of God.[82] Hughes stated the view.

The term σκηνή is used in our epistle of the holy place through which the levitical priest passed to enter the holy of holies (9:2, 6, 8), yet it is also used of the holy of holies (9:3) and of the tabernacle in toto. .. Christ is envisaged as entering the true tent (heaven) which contains the true sanctuary (of God's presence). But as the curtain which divided the tent into two outer chambers has now been abolished, it is easy to see how in the true order of things, tent and sanctuary can be treated as synonymous terms.[83]

This position is also confirmed by 9:24 which states that “Christ is not entered into the holy place made with hands but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” This would also be consistent with the fact that Christ is presently enthroned in heaven (4:14; 8:1). Thus Christ ministers in a better sphere than did the priests of the Old Testament.

Another difficulty is how to understand the syntactical usage of the three occurrences of διά (“by, through, on account of”) in 9:11–12. To this question there have been three proposals. The first is to take διά in a local sense (through) so that the idea is that just as the high priest passed through the holy place on the way to the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, so Christ passed through the heavens into the presence of God.[84] This view takes διά plus the genitive in 9:11 as local and the two instances of διά plus the genitive in 9:12 as instrumental.

Others have suggested that διά should be viewed instrumentally (“by means of”).[85] Thus all three uses of the preposition would be the same. A final proposal is to understand the preposition to express attendant circumstance (“in connection with”).[86] This view connects διά in verse 11 with the participle παραγενόμενος (he appeared in connection with the greater and more perfect tabernacle). The two occurrences of the preposition in 9:12 are linked to εἰσῆλθεν (“to go” or “come”) and could be rendered differently (e.g. instrumentally).

The writer feels that the first view presented (local sense) is the most satisfactory. Thus Christ passed through the σκηνή in order to enter the real sanctuary. As noted by Lane this understanding is supported contextually in that σκηνη has been used consistently to this point in a local sense to designate either the heavenly sanctuary (8:2), the desert sanctuary (8:5), or to denote the front or rear compartments of the tabernacle (9:2, 3, 6, 8).[87] It is sometimes objected that since the last two usages of διά are instrumental, it is syntactically demanded that the first be also.[88] However, as Hofius has noted, elsewhere in the New Testament the same prepositions may function in a different sense even though they are in immediate succession.[89] This would be due to rhetorical considerations by the author and a case of double entendre.[90]

The previous discussion of διά leads to the problem of what the Most Holy Place is into which Christ entered. Τὰ ἅγια (“holy place”) and its variants occur ten times in the New Testament, all of which are in Hebrews.[91] The disagreement is whether the reference is to the sanctuary in general or some specific part of it. In keeping with the interpretation of “tabernacle,” it is probably best to understand the phrase as referring to the whole sanctuary (i.e. the presence of God). Strong support for this position arises from the usage of τὰ ἅγια in the Septuagint to refer to the whole sanctuary without distinguishing between the inner and outer shrine.[92] As Peterson said:

We may “demythologize” the language and represent the essence of the argument thus: levitical priests served in a God-ordained but man-made sanctuary, and in this ministry foreshadowed only superficially the definitive priestly ministry of Christ, in his death and exaltation to the very presence of God. Christ’s ministry is therefore superior to that of earthly priests because the sphere in which he serves is the heavenly sanctuary or the true tabernacle.[93]

Christ Entered the Holy of Holies through His Own Blood (Heb 9:12a)

The next allusion to the Day of Atonement is most important in this verse. The writer contrasted the offerings of the Day of Atonement with the offering made by Christ. A phrase much discussed is “by his own blood he entered once into the holy place.” It has been suggested by many that Christ carried His literal blood into heaven and actually sprinkled it on a mercy seat there. J. A. Bengel is an early advocate of this view. “Christ entered into the sanctuary through his own blood (not just after the blood had been shed, or by virtue of its effusion. .. but through his blood) therefore he as the high priest carried his own blood, in separation from his body, into the sanctuary, and at the time of his entry or ascension, Christ kept his blood apart from his body. His body was bloodless.”[94]

In a similar manner, Calvin commented on Hebrews 13:11, “In order that he might atone for the sins of the world Christ took his own blood into the heavenly sanctuary.”[95] Evidently, the motive for Protestant theologians for this position is to maintain a strict analogy with the Old Testament ritual, and for the Roman Catholics to buttress their view of perpetual offering. There are, however, a number of considerations which militate against this position. The first concerns the use of the aorist participle εὑράμενος (obtained). Regarding this, Hughes observed:

Hebrews 9:12 states that he entered once for all into the sanctuary above after he had secured eternal redemption. This is the proper connotation of the aorist participle. And yet another participle, in 10:12—“When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins He sat down at the right hand of God” conveys the same emphasis on the finality and the pastness of the unique sacrifice of Calvary. Nowhere is there any mention of a sacrifice that is prolonged in some manner or continuous in the heavenly sanctuary.[96]

Walvoord agreed with this view. “It may be concluded that the sacrifice of Christ was completed on the cross once and for all, that Christ did not present literal blood in heaven any more than His literal blood is applied to the believer now (1 John 1:7), that all cleansing in earth and heaven is on the basis of the blood shed on Calvary, and that the work of Christ in sacrifice was finished when he died.”[97]

A second argument against the more literal view is the use of διά. While Bengel (and others) would translate the preposition as “through” (attendant circumstance), an instrumental (or means usage) seems to be the most plausible. Thus the idea is not that He entered with blood, but by means of His blood, or by virtue of His blood. The words of Owen are appropriate here.

The apostle is so far from using the particle διά improperly for σύν. .. for he doth not declare with what the high priest entered into the holy place, for he entered with incense as well as with blood; but what it was by virtue whereof he so entered as to be accepted with God. It is vain speculation. .. and inconsistent with the dignity of his person that he should carry with him into heaven part of that material blood which was shed for us on earth. The design of the apostle is only to declare by virtue of his own blood when it was shed, when he offered himself to God. This was that which laid the foundation of, and gave him right to the administration of his priestly office in heaven.[98]

A third problem with the view under consideration is the contention of Bengel that Christ’s resurrection body was bloodless.[99] It is interesting that one so anxious to press the correspondence of the analogy is inconsistent at this point. For when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament with blood, the blood within his own body was flowing freely.

A final problem is the question of the Lord’s ascension. Those who hold that Christ carried His blood into heaven suggest that there was a secret ascension after His resurrection in order to complete His work with subsequent visitations to earth during his forty-day ministry.[100] This supposition is questionable, as Walvoord observed:

This concept of an immediate ascension into heaven after his resurrection has been refuted, however by able scholarship. Most conservative theologians hold that the work of Christ was finished on the cross and that the physical application of the blood never extended beyond the cross itself. .. It is improbable that Christ ascended in a formal way to heaven until the event of Acts 1.[101]

Consequently, Christ did not enter heaven carrying His own blood, but rather entered heaven by virtue of the blood He had previously shed on the cross. This means that Christ accomplished the two-fold work of slaughter and presentation prefigured in the Old Testament at the cross.[102]This position does not require exact correspondence between type and antitype as there are many contrasts to Old Testament ritual in addition to similarities. The words of Smeaton serve as a suitable conclusion to this matter. “It may we think be convincingly proved that the entrance of our High Priest to sprinkle the mercy seat took place at the moment of his death; that no moment of time intervened; and that the rending of the veil indicated His entry. .. While His lifeless body was hanging on the cross, the mercy seat was sprinkled.”[103]

Christ Offered an Abiding Sacrifice (Heb 9:12b)

Still another contrast is presented when it is written that Christ “obtained eternal redemption.” While the sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement were temporary (as seen by their repetition), the offering of Christ is forever permanent and able to cleanse the worshiper (9:14). In Koine Greek, the word “redemption” was a legal and commercial term for deliverance by means of the payment of a ransom.[104] The thought in Hebrews is that humanity is enslaved by sin which becomes a debt owed to God.[105] The blood of Christ is the ransom price paid to God which cancels the debt and releases humanity from bondage.[106] Denney explained that this redemption won by Christ was “not a redemption like that which was annually achieved for Israel, and which had to be annually repeated, as though its virtue faded away, but a redemption the validity of which abides forever.. .. God, if it may be expressed, has spoken His last word; He has nothing in reserve.[107]

Christ’s Offering Was Voluntary (Heb 9:14)

During the preparations for the Day of Atonement, the high priest chose the various animals from the herds needed for the ceremonies of the day. The goats and bull had no say in the matter. The superiority of Christ’s sacrifice is seen from the fact that He voluntarily chose to offer Himself being fully aware of what was ahead. Thus the author states that “he offered himself” showing the voluntary nature of what was done.[108]

Christ’s Offering Was Substitutionary (Heb 9:14)

In the Mosaic system, animal blood was shed on behalf of the Israelite. This was graphically displayed when the high priest laid his hands on the second goat and it became the substitute that bore (9:28) the sins of the people into the desert. Crawford stated, “the text teaches the vicarious nature of the rite of sacrifice. Life was given for life, the life of the victim for the life of the offerer.”[109] However, the dilemma presented by the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament was that an animal was not an appropriate sacrifice for a man bearing the imago Dei.[110] As stated by Hughes, “a brute beast can never be a proper substitute for man whom God created in his own image.”[111]

Therefore, it is discovered in the mystery of the incarnation that a theanthropic person became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world for which an animal on the Day of Atonement would never suffice. What was accomplished by this substitution? Packer explained, “He endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness.”[112]

Christ’s Death and the New Covenant (Heb 9:15–18)

The prophecy of the New Covenant, as found in Jeremiah, is first cited by the author of Hebrews in chapter 8. It is probably correct to say that this citation was made for a fundamentally negative purpose, namely to stress the provisional nature of the Mosaic Covenant.[113] The text is clear that Christ’s sacrificial blood ratified the New Covenant and made the soteriological benefits of that Covenant available to humanity.[114]

It is significant that the writer expressed the purpose for Christ becoming the mediator of the New Covenant. This is done through a very tightly constructed ὅπως (“that”) clause in Hebrews 9:15 expressing purpose.[115] The participial phrase θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων (“by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament”) within the clause expresses attendant circumstance in a “retrospectively cumulative circumstantial manner, which reflects back upon verses 11–14 and summarizes them.”[116] Thus Jesus became the mediator of the New Covenant so that His people could obtain eschatological salvation. This was never the purpose of the Day of Atonement.

Christ’s Offering Cleansed the Heavenly Sanctuary (Heb 9:23–24)

On the Day of Atonement, the high priest sprinkled blood at various points in the tabernacle for it to be purged due to the uncleanness of the people. Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews notes that the heavenly sanctuary had to be cleansed. This raises two difficult questions: a) In what sense did the heavenly sanctuary need to be cleansed from defilement? b) How was this done by the sacrifice of Christ?[117] The text seems to imply that the heavenly sanctuary became defiled by the sin and uncleanness of the creation, though some have dismissed this as nonsensical.[118] This would fit the correspondence with the Old Testament ritual nicely and the fact that defilement is a powerful contagion which is far-reaching in its scope; so far-reaching indeed that it can defile the heavenly things.[119] Additionally, the heavenly tabernacle could be regarded as defiled through Satan's presence (Zech 3:1; Col 1:20; 1 John 2:1; Rev 12:10). Though the sacrifices of the Old Testament could remove defilement from the earthly tabernacle, they were insufficient to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary (the presence of God there), which demanded a superior sacrifice. Westcott stated, “Man is. .. so bound up with the whole finite order that the consequences of his actions extend through creation in some way which we are unable to define (compare Gen. 3:17ff. with Is. 24:5–6; Rom. 8:18ff). And conversely, the effect of Christ’s work extends throughout creation with reconciling, harmonising power.”[120]

Christ in the Presence of God (Heb 9:24)

It is true that on the Day of Atonement the high priest entered into the presence of God in the Holy of Holies. This entrance, however, was limited in two regards. First, the high priest had to be screened by the smoke of the incense from even an indirect vision of God. Second, the high priest entered only once each year, and even then for a limited time. By contrast, Christ’s entrance into the presence of God improves on both of these limitations. Concerning the first, Christ has entered into the immediate presence of God without need of a covering of incense, for He sees God face to face (John 1:1; Heb 9:24). Thus, “the access with which the high priest concerned himself was to the tiny dark room in the temple. .. The access with which Christ was concerned was access into the very presence of God in heaven.”[121]

Concerning the second, Christ did not have to leave the presence of God, but rather remains there for His people (Heb 4:14; 7:25; 9:24). Lane summarized the teaching of 9:24–26 and the heavenly tabernacle in the following words.

The contrasts developed in 24–26 clarify the basis of the superior sacrifice by which the heavenly tabernacle was purged. The writer establishes two contrasts: the sanctuary which Christ entered was not the earthly one. .. Christ entered into heaven itself which is to be identified as the place of God's dynamic presence, which was only foreshadowed by the rear compartment of the tabernacle.. .. The appearance of Christ in the presence of God on our behalf provides assurance that his saving action possesses eternal validity and will secure for his people unhindered access to God as well.[122]

Christ’s Offering Was Made Once (Heb 9:25–26, 28; 10:1–4, 12)

The one offering of Christ is the most pronounced contrast with the Day of Atonement. The Mosaic system provided cleansing in its sphere of operation through continual offerings, but the superior sacrifice of Christ provided cleansing in its sphere of operation through one sacrifice. Concerning the salvific realm of this cleansing, Hughes stated that it “covers sin in its totality, without qualification, in every form and degree and also in every age of human history, retrospectively as well as prospectively.”[123]

Regarding this once-for-all nature of Christ’s work, it is interesting to observe the language of the epistle. Of the sacrifice of Christ, the author uses ἅπαξ (once) four times (9:7, 26, 28; 10:2), ἐφάπαξ[124] (once) three times (7:27; 9:12; 10:10), and the numeral μία (one) twice (10:12, 14).[125] Furthermore, the use of the aorist participle in 10:12 (προσενέγκας—offer) is presented in contrast to the present participle in 10:11 (προσφέρων—offer) speaking of the Levitical priesthood. Indeed, when speaking of the Aaronic priesthood, the author invariably used the present tense (5:1, 3; 8:3–4; 9:7; 10:1–2, 8) whereas when speaking of Christ’s work, he used the aorist tense (8:3; 9:14, 28; 10:12).

The Reappearance of Christ (Heb 9:28)

This verse states that Christ made His offering for the sins of humanity and that one day “he will appear the second time.” It is recalled in the Old Testament ritual that after the high priest entered the presence of God, the people waited for him to reappear. A striking parallel is seen by the fact that Christ has entered into the presence of God at His ascension, and His people today wait for His reappearance at His coming again.[126]

Christ’s Offering Was Rational (Heb 10:1–9) [127]

The author, in his quotation of Psalm 40, suggested the rationality of Christ’s sacrifice. By quoting this psalm, the writer contrasted the involuntary death of an animal with the voluntary, rational, and obedient sacrifice of Christ as one who did God’s will. As noted by Kaiser: “Instead of the contrast in Hebrews 10 between the Levitical system and the free surrender of Christ, it is a contrast between the death of an animal, which has no way of entering into the meaning of what is happening, and the perfect obedience of Jesus for which act He specifically came into this world, ‘I have come to do thy will.’”[128] Denney stated, “His sacrifice was rational and voluntary, an intelligent and loving response to the holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of man.”[129]

The Seating of Christ (Heb 10:11–14; 17–18)

In these verses, the author contrasted the one sacrifice offered by Christ with the continual offerings made by the Old Testament priests. This contrast is shown by the fact that the priest of the old order was continually standing because his work was never done (10:11). Indeed, the phrase “to stand before the Lord” was a technical term in cultic rites (Deut 10:8; 18:7; Numb 16:9).[130] By contrast, Christ offered one sacrifice and sat down at the right hand of the Father because purification for sin was accomplished une fois pour toutes.[131] This fact leads to the crowning achievement of Christ's offering in 10:17–18. The issue of the cleansing of the conscience is forever settled in God’s eyes. “This is the logical and triumphant conclusion concerning the better sacrifice offered by Christ.”[132]

Conclusion

The data in Hebrews reveals that the author was concerned in chapters 9—10 to contrast the offering of Christ with the sacrifices made on the Day of Atonement (the pinnacle of the sacrificial system). Through a series of allusions, it was clearly argued by him that the blood of Christ achieved what the blood of animals never could nor was ever intended to achieve, namely, internal cleansing resulting in salvation and access (both presently and eschatologically) into the immediate presence of God. Thus it is obvious from the truths presented in Hebrews that the animal offerings of the Old Testament and the offering of Christ were instituted for different purposes, each efficacious on its own respective level.[133] When these two atonement realms are grasped, the integrity of Ezekiel’s prophecy is maintained, as well as the unique and precious nature of our Lord’s sacrifice.

Notes

Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta: American Vision, 1997), vii, ix. The intent of this article is not to rebut this volume, but simply to cite it as representative of the vitriol against dispensational premillennialism.
Ibid., 85; Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1995), 7; Edmund Clowney, “The Final Temple,” in Prophecy in the Making: Messages Prepared for the Jerusalem Council on Biblical Prophecy, ed. Carl Henry (Carol Stream, IL: Creation House, 1971), 85.
John Schmitt, Messiah’s Coming Temple: Ezekiel’s Prophetic Vision of the Future Temple (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 181.
For a discussion dealing with other issues not addressed in this article, see Jerry Hullinger, “The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40—48, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July-September 1995): 279-289; “The Divine Presence, Uncleanness, and Ezekiel’s Millennial Sacrifices,” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (October-December 2006): 405-422.
Ellingworth captured this tension: “The argument thus moves between two poles. On the one hand, however much the author limits the scope and period of operation of the OT cultus (v. 10), he does not deny it any place in God’s will and purpose. On the other hand, he insists without qualification on the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice (9:26)” (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 431–432).
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 395–396.
Moshe David Herr, “Day of Atonement,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 5:1376.
G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 228. Margolis agreed, “by these rites the most holy place was rendered free from all impurities attaching to it through the intentional and unintentional entrance of the unclean persons into the sanctuary” (Max Margolis, “Atonement, Day of,” The Jewish Encyclopedia), 2:284. The context supports this for Leviticus 11–15 presents wide-ranging uncleanness rules.
S. C. Gayford, Sacrifice and Priesthood: Jewish and Christian (London: Methuen, 1953), 85.
J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980), 386.
H. Ringgren, Sacrifice in the Bible (NY: Association Press, 1962), 38. See also Allen Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 313–314; Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 303; William Barclay, The Letter to the Hebrews, Daily Study Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1958), 98.
N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 159.
Other Old Testament references to the Day of Atonement include Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:26–32; 25:9; Numbers 18; 29:7–11.
“That he is not to come is not an apodictic prohibition but merely a warning (John Bright, “The Apodictic Prohibition: Some Observations,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 [June 1973]: 195-204). It is interesting that nothing was said about a fixed time for Aaron to enter the adytum. Milgrom suggested that the purgation rite was initially an emergency measure, and therefore Aaron could enter the adytum whenever he chose, but his successors could do so only on the annual Day of Atonement (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1—16 [NY: Doubleday, 1991], 1012–13).
Keil & Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 399; J. H. Hertz, Leviticus (London: Oxford, 1932), 156; D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus I-II (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–1906), 1:447.
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 231; Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983), 70.
R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1980), 172.
For the details on this phase from Mishnaic sources, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1019–1020.
Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 71.
Kiuchi has also noted: “the guilt that Aaron has borne in purifying the defiled sancta is devolved upon the Azazel goat. Thus the relationship of the two rites is a continuous one” (Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, 156).
Geikie observed that in New Testament times, in order to prevent the goat returning to Jerusalem, it was led to a high mountain where it was pushed off and certainly killed (Cunningham Geikie, The Holy Land and the Bible [NY: James Pott, 1888], 1:224–225).
The etymology of the word “Azazel” is uncertain. Some derive it as “to drive away, something driven away” (Keil, The Pentateuch, 398; Hertz, Leviticus, 154). Others follow the Septuagint and Vulgate and translate it as “scapegoat” (N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers [London: Thomas Nelson, 1967], 113; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel [NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961], 508ff.), while others suggest an Arabic etymology meaning “rough ground” or “precipice” (G. R. Driver, “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,” Journal of Semitic Studies 2 [1956]: 98). Besides this, there have been four options proposed for understanding the phrase “for Azazel” (for a further discussion of all these options see Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, 396; Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 234–235; Harrison, Leviticus, 170–171; Charles Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen” Bibliotheca Sacra 115 [1958]: 320-333): l) the description of a place, 2) the description of the goat, 3) an evil demon to whom the goat is sent (possibly Satan), and 4) an abstract noun signifying complete removal. The majority of commentators opt for the third view (e.g. Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 1:404; George Bush, Leviticus [reprint, Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1979], 149; Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 98). This view is supported by the parallelism of “for the Lord” and “for Azazel,” later Jewish literature which cited Azazel as the name of a demon (Enoch 8:1; 9:6), and the biblical citations looking at the wilderness as the haunt of demons (Lev 17:17; Isa 13:21; 34:14; Matt 12:43; Mark 1:13). However, as Hertz noted, “The offering of sacrifices to satyrs is spoken of as a heinous crime in the very next chapter (17:7); homage to a demon of the wilderness cannot, therefore be associated with the holiest of the Temple rites into the chapter immediately preceding” (Hertz, Leviticus, 156). This view is further weakened by the fact that both goats are said to constitute one sin offering to the Lord. In the author’s opinion, the best view is the fourth. First, this option fits the dual aspect of the one sacrifice. Second, this is a legitimate etymology of the word. Third it avoids the pitfall of offering an appeasement to a demon. Fourth, it is supported by the translation of the Septuagint (Wilhelm Moeller, “Azazel,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1:344. Fifth, the function of the live goat is expressly said to bear the sins away into the wilderness (Lev 16:21c–22). Thus the word visually symbolizes the removal of sin from the people (Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus 16, ” 333; Harrison, Leviticus, 171; Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus I-II, 1:444; Hertz, Leviticus, 154). Whichever view is adopted, however, Hoffmann’s words are apropos. “Whether Azazel means, the mountain where the goat is destroyed, the sin which is given to destruction, or the evil angel who is given a bribe so that he does not become an accuser, it all comes back to the same basic idea: that sin is exterminated from Israel” (Hoffmann, 1:444; so, Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 319). The New Testament does not mention the scapegoat as typical of Christ directly, but since the Epistle of Barnabas (written c.a. A.D. 200), Christians have seen it as a type of Christ. As it was led out to die in the wilderness bearing the sins of the people, Christ was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem for the sins of the people (N. Micklem, “The Book of Leviticus,” Interpreter’s Bible, 2:79ff.).
Moeller, “Azazel,” 1:344.
Thus the living goat was the “alter ego” of the first as hircus redivivus (Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, 396; Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, 312). The first died as a sin offering, while the second visibly and strikingly conveyed the idea of the complete dismissal of sin.
T. J. Crawford, Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting Atonement (NY: William Blackwood, 1888), 225.
Charles Erdman, The Book of Leviticus (NY: Fleming Revell, 1951), 75. See also George Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 25; Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, 319.
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 236.
This understands כפר to come from its Akkadian cognate “kuppuru” and to have the primary sense in the cult of “to wipe,” “to purify,” or “to cleanse.” See David Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 298; Aril Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 33; Baruch Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 56–57, 59.
Arthur Fowler, “Atonement, Day of,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 84.
William Barclay, The Letter to the Hebrews, 97.
The phrase in 9:4χρυσου’ν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον has posed two problems. Should θυμιατήριον be translated “censer” or “altar,” and where this item is located. It is probably best to take the word as referring to “altar,” and rather than geographical location being stressed liturgical function is being stressed (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 184, 186–187; B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984], 246–247).
Scripture quotations are from the King James Version.
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 250.
Ibid., 280.
Leon Morris, “The Day of Atonement and the Work of Christ,” Reformed Theological Review 14 (1955): 16-17.
The term “confidence” occurs four times in Hebrews (3:6; 4:16; 10:19, 35). It has been understood in two ways: 1) subjectively—joyous confidence in entering God’s presence (AV, RSV, NIV, Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978], 2:170; Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, [reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 4:194; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 318; Jean Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews [London: Epworth Press, 1970], 90; Hugh Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New Testament Commentaries; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1964], 172), or 2) objectively—freedom of access (Weymouth, JB, James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924], 142; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 244; Antony Snell, New and Living Way [London: The Faith Press, 1959], 127; G. Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions [NY: Doubleday, 1972], 167–168; W. S. Vorster, “The Meaning of παρρησίαν in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Neotestimentica 5 [1971]: 57; G. M. M. Pelser, “A Translation Problem: Hebrews 10:19–25, ” Neotestimentica 8 [1974]: 46-47). Swetnam observed that the context favors the latter in that the author just described objective privileges procured by the sacrifice of Christ (James Swetnam, “Form and Content in Hebrews 7–13, ” Biblica 55 [1974]: 338). This objective sense is also supported by the instrumental use of ἐν with the dative “the blood of Jesus.” See also, David Peterson, “The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews,” Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979): 153.
N. A. Dahl, “The Approach to God in Hebrews 10:19–25, ” Interpretation 5 (1951): 409.
H. Koester, “Outside the Camp: Hebrews 13:9–14, ” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 310.
P. Andriessen and A. Lenglet, “Quelques passages difficiles de l’Epitre aux Hebreux,” Biblica 51 (1970): 207-20.
Norman Young, “τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (Hebrews 10:20): Apposition; Dependent or Explicative?” New Testament Studies 20 (1973/74): 104.
Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 143.
Ernest Best, “Spiritual Sacrifice: General Priesthood in the New Testament,” Interpretation 14 (1960): 271-299.
C. Spicq, L’Epitre Aux Hebreux (Paris: J. Gabaldo et Cie, 1953), 1:281.
Best, “Spiritual Sacrifice,” 282.
L. Floor, “The General Priesthood of Believers in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Neotestamentica 5 (1971): 73.
Johnsson bemoaned the fact that occasional “references to pilgrimage in the recent scholarly literature of Hebrews does not provide significant insights” (e.g. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 295, 304, 375; Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 258, Theodore Robinson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (NY: Harper, 1933], 43; James Thompson, “That Which Cannot be Shaken: Some Metaphysical Assumptions in Hebrews 12:27, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 [1975]: 580-81). “The employment of the motif in commentaries is still of popular nonspecific category” (William Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 [1978]: 244). Johnsson’s contribution will be largely followed in this section as it relates to pilgrimage (though not necessarily the application of that data to the writer’s purpose). By “vertical motif” the writer was referring to the fact that while Christ suffered and died on earth, the effects of that death had implications in the heavenly sphere. Though not developed in this article, another neglected theme to be developed in this regard is the preservation of the believer specifically linked to the unending life of Christ through intercession. See John Owen’s startling comments on this (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews [reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 5:528–529).
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 251.
Some have suggested a distinction between the three Greek words used for “offering” in the epistle: δῶρά (5:1; 8:3, 4; 9:9) referring to sacrifices which did not include the shedding of blood; θυσίας (5:1; 7:27; 8:3; 9:9, 23, 26; 10:1, 5, 8, 11, 26; 11:4; 13:5, 16) referring specifically to blood sacrifices; προσφορᾷ (5:5, 8; 10:14, 18) linked to προσφέρων (5:1, 3, 7; 8:3, 4; 9:7, 14, 28; 10:1, 2, 8, 11, 12) referring to both (Wilfrid Stott, “The Conception of Offering in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 9 [1962]: 63; Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:227, 2:70; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 118; Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 37). Others, however, argued that the three terms are a general description of the offerings over which the high priest officiated (Hughes, 175; Alford, 4:91; Gottlieb Lunemann, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the New Testament, ed. H. A. W. Meyer (reprint, Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1979), 9:503; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966), 156; Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 93–94; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 89).
Philip Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 319–320.
The initial clue is found in the introductory words in v. 8: “τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου (“The Holy Spirit thus signifying”). The Spirit was making the point that as long as the first stands, the way of access has not been shown (Steve Stanley, “Hebrews 9:6–10: The ‘Parable’ of the Tabernacle,” Novum Testamentum 37 [1995]: 392-93).
F. F. Bruce, “The Kerygma of Hebrews,” Interpretation 23 (1969): 13.
Regarding παραβολή (KJV-figure, NASB-type, NIV-illustration), the word should not be understood as it is used in narrative but in the sense of a comparison. Physical cleansing via animal blood anticipated spiritual cleansing via divine blood.
R. Schippers, “τέλος,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, gen. ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 2:59.
Ibid., 2:60–61.
Gerhard Delling, “τέλος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976), 8:79–84. Delling explained, “to fill the hands” has the idea of hands being made free from stain so that he is able to practice the cultus—cf. Lev 21:10 (8:80–81).
Moises Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976): 61.
P. J. du Plessis, ΤΕΛΕΙΟΣ: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1959), 230.
William Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration, The Baird Lecture (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1951), 115.
O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebraer (Kritische-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue Testament; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 269, note 2.
Delling, “τέλος,” 8:83. It needs to be remembered that the concept of perfection also fits with the pilgrimage and vertical motifs as presented earlier. While believers are presently “perfected” to enter God’s presence, there also remains a future aspect to this perfection. The ultimate goal of this perfection is to share Christ’s glory (2:10), to enter God’s rest (4:11ff.—this would be supported by this reference if either the millennial or eternal view is taken of rest), to see the Lord (12:14), and to inhabit the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22; 13:14).
H. C. Hahn, “συνείδησις,” in New International Dictionary, 1:348.
D. E. Marrietta, “Conscience in Greek Stoicism,” Numen 17 (1970): 178.
Philo, Opif. 128.
Philo, Deus, 128; Flacc. 7 respectively.
Paul described the conscience as the faculty of moral judgment, or that which tells a person whether his actions are right or wrong (George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975], 477). Theologically, the function of conscience in Pauline literature can be divided into three parts. The first is obligatory, or that which urges a man to do what is right and restrain from doing that which is wrong. The second function is judicial, or that which passes judgment on a man’s decision. Third, the conscience has an executive function that condemns an action when it is in conflict with a man’s conviction (A. M. Rehwinkel, “Conscience,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 267).
Gary Selby, “The Meaning and Function of “Συνείδησις in Hebrews 9 and 10, ” Restoration Quarterly 28 (1985/86): 147.
William Lane, Hebrews 9–13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 225.
C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1955), 108. He also said that the conscience “does not connote a moral arbiter but rather consciousness as in the remembering of sin” (99–102). See also Theodore Robinson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 123.
Selby, “The Meaning and Function of Συνείδησις” 150–52; see also, Ellingworth, “The Epistle to the Hebrews, 442. Du Plessis added, “The inefficiency of sacrificial offerings is explained as inability to banish the self-indictment or consciousness of the presence of sin even after expiatory services. A continual repetition of the deed was therefore necessary” (du Plessis, The Idea of Perfection, 231).
Gottlieb Lunemann, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 641.
Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 78. See also, Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 2:255; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 112; G. Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebraerbrief (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1966), 102.
James Thompson, “Hebrews 9 and Hellenistic Concepts of Sacrifice,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 568.
James Thompson, “The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews 7, ” Novum Testamentum 19 (1977): 209-223; James Thompson, “The Structure and Purpose of the Catena in Hebrews 1:5–13, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 352-363.
James Thompson, “Hebrews 9 and Hellenistic Concepts of Sacrifice,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 572.
R. Volkl, Christ und Welt nach dem Neun Testament (Wurzburg: Echter, 1961), 345; F. J. Schierse, Verheibung und Heilsvollendung (Munchen: Karl Zink: 1955), 119.
See also Ernst Kasemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 61–62 where he observed that the Old Testament cult was operating and oriented to an earthly sphere, thus it is not the Levitical system itself which is being faulted.
Thus, forgiveness in the Old Testament cult dealt with the consequences of physical contamination on sancta through animal blood (see Jacob Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray,” Révue Biblique 83 [1976]: 391; idem, “A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 90 [1971]: 150-151; Leviticus 1–16, 256). Spiritual cleansing was anticipated through a greater sacrifice (see note 73).
John Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (Fall 1985): 211. This conclusion should be connected with the πάρεσις (“pretermission”) of Romans 3:26. God’s postponement or neglect of punishment for sins under the Old Covenant was not due to a frustrated sacrificial system, but to a coming Substitute whose blood was intended to deal with the spiritual issue. For the important lexical and theological distinction between πάρεσις (“pretermission”) and ἄφεσις (“forgiveness”), see Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 238–239; and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25 Atonement and Justification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 99–100, respectively.
The title “high priest” is used of Jesus thirteen times in Hebrews, more than any other title, and therefore serves as a master thought of the epistle (David MacLeod, “The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena and Doctrinal Center” [Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987], 297–298); Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 57; Neil Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 80. For information on Melchizedek see Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 2:2–14; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 133–138; Carl Auberlen, “The Eternal Life and Priesthood of Melchisedek,” Bibliotheca Sacra 16 (1859): 528-57; G. H. Lang, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Paternoster, 1951), 21–31; John Sheehan, “Melchisedech in Christian Consciousness,” Sciences Ecclesiastiques 18 (1966): 127-138; A. J. Bandstra, “Heilsgeschichte and Melchizedek in Hebrews,” Calvin Theological Journal 3 (1968): 36-41; James Thompson, “The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews 7, ” 209–223; Bruce Demarest, “Hebrews 7:3: A Crux Interpretum Historically Considered,” Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977) : 141–162; John McCullough, “Melchizedek’s Varied Role in Early Exegetical Tradition,” Theological Review 1 (1978): 52-66. For a discussion of the nature of Christ’s priesthood in heaven, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. Henry Beveridge (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 1:501–502; Peter Toon, “The Significance of the Ascension for Believers,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (January-March 1984): 16-27; N. Dimock, Our One Priest on High (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910), 70–74; Henry Swete, The Ascended Christ (London: Macmillan, 1916), 95; Henry Meeter, The Heavenly High Priesthood of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans-Sevensama, 1916), 183–184; Richard Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1970), 113–119; F. D. V. Narborough, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), 31–40; Harold Songer, “A Superior Priesthood,” Review and Expositor 82 (1985): 345-359; Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Christ in Christology (NY: World Publishing, 1969), 229–239; Leopold Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 178–212.
Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 237.
(1) the incarnation (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6:266–267; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 120; John Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, ed. Andrew Fausset (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857), 2:638–639; A. W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), 2:431–432; Adolph Saphir, The Epistle to the Hebrews (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 2:566–567; (2) the glorified body of Christ (William Milligan, “The High Priest of the Greater Tabernacle,” The Homiletical Review 23 [1892]: 74-77; Albert Vanhoye, “Par la tente plus grande et plus parfaite,” Biblica 46 [1965]: l-28; (3), the eucharistic body of Christ (James Swetnam, “The Greater and More Perfect Tent: A Contribution to the Discussion of Hebrews 9, 11, ” Biblica 47 [1966]: 97-99; “On the Imagery and Significance of Hebrews 9:9–10, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 [1966]: 165; (4) the church (Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 258–259); (5) the hearts of men (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 199–200); and, (6) heaven.
This view is capable of being understood in one of several ways. First, some understand it as the visible, upper heavens (Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 84; Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 2:256; H. Koester, “Outside the Camp: Hebrews 13:9–14, ” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 309-310; John Brown, The Epistle to the Hebrews (reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1961), 394–395; Lunemann, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 9:612; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 120). A second position says that the outer chamber of the heavenly sanctuary is being referenced (Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:168–169; Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2:80–81; Michel, Der Brief an die Hebraer, 375–377). A third view regards it as a reference to the Holy of Holies in heaven itself. Hughes said, “Christ is envisaged as entering the true tent which contains the true sanctuary. But as the curtain which divided the tent into two chambers has now been abolished, it is easy to see how in the true order of things, tent and sanctuary can be treated as synonymous terms” (Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 314). This would mean that the translation of “and” in 8:2 (AV, RSV, NASB) is somewhat “maladroit” (Ibid., 281-282). The “and” would then be epexegetical (Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 105) and should be translated as “even” or left untranslated (NEB, NIV). Thus, a hendiadys is intended by “the sanctuary and the true tent.” This would correspond with the conclusion of Kuss that the author of Hebrews did not possess a consistent picture of the heavenly geography, and thus no distinction is necessary (Otto Kuss, Der Brief an die Hebraer (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1966), 118. See also A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882), 174; Marcus Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 4:332; Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 133, 152; Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 216, 248.
Philip Hughes, “The Meaning of the True Tent and the Greater and More Perfect Tent,” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (October-December 1973): 312-314.
Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2:77–81; Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:168; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 120–121; Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 2:256.
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 256; Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 174; Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 153.
Thomas Houghton, “The Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly 6 (1934): 141; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 57.
Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 237. For support, see also: O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine Exegetisch-Religions-Geschichtliche Untersuchunq zu Hebraer, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 11 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970), 56–57; William Johnsson, “Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1973), 293–296.
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 256; Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 151–152.
O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine Exeqetisch-Relicrions-Geschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebraer, 81–82.
Compare 2 Corinthians 2:12 which includes a local and telic use of εἰς, and 2 Peter 1:4 with its local and instrumental use of ἐν. For further validation of different senses of the same preposition, see the discussion by M. J. Harris, “Appendix: Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:1171–1215.
A. P. Salom, “Τὰ ἅγια in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 5 (1967): 59.
Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 104; Michel, Der Brief an die Hebraer, 287; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 216; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 161; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 281.
D. G. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfectionism: An Examination of the Concept of Perfectionism in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 132. See also, S. Nomoto, “Herkunft und Struktur der Hohenpriestervorstellung im Hebraerbrief,” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 17-25. That Christ’s priestly work is literal as opposed to metaphorical or Platonic, see L. D. Hurst, “How Platonic are Hebrews 7:5 and 9:23?” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983): 156-168; H. Wenschkewitz, Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriff (Lepzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1932), 145; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 214, 227–228; Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 215–285; Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 104–105; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 103–141; Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 132–167; George MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978): 186. In keeping with the eschatological model over the Platonic one, see also R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 419.
J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, 4:476.
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, 348. Omanson also argued for this view claiming that it is “the most natural in this context” and that the contrary view “reflects more the pedantic mind of the interpreter than it does the creative mind of the author of Hebrews” (Roger Omanson, “A Superior Covenant: Hebrews 8:1–10:18” Review and Expositor 82 [1985]: 368). See also, Walter Brooks, “The Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970): 208, 209, 211–12.
Philip Hughes, “The High-Priestly Sacrifice of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (July-September 1973): 210.
John Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 246.
John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6:280–281.
A corollary of this view is that Christ’s blood is presently preserved in heaven apart from His body (Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, 2:678; Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, 140, 210). This view argues on the basis that no mention is made of blood in Christ’s resurrection body, and that the blood is distinct from the body in the Lord’s Supper. However, as noted by MacLeod, this does not prove anything just as His failure to mention skin and hair does not prove that he was skinless and hairless. Also, the two separate elements of the Lord’s Supper are probably a hendiadys (MacLeod, “The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena and Doctrinal Center,” 418–420).
Gerrit Dawson, Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004), 36–37; Kenneth Monroe, “The Time Element in Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly 5 (1933): 397-408; I. M. Haldeman, The Tabernacle Priesthood and Offerings (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1925), 182–186. Though H. Windisch suggested that at the time of His ascension He carried the blood (Der Hebraerbrief, [Tubingen: Mohr: 1931], 47, 85).
Walvoord, Jesus Christ our Lord, 220–221; W. H. Thomas, “Ascension,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1:263–266; Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.), 5:312; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 232.
Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 201; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 327–328; Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 249; Smeaton, The Apostle’s Doctrine of the Atonement, 380–381.
Smeaton, The Apostle’s Doctrine of the Atonement, 339–340. The words of Bruce are also relevant. “While it is necessary under the old covenant for the sacrificial blood first to be shed in the court and then to be brought into the holy of holies, no such division of our Lord’s sacrifice into two phases is envisaged under the new covenant. When upon the cross He offered up His life to God as a sacrifice for His people’s sin, He accomplished in reality what Aaron and his successors performed in type by the twofold act of slaying the victim and presenting its blood in the holy of holies” (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 200–201).
F. Wilbur Arndt and William F. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), 483; Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies (reprint, Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1979), 327.
Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 148.
Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 175.
James Denney, The Death of Christ (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1982), 151.
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 5:400.
Crawford, Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting Atonement, 237.
This statement is not meant to show disdain for the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, for it was good and effective for the purposes which God desired. The point is that animal sacrifice was not intended to provide salvation or a cleansing of the conscience. It took the sacrifice of the Son of God, who was a fitting substitute for man created in the image of God to accomplish this.
Philip Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 320.
J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution,” Tyndale Bulletin 25 (1974): 25.
David Peterson, “The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews,” Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979): 75. He noted that the very prediction of a New Covenant in the first place would not have been made if the first covenant had been faultless. See also, Albert Vanhoye, “Par la tente plus grande et plus parfaite,” Biblica 46 (1965): 143.
As to whether διαθήκῃ should be translated “covenant” or “last will and testament,” see Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon, 183; G. Quell and J. Behm, “διαθήκῃ,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:124; Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 61, 82–85; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 125–131; Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 2:260–265; 285–299; Michel, Der Brief an die Hebraer, 315–322; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 209–214; Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 150–153.
Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 231.
J. J. Hughes, “Hebrews ix 15ff. and Galatians iii 15ff.: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 33.
The plural “sacrifices” is probably a generic plural and suggests that the sacrifice of Christ fulfilled perfectly what was suggested by the animal sacrifices (Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2:126; Lunemann, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 624; Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:180; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 271; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 132; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 218; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 379; Donald Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 196.
Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 2:266–267; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 218.
Windisch, Der Hebraerbrief, 85; E. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer (Wuppertal: R. Brockhause, 1987), 283; Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews (St. Meinrad, Indiana: Grail Publications, 1960), 81–91; Johnsson, Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews, 256–261.
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 270–271; Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 178–179; Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 4:338.
Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 84.
Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 248.
Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 379; Donald Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews, 385.
La Rondelle has noted that the meaning of this word is not merely “once-ness” but also the decisive term for all-sufficient expiation once and for all (H. K. La Rondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism, 195).
W. Stott, “The Conception of Offering in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 9 (1962): 65.
Victor Buksbazen, The Gospel in the Feasts of Israel (Philadelphia: The Friends of Israel Missionary and Relief Society, 1955), 33; Charles Erdman, The Book of Leviticus, 76; Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 182; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 388–389; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 280; Smeaton, The Apostle’s Doctrine of the Atonement, 341.
For the concentric symmetry of the passage, see Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 258.
Walter Kaiser, “The Abolition of the Old Order and the Establishment of the New: A Study of Psalm 40:6–8 and Hebrews 10:5–10, ” in Tradition and Testament, ed. Paul Feinberg (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 34. For further discussion of the rational sacrifice of Christ in the New Testament, K. Weiss, “προσφέρω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:67; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 138.
Denney, The Death of Christ, 165.
MacLeod, “The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 445; Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2:159; Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 169.
Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 2:10.
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 5:410.
This is why it is fitting for sacrifices to be renewed during the kingdom. Their temporal function of dealing with ceremonial defilement will once again be needed due to God’s physical presence. This, therefore, is not a step backward because that realm of cleansing once more becomes relevant. Their renewal has nothing to do with encroaching on the realm of Christ’s sacrifice.

Eamon Younis

Friday 16 September 2022

Two Atonement Realms: Reconciling Sacrifice In Ezekiel And Hebrews

No comments:

Post a Comment