NIVEL 1: Módulo M7.- Química y Economía Industrial .1 Datos Básicos del Nivel 1

The arguments in favor of this point of view may be classified as both conceptual and exegetical. That is, appeal is made on a broad front to the cosmology of Hebrews, whereas specific verses involving cultic language are adduced as clues^to the metaphorical intent of the document. We will take up each view in turn.

The Conceptual Interpretation

It is held that the thought-world of hellenistic Judaism, and in particular the writings of Philo Judaeus,15 furnish the backdrop for the cultic language of Hebrews. When Philo wrote of a heavenly sanctuary and liturgy,

13 Note, for instance, how F. F. Bruce in his commentary on Hebrews (The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1971]) appears to favor a realistic heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews 8:1-5, but by 10:19-22 he has allegorized the veil to denote the flesh of Christ.

14 Note: This chapterdoes not take up Ellen G. White's statements relative to Hebrews. These state- ments, which raise certain issues of their own, nevertheless obviously hold to a realistic heavenly sanctuary. Issues raised by these statements are handled by other chapters in The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher (Washington, DC, 1981).

15 The dates for Philo arc uncertain: ca. 20 B.C. to ca. A.D. 50.

The Heavenly Sanctuary—Figurative Or Real?

he had a cosmic view in which the theios logos ("divine word") was the priest: "The highest, and in the truest sense the holy temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its votive ornaments of the stars, for its priests the angels who are servitors to His powers, unbodied souls, not compounds of rational and irrational nature."16

"It was determined, therefore, to fashion a tabernacle, a work of the highest sanctity, the construction of which was set forth to Moses on the mount by divine pronouncements. He saw with the soul's eye the immaterial forms of the material objects about to be made, and these forms had to be reproduced in copies perceived by the senses, taken from the original draft... and from patterns conceived in the mind. For it was fitting that the construction of the sanctuary should be committed to him who was truly high priest, in order that his performance of the rites belonging to the sacred office might be in more full accordance and harmony with the

fabric."17

"An angel is an intellectual soul or rather wholly mind, wholly incorporeal, made (to be) a minister of God, and appointed over certain needs and the service of the race of mortals, since it was unable, because of its corruptible nature, to receive the gifts and benefactions extended by God.... (Therefore) of necessity was the Logos appointed as judge and mediator, who is called 'angel.'

"And a very clear proof of this is that the divine name is called upon the angel. And this is the most sovereign and principal (being) which the heaven and earth and whole world knows."!

i1 _{Hebrews, it is claimed, shares this conceptual world. In support, it can , be}

pointed out that the very terms used by Hebrews to describe the relation of the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly—skia ("shadow"), eikon ("image"), and hupodeigma ("example," "copy")—have Platonic roots and are used by Philo in the same setting.19 More importantly, however, Hebrews shares with Philo the Platonic cosmplogical dualism whereby the unseen is the ultimately real—the seen is transient. Hebrews 8:2 speaks of the alethinos—^the genuine, or real—whereas throughout chapter 11 the contrast is drawn between the earthly, which is temporary and ultimately

16 De specialibus legibus, I.xii.66 in LCL, Philo, VIL137,139. 17 De Vita Mosis, II.xv.74 in LCL, Philo, VL485,487.

18 Quaestiones el Solutiones in Exodwn, П.13, inLCL,P/"7o, Supp. II: 48, 51.

19 See Moffatt, xxxi-xxxiv, pp. 104-6,135; also W, F, Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent

unreal even though seen, and the heavenly, which is permanent of God and ultimately real, though unseen.20

The idea of looking to Philo to provide the conceptual key for Hebrews has a strong tradition among commentators. Moffatt, in the ICC,21 is probably the most influential. However, even where the relation to Philo is not directly acknowledged, exegetes of Hebrews often betray at least partial adherence to this interpretation.

A recent Harvard dissertation, L.K.K. De/s The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews22 argues extensively for the Philonic- type world of Hebrews. Going beyond the old arguments based on chapters 8,9, and 11, chapters 1-7 reason that the discussion of angels, Moses, "perfection," Aaron, and Melchizedek all proceed from a base in Philo's categories.23

If, then, the book of Hebrews is using the language of heavenly sanctuary and liturgy as Philo employs it (although in a Christianized sense so as to give Christ pride of place), it would be a grave misunderstanding of the document to understand an actual temple and work.

The Exegetical Interpretation

Several verses and expressions in the cultic argumentation of Hebrews 9:1- 10:18 are said to give us clues to the cultic language.

1. The earthly sanctuary (hagion kosmikon), (9:1). The term to hagion in the LXX frequently means the whole sanctuary, as in Exodus 36:3 and Numbers 3:38." What does kosmikon signify here? For Philo (and Jose-phus as well)25 the earthly sanctuary was symbolic of the cosmos. The phrase hagion kosmikon would then be viewed as "a symbol of action worked upon the stage of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a higher plane."26 That is, kosmikon is here seen as a predicate use of the adjective, and the phrase hagion kosmikon should be translated "earthly tabernacle with a cosmic pattern."

2. The "first tent» {sKene heprofe), (9:2). What is the precise referent of this term? Although it is clear in 9:2-4 that emphasis is upon the

20 See esp. Hebrews 11:1.2,6, 7,10.13-16,26-27, 39-40. 21 See n. 7.

22 SBL Dissertation Series 25 (Missoula, MT, 1975).

23 It is significant that Dey does not attempt to embrace Hebrews 8-10 in his thesis.

24 A. P. Salom ("ta hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews," AUSS 5 [January, 1967]: 60) holds that of 170 uses of to hagion, 142 refer to the sanctuary in general. See Appendix A for reprint of this article

25AnL III. 6:4; III, 7:7. 26 Moffatt, p. 113.

The Heavenly Sanctuary— Figurative Or Real?

distinction between the first and second rooms of the tabernacle (shown by the discussion of the furnishings), it is held that we here have a clue to the nature of the heavenly sanctuary. The two tents (apartments) suggest the contrast between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries: the holy place with its mundane objects as a symbol of earth; the Most Holy Place is a symbol of heaven.

3. The "Holy ofHolies" (hagia hagwn)y (9:3). This is a reference to the heavenly sanctuary. In support of this viewpoint, reference is made to Hebrews 9:8-9, where the holy place is a symbol of the old age (the kairos enesfekos) and the Holy of Holies is a symbol of the new age (the kairon diorthoseos)27 According to this interpretation we see that Hebrews, although employing sanctuary terminology, is attaching allegorical significance to it.28

4. The "greater and more perfect tent" (9:11). The interpretation centers on the force of the use of the first dia ("through" or "by") in the sentence. It may be taken as instrumental and, indeed, is so used in verse 12.29 This verse suggests that Christ obtained access to God through "a greater and more perfect tent, an instrument not made with hands," that is, His body. Then skene ("tent") corresponds to the earthly existence of Christ.

Elsewhere in the NT the body of Jesus is called a temple (Mark 14:58; John 1:14; 2:19; Col 2:9), and the book of Hebrews has earlier argued for the

necessity of the incarnation (2:14-16; 5:7). That is, the body of Jesus becomes the

instrument of God's salvation on earth. U. Luk further argues for this position on the basis of Hebrews 10:5 and onward, holding that Jesus in His existence as the "heavenly temple" brought the heavenly .sanctuary to earth in His life. Thus His priestly service on the cross is carried out in His own body as temple; in the life and death of Jesus, heaven and earth meet dynamically.

5. "The veil, that is His flesh" (10:19-20). The metaphorical interpretation looks to these verses for its strongest support. Whereas the earlier references required careful reasoning, here it is claimed we have evidence of a clear-cut spiritualizing intent—the veil of the heavenly sanctuary is identified with the flesh (or body) of Christ.31

27SoSchierse, pp. 29-33.

28SeealsoU.Lulc,"HinimlischesandIrdischesGeschehenimHebrarief,"^Vorr(1963),p.211.

29 Hebrews 9:11-12 form a continuous sentence; thus, it is argued dia should be used consistently throughout (i.e., instrumentally).

30 Luk, pp. 209-10.

31 It is interesting to notice how G. W. Buchanan (To the Hebrews, AB [New York, 1972]) handles this passage. His commentary rigidly opposes the metaphorical view throughout, arguing for an

Just as the curtain is the border between access and nonaccess to God in the Jewish temple, so the existence of Jesus marked a border point between heaven and earth.32 However, a curtain hides as wei! as gives access. So only upon the death of Christ was the veil removed and His true role as priest revealed. Clearly, then, if the veil of the heavenly sanctuary is code for His flesh, we may likewise decode the entire sanctuary description and no longer see a realistic heavenly sanctuary and liturgy intended.

It is apparent, therefore, that a significant case for a spiritualizing interpretation of the sanctuary language of Hebrews can be made. Although most of the individual supports are small, the cumulative effect is weighty. Therefore, let us now engage this interpretation in a critique.