Andrews University Press

Sutherland House
8360 W. Campus Circle Dr.
Berrien Springs, MI 49104–1700
Telephone: 269–471–6134
Fax: 269–471–6224
Email: aupo@andrews.edu
Website: http://universitypress.andrews.edu

Copyright © 2017 by Andrews University Press, and published in association with the Adventist
International Institute of Advanced Studies (AIIAS)

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner or translated into
other languages without written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews.

ISBN (paperback) 978-1-940980-15-7

ISBN (e-book) 978-1-940980-16-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Papaioannou, Kim, editor.
Title: Earthly shadows, heavenly realities : temple-sanctuary cosmology in ancient Near Eastern,
biblical, and early Jewish literature / edited by Kim Papaioannou and Ioannis Giantzaklidis.
Description: Berrien Springs : Andrews University Press, 2016.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016034049 (print) | LCCN 2016041956 (ebook) | ISBN 9781940980157 (pbk. :
alk. paper) | ISBN 9781940980164 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Temple of God.
Classification: LCC BS680.T4 E37 2016 (print) | LCC BS680.T4 (ebook) | DDC 221.6/4—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016034049

Project Director: Ronald Alan Knott

Project Editor: Deborah L. Everhart
Copy Editor: Natalie Nyquist
Cover Designer: Max Gordienko
Proofreader: Jonathan Haney
CONTENTS

Abbreviations
Preface
Kim Papaioannou

Introduction
Ioannis Giantzaklidis

ANCIENT NEAR EAST

1. The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Ancient Near Eastern Literature
Elias Brasil de Souza

OLD TESTAMENT
2. Interactions Between Heaven and Earth: The Heavenly Temple in the
Pentateuch
Felix Poniatowski

3. The Historical Books’ View of the Earthly and Heavenly

Sanctuary/Temple
Patrick Etoughé Anani

4. Creator, Judge, and King: God in the Heavenly Temple in the Psalms
David Tasker

5. Heavenly Temple Visions in the Books of Isaiah and Zechariah

Felix Poniatowski

6. The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Book of Daniel

Carlos Elías Mora

NEW TESTAMENT
7. A Spatial Shift in Luke-Acts from the Earthly to the Heavenly
Sanctuary: A Proposal
Alfredo G. Agustin, Jr.
8. The House of God in John 14:2 as a Reference to the Heavenly Temple
Kim Papaioannou

9. Heavenly Sanctuary Motifs in the Pauline Corpus: Explicating Their

Intertextuality and Interrelatedness
Mario Phillip

10. The Heavenly Sanctuary in 2 Thessalonians 2:4: An Exegetical and

Intertextual Approach
Mario Phillip

11. Atonement and Inauguration at the Heavenly Sanctuary: A Wider

Perspective to Jesus’s Ascension in Hebrews
Felix H. Cortez

12. Sanctuary, Priesthood, Sacrifice, and Covenant in the Book of

Hebrews
Kim Papaioannou

13. The “House of God” of 1 Peter 4:17 as Reference to the Heavenly

Temple
Luis Iván Martínez-Toledo

14. The Heavenly Sanctuary in Revelation: Context and Significance

Rabach Odek

15. The Measurement Motif in Revelation 11:1–2

Laurețiu Florentin Moț

16. The Heavenly Sanctuary under Attack: The Blasphemy Against the
Skēnē
Richard Apelles Sabuin

EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE

17. The Heavenly Temple in Noncanonical Apocalyptic Literature
Ioannis Giantzaklidis

18. The Heavenly Temple in the Book of Watchers

Ioannis Giantzaklidis

19. The Testament of Levi and the Decline of Heavenly Temple Imagery
Kim Papaioannou
20. The Heavenly Sanctuary in Rabbinic Literature
Alexander Bolotnikov and Leonardo G. Nunes

Epilogue
Kim Papaioannou
About the Authors
Scripture Index
Noncanonical Literature Index
ABBREVIATIONS

AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 6 vols. (New York:
Doubleday, 1992)
ALD Aramaic Levi Document
ANLEX Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
ANE Ancient Near East
Ant. rom. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae
Apoc. Adam Apocalypse of Adam
Apoc. El. Apocalypse of Elijah
Apoc. Zeph. Apocalypse of Zephaniah
ApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary
Aristotle, Poet. Aristotle, Poetics
Aristotle, Rhet. Aristotle, Rhetoric
ASV American Standard Version
AThR Anglican Theological Review
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BA Biblical Archaeologist
Bar. Baruch
Barn. Barnabas
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and
F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
 Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000)
BDB Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament
BDF A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Bel Bel and the Dragon
Ber. Berakot (Mishnah)
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series
BibOR Biblica et Orientalia
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CHJ Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. William D. Davies and Louis
Finkelstein, 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984–
2006)
CTJ Calvin Theological Journal
CTU The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and
Other Places, ed. Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquin
Sanmartin (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995)
CD Damascus Document
CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly
DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines, 9 vols.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2014)
Did. Didache
En. Enoch
ErJb Eranos-Jahrbuch
ESV English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a
publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All
rights reserved.
ExpTim Expository Times
Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah
Gk. Apoc. Ezra Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
HALOT Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, The
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. and ed.
Mervyn E. J. Richardson, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994–99)
HBC Harper’s Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays et al. (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988)
HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament
Herm. Mand. Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate
Herm. Sim. Shepherd of Hermas, Similtude
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey
W. Bromiley, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–88)
ITC International Theological Commentary
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JATS Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
JBC Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown et al.
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JHebS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
Jos. Asen. Joseph and Asenath
Josephus, Ag. Ap. Josephus, Against Apion
Josephus, Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Josephus, J. W. Josephus, Wars of the Jews
JPS Jewish Publication Society
JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and
Roman Periods Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
Jub. Jubilees
KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-
Kommentar)
KJV King James Version
Let. Aris. Letter of Aristeas
Liv. Pro. Lives of the Prophets
LumVie Lumière et vie
LXX Septuagint
Macc. Maccabees
Mart. Ascen. Isa. Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
MT Masoretic Text
NAB New American Bible, rev. ed. copyright © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970,
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. All Rights
Reserved.
NAC New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
 1994)
NASB New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971,
1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by
permission.
NET New English Translation (NET Bible® copyright ©1996–2006 by
Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com. All rights reserved.)
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed.
Colin Brown, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–78)
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997)
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984,
2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved
worldwide.
NJB The New Jerusalem Bible, published and copyright 1985 by Darton,
Longman & Todd Ltd and Les Editions du Cerf, and used by permission
of the publishers.
NKJV New King James Bible (Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.)
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum
NRSV New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the
Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches
of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All
rights reserved.
NT New Testament
NTS New Testament Studies
Odes. Sol. Odes of Solomon
Origen, Princ. Origen, De principiis
OT Old Testament
OTL Old Testament Library
Philo, Abr. Philo, De Abrahamo
Philo, Aet. Philo, De aeternitate mundi
Philo, Her. Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit
Plato, Crat. Plato, Cratylus
Ps.-Philo Pseudo-Philo
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
RRef La revue réformée
RSV Revised Standard Version, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the
Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches
of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All
rights reserved.
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SDABC Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
SDABD Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary
SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, ed. Mark K. McElroy
(Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2004)
ShirShabb Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
Sir. Sirach/Ecclesiasticus
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature (Lang)
Strom. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
SVTQ St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly
T. 12 Patr. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
T. Adam Testament of Adam
T. Ab. Testament of Abraham
T. Benj. Testament of Benjamin
T. Dan Testament of Dan
T. Gad Testament of Gad
T. Iss. Testament of Issachar
T. Job Testament of Job
T. Jos. Testament of Joseph
T. Jud. Testament of Judah
T. Levi Testament of Levi
T. Mos. Testament of Moses
T. Naph. Testament of Naphtali
T. Reu. Testament of Reuben
T. Sim. Testament of Simeon
T. Sol. Testament of Solomon
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel
and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76)
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes
Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. John T. Willis et al., 8 vols.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76)
Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
TJ Trinity Journal
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
Tob. Tobit
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSupp Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
Wis. Wisdom of Solomon
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
PREFACE
KIM PAPAIOANNOU

What is God’s home in heaven like? And how do things operate there? I
grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist, and Adventism believes that God’s
home is a heavenly sanctuary or temple, of which the earthly
sanctuary/temple of ancient Israel was a humble copy. From God’s
heavenly sanctuary He governs the universe and will judge the world.
These Adventist beliefs grew out of the Great Disappointment of 1844 and
the rereading of Daniel 8:14, where the sanctuary in view—initially
thought to represent earth itself—was instead understood as God’s
heavenly sanctuary.
For non-Adventist Christians such an outlook seems unusual, to say the
least. To be fair, a heavenly sanctuary/temple is clearly evident in texts
such as Hebrews 8:1–2 and Revelation 11:19. But in the shadow of
centuries of Christian tradition and theology, where heavenly things are
perceived in overly spiritualized ways, a heavenly sanctuary/temple
resembling the earthly temple—with its bloody sacrifices and sometimes
corrupt priesthood—is not a very palatable proposition.
Against this backdrop of tension between our own theological
backgrounds and those of the broader Christian world, it dawned on me
that if the heavenly sanctuary/temple is an important biblical theme, it
would not be limited to a few scattered biblical texts, and it should be
well-represented in both the Old and New Testaments—not just in biblical
apocalyptic, but in all genres of biblical literature and possibly other
ancient writings.
I discussed my thoughts with colleagues, and we decided to make the
heavenly sanctuary/temple the theme of the annual Theological Forum of
the Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies (AIIAS) in
Silang, Cavite, Philippines, with a view to publish some of the papers.
Thus the seed for this book project was sown back in 2010. As the call for
papers went out to faculty and students of the AIIAS Seminary and to
colleagues around the world, the response was heartwarming. Papers
poured in, and the Forum was a success.
This book is the end product of this journey of discovery. Personally, I
have gained valuable insights and new, deeper understandings of the way
God’s heavenly administration is presented in the Bible. I believe this
holds true for most of the contributors, and we hope that it will also hold
true for you, the reader, as you read through the pages and chapters of this
book.
INTRODUCTION
IOANNIS GIANTZAKLIDIS

A round the year AD 30 a young Jewish rabbi named Jesus wandered

the towns of Galilee and Judea, preaching about the kingdom of
God. He attracted crowds with His teaching and His care for the poor,
hungry, and sick. The masses gathered around Him, which alarmed the
Jewish ruling class. Jesus was arrested and handed over to the Romans,
who publicly executed him during the Passover. On the third day after the
execution, Jesus rose from the dead. His disciples declared that the
resurrected Jesus gave them a command to preach this good news to the
whole world and wait for His return.
These are the broad, cold, historical facts as given by the Gospels. But
Jesus’s followers pondered the significance of these facts. And in doing so,
these early Christian writers explained that Jesus’s execution was a
“sacrifice” (Rom. 3:25; Eph. 5:2). There was nothing inherently sacrificial
in death by crucifixion. In fact, it was a common method of capital
punishment practiced by the Romans. The sacrificial significance was
imputed to Jesus’s death by the early church. The term sacrifice became so
common that its meaning is often missed when we currently speak of it. A
sacrifice was not a punishment or an execution; it was a ritual widely
performed in the Middle East and perhaps in all the known world. It was
an offering to the gods and often involved blood. As a rule, sacrifices were
connected to worship in a temple, but there were exceptions. Thus, the
early Christians’ description of Jesus’s death as a sacrifice connected His
crucifixion to rituals that were predominantly performed in temples.
It appears that the early Christians purposely interpreted Jesus’s death in
the context of the temple services. They could have simply spoken of it as
an undeserved punishment or a miscarriage of justice (as in Acts 2:23), but
they chose to charge the event with imagery taken directly from the temple
services. Beyond Jesus’s death being called a sacrifice, it is called a
“propitiation” (hilasmos; 1 John 2:2). This word has clear, cultic
connotations, and hilasterion, a cognate noun, refers to the mercy seat that
was placed on top of the ark of the covenant under the shadow of the ark’s
two cherubim (Exod. 25:20–21). Clearly the temple and its services
provided the early Christians the tools to understand the significance of
Jesus’s death. It could have been understood in various ways, but the early
Christians chose precisely the context provided by the temple services.
This would not have been such a surprising development if the early
Christians had temples of their own. However, they—unlike all the other
religions of their time—had no temples and consequently practiced no
temple services. In our Western world where temples are not the norm,
temple rituals and services sound strange, but in antiquity a religion
without a temple was unheard of. Christianity chose to interpret the very
basis of its theology with a process that it opted to abandon!
Early Christianity answered this apparent contradiction in two ways.
The first way was by spiritualizing the temple. In this process the temple
became the church. A temple is the place where deity dwells. And since
God dwells amidst His people (2 Cor. 6:16; cf. Lev. 26:11–12), His people
are a temple. Sacrifices for sins were understood to be superseded by the
sacrifice of Jesus, but they were also spiritualized. The believers were
called to live as bloodless sacrifices to God (Rom. 12:1–2).
The other way the early church answered the lack of temples and
sacrifices was by directing attention away from the earthly temple to the
heavenly one. In doing so the early Christians did not invent a new
theology. They simply borrowed the well-established belief of the Old
Testament that the true tabernacle, the true temple of God, was located in
heaven. The Old Testament contains this belief, and its readers understood
it. This is verified since the belief in the heavenly temple appears
extensively in noncanonical writings.
The focus of this book is this second interpretation. The two ways by
which the early church interpreted its lack of temples are not competitive
interpretations; both ideas are able to coexist together in harmony, and it
will be shown that several New Testament writers were able to maintain
both views simultaneously. Perhaps the book of Revelation describes the
marriage of these two views in the most graphic manner. God is enthroned
in the heavenly temple from where He issues judgments to the world and
receives heavenly worship. At the same time, believers are promised to
become pillars in God’s temple—clearly a spiritual concept—the temple
where God will reside eternally in the new earth (Rev. 3:12; 21:3).
The purpose of this book is to explore the belief in the heavenly temple
in the Bible and other related literature. It seeks to show that the heavenly
temple was a common theme and something to which the first readers of
these texts could easily relate. The chapters of this book are naturally
divided into three sections. The first section deals primarily with the world
of the Old Testament. The first chapter examines the ANE literature. Elias
Brasil de Souza argues that throughout ANE literature there was a
consistent belief in a heavenly temple that functioned not only as a home
for the deity but also as a command center for the world’s administration.
Also present in ANE literature was a correspondence between the earthly
and heavenly temples, the latter of which functioned as archetypes and “in
close relationship and dynamic interaction with their earthly counterparts.”
The rest of the chapters in the first section explore the theme of the
heavenly temple in all the divisions of the Old Testament: the Law, the
writings, and the prophets. Felix Poniatowski deals with the Pentateuch,
Patrick Anani with the historical books—1 Chronicles 28 in particular—
and David Tasker with the book of Psalms. Poniatowski also deals with
the prophetic books of Isaiah and Zechariah and their visions of the
heavenly temple. The chapter by Carlos Elías Mora is dedicated to the
book of Daniel. The presence of this theme throughout the Old Testament
leads to the conclusion that this belief was not something held by a narrow
slice of the population but by its majority. It is also evident that this belief
was held throughout the long process of the writing of the Old Testament.
The majority of this book’s chapters belong to the second section, which
discusses the New Testament. Four authors deal with specific texts: Kim
Papaioannou (John 14:2); Mario Phillip (2 Thess. 2:4); Luis Martínez-
Toledo (1 Pet. 4:17); and Lauretiu Mot (Rev. 11:1–2). The rest of the
chapters in this section have a larger scope and deal with several passages
referring to the heavenly temple. They are authored by Alfredo Agustin, Jr.
(Luke and Acts); Mario Phillip (Pauline corpus, Corinthians and Ephesians
in particular); Felix Cortez and Kim Papaioannou (Hebrews); and Rabach
Odek (Revelation). Richard Sabuin’s chapter, “The Heavenly Sanctuary
under Attack,” also deals generally with Revelation. The findings of these
authors show that the early Christians did not abandon the notion that God
dwells in heaven in a temple and expressed their Christian theology in
terms that evoked sanctuary imagery.
Three chapters, placed at the end of the book, deal primarily with
apocalyptic books that were mostly written during the intertestamental
period. While these apocalyptic books are not considered inspired
scripture, they are of historical significance in that they show the spread
and popularity of the heavenly temple belief. One of the chapters contains
Ioannis Giantzaklidis’s overview of most of the passages in nonbiblical
apocalyptic writing that refer to the heavenly temple. The next chapter
deals with Enoch’s heavenly ascent in the Book of the Watchers and
demonstrates that this passage is heavily dependent on Daniel 7. It is
argued that the author not only described a heavenly temple from which
God pronounced His judgment against the angels that sinned, but also
described this process in the context of the Day of Atonement. It seems
evident that the author of this passage in the Book of the Watchers
perceived the judgment scene in Daniel 7 to be closely associated with the
Day of Atonement. The final chapter on the noncanonical apocalyptic
books deals in detail with the Testament of Levi. Papaioannou studies
three descriptions of heaven with varied degrees of Christian influence,
notes the beginning of decline in the usage of the temple imagery, and
offers two possible explanations for its occurrence.
Finally, Alexander Bolotnikov and Leonardo Nunes’s chapter deals with
rabbinic literature. It concentrates on early rabbinic texts from the second
to sixth century AD. It concludes that there are explicit references to the
existence of a temple in heaven. Evidently the passing of several centuries
without an earthly temple was not sufficient to dampen belief in the
existence of a heavenly temple.
There are several words that describe the temple in English. Sanctuary
is derived from the Latin sanctum and emphasizes the sacredness of the
structure. In modern English the word has also come to refer to a place of
safety, which was almost a universal function of ancient places of worship.
The word is usually a translation of the Hebrew miqdāsh or qōdesh, and it
is rendered in the Greek translations of the Old Testament as hagiasma,
hagion, or hagia. It seems that English translators who used the word
sanctuary wanted to denote the idea of holiness and separateness that was
imputed in the Hebrew words.
The word temple also has a Latin origin, templum, and again refers to a
sacred area or a shrine. In the Bible the word is usually a translation of the
Hebrew hêkāl, which refers to both a palace and a temple, perhaps
emphasizing that the deity dwells in that particular structure. In the Greek
translations of the Old Testament the word is rendered as naos.
Another word used in the Bible to refer to the temple is tabernacle. This
word refers specifically to a tent-like structure and in the Bible nearly
always refers to the movable structure built by Moses in the desert. It is
worth noting that John in Revelation chooses to use tabernacle three times
to refer to God’s heavenly temple. For the purpose of this book we have
chosen to use the words sanctuary and temple interchangeably. In
instances where the context is the temple/sanctuary in the desert or the
Bible writers speak specifically of a tabernacle, we retained the usage of
this word. Unless otherwise noted however, no specific intent was placed
behind the usage of these words.
 What is the profit of this research? What does it contribute to Christian
theology? When we read about the Old Testament sanctuary we are careful
to interpret its meaning in the context of Jesus’s sacrifice, but the early
Christians did the opposite. They understood the deeper significance of
Jesus’s death with imagery that came directly from the temple. Today’s
Christianity fails to realize how much of its theology, language, and
philosophy is indebted to the temple and its imagery. In its infancy,
Christianity used the biblical belief in the heavenly temple to understand
the ministry of Jesus and explain its own practices. It is our hope that the
chapters of this book will make a contribution to a topic that is deeply
rooted in the very heart of Christianity.
I
ANCIENT NEAR EAST
1
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY IN THE
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN LITERATURE
ELIAS BRASIL DE SOUZA

I n this chapter I will address the idea of a heavenly sanctuary/temple in

the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature. Such a notion has been
recognized by several scholars,1 but no attempt has been made to
investigate the function of the heavenly temple/sanctuary and its
relationship to the earthly temple/sanctuary. I will survey a sampling of
Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Ugaritic, and Egyptian texts to grasp the
ANE perception of the function of the heavenly sanctuary/temple and its
relationship to earthly temples.
At the outset, two observations are in order. First, when faced with texts
alluding to a possible heavenly sanctuary/temple, one has to ascertain
whether such a sanctuary/temple is located in heaven, in some unspecified
mythical realm, or on earth. Furthermore, some texts may portray an
earthly/historical sanctuary/temple as a heavenly entity because of the
temple’s heaven-like quality. Thus, in the survey that follows, priority is
given to texts referring to a sanctuary/temple located in heaven.2
The second initial observation is that this chapter gives priority to texts
related to deities associated with the heavenly realm, since a celestial deity
would most probably have a sanctuary/temple in heaven. In a few cases,
however, it is difficult to ascertain whether the sanctuary/temple lies in
heaven or in some unspecified mythic realm. Even in the latter case these
references may be illuminating, since a mythic or extra-mundane temple
may be functionally equivalent to a heavenly sanctuary/temple. Therefore,
in a few cases such texts are considered.

SUMERIAN LITERATURE
One of the most important Sumerian texts dealing with a heavenly temple
appears in the Gudea Cylinders.3 This text reports a dream in which King
Gudea of Lagash was shown a plan of a temple he was to build for the god
Ningirsu. In Gudea’s dream “there was a warrior who bent (his) arm
holding a lapis lazuli plate on which he was setting the ground-plan of a
house.”4 Although this “ground-plan” reminds one of the tabnît, or
“model,” of the sanctuary Moses was shown on Mount Sinai (Exod. 25:9,
40),5 there is a significant difference between the two accounts. Gudea saw
a ground-plan6 being prepared, while the biblical text says that Moses was
shown a model, implying something existing prior to Moses’s experience.
Furthermore, Gudea received general guidelines from the deity; the plan
probably consisted of a blueprint or ground-plan, while the model shown
to Moses implies a tridimensional entity.7
It is difficult to determine whether the plan shown to Gudea was based
on some archetypical temple (i.e., a heavenly temple) or was simply an
ideal temple conceived in the deity’s mind. This latter possibility seems to
be endorsed by the following statement: “Ningirsu had conceived (the
House) in his (heart) as a sanctuary from which the seed sprouted.”8 Also,
the references to heaven do not indicate a temple in heaven. They are
related to the earthly temple: to emphasize its heaven-like appearance; to
serve as a backdrop to express its cosmic dimensions; or—as J. Wilson has
suggested9—to function as a link between heaven and earth.10 The idea of
Gudea’s temple as a heavenly realm may point to a connection with a
heavenly archetype. This seems to be corroborated by the observation that
“Gudea had painted it [i.e., the temple] (to recall) the splendour of
heaven.”11 This might also suggest that the earthly temple was supposed to
mirror some reality beyond itself—either a temple located in heaven
(though this is never made explicit), or heaven itself. Therefore, although
the Gudea Cylinders are primarily focused on the building of an earthly
temple12—which is described with cosmic/heavenly connotations—the
function of this temple as a link between heaven and earth, and its
description with heaven-like features may be an echo of the underlying
idea that it was related to a heavenly counterpart.
A hymn to Inana displays the following significant statement: “(126)
The good lady, the joy of An, a heroine, she surely comes from heaven.
(127) In the . . . of heaven she bears the ornament, (128) She consults with
An in his lofty place.”13 It seems that “An in his lofty place” refers to the
heavenly abode, which is portrayed as the place whence his
decrees/decisions are issued.14
An important text for the purpose of this research is an Eršemma,15 in
which the goddess Inanna laments the destruction of her temple in Uruk
and presents her case before Enlil. The relevant portions of the text read as
follows:

(10) the genie (?) (of) my house! My house which stands

from the very heavens upon the earth! . . . (15) I am the
hierodule of heaven . . . my house! My shrine Eanna! (16) I
am the lady of the Eanna. My brickwork of Uruk and of
Kulaba! . . . (19). I am the hierodule of heaven. [My] great
gate of the Enamtar! (20) I am the lady of the Eanna [My]
holy “eyebrow” which is raised above the house! (21) I am
the hierodule of heaven. My seat in heaven and (my) seat
upon earth! (22) I am the lady of the Eanna. My . . . the
nation!16

This text suggests a correspondence between heavenly and earthly

sanctuaries. The hyperbolic language of lines 10 and 15 probably refers to
Inanna’s shrine—Eanna—in the city of Uruk. Note, however, her claim to
have a seat in heaven: “I am the hierodule of heaven. My seat in heaven
and (my) seat upon earth!” If the “seat upon earth” is understood as the
deity’s throne in the temple of Uruk, it is reasonable to suppose that the
“seat in heaven” would be located in her heavenly temple. If this inference
is correct, the text conveys a correspondence between heavenly and earthly
sanctuaries.
The myth of Inanna’s descent to the netherworld has significant
allusions to the heavenly temple/sanctuary motif. As Inanna decides to
come to the netherworld, she thus instructs her messenger Ninshubur:
“(33) When I shall have come to the netherworld, (34) Fill heaven with
complaints for me, (35) In the assembly shrine cry out for me, (36) In the
house of the gods rush about for me.”17 The parallelism observed in lines
33–36 between “heaven,” “assembly shrine,” and “house of the gods”
suggests a place in heaven where the assembly of the gods convenes and
makes decisions capable of helping Inanna in her adventure in the
netherworld.18
The poetic composition “Enki and Sumer” deals with the activities of
Enki, the god of subterranean fresh water. The first part of the poem—
approximately one hundred lines—is too fragmentary to be read. Its
intelligible parts display Enki decreeing the fate of Sumer and the
organization of the earth by establishing law and order. The following
excerpt is the most relevant for this chapter:
 The king, begotten, adorns himself with lasting jewel,
The lord, begotten, sets crown on head,
Thy lord is an honored lord; with An, the king, He sits in the shrine
of heaven,
Thy king is the great mountain, the father Enlil,
Like . . . the father of all the lands.19

Although it is possible that the shrine is an earthly shrine in the land of

Sumer, a heavenly setting is more likely since Enki is depicted as sitting
with An, the god of heaven. This is further corroborated by the large
spectrum of activities performed from the shrine, wherein Enki decrees the
fate of Ur and appoints a god and a goddess to take care of the sea and the
winds, respectively. The heavenly shrine thus functions as a command
center whence the deity makes decisions and performs activities related to
the administration of his domain.

AKKADIAN LITERATURE
The prologue to the Laws of Hammurabi (1792–1750 BC) contains an
interesting allusion to the concept of a heavenly temple. The king claims to
be the one “who made famous the temple of Ebabbar which is akin to the
abode of heaven [šubat šamā’i].”20 The word “abode,” šubat, derives from
the noun šubtu and has the meaning of “dwelling place,” “residence of a
king,” “god’s residence in temple,” “in heaven,” etc.21 Thus, the abode of
heaven seems to refer to a specific place where the deity dwells and to
which the earthly temple of Ebabbar was compared.
The analogy between heavenly and earthly temples seems to connote the
idea of a relationship or correspondence between the heavenly temple and
its earthly counterpart. This seems to be corroborated by the qualification
of the temple of Ebbabar as a “band” of heaven and earth, which seems to
depict the connection and cooperation between the heavenly and earthly
spheres (i.e., between heavenly and earthly temples). The main idea
inferred from this text is that of heavenly and earthly temples functioning
in close connection.
The so-called Epic of Creation, the Babylonian myth Enuma Elish,
provides some interesting references and allusions to the concept of a
heavenly sanctuary as an entity located in heaven. It also references the
earthly temple as a heaven-like entity. After Marduk’s defeating Tiamat
and splitting her into halves, the following statement is found:

(143) The Lord measured the construction of Apsu,

(144) He founded the Great Sanctuary, the likeness of Esharra,
(145) (In) the Great Sanctuary, (in) Esharra, which he built, (and
in) heaven,
(146) He made Ea, Enlil, and Anu dwell in their holy places.22

This text suggests that the Apsu was conceived as a Great Sanctuary and
the Esharra (the earthly temple) was created in its likeness. But note that in
the same text it states that the great sanctuary was also built in heaven.23
Thus it seems that—at least in the case of Esharra—the earthly temple was
conceived in correspondence with heaven above and with the Apsu
below.24 The idea of a correspondence between heavenly and earthly
temples emerges in this text.
In reference to Marduk, an important portion of text reads:

He shall establish for his fathers great food offerings,

He shall provide for them, he shall take care of their sanctuaries.
He shall cause incense burners to be savored, he shall make their
chambers rejoice.
He shall make on earth the counterpart of what he brought to pass
in heaven.25

Another translation renders the last line thus: “May he make a likeness on
earth of what he has wrought in heaven.”26 A close look at the context
suggests that the notion of a “counterpart” or “likeness” implies a
correspondence between heavenly and earthly spheres that goes beyond a
mere spatial/geographical correspondence and refers to the cultic activities
performed in both the heavenly and earthly sanctuaries. This can be
deduced from the references to “food offerings,” “sanctuaries,” and
“incense burners.”
According to Jeremias, this correspondence between heaven and earth
indicates that “all the great cities and temples of Babylonia [had]
corresponding cosmic originals.”27 In the same vein, Geo Widengren
observed (although in reference to another text) that “the room of destiny
of Esagila is then a symbol and a copy of the celestial room of
Upšukkinnaku, and the earthly king, who is installed upon the former, and
from whom comes the decision of the destiny, is an image, a tam.šil.ili of
Marduk, the king of the gods.”28

HITTITE LITERATURE
Although most of the references to temples/sanctuaries in the Hittite
literature have in view the earthly/historical temples of the deities, there
are several indications that the Hittites conceived of a temple/sanctuary in
heaven. Since the gods were understood to live and engage in activities in
heaven (as well as upon the earth and on mountains), it is natural that a
concept of a heavenly temple/sanctuary would emerge from this literature.
The text known as “The Song of Ullikummi” displays several references
to a heavenly sanctuary/temple. As a strategy to dethrone Tessub,29
Kumarbi impregnates a rock to have a son strong enough to overcome his
opponent “and go up to heaven to kingship.”30 The success of Kumarbi
resulted in a son named Ullikummi, who grows so tall that he “reaches up
to the temples (karimnus)31 and the kuntarra house in heaven.”32 Later “it
has blocked heaven, the holy temples (karimmi),33 and Hebat.”34 In the
confrontation between Ullikummi and Tessub, Ullikumi pledged that “I
will go up to heaven to kingship. I will take myself Kummiya, [the gods’]
holy temples (karimmi),35 and the kuntarra-shrines. I will scatter the gods
down from the sky like meal.”36
Although Kummiya is identified with “the home of the storm god
Tessub, located in Northern Syria,”37 it seems that in the aforementioned
text, Kummiya is located in heaven. Several reasons favor a celestial
location over an earthly one. First, since the purpose of Ullikummi’s
ascension to heaven was attaining kingship by taking over “Kummiya, [the
gods’] holy temples (karimmi), and the kuntarra-shrines,” it seems
reasonable that Kummiya was located in heaven. Second, taking over
Kummiya and the “gods’ holy temples” will result in his scattering “the
gods down from the sky like meal.” Therefore, Kummiya and the gods’
temples must be located in heaven. Third, the struggle for kingship, in
which Ullikummi wants to take over the kuntarra-shrines of Tessub as a
token of kingship, fits the heavenly temple more than an earthly. By taking
over the heavenly temples, Ullikummi would establish his kingship.
Although the extant text discloses the result of this confrontation, Hoffner
conjectured that Tessub “apparently will win.”38
In addition to the concept of a heavenly temple, “The Song of
Ullikummi” contains two references to the assembly of the gods. In a short
and fragmented section of the myth that describes Tessub meeting Ea,
“assembly”39 is mentioned. Although this text does not indicate where this
assembly would be located, another section refers to the “place of
assembly” as located in heaven. The relevant portion of the text reads:

Tasmisu heard and rejoiced. He clapped (?) three times, and

up in the sky the gods heard. He clapped (?) a second time,
and Tessub, the valiant King of Kummiya, heard. Then they
came to the place of the assembly, and all the gods began to
bellow like cattle at Ullikummi.40

Along with pointing to heaven as the locus for the assembly, the larger
context suggests that this assembly could take place in one of the heavenly
sanctuaries mentioned in the story—or even in the kuntarra-house of the
gods.
A composition known as the “Mursilis Hymn and Prayer to the Sun-
goddess of Arinna” seems to allude to the concept of a heavenly
temple/sanctuary. The relevant portion reads as follows:

Within the circumference of heaven and earth you, O Sun-

goddess of Arinna, are the source of light. Throughout the
lands you are a favored deity, and you are father and mother
to all the lands. You are the divine guided lord [sic] of
judgment, and in the place of judgment there is no tiring of
you. Also among the primeval gods you are favored. O
Sun-goddess of Arinna, allot the sacrifices to the gods, and
the share of the primeval gods you allot as well. They open
up the door of heaven for you, and you cross the gate of
heaven, O favored [Sun-goddess of Arinna]. The gods of
heaven [and earth bow down to you], O Sun-goddess of
Arinna. Whatever you say, O Sun-goddess of Arinna, [the
gods] fall down before you, O Sun-goddess of Arinna.41

Both the Sun-goddess of Arinna’s performance in the “place of

judgment” and her crossing the gate of heaven point to a heavenly setting.
Although no specific word for temple/sanctuary (e.g., karimmi-/karimna-,
kuntarra-) is used, the reference to the “place of judgment” may convey a
temple setting. Additionally, the “door of heaven” may reinforce the
notion of the heavenly sphere as an enclosed space where the deities
perform their activities. In sum, the main idea in this text seems to be that
of a judgment executed by the deity in a heavenly setting.
In the “Prayer to be Spoken in an Emergency,” in which Muwatallis
invokes the gods for help, reference is made to heavenly and earthly
temples. The “Sun-god of heaven” is urged to call on the other gods as
follows: “Those gods, O Sun-god of Heaven, summon from heaven (and)
from earth, from the mountains (and) from the rivers, from their temples
(and) their thrones!”42 Apart from the concept of heavenly and earthly
temples, this passage also points to the assembly of the gods as a major
motif.43 Although the text does not make it explicit, it is possible that both
ideas are somehow intertwined inasmuch as the heavenly temple(s) might
have functioned as the locus for the divine assembly.
The basic assumption behind a divine assembly is that humans can
appeal to the gods and win their support. As ten Cate stated, “The gods
were supposed to transmit to their equals complaints which had reached
them from human beings.”44 At this juncture, note that the assembly of the
gods could have its human counterpart in the Hittite assembly, which
gathered as a judicial body under the will of the king.45 Thus, the idea
developed that, just as the Hittite king convoked his assembly, his divine
counterpart—understood to be the sun god—would convoke the other
deities to gather in assembly.46 If the Hittites developed the idea of an
earthly counterpart for the assembly of the gods, it is reasonable to infer
that they might have entertained the notion of the heavenly
sanctuary/temple corresponding to an earthly temple.47

UGARITIC LITERATURE
In the Ugaritic texts the notion of a temple explicitly located in heaven is
not so clear; however, the notion of a mythical or extra-mundane sanctuary
appears in several places. In the Story of Aqhat, El’s abode is located in a
mythical place “at the springs of the rivers.” A portion of text that portrays
Anat marching toward El’s dwelling reads as follows:

idk [lttn p]nm Then [she sets her fa]ce

ʿm.il.mbk!.nhrm/ Toward El at the springs of the rivers,
[qrb ap]q thmtm [Among the strea]ms of the deeps.
tgly.ḏd il She proceeds to the precinct of El,
 [wtbu q]rš.mlk.ab šnm [Comes to the c]amp of the King, the Father
of Years48

It is instructive to note that, along with his mythical tent “at the springs
of the rivers,” the text seems to indicate that El had a house or sanctuary in
the city of Ugarit. The context of the passage depicts Baal interceding
before El so that a son would be given to Kirta. The requested offspring
was expected:

spu.ksmh.bt.bʿl To eat his portion in Baal’s house

[w]mnth.bt.il His share in the house of El.49

For the purpose of this study, it suffices to note that Baal’s and El’s
houses as mentioned in this text probably refer to the earthly sanctuaries of
these deities, since the text is referring to ritual actions to be performed by
Kirta’s future son. At this juncture, three remarks are in order. First,
clearly the Ugaritic culture understood the abode of the deities in two
spheres: El had a “house” (bt) physically located at Ugarit,50 and a
“precinct” (ḏd)51 at the cosmic waters. This is in line with ANE theology
and cosmology: the god’s earthly sanctuary was a copy or counterpart of
the heavenly/cosmic one. As noted by Clifford, “Among the Canaanites,
the high god was thought to dwell in a temple or tent on the holy
mountain. The earthly temple of the deity was considered a copy of the
heavenly temple on the mountain.”52
Second, earthly and heavenly sanctuaries seem to have been understood
as operating in a dynamic relationship. The following text seems to point
to this. After Danel’s weeping over the death of his son Aqhat for seven
years, the text reports:

wyq[ry]/dbh.ilm. He pres[ents] a meal for the gods,

yšʿly. dǵt[h]m(?)/bšmym.53 Into the heavens sends incense,
dǵṯ. hrnmy. [bk]/bkbm. [To the] stars the Harnemite’s incense.54

The picture here seems to be Danel entering a sacred precinct in Ugarit

and performing some ritual action.55 The clause “into the heavens [he]
sends incense” seems to express the connection between the earthly and
heavenly dwellings of the deities (i.e., Danel presents a meal in the earthly
temple or sacred precinct and at the same time sends incense into the
heavenly sanctuary of the deities). Both sanctuaries are connected in the
same ritual action. Thus the term “heavens” is probably a metonymic
expression for the heavenly sanctuary of the deities.
It is possible that “heavens” points to the earthly sanctuary itself, which
because of its relationship with the heavenly sanctuary could be called
“heaven.” Nevertheless, the reference to the “stars” renders the heavenly
abode of the deities the most probable referent for the passage and
suggests a dynamic relationship between the earthly and heavenly
sanctuaries.
In a text that narrates the story of Baal’s rise to kingship over the gods,
glimpses of the concept of a heavenly temple can be found. As the
composition unfolds, several themes become prominent: a council in
heaven, a battle between the deities, creation, temple building, a sacral
meal, and others.56 For these purposes, attention is given to the theme of
El’s tent and Baal’s palace—the most prominent theme in the Baal texts.57
An interesting reference to El’s abode occurs in a text in which Anat
comes to the mountain of El to request that a palace be built for Baal.

tgl.ḏ[d.]il[.]wtbu [She comes to] the mountain of El and enters.

[qr]š.m[l]k.ab[.šnm.] [The te]nt of the king, the father of years.
[ ]r[ ]/[t]bu.ḏdm. [She] enters the mountain.
[n]n[ ]n[ ]l[ ] . . .
qlh.yšmʿ.ṯr[.i]l.abh. Her voice Bull [E]l her Father, hears;
y[ʿn.]/bšbʿt.ḥ[d]rm. E[l] an[sw]ers from the seven r[oo]ms,
[bṯ]mn[t.ap]/sgrt. [From the] eigh[t en]closures.58

Significant features of El’s abode deserve discussion. At first it seems

clear that the text refers to El’s heavenly/mythical abode. The description
of his sanctuary as a seven-room palace points to grandeur and majesty
that exceed an earthly sanctuary. In fact, El being depicted in the
innermost chamber of his abode59 recalls the layouts of ANE temples, in
which an image of the deity was housed in the innermost sanctuary.
Another aspect of El’s temple that deserves comment relates to its
function. Since the context portrays the goddess Anat coming to El to
request that a temple be built for Baal, the tent of El functions as the place
where the deity would make decisions and whence he would issue his
decrees. This is reinforced by another text:
 idk.lttn.pnm Now she heads out
ʿm.il.mbk.nhrm For El at the springs of the Rivers
qrb.apq.thmtm Amid the streams of the deeps.
tgly.ḏd.il.wtbu She comes to the mountain of El and enters
qrš.mlk.ab.šn The tent of the King, the Father of Years.60

El’s dwelling is depicted as being located “at the springs of the Rivers”
(mbk.nhrm). Some scholars have advanced the view that the “springs of
the Rivers” could be reminiscent of the subterranean waters, and therefore
El’s abode would be located somewhere in the netherworld.61 But such a
view cannot be sustained upon closer examination. More likely the phrase
“springs of the Rivers” refers to the waters of paradise, the source of life-
giving waters.62 It seems reasonable to suppose that since El was viewed as
the chief deity of the Ugaritic pantheon,63 he would be thought to live in
some place other than the netherworld. Ugaritic literature indicates that El
was located in heaven.64 From this place, “the center of the universe . . . El
exercises that vital restraining, but essentially benevolent
providence . . . without which everything would collapse in chaos.”65 His
dwelling place functions as the headquarters from which the chief god of
the pantheon rules the universe. As noted by Clifford, the tent of El is
always described in contexts of messengers or deities asking El’s decision
or taking orders from him.66
Now attention is turned to some of the references to the building of
Baal’s house, a major theme in the Baal texts. After Baal’s fighting and
defeating Yam (Tablets 1–2), El granted the request of Athirat that a house
be built for Baal. In gratitude for El’s permission, Athirat extolls him and
spells out her expectations of what Baal would accomplish from the
temple as follows:

wnap.ʿdn.mṭrh/bʿl. So now may Baal enrich with his rain,

yʿdn.ʿdn.ṯr(!)t.bglṯ May he enrich with rich water in a downpour.
wtn.qlh.bʿrpt And may he give his voice in the clouds,
šrh.larṣ.brqm May he flash to the earth lightning.67

Athirat’s words imply that the Baal temple would be a source of fertility
inasmuch as it would be the place from which Baal’s royal self-disclosure
would emanate in the form of rain, thunder, and lightning. Clifford has
noted that “apparently, the cosmic function of Baal’s temple is the subject.
Baal’s temple and kingship will bring fertility and cosmic harmony. If this
is the function of the heavenly temple, it may also be the function of the
earthly shrine which represents the heavenly sphere.”68
The myth also describes the building of Baal’s mythical palace.69 Note
that the work is described in human terms. Earthly materials are used in its
construction: wood from Lebanon, gold, and silver. A heavenly temple
seems to be constructed with the same materials, as if it were a palace of a
human king.70 However, a supernatural tone is struck; it states that fire
contributed to the completion of the work. Elsewhere it is also stated that
the house had gigantic dimensions,71 was made of clouds,72 and had a
window, described as a rift in the clouds (bdqt.ʿrpt).73 An additional detail
indicates that Baal’s temple is far beyond any human king’s mansion. This
temple contains eight rooms in which Baal does not store earthly treasures
but thunder, lightning, and snow.74 Therefore, it may be concluded that,
although the description of Baal’s heavenly75 palace is made against the
backdrop of his earthly temple located in the city of Ugarit, the earthly
language intends to convey the idea of the deity’s heavenly/mythical
abode. Another possibility is that the myth refers to both earthly and
heavenly/mythical temples at the same time, as Stoltz has suggested.76 If
so, the mixing of earthly and heavenly elements would point to the
connection between the earthly temple and its heavenly archetype.77
Such a correspondence between earthly and heavenly temples seems to
be substantiated by the correlation of the literary description of Baal’s
temple with the archaeological data. The literary description attests that
one of the interesting features of Baal’s palace was a window. Although
rejecting it at first, Baal eventually reverses his decision and allows Kothar
to make the window in the house.78 Note that the temple of Baal uncovered
during the excavations at Ras Shamra had a window in the roof,79 as had
Baal’s mythical temple on Mount Zaphon. The parallels in construction
between the heavenly and earthly further support the idea that Ugaritic
religion understood the earthly temple to be “the counterpart of Baal’s
heavenly or mythical abode.”80
In the sequence of the narrative, the royal functions of Baal’s temple
become apparent, as can be perceived from the following passage:

bkm.yṯb.bʿl.lbhth So Baal is enthroned in his house:

umlk.ublmlk Will either king or commoner
arṣ.drkt yštkn Establish a land of dominion?81
Løkkegaard expressed the view that “the house is meant as a step towards
absolute power, as a token of supremacy,” and Clifford argued that “the
palace is central.82 It is a concrete symbol of kingship.”83 A major function
of Baal’s palace is kingship, which is made explicit by Baal claiming that
“I myself am the one who reigns over the gods” (aḥdy.dym/lk.ʿl.ilm).84
After the construction of his palace, Baal offers a banquet to all the gods.
Subsequently, he marches through numerous cities and, in thunder,
proclaims his kingship from his palace.

EGYPTIAN LITERATURE
Egyptian texts display a variety of notions regarding the sanctuary/temple
concept. Apart from the obvious idea of the earthly/historical temples,
Egyptian texts portray the sanctuary/temple as located in heaven, in the
underworld, or in some undetermined mythical realm.85 The idea also
emerges of a primeval sanctuary that was founded upon the first mound
when the world began. In latter times even the world came to be conceived
as a sanctuary.
In the Pyramid Texts, a passage of a so-called “ascension” text reads:

As for any god who will take me to the sky, may he live
and endure; bulls shall be slaughtered for him, forelegs
shall be cut off for him, and he shall ascend to the
mansion86 of Horus which is in the sky; but as for any god
who will not take me to the sky, he shall not have honor, he
shall not possess a leopard-skin, he shall not taste p3k-
bread, and he shall not ascend to the Mansion of Horus
which is in the sky on that day when judgment is made.87

Note that the “Mansion of Horus” is related to judgment. This is close to

other ANE literature, where the heavenly temple is portrayed as a place of
judgment. The following text seems to portray a correspondence between
heavenly and earthly realities: “My house in the sky will not perish, my
throne on earth will not be destroyed.”88 In this spell, the deified king
claims to have a house in the sky and a corresponding throne on earth,
which probably should be identified with the living king on the throne of
Egypt.89
Another interesting feature of the heavenly-temple idea is portrayed by
the following text:

I am the dh3i of the gods who is behind the Mansion of

Reʿ, born of “prayer-of-the gods” who is in the bow of the
bark of Reʿ. I sit before him, I open his boxes, I break open
his edicts, I seal his dispatches, I send out his messengers
who do not grow weary, and I do what he says to me.90

The mansion of Reʿ is depicted as a royal palace where the god performs
his administrative duties and governs his realm. A related text refers to
cultic activity when it states of the king that “his bread offering is up above
with Reʿ.”91
The Coffin Texts provide several references to a heavenly or mythical
sanctuary of the gods. The following passage displays an interesting
allusion to the heavenly sanctuary/temple: “O my soul, my spirit, my
magic and my shade, open the doors of the sky, throw open the gates of
heaven, may your ornament be secured on yourself so that you may enter
to the great god who is in his shrine and see Reʿ in his true shape.”92
Another text alludes to the heavenly shrine of Reʿ as the place where
divine beings praise him:

O Reʿ, great in your shrine, exalted on your pedestal, may

you fare southward to the Great Place, may you moor at the
very great plain to the south of the horizon of the sky, may
you take your seat on it, may praise be given to you by all
the gods who are in the sky, the lords of the horizon of the
sky, who are upon the upper sky, may these please you
every day.93

The mythical sanctuary of Thoth is depicted as the place where the deity
receives praises and offerings, as the following passage makes clear:
“Thoth goes forth in his brightness with his ritual-book in his hands, and
praise is given to him, offerings are presented to him by those who are in
the great castle . . . .”94
The heavenly or mythical temple is also depicted as a source of help, as
can be perceived in the following quotation: “O Atum who are in the Great
Mansion. Sovereign of the Ennead, save me from that god who lives by
slaughter, whose face is that of a hound and whose skin is that of a man.”95
 Some passages reveal that an important activity occurring in the
heavenly or mythical temple is related to judgment, as perceived in the
references to the “Great Tribunal of the Sky”96 and to “tribunals which are
in the sky and upon the waters.”97 The following passages further
illuminate this aspect. One text states that the “(soul of the deceased) may
go up and see the great god Reʿ within his shrine on the day of reckoning
up all souls, all spirits, all shades and all [magic(?)].”98 This text seems to
imply belief in a day of judgment to be performed in the heavenly shrine
of Reʿ. The same concept occurs in other passages: “As for him who
knows this word of God, he shall be in the sky with Reʿ among the gods
who are in the sky, and vindication shall be given to him in every tribunal
into which he goes down.”99 Another text reads: “I will speak of the
requirements of this Great One of yours who is in his shrine, and he will
speak and induct himself into the tribunal in company with the Ennead
which is about his shrine.”100 Thus, the heavenly or mythical
sanctuary/temple is mostly depicted as a place where judgment is
performed.
Along with the ideas noted above, the Book of the Dead seems to be
aware of an earthly/heavenly correspondence, as the following passage
reveals: “Osiris triumphs against his enemies, and Osiris N. triumphs
before the great Council in the sky and before the great Council in the
earth.”101 Although no explicit reference is made to a heavenly
temple/sanctuary, the text presupposes some correspondence between an
earthly council and a heavenly one. The heavenly council might have
taken place in a heavenly sanctuary.
A hymn to Amon depicts the deity as “Har-akhti who is in the
heaven.”102 In some monumental inscriptions the deity is referred to as
“Lord of heaven.”103 The title “Lady of Asheru, Lady of heaven,” is
probably a reference to the Asherah of Canaanite mythology, since it is
found on a stela commemorating Sethos I’s campaign to Yenoan and
Lebanon.104 The same inscription mentions “Neferhotep, the great god,
Lord of Heaven.”105
Heaven is also depicted as the residence of the Ennead, which—in some
texts—is portrayed as a judgment council.106 In a text probably inspired by
Canaanite mythology,107 Astarte decides “to go to the Ennead to the place
where they were gathered.”108 Although this text does not specify where
this place is located, another text—expressing the reaction after the victory
of Horus over Seth—seems to locate the Ennead in heaven. “The Ennead
is in Jubilee, and heaven is in joy.”109 The Ennead in heaven is reminiscent
of the heavenly-council motif found in other ANE texts.

CONCLUSION
The survey of texts undertaken above allows the following synthesis of the
heavenly-sanctuary/temple idea in the ANE literature. From a functional
perspective, in addition to serving as the dwelling of the deities, the
heavenly temple was conceived as a token of kingship and the command
center for the administration of the world. From the heavenly temple the
deity would issue decrees and make decisions affecting the world. As
such, it was also a place of judgment, which was a prominent concept and
function connected with the heavenly temple. It would also function as a
meeting place for the divine assembly, who would convene and render
praises to the chief god and make decisions affecting the earth.
Finally, the concept of a heavenly temple in the ANE texts also implies
a structural and functional correspondence between it and the
corresponding earthly temple. In the ANE the heavenly temples were
understood to be archetypes of the earthly sanctuaries, and they would
function in close relationship and dynamic interaction with their earthly
counterparts.
II
OLD TESTAMENT
2
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HEAVEN AND
EARTH: THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN THE
PENTATEUCH
FELIX PONIATOWSKI

T he Jews considered the Pentateuch to be the basis of their religion.

They believed that all other inspired writers only built on the
foundation which was laid by Moses. Therefore, the origin of every
essential doctrine should be found in his writings. Belief in a heavenly
temple/sanctuary1 is no exception. The first five books of the Bible give
helpful insights regarding the heavenly realms and how heaven interacts
with earth during human history.
This chapter will explore the concept of a heavenly temple/sanctuary in
the Pentateuch. It will be divided into three sections. First, it will discuss
the heavenly temple in the patriarchal narratives and focus specifically on
the story of Jacob’s journey to Haran when he was given a vision of a
stairway leading up to heaven (Gen. 28:11–22). This is the first clear
allusion to the heavenly temple in the Pentateuch.2 Second, this chapter
will explore passages that relate to Mount Sinai as an abode of God (Exod.
15:1–18; 24:9–11) as well as the concept of the pattern that Moses was
shown and according to which he constructed the sanctuary in the
wilderness (25:8, 40). Third, it will discuss a reference to the heavenly
temple in Deuteronomy 26:15.

THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN THE PATRIARCHAL

NARRATIVES
In the patriarchal narrative of Genesis, the only explicit reference to the
heavenly temple can be found in the story of Jacob’s dream on his way to
Haran (Gen. 28:11–22). In this dream Jacob saw a stairway connecting
earth and heaven, and he saw angels ascending and descending on it. At
the top of the stairway Jacob saw God Himself, who confirmed to Jacob
the promises previously given to Abraham and Isaac. Upon awakening, the
patriarch called that place “the house of God” and “the gate of heaven”
(v. 17). An old tradition asserts that the stairway seen by Jacob reached the
heavenly sanctuary. Thus, Genesis Rabbah expresses an opinion that the
ladder in the dream symbolized the stairway leading to the top of the altar
in the temple.3 In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Jacob characterizes the place
where he saw the dream as the place “suitable for prayer, corresponding to
the gate of heaven, founded beneath the Throne of Glory.”4 A similar idea
can be found in the works of more recent commentators. Skinner says that
“the earthly sanctuary became as it were the entrance to the true heavenly
temple, with which it communicated by means of a ladder.”5 De Souza
argues that the phrase “the gate of heaven” refers to “YHWH’s abode/
temple/sanctuary” from where He as the suzerain King ratifies the
covenant with His vassal, Jacob.6
The text of the story contains several perplexing details that pose
difficulties for interpreters. The translation of the word sullām, usually
rendered “ladder” (KJV, NASB, RSV), is problematic. This word is a hapax
legomenon, and its precise meaning is difficult to ascertain. Michael
Oblath classifies six different opinions proposed by scholars for
interpreting the meaning of sullām: (1) a Babylonian ziggurat or temple
tower; (2) a stair-like structure that wound around the tower of Bethel’s
temple; (3) a ladder or stairway; (4) the slope of the hill on which Bethel
was built; (5) a stone stairway; or (6) a massive stairway that led to the top
floors of stately homes and palaces.7 Being unsatisfied with all of these,
Oblath suggested his own solution. According to him, it is better to render
sullām as a gate structure similar to analogous ANE gates leading into a
city. This gate is vertically oriented, and through it the celestial beings can
travel between the heavenly and earthly realms.8
Cornelis Houtman also argues that sullām cannot be translated as
“ladder,”9 but rather should be understood as something more solid, like a
bank, a way, or even a ramp that connects the heavens with the earth.10 His
final conclusion is that it is “the ascent, the slope of the mountain of
Bethel.”11 De Souza tries to avoid giving a specific definition to the term
sullām.12 He points out that the covenant motif predominates in this
passage, and through that vision Jacob was told that “the promises he
received on earth were legitimated by YHWH standing ‘on the top of the
stairway,’ at ‘the gate of heaven.’”13 De Souza concludes that “the
stairway functions as a graphic illustration of the vertical relationship
between heavenly and earthly realities, thus pointing to a mutual
correspondence and interaction between both domains.”14
Although it is difficult to know precisely what sullām means,
nevertheless all abovementioned hypotheses share the same idea: the
construction Jacob saw functioned as a link connecting heaven and earth.
As Houtman expressed this, “In his dream it was revealed to Jacob that the
place where he had stopped for the night was no usual place but a holy
place, where heaven and earth melted into one, where the heavenly world
contacts the earth.”15
Another difficult issue for interpreters is the word hammāqôm, “the
place” (Gen. 28:11, NASB, margin). In this case the semantic is clear but
the syntax presents a problem—it is hard to explain the usage of the
definite article with māqôm. Genesis 28:11 is the first time the word
appears in this passage. The definiteness of the noun can imply that this
place was already mentioned in a previous narrative, that it was a specific
place understood by the readers, or that it was a technical term. De Souza
points out that this word is a key term in this pericope;16 it occurs six times
in verses 11–22.17
Usually scholars explain the presence of the definite article by assuming
that the word was a technical term meaning “the sacred place” or “the cult
place.”18 However, it is hard to find any other passage in the Hebrew Bible
where the word māqôm is used independently to mean “the sacred
place.”19 It is more plausible to suggest that this word does not have any
specific connotation and can be used as a substitute for many different
ideas and places like country (Gen. 20:11; 30:25), mountain (22:2–3), city
(26:6–7), and holy place (Ps. 132:5).
The definiteness of the word māqôm probably indicates that the place
was already familiar to the reader, and the author deliberately attracts the
attention of his audience to this fact. Although the text clearly states that
the place was totally unknown to Jacob and he did not know that it was
holy ground,20 this does not mean that it was unfamiliar to the narrator or
to the reader. Bethel is mentioned several times in previous narratives.21
The text says that Jacob stayed for the night in a deserted place (Gen.
28:11) not far from the town of Luz, or Bethel (v. 19).22 This location
alludes to several previous stories in the patriarchal narrative. Abraham
also built an altar in the vicinity of Bethel (12:8), and according to Genesis
13:3 it was an important campsite for the patriarch. Furthermore, one can
easily observe the parallels between the account of Abraham’s sojourn and
that of Jacob’s. Genesis 12:6–12 narrates Abram’s journey from Shechem
to the oak of Moreh and then to the place near Bethel where he built an
altar; Genesis 35:1–7 relates the similar experience of Jacob: he went from
Shechem to the oak, where he hid the household gods, and then to Bethel
where he also built an altar. God appeared to both patriarchs and blessed
them and promised them a great number of descendants as well as the land
of Canaan (12:1–3, 7; 35:9–12). Diana Lipton points out that the parallels
between the stories of the two patriarchs raise “the possibility that Jacob’s
experience at ‘the place’ may be a deliberate echo of Abraham’s.”23 She
also states that “the fact that Jacob performs the same actions as Abraham,
in the same context and in the same place, suggests that the narrator may
have been attempting to create a link between the two patriarchs.”24
These considerations may lead to the conclusion that the place where
Jacob saw the vision of the stairway and later built an altar was the same
place where Abraham worshiped. Both are depicted as situated not far
from the city of Luz, or Bethel. The definite article used with the word
māqôm (Gen. 28:11) probably indicates that this place was already known
to the reader.
Having awakened from his dream, Jacob described the place as “the
house of God”25 (Gen. 28:17). However, upon his return from
Mesopotamia he did not build a house there, only an altar (35:7) and a
pillar of stone (v. 14). This helps illuminate the patriarchs’ perception of
the place of worship. Although it is described as a house, it occupied an
open space, and no construction similar to a house was erected.26 It implies
that the real house here was not on earth but in heaven. Furthermore,
because the earth was firmly connected in this place to heaven through
sullām, it was considered an extension of the heavenly realm. In other
words, the altar built by Jacob belonged to both the heavenly and earthly
realities, and when the patriarchs worshiped God they did this at the
footstep of the heavenly sanctuary.
The same understanding of the earthly temples as belonging to the
heavenly and earthly realms simultaneously can be found among many
other cultures.27 Benedikt Otzen observed that in the ANE “there was a
close connection between the temple and the heavenly world: the temple
was of heavenly origin; it was the spot where heaven and earth were
united; the gates of the temple were the gates of heaven.”28
The experience of Jacob is described in similar language to that of
Abraham, which implies that his perception of this place of worship was
not unique but was a common understanding in the patriarchal age. The
patriarchs never built houses for worship and always brought their
sacrifices to altars (Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:18; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7).
THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS
A similar concept of convergence between the heavenly and earthly places
of worship can be found in the book of Exodus. The first reference to the
heavenly is located in the Song by the Sea (Exod. 15:1–18), a hymn of
praise addressed to the Lord, who is portrayed as the One who dwells in
the sanctuary located upon the mountain:

You have led the people . . . to Your holy habitation . . . (v. 13)
the mountain of Your inheritance,
the place . . . which You have made for Your dwelling,
the sanctuary . . . which Your hands have established. (v. 17)29

This presentation of God’s dwelling place is ambiguous. On the one

hand, it is clear that the heavenly realm is depicted here. The Lord is
mentioned among heavenly beings (Exod. 15:11);30 He is in the sanctuary
made by His own hands (v. 17). On the other hand, His dwelling place is a
mountain. Nahum Sarna mentions three different places that can be
associated with the mountain of God’s habitation: Mount Sinai, Mount
Zion, and the entire land of Israel.31 Sarna also points out that among all of
the candidates suggested, Mount Sinai best fits both the immediate and
broader context of Exodus 15:13–17.32 Commenting on this passage,
David Noel Freedman also emphasizes the same idea: “the heavenly
palace of Yahweh is located, as it always has been, on Mt. Sinai in the
southern wilderness . . . Even though his name and his glory are attached
first to one shrine and then another and then finally only to Jerusalem and
the Temple there, his home remains in Sinai/Horeb, and an intrepid
worshipper may seek him there.”33
The words of this song seem to find fulfillment later on, when Moses
brings the people to Mount Sinai. In Exodus 19:16–19 we can find a
description of YHWH’s descent upon the mountain. As Rodriguez
observes, Mount Sinai had different zones of holiness which corresponded
to the same zones of the tabernacle, which would be erected later. The foot
of the mountain where the altar was built corresponded to the court of the
tabernacle; the part of the mountain where Moses, Aaron, his sons, and the
seventy elders could come corresponded to the Holy Place; and the top of
the mountain where only Moses was allowed corresponded to the Most
Holy Place.34
Special attention should be paid to the passage describing the
ratification of the covenant (Exod. 24:9–11). Here Exodus narrates the
delegation led by Moses who climbed up the mountain and saw the
foundation of God’s throne: “and they saw the God of Israel; and under
His feet there appeared to be something like a pavement of sapphire and
like a bone of the sky in purity” (v. 10, my translation). The word that is
translated as “sapphire,” also known as lapis lazuli, refers to the blue stone
often associated with heaven and God’s throne (cf. Ezek. 1:26). Houtman
points out that although the stone lapis lazuli and heaven are used here
only for comparison, the main point is that the delegation had entered the
heavenly palace.35 He states: “The thought conveyed is that the mountain,
which gives access to heaven, is the place where heaven and earth flow
together.”36 Therefore, the covenant was ratified not only on earth but also
in heaven, and the worship at the foot of the mountain took place at the
bottom of the heavenly temple.
When the Sinai covenant was finally ratified (Exod. 24:11), Moses
climbed up the mountain one more time (v. 15) and received from the Lord
new instructions regarding the construction of the tabernacle: “Let them
construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them” (25:8). Up to
this moment God was described as dwelling on the top of the mountain,
but now He articulates the desire to come down and to live among the
people. The tabernacle was supposed to be YHWH’s residence on the
earth. What is important for the current discussion is that the tabernacle
should be built according to the pattern or model that was shown to Moses
on the mountain: “According to all that I am going to show you, as the
pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you
shall construct it” (v. 9).
The word tabnît (“model” or “pattern”) employed here is important. It
can have three basic meanings: “construction, structure” (Josh. 22:28);
“pattern” or “model” (2 Kings 16:10; 1 Chron. 28:11); and “figure” or
“image” (Deut. 4:16).37 There is no consensus regarding the precise
meaning of this term in the current context. For example, Houtman argues
that this word should be translated as a “master plan” or a “blueprint.”38
Davidson and de Souza, on the other hand, defend the opinion that this
word renders the idea of a “model” or a “pattern.”39 The main difference
between these two positions lies in the answer to this question: “What was
Moses shown on top of the mountain?” Houtman believes that Moses did
not see the heavenly sanctuary; he was shown only the master plan. In
other words, God explained to him how the tabernacle should look. De
Souza and Davidson argue that Moses saw the heavenly sanctuary and that
the earthly sanctuary was constructed as a “miniature model” of the
heavenly counterpart.40
The context of the command to build the tabernacle (Exod. 25:8)
suggests that Moses saw the heavenly sanctuary. In 24:16–18 Moses
entered into the midst of the cloud on the top of the mountain, the place
where no other human was allowed (v. 14). It is plausible to assert that
during this session Moses was shown the tabnît.
If the tabernacle was a miniature of the heavenly sanctuary, it gives us a
clue of how the heavenly temple could look. Of course, nobody can argue
that the tabernacle was an exact copy. It is impossible to imagine that the
heavenly shrine is constructed from the skins of animals or that it has such
small dimensions. The similarity should take place in another area. De
Souza asserts that the earthly tabernacle structurally corresponded to the
heavenly counterpart,41 which would suggest that it had the same
compartments as the earthly tabernacle.
Furthermore, the text emphasizes that the vessels of the tabernacle
should also correspond to the heavenly counterparts (Exod. 25:9). The
furniture described in Exodus 25 consists of three main objects: the ark of
the covenant, the lampstand, and the table of showbread. It seems
important that the word tabnît occurs only two times in the description of
the tabernacle (vv. 9, 40). These two references frame the instructions of
how the ark, the lampstand, and the table should be constructed. It could
mean that the author wants to give a special emphasis to these three
objects, indicating that they should exactly correspond to the heavenly
originals.
It is important to note that compared to the worship of the patriarchs,
with the construction of the earthly tabernacle the paradigm of worship
changed. While before the people paid homage to God at the altar, which
was understood to be the foot of the heavenly temple, in the tabernacle
God descends from heaven to accept sacrifices. This new model can be
observed during the first sacrifice brought by Moses and Aaron (Lev.
9:22–24). The tabernacle became a territory of heaven on earth.

THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN THE BOOK OF

DEUTERONOMY
There is only one reference to the heavenly temple in the book of
Deuteronomy (26:15). Before proceeding to the analysis of this verse it is
necessary to make several comments. The book of Deuteronomy does not
contain much narrative. It comprises the speeches delivered by Moses
before entering the land. One of the most important peculiarities of the
book is that it portrays God mostly as a transcendent One. YHWH does
not show Himself before the people as He did in the past; there are no
visible attributes of His presence. Even the tabernacle is not a place of
God’s presence but the place where His name dwells (12:11; 14:23; 16:2,
6, 11; 26:2). On the basis of such observations, Gerhard von Rad proposed
the theory that the author of Deuteronomy changed the previous
understanding of God’s presence and replaced the old “glory-theology”
with the so-called “name-theology.” According to von Rad, “It is not
Yahweh himself who is present at the shrine, but only his name as the
guarantee of his will to save. . . . Deuteronomy is replacing the old crude
idea of Yahweh’s presence and dwelling at the shrine by a theologically
sublimated idea.”42
Von Rad’s skepticism is misplaced and sees only one side of the story.
YHWH is repeatedly portrayed in the book of Deuteronomy as present
among His people. For example, Deuteronomy 6:15 reads, “for the LORD
your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the
LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the
face of the earth” (cf. 7:21). This and other verses underscore the reality of
God’s presence among the people. As Jeffrey Tigay has observed, God
was still with Israel, “but only in a spiritual sense.”43
The verse under analysis, Deuteronomy 26:15, is part of the long section
of instructions (12:1–26:15). Moses calls God’s blessing on the people if
they keep the covenant:

Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven,

and bless Your people Israel, and the ground which You have
given us,
a land flowing with milk and honey, as You swore to our fathers.

In this verse two expressions, mimməʿôn qodšəkā (“from Your holy

habitation”) and min-haššāmayim (“from heaven”), are juxtaposed. De
Souza demonstrates that it is not correct to consider these two phrases as
synonymous, implying that heaven itself is the sanctuary. Rather, the last
expression, “from heaven,” should be understood as a clarification of the
first one, “from Your holy habitation which is in heaven.”44
Deuteronomy portrays God as abiding in two spheres: in the heavenly
sanctuary and also among His people. However, His presence on the earth
is not as visible as it was before. The reason for this change is not
explicitly indicated. The answer probably can be found in the history of
the first generation of Israelites. After the sin of the golden calf, God did
not want to go with the people and promised to send His angel instead. He
explained that the people were stiff-necked and that the presence of
YHWH would destroy them (Exod. 33:3). Only due to Moses’ persistent
intercession was God’s presence restored among the people. Later, during
the wandering in the wilderness, the first generation of the Israelites
rebelled against the Lord many times. YHWH’s glory was not a blessing
for the people, but only a means of punishment. Therefore, when the
covenant was renewed with the new generation of the Israelites, God
withdrew His visible presence from their midst; He remained among the
people but in a hidden way.
This may be important for understanding the relationship between the
earthly tabernacle and the heavenly sanctuary. Before the Exodus
generation, a close connection existed between the heavenly temple and
the tabernacle. This connection remained, but the relationship between the
two realms took a different form. Now the worshipper came to the
tabernacle to worship God in heaven. God was not visibly present in the
rituals of the earthly sanctuary,45 and the tabernacle and its service became
a shadow of the heavenly temple.

CONCLUSION
This analysis shows that there is a close interaction between the earthly
tabernacle and the heavenly sanctuary. The book of Genesis portrays the
practice of the patriarchs’ worship at local altars as taking place at the
footstep of the heavenly sanctuary. At the place of worship the earth was
connected to the heavenly realm, and the worshipper found himself
belonging to both heaven and earth. This pattern is not insignificant—it
can illuminate the concept of entering the heavenly sanctuary mentioned in
the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence
to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus” (10:19). At the moment of
worship the person, although still being on earth, by faith appears in the
heavenly temple. It proves that the act of worship has a great importance—
it brings the worshipper to the heavenly sanctuary and helps him
participate in the divine service.
Later, when the Sinai covenant was ratified, this model changed. The
earthly tabernacle was erected and God Himself was visibly dwelling in it.
The worship at the doorway of the tabernacle was addressed directly to
God. The tabernacle itself was a part of heaven on earth. The book of
Deuteronomy presents a new paradigm of worship. Now God was
dwelling in the heavenly sanctuary and was only spiritually among His
people. The worshipper did not enter the heavenly sphere when he
approached the sanctuary. The tabernacle became only a shadow of the
heavenly original.
3
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS’ VIEW OF THE
EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY
SANCTUARY/TEMPLE
PATRICK ETOUGHÉ ANANI

T he link between the heavenly and earthly sanctuary/temple has not

been clearly delineated in theological research despite clear
references, such as in the book of Hebrews. In the past, Old Testament
studies have focused on the model or blueprint Moses saw on Mount Sinai
(Exod. 25:9). Lexicographical and semantic ranges of the chief noun
tabnît, “pattern,”1 have been examined, though scholars find the meaning
of this term difficult to ascertain.2 In the historical books, the meaning of
this term is understood as a reference to a mere “plan.”3 Discussions in
these writings concerning the sanctuary focus on the term hêkāl, which
may be understood as a reference to a heavenly “temple”4 in 2 Samuel
22:7, theological allusions in 2 Kings 23:4, and the heavenly council of
Micaiah’s vision in 1 Kings 22:19–23.5
This chapter will focus on 1 Chronicles 28 and its the use of tabnît. It
will seek to answer the following questions: What is the meaning of the
term in the context of 1 Chronicles 28? How did David obtain his pattern
for God’s temple? Was it a mere blueprint for the earthly sanctuary? Was
it a plan/model regarding the construction of the sanctuary without a
heavenly counterpart?6 Or was something else in view?
The theological significance of the earthly sanctuary will never be
appreciated to its full measure if the relationship between the earthly and a
potential heavenly archetype is misunderstood or neglected. This
investigation seeks to understand the nature of the link between the two
realms as far as the vocabulary of building is concerned in the Old
Testament.
Therefore, this chapter will proceed as follows. First, it will offer an
introductory discussion of the link between heaven and earth as depicted in
the historical books. Second, it will examine 1 Chronicles 28 to determine
if this chapter has a bearing on discussions of the heavenly sanctuary.

THE LINK TO HEAVEN IN THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

The earthly sanctuary was a privileged way to link Yahweh’s presence
with His chosen people in a covenantal relationship (cf. Exod. 15:17;
25:8). For the Israelites it was one of the most important means to relate
with Yahweh. In fact, the sanctuary represented the Creator.7 God wanted
to be with His people while simultaneously being the God of heaven.
Solomon’s temple would thus show the manifestation of God’s glory.
The dwelling of God in the earthly sanctuary was only possible when
the king, as representative of the people, would follow God’s law (1 Kings
6:12–13). In fact, God would usually answer from His heavenly place, as
if He were not present in the earthly temple (1 Kings 8:30, 39, 43, 49; 2
Chron. 6:30, 33, 39; Ps. 102:19). Topographically, God’s real dwelling
would remain in heaven, and the earthly sanctuary was only a
representation of His holy name (1 Kings 9:3). Perhaps through this
earthly representation it was God’s transcendence that the narrator
depicted, since naming in Old Testament times suggested the very essence
of beings and, in the case of God, the totality of the divine presence.
When the temple had not yet been built, the historical books described
human affairs as coming up before God in heaven. Though the tent of
meeting existed (Josh. 18:1; 19:51; 24:26), God was testifying from
heaven against sin and in favor of the outcries for help from the oppressed
(1 Sam. 9:16). The motif of “crying aloud” to God was generally not
bound to the temple (cf. Exod. 15:25; 22:23, 27; Num. 20:16; Deut. 26:7),
even if the community would be called to a solemn assembly (1 Sam.
10:17). God would usually look down from heaven before proceeding to
intervene in human affairs (cf. Gen. 18:20–21; 1 Sam. 9:16). In his
distress, David came to realize that God’s heavenly temple was where he
had to find help: “In my distress I called upon the LORD, yes, I cried to my
God; and from His temple He heard my voice, and my cry for help came
into His ears” (2 Sam. 22:7 NASB). The word temple translates mēhêkālô,
“out of/from His temple,” which in parallel passages refers to Yahweh’s
heavenly palace (Ps. 11:4; 18:6; cf. Mic. 1:2; Hab. 2:20).8
Solomon also realized that God would not dwell physically in the
earthly temple: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven
and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house
which I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27 NASB). The earthly sanctuary was
made for Yahweh’s name: “to build an house, that my name might be
therein” (1 Kings 8:16; cf. Neh. 1:9).9
Walter Eichrodt says, “The statements about Yahweh’s dwelling-place
do not imply a physically limited, bodily presence, but dynamic presence,
his presence in revelation.”10 Though they acknowledged Yahweh’s
nearness, God was answering them from His house in heaven.11 However,
coming to God’s house on earth was to be in His presence (cf. Exod.
34:20b; Deut. 16:16). Hence the earthly sanctuary was the receptacle of
God’s holy presence, while at the same time He dwelt in His heavenly
sanctuary. For example, when Rahab’s confession to the spies expressed
the fear of God’s deeds, she acknowledged Yahweh as God in heaven and
on earth. This depicts the belief of ANE cosmic religious thought about
God being a transcendent deity (cf. Josh. 1:9).
We see a similar concept in the renewed Passover celebrated by
Hezekiah in Jerusalem. Hezekiah had been right before the Lord, as David
his father had been (2 Chron. 29:2), and had cleansed the temple according
to David’s commands (vv. 25–30), namely, according to “the law of
Moses the man of God” (30:16). In addition, he had celebrated a
memorable Passover. Seven additional days of celebration had been added,
as in the time of Solomon (cf. 2 Chron. 7:1–10).12 In this context of great
joy and gladness the priests and Levites blessed the people, and “their
voice was heard, and their prayer came up to his holy dwelling place, even
unto heaven” (30:27).
The preposition li, in “to the dwelling,” in 2 Chronicles 30:27 may be
understood in two ways. First, it may have a locative sense: “in” or “at13 at
the dwelling of his sanctuary.” Second, it may be understood to indicate
direction “to” or “toward” the direction of the object of the preposition: “to
heaven.” The second option fits better here. Evidently the earthly temple
served as a major representation for the heavenly place, where prayers
reached. That is perhaps why prayers were addressed with hands spread
towards heaven (cf. 1 Kings 8:22, 54).
The word māʻôn, “dwelling” or “habitation,”14 is also used by the
chronicler to denote the earthly sanctuary (2 Chron. 36:15; cf. Ps. 26:8). It
is reminiscent of the Deuteronomistic abode from where God blesses His
people (Deut. 26:15; cf. Ps. 68:5). A striking feature in 2 Chronicles is that
miqdaš, “sanctuary,” is preferred for naming the earthly sanctuary (2
Chron. 20:8; 26:18; 29:21; 30:8; 36:17), whereas qōdešoe refers not only
to all the holy things, but also to God’s dwelling place. It becomes
gradually visible that the two structures were related to each other by
forming part of a divine, earthly-heavenly dwelling.15
As seen above, David’s synoptic hymn of praise in 2 Samuel 22:7/Psalm
18:6 also gives the idea of a heavenly structure: “I called upon the Lord,
and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple.” The
word hêkāle, “palace/temple” (Sumerian E-gal, “large house,” “palace”) in
Hebrew as in Akkadian, refers to kings’ palaces.16 In addition, it could
refer to the earthly house of God in Shiloh (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3) and later in
Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:16; 23:4; 24:13). Without the article, the term
appears to mean the temple in Jerusalem (Isa. 44:28; 66:6). It can also
refer to “the temple of His holiness” or “His holy temple”: God’s heavenly
temple (Mic. 1:2; Hab. 2:20; Ps. 11:4). Hence the Old Testament books
bear witness to a house of God depicted as being in heaven (cf. 1 Kings
7:50) and paralleling the earthly place dedicated to Him.

GOD’S HEAVENLY PATTERN: A STUDY OF 1

CHRONICLES 28
Having surveyed heavenly sanctuary concepts in the historical books and
beyond, we now turn our attention to 1 Chronicles 28, the main focus of
this study. The backdrop of the temple building is David’s great sin in
numbering Israel, for the royal census displeased God. The consequence:
seventy thousand men died (1 Chron. 21:14). As a result, David bought the
threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, seeking God’s mercy to save
Jerusalem and a positive answer from the Lord. This led him to declare:
“This is the house of the LORD God” (1 Chron. 22:1; 21:18–30). The
tabernacle and the altar were at the time in a high place at Gibeon (21:29–
30). Though Solomon built the temple, planning began long before
Solomon’s birth (cf. 1 Chron. 22:3, 14; 29:2–4).
In 1 and 2 Chronicles the focus is on the Davidic dynasty. The
chronicler records the history of King David, as did other ancient seers or
prophets (1 Chron. 29:29–30; cf. 1 Kings 11:41). His choice to dwell on
the positive aspects of the life of David has caused much debate as to the
dating and the authorship of 1 and 2 Chronicles, which is often tied to Ezra
or someone contemporary to Ezra.17 There is a consensus that the primary
source, though indirect, was the work of Samuel-Kings.18
The chronicler connects the worship and rituals of Israel with
faithfulness to the Mosaic laws.19 For example, when the Ark of the
Covenant was brought back to Israel after its captivity in the hands of the
Philistines, the chronicler indicates how in the days of David religious
worship faithfully followed Moses’ commandments. The chronicler noted
that everything was done “according to all that is written in the law of the
LORD, which he commanded Israel” (1 Chron. 16:40; LXX, by “Moses the
servant of God”). Throughout the time of the historical books, whenever
Israel was faithful there was an attempt and desire to follow the Mosaic
directives (e.g., Josh. 11:23; 1 Kings 8:56; 2 Kings 23:25; 2 Chron. 30:16;
Ezra 3:2; 6:18; Neh. 1:7, 8; 8:14; 9:14).
Like Moses, David received the details for the construction of the
temple through divine inspiration. God had given Moses the vision of a
plan on the mountain.20 Likewise, He gave David special inspiration. The
phrase, “and the pattern of all that he had by the spirit” (1 Chron. 28:12a),
probably refers to the source of inspiration David had while he made the
plan. Likewise, in 1 Chronicles 28:19 David says that the hand of Yahweh
caused him to have the insight; he received the capacity for a deep,
intuitive understanding of the plan for the temple. In addition, the phrase,
“from the hand of the LORD upon me” (1 Chron. 28:19, my translation),21
refers to a direct and divine activity through God’s Spirit (cf. Isa. 61:1;
Ezek. 3:14; 2 Sam. 23:2). This is a characteristic expression for a prophet
entering into a state of prophetic vision (cf. 2 Kings 3:15; Ezek. 1:3; 3:14,
22; 8:1; Isa. 61:1). Hence David, as Moses had before him, received
through divine inspiration the instructions and insights for building the
temple.22
Another consideration is that when the term rûaḥ, “spirit,” is
accompanied by the article, it may refer to (1) the Spirit of God imparted
by Him (Num. 11:17, 25, 26; Ezek. 1:12, 20); (2) to the angel of God (1
Kings 22:21; 2 Chron. 18:20); (3) a natural wind (1 Kings 19:11; Job
28:25; 30:15; Eccl. 1:6; 5:16[15]; 8:8; 11:5; Isa. 64:6[5]; Jer. 49:36; Ezek.
5:2; 37:9)23; or (4) a person’s spirit given by God, the breath of life (Num.
16:22; 27:16). It may also mean the principle of inspiration, as in Hosea
9:7. Either of the first two options fits well here. Therefore, 1 Chronicles
28:12 speaks of David’s source of inspiration. Just as Moses before him
had received direct divine guidance in building the sanctuary, likewise
David received detailed instructions from the same source.

THE MEANING OF TABNÎT

We now turn our attention to the word tabnît used both of the inspiration
of the sanctuary built by Moses and of the inspiration of David for the
temple. I will argue that the word should be understood as referring to an
actual heavenly model or prototype and not just a blueprint.
The substantive tabnît appears twenty times in the Old Testament.24 The
basic meaning is “form,” “pattern,” or “model.” It suggests the style or
form of constructions and is thence applied to other things as well (Exod.
25:9, 40; Deut. 4:16–18). In Deuteronomy 4:16–18, it is sometimes bound
with the term semel, “image,” “sculpture,” as təmûnâ kāl sāmel, “the
model of any sculpture.” It stands for idols depicting in a work of art any
male or female forms and different creeping things. In Joshua 22:28, the
term represents the reproduction of the divine altar. In 2 Kings 16:10, the
term is differentiated with dəmût, “model,” which is more like an indistinct
shape of something, whereas tabnît refers to an exact representation.
Hence, it is the similitude of an existing model after which another
structure is built, or it is the sample of what has been built.25
Historically, the tabnît has been understood in two ways: (1) the didactic
or teaching prototypical view, held by some early Jewish interpreters26;
and (2) the Jewish/Christian interpreters’ view from the Hellenistic period
onwards, which maintained that Moses was in fact shown God’s heavenly
dwelling. According to this latter view the tabernacle would have had a
heavenly counterpart.27 Both views exist today. Some think that the two
views are not exclusive. They hold that Moses was shown a model of a
heavenly temple.28
The meaning of tabnît is much more difficult to ascertain than the root
from which it originates (bānāh, “to build”).29 The term is prefixed with t-
and suffixed with -it: it has a similar development with təbûnâ,
“understanding,” “skill” (from bînāh, “understanding”). It is from the III-
guttural verb bānāh, “to build.”30 With its two radicals, the noun təbûnâ
(the first has a šəwā, the second a ḥîreq) and the syllables formed by the
pataḥ of the preformative t- is a mishqal of III-guttural nouns (cf. +6
maśkît, “image” or “sculpture”). The tabnît, “pattern,” “copy,” or
“reproduction,”31 belongs to the semantic field of seeing. And not just
seeing, but seeing something impressive, notable, or observable as
determined by a preexisting model.
Thus, something already built determines a tabnît.32 It belongs to the
large vocabulary of “image” and other related terms of the Old Testament
(mar’eh, “appearance”; timnâ from the root min suggests “resemblance,”
“representation,” “form” in Numbers 12:8; ṣelem, “image”; dămût from
the root dəmāh, “like,” is used in the sense of “copy,” “likeness,” or
“image”); as such, it denotes a design or a model preexistent to the copy.
When God is the giver of the object that has been built, it may be a
representative upon the earth of a heavenly design and thus of nonhuman
creation. It can be understood as a heavenly counterpart, which makes
possible a dialogical relation between heaven and earth. Theologically,
timnâ belongs to God’s architecture. The earthly sanctuary is made into the
likeness of the heavenly or spiritual model, just as Moses made the
tabernacle according to a heavenly model. Conformity could imply an
original.
Interpreting the tabnît as a mere blueprint would suggest that God made
the model in the likeness of human architecture. However, the fact that the
Bible testifies of a heavenly abode for God makes tabnît to be a real
representation of what the Lord of the heavenly realm considers fit to be
acceptable for His worship. The noun tabnît suggests that, in two respects,
the Israelite temple would be framed according to God’s intention and
would resemble and reproduce His divine design. The Israelite temple
would be God’s design since He had been the first builder (e.g., Exod.
15:17b; Ps. 127:1; 78:68b, 69). Bruce Waltke observes, “YHWH is
presented in Scripture as the master builder of both the created and
historical order. The word is used metaphorically of his final creative act
for man’s good when he ‘built’ the rib which he had taken from Adam into
a woman (Gen. 2:22). Elsewhere the biblical poets describe the ordered
universe as a building which YHWH designed and built (Amos 9:6; cf. Ps.
104:2–3).” So, when the tabnît refers to a building, it is safer to presuppose
an original created by God. Though God is a spiritual entity, He is
represented at times with a concrete form. In some passages He is
described metaphorically as having certain physical features (e.g., 1 Sam.
5:11; 2 Chron. 30:12; Ps. 18:15), and heaven is portrayed as a domain
populated with buildings (e.g., Gen. 28:17; Deut. 26:15; 2 Chron. 29:6).
However, in spite of frequent anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,
God is not made of flesh (e.g., 2 Sam. 24:16; 2 Chron. 32:8; cf. 1 Kings
8:27; 2 Chron. 2:6; 6:18; Ps. 139:7; Jer. 23:24).
Moses was not the originator of the tabernacle in the desert; it was
God’s sanctuary in design and purpose (cf. Exod. 25:8; Lev. 20:3; Ps.
78:69). While it is true that the form of the sanctuary in the wilderness was
different in terms of size and material to that planned by David, both
developed from a single, sacred prototype concept of two compartments:
the Holy and the Most Holy places. Perhaps the involvement of God
presupposes a temple of heavenly origin, at least from a human
perspective. Yahweh revealed the plan to David as he did to Moses. In
fact, God allowed Moses to behold the heavenly sanctuary. The verb
mar’eh, “to allow someone to see something (with one’s eyes)” (Exod.
25:9; cf. 1 Chron. 28:10),33 is in hiphil or causative participle form wherein
God has shown to Moses the pattern to observe for a time. Accordingly,
the causative sense may have this literal meaning: “according to all that I
shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the
instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it” (Exod. 25:9). In addition, in
Exodus 25:40 Yahweh commands Moses to visualize the appearance in a
vision. The verb mar’eh, “showing,” implies that God allowed Moses—as
a prophet—in a vision or in a real appearance to see the original copy
(Exod. 27:8; 33:18). The noun “seeing,” “appearance,” or “vision” in
Numbers 8:4 lends support to this view.34
The LXX understood tabnît to mean the heavenly original, the heavenly
tabernacle. In Exodus 25, the LXX twice translates tabnît with
paradeigma, “that which is formed” (the same as in 1 Chron. 28:11, 18),
whereas in verse 40 it translates the term with typos, “an object formed to
resemble some entity.” The tabnît is the model of the moveable sanctuary,
and it agrees with the book of Hebrews, where the heavenly sanctuary
prefigures the earthly tabernacle (8:5, 9:24). G. R. Osborne speaks of
horizontal (or historical), and vertical, or earthly-heavenly, typology. It is
not a metaphorical correspondence but a historical correspondence.35
David’s pattern in 1 Chronicles 28 builds on the same understanding of
Exodus 25.
The ANE understood analogically the relation between the heaven and
the earth, the macrocosm and the microcosm, mainly as the settlements
and the temples with their heavenly original.36 The motif of 1 Chronicles
28 is taken from the heavenly plane in Exodus 25, which is transferred
thereof. As Moses alone received from God the model for the builders,
David is the sole agent shown by God the model of the temple. The tabnît
is of the heavenly realm; it is spiritually attained either through a vision or
by the medium of God’s Spirit.

CONCLUSION
The historical books envision a temple in heaven that the earthly temple
was based on as a development of the heavenly “pattern” (Exod. 25:9; 1
Chron. 28:11–12, 19). Therefore, as in other parts in the Old Testament,
the earthly temple in the historical books encapsulates the notion repeated
in Hebrews 8:2 about the heavenly sanctuary of which it is a mere copy:
“the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” The historical
books shed light, though scantily, and offer support for the existence of a
heavenly sanctuary as a prototype of the earthly sanctuary. Regarding the
first temple, the historical books allow us to understand that David’s
pattern was based on the analogy between heaven and earth. The tradition
of a heavenly sanctuary reaches far back into the history of Israel and the
ANE.
The God of Israel needed to dwell among men to accomplish His
covenant with His chosen people. The earthly sanctuary conceptually
associates to the heavenly abode, which is the true tabernacle whence all
the answers would spring forth. Therefore, the relationship existing
between the two temples is significant in the historical books. The earthly
sanctuary relates to the heavenly, which is eternal and nontemporal and
where God’s true dwelling is. Moreover, the earthly sanctuary is perceived
as a lower part supporting God’s activities from heaven. The earthly and
heavenly sanctuaries are working in close relationship; the terrestrial
needed the heavenly for solving human problems of sin, yet they were
distinct from each other in function. The heavenly sanctuary is the
conceptual entity on which the earthly sanctuary draws from and depends.
In addition, to see only the meaning of a mere “plan” for the term tabnît
does not do justice to the text of 1 Chronicles 28. David obtained the
pattern of the earthly temple through direct inspiration. Due to God’s
unmediated involvement with Moses and David, it is hard to imagine that
the temple built by Solomon, who followed exactly the model handled by
his father, would have been an earthly sanctuary without a heavenly
counterpart. This is due to the constant linkage between the earthly temple
and the heavenly abode, where all the responses were coming from God’s
temple. The relevance of this study, which warrants the evidences of a
direct relationship between the two sanctuaries, is that Yahweh Himself
was the chief architect, for He commissioned Moses and David as the
building managers of the sanctuary/temple. Thus, the presence of an
existing sanctuary as the model of the earthly is a strong possibility in the
historical writings. This piece of literature knew a heavenly abode, so the
earthly temple is considered as its counterpart.
4
CREATOR, JUDGE, AND KING: GOD IN THE
HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN THE PSALMS
DAVID TASKER

W hen people think of the Hebrew temple, they often try to make
sense of a large amount of sometimes-bewildering material by
thinking of specifics: rituals performed, location, and symbolism of
sanctuary objects. The Psalms take a different approach to the temple
theme, especially when referring to the heavenly temple. There, God is
seated as sovereign of the universe, hearing the prayers of His sometimes-
exasperated saints.
Rather than focusing on the priestly work conducted in the heavenly
temple, the Psalms devote more attention to the themes of (1) God on His
throne and (2) God as the Judge. The Hebrew word for temple, hêkāl, also
means “palace”1; to limit its meaning to “temple” does not do justice to the
rich theology that the Psalms describe. That many of the psalms refer to
judgment (a significant role of the king in Bible times)2 is further evidence
for the link between the palace and the temple, as judgment is described as
taking place in both.
In light of this, it is surprising that Adams, for example, draws the
conclusion that “the Old Testament is almost completely silent on the
meaning of practically all aspects of the ancient sanctuary economy.”3
Admittedly, Adams is speaking of specific theological explanations, which
he is confident may be found in the New Testament,4 but the general
perception seems to be that—other than the simple description of the
desert sanctuary, Solomon’s temple, and the cultus associated with them—
the Old Testament is devoid of meaningful dialogue on the cosmological
significance of the sanctuary/temple. This is a common misconception
specifically addressed in the Psalms (just one example where the sanctuary
theme features in the OT corpus), where a rich, cosmic spectrum of
heavenly sanctuary themes is uncovered.
The purpose of this chapter is to make a preliminary exploration of the
Psalms to observe this rich spectrum of ideas on the heavenly sanctuary.
The chapter is divided between two themes: God as King, and God as
Judge. Underscoring these main themes are the subthemes of creation and
worship.5 The first part will examine the passages about God being the
eternal King enthroned in heaven. This will include His conquest over evil,
His throne’s position in heaven instead of on earth, His holiness, and His
praise. The second part will examine the theme of God as Judge, first as
the One presiding in the heavenly council, then His observance of events
on earth—including the pleas for rescue from His subjects—and finally
His decision to come in judgment to the earth.
In this endeavor, only verses from the Psalms that refer to the heavenly
palace/temple will be examined.6 To date there have been few studies on
the theme of the heavenly temple imagery in the Psalms, so this chapter
aims to offer an initiatory exploration of this fascinating topic.

THE LORD REIGNS

Embedded among psalms that describe the checkered history of Israel are
psalms of adoration that describe a divine monarch on His throne. These
psalms may be for seeking God’s protection in the face of military
disaster, obtaining reassurance in the face of enemies’ mockery and scorn,
or reflecting on the wonders of creation. Therefore a selection of psalms
will be featured to illustrate God reigning in heaven, God as victor on His
throne, the glory and significance of His throne, the protection He offers
from the throne, and finally the worship at the throne, recognizing God as
universal monarch. In this way, the significance of the kingly role of God,
reigning from His temple/palace, may be readily demonstrated.

God Reigns in Heaven

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;

The LORD shall hold them in derision. (2:4)7
The LORD has established His throne in heaven,
And His kingdom rules over all. (103:19)
The LORD is in His holy temple,
The LORD’s throne is in heaven;
 His eyes behold,
His eyelids test the sons of men. (11:4)

The raging of heathen kings (ch. 2) is contrasted with the One seated in
heaven. Note the contrast between the agitation and rebellion on earth and
the “sublime peace” and the “superior might” of heaven.8 The inclusio is a
major stylistic device used in Psalm 103 that brings out further contrasts.9
A major inclusio is formed by the introduction and conclusion (a threefold
blessing in vv. 1–2, 20–22), which serves to bracket the entire psalm.
Within these limits, three lesser inclusios (vv. 6 and 10; 11 and 14; 15 and
19) bracket the three strophes that make up the body of the psalm.10
Although in the first strophe it may appear that the focus is on the
psalmist, verses Psalm 103:3–5 leads the reader to focus on the object of
worship—God, rather than the individual.11 In the second strophe (vv. 6–
10), the psalmist encourages the people of Israel to join him in praise,
recalling incidents from the Exodus by focusing on the proclamation of
God’s name from Sinai (Exod. 33:12–34:7).12 The third strophe (vv. 11–
14) further elaborates qualities associated with God’s name in Exodus
34:6–7 and explains God’s dealings with His children in a series of
contrasts. The fourth strophe (vv. 15–19) sets up a distinction between
human impermanence and God’s permanence to demonstrate that a person
can depend on God to continue displaying His (fatherly) character. The
fifth strophe (vv. 19–22) is an extension of the previous one, showing that
because God rules over all, He is more able to be “a loving, merciful,
gracious, and forgiving King.”13 The scene shifts to God’s throne room in
heaven, from where He rules over His creation and from where He
receives the praise of all His creatures throughout the created realm.
Meanwhile, Psalm 11:4 encapsulates all that can be said about God as
King and Judge. In the context of David fleeing his enemies and a plea for
God’s intervention, Weiser suggests that the acclamation of God as King
in Psalm 11 is connected to two themes: the enthronement ceremony, and
the conquest of the land.14 Note the synthesis of the holy temple and its
place in heaven. Note also that the heavenly throne is pictured as being
placed in that holy heavenly temple. This makes it possible, as Weiser
affirms, that in the face of every threat faced by God’s children, ultimate
power and righteousness reside with Him.15
Although de Vaux asserts that a cosmic application of the temple was a
later allegorical development,16 Beale maintains that the “overall picture
emerges clearly”: the temple was a “miniature model of the cosmos.”17
This assertion is reflected in Jewish tradition recorded by Josephus, where
everything to do with the earthly sanctuary reflected some aspect of
creation. The outer court represented the earth, the inner court signified the
sea, and the Holy of Holies was for God alone.18 The twelve bulls holding
up the “sea” of bronze; the lilies adorning its rim; the Tree of Life motif in
the lamp stand; the lamps themselves, seen by some as the seven light
sources visible to the naked eye: sun, moon, and five planets; the curtains
and tapestries depicting the elements and the heavens; the colors and
design of the garments of the priests and the jewels on the high priest’s
vesture; everything pointed to the entire cosmos over which God reigns
supreme.19

I lift up my eyes to you,

to you whose throne is in heaven. (Ps. 123:1 NIV)
Forever, O LORD,
Your word is settled in heaven. (119:89)
But You, LORD, are on high forevermore. (92:8)
Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases. (115:3 ESV)

Psalm 123 is an ancient song of ascent that Jewish pilgrims sang as they
climbed the hilly Jericho road on their way to Jerusalem to celebrate the
feasts. They were going to worship a God much higher than the hill they
were climbing. Psalm 119 is the grand Torah acrostic psalm whose twenty-
two verses, each with eight lines, all begin with different letters of the
alphabet. Psalm 92 is a psalm of praise for the Sabbath, set in the context
of both creation (vv. 4–5) and judgment (vv. 6–9); it declares that in
YHWH, who is set on high forever (ləʿōlām, v. 8), there is no
unrighteousness or injustice (v. 15).
Psalm 115 is hymn of praise contrasting the idols of silver and gold—
silent, blind, deaf, and unfeeling towards worshippers (vv. 4–7)—with the
God who blesses His children (vv. 12–18). Verse 3 answers the scoffing
taunt of the nations: “Where is your God?” The answer refers not only to a
location, but to the contrast between what the Gentiles worship and the
God who created heaven and earth (v. 15).
Enthroned Victor

The LORD reigns;

Let the earth rejoice;
Let the multitude of isles be glad! (Ps. 97:1)
The LORD is King forever and ever;
The nations have perished out of His land. (10:16)
The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The LORD is clothed,
He has girded Himself with strength.
Your throne is established from of old;
You are from everlasting. (93:1, 2)

This first example from the psalms includes a hymn of praise (Ps. 97)
extolling the One whose throne is founded on righteousness and justice
(v. 2) and before whom fire proceeds, lightning flashes, and mountains
melt like wax (vv. 3–5). Although His physical form is veiled, this
description of God highlights what His throne is founded upon—
righteousness and justice. While “the impenetrable darkness of clouds
reverently maintains the mystery of his nature,” this hymn of praise
affirms that “God is Ruler of the world and the Judge of the world.”20
Psalm 10 speaks of when the evildoers mock and God seems to hide
(vv. 1–4). The perpetrators of evil ambush, rob, murder, and crush the
helpless, thinking that God doesn’t see and has forgotten (vv. 7–11). The
psalm closes with a reminder that YHWH is King forever (v. 16) and that
He will bring justice to the fatherless and the oppressed—the weakest and
most vulnerable in society. Psalm 93, a short hymn of praise, focuses on
the majesty of the One on the throne, cast in the context of creation.
Commentators struggle with the relationship between these majestic
scenes and the yearly reenactments of the enthronement ceremony of the
ANE kings. But the biblical text seems to have far greater implications
than what is reflected in the shallow ANE rituals of the annual
enthronement of the god/king. Nor does God’s dominion “begin with his
enthronement at the end of time”; it is “established in eternity,” “based on
His creation,” and “justified by the fact that He is ‘God from
everlasting.’”21
 The context of God’s enthronement here is not merely the defeat of
earthly enemies but of creation. Psalm 93 connects the establishment of
God’s throne (v. 2) with the establishment of the earth at creation (v. 3).
This is “in marked contrast” to the “cosmogenic battle motif found in other
creation accounts,” such as Enuma Elish and the Ugaritic Baal narratives.22
In ancient Babylonian cosmology, the enthronement of the god Marduk
was celebrated subsequent to his “victory over the powers of chaos at the
creation of the world.”23

God reigns over the nations;

God sits on His holy throne. (Ps. 47:8)

Psalm 47 parallels Psalms 95–99 in proclaiming God seated on His throne.

God is King over all the earth, reigning over the nations from His holy
throne (vv. 7–8). Weiser comments that this is not only the fulfillment of
God’s promise to Abraham but also the eschatological teaching of the New
Testament’s “one flock and one shepherd.”24

Enthroned Between the Cherubim

The LORD reigns,

let the nations tremble;
he sits enthroned between the cherubim,
let the earth shake. (Ps. 99:1 NIV)
Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel,
you who lead Joseph like a flock;
you who sit enthroned between the cherubim, shine forth. (80:1
NIV)

Psalm 99 is an exhortation to worship God at His holy mountain (v. 9)

where He sits enthroned upon the cherubim (v. 1). There is an appeal to
the faithfulness of God, seen during the Exodus and to others who would
later call on His name (e.g., Samuel; v. 6). God, as shepherd of Israel in
Psalm 80,25 is described as dwelling between the cherubim, a description
easily recognized as belonging to the temple.26 This psalm is in the context
of God executing judgment on the city so that its walls are broken down
(v. 12) and it is burnt with fire (v. 16) while its “neighbors” laugh
derisively at this calamity (v. 6). Psalm 80 ends with a plea for restoration
(v. 19).
Psalm 80:14 places the cherubim-enthroned monarch in heaven. G. K.
Beale draws the parallel between the earthly temple—whose cherubim
were sculpted into the ark and woven into the curtain—and the heavenly
sanctuary, where living angelic cherubim guard the throne.27 This
description is reminiscent of God seated in all His majestic power and was
reflected in the enthronement rituals of the earthly kings.28 In ancient
thinking, ascending to heaven to sit (at rest) on the throne was done after
two major events: the completion of creation and the triumph over God’s
enemies in judgment.29

Foundations of the Throne

Your name, O LORD, endures forever,

Your fame, O LORD, throughout all generations. (Ps. 135:13)
But the LORD sits enthroned forever,
he has established his throne for justice. (9:7 ESV)

Psalm 135 is a hymn of praise that recounts God’s deliverance of Israel

from Egypt and contrasts (in a similar way to Ps. 115) the idols of the
nations to the Lord from Zion who dwells in Jerusalem (v. 21). Psalm 9 is
a hymn of praise thanking God for delivering David from his enemies in
the context of the King on the eternal throne, which was established for
justice (v. 7) in Zion (v. 11). Because God does not “forget the cry of the
afflicted” (v. 12 ESV), David rejoices in His salvation (v. 14). The psalm
ends with a reminder that God is Judge of the nations; to remind them of
their humanity (v. 20), “God’s eternal rule is celebrated in the face of the
transient nature of everything human,” and is celebrated in this prayer
(Ps. 102) in the form of a hymn.30

Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;

love and faithfulness go before you. (89:14 NIV)

Psalm 89 is a lament, a hymn of penance, and a prayer attributed to the

king after a day of lost battles.31 It commences as a hymn of praise exalting
God for His mercy and faithfulness, His omnipotent power in defeating the
mighty monster (Rahab) of the primeval sea, and His subsequent “deeds of
righteousness” and victorious help for His people. A reminder of God’s
covenant with David follows the rejoicing, with the promise that God
would never forsake His seed.
Then comes the lament: God has apparently cast off His anointed one,
and the covenant appears to have been laid aside, hence the concluding
query, “How long?”32 All this is in the context of God seated “in the
council of the holy ones” (Ps. 89:7), whose throne has as its very
foundation righteousness and justice, love and (covenant) faithfulness
(v. 14).
In the description of God’s throne33 there is another qualification for
Him to be Judge. Here we have “four extensions of Yahweh’s presence
which take the names of ‘virtues’” that possibly took the form of animals
surrounding His throne.34 At Tabor (Ps. 89:12) the four virtues/creatures
were Mercy and Truth before, Righteousness and Judgment behind; at Dan
it was Righteousness and Peace, Mercy and Truth (85:10, 13); at
Jerusalem it was Honor and Majesty, Strength and Beauty (96:6). These
descriptors serve to describe the “fatherly” qualities of God displayed from
the divine throne, depicting Him as the Sovereign administering justice on
behalf of His people.

Protection from the Throne

I cried to the LORD with my voice,

And He heard me from His holy hill. (Ps. 3:4)
LORD, who may abide in Your tabernacle?
Who may dwell in Your holy hill? (15:1)
Oh, send out Your light and Your truth!
Let them lead me;
Let them bring me to Your holy hill
And to Your tabernacle. (43:3)
Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised
In the city of our God,
In His holy mountain. (48:1)
Despite David’s enemies mocking that God can’t help him, YHWH
answers from His holy hill (3:4). In Psalm 15 moral integrity is the basis of
a person sojourning in God’s tent or dwelling on His holy hill. It is not
specified whether this is in heaven or on earth. In Psalm 43 there is a plea
for vindication (judgment) from the deceitful and unjust so that the
psalmist may go to God’s holy hill, His dwelling (v. 3), while Psalm 48 is
about the “city of the great King” (v. 2). This psalm is more specific,
connecting it to Zion and “the far north” (v. 2 ESV). Weiser suggests the
term ṣāpôn (north) refers to the holy Ugaritic mountain in Phoenicia as
described in the Ras Shamra texts.35
The name Zion was first used for the oldest part of upper Jerusalem but
came to be used for God’s dwelling on earth—a theological name for
Jerusalem.36 It is sometimes referred to as his holy hill or mountain, and
although it seems to not refer to heaven, there may be support for its
heavenly parallel. André Lacocque has given the fascinating suggestion,
taken up by Beale, that the stone “cut out without hands” in the second
chapter of Daniel “represents Mt Zion, the temple not built by human
hands.”37

God has spoken from his sanctuary:

“In triumph I will parcel out Shechem
and measure off the Valley of Succoth.” (Ps. 60:6; 108:7 NIV)
A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows,
is God in his holy habitation. (68:5)

Psalm 60 is an ambiguous description of either the holiness or sanctuary of

God (v. 6). It speaks of God dividing the land, echoing Joshua’s work after
entering Canaan. This is paraphrased in Psalm 108, which begins on a
much more positive note.
Psalm 68 features God as Father with jurisdiction over three mountains:
Sinai, Bashan, and Zion (vv. 8, 15, 29). A progression is seen moving from
one section of the psalm to another. In the first, God is pictured riding a
chariot over the desert plains38 to meet His people at Sinai. In the second,
He is among untold thousands of chariots at Mount Bashan (v. 17). In the
third section He rides through the heavens to get to His sanctuary (v. 24).
The depicted meeting of God with His people becomes more magnificent
at each mountain. The picture of God’s enemies being driven away like
smoke reflects the Ugaritic concept of death.39 It is describing the Father-
God driving away the “wicked” so that evil could never be resurrected or
rescued from the underworld—hence the ensuing description of great
rejoicing in verses 3–4. Amidst the grandeur of military and kingly might,
the Father-God’s first concern is the disenfranchised. This is
unprecedented in ANE literature.

Worship at the Throne

O LORD, our Lord,

how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
above the heavens. (Ps. 8:1 NIV)

Being praised in or above the heavens (8:1), even if it is from an earthly

vantage point, demonstrates the affinity between the earthly realm and the
heavenly. The focal point remains the Creator and the excellence of His
name throughout the earth (note the inclusio of vv. 1, 9), but His glory is
placed above or in the heavens (v. 1). Notice how this psalm also places
value on human life—created to be “a little lower than the angels” (v. 5).

Be exalted, O God, above the heavens;

Let Your glory be above all the earth. (57:5, 11)

When Saul is pursuing David, the fugitive pleads (in the first half of the
psalm) for God’s mercy (v. 1), and he responds to his own plea with the
confidence that God will send from heaven to save him because of his
ḥesed (covenant faithfulness). The second half of the psalm is framed by
an inclusio (vv. 5, 11) and stresses the majestic honor that God enjoys in
the heavens.

Be exalted, O God, above the heavens,

And Your glory above all the earth. (Ps. 108:5)
The LORD is high above all nations,
His glory above the heavens. (113:4)

Here God is depicted as seated on high, a reference to His heavenly throne.

He is looking down on the earth (vv. 5–6). While verse 4 states that God’s
glory is above the heavens, as other psalms of praise do, verse 5 affirms
that He dwells on high. This parallelism forms the context for the work
that God does from His throne in heaven on behalf of His people: raising
the poor and needy from the dust and the ash heap, restoring them to the
finest of company with princes (vv. 7–8), and giving children to the barren
woman, converting her house into a home (v. 9).

Praise the LORD!

Praise the LORD from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights! (Ps. 148:1)
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens. (150:1 NIV)

Psalm 148 is a hymn of praise that looks at various aspects of creation and
encourages them to praise God “in the heights” (v. 1) and “from the earth”
(v. 7). Psalm 150 is the great climax to the psalms that praise God in His
sanctuary. This “keynote” psalm is a description of all voices in heaven
and in earth accompanied by the entire orchestra of temple music.40

THE LORD JUDGES

It appears from our study so far that the judgment theme is intimately
bound up with God being King. In the context of God reigning from a
temple/palace, the psalm implies that He functions as a King/Priest
mediating benefits to a waiting people. This section therefore explores
those possibilities by looking at descriptions of (1) God presiding over the
heavenly council, (2) His diligence in observing injustice on earth, (3) His
hearing the cries for deliverance, and (4) His coming to earth in judgment.

God Presides

God has taken his place in the divine council;

in the midst of the gods he holds judgment. (Ps. 82:1 ESV)
The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD,
your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. (89:5 NIV)
 In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround him. (89:7 NIV)

The ANE attests to a grand assembly of the gods, with the senior god
presiding. In this context the great overlords of the time called themselves
king of kings and lord of lords. This meant that the lesser kings had to sit
in council under the great king, waiting for him to administer “justice to all
the kingdoms and nations of the earth.”41
Who are the gods referred to in Psalm 82:1? Knight suggests that these
minor gods/kings represent all the handmade idols, mental images and
ideologies, humanly created power blocks.42 Therefore, God being seated
as the supreme ruler of the heavenly council ensures that He has the last
word.
Weiser is convinced there is no tie here between the council that God
presides over and El in the Ugaritic Baal myths describe.43 Instead of the
lesser gods having power over the presiding god, in Psalm 82 God is
firmly in control and the “gods” so described are subject to his judgment.44

“The comprehensive scope of this picture already indicates that a question

of worldwide significance is at stake here.”45 The reign of the demi-gods is
over, and they stand before the judgment seat of God.46

God Sees Earth Events

The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. (Ps. 14:2;
53:2)
For He looked down from the height of His sanctuary;
From heaven the LORD viewed the earth. (102:19)

Nothing that happens on earth remains hidden from the penetrating gaze of
God, but in this case what is hidden is the person, any person, who “acts
wisely and cares for him.”47 While fools think there is no God (14:1), God
looks down from heaven and notices that corruption is widespread and
rampant. In this context, David pleads for judgment and salvation “out of
Zion” (v. 7).
Psalm 102 brings out something similar. It is a psalm of an afflicted one
who asks for help from God, the One enthroned forever (v. 12) in Zion
(v. 13), from where He looks down to see the earth (v. 19). Therefore,
based upon His eternity and His creatorship (vv. 25–26), God’s people will
dwell securely well into the future (v. 28).

Who is like the LORD our God,

the One who sits enthroned on high,
who stoops down to look
on the heavens and the earth? (113:5, 6 NIV)
The LORD looks down from heaven
He sees all the sons of men. (33:13)

He looks down from the vantage point where He sits enthroned (33:14).
Beal suggests that the use of nābaṭ here carries the implication of “God
issuing blessing from his heavenly temple.”48 Weiser takes a step back and
sees a bigger picture, describing God in this context as “the Lord of Nature
and of History,” implying that all earth’s inhabitants are under His reign.49
In comparison to God, who spoke the worlds into existence (v. 9), the talk
(counsel) of the nations amounts to nothing (v. 10). In this context God
looks down from heaven “that he may deliver [the soul of those who fear
him] from death” (vv. 18–19 ESV). The concept of God looking down
probably alludes to theophany and emphasizes the “absolute superiority of
God over the world,” yet it is tempered by His willingness to graciously
incline towards them.50

God Hears the Cries for Deliverance

Return, we beseech You, O God of hosts;

Look down from heaven and see,
And visit this vine. (Ps. 80:14)
In my distress I called to the LORD;
I cried to my God for help.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came before him, into his ears. (18:6 NIV)
The context of Psalm 80 is a battle, and no doubt raging armies and
clashing chariots would have decimated any vine on the battlefield. But in
the midst of that chaos, God is depicted as drawing the psalmist out of
deep waters; the same verb is used to describe the infant Moses’
deliverance from the Nile (Exod. 2:10).
Psalm 18 is David’s hymn of thanksgiving after being delivered from
his enemies. God heard David’s pleas for deliverance and heard “from his
temple” (v. 6). The description of deliverance sounds apocalyptic with the
earth reeling, mountains trembling, smoke, fire, thick darkness, hailstones,
thunder, sea channels opened to view, and the foundations of the world
laid bare (vv. 7–15). David then describes his success in battle (vv. 29–45)
and concludes by praising God for his deliverance (vv. 46–50).

Truth shall spring out of the earth,

And righteousness shall look down from heaven. (85:11)

Referring to a previous time when God restored His people after they were
disciplined, the author of Psalm 85 asks for God to again restore and
revive His people (vv. 4, 6). Righteousness and peace kissing each other
anticipates that prayed-for restoration. In a parallelism of righteousness
and peace kissing each other, we see God bowing down and the earth
reaching up toward heaven.51

Part your heavens, O LORD, and come down;

touch the mountains, so that they smoke.
Reach down your hand from on high;
deliver me and rescue me
from the mighty waters,
from the hands of foreigners. (Ps. 144:5, 7 NIV)

Psalm 144 is a hymn of David that extols God for giving him past success
in war and asks God to grant success again to give the youth a future,
wealth, and security (vv. 12–14). David appeals to God to bend, bow
down, or part the heavens (v. 5), to stretch out His hand from on high and
to rescue him “from the mighty waters” (v. 7 NIV). Although this is
another description of deliverance in the face of battle, the verb this time
echoes the deliverance of the Israelite people as a whole rather than just
Moses being delivered from Pharaoh’s hand (Exod. 18:8).

Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion!

When the LORD brings back the captivity of His people,
Let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad. (Pss. 14:7; 53:6)

Chapter 14 is duplicated in chapter 53 and places God looking down from

heaven in this prayer for salvation in Zion.

He shall send from heaven and save me;

He reproaches the one who would swallow me up. (Ps. 57:3)
He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet. (18:9 NIV)

This dramatic theophany, a psalm of David, describes the king’s desperate

plea to God for assistance and deliverance in battle. Maybe there are
allusions to the theophany at Sinai,52 but again there seem to be
eschatological undertones with the foundations of the world being
uncovered (v. 15).

Justice at Last

God is a righteous judge,

and a God who feels indignation every day. (Ps. 7:11 ESV)

Because God is the righteous Judge (v. 11), David pleads for God to judge
both him and his enemies. This psalm forms an eschatological prayer for
the day of the death of the wicked (v. 9). Although God may show His
anger or indignation at the injustice He sees each day on the earth, He is
depicted making preparations for a final eschatological day of reckoning
(vv. 11–13).

Let the heavens declare His righteousness,

For God Himself is Judge. (Ps. 50:6)
The theophonic nature of this psalm heightens it drama. The devouring fire
and roaring tempest are reminiscent of the theophany at Sinai53 where the
Law was originally given. But this psalm seems to have an eschatological
feel. Weiser observes that the “cosmic setting gives everything a universal
and eschatological emphasis.”54 In broad sweeps the heavens and earth are
called upon (v. 4): all beasts of the forest (v. 10), every bird of the
mountains (v. 11), God’s people (v. 7), and the wicked (v. 16) are
addressed. This is not a description of something happening in a corner,
but the great, universal day of the Lord referred to in verse 15 as the day of
trouble. The heavens are encouraged to “declare his righteousness, for God
Himself is judge” (v. 6). Then judgment takes place, with God addressing
first His people (vv. 6–15), then the evildoers (vv. 16–22). The final verse
assures that those who offer thanksgiving will see the salvation of God
(v. 23).

So that men will say,

“Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
Surely He is God who judges in the earth.” (Ps. 58:11)

Although Psalm 58 does not mention God’s throne or the place where He
is enthroned, it does acknowledge Him as Judge. This contrasts to the
human judges described in verse 1: “Do you indeed speak righteousness in
silence?” (The Hebrew is difficult; it is cryptic and uses the word ʾēlem,
which means “silence” or “muteness,” to describe the work of those who
deal with justice.)55 This is one of those psalms that makes one wonder.
Why is such violence tolerated in Scripture? Why is David pleading for
God to break their teeth (v. 6), become like stillborn children (v. 8), burn
them in a pot, and take them away in a storm (v. 9)? Maybe he himself
does not see it, but David gives the answer in the last verse. God is Judge,
not King David. Just as well!

But God is the Judge:

He puts down one,
And exalts another. (Ps. 75:7)
From heaven you pronounced judgment,
and the land feared and was quiet. (76:8 NIV)
Psalm 75 does not mention the location from which God sends his decrees;
nevertheless it speaks in universal terms (vv. 3, 6). In the face of boasters
and evildoers (v. 4), God says, “I will judge with equity” (v. 2 ESV). Then
in Psalm 76—although God’s dwelling place is said to be in Zion (v. 3)—
He utters judgment from heaven (v. 8), drawing a parallel between earthly
structures and heavenly realities.56 This psalm echoes the victory over the
Egyptian army at the Red Sea, affirming that the purpose of judgment is to
deliver all the oppressed of the earth (v. 9).

Arise, O God, judge the earth;

for You shall inherit all nations. (Ps. 82:8 ESV)

Psalm 82 contrasts the just judgment of God—seated in His place in the

divine council—with those on earth who should be providing justice to the
weak, fatherless, afflicted, and destitute (v. 3–4). The psalm ends with a
plea to God to arise and judge the earth (v. 8).

Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns;

The world also is firmly established,
It shall not be moved;
He shall judge the peoples righteously.”
For He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth.
He shall judge the world with righteousness,
And the peoples with His truth. (Ps. 96:10, 13)

Weiser observes that here we find the “two foundation-pillars of the

realization of [God’s] salvation—creation and judgment,” tying together
“the order of Nature in creation and the order of History in judgment.”57
“God’s judgment does not merely consist of calling his opponents to
account: it also serves to restore his order in the world.”58

For He is coming to judge the earth.

With righteousness He shall judge the world,
And the peoples with equity. (98:9)

Psalm 98 is a hymn of praise for God’s deliverance—He has “made known

his salvation” (v. 2)—yet at its conclusion the psalm looks confidently to a
future time when God would come “to judge the earth” with righteousness
and equity (v. 9). Note that this judgment is awaited with joy and not with
fear.59

CONCLUSION
There is much more to the subject of the sanctuary in the Psalms than the
mere rituals and paraphernalia of the tent in the wilderness. As observed,
Psalms instead looks at the grander theme of God’s reign and judgment.
Not only does God “dwell” in a temple-palace, but his throne seems to
parallel the Ark of the Covenant, and instead of being flanked by golden
cherubim He is surrounded by four living beings.60
First, we noticed that God reigns in heaven and from everlasting. This
immediately rules out any earthly structures, as they proved to be rather
transient. From His throne He rules the nations (47:8), and His purpose in
so doing is justice (9:7). The justice He dispenses is both right and fair
(89:14)—in marked contrast to the corrupt and incompetent judges in the
human realm.
The location of His sanctuary at times seems ambiguous, as the earthly
temple shadowed the heavenly reality and they were inextricably linked.
What God decides in heaven is seen as coming from the temple and vice
versa. The various labels of this place include Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the
North, and the Great City. There are enough references to suggest that the
earthly structure functioned—on a very limited scale—as a tiny
microcosm of the eternal structure.
As various psalm writers contemplated these themes, their sense of
praise produced some majestic pieces. They used the phrase that God
should be “exalted . . . above the heavens” (e.g., Ps. 108:5) as they looked
forward to God delivering ultimate justice and restoration to the earth.61
Their praise certainly covered the entire created realm, which is consistent
with the scope of God’s monarchy.
Second, we noted God’s role as One who presides over the heavenly
council, ensuring ultimate justice for the inhabitants of earth. It is telling
that God is described as looking down from His abode in heaven to
observe happenings on earth. The idea of “stooping down” (113:5, 6) is
not flattering. We humans like to think that what we do is so important and
so obvious to everyone, but from the divine perspective it is hardly
noticeable, so God is described as bending down—as if to a small child—
to get a better look. His main focus seems to be those entrusted with
maintaining order and justice for society’s oppressed. They keep silent
when they should be speaking up to protect the oppressed (82:2–4). God
reserves special judgment for those leaders.
To the modern mind it seems amazing that the psalm writers actually
plead for judgment. The ancients saw judgment as God’s way of validating
them, especially when they were being oppressed. Thus God hears the cry
of His distressed people when they call to Him for help (Ps. 18:16).
Judgment to them was salvation, not punishment. They expected God to
part the heavens, come down, melt a mountain or two, and save “me”
(18:9). That emotional burden may be reminiscent of the “affliction of
soul” connected with the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29; Num. 29:7).
This brief exploration of the Psalms suggests that there is still much to
uncover. I trust there will be some willing to take that challenge.
5
HEAVENLY TEMPLE VISIONS IN THE
BOOKS OF ISAIAH AND ZECHARIAH
FELIX PONIATOWSKI

I n the prophetic corpus of the Old Testament one can find many
references where the general scholarly consensus is that a heavenly, not
earthly, sanctuary is implied (Isa. 6:1‒13; 63:15; 66:1–6; Jer. 25:30; Jon.
2:7; Mic. 1:2; Hab. 2:20; Zech. 2:13).1 We could classify such references
as follows:

1. texts where God’s temple (hêkāl) is mentioned and it is clear

from the context that it is a heavenly temple (Isa. 6:1‒13; 66:1‒
6; Jon. 2:7; Mic. 1:2‒3; Hab. 2:20);
2. texts where synonymous expressions are employed, such as
“holy habitation” (məʿôn qodəšô) (Jer. 25:30; Zech. 2:13) and
“holy and glorious habitation” (mizzəbul qodšəka) (Isa. 63:15);2
3. texts where metaphorical language is used, e.g., “glorious
throne” (Jer. 17:12),3 “from heaven” (Lam. 3:50),4 and “holy
mountain” (Ezek. 28:13–14).5

Among the texts in the first two categories, two passages should be
highlighted: Isaiah 6:1‒13 and Zechariah 2:13–3:10. Whereas in other
texts the heavenly temple is only mentioned, in these two the prophets
were shown scenes from the heavenly residence of God, and Isaiah was
even an active participant.6 Both visions share several common elements,
as noted in the following table:

Isaiah 6:1–13 Zechariah 2:13–3:10

Depiction of God in His Depiction of God in His holy habitation

temple (vv. 1–4) (2:13)
 Isaiah is a man with Joshua is a man in filthy garments (3:3)
unclean lips (v. 5)

Isaiah is cleansed and his Joshua is cleansed (3:4‒5):

“iniquity is taken away” “Remove [hāsîrû] the filthy garments
(wəsār ‘ăwônekā) (v. 7) from him. . . . I have taken your iniquity
[‘ăwônekā] away from you” (3:4)

A commission is given to A commission is given to Joshua (3:6‒7)

Isaiah (vv. 9–13)

These two visions provide an opportunity to understand how the two

prophets visualized a heavenly temple residence of God.
In this chapter the following questions will be considered: What kind of
relationship exists between these two visions? What role do they play in
the context of each book? What ritual do they depict, and is it possible to
find an earthly counterpart to this ritual? What is the difference between
the service in the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries?

THE VISION OF ISAIAH 6

Although some scholars argue that Isaiah saw God in the Jerusalem
temple,7 the text does not support this view. Several factors suggest that a
heavenly vision is more likely. First is the presence of heavenly beings, the
seraphim (vv. 2‒3, 6‒7) and the description of the throne being high and
lifted up (v. 1). Second, the description of the vision has many parallels
with other heavenly council scenes (e.g., Job 1–2; 1 Kings 22:17–23).8
And finally, there is the vision reproaching the earthly temple’s sacrificial
system (Isa. 1:11‒15) and judging the whole nation (Isa. 2:6–3:26; 5:1‒
30), which makes it unlikely that the vision took place in the Jerusalem
temple.9

UNCLEANNESS OF LIPS
One detail in the vision requires special attention: Isaiah’s reaction to the
theophany. Having seen the Lord, the prophet exclaims: “Woe is me, for I
am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people
of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (6:5). It
was prohibited for humans to see the face of the Lord (Exod. 33:20). This
is why many people who saw the Lord or His Angel were afraid of death
(cf. Judg. 13:22). Isaiah was also frightened, but the main reason for his
fear was not that he saw God but that he was “a man of unclean lips.”
Isaiah’s concern for his impurity could be partially explained by the fact
that he was in the sanctuary. In the Pentateuch it was strictly forbidden for
any unclean person to enter the tabernacle: “Thus you shall keep the sons
of Israel separated from their uncleanness, so that they will not die in their
uncleanness by their defiling My tabernacle that is among them” (Lev.
15:31). When Isaiah realized he was in the heavenly temple, he was
frightened because he could defile it by his uncleanness.
But why does Isaiah call his impurity “uncleanness of the lips”? Victor
Hurowitz points out that, except in Isaiah 6, ritual terms such as unclean
and impure are never used in the Bible to describe lips.10 He also observes
that this expression perplexes many exegetes, who suggest different
interpretations of the phrase “unclean lips.”11 However, unsatisfied with
them all, Hurowitz tries to find the explanation of the meaning in the ANE
context. He analyzes Mesopotamian texts where rituals of purification
(washing) of the lips are mentioned and draws the conclusion that in the
ANE the cleansing of the mouth was used as a synecdoche for complete
purity.12 Furthermore, in many texts this ritual is granted to the purified
person or the one who acquires special divine or quasi-divine status.13
Whereas the first conclusion fits the context of Isaiah very well,14 it is
hardly tenable to say that the prophet was given some divine status.
Hurowitz explains that the purification of the lips gave Isaiah the right to
lift up his voice and participate in the Divine Council, and in this sense he
was granted a special status.15
While Hurowitz has done well in showing the importance of the mouth
purification metaphor, he does not explain why Isaiah used it. In fact, the
“mouth” terminology is very important for Isaiah.16 The prophet many
times uses words like “lips,” “mouth,” and “tongue” to portray the sin of
Judah:

For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen, because

their speech and their actions are against the Lord, to rebel
against His glorious presence. (3:8, cf. 9:17)

But come here, you sons of a sorceress, offspring of an

 adulterer and a prostitute. Against whom do you jest?
Against whom do you open wide your mouth and stick out
your tongue? Are you not children of rebellion, offspring of
deceit . . . ? (57:3‒4)

But your iniquities have made a separation between you

and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from
you, so that He does not hear. For your hands are defiled
with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have
spoken falsehood, your tongue mutters wickedness. (59:2‒
3)

It is evident that impure lips and mouth indicate spiritual impurity or

even rebellion against God as people utter words against Him. So the
prophet’s statement, “I live among a people of unclean lips,” should be
understood as a reference to Judah’s rebellious attitude towards God. This
attitude is probably not an open one because people keep bringing
sacrifices and participating in worship (Isa. 1:11‒15). However, they honor
God only with their lips while their heart is far from Him (29:13). God’s
answer is described in similar terms. The main weapon of the coming
Messiah will be the rod of His mouth: “And He will strike the earth with
the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the
wicked” (11:4; cf. 30:27).
From these quotations it is clear that the uncleanness of the lips in the
book of Isaiah reflects a rebellious attitude towards God. But what can be
said about the prophet himself? He said that he is also “a man of unclean
lips.” Does this mean that he shared in the sin of rebellion with other
people? Evidently not. Among the prophets it was an established tradition
to identify themselves completely with the people when they interceded
for them before God. So Daniel in his prayer repeats “We have sinned”
many times (Dan. 9:5, 8, 11, 15) and confesses the sin of his people’s
rebellion as his own. Jeremiah does the same (Jer. 14:7, 20; Lam. 5:16).
Therefore, it is not necessary to understand Isaiah’s words, “I am a man of
unclean lips,” as a confession of his own sin of rebellion. Because he
understood himself as a part of the rebellious nation, he felt himself
contaminated with the people’s sins. It would be better to say that the
prophet acknowledged his general sinfulness and asked for forgiveness.
THE RITUAL
The ritual of Isaiah’s purification by a coal from the altar is unusual. As
Kaiser points out, there was no such rite in Israel.17 Furthermore, the
cleansing of the prophet takes place without the shedding of blood,
whereas in the Bible there is no atonement apart from bloodshed.18 Which
altar the seraph took the coal from is also a subject of debate. Whereas
some argue that it was the altar of sacrifice,19 others assume that it was the
altar of incense.20 The text does not allow foolproof conclusions, but
several details can be clarified.
That the seraph touched the mouth of the prophet is significant. In the
Old Testament the act of touching is important, especially when a divine
or angelic being touches humans. For example, God touched Pharaoh and
his house because of Sarai, Abram’s wife, and the house was afflicted with
plagues (Gen. 12:17). King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah was struck by
leprosy (2 Kings 15:5). In both cases this touching meant punishment. The
angel who was fighting with Jacob touched his thigh (Gen. 32:25). The
angel also touched Elijah when he was exhausted (1 Kings 19:5). In these
cases the touching meant God’s blessing and the beginning of a new
period in the lives of the patriarch and prophet.
In the case of Isaiah, the seraph touched the prophet with “a burning
coal” (according to several translations). However, the word used here
(riṣpâ) does not mean “coal.”21 It would be better translated as “stone.”
Probably it was a stone used to keep the heat of the altar. The same word is
used in the story of Elijah; when he was awakened by an angel he saw “a
bread cake baked on hot stones” (1 Kings 19:6). It is reasonable therefore
to assume that this stone was part of the altar. The altar of sacrifices, as
well as all things in the tabernacle, are called “most holy,” and whatever
touched them was also considered holy (Exod. 29:37; cf. 30:29). The same
is said about a sin offering (Lev. 6:18, 27). In this way, the touching by the
stone of the altar would sanctify the prophet.
As mentioned above, it is difficult to identify the altar with certainty. As
a rule, the author provides some additional remarks in the text to indicate
which altar is in view, if that is important.22 Such explanations might be
absent if the identification of the altar is self-evident.
Oswalt argues that Isaiah 6 references the altar of incense: “incense
taken from the altar which stood just in front of the holy of holies could
also have an atoning and purifying effect (Lev. 16:12; Num. 16:46, 47).”23
He is mistaken, however, because in both cases the coals were taken from
the altar of sacrifices. Baruch Levine points out that in Leviticus 16:12
“‘the altar before the LORD’ must refer to the altar of burnt offerings in the
sanctuary courtyard, since the high priest brings the coals from there into
the sanctuary.”24 It is evident that in Numbers 16:46, 47 Aaron should take
coals from the altar of burnt offerings as he did in verse 18.25
Leviticus 16:12 and Numbers 16:46, 47 are important for understanding
Isaiah 6. One detail which unites them is the context of atonement. In all
three cases the thing taken from the altar was a means of atonement. It is
possible then to assume that the stone for Isaiah’s purification was taken
from the altar which stood in front of the porch of the temple, as Gray
asserted. Therefore, if the altar of sacrifice is functioning, some kind of
sacrifice is being offered on it. Thus Isaiah’s sins were forgiven on the
basis of the sacrifice.
One more detail should be mentioned here. The seraph took the stone
“from the altar” (literally “from above the altar”). This was exactly the
place where the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled (Exod. 24:6; Lev. 1:5,
11; 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2; 8:19; 17:6). Having taken this stone, which probably
had blood on it, the seraph brought it inside the temple. The confession of
sins, assumed sacrifice, and blood brought inside the temple resemble the
ritual of the sin offering (Lev. 4). Thus, in vision, the prophet became a
participant of the daily service in the heavenly temple. He confessed his
sins, and they were removed from him.26

ISAIAH AND THE NATION

The last question to be discussed is why Isaiah was cleansed in the
heavenly sanctuary and not in the Jerusalem temple. At the time of Isaiah,
the temple was still functioning and could provide purification for anyone
seeking it.
The prophet begins his book with a depiction of the condition of the
nation. The Israelites are portrayed as people who do not know their God
(Isa. 1:3). Furthermore, their situation resembles that of Sodom and
Gomorrah (v. 9); the people’s hands are full of blood (v. 15), and they are
evildoers (v. 16). Although God tried many times to draw them back to
Himself, they did not listen (vv. 5‒6). However, the people of Israel were
still religious: they brought many sacrifices and celebrated religious
holidays (vv. 11‒15). Yet it is evident that their understanding of religious
sacraments was perverted. Apparently they thought they could keep
sinning and, by performing certain temple rituals and observing religious
feasts, be cleansed from their transgressions and be reconciled to God. He
points out that this is impossible (v. 15). The formal keeping of rituals
cannot purify anybody.
In this situation God shows Isaiah the heavenly temple, where the
prophet receives cleansing from his sins. This vision reveals that real
atonement does not take place on earth nor can any temple rituals provide
it; atonement only happens in heaven, in the presence of God. God invites
people to repentance, which is the only condition for forgiveness (Isa.
1:16‒18). As Oswalt rightly observed, “Sinful Israel can become servant
Israel when the experience of Isaiah becomes the experience of the
nation.”27
Therefore, the vision of Isaiah portrays what stands behind the earthly
rituals. The prophet was honored to participate in the service in the
heavenly temple where his sins were removed. Although he did not offer a
sacrifice, he was cleansed by the stone taken from the outer altar, which
witnesses that he was purified on the basis of the sacrifice. It is impossible
to speculate about the nature of the sacrifice because the text says nothing
about it. What is clear from the analysis of this ritual is that the same
principles of forgiveness through the earthly ritual are observed in the
heavenly sanctuary: namely, repentance, confession, and substitute
sacrifice.

THE VISION OF ZECHARIAH 3

In the book of Zechariah the themes of the heavenly and earthly temple are
intertwined. Thus the understanding of the historical context of the book is
important for understanding the theological message.
In 522 BC a political crisis broke out in the Persian Empire. After a
series of palace revolutions a new king, Darius I, came to power.28 He took
three years to crush the revolt and establish his power over the whole
empire. At that time God inspired the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to
encourage the people who had just returned from Babylon to renew the
building of the temple. The political situation helped the restoration:
troubles in the kingdom arrested the attention of Darius. When opposition
to the Jews arose, the king favored the Jews and encouraged the building
of the temple.29
According to Haggai 1:1, the rebuilding of the temple under the
leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua started in the sixth month of the
second year of Darius (520 BC). Zechariah dates his night visions to the
twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month of the same year (Zech. 1:7). At
that moment the people had only rebuilt the altar, renewed worship (Ezra
3:3), and laid the foundation of the temple (v. 10). Zechariah’s vision took
place when the work had just begun.

THE RITUAL OF THE VISION

Zechariah 3:1‒8 describes Joshua, the high priest, in the heavenly court.
Joshua is depicted as dressed in filthy garments (v. 3). He is accused by the
adversary, but God orders a change of clothes and dresses him in a festal
robe (v. 4). A clean turban is put on his head, and the scene concludes with
an admonition addressed to Joshua (vv. 6–8)—the promise that God will
remove the sin of the land in one day (v. 9) and the image of the messianic
age (v. 10).
Many scholars have tried to identify what ritual lies behind this vision.
David L. Peterson noticed that the changing of clothes by the high priest
was a particular element of two rituals: the ceremony of investiture (Exod.
29:1‒9; Lev. 8:1‒36) and the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:1‒34).30 Mark J.
Boda suggests that both ceremonies are reflected in Zechariah 3:1‒8.31
Carol and Eric Meyers suppose that this vision describes only the
investiture of Joshua but admit that this is unclear.32 Peterson is more
careful in his conclusion. He says that there is a lack of evidence in favor
of either position.33 He opts for investiture and builds his argument on the
absence of a description of any sacrifice ritual in Zechariah’s text.34
One detail in the text is worthy of special attention: Zechariah gives the
exact date of the vision, the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month of the
second year of Darius. The books of Ezra and Haggai indicate that the
work at the temple had started in the sixth month of the same year—five
months earlier. According to the book of Ezra, the altar was rebuilt quickly
because “from the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt
offerings to the Lord” (3:6). Verse 4 further states that the Feast of Booths
was celebrated, probably from the fifteenth to the twenty-second of the
seventh month (Lev. 23:34). Between the first and fifteenth days of the
seventh month, the Day of Atonement should have taken place. Ezra does
not mention this feast because it could only be celebrated if the whole
temple was fully functional.
If one assumes that the vision of Zechariah 3 portrays the investiture of
Joshua as the high priest, all the rituals performed at the altar during the
previous five months had been performed without an ordained high priest.
This is highly unlikely. Furthermore, in the vision of Zechariah 3 Joshua is
presented as the acting high priest, not as a person about to be invested
with the high priesthood.35 Many scholars agree that in this vision Joshua
is “Israel’s representative, who bears the people’s guilt,”36 and he could
not be the people’s representative if he had not already been ordained as
the high priest.
The text provides some hints suggesting that this vision is closely
connected to the ritual of the Day of Atonement. The changing of the
clothes, for example, was a significant element in that ceremony (Lev.
16:4, 23, 24, 32). Furthermore, Joshua is depicted as a representative of all
Israel, as was the high priest on the Day of Atonement (v. 16). Probably
the most important argument is the emphasis on the removal of sins (Zech.
3:4; Lev. 16:16, 19, 21, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34). Furthermore, at the end of the
vision God promises to remove the iniquity of the whole land in one day
(Zech. 3:9). Precisely the same idea lies behind the ritual of the Day of
Atonement (Lev. 16:30). The same word (‘āwôn) is used in both passages
as a general term including all kinds of sins (cf. Lev. 16:21, 22; Zech. 3:4,
9).
It was noted above that the Jews restored worship and the celebration of
their religious feasts except for the Day of Atonement, which they could
not celebrate until the building of the temple had been completed. This
holiday was important because it dealt with the guilt of the whole nation
and, as the prophet Haggai proclaimed, the whole nation was unclean
(Hag. 2:13‒14). While the temple purification system was not yet fully
functional, some provision was needed for the purification of the high
priest and the whole nation. Zechariah thus sees Joshua’s cleansing in
vision—not in the earthly sanctuary but in the heavenly temple.37 The
vision of 3:1‒8 points to the ritual of the Day of Atonement. This does not
suggest that Zechariah perceived that a heavenly Day of Atonement took
place once a year in parallel to the earthly one or at regular intervals. It
rather serves to highlight the point that, as in Isaiah 6, true atonement takes
place in heaven.

JOSHUA, THE ANGEL OF THE LORD, AND SATAN

If the scene in Zechariah 3 depicts the ritual of the Day of Atonement, it
has great theological impact. The scene takes place in the heavenly court
and portrays the heavenly Yom Kippur in a real or typological way. On the
one hand, the vision has many similar features with the earthly ritual of the
Day of Atonement, but it also has different elements.
First, there are three participants in the heavenly vision: Joshua the high
priest, the angel of the Lord, and Satan. Whereas the identity of Joshua is
clear, the identities of the other two are debated.
Meyers and Meyers note that the angel is a common figure in Jewish
apocalyptic literature and usually functions as a mediator or a messenger
with a divine commission.38 Barker observes that the angel of the Lord
could be either an interpreting angel or God Himself. The second option is
more likely because in Zechariah 3:2 the angel is simply called “the
Lord.”39 Peterson and Baldwin share the same viewpoint.40 Indeed, this
angel acts not as a simple messenger or interpreter but as a figure with
great authority.
The person of Satan is ambiguous, and opinions are divided. Some
argue that “the Satan” is just a title and not a personal name, since in
Hebrew sātān simply means “adversary.”41 The main argument supporting
this position is the use of the definite article before the noun. Others
indicate that here Satan is a proper name. Barker, for example, says that
one cannot be dogmatic on such questions. He mentions a similar problem
in the early chapters of Genesis, where it is difficult to differentiate
between the Hebrew words for “man” and “Adam.” Nonetheless, Barker
identifies the Satan of Zechariah 3 with the Satan of the New Testament.42
His is a good point, because in the New Testament Satan is described with
the same terms used in Zechariah (e.g., Rev. 12:10).
Because the scene depicts a court session, Petersen tries to identify the
functions of every figure. He rightly argues that the Angel is a judge, Satan
is the prosecuting attorney, and Joshua is the defendant.43
The next important question relates to Satan’s accusations against
Joshua. As Meyers and Meyers note, the text does not say what the
accuser’s case is, so one can only try to reconstruct it.44 The Angel of the
Lord answers Satan’s charge by stating that God has chosen Jerusalem
(v. 2) and by giving the command to remove the filthy garments from
Joshua (v. 4). Meyers and Meyers assume that the accusation could consist
of two parts: Satan’s claim that Jerusalem should not be rebuilt and that
Joshua should be dismissed from his high priestly office.45 These two
accusations are closely related. Joshua is a representative of all Israelites,
and in his person all the people are accused. By contrast, Elizabeth
Achtemeier argues that Joshua is a representative of the Zadokite
priesthood and is guilty of failing to obey God’s ethical and ritual
commands,46 but this theory lacks support in the text.
In this scene Joshua is depicted as wearing filthy garments (v. 3). The
Hebrew word for “filthy,” ṣôʾîm, could mean “excrement” or “dung.”47
Even if a metaphor, this is strong language. Clearly Joshua is unable to
lead in worship in such vestments. The text does not explain why the high
priest’s garments were so dirty. Ibn Ezra assumed that it was because
people were poor and could not provide for him suitable attire.48 But as
Klein notes, the language implies not just poverty but something
inexcusable.49 Meyers and Meyers suggest that Joshua’s garments were
unclean because he had lived the first part of his life in Babylon, the
“unclean land.”50 But Baldwin argues that because the “filthy garments”
are connected with iniquity in verse 4, they signify more than ritual
impurity or the scandal of the uncompleted temple.51 L. Tiemeyer connects
Joshua’s uncleanness with the uncleanness of the whole nation. She argues
that Zechariah 3 addresses the problem raised in Haggai 2:10‒14. Haggai
says that the whole nation is unclean, as if they had been defiled by
touching a corpse (vv. 13‒14). Joshua is the representative of the unclean
nation.52
Commentators agree that the collective sin of the whole nation, rather
than Joshua’s personal sin, is implied here. To prove this Petersen
mentions Exodus 28:36‒38 and Numbers 18:1,53 which explicitly state that
the high priest bore the guilt of the nation. Petersen also notes that the
phrase “a brand plucked from the fire,” which refers to Joshua, could
imply a survivor who has passed a test and is therefore innocent.54
Although some details are ambiguous, it is clear that Satan’s accusations
are directed against the restoration of the nation, the priesthood, and
worship. Joshua is depicted as a representative of the whole nation who
bears upon himself the sin of Judah.
The Lord’s reaction to the accusation is to rebuke, gāʿar, Satan. Caquot
differentiates between the secular and religious usage of this word. In texts
like Genesis 37:10 and Ruth 2:16, where the context is obviously secular,
the word could be translated as “reproach” or “reprimand.” In Jeremiah
29:27 this word means “cry out against.”55 In a religious context, Caquot
asserts, this word “almost always denote[s] a threatening manifestation of
the anger of God.”56 Its meaning is much stronger than just “reprimand” or
“rebuke.” In Isaiah 66:15 and Nahum 1:4, gāʿar appears in the context of
judgment connected with fire and a hurricane that can dry the sea. In
Psalm 104:7 it is used in parallel to thunder. Psalm 18:15 compares gāʿar
with the blast of the breath of God’s nostrils as a metaphor for God’s
anger. This word is almost always addressed to God’s enemies (Pss. 68:30;
76:6; 80:16). As Caquot observes, gāʿar became a well-attested curse
formula in the postexilic period.57 S. C. Reif notes that with the preposition
bə, which introduces the object, “this root was sufficiently widely
understood by the Jews in the sense of destruction or deprivation.”58 It is
reasonable to suppose that in Zechariah 3:2 the word gāʿar has a much
stronger connotation than “rebuke,” is related to God’s anger, and refers to
a curse from him. The fact that the expression yigʿar Yhwhbəkā is used
twice makes this statement even more dramatic.
The vision of Zechariah 3 was given to the prophet when the temple was
still in ruins. The returned Jews had restored worship and begun to
celebrate the religious feasts. The only feast that was impossible to
celebrate was the Day of Atonement, yet this feast was the most important,
for after returning from exile the whole nation was considered unclean and
this feast dealt with the guilt of the nation. Zechariah must have seen the
heavenly sanctuary where the high priest Joshua was cleansed.
This vision could be considered a typological description of a heavenly
Day of Atonement. It is heavily saturated with juridical language. The
removal of the sin of Joshua is presented as a lawsuit decided in the
heavenly court.

CONCLUSION
This analysis shows that the two visions of Isaiah 6 and Zechariah 3 are
closely related to each other. The events described in them take place in
the heavenly temple. The main concerns of both visions are the problem of
the uncleanness of the people and how this problem can be solved. In both
visions a human figure participates; this person is first depicted as unclean
but later receives forgiveness and is purified.
Beyond the common elements between these visions are differences. In
Isaiah the ritual of the cleansing of the individual is depicted as an
example for all people. In Zechariah the cleansing of the high priest Joshua
is portrayed. It is evident that he represents the whole nation and bears the
people’s sins; in his person the whole nation receives forgiveness and
purification.
Many elements of the festival of Yom Kippur allow an assertion that the
ritual of the Day of Atonement was shown to Zechariah. Thus these two
visions complement each other: one depicts the everyday service in the
heavenly temple, and the other depicts the yearly service that could be
considered a heavenly Day of Atonement.
This study shows that the heavenly temple was not an abstract idea but a
functioning place for the prophets. Both Isaiah and Joshua could not
receive forgiveness and cleansing in the earthly temple. In the time of
Isaiah only the form of service was kept by the Israelites; in the time of
Zechariah the temple was not yet functioning after the Babylonian
captivity. For this reason God provided the purification of the prophet and
the high priest in the heavenly sanctuary.
The analysis also shows that the heavenly sanctuary stands behind all
Old Testament rituals. Real atonement, forgiveness, and purification
cannot be achieved through any animal sacrifice but are provided in
heaven. The service in the heavenly temple may not necessarily
correspond exactly to its earthly counterpart, but both share the same main
principles.
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY IN THE
BOOK OF DANIEL
CARLOS ELÍAS MORA

T his chapter is focused on the different references and allusions to the

temple and the sanctuary in the book of Daniel. We will begin with
the references to the earthly temple in Daniel’s days. Then we will
consider the allusions to the heavenly sanctuary. We will see how the
structure of the book, especially the languages used by the author, provides
a way to understand the theology of the book. The research follows this
idea to explain the role of the sanctuary—earthly and heavenly—in the
book of Daniel. This is written with a historicist view of interpretation in
mind.1

THE LANGUAGES OF THE BOOK AND ITS

UNDERSTANDING
This study will be done in light of the proposal of Michael Shepherd based
on the two languages in the book: Hebrew (1:1–2:4a; 8:1–12:13) and
Aramaic (2:4b–7:28).2 Shepherd finds a microcosm of this relationship
between the Hebrew and Aramaic in Jeremiah 10:1–12.3 He proposes the
following scheme for Jeremiah 10:

The first ten verses portray idolatry as foolish. Then “the Aramaic text
of Jer 10:11 serves as a hinge between the preceding section on idolatry
(Jer 10:1–10) and the new unit that extends from Jer 10:12 through Jer
10:16.”4 The gods “that have not made the heavens and the earth”5 (v. 11)
are contrasted with the God who “has made the earth by His power”
(v. 12). “The Hebrew text of Jer 10:12, thus interprets the gods of the
Aramaic text of Jer 10:11, as false gods (i.e., idols) precisely because they
did not make the world.”6 Verse 11, written in Aramaic, is the turning
point in the discussion about the idols and the God of Heaven.
We find in Daniel the same pattern that may help us understand the
logical sequence and structure of the book. “The pattern of text and
commentary that occurs throughout the book of Daniel on the level of
individual chapters seems to also occur on the level of the book as a
whole.”7 The apocalyptic chapters, including chapter two, have an outline
composed of historical-prologue-prophecy-explanation-historical epilogue.
There are prophecies or visions explained by Daniel in chapter two and an
angel—perhaps Gabriel—in the apocalyptic section (chaps. 7–12). This
pattern is followed in the entire book.

The Aramaic section is a hinge that joins the edges of the previous
chapters with the sections that follow. Chapters 8–12 provide a further
explanation of the kingdoms and persecutions found in the Aramaic
section. Thus, the Hebrew framework about the sanctuary functions as a
commentary on the Aramaic section. In light of this construction, this
research will endeavor to show how the theme of the sanctuary in the book
of Daniel is proposed in the first section of the book (1:1–2:4), is further
developed in the Aramaic section (2:4–7:28), and is finally explained in
chapters 8–12, where the focus is on the heavenly realm.
DANIEL AND THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM
Daniel 1 serves as an introduction to the book. The main characters
appear: Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, and his three friends. Cyrus (v. 21)8 and
likewise the temple and its services (v. 2) must be added as relevant issues.
Another important theme introduced in the first chapter is God’s people as
they are persecuted and taken captive to Babylon.9
In Daniel 1 Nebuchadnezzar takes vessels from the temple of God
(v. 2). This dramatic incident for God’s people is the first historical event
that Daniel presents in his narrative. He explains this apparent defeat in the
following words: “And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his
hand, with some of the articles of the house of God, which he carried into
the land of Shinar to the house of his god” (v. 2). The book starts with the
earthly temple despoiled (and later destroyed in 586 BC). The sanctuary on
earth had problems. It was insufficient to provide salvation to God’s
people and to the entire world. It is not a coincidence that the book begins
with such a description. It reveals that the temple in Jerusalem itself was
not enough for God’s redemption plan.
These vessels are mentioned again in the Aramaic section. There is no
temple in immediate view; only the vessels serve as a reminder.
Belshazzar brings the temple’s vessels of gold and silver and defiles them
in his banquet (5:1–2).
In the second Hebrew section, the temple is mentioned in Daniel’s
prayer when he references “Your holy mountain” (9:16) and the desolated
sanctuary (v. 17). Daniel is worried, and he prays for the temple’s
reconstruction so that its ministry might continue. He is also concerned
about the Jewish people as God’s people.
Gabriel announces that the city is going to be reconstructed and that
God will give 490 years of opportunity to the Jewish people (9:24).10 In
what is clearly a messianic prophecy, the vision foretells the cessation of
sacrifices (v. 26; see v. 27, which notes that the sacrifice and offering will
be brought to an end; cf. Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) and
another destruction of the temple and Jerusalem (“the people of the prince
who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary,” 9:26 RSV). The
cessation of sacrifices and this final destruction of the earthly sanctuary
indicate that it was insufficient for the redemption of humankind.
The last allusion to the earthly temple is found in the first verses of
Daniel 10. Many scholars find the motivation for Daniel’s fasting in the
exiles’ hard experience returning to Jerusalem and their attempt to rebuild
the temple.11 A summary of this earthly temple in the book of Daniel,
following the structure proposed by Shepherd for interpreting the book, is
as follows:

The temple and its services play an important role throughout the book of
Daniel. This chart shows that the earthly sanctuary would be destroyed and
would lose its preponderant place for God’s people. The book of Daniel
demonstrates that there is a broader option than the Jerusalem temple: a
higher place and services on offer for the salvation of God’s people and all
humankind.

THE ARAMAIC SECTION AND THE JUDGMENT

SCENE
Chapter 7 is the core of the book of Daniel, according to different chiastic
structures proposed by scholars.12 The Aramaic section finishes with a
vision (chap. 7) that introduces the divine scene of the heavenly judgment.
This event takes place before God’s throne. The Ancient of Days (v. 9)
and the “thousand thousands” and “ten thousand times ten thousand”
indicate a heavenly realm (v. 10). There is evidence of change from the
horizontal dimension of the prophecy in the first section (vv. 2–8) to a
vertical dimension in vv. 9–14, though there is a brief view of the earthly
issues in 7:11–12.13 A similar movement is seen in 8:9–14. The presence
of the Ancient of Days, the myriads of angels, and the coming of the Son
of Man before the judgment court point to a solemn heavenly moment.14
This vision is focalized in God’s heavenly headquarters. It is the core of
the book, and its features and elements are enlarged in chapters 8 through
12.
The focus of this judgment is dual. On the one hand, the little horn
comes under review and his authority is removed; on the other hand, the
subjects of the kingdom are in view and they eventually receive the
kingdom (7:22).15 The judgment therefore affects the whole earth—both
the little horn and those who follow it, as well as those who have been
faithful to the Almighty.
Chapter 7 does not mention the sanctuary, but the motif of the heavenly
council that meets for judgment is clearly connected with the sanctuary
(Dan. 7:9–13; 8:13–14; Isa. 6:1–8; Joel 3:6–16; Ezek. 10:1–12; Zech. 3).16
It is also important to note that there is a relationship between Daniel 7 and
8. The prophecies of these chapters are related; they share a similar
structure, describe similar characters and events,17 and receive a similar
interpretation. There are also three correlations between chapters 7 and 8:
(1) there is a movement from political and earthly issues (7:2–9; 8:3–9)
toward the heavenly realm (7:9–10, 13–14; 8:10–14); (2) chapter 7 points
to a heavenly judgment, and chapter 8 “complements the judgment scene
of chapter 7 by supplementing it with the process of the judgment itself”;18
and (3) both chapters emphasize the little horn’s attack upon the people of
God, and in both cases a heavenly judgment takes place on behalf of the
saints.
The chart below shows the similar structure for the four prophetic lines
in the book of Daniel.

SECTION CHAP. CHAP. CHAPS. 8, 9 CHAPS. 10–

2 7 12

Prologue vv. 1–30 v. 1 8:1, 2 9:1–20 10:1–11:2a

Prophecy vv. 31– vv. 2–14 8:13– 9:24 11:2b–12:3

35 14

Explanation vv. 36– vv. 15– 8:15– 9:25– 12:4–12

45 27 26 27

Epilogue vv. 46– v. 28 8:27 — 12:13

49
 A similar outlook can be found in the different prophecies of the book
of Daniel:

EVENT CHAP. 2 CHAP. 7 CHAP. CHAPS. 11,

8 12

Babylon Head of gold Lion with — —

eagle’s wings

Media- Chest and Bear with three A ram Four Persian

Persia arms of silver ribs in its kings
mouth

Greece Belly and Leopard with A male A valiant

thighs of four wings of a goat king
bronze bird

Greek — Four heads Four Kings of the

kingdoms horns north and the
south

Pagan Legs of iron A dreadful and Little King of north

Rome terrible beast horn

Papal — Little horn Little The vile

Rome horn person

Europe Feet partly Ten horns — —

iron and
partly clay

Judgment — Judgment 2,300 —

scene days

Final — — — King of the

events North’s last
great battle
 Second A stone cut Kingdom is — Michael
coming without hands given to the delivers the
saints people of
God

According to the pattern used in this study, the structure of Daniel 8:1–
12:13 explains the Aramaic segment.19 When we apply this to Daniel’s
discussion of the sanctuary as explained above we get the following graph:

In chapter 7 Daniel introduces—among his prophecies about the

kingdoms, persecutions, and wars—the ministry in the heavenly temple in
contrast to the earthly temple and its failure. Now there is a broader and
safer option for the redemption of humanity: a place in the very throne
room of God.

DANIEL AND A GREATER AND PERFECT

SANCTUARY
Chapter 8 is full of sanctuary images. The male goat and the ram remind of
the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement.20 They are clean animals in
contrast with the unclean and wild animals of chapter 7.
In Daniel 8:10–12, the little horn vertically attacks the host of heaven,
the prince of the host, and the tāmîd. In the context of this vertical attack, it
becomes clear that the arena of the vision is not the earth but heaven and
the sanctuary in view is not the earthly but the heavenly.21 The first vertical
phase of the little horn is found in verse 10. He exalts himself unto the
“host of heaven” and casts down “the host” of the stars. It is evident that
the heavenly realm is the focus of this attack. “Several lines of evidence
emphasize the fact that heaven depicts the symbolic arena in which these
actions were to occur.”22 Different expressions show that this section is
closely connected with the sanctuary in a heavenly realm.23
Daniel 8:11–12 present the assault against the “Prince of hosts.” This is
the climax of the vision because of its focus on the conflict between the
Prince and the little horn. This Prince is connected with the heavenly
sanctuary and its ministry. The vision shows that the little horn exalts
“himself as high as the Prince of the hosts,” the tāmîd is taken away, “and
the place of His sanctuary was cast down” (vv. 11, 12). Contrary to the
popular scholarly opinion,24 the temple in question cannot be the earthly
temple because the context reveals that the little horn’s activity was
directed towards heaven.25 After a consideration of the elements of the
language employed in chapter 8,26 Shea concludes that “all stress the
connection of this prophecy with the heavenly sanctuary.”27
The word tāmîd, which means “continual” or that which occurs “daily,”
is related to several types of priestly activity in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:30;
27:20; 29:38; 30:8, etc.).28 Daniel 8:12 emphasizes the intimate connection
between tāmîd and the sanctuary, and refers to the ministry of the Prince of
the hosts in heaven.29 Treiyer points out the connection of the nature of the
transgression in verse 12 with the service of the sanctuary.30 The
expression “cast down” is a clear reference from heaven to earth. It is
stronger and more clear than the expression “overthrown” (v. 11 RSV).
Another expression with an important connection to the sanctuary in
Daniel 8 is the “foundation place,” where the Hebrew word mākōn is used.
In the Old Testament, mākōn is a word linked to the sanctuary and is
particularly related with the place as the throne of God. “It makes
reference either to the earthly or the heavenly sanctuary, as a place for
God’s dwelling, the location of his throne, and the place from where He
acts.”31
Daniel 8:10–12 speaks clearly about a heavenly sanctuary. As Shea
concludes: “The point we have attempted to emphasize is that on the
primary level of its apocalyptical and symbolic language this vision refers
to a heavenly sanctuary, regardless of how one applies the interpretation or
fulfillment of those symbols secondarily. Its primary language level does
not refer directly to an earthly temple.”32
Hasel summarizes his study in the same way: “On the basis of these
philological, terminological, and semantic considerations, the intent of
verse 11c shows that there is every reason why the cosmic dimension
should have its special stress. Once more the ‘little horn’ power indicates
its anti-God activity by seeking to make the work being done ineffective in
the heavenly sanctuary.”33
There is another direct allusion to the heavenly sanctuary in 8:14.34 “The
change of terminology from miqdāš (‘sanctuary’) in verses 11–12 to qōdeš
(‘sanctuary’) in verses 13–14 seems to reflect a design that follows the
structure from vision (vv. 3–12) to audition (vv. 13–14).”35
According to conservative chronology, when the prophecy was given at
around 550 BC there was no temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the
prophecy is for “the time of the end” (8:17), for “the latter time of the
indignation” (v. 19). According to chapter 9 the temple would be
destroyed, as indeed it was. Even the second temple was destroyed
according to the prophecy (v. 27), and there has not since been a temple on
earth. Therefore, the sanctuary that is cleansed in 8:14 must be the
heavenly.36 Hasel points out that “Daniel 8 describes as the grand climax
for all of God’s people on a cosmic, universal scale at the end of this aeon
—the prelude to the ushering in of the new aeon, when the kingdom of
God alone will exist.”37 Regarding this work of cleansing or purifying the
heavenly sanctuary, Treiyer notes that it “is put in direct parallelism with
the work of judgment based on books, according to the preceding heavenly
vision (Dan. 7:9, 10).”38
There are other allusions to the heavenly sanctuary. The reference to the
anointing of the Holy of Holies, the qōdeš qōdāšîm (9:24), is connected
with the seventy weeks prophecy.39 The expression refers to the sanctuary;
it could not be the earthly temple, because in the days of the fulfillment of
this prophecy Jesus proclaimed: “Behold, your house is left unto you
desolate” (Matt. 23:38 KJV). These words were said in Jesus’s last visit to
the temple. When He died on the cross, “the veil of the temple was rented
in twain from the top to the bottom” (27:51 KJV). When Jesus ascended to
heaven, the heavenly Holy of Holies was anointed.
A very important allusion is found in the prophecy of the seventy weeks
of Daniel 9: “One interpretation of this statement (held since the days of
the early Church Fathers) has applied it to the anointing of Jesus Christ as
the Messiah. This interpretation however, runs contrary to the way qōdeš
qōdāšîm (‘holy of holies, most holy’) is used in the Old Testament.
Outside of Daniel, this phrase occurs more than 40 times in the Old
Testament. In every instance, it refers to the sanctuary or something
connected with it.”40 The question is which sanctuary does it refer to? As
has been explained before, this sanctuary could not be Solomon’s temple
or the second temple. It should refer to the heavenly sanctuary if we
understand the seventy weeks prophecy as culminating in the days of
Jesus.
The interpretation of this prophecy suggests that the anointing of the
“Most Holy” should be in the last part of the prophecy—i.e., during the
last week—as the other statements of 9:24 were fulfilled in the same days.
Sometime during the seventieth week, the sanctuary should be anointed
and “at the time when He [the Messiah] was to die, the Messiah would
bring the sacrificial service of the temple to an end, as far as its theological
significance was concerned (v. 27b).”41
The tabernacle in the wilderness was anointed to inaugurate their
services (cf. Exod. 40:9). The anointing mentioned in Daniel 9:24 foretold
the inauguration of Christ’s priestly ministry in the heavenly temple after
His ascension (Heb. 9:21).

OTHER ALLUSIONS TO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY

IN DANIEL
In Daniel 12:1, 2 there is an important, indirect allusion to the sanctuary in
the context of judgment. The beginning of this section says: “Now at that
time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your
people, will arise” (v. 1 NASB). The act of sitting in the Old Testament
may often mean “to judge, to reign” (cf. Judg. 4:5) and harkens back to the
court taking its seat in Daniel 7:10. But now, Michael stands up. This is a
clear indication that the heavenly judgment is over and that the time of the
liberation of God’s people has come (12:2); they will become the
recipients of “His kingdom” (7:14).42 Treiyer adds the connection of the
expression “the great (gādōl) prince” (12:1) with “the prince of the
priests,” who “was called in the old Levitical service of the sanctuary,
‘High Priest,’ literally, ‘the great priest’ (gādōl = Num. 35:25).”43
The reference to the abomination of desolation is important to the
sanctuary imagery. The “abomination of desolation” (Dan. 8:13; 11:31) is
always used in connection with the “daily” (tāmȋd) and the attack and
destruction of the sanctuary, “the giving of both the sanctuary and the host
to be trampled underfoot” (8:13), and “they shall defile the sanctuary
fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the
abomination of desolation” (11:31).
 The expressions in 11:31 and 12:11 are similar to the one in 8:13. In
11:31 the phrase haššiqqûṣ məšômēm (“abomination of desolation”) is
used, whereas in 12:11 the similar phrase šiqqȗṣ məšômēm appears. The
English word desolation or devastation is often translated as a variant of
šômēm (“desolation,” cf. 12:11). The word šiqqûṣ comes from the verbal
root that means “to make detestable, abominable,” and the substantive
form suggests “abomination, abominable object.” It was a derogatory
name assigned to idols and their clothes (Deut. 29:17; 11:5, 7; 1 Kings
11:5, 7; 2 Kings 23:13; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 4:1; Ezek. 11:18, 21; Nah. 3:6; Zech.
9:7). It also refers to unclean animals (Lev. 11:11, 13, 43; 20:25). This
expression presents everything that is detestable from the perspective of
the worship of YHWH. It focuses on aspects of idolatrous worship,
whether it is the idol itself or a part of an idolatrous ritual. Therefore, this
phrase should be understood as the raging which devastates and destroys
(Dan. 11:31; 12:11). It is an open sin of rebellion, the worst abomination
before God, and one which causes desolation. This devastation is
understood as an idolatrous cult that separates people from the true
worship of God. This prophecy announces an idolatrous earthly system
that supplants the heavenly ministry of Jesus in heaven, in his sanctuary.
This attack is clearly expressed in Daniel 8:10–12, which we studied
above.
Two final sanctuary pictures that will draw our attention are (1) the
expression tāmȋd and (2) the man dressed in white linen in Daniel 10:5.
Linen was the traditional dress of the priests (Lev. 6:10; 16:4, 23–32;
Ezek. 44:17). However, in Daniel 10:5 (as in Ezek. 9:2, 3, 11; 10:2, 6, 7) it
is the dress of a celestial being.44 Also of interest is the reference to the
“daily” briefly discussed above. It is a translation of the Hebrew adjective
tāmȋd (8:11–13; 11:31; 12:11), and it is associated with the sanctuary.45 It
applies to various aspects of the sanctuary service, such as the “continual
bread” (Num. 4:7 NASB), the lamp that burned continuously (Exod. 27:20),
the fire that constantly burned on the altar (Lev. 6:13), the daily offerings
(Num. 28:3, 6), and the incense that was to be offered every morning and
evening (Exod. 30:7, 8). The expression is thereby inclusive of all the
service of the tabernacle, not just the sacrifice, as has been erroneously
proposed by the translations “daily sacrifice” (NET, NKJV), “regular
sacrifice” (NASB), and “continual burnt offering” (RSV). It is interesting
to realize that Daniel has many expressions and images connected with the
sanctuary.
CONCLUSION
According to the structure suggested by Shepherd, the heavenly sanctuary
motif is developed in the book in the following way:

One of the main theological issues in the book of Daniel is the heavenly
sanctuary. This topic is related with the core of the book, the judgment
scene. The sequence studied related to the writing’s bilingual composition
has demonstrated that there is movement from the earthly temple towards
the heavenly sanctuary. The Hebrew introduction of the book (1:1–2:4)
shows that the temple in Jerusalem is despoiled. This condition shows the
fragility of the early copy.
The Aramaic section (2:4–7:28) confirms the idea of the defilement of
the vessels (5:2, 3), reminding the reader that the earthly temple was
temporary, vincible, and therefore unable to solve the problems of
humankind or be the central point of reference for God’s redemption plan.
The earthly temple was only a model of heaven (Exod. 25:8, 9, 40). This
segment introduces the complete solution that the earthly temple could not
give, namely ministry and judgment in the heavenly courts. This is the
great proposal of Daniel.
The last subdivision of the book (chaps. 8–12) returns to the Hebrew
language and, according to the methodology here proposed, studies in
detail the itinerary of God’s scheme of salvation for humanity. The
heavenly sanctuary is the background and center of these actions.
III
NEW TESTAMENT
7
A SPATIAL SHIFT IN LUKE-ACTS FROM
THE EARTHLY TO THE HEAVENLY
SANCTUARY: A PROPOSAL
ALFREDO G. AGUSTIN, JR.

T here is a general consensus that Luke and Acts form a literary unit, a
two-volume, well-crafted piece of literature.1 James Dawsey notes
that “the Gospel and Acts were intended to tell a single story.”2 L. T.
Johnson observes that the “events in Acts clearly parallel those of the
Gospel.”3 Furthermore, it is also proposed that the author has thematic and
theological emphases related to his crafted structure. Although it is
apparent in Luke’s introduction that he is writing an historical account,
Donald Guthrie points out that there is “an important distinction between
this writing and history pure and simple”4 because “the history concerned a
unique person.”5 Guthrie also adds that there have been claims that Luke’s
purpose in writing the history of Jesus is dominated by a theological
motive.6 But being a theological work in no way detracts from its
historicity.7
Biblical scholars propose several themes and theological emphases for
Luke-Acts. One that has not been adequately explored is that the author
seems to emphasize a spatial shift from the earthly temple to heavenly
sanctuary and from Jerusalem to all nations of the earth. The purpose of
this study is to show that, based on structural-thematic and contextual
analyses, such a spatial shift is a reality.
To accomplish this we will tackle the following in Luke-Acts: the
purpose and themes, the structural-thematic analysis, and the contextual
analysis.

PURPOSE AND THEMES

The purpose of Luke-Acts is laid out in Luke’s introduction (Luke 1:1–4):8
to write an orderly account to Theophilus that he “may know the exact
truth about the things” he had been taught;9 and to write a chronological
sequence of “the things accomplished” among them to secure or establish
certainty in the mind of his prominent recipient, Theophilus, who had
already received instructions about the gospel of Jesus Christ.10 But why
did Theophilus need knowledge of the historical certainty of the things
which had been fulfilled? L. T. Johnson says: “If that historical people was
not now in possession of the promised blessings, and someone else was,
what did that signify for God’s reliability? Did God keep his word, or did
he utterly betray Israel?”11
Scholars point out that the major theme is “the plan of God” (tēn boulēn
tou Theou, Luke 7:30; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 5:38; 13:36; 20:27).12 John T.
Squires states that this theme braces the whole of Luke-Acts.13 He adds,
“A variety of thematic strands are woven together to emphasize the
certainty and consistency of the plan of God as it is worked in the life of
Jesus and the history of the early church.”14
Helmut Flender also notes, “For in the community, under the guidance
of the Spirit the divine plan of salvation becomes a reality.”15 Fitzmyer
emphasizes that Luke works in a conceptual construct of “salvation
history,” that is, human history is guided by God’s salvific activity. Hence
Luke’s statement, “the events that have been fulfilled among us” (1:1),
relates to Old Testament history and realizations of God’s direction of
history.16
Guy Nave Jr. delineates the divine plan as “all flesh will see the
salvation of God” (Luke 3:6). He also notes “that this salvation of God has
been sent to the Gentiles” (Acts 28:28).17 This plan of God begins with the
Jews but ultimately embraces all nations, kindred, and people. This is
shown in the structural analysis below.

STRUCTURAL-THEMATIC ANALYSIS
In this section, the structure of Luke-Acts will be briefly discussed. First
we will consider the structure proposed by scholars to show the literary
unity, then the travel narrative, and lastly this study’s proposed structure of
Luke-Acts. Several scholars see not only a literary unity and continuity
between Luke and Acts, but also a strong parallelism.18 Johnson notes that
the “events in Acts clearly parallel those of the Gospel.”19 Talbert lists the
following literary parallels between Luke 1–8 and Acts 1–12:20
 LUKE ACTS

1:1–4──A preface dedicates the 1:1–5──A preface dedicates the

book to Theophilus. book to Theophilus.

3:21──Jesus prays at His baptism. 1:14, 24──The disciples pray as

they await their baptism of the
Holy Spirit.

3:22──The Spirit descends in a 2:1–13──The Spirit fills the

physical form after Jesus’s prayer. disciples after their prayers, with
accompanying physical
manifestations.

4:16–30──Jesus’s ministry opens 2:14–40──The church’s ministry

with a sermon that gives the theme opens with a sermon that gives
for what follows: fulfilment of a the theme for what follows:
prophecy and the rejection of Jesus. fulfilment of a prophecy and the
rejection of Jesus.

4:31–8:56──The theme of 2:41–12:17──The theme of

fulfilment mentioned in 4:16–30 is fulfilment is illustrated by
illustrated by examples of examples of prophesying and
preaching and healing. Conflicts wonders. Persecution illustrates
illustrate the note of rejection. the note of unbelief.

Another literary parallelism can be seen when comparing Luke 5–7 to

Acts 3–11:

LUKE ACTS

5:17–26──A lame man is healed 3:1–10──A lame man is healed by

by the authority of Jesus. the name of Jesus (cf. 9:32–35).

5:29–6:11──Conflicts with the 4:1–8:3──Conflicts with the

religious leaders. religious leaders.
 7:1–10──A centurion, well- Ch. 10──A centurion, well-spoken
spoken of by the Jews, sends of by the Jewish nation, sends men
men to Jesus to ask Him to come to Peter to ask him to come to his
to his house. house.

7:11–17──A story involving a 9:36–43──A story involving a

widow and resurrection. Jesus widow and resurrection. Peter says,
says, “Arise,” and the dead man “Arise,” and the woman “sat up.”
“sat up.”

7:36–50──A Pharisee criticizes 11:1–18──The Pharisaic party

Jesus for being touched by the criticizes Peter for his association
wrong kind of woman. with Gentiles.

Another literary pattern scholars see in Luke-Acts is that Jerusalem and

the temple are the central points of its geographical and narrative
structures regarding both Jesus’s and the church’s ministry and mission.
For example, Fitzmyer asserts:

The overarching geographical perspective in Luke-Acts can

be seen in the author’s preoccupation with Jerusalem as the
city of destiny for Jesus and the pivot for the salvation of
mankind. Luke establishes a special relationship between
Jesus’ person and ministry and the city of David’s throne.
He depicts Jesus making his way thither as his goal (13:32).
From there too the word of God’s salvation must spread to
the end of the earth in Acts. . . . Thus the geographical
perspective becomes a factor in the divine plan of
salvation.21

Luke’s preoccupation with Jerusalem as the city of destiny for Jesus is

evident in the literary analysis of Kenneth Bailey on Luke’s “travel
narrative.”22 Here is his proposed chiastic structure:23

1. Jerusalem: Eschatological Events──9:51–56

2. Follow Me──9:57–10:12
3. What Shall I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?──10:25–41
 4. Prayer──11:1–13
5. Signs and the Present Kingdom──11:14–32
6. Conflict with the Pharisees: Money──11:37–12:34
7. The Kingdom Is Not Yet and Is Now──12:35–59
8. The Call of the Kingdom to Israel──13:1–9
9. The Nature of the Kingdom──13:10–20
10. Jerusalem: Eschatological Events──13:22–35
9’ The Nature of the Kingdom──14:1–11
8’ The Call of the Kingdom to Israel and to the Outcasts──14:12–
15:32
7’ The Kingdom Is Not Yet and Is Now──16:1–8, 16
6’ Conflict with the Pharisees: Money──16:9–31
5’ Signs and the Coming Kingdom──17:11–37
4’ Prayer──18:1–14
3’ What Shall I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?──18:18–30
2’ Follow Me──18:35–19:9
1’ Jerusalem: Eschatological Events──19:10, 28–48

Irrespective of whether one accepts Bailey’s overall structural analysis in

its totality, the centrality of the earthly Jerusalem in Luke’s structure is
well evident. Luke’s emphasis is on Jerusalem as the goal of Jesus’s
ministry.
Another theme that is emphasized in Luke’s travel narrative is the
exaltation of the outcasts, the marginalized of society, the poor, and the
Gentiles; and the abasement of the selfish rich, the proud, and the socially
and religiously prominent Jews. This theme is not given as much emphasis
in the other Synoptics.
Fitzmyer also points out the pivotal role of Jerusalem in Luke’s two-
volume work. It is not only a destination for what “Jesus began to do and
teach” (Acts 1:1) but also the starting point of the spread of the word of
God. The apostles were to go from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, and to the
uttermost part of the earth (1:8; 23:11; 28:14).24
At this juncture, this study proposes a geographical-literary structure of
Luke and Acts as shown in the table below. This study also draws out a
thematic and theological emphasis of Luke through Acts based on the
structural analysis.25

GEOGRAPHICAL- DESCRIPTIONS
LITERARY
STRUCTURE OF
LUKE AND ACTS

Luke 1:1–4 Prologue

Luke 1:5–2:52 The infancy and childhood narrative begins and

ends at the temple in Jerusalem

Luke 3:1–4:13 The preparation for Jesus’s public ministry; He

receives the Holy Spirit; Jesus’s temptation
ends at the temple

Luke 4:14–9:50 The Galilean ministry

Luke 9:51–19:48 Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem, the end of the

travel narrative; Jesus goes into the temple in
Jerusalem

Luke 20:1–21:38 Jesus’s ministry in Jerusalem

Luke 22:1–23:56a The Passion narrative in Jerusalem

Luke 23:56b–24:44 The resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem

Luke 24:45–24:53 God’s salvation flows to all, beginning at

Jerusalem (Yahweh’s Temple); the disciples
praise God at the temple.

Acts 1:1–2 Prologue

Acts 1:3–26 The infancy and preparation of the church for

public ministry begins in Jerusalem

Acts 2:1–7:60 The church receives the Holy Spirit and begins
ministry in Jerusalem; they pray and minister at
the temple; end of Jerusalem ministry;
 Stephen’s vision of heaven in which he sees
Jesus at the right hand of God

Acts 8:1–11:18 Witness to Judea and Samaria; beginning of

Gentile mission

Acts 11:19–28:31 Witness to the ends of the earth

It is evident from the above table that the center of the Luke-Acts
geographical structure is Jerusalem. It shows that Luke’s gospel narrative
begins and ends in Jerusalem. It also shows that the book of Acts begins its
narrative in Jerusalem. Thus, Jerusalem is the focal point of Luke-Acts.
The structure shows the overall theme: Jerusalem is the locus on earth
where salvation was achieved and was first proclaimed before it reached
the ends of the earth.26
However, aside from this widely accepted thematic perspective in the
Luke-Acts structure, there is another thematic idea that is noticed in the
geographical structure. Luke seems to also emphasize the centrality of the
temple in Jerusalem. This may also have an important role in his theology,
especially in the theology of salvation. Cyprian Robert Hutcheon asserts
that the “temple is a ‘sign’ of critical importance for trying to understand
Luke’s theology.”27 He also notes that Luke’s gospel begins and ends in
the temple.28 It is also important that the infancy and childhood narrative
of John and Jesus begins in the temple with the annunciation by the angel
Gabriel of the coming birth of John and ends with the visit of Jesus to the
temple (Luke 1:5–2:52). The temptation of Jesus also ends at the temple in
Jerusalem (4:1–13), in contrast to Matthew, where the temptation at the
temple is in the middle of the narrative (4:1–11). Luke’s travel narrative
also ends with Jesus entering the temple in Jerusalem (9:51–19:48). As
already noted by Hutcheon, the Gospel of Luke ends at the temple with the
disciples praising God for all the wonderful things they have witnessed
(24:53). At the outset of his book, J. Bradley Chance also emphasizes the
“prominent place that Luke assigns to the city of Jerusalem and the
temple.”29
The book of Acts begins in Jerusalem. It begins with the birth of the
church (1:3–26). The church begins her ministry in Jerusalem, especially
at the temple. However, there is a slight difference between Luke and
Acts. First, in Luke the narrative begins and ends in Jerusalem (1:5;
24:53), whereas in Acts the narrative begins in Jerusalem but ends in
Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire (1:3; 28:31). Second, in the book
of Luke Jesus’s life and ministry begin in the temple and end in the temple
(2:21; 19:48). In Acts, the birth and ministry of the church begin in
Jerusalem and the temple but the narrative shifts its focus. From the
ministry of the church in the earthly Jerusalem and temple, the narrative
shifts to Stephen’s vision of the glory of God and Jesus in the heavenly
Jerusalem and temple (2:1; 7:60).30 We may then suggest that in the gospel
the temple is central to the Luke-Acts theology of salvation. Salvation
proceeds from the temple, where God reveals His glory, as in the Old
Testament. However, there seems to be a spatial shift of the locus of
salvation: from the earthly temple in Jerusalem (in Luke) to the heavenly
temple (in Acts 7) where Jesus stands at the right hand of God.31 Chance
also notes this emphasis: “The action of the first seven chapters of Acts is
virtually confined to Jerusalem, and much of what takes place there is
focused on the temple (2:26–27; 3:1–4:4; 5:12–32, 42; 6:13–14; 7:44–
50).”32
How do these insights from the structural analysis contribute to this
study? Luke’s shift from the earthly, Jewish temple to the heavenly temple
helps us understand his theological focus. He wants to emphasize the
universality of salvation—that it is not limited only to Jews; it includes all
people of the earth, as already hinted at the outset of his first volume (Luke
3:6). The contextual analysis will further strengthen this observation.

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
The contextual analysis first deals with Acts 7, which appears to mark the
turning point of the proposed shift noted above.
The first evidence of a spatial shift is Stephen’s (and also Luke’s)
attitude towards the Jewish temple. Luke had a positive view of the temple
of Jerusalem up until Acts 7:48–49, when he highlighted Stephen—who
quoted Solomon—saying, “The Most High does not dwell in houses made
by human hands; as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is
the footstool of My feet; what kind of house will you build for Me?’ says
the Lord, ‘Or what place is there for My repose?’” Stephen makes this
statement in his defense before the Sanhedrin (6:12) after he is accused of
speaking blasphemous words against “this holy place, and the Law”
(v. 13).
Scholars are divided on how to view this statement. James P. Sweeney
admits that some call this statement “Anti-Temple.”33 He prefers to
understand it in the context of salvation history, which appears more
plausible.34 Following his statement, Stephen—instead of looking to the
earthly temple where the glory of God had once resided35—“gazed intently
into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand
of God” (Acts 7:55). Stephen then declares, “Behold, I see the heavens
opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (v. 56).36
At this juncture contextual analysis would suggest that Luke emphasizes a
shift of the locus of salvation through Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary.
The second evidence is the statement that “he [Stephen] gazed intently
into heaven and saw the glory of God” (7:55a). It is interesting to note that
the glory of Yahweh, kābôd Yhwh, which was usually associated with the
earthly temple in the Old Testament,37 is now in the heavenly temple.38
The most explicit supporting evidence is found in Revelation 15:8a:39
“And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from
His power.”40 Moreover, in Revelation 21:11 and 23 the “glory of God” is
residing in the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven to the new
earth (21:2). It is significant that the glory of God is explicitly associated
with the temple in heaven and that He is regularly portrayed as being in
His temple (Rev. 4–5; 8:2–5; 11:19; 15:5–7).
The parallel between Revelation 15:8a and Acts 7:55–56 could suggest
that, although not specifically mentioned, the heavenly temple is also in
view in Acts 7:55–56. Significantly, it resided in its fullness in heaven in
the Old Testament, although the glory of the LORD is usually revealed in
the earthly temple (Pss. 57:5–6, 12; 73:24; 108:5; 113:4). This is
confirmed by the heavenly temple vision of Isaiah 6:1 (cf. Ezek. 1), where
the prophet saw the LORD upon His throne, high and lifted up. This was
also Stephen’s point when he quoted Isaiah 66:1 (Acts 7:49). He was
reminding the Jews that God should not be confined to a house built by
human hands (Acts 7:48); heaven is His throne (v. 49). It is important to
note that the earthly, Old Testament temple where the glory of the Lord
usually resided with His people was only a replica of heavenly realities
(i.e., a heavenly temple where the glory of the Lord ultimately dwells). On
the other hand, the New Testament writers never spoke of the earthly
temple as the place where God’s glory was revealed, as in the Old
Testament.
The third evidence of a spatial shift is that Stephen saw “Jesus standing
at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55b). This phrase has several parallels in
the New Testament. However, in most New Testament occurrences Jesus
is depicted as seated at the right hand of God (e.g., Matt. 26:64; Mark
14:32; 16:19; Luke 22:69). When Jesus ascended to His Father, the phrase
“sitting at the right hand of God” meant power (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:32;
Luke 22:69; Heb. 12:2), authority, honor (cf. Mark 10:37), and rulership
(Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1).41
Furthermore, the usage of these similar phrases in their various literary
contexts also suggests the varied facets of Jesus Christ’s ministry and
responsibility before the throne of God in the heavenly temple. For
example, in Revelation 5:6–7 John sees Jesus in the form of a slain lamb
(cf. John 1:29)—clearly a ritual, temple image—standing at the right hand
of the throne of God. In other instances, heavenly temple ritual is
associated with seating. For example, we read, “When He had made
purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”
(Heb. 1:3b). This statement is not in the context of heavenly governance
but rather in the context of sanctuary ministration. The book of Hebrews
provides details regarding Christ’s ministry as the High Priest in the
heavenly sanctuary. The most explicit is found in Hebrews 8:1: “Now the
main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who
has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens.”42 Here the work of Christ as our High Priest is performed in the
sanctuary or tabernacle, which was pitched by the LORD, not man (v. 2).43
He is there, as the High Priest, to make intercession for the sins of His
people before the Father (7:25; Rom. 8:34).
In view of these evidences, this study suggests that the image of Jesus
standing by the throne of God in Acts 7:55 and 56 alludes to the
intercessory or mediatorial work of Jesus in the heavenly temple and
supports the idea of a spatial shift of the locus of salvation from earthly
sanctuary with earthly priests, to the heavenly sanctuary with Jesus as the
High Priest before the throne of God.44 Now it is not through the earthly
priesthood but through Christ’s priesthood in the heavenly sanctuary that
atonement for sin might be attained (cf. Rom. 8:34).

CONCLUSION
Scholars propose several thematic and theological emphases for Luke-
Acts. However, they overlook the possibility of a spatial shift of focus
from the earthly to the heavenly sanctuary and from Jerusalem to all the
nations of the earth. This study proposes that such a shift is a reality as
follows.
 On the basis of the literary unity of Luke-Acts and an analysis of
geography of the two works, this study suggested a geographical structure.
This structure was thematically analyzed, and it is evident that Jerusalem is
at its center. It was further shown that Luke’s gospel narrative begins and
ends in Jerusalem. The book of Acts also begins its narrative in Jerusalem,
the locus on earth where salvation was achieved and where the gospel was
first preached before it reached the ends of the earth.
It was also shown that Luke emphasizes the centrality of the temple in
Jerusalem. The gospel of Luke begins its narrative in the annunciation of
the birth of John in the temple and ends at the temple with the disciples
praising God. In between are narratives that either begin or end at the
temple. The book of Acts also begins in Jerusalem. It describes the birth
and ministry of the church at the temple. However, in Acts the narrative
ends in Rome, the capital of the empire, indicating that the good news has
now spread beyond the confines of Israel to the nations of the world.
My proposed shift in focus from the earthly temple to the heavenly one
is congruent with the above study. In Acts, Luke first focuses on the
ministry of the church in Jerusalem and in the temple and its environs, but
then he shifts to Stephen’s vision of the ministry of Jesus in the heavenly
temple. There seems to be a shift of the locus of salvation from earthly
temple to heavenly temple and from Jerusalem to the other nations as the
focus of the church’s mission.
The contextual analysis supports this spatial shift. Stephen first notes
that God does not dwell in houses built by human hands. Moreover,
instead of looking at the earthly temple he looks up to heaven and sees the
glory of God, which is clear temple imagery. He also sees Jesus Christ
standing at the right hand of God, which suggests that what he saw was
Jesus ministering in the presence of God in the heavenly sanctuary.
Thus this study suggests that, based on the structural-thematic and
contextual analyses, there seems to be a spatial shift of the locus of
salvation and ministry of Jesus and His church in Luke-Acts. Luke focuses
on the earthly temple and earthly Jerusalem; Acts begins in the earthly
Jerusalem and temple but shifts to the heavenly Jerusalem and temple. The
ministry of Jesus and the church first focuses on Jerusalem but shifts to the
rest of the nations of the earth.
8
THE HOUSE OF GOD IN JOHN 14:2 AS A
REFERENCE TO THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE
KIM PAPAIOANNOU

J ohn 14:1–4 has captured the imaginations of Christians through the

ages because of its assurance that Jesus will return for His followers.1
Discussions often concentrate on two things: (1) the nature of the
assurance of Jesus’s return and (2) the size, quality, and type of habitation
He is preparing for His followers in heaven.2 This study attempts to fit the
pericope, especially John 14:2, within a broader framework of heavenly
topography. A prominent motif in early Jewish and biblical Christian
literature is the existence of a heavenly temple. While this motif appears
most commonly in apocalyptic texts, it also makes casual appearances in
other literary genres. Linguistic elements within John 14:1–4 in particular
(as well as in other parts of this gospel) raise the possibility that the author
was not only aware of the heavenly temple motif, but opted to use it in his
depiction of heaven. This chapter will first explore the heavenly temple as
a constant in Second Temple Jewish thought, then examine temple
language in John’s gospel, and finally concentrate on determining the
function of topographical elements in 8:35 and 14:2, where a heavenly
temple is in view.

BACKGROUND
Belief in the existence of a heavenly temple appears to be closely linked to
the Ancient Near Eastern belief of strong parallels between the earthly and
heavenly realms. In early Jewish literature this is manifest through a
renewed and vigorous interest in the temple outside of the immediate
historical confines. It builds on the biblical tradition but seems to gain
momentum as disaffection with the Jerusalem priestly establishment crept
in—and even more so after the destruction of the temple in AD 70.
Two trends are visible. The first is an expectation of a renewed and
loftier eschatological temple in the New Jerusalem. In language
reminiscent of Isaiah 66:22, Jubilees 1:27–29 looks forward to the new
heavens and the new earth when “the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made
in Jerusalem.” In similar language, Sibylline Oracles 5:414–33 describes
the New Jerusalem and a messianic temple whose Creator is God,
“founder of the greatest temple.” It is unclear whether this is a new
construction or whether a heavenly temple is transposed into the new city.
The latter appears more likely. 4Q174 looks forward to an eschatological
temple that no foreigner will enter.3 In 1 Enoch 90:28–29, the seer sees
Jerusalem during the time of the messianic kingdom. The old temple is
transformed, and the Lord brings “a new house and set[s] it up in the first
location.” This new house is greater and loftier than the first. 24:1–25:3
describes the geography of the holy land and mentions a tree of life and the
top of Mount Zion, the place of the earthly temple, being shaped as a
throne for God.
More commonly, however, early Jewish writers looked to heaven as the
location of a true archetypal temple. In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on
Exodus 15:17, the earthly sanctuary corresponds to the heavenly throne of
God’s glory. In Antiquities of the Jews 3.6.5, Josephus describes how
Moses had seen the cherubim near the throne of God and had modeled the
ark of the covenant accordingly. In 3.6.4 Josephus asserts that the
tabernacle “was an imitation of the system of the world,” while the Most
Holy Place was “a heaven peculiar to God.”
The heavenly temple motif is most prominent in apocalyptic literature.
It is sometimes described in cultic terms and at other times presented as a
celestial palace in keeping with the Hebrew hêkal, which can mean both
“palace” and “temple.”4 According to 2 Baruch 4:3–6, the heavenly temple
was created with paradise; shown to Adam, Abraham, and Moses; served
as a model for the tabernacle; and is still preserved in paradise. In the
Testament of Levi a heavenly temple first serves to validate the authority
of the priestly office of Levi and the authenticity of his prophecies (2:5–
5:2; 8:1–19), and then, in an obviously Christian exposition, the Messiah’s
ministry receives its authority (18:5–9). The heavenly temple is located in
a “heavenly height,” at the center of seven concentric palaces (3 En. 1:1–
12; 4:6–7; 5:5). The Shekinah glory dwells there and beings around it are
shielded from the glory by a curtain.
In 1 Enoch 14:8–25 the patriarch beholds a most glorious heavenly
house full of fire. In echoes of the theophany of Isaiah 6:1–13, he sees the
lofty throne to which the tens of millions of angels that surround it cannot
look. In 1 Enoch 47:1–4 he has a vision of the throne. Again numberless
angels surround it, glorifying and praising God. As in Daniel 7:10, books
are opened before Him in judgment, while the prayers of the righteous and
the blood of those slain for their faith ascend before Him. Four Ezra 9:26–
10:59 describes the heavenly Jerusalem. While a temple structure is not
specifically mentioned, the heavenly city is a more glorious and faithful
reflection of the earthly one in which the presence of a temple is assumed.
In 3 Baruch a heavenly temple forms the background of the whole
composition. Baruch weeps beholding the destruction of Jerusalem and its
temple but is reassured that atonement is still available in the heavenly
realm.5
The picture in the New Testament follows a similar pattern; a heavenly
temple is described or assumed throughout. The New Testament’s one
apocalyptic composition, Revelation, is replete with direct references and
allusions to it. In 1:10–20 the revelator sees a heavenly vision where Jesus
is attired in priestly garment and standing among seven lamp stands. In
4:1–5:14 there is a vision of the throne room, with heavenly beings
worshipping day and night and Jesus as a slain lamb securing victory for
His people. Revelation 8:1–5 records another vision of the throne room
where incense is offered, angels stand by, the prayers of the saints ascend,
and judgment is pronounced. In 14:15–19, 15:5–8, and 16:1, 17, judgment
again proceeds from the heavenly temple. In 11:19 the innermost part of
the heavenly temple is opened, and the ark of the covenant becomes
visible. In parallel with Jewish apocalyptic, the revelator has a vision in
21:1–27 of an eschatological New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven
to earth. But in contrast to Jewish apocalyptic he declares that the glorified
city has no temple, because God Himself dwells within it.
Clear evidence for a belief in a heavenly temple is also found in
Hebrews. The parallel between the earthly tabernacle and its services and a
heavenly prototype is assumed throughout the book.6 In Hebrews 8:1–2 the
heavenly temple is called “the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.”7
The earthly ministration is but a “copy and shadow” of the real one in
heaven (v. 5). In 9:1–12 the “earthly place of holiness” (v. 1) is contrasted
with the “greater and more perfect tent” (v. 11), which Jesus entered after
His ascension.
Elsewhere in the New Testament we find more allusions and echoes of a
heavenly temple rather than direct references. Repeated depictions of
God’s heavenly throne, for example, are best understood against the
background of a heavenly temple/palace. In Matthew 23:16–22 Jesus
compares different elements by which oaths were taken: the temple, the
gold of the temple, the altar, the sacrifice on the altar, and heaven, where
God’s throne is. As such, He places the throne of God in the context of
temple language. In 23:21–22 He compares the Jerusalem temple, which is
a dwelling place of God, with heaven, where the throne of God is. In
Hebrews 4:14–16 the priestly work of Jesus offers believers the right to
boldly approach the heavenly throne (v. 16). In Revelation 4:1–5:14, 8:3,
and 16:17, the throne of God appears in a clear heavenly temple context.
And in Acts 7:55–56, after having described the building of Solomon’s
temple, Stephen is given a vision of the heavenly throne room—
reminiscent of the heavenly temple scene of Isaiah 6:1–5—where he sees
God seated on a throne and Jesus by His side.
An equally strong motif without a direct counterpart in early Jewish
writings—except Qumran8—is that of the people of God as a temple. In
the New Testament the motif begins with Jesus as both the embodiment
and the founder of a new temple, the church. Its roots lie in the theological
departure of the early church from the temple cultus, which in their eyes
had found its fulfillment in the death of Jesus.9 Thus John the Baptist
declares Jesus “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”
(John 1:29). At His death the curtain of the temple is torn from top to
bottom (Matt. 27:51), signifying that a new and greater reality has dawned
(cf. Matt. 12:6). Three times in the gospels the body of Jesus is compared
to a new temple, superseding the one in Jerusalem (Matt. 27:40; Mark
14:58; John 2:19–21). Paul compares the body of believers to a temple of
which the cornerstone is Jesus (Eph. 2:21; cf. 1. Pet. 2:5). Believers
constitute a temple, not only because in Jesus a new reality has dawned,
but also because within them individually (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 6:19) and
corporately (2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Rev. 3:12) dwells the Holy Spirit.
Beliefs in a literal structure in heaven and in the body of believers as a
temple are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. Indeed, as it was the
presence of God in the physical temple in the Old Testament that reflected
His sovereignty in the heavenly realm and temple, likewise it is God’s
presence among believers that reflects His heavenly sovereignty in New
Testament writings.

TEMPLE LANGUAGE IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Most of the temple references in the gospel of John are to the temple in
Jerusalem. John’s favorite word is hieron, which is used eleven times.10
With the exception of 18:20, where it appears on the lips of Jesus, the noun
is used in John’s narrative commentary. While it is a common word to
describe the temple, it carries a nuance of sacredness and holiness
underlining John’s respect for this Jewish institution.11
Three times in one pericope John uses the noun naos (2:19–21). Having
just cleansed the temple (hieron) from the moneychangers and traders
selling sacrificial commodities (vv. 14–15), Jesus invites His accusers,
most likely the temple authorities,12 to destroy “this temple” (ton naon
touton)—meaning His body—and within three days He will rebuild it. The
switch from hieron to naos is intentional. Whereas hieron is a descriptive
noun that highlights the sanctity of the whole temple complex, but can
equally be used of other holy items as an adjective,13 the reference to naos
can mean nothing but the temple as an edifice. Furthermore, it appears that
naos refers more to the inner structures related to Israel’s cultus as
opposed to the broader context denoted by hieron.14 It seems that John
wants to ensure that the words of Jesus are not misunderstood in any way,
and that he is drawing a parallel between the temple edifice and its
sacrificial system and the literal body of Jesus, implying that the latter
would in time supersede the former.
Five times John uses the noun oikos: three times as a reference to the
temple15 and twice in reference to human habitations.16 The temple
references call for some comment. In contrast to hieron, which is used
primarily in descriptive narrative, oikos is used in a theologically loaded
context. Just as He casts out the moneychangers and traders from the
temple (hieron), Jesus condemns those responsible for transforming “my
Father’s house” (ton oikon tou Patros mou) into “a house of trade” (oikon
emporiou; 2:16).17
As with the switch from hieron to naos, the switch from hieron to oikos
is not incidental. Whereas hieron can denote a sacred object or building,
oikos conveys more intimate realities. The noun can be translated either as
“house/home,”18 or even as “household.”19 The traders are not guilty of
simply defiling a holy building but the very home and household of God.
That Jesus calls the temple “my Father’s house” as opposed to “the house
of God” is also significant. If God is the Father and humans are His
children,20 then children being part of the household can demand that
God’s house be suitably respected to facilitate the worship of all who call
God their Father. Moreover, as the unique Son of God, Jesus claims full
prerogatives to act with authority in issues of worship and to purify the
temple to function within a proper context.21
 Immediately after the incident, John introduces a statement: ho zēlos tou
oikou sou kataphagetai me, “zeal for your house will consume me” (2:17).
The words come from Psalm 69:9 (LXX 68:10) and appear in a context
where the psalmist bemoans the persecution he faces because of his
fidelity to God. But whereas the psalm uses the aorist indicative active
katephagen, John uses the future indicative middle kataphagetai. Whether
John adjusted the tense and mood or used a now lost variant reading is
unclear.22 What does appear clear is that the quotation from the psalm
coupled with the words about the destruction and the rebuilding of the
body-of-Jesus temple anticipates His death and resurrection.23
Summarizing the brief discussion on John’s temple language, we can
say that John’s favorite term for the Jerusalem temple is hieron. However,
in two passages he departs from such usage: in 2:19–21 he switches to
naos to draw a parallel between the physical, inner cultic structure of the
temple and Jesus’s physical body; in verses 16–17 he switches to the more
intimate oikos. Both passages are theologically loaded, indicating that the
switch is intentional.

THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN JOHN 8:35

John has two references to the heavenly temple, and the two should be
seen as interconnected. In both instances he uses the word oikia; oikos and
oikia are lexically very close. Goetzmann notes that in classical Greek
there was a difference in nuance. While oikia denoted the dwelling place—
the physical structure or house—oikos could be used in a broader sense not
only of a physical structure but of the dwellers of a house, a household, or
family. He maintains, however, that in later Greek the two terms appear to
be synonymous.24 This latter assertion is not borne out by the evidence. Of
ninety-three usages of oikia in the New Testament, only five refer clearly
to anything but a physical structure.25 By contrast, of 114 usages of oikos,
a full thirty-two refer to the people in the house rather than the house
itself.26 The switch, therefore, from oikos in John 2:16–17 to oikia in 8:35
and 14:2 could be intentionally aiming to affirm the existence of a literal
house of God in heaven.
The first of the two oikia references to the heavenly temple is in 8:35, in
the context of an exchange between Jesus and certain Jews. Jesus declares
that—whereas a slave cannot habitually dwell in the house—a son remains
there forever. The statement appears to be an apothegm of everyday
realities, but here it functions to build a contrast between Jesus and His
opponents. The context is important. The exchange takes place in the
temple (v. 20). Jesus contrasts His opponents’ earthly origin with His own
heavenly origin (v. 23). He is not of this world but came from above (ek
tōn anō eimi).27 He then contrasts their sinfulness with His own close
association with the Father (vv. 24–30). He implies that He has no sin
since He always does “the things that are pleasing” to the Father (v. 29).
By contrast His opponents are enslaved because it is their sin that keeps
them enslaved (v. 34).28 It is this enslavement to sin that does not allow
them to dwell in the house. The “house” is obviously a reference to the
Father’s house, the temple.29 But which temple? Not the earthly one—in
the earthly temple of Jerusalem neither Jesus nor His opponents dwelt
forever. In 2:14–21 and especially 4:21–23 John already intimates that the
Jerusalem temple is about to be superseded by a greater temple, the
physical body of Jesus sacrificed for the sins of the world.
By contrast Jesus—being in harmony with the Father, of heavenly
origin, and the Son—dwells in the house of the Father “forever” (eis ton
aiōna). The reference is clearly to God’s house, a heavenly temple/palace.
The language probably draws from Psalm 23:6 and David’s confidence
that he would dwell in the house of God forever.30 The use of oikia in
place of John’s more usual hieron or even naos is required by the context.
While hieron—and more so naos—highlight the cultic dimensions of the
temple, oikia lays the stress on the relational aspect of the heavenly temple
as the house of God. While cultic elements are present in John 8:20–36, in
the reference to the sinfulness of the people and their need to be set free,
the concept of fellowship with God is better reflected in the statement that
the Son dwells in the (Father’s) house forever.

THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN JOHN 14:2

John 14:2 appears within a discourse where Jesus states that He will
ascend to heaven to the Father’s house, God’s heavenly temple,31 prepare a
place for the disciples, and return to take them home that they may always
be with Him.32 John uses the word oikia again, as in 8:35, possibly for the
same reasons. Jesus assures His disciples that in the Father’s house are
many monai—a word the King James Version translates as “mansions”33
—creating expectations of heavenly grandeur for millions of Christians
that more recent translations have somewhat dampened by rendering the
noun as “rooms,”34 “abodes,”35 “dwelling places,”36 “places to live in,”37 or
even “stopping places.”38
 The word monai appears only here and in John 14:23. It derives from
the verb menō,39 which means “to remain” or “abide,”40 and it can be used
of habitations of different quality and magnificence, ranging from a room
to a mansion.41 The emphasis is not so much on the structure nor its quality
and size, but rather on what takes place there, on the reality of living or
abiding there, in which case “dwelling places” appears to be a better
rendering than either “rooms” or “mansions.”
The choice of this rare word monai is closely attached to John’s
“abiding” theology. Of 118 uses of the verb menō in the New Testament,
forty appear in the Gospel of John and twenty-four in John’s epistles—54
percent of the total uses. The Father abides in the Son, and this enables the
Son to perform all the wonderful deeds that He is doing and the words that
He is saying (John 14:10). The Holy Spirit also abides in Jesus. John
testifies that he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove not only descend
upon Jesus at the baptism, but abide with Him (1:32–33). The implication
is not so much that the dove remained upon Jesus but rather that the
anointing of the Spirit received at the baptism was not for the occasion
alone but served to equip Jesus throughout His ministry. Just as the Father
and Spirit abide with the Son, so the Son abides with the Father (14:10).
This permanence in divine relationships also becomes a reality for
believers through the ministry of Jesus. When a believer receives the Son,
the Father will abide in him (3:36). While humans eat food that perishes,
Jesus offers bread and drink that do not perish but remain to life eternal
(6:27, 56). He promises believers that if they abide in the word, they will
truly be His disciples (8:31). And just as the branches of a vine receive life
nourishment from the vine, so Jesus promises to abide with the disciples
(15:4–9). If they abide in Him, they will bear much fruit (v. 5), and their
fruit will also abide and please the Father (v. 16).
Failure to believe is also related to the concept of abiding. Whoever
does not receive the Son abides in darkness, in contrast to the believer
(12:46). The unbeliever does not have the Word abiding in him (5:38) but
rather has the wrath of God abiding on him (3:36).
More importantly, the abiding in God’s heavenly temple/house of John
14:2 reflects directly back on the heavenly house of 8:35. There two
persons were contrasted: the Son, who being in full harmony with the
Father can abide (menei) in the house forever, and the servant, who cannot
abide (menei) because of his earthliness and sinfulness (vv. 24, 34–35).
The disciples are presumably also earthly and sinful. But having been set
free by the Son, they now can also have permanent abiding places—monai
—in the Father’s house, just like the Son does.
We noted earlier that the heavenly and earthly temples in Jewish
thought were closely interlinked, the one drawing its authority and
legitimacy from the other. We also noted that John introduces the body of
Jesus as a new temple in 2:19 and the heavenly temple in 8:35. In 14:2 and
23 John interlinks the two. In 14:2 the believers, by abiding in Jesus, gain
permanent residence (monai) in God’s heavenly temple/palace. In the
meantime and in anticipation of that fulfillment, the Father and the Son
build a dwelling place (monēn) with the believer (par’ autō), making the
believer individually and corporately a temple of God. It is only by
becoming a temple for God now that the believer can in turn gain access
into the heavenly temple.42 There is therefore a close connection between
the believer—as a temple individually or corporately—and the heavenly
house/temple of God, a connection evident in other New Testament
writings.43

HEAVENLY TEMPLE, HEAVENLY GRANDEUR

The temple in Jerusalem was the heart and pride of the Jewish people. Not
only was it the center of their religious experience, but it was also their
most beautiful and splendid building. In the prelude to Mark’s little
apocalypse, the disciples behold the temple with its surrounding structures
and exclaim, “What wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings”
(Mark 13:1). In Matthew 24:1 the exclamation is not spelled out, but it is
assumed in Jesus’s response even as the disciples point out the temple
complex to Him.
Given this status of the earthly temple, it is no surprise that the heavenly
temple was considered infinitely grander and of exquisite beauty and
glory. In Paul’s ascent to the third heaven, he saw things “that cannot be
told, which man may not utter” (2 Cor. 12:4), things of “surpassing
greatness” (v. 7). In Revelation a vision of the heavenly temple is ushered
by “flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and
heavy hail” (11:19), while the heavenly Jerusalem is of massive
proportions and dazzling in beauty (21:16, 12–22).
In the Testament of Levi the surroundings of the heavenly temple are
“lustrous and beyond compare” (2:9). In 1 Enoch a building external to the
heavenly temple is of white marble (14:10), the floor of crystal, and the
ceiling like the heavens in the night (v. 11); the whole temple complex is
surrounded by a wall of white marble and flaming fire with multiple gates
(v. 9). Within these stands the real temple, the glory of which is greater
still and beyond description (vv. 15–19). In 3 Enoch the heavenly
temple/palace is the inner and most glorious of seven concentric, glorious
buildings (1:1–2). While the writer does not describe the structures in
detail, the majesty of the temple and its proceedings is such that he falls
down in fear and trembling (v. 7). Indeed, the glory of the Shekinah that
dwells there is said to be 365,000 times brighter than the sun (5:3).
John does not give similar descriptions, but two statements suggest he
assumes them. First, he assures his readers that the dwelling places in the
heavenly temple are many (monai pollai). John does not envision a
structure parallel only to the immediate temple precincts with the Most
Holy place, Holy place, and adjacent areas. Rather, in view is a large,
magnificent structure fitting to be the dwelling place of God and the centre
of His authority in which the thousands of believers (by the time of the
composition of the gospel, many millions since) can be easily and
comfortably accommodated. Second, 14:4 possibly aims to affirm
expectations of heavenly glory prevalent in early Jewish and Christian
literature.44

CONCLUSION
Like contemporary Jewish and Christian writers, John takes a strong
interest in the temple. Most of his references are in relation to the
Jerusalem temple and occur in narrative. In one instance he presents the
body of Jesus as a new reality, a new temple that will eventually grow and
encompass the nascent church. More importantly for our purposes, and in
parallel with many Jewish and Christian writers, John also envisions a
heavenly temple/palace, the house of the Father. John does not describe it
in detail. He seems to be less interested in its appearance and more on it
being where the abiding that Jesus shares with the Father and the Spirit—
and which He offers to His followers on earth—will reach a climax and
full realization. Nonetheless, the fact that John depicts it as containing
potentially numberless habitations suggests a glorious building in line with
Jewish and Christian apocalyptic depictions of heaven.
Though his descriptions are by no means apocalyptic, John manifests an
awareness of heavenly topography and realities as discussed elsewhere in
Scripture, especially in biblical apocalyptic, and utilizes them in the
theological development of his book.
9
HEAVENLY SANCTUARY MOTIFS IN THE
PAULINE CORPUS: EXPLICATING THEIR
INTERTEXTUALITY AND
INTERRELATEDNESS
MARIO PHILLIP

M ost of the work done on the heavenly sanctuary motif has focused
primarily on the Pentateuch (Gen. 11:1–9; 28:10–22; Exod. 15:1–
18; 24:9–11; 25:8–9, 40; 32–34, 37; Deut. 26:15),1 the book of Hebrews
(6:19; 7:1–10:18; 8–9),2 and Revelation (3:12; 7:15; 11:1–2, 19; 14:15, 17;
15:5, 6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22).3 A mere cursory glance through the epistles of
Paul (apart from Hebrews, the authorship of which some dispute), though
heralded as the bastion of theological insights in the New Testament,
reveals an apparent taciturnity on the topic of the sanctuary/temple.4 It
seems surprising that one whose writings constitute nearly half of the New
Testament would supposedly have little to say on the heavenly temple.
This study attempts to find motifs of the heavenly sanctuary in Paul’s
writing to establish the ubiquitous usage of the temple motif. It will
endeavour to establish the degree of intertextuality between Paul’s
theological schema, ideas, or language, and broader, early Jewish and
Christian theological outlooks.5 It seeks to find the pervading nuances by
which the sanctuary motifs in the Pauline corpus should be understood.
This study will be limited to the books where explicit sanctuary motifs
exist, namely the Corinthian correspondence and Ephesians.
Paul’s theological reckoning of the sanctuary was not restrictive or
exclusive. Rather, it involved an inclusive, interrelatedness between the
church, the believer, and the heavenly temple. Apart from Hebrews, there
are eleven mentions or allusions (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19; 9:13; 2 Cor. 5:1, 2,
4, 10; Eph. 2:19, 21; 2 Thess. 2:4). Although current scholarship takes an
exclusive either/or position to these texts, I will seek to embrace an
inclusive approach that is contextually viable.
 In early Jewish and Christian thinking, the temple was seen through a
multidimensional framework with one approach not exclusive to another.
These include the temple as a heavenly/earthly reality,6 a metaphorical
reality,7 an eschatological reality,8 a sphere of divine functions,9 and a
place under attack.10 Paul’s temple rhetoric should not be understood in a
vacuum and must take into consideration the varied trends in which the
temple was perceived within Judaism.
Scripture is replete with temple rhetoric. The explicit words/terms used
to denote the temple, tabernacle, or sanctuary in the LXX are naos,11
skēnos, oikētērion, and ieron. Other temple-related language includes
oikia, oikeioi, and bēmatos. This study will briefly examine Pauline temple
language text by text. First Corinthians 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16;
5:1–4, 10; and Ephesians 2:6, 19–22 will be under consideration.

1 CORINTHIANS 3:16, 17

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the
Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple
of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is
holy, and that is what you are.12

First Corinthians 3 falls within Paul’s response to the factions among the
believers in Corinth (1:10–4:21). He outlines the facticity of division
(1:10–17), its cause (1:18–4:13), and the solution (4:14–21). The text
under consideration is placed between his response in rectifying a faulty
view of the Christian message (1:18–3:4) and the Christian lifestyle (4:6–
13). In 3:16, 17 Paul attempts to correct an apparently distorted view of
Christian ministry and its ministers (3:5–4:5).13
Paul uses an agrarian and architectural analogy to dispel distorted views.
According to Aristotle, a “metaphor is the application of a strange term
either transferred from the genus and applied to the species or from the
species and applied to the genus, or from one species to another.”14
Aristotle further adds that a metaphor is not “far-fetched” but akin to its
referent, derived from things “beautiful” both in “sound” and “sense.”15 On
the use of Pauline temple metaphors Stephen Fai has noted that a metaphor
“substitutes and intersects.” It is a mere instrumentality that conveys from
a broader field of referent. In the case of Paul, the use of the body/temple
metaphor elucidates the dynamic tension that exists between small
narratives and grand metanarratives.16 Since most of the temple motifs
discussed below are analogical, it is important to have a broad spectrum
approach to their ultimate referent.
First Corinthians 3:16 begins with the aoristic perfect oidate, “you
know,” which Paul repeats in 6:19 and 9:13. The emphasis appears to be
on the certainty of previous knowledge.17 Paul is not introducing an elusive
new idea but rather reminding them of something they would have been
acquainted with (cf. 2 Thess. 2:5).
The use of naos, “temple,” in 1 Corinthians 3:16 points back to
oikodomē, “God’s building” (v. 9), which has Jesus as the foundation stone
(v. 11). The use of oikodomē in the New Testament can speak of
edification (Rom. 14:19; 1 Cor. 14:3, 5; 2 Cor. 10:8; 12:19; Eph. 4:12, 16,
29) or something existing in actuality (1 Cor. 5:1; Eph. 2:21). In this
context it is also temple related (cf. 1 Pet. 2:1–10). The use of naos is
meant to emphasize the temple as a place of habitation wherein God
dwells.18 This is corroborated by the phrase “the Spirit of God dwells in
you” (1 Cor. 3:16b). Given its metaphorical nature, the motif points not
only to God dwelling within the church; it also affirms the reality of His
permanent dwelling in the heavenly realms.
What is this temple wherein God dwells? Plummer and Robertson see it
as the entire church, the individual Christian, or the local church.19 Meyer
believes that each Christian community is a spiritual temple.20 Gupta
argues that the temple of God refers primarily to the individual, with
implications for the community.21 The above are not mutually exclusive.
In 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17b, Paul uses the plural este (“you are”) when
referring to the church. This implies that he has a community in mind as he
writes. While the plural by denotation implies a corporate entity, often
times the second person is never used in an indefinite sense but often to
refer to someone.22 The focus therefore in the use of the plural points to the
individuality of those constituting the believing community. Furthermore,
the third person singular phtheirei (v. 17a) shows that he is not only
appealing to the whole, but also to the individual believer. The use of naos
in the singular also denotes the particularity and oneness of the temple in
view. Believers are not the “temples of God” but rather “God’s temple.”
According to Lenski, it is an anomaly that, although God has one temple,
every believer is simultaneously a temple.23 This conundrum can be
clarified when understood through a multidimensional temple paradigm.
Any reference to the church as “temple” is metaphorical. A metaphor
always has an actual point of reference; as such, in its metaphorical
dimensions the phrase “temple of God” points not only to God dwelling
within the church, but also to the reality of His permanent dwelling in the
heavenly realms. Lenski has rightly enunciated that God has only “one
temple.”24 This assertion, if taken to its logical conclusion, would infer that
if God has one temple, that temple should be where He permanently
resides—in heaven. God may also dwell in believers individually, and in
the church corporately through the Holy Spirit, and in that sense these also
become His temple in a metaphoric sense. But the metaphoric sense can
only reflect the actual heavenly abode, never supplant it. The reality of
God’s temple is one that every believer can participate in through their
identification with Christ.
Another point that beckons clarification pertains to whether naos theou
in 1 Corinthians 3:16 should be understood as definite or qualitative.
According to Colwell’s rule, definite predicate nouns that precede the verb
are usually anarthrous.25 The rule therefore begins on the assumption that
the semantic category of definiteness is determined. The question that
must be asked at this point is whether the noun naos always refer to
something definite in its usage. While the predominant usage of naos is no
doubt definitive, there are also qualitative connotations of naos, especially
in the New Testament.
A study by Philip Harner26 and Paul Dixon27 on anarthrous predicate
nominatives found that most verbs in this structural relationship are
primarily definite and sometimes qualitative. Colwell’s rule only takes into
account definite nouns, omitting relative clauses as well as proper and
qualitative nouns. Moreover, nouns such as theos, pneuma, and kyrios are
of themselves regarded as definite, whether used with or without the
article;28 naos falls in the same category. Moreover, although the article is
absent in 3:16 (naos theou), it is used in verse 17 (ton naon tou theou),
which presupposes that both phrases should be understood semantically as
referring to the same reality. Notwithstanding the above, it is evident that
there is a qualitative sense to the construction naos theou, and therefore it
is best to consider the construction as a qualitative-definite construction.
This implies that it can refer both to the heavenly archetypical reality, and
to the believing community, who possess the presence of God through the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
In 3:17 the present phtheirei is juxtaposed to the future phtherei in a
play on words. This involves a first class, conditional clause where the
condition is presumed a reality.29 Paul is suggesting that God’s action is
predicated on individual actions. Whereas the verb was relegated to the
end of the previous clauses (vv. 16, 17a), in verse 17b the clause begins
with the verb, probably to add emphasis to the assertion of the apodosis.
The implications of the grammatical structure of 17b can imply a number
of things. First, corrupting God’s temple is an affront to Him that warrants
a divine response. Second, the use of the present and future tenses together
can denote the eschatological response to present actions. Third,
defamation of the temple is contiguous with profanation of a cult object,
through either violation of sacred trust or space. An apt example can be
seen in 2 Samuel 6:6, where Uzzah profaned the ark by touching it and
violating sacred space, which cost him his life (cf. Num. 3:4).
First Corinthians 3:16 serves as a metacomment30 where the author
asserts in an indirect way the reality of the heavenly temple through his
direct allusion to the metaphorical temple. The subsequent enumeration on
the destruction of the temple therefore serves as an enumeration of the
sanctuary motif earlier elucidated. The believers are God’s temple in as
much as they reflect and correspond to the existing heavenly reality. In
verse 17 the judgment motif is somewhat introduced, placing the temple
language into a broader eschatological framework. The judgment that is
constitutive of the heavenly sanctuary is hereby attributed to the
metaphorical temple, thus corroborating their synonymity or interrelation.
It is evident that God regarded with utmost care the sanctity of the
physical temple and likewise of the body of believers.31 In the temple
cultus of Israel, defilement of the sanctuary was tantamount to death (cf.
Lev. 16; 21:12, 21–23). In like manner, God will ultimately destroy those
who defile His temple.
In 1 Corinthians 3 there is a consecutive movement from agrarian
(vv. 6–9) to architectural (vv. 10–15) and finally to temple imageries. The
Christian ministers are first characterized as diakonoi (servants) and God’s
coworkers (theou sunergoi), while the Corinthian believers are God’s field
(theou geōrgion), God’s building (theou oikodomē), and finally God’s
temple (naos theou).32 The placement of naos theou in the semantic
construct of the sentence adduces to its importance. This can be best
illustrated by applying the discourse principle of ordering restraint and the
cline of specificity: emphasized elements are ordered from the least to the
most important (ordering restraint) or ideas that are most pertinent are
stated more prominently (cline of specificity).33 Believers as God’s temple
are thus to be understood as not merely incidental to the pericope but
constituting its core thrust. The fact that the temple referred to is as
definite as God Himself presupposes a temple as enduring as God Himself.
The reference to the believers as God’s temple is meant to establish the
relationship that exists between God’s heavenly temple and His people
(emblematic temples).
The two architectural metaphors used to refer to the Corinthian church,
namely that of “God’s building” and “God’s temple,” are indicative of the
continuity and interrelatedness that Paul sees between the church and the
sanctuary. Considering that at the time of writing the Jerusalem temple
was not yet destroyed, Paul is here transferring the sanctity of the
sanctuary to the people of God. The interrelatedness that exists with the
Corinthian church as a body of believers and the metaphorical and the
earthly temple stand paradigmatic of an inseparable corollary existing
between the various dimensions of the sanctuary. The church represents
both the earthly and metaphorical representations of the sanctuary,
representations standing in relation to the heavenly sanctuary. In each case
the presence of the Spirit of God makes both the church and the heavenly
sanctuary holy.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:19

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy

Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that
you are not your own?

In 1 Corinthians 6:19 Paul posits the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a

substantial basis for moral living,34 a theme that is prevalent throughout
Scripture.35 The phrase naos tou . . . hagiou pneumatos, “temple of the
Holy Spirit,” can be understood as monadic much like “temple of God” in
3:16. The designation can be taken to mean the temple that the Holy Spirit
possesses,36 the temple where He lives,37 or a temple for the Holy Spirit.38
While the context of 6:19 points to the believer’s life being made holy by
the Spirit, the bigger picture revolves around the role of the Holy Spirit as
the agent of holiness, enabling the presence of God to be imbibed in a
place, a thing, or a person. The presence of the Holy Spirit thus delineates
a place or person as holy in the same way it delineates the sanctuary as
holy.
The use of the negative particle ouk with the indicative “do you not
know” connotes the idea of a forceful halt. When used interrogatively, it
always anticipates an affirmative response.39 Moreover, the context further
lends to an emphatic or contrasting usage.40 This implies two things: (1)
Paul may have anticipated that the believers would respond, “Yes, we
know that our bodies are the temple”; (2) Paul may have sought to
highlight the disparity that existed between God’s temple as it should be
and God’s temple as it existed in their life. This allusion could have been
inspired by the current moral laxity among certain individuals within the
community (1 Cor. 5:1).
The plurals oidate, hymōn, hymin, echete, este, and eautōn (1 Cor. 6:19)
are indicative of the continued emphasis on the church as a collective
representation of the temple of Christ. First Corinthians 6:18 recapitulates
the dual focus of both the individual and church being the temple of God.
Paul begins with the second person plural present imperative pheugete,
“flee,” which suggests that he has the church body in mind. The apostle
then uses a string of singulars (poiēsē, anthrōpos, tou sōmatos, estin, ho de
porneuōn, idion sōma hamartanei), all of which convey the idea of
individuality. The chapter then concludes with another string of plural
substantives (ēgorasthēte, doxasate, hymōn) reverting back to the
collective identity in view.
Paul, in challenging the Corinthians to moral conduct, reflects some of
the rabbinic behavioral dictums for temple worshippers. In the Mishnah,
Berakhoth 9.5.5–6 states: “A man should not behave himself unseemly
while opposite the Eastern Gate [of the Temple] since it faces toward the
Holy of Holies. He may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or
his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of
it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.”41
In the reckoning of Paul, the same reverence that one ascribed to the
earthly temple should be imbibed by Christians, who become the
embodiment of the new temple of God.

2 CORINTHIANS 6:16

Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For

we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I
will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their
God, and they shall be My people.”

Second Corinthians 6:16 stands as a reverberation of Exodus 25:8 (cf. Lev.

26:11; Ezek. 37:27), where God promises to dwell with His people. The
LXX translates the Hebrew wəšākantî, “I would dwell,” as ophthēsomai,
“I will be made visible” (Exod. 25:8), inferring that the wilderness
sanctuary symbolized God’s visible presence in the midst of His people. In
the same way the Corinthians, as God’s spiritual temple, were to be His
visible presence in society. In 2 Corinthians 6:16 Paul utilizes a string of
plurals (hēmeis, esmen, zōntos, autois, autōn, autoi), implying that the
whole community is in focus.42 If the phrase naos theou esmen is seen
through the lens of Apollonius corollary, it can be understood as
qualitatively definite (as in 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19). This implies that the temple
of God can be understood both as a specific entity that exists, as well as a
particular quality shared by His people. This dynamic oscillation in
ideations of the temple is characteristic of the fluidity and interrelatedness
that exist between the temple as a heavenly reality and its earthly temporal
aspects.
The subordinating conjunction kathōs, “just as,” establishes the basis of
God’s action—because He inhabits their dwelling as He did the heavenly
and earthly sanctuaries, they are His temple.
Bringing together the discussion of the three Corinthian texts (1 Cor.
3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), our study has shown that Paul’s usage of naos
is multifaceted. He sees the temple both as a particularized entity and also
as a categorical (qualitative) reality. The fact that Paul chose to sometimes
use the article and sometimes omit it is evidence of how closely related he
perceived the particular/definite and qualitative dimensions of the temple.
As a particular reality, the temple language points to the prototypical
reality in heaven from which the earthly temple stands as a mere
representation. Qualitatively, the language denotes the attributes possessed
by the believing community.
The seeming tension between qualitative and definite can be held in a
meaningful balance because the concept of the temple in Jewish reckoning
could be both literal and symbolic with equal profundity. Believers are
God’s symbolic temples in the sense that they correspond to a literal entity
that exists in heaven.
The use of the temple imagery in 1 and 2 Corinthians is meant to
establish in the minds of the Corinthians the unity and oneness of God,
which He wants to be replicated among His people through the Holy
Spirit. Believers should see themselves as a spiritual habitation of Christ,
wherein His holiness and unity preside. Moreover, they are entrusted with
the sacred responsibility of safeguarding such unity.43
2 CORINTHIANS 5:1–4

For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is

torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made
with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house
we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from
heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found
naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being
burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to
be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by
life.

Second Corinthians 5:1–4 depicts the multidimensional view of the temple

germane to the early Jewish and Christian worldviews, where the temple in
its earthly and heavenly dimensions was often held in tandem. An
awareness and appreciation of this fact can aid in grasping the
inclusiveness of the temple motif in the Pauline corpus.
The apostle here engages three terminologies that are laden with
sanctuary imagery. The first is skēnos (5:1, 4), used only here in Scripture.
It carries a similar semantic domain to its cognate skēnē,44 generally
understood to mean “tent” or “temporary abode.”45 The second term is
oikia, which the author uses eight times—six of which refer to a physical
place of abode.46 The third is oikodomēn, used six times by Paul, primarily
in the context of edification. Many conclude that 2 Corinthians 5:1–4
exemplifies the theme of the believers’ receiving glorified bodies, as in 1
Corinthians 15. Thus they understand skēnos, oikia, and oikodomēn to be
referring to the human body. Can these be further pointing to a reality that
exists in heaven in addition to human, temporal, or glorified bodies?
In the genitive construction oikia tou skēnous, “house of our tent” (2
Cor. 5:1),47 oikia is qualified by skēnous. This genitive of reference48 or
apposition49 can be best understood when viewed in its relation to
oikodomēn ek theou echonomen, “we have a building from God” (v. 1).50
The earthly house stands in a parallel relationship to the heavenly building
of which it is an ephemeral pattern. While the context alludes to the post-
resurrection state, also at work here are the interplay of dual realities that
are meant to be complimentary, not exclusive.
The true picture of 2 Corinthians 5:1–4 must be gained by
understanding that the three nouns skēnos, oikia, and oikodomēn constitute
architectural imagery. Their bearing on anthropology is only metaphorical.
Interestingly, the phrase oikia tou skēnous (v. 1) closely parallels the
phrase oikō tēs skēnēs (1 Chron. 9:23), which references the tabernacle.
Hodge thinks that the comparison in 2 Corinthians 5:1 is not between the
earthly body and the heavenly body but rather between the earthly house
and the heavenly house.51 While we should not leave out the
anthropological dimension, clearly Paul saw an interrelation between the
earthly and heavenly spheres and uses the heavenly/earthly temple analogy
to talk of the temporal and eternal human body.
Of interest is the expression “a house not made with hands” (2 Cor. 5:1).
The Greek for “not made with hands” is acheiropoiēton, a compound word
made up of the negating a- and the adjective cheiropoiētos, “made with
hands.” The adjective—with and without the negation—appears eight
other times in the New Testament, and six of these occurrences are temple
related.52 In Mark 14:58 the adjective appears twice. Jesus notes that He
will “destroy” the temple made with hands (His body-temple) and in three
days construct another, “made without hands” (His resurrection body), a
clear reference to His death and resurrection. In Acts 7:48, while referring
to the temple Solomon built, Stephen notes that God “does not dwell in
houses made by human hands [cheiropoiētois]” but rather resides in
heaven. Paul makes a similar point in his sermon at the Areopagus in
Athens: God “does not dwell in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).
Finally, in Hebrews 9:11, 24, the writer refers to the heavenly tabernacle
as the tent not “made with hands” (ou cheiropoiētou and ou gar eis
cheiropoiēta, respectively). The phrase “we have a building from God, a
house not made with hands [acheiropoiēton]” of 2 Corinthians 5:1
resonates with heavenly temple topography.
Second Corinthians 5:1–4 therefore establishes two realities: the earthly,
corporeal body of man and God’s building “not made with hands.” Most
scholars agree that the context of the periscope pertains to the frailty of the
earthly body. Paul seems to be seeking to establish the disparity between
the ideal to be attained and the reality that exists. Underlying such
metaphoric usage is the strong interrelation between the heavenly and
earthly sanctuaries. In the same way that Christ’s body was paralleled to
the temple (Mark 14:58; John 2:19), the apostle compares the glorified
bodies the believers at Corinth will receive to the heavenly sanctuary. This
comparison is meant to create certitude and, more importantly, to show
that the nature of the heavenly sanctuary defines the nature of the glorified
body of the believer, just as the nature of the earthly sanctuary
characterized the nature of temporal bodies.
EPHESIANS 2:6, 19–22

And raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the

heavenly places, in Christ Jesus. . . . So then you are no
longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with
the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus
Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole
building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy
temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built
together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Outside of Corinthians one of the more explicit motifs of the temple can be
found in Ephesians 2:6, 19–22. The theme of the epistle centers on the
organic unity that believers experience in Christ, despite ethnic or
geographic backgrounds. The author uses the motifs “in Christ” and “in
the Lord” as the nexus around which this unity is sustained. Although the
“in Christ” motif resonates throughout the Pauline corpus, it receives its
most replete expression here in Ephesians.53
In Ephesians 2:6 the two compound verbs synēgeiren kai synekathisen
are used to describe the believer’s status. They express “intimate union”
and “incorporation” through a “relationship of solidarity” with Christ as
substitute for humanity.54 In Romans 6:5, 8 the believer’s resurrection is
regarded as future; however, in Ephesians 2:6 it is portrayed as something
that has already happened. This “already but not yet” tension is pervasive
throughout the epistles (e.g., Col. 2:12; 3:1). The believers are seated in
heaven, but at the same time they are not there.
Paul often oscillates between real events and subjective experiences. In
Ephesians 1:20 and Colossians 3:1 Jesus was raised from the dead and is
now seated in the heavenly realms (literal event); the believer, on the other
hand, is united with Christ (experientially; cf. Rom. 6:5; Eph. 1:3; 2:6;
Phil. 3:10).55 The aorist verb sygkathizō, from which synēgeiren derives,
occurs twice as a predicate verb (Luke 22:55; Eph. 2:6), from which both a
literal56 and subjective interpretation can be deduced.57 Some adduce that
the language of Ephesians 2:6 speaks of the resurrection, enthronement (as
High Priest), and exaltation of Christ.58 That the motif of enthronement of
Christ as High Priest is stated points to the heavenly sanctuary motif at
work (see Rev. 4, 5). In the same way the earthly temple served as a
pattern of its heavenly prototype, the church on earth becomes
paradigmatic of its heavenly origin and ultimate destiny.
The expression “at His right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:20)
can further elucidate the sanctuary motif.59 The preposition en generally
denotes several nuances, such as place, time, instrumentation,
accompaniment,60 standard, manner, cause, association, or sometimes as a
substitute for the preposition eis, “into.”61 The context of Ephesians 2
lends to a spatial or temporal rendering; a particular place, sphere, or time
is in view. The phrase en dexia autou can point to a real action at a real
place, that is, a particular function being undertaken by Christ. Clarity can
be sought by looking at the usage of en dexia autou in Scripture.
Generally the phrase en dexia autou denotes assuming a position of
honor and privilege (1 Kings 2:19), guidance (Isa. 45:1), power (Exod.
15:6; Ps. 89:13; Isa. 48:13), victory (Pss. 20:6; 44:3; Isa. 41:10), and
sharing God’s throne (Rev. 3:21)62 and His infinite glory and majesty in
the heavenly sphere.63 In Ephesians 1:20 it is best to see the expression en
dexia autou as denoting a sphere of function and not necessarily a literal
action of sitting at God’s side. For example, in the book of Acts Peter
exclaimed of Jesus, “therefore having been exalted to the right hand of
God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,
He has poured forth this which you both see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Here
Jesus functioning at the right hand of God is portrayed as the One
responsible for pouring upon the disciples the power of the Holy Spirit. To
infer a particular function to the expression is scripturally congruent.
Some see the phrase en tois epouranious (Eph. 2:6) as denoting the
church as the true representative temple of God.64 Thus, the believer who
is a part of God’s church is a member of God’s kingdom. According to
Scripture, Christ is presently interceding on our behalf as High Priest in
the heavenly sanctuary (cf. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25); those who are
incorporated become recipients of His merits. In Revelation 4:4 and 5:11,
the twenty-four elders are seen around the throne worshipping God;
scholars believe that these elders are symbolic representations of the
fullness of all the redeemed on earth.65 Interestingly, although still on
earth, they are depicted as already in heaven praising God. A similar
paradigm is in effect in Ephesians 2; the believer, by being a member of
God’s earthly temple, instinctively participates in the heavenly,
correspondent reality.
When the adjective epouraniois qualifies or is qualified by another
substantive, it often denotes a reality beyond that which it qualified. For
example, the adjective epouraniois qualifies the nouns doxa (1 Cor.
15:40), eikona (1 Cor. 15:49), and skia (Heb. 8:5). Each of these nouns
speaks of an archetypal reality. In the context of Ephesians 2:6, the phrase
“heavenly places” might refer both to an archetypical reality as well as to
its effigy. Interestingly, of the six occurrences of epouraniois with
predicate verbs, two pertain to seating and one to paying homage to the
heavenly abode (Eph. 1:20–21; 2:6; Phil. 2:10; 2 Tim. 4:18). While one
cannot be dogmatic as to the implications of this occurrence, it is not
unreasonable to suppose that the adjective often envisions an
activity/function in a specific place.
Paul continues his description of sacred space with striking statements
in Ephesians 2:12–13 and 19–22. In verses 12–13 he uses civic and spatial
terms to describe the experience of the (Gentile) Ephesian believers before
they came to faith. Before faith the Ephesians were “separate” from Christ,
“excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,” “strangers to the covenants
of promise,” and “far off” (vv. 12–13). Then in verses 19–22 Paul
describes the believers’ status after coming to faith, again using civic and
spatial terminology. Thus, after faith the Ephesians are now “no longer
strangers and aliens,” but “fellow citizens with the saints” and members of
“God’s household”66 (v. 19). Citizenship implies a city; the city in question
is undoubtedly Jerusalem. Which Jerusalem? Clearly, the heavenly New
Jerusalem (cf. Gal. 4:26), since the Gentile believers did not receive
citizenship in the earthly Jerusalem by coming to faith. Moreover,
“household” (oikeioi) implies a house (oikia). The house of God in view is
nothing less than the temple—not the Jerusalem temple, from which
Gentiles were barred on pain of death, but the heavenly temple, the
heavenly house of God to which believers have full access in Christ (Heb.
4:16). We see therefore a spatial movement; the Ephesians were once far
away, but now have been brought into the city of God and even into God’s
house, the temple. All this has happened in the heavenly realms.
The author proceeds with a series of architectural and organic metaphors
of growth and building to denote the people of God, which culminate with
an explicit reference to the temple in Ephesians 2:21, similar to the pattern
followed in 1 Corinthians 3:9–16.67 He uses epoikodomēthentes (built),
themeliō (foundation), akrogōniaiou (cornerstone), oikodomē
synarmologoumenē (building built together), synoikodomeisthe (built
together), and katoikētērion (dwelling place; Eph. 2:20–22). These
metaphors point to the centrality of the architectural motif in the author’s
mind, which finds its most replete expression in naon hagion (v. 21).
There is growing acceptance in scholarship that the akrogōniaiou,
“corner stone” (v. 20), is temple imagery. Some identify the cornerstone as
the top stone at the pinnacle of the temple.68 Others see it as the foundation
stone.69 The word clearly refers to Christ.70

THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Paul’s usage of temple motifs and imagery is deliberate, theological, and
concomitant to the early Jewish and Christian’s temple worldview, which
essentially saw the earthly and heavenly temples as complimentary aspects
of one reality. One was seen not in contrast, but in a complimentary
relation to the other. For Jews, the relation was between the heavenly
temple and the physical temple in Jerusalem. For believers only rarely seen
as a spiritual temple, the physical temple in Jerusalem does not come into
view; the comparison is between the heavenly temple and believers—
individually or corporately—constituting a metaphorical temple.
This study accepts what Bonnington has elucidated; the temple motifs in
the Corinthian Correspondence encapsulates three dominant ethical
themes: (1) the temple as a place of God’s presence and ownership; (2) the
temple as a place of God’s holiness and separateness; and (3) the temple as
a central, focused, and bounded sacred space with spatial and sacral
integrity.71 While the ethical dimension of Paul’s temple imagery cannot
be ignored, it should be understood within the broader Jewish temple
tradition.
The Old Testament posits God’s abode as being not only in heaven (cf.
1 Kings 8:39, 43, 49) but also in the earthly temple (cf. v. 13). Therefore,
when Ephesians 2:6 refers to believers as already raised up and seated with
Christ in the heavenly places, it refers to the literal, heavenly temple where
Christ abides is by no means incongruent.72 In Qumran both the elect on
earth and the inhabitants of heaven are regarded as constituting God’s
eschatological temple;73 to see the believers on earth as encapsulating the
heavenly abode finds consonance in extra-biblical Jewish writings.
O’Brien enunciates that Ephesians 2:20 is a heavenly entity where God
dwells. However, this temple is also His people within whom He dwells
through the Holy Spirit. The believers have metaphorically already risen
and been seated with Christ (vv. 4–6). They are now citizens with the
saints of the holy city (v. 19). O’Brien notes that believers have access to
heaven “through Christ’s mediatorial work” and the “indwelling of the
Holy Spirit.”74 Hence, for Paul it can be said that the temple is anyone in
which the Spirit of God dwells.
 The temple is indicative of God’s jurisdiction (divine space) where His
presence and sacred trust abounds. As mentioned, the sanctuary on earth—
the church—becomes an extension of the heavenly sanctuary through the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The violation of either God’s sacred space or
His trust evokes the sternest of punishment from Him on the offender. No
wonder God wants His people to inculcate the virtues characteristic of
abiding in His presence.

CONCLUSION
This study concludes that (1) the sanctuary motifs employed by Paul show
the interconnectedness between the heavenly and earthly spheres; (2) the
church as God’s temple is emblematic of the higher reality of the
prototypical temple after which believers must pattern their lives; (3)
believers who constitute the temple through their lives can bring honor or
defamation to it, either of which has eternal consequences; and (4) the
language used to convey the sanctuary imagery suggests that Paul
envisioned the temple both as a collective and individualized entity. Thus
the individual person is just as much the temple as the church as a whole.
This dual focus addresses the division and moral laxity that besieged the
Corinthian church. Disunity and immorality pose an affront to the holiness
and sanctity of the sanctuary.
Finally, there is a pervading thread which runs through all the explicit
temple motifs in the Epistles. The heavenly reality of the sanctuary enables
the verisimilitude of the metaphorical dimension, as is evidently seen
prima facie in the Epistles. While it is true that the texts used were not
written so as to construct an a priori doctrine of the sanctuary, they do
establish an a posteriori clear existence of an overarching sanctuary
awareness in Paul’s worldview congruent with his Jewish heritage. More
than that, the texts show that the synergy existing between the sanctuary,
the church, and the individual believer played a key factor in Paul’s use of
sanctuary motifs. The oscillation between heavenly realities and their
metaphorical counterparts attests that the sanctuary was made holy by the
presence of the Holy Spirit, which also holds true for the church and
believer.
10
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY IN 2
THESSALONIANS 2:4: AN EXEGETICAL AND
INTERTEXTUAL APPROACH
MARIO PHILLIP

S econd Thessalonians 2:1–12, the clearest Pauline apocalyptic

prophecy,1 has attracted considerable attention. Scholars have wrestled
with several pertinent elements: its biblical antecedent; the possible
meanings of “the man of lawlessness” (v. 3); to katechon, the restrainer
(neuter); ho katechōn, the restrainer (masculine) (vv. 6, 7); and the temple
of God (v. 4). While all of these are important, this study will primarily
aim to identify “the temple of God.”
The appellation “the temple of God” has been understood to refer to the
Christian church,2 a literal temple in Jerusalem,3 a future Jewish temple,4
the Holy of Holies in an earthly temple,5 an apocalyptic temple that is
neither metaphorical nor material,6 the site of God’s throne,7 and
unfulfilled, first-century rhetoric.8
Of the multitude of views, William Neil (quoting Ps. 11:4 and Rev.
11:1) is one of the few who explicitly state that “the temple of God” in 2
Thessalonians 2:4 refers to God’s temple in heaven.9 Although less
explicit, Ladd and Frame also suggest that the term can be a reference to a
reality in the heavenly realm. Callow enunciates that it can refer to “some
other place” than the church or the Jerusalem temple.10
Richard has also intimated the need for an alternative rendering of the
widely held views on “the temple of God.” He sees the temple and the
divine throne functioning as “heavenly realities.”11 Although he advances
that the language of the temple is symbolic of the locality of “God’s
power,” implicitly he infers to the heavenly sphere where God’s throne
exists. Beale has also opened up the possibility of a heavenly referent to
“the temple of God.” While he holds that the primary referent is the
worldwide Christian church, he admits that the temple in heaven is a valid
secondary application, since heaven serves as the center of the
eschatological temple. This temple, by extension, still dwells in believers
on earth.12
Owing to the indeterminacy of the precise referent of the appellation
“the temple of God,” this study seeks to explore an interpretation that is
coherent and contextually viable and not necessarily exclusive to other
views. This will be done by engaging in an exegetical analysis of the
passage, while concomitantly taking into consideration the possible
antecedents from which the author draws his paradigm.

LITERARY ANALYSIS
Second Thessalonians 2:1–12 must be understood contextually in light of 1
Thessalonians 4:13–5:11. Apart from the strong thematic coherence
between the two passages, there are also strong semantic and structural
parallels. In 4:13 the phrase “I would not have you to be ignorant,
brethren, concerning them which are asleep”13 introduces the parousia
pericope;14 likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 the phrase “now we
request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”
introduces a similar eschatological pericope.15
The central axiom of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 stems from an apparent
eschatological misunderstanding. The need for it likely arose from a letter
written by Paul’s opponents posing as him and claiming that the day of the
Lord had dawned and these believers had missed the eschaton—or were
living in a state of over-realized eschatology (2:1–2).16 Paul gives reasons
why the Thessalonians should not be shaken about the current
eschatological distortions and outlines signs that will precede the parousia:

• The apostasy (falling away) (v. 3)

• The appearance of the man of lawlessness (v. 3)
• The blasphemous work of the man of lawlessness in the temple
of God (v. 4)
• The miracles and signs that will be performed (v. 9)
• The removal of the restrainer (vv. 6, 7)
• The strong delusion that will cause mass deception (v. 11)

In 2 Thessalonians 1:4 Paul commends them for their steadfastness in

persecution and tribulation; he reminds them about the eschatological,
righteous judgment of God on both the righteous and unrighteous, which
reckons them worthy or unworthy of the kingdom (vv. 5–12). The present
sufferings are posited as evidence of their judgment (v. 5). Paul then
describes the judgment, its subject, and the consequences (vv. 6–12).17 On
the one hand, in verse 6 he uses the verb antapodounai to refer to God’s
recompence to the ungodly;18 on the other hand, he uses endoxasthēnai to
refer to Christ being glorified in His saints. This apocalyptic pericope
concludes with a prayer admonishing the Thessalonians to stand firm in
light of their glorious future (2:13–15) and a benediction invoking God to
encourage them to stand firm (vv. 16–17). The letter concludes with an
exhortation to evangelism (3:1–5), a rebuke of the ataktoi (vv. 6–15),19 and
an apparently built-in authenticating mechanism that is bracketed by two
benedictory prayers (vv. 16–18).20
The phrase “the temple of God” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is bracketed by
two eschatological judgment motifs: 1:5–12 and 2:11–12.21 The central
themes highlighted are deliverance of the saints, the vindication of God’s
name, and the punishment of the wicked. The association of judgment,
vindication, and deliverance with the temple of God is in consonance with
the Old Testament prophets, who saw these as constitutive functions of
God within the heavenly sanctuary.22 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 must
therefore be interpreted in the context of God’s judgment and its relation to
the temple of God and its functions.
The heavenly sanctuary motif can be discerned in 2 Thessalonians 1:9,
10. In commenting on the final reward of the wicked, Paul states that they
“will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the
Lord and from the glory of His power” (NASB). Of interest is the phrase
prosōpou tou kyriou (“presence of the Lord”), which is used extensively
throughout Scripture to reference the wrath emanating from God’s
presence (Num. 16:46), the earthly sanctuary (Num. 17:8, 9), the heavenly
sanctuary (Zech. 2:13; 3:1), the ark of the covenant (Josh. 4:5, 7; 7:6), the
assembly of the people (Josh. 20:2), beseeching the Lord in prayer (1
Kings 13:6),23 judgment (Ps. 33:16),24 God’s directive (Jon. 1:3, 10), and
forgiveness (Acts 3:19–20). The cognate phrase to prosōpo tou theou is
used in Genesis 3:8 to depict the holiness of God and in Hebrews 9:24
with reference to Christ entering the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary.
The activities associated with the prosōpo tou theou are sanctuary-related
functions. It seems that the phrase is an allusion to the heavenly sanctuary
and its functions are deemed pertinent to the administration of the cosmos.

DANIELIC BACKGROUND
Identifying the particular referent of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 is important
in putting the pericope into its proper perspective and ascertaining direct
and indirect influences. Furthermore, in looking at the background it will
be worthwhile to consider the principle of conceptual transference, which
advocates that the New Testament writers in their theological arguments
did not merely use detached proof texts from the Old Testament. Rather,
they quoted sentences, phrases, passages, or even clusters of certain
chapters together that served as pointers to the whole context.25 The words,
phrases, concepts, and motifs in the New Testament cannot be understood
apart from the context of their Old Testament background26—bearing in
mind the specific context of the New Testament, which shares dynamic
correspondances.27
Paul’s description of the man of lawlessness and his blasphemous work
in the temple of God has its immediate antecedent in the apocalyptic genre
of the Old Testament, primarily the writings of Daniel. There is a
consensus among scholars that Daniel 7–11 provides the primary
historical, structural, and theological context for 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12.28
Many scholars see Antiochus Epiphanes as the dominant personage in
Daniel corresponding to the lawless figure in 2:3;29 others see Pompey,
Gaius Caligula,30 an eschatological figure/false prophet,31 the papacy,32 an
apotelesmatic personage,33 a supreme eschatological false prophet,34 a
single person used as Satan’s instrument,35 Satan’s superman,36 or the
culmination of the evil in the world in an antitheistic revolt.37 We will not
discuss this issue at length; suffice it to say that the little horn power of
Daniel 7 and 8 represents the ultimate enemy of God in historic times,
culminating in the eschaton.
Since it is widely accepted that Daniel 7–11 constitutes the immediate
referent of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, it is logical to infer that the lawless one of
2:3 must be synonymous—if not identical—to the little horn power of
Daniel. The chart below illustrates the parallels between Daniel and 2
Thessalonians 2.38

2 Thess. 2 Dan. 7 Dan. 8 Dan. 11

“Man of “He will intend “It will fling

lawlessness” (v. 3 to make truth to the
NASB) alterations in ground and
times and in perform its will
law” (v. 25b and prosper”
 NASB) (v. 12b NASB)

“Opposeth and “And he shall “It grew up to “His heart

exalteth himself speak great the host of shall be
above all that is words against heaven and lifted up;
called God, or that the most High, caused some of and he shall
is worshipped” and shall wear the host and cast down
(v. 4a) out the saints some of the many ten
of the most stars to fall to thousands”
High” (v. 25a) the earth, and it (v. 12b);
trampled them “and he
down. It even shall exalt
magnified itself himself and
to be equal with magnify
the Commander himself
of the host” above every
(vv. 10, 11a god”
NASB) (v. 36b)

“Displaying “This horn “And he will “And will

himself as being possessed eyes magnify himself speak
God” (v. 4c like the eyes of in his heart, and monstrous
NASB) a man and a he will destroy things
mouth uttering many while they against the
great are at ease. He God of
boasts . . . . will even gods”
[The horn] had oppose the (v. 36c
eyes and a Prince of NASB);
mouth uttering princes” (v. 25b “For he will
great boasts NASB) magnify
and . . . was himself
larger in above them
appearance all” (v. 37c
than its NASB)
associates”
(vv. 8, 20
NASB)

“He as God sitteth “And it “Forces

in the temple of removed the from him
God” (v. 4b) regular sacrifice will arise,
from Him, and desecrate
the place of His the
sanctuary was sanctuary
thrown down” fortress, and
(v. 11b NASB) do away
with the
regular
sacrifice.
And they
will set up
the
abomination
of
desolation”
(v. 31
NASB)

“The Lord will “And they shall “But he will be “Yet he will
slay with the take away his broken without not prevail”
breath of His dominion, to human agency” (v.12c
mouth and bring to consume and to (v. 25c NASB) NASB)
an end by the destroy it unto
appearance of His the end”
coming” (v. 8 (v. 26b)
NASB)

“The one whose “Eyes of man” “A king will

coming is in (v. 8) arise, insolent
accord with the and skilled in
activity of Satan, intrigue” (v. 23
with all power and NASB)
signs and false
wonders, and with
all the deception of
wickedness for
those who perish,
because they did
 not receive the
love of the truth so
as to be saved”
(vv. 9–10 NASB)

“All may be “But the court “Unto two

judged who did not will sit for thousand and
believe the truth, judgment” three hundred
but took pleasure (v. 26a NASB) days; then shall
in wickedness” (v. the sanctuary be
12 NASB) cleansed”
(v. 14)

In addition to the above, Daniel 8:23 uses ainigmata to refer to the

activities of the little horn. It literally means “riddle” or “dim” (cf. 1 Cor.
13:12). This trait of the little horn can be linked to the man of lawlessness
and his terasin pseudous, “false wonders” (2 Thess. 2:9), which cause
many to be deceived (v. 11). Like the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8, he
speaks enigmatically so that truth is distorted, misconstrued, and
eventually believed. Such similarities between the little horns of Daniel 7
and 8 and the man of lawlessness equate them; the passages are referring
to the same entity.
In his study of apocalyptic prophecies, Shea recognizes that there is
often a horizontal-vertical interplay between heaven and earth. This is
evident in Daniel 7. The prophet is first directed horizontally to the four
beasts—and particulary to the little horn and its work (vv. 2–8); then
vertically to heaven, where the heavenly court convenes (vv. 9–10); then
back to earth, where he is shown the ultimate demise of the little horn
(vv. 11–12); then vertically back to heaven, where the Son of Man is
celebrated as victor (vv. 13–14);39 finally, the saints on earth are given the
kingdom (v. 27). This horizontal-vertical interaction is characteristic of the
correspondence that exists between the earthy and heavenly realms and the
earthly and heavenly sanctuaries, where events in one affect the other.
The little horn disrupts the ministration of the sanctuary, placing its
functions under the little horn’s control, distorting the true services, and
casting the truth about its ministry to the ground. The affront to the
sanctuary concerns its function and the prerogatives of the one entrusted
with that function.40 Since the activities in the danielic sanctuary take place
in heaven before being replicated on earth, and considering that 2
Thessalonians 2:1–12 draws from Daniel 7–11 linguistically and
theologically, it is logical to conclude that the temple of 2 Thessalonians
2:4 is the heavenly temple.41 Both Daniel and Paul are drawing their
inference from an end-time apoclayptic schema, which John would later
extrapolate upon in Revelation.

NEW TESTAMENT PARALLELS

Apart from Hebrews 8–9, Revelation,42 and possibly John 14:1–3,43 clear
New Testament references to the heavenly sanctuary are sparse.44 There
are however strong currents of thought which see the heavenly
temple/sanctuary motif as one that provided an overarching framework
upon which Paul and other biblical writers based their theology and end-
time eschatological outlook.45
A common temple metaphor is found in 1 Peter 2:5, 9, where the apostle
reminds believers, “You also, as living stones, are being built up as a
spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But you are a chosen race, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that
you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of
darkness into His marvelous light” (NASB).46 Peter is affirming Christ as
the foundation stone, which the church is built upon47 and the pattern
which every believer must imitate.48 The reference to the church as a
“spiritual house” and a “royal priesthood” attest to God’s indwelling
presence.
Within the Pauline corpus the temple motif can be found in 1
Corinthians 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19–22; and—
to a lesser extent—Galatians 4:24–26.49 While these allude to the church
and its members either individually or corporately, the heavenly temple is
also in view, at least in the background; the two are not mutually
exclusive. Thus the earthly temple was based on a model of a heavenly
archetypal.
This is also evident in Jewish thought, with the Qumran community
being a primary example. They believed that the temple in Jerusalem was
corrupted and no longer God’s dwelling. Therefore God had entrusted the
Holy Spirit to dwell within their community, which became a type of
temple.50 In fact, the sectarians attributed to themselves several
appellations that attested to this belief such, as “everlasting plantation, a
house of holiness for Israel,”51 “holy house of Israel,” “house of holiness
for Aaron,” “community of holiness,” “[possessing the] spirit of
holiness,”52 and “holy house for Aaron.”53 Several passages speak of the
eschatological temple from the perspective of the heavenly Jerusalem,
while there are also many references to the heavenly temple.54 The
Qumran community also believed in a heavenly temple and in their
community as a temple.
It is possible that Paul, in his usage of the temple motifs, coalesced two
trends without necessarily blurring their distinctiveness or undermining
their close intricacy.

SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS
The articular phrase ho anthrōpos tēs anomias, “the man of lawlessness,”
attests to a figure par excellence.55 Paul’s lawless figure stands as the arch
anti-God apogee and has counterparts which share its character and
disposition. Therefore it seems prudent to see the antichrist as a system
that exhibits certain anti-God attitudes and tendencies through human
agents. From a cosmic perspective, Satan can be seen as the prototypical
lawless figure from which all subsequent, similar personages draw
inspiration and authority.
According to 2 Thessalonians 2:4–9, the man of lawlessness: is a
blasphemous power that endeavors to usurp divine prerogatives in the
temple of God (v. 4), is kept in check (vv. 6, 7), will be destroyed by the
coming of Jesus (v. 8), is energized by Satan in his work (v. 9), and
deceives and leads others away from the truth, resulting in their ultimate
destruction (vv. 10–12).
The anti-God figure is described as one who opposes and exalts himself
above all that is called God or worshipped. The Greek uses two participles.
The first, antikeimenos, carries a broad semantic range, including one who
(1) opposes (Exod. 23:22; Luke 13:17; 1 Cor. 16:9; Gal. 5:17; Phil. 1:28),
(2) wages war (2 Sam. 8:10), (3) assaults or attacks (Esther 8:11), (4)
accuses (Zech. 3:1), (5) resists (Luke 21:15; 1 Macc. 14:7; 2 Macc. 10:26;
3 Macc. 7:9), and (6) is an adversary (Isa. 66:6).56 Antikeimenos is a
compound word made up of the preposition anti (“against” or “in place
of”) and the verb keimai (“to lie or stand”), and it indicates a horizontal
action within the human sphere, though the target is God.
The second participle, hyperairomenos, carries the sense of (1) exalting
oneself above another (2 Chron. 32:23), (2) going beyond (Ps. 37:5
[38:4]), (3) reaching a pinnacle (Ps. 71:16 [72:16]), (4)
surpassing/excelling (Prov. 31:29), (5) overcoming (Sir. 48:13), and (6)
exercising an authoritative hand (2 Macc. 5:23).57 The vertical ascent of
the lawless figure is depicted by the preposition hyper in its spatial and
comparative nuances—meaning “above and beyond”—and the verb airō,
“to take up.” The idea emanating from combining these is that of one who
vies to rise above God and assume His prerogatives.
The action of the man of lawlessness mirrors not only the little horn of
Daniel but also the self-aggrandizing claims of the anti-God figure of
Isaiah 14:13–14: “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the
stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the
north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself
like the Most High” (NASB). Even more daring is the claim of the king of
Tyre in Ezekiel 28:2: “I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods” (NASB). The
man of lawlessness no doubt possesses a similar egoistic taunt as the anti-
God figure of Isaiah and Ezekiel, which is evidence that all three are
driven by the same ambition—usurping God’s sovereignty.
The sanctuary motif becomes apparent in Paul’s choice of the word
sebasma, which, apart from 2 Thessalonians 2:4, is used only in Acts
17:2358 and is virtually absent from the LXX.59 While the most-attested
meaning is “object of worship,”60 it is also translated as “devotional
activity”61 and “sanctuary.”62 Cognates of sebasma carry the idea of
worship, either to God (Josh. 4:24; 22:25; 24:35; Job 1:9; Isa. 18:14;
29:13; Jon. 1:9; Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7; Acts 16:14; 18:7, 13), or other gods
(Josh. 24:33; Acts 19:27), or the worshippers themselves (Acts 13:43, 50;
17:4, 17).
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4 the man of lawlessness goes against the divine
order, not against idols. That sebasma is preceded by the adjective panta,
“everything,” indicates that its use includes everything associated with the
worship of God, whether in heaven or on earth. Sebasma is therefore cultic
terminology denoting objects or places of worship,63 and by implication
worship carried on therein. It encapsulates the progression from a
horizontal opposition to God’s things on earth to a vertical opposition
directed against the heavenly divine order.
The man of lawlessness attempts—and evidently succeeds—in sitting in
“the temple of God,” a reference either to an entity on earth, the heavenly
temple, or both. In the New Testament, naos (temple) can refer to (1) the
temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 23:16–17, 21, 35; 26:61; 27:5, 40, 51; Luke
1:9, 21, 22; 23:45), (2) the body of Jesus (John 2:19–21), (3) a dwelling
place of idols (Acts 17:24), (4) the heavenly sanctuary (Rev. 3:12; 7:15;
11:1, 2, 19; 14:15, 17; 15:5, 6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22), and (5) the community
of believers/the church (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:19; Eph. 2:21).64
Apart from 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and 1 Corinthians 3:17, whenever Paul
uses naos it is anarthrous. While certain substantives are definite by nature
—whether or not prefaced by the article—whenever the article is used it
adds prominence and definiteness to that which it precedes. Thus, the
articular use of naos in 2:4 identifies a definite reality—the existence of an
actual temple.65 Even if one is tempted to see this reality as the church, the
church is a microcosm pointing towards a greater macrocosmic reality.
Paul’s primary focus is not the horizontal scope of the “man of
lawlessness” but his vertical ascent into the heavenly realm. In that sense,
the sanctuary in focus is the heavenly temple.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 Paul uses a series of monadic constructions:
tēs parousias tou kyriou (v. 1), hē hēmera tou kyriou (v. 2), hē apostasia
(v. 3),66 ho anthrōpos tēs anomias . . . ho huios tēs apōleias (v. 3),67 ton
naon tou theou (v. 4), to katechon (v. 6), to mystērion . . . ho katechōn
(v. 7), and tē epiphaneia tēs parousias (v. 8). These monadic substantives
denote that the given designations are unique—the only ones of their kind.
A degree of certainty and literality can be accrued to them. In light of this,
ton naon tou theou, in 2:4 should be understood as the only one of its kind.
Since the earthly sanctuary is a pattern of an original (Exod. 25:9; Heb.
9:24), it cannot be designated as the only one of its kind. This leaves the
heavenly sanctuary as the prototypical reality being referred to. This is
confirmed in Hebrews 8:1 and 2, where the only true tabernacle is the
heavenly tabernacle that God Himself built.

ANALYSIS OF 2 THESSALONIANS 2:4 AND 2:1–12

The temple of God constitutes the central idea of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and
2:1–12, as illustrated by the following chiastic structures of those verses:

2 Thessalonians 2:4

A. Opposes and exalts

B. Over all that is called god
C. Worship/sanctuary
C’. Temple of God
 B’. Sits
A’. Displaying himself as God

2 Thessalonians 2:1–12

A. Coming of Jesus and gathering of the saints (v. 1)

B. Mental duress of believers (vv. 2, 3a)
C. Rebellion and revelation of the lawless one (v. 3b)
D. Opposes and exalts over all called god or worship (v. 4a)
D’. Sit in the temple of God (v. 4b)
C’. Lawless one restrained by restrainer (vv. 6, 7b)
B’. Mystery of lawlessness at work (v. 7a)
A’. Revealing the lawless one, his work, and his followers
(vv. 8–12)

In the first chiastic structure of 2:4, worship and the temple occupy the
central focus in the same way that they do in Daniel 7 and 8. In 2
Thessalonians 2:1–12, the action of the lawless one in the temple of God
again occupies the focal point. All other elements revolve around this
action.
The intent of the lawless one is made further explicit by the word
kathisai, “to sit.” The action of sitting is used in apocalyptic/eschatological
contexts in reference to (1) Jesus sitting on the throne (Rev. 4:2, 3; 4:9, 10;
5:1, 7, 13; 7:10, 15; 20:11; 21:15), (2) the twenty-four elders sitting on
their thrones (11:16), (3) the Son of Man sitting on the cloud (14:14, 15,
16), (4) the harlot sitting on many waters (17:1), (5) people sitting upon
the earth (14:6), (6) sitting at God’s right hand (Matt. 26:64; Col. 3:1; Heb.
1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), (7) sitting on thrones of judgment (Rev. 20:4) or
with God (3:21), and (8) sitting in Moses’s seat (Matt. 23:2). As such, the
act of sitting may denote authority.68 In wanting to sit on God’s throne, the
man of lawlessness exemplifies a disregard for God’s sovereignty and an
attempt at usurping His prerogative.
The suggestion that the sanctuary referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is
the heavenly one is corrobated by the use of the neuter and masculine
participles katechon and katechōn (2 Thess. 2:6, 7) referring to the
restrainer restraining the man of lawlessness. In the New Testament the
neuter participle can be used in reference to a personal entity (e.g., Matt.
1:20; 3:16; Luke 1:35; Acts 2:29; Rom. 4:14) as well as to actions (e.g., 1
Cor. 12:7; 2 Cor. 12:1; Rom. 2:18; Phil. 1:10). This opens up the
possibility that the neuter here can refer to either a state or function of the
masculine katechōn. Both participles are articular. Grammarians observe
that the participle often takes the article when it is meant to distinguish a
particular person or object by their qualities or actions.69 Moreover, the
article is repeated if the substantives refer to different persons (Rev. 1:3),
or if the same person is meant where different aspects are presented.70 In
the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7, one entity is spoken of, but different
aspects of that entity are highlighted. In the one instance the function is
given, while in the other the one performing the action is identified. The
singularity of purpose and the identity of the figure denoted by the
participles beckon its association with a divine being.71
In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, the restrainer would be at work: heōs ek mesou
genētai, which according to BDAG should be translated “until he is
removed from the scene.” There is a twofold sense in which the phrase
heōs ek mesou can be understood. Some interpret it in an active sense,
referring to the man of lawlessness coming out of a state of restraining.
Others understand it as passive, denoting the removal of the restraint on
the man of lawlessness.72 Since the verb genētai is in middle voice, it
appears that the restrainer removes the restraint on the man of lawlessness
and allows him to build his work of apostasy.
One can deduce the character of the lawless man by the name he bears;
he will not have any regard for the law of God (compare with the little
horn in Daniel 7:25, who endeavors to change laws). Sin and disobedience
are associated with lawlessness (1 John 2:4; 3:4). Conversely, the
Johannine writings associate obedience to the law as an identifying mark
of God’s people and their love for him (John 14:15; 15:10; 1 John 2:3, 4;
3:22, 24; 5:2, 3; Rev. 14:12; 12:17). The identical appositional phrase ho
huios tēs apōleias in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is also used in John 17:12 to refer
to Judas’s death. Paul uses the apōleias/apōleian word group elsewhere to
refer to those who are the recipients of God’s wrath (Rom. 9:22) and for
those who are obstacles to the gospel (Phil. 1:28; 3:19) as well those who
fall victim to the allurement of riches (1 Tim. 6:9). In most cases where
this word group is used, the destruction that resulted was an ultimatum of
one’s choosing, with no indication given as to the reversibility or finality
of the choices, except in the cases of Judas and the man of lawlessness. It
seems reasonable to conclude that the title “son of perdition” (2 Thess.
2:3) is a designation that highlights his ultimate destiny.
The reference to ho anomos in verse 2 Thessalonians 2:8 invariably
points back to the ho anthrōpos tēs anomias of verse 3 and the to
mystērion tēs anomias of verse 7, all referring to the same entity. The verb
apokalyptō is used three times in verses 1–12, and in every case the
referent is the lawless one (see vv. 3, 6, 8). The author gives much
emphasis to the revelation of the lawless one; it seems that the revealing of
this anti-God personage is an integral aspect to the fruition of God’s
judgment, especially in light of the staunch threat posed against the
sanctuary and the sovereignty of God. That the parousia of Christ destroys
the lawless figure suggests that the events surrounding his blasphemous
actions in the sanctuary (v. 4), and the divine restraint imposed (vv. 6, 7)
must be understood from the perspective of their significance to the
parousia.
The events that precede the parousia are closely associated with the
heavenly sanctuary. The apostasy, the seating in the temple of God, the
restraining work, and the removal of the restraint are all connected to the
sanctuary with obvious implications for the earth. While the apostasy
would be evident upon the earth, the issues involved are intricately related
to the heavenly sanctuary and God’s sovereignty. This can be clearly seen
in Daniel 7–8. For example, in 7:25 the little horn power is brought to its
culmination and destroyed when the judgment is called in the heavenly
courts (vv. 9, 26). The divine agency in the ultimate destruction of the little
horn power is evident in the phrase “he will be broken without human
agency” (Dan. 8:25 NASB). The fate of the anti-God power in the book of
Daniel emanates from the judgment of God within the sanctuary—the very
place that was defiled (8:11–14; cf. Rev. 13:6). In the same way, the fate
of the man of lawlessness comes from the sanctuary—the very place
where he attempts to sit (vv. 4, 8). As he is revealed and summarily
destroyed, his domain is broken, paving the way for the final establishment
of God’s eternal kingdom.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10, the author diverts from his sequence back to
the events immediately preceding the parousia, when the restraint of
lawlessness will be lifted. He emphasizes the miracles, power (v. 9),
deception, and falsity of the lawless one energized by Satan (v. 9). This
description parallels the false Christ of the Gospels—who will appear prior
to the parousia (see Matt. 24:24)—and the blasphemous beasts of
Revelation 13. The action of the lawless one in verses 9 and 10 can be seen
as contiguous with his actions in verses 3 and 4—all are relating to events
immediately preceding the parousia.

CONCLUSION
This study has established that the primary reference of the phrase “temple
of God” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is to the heavenly sanctuary, while the
secondary reference is to the body of believers. In Scripture the sanctuary
in heaven and the temple on earth are not mutually exclusive but closely
connected (Ps. 11:4; Isa. 6:1–3). What happens in one indirectly or directly
has implications on the other. Furthermore, the presence of God makes the
sanctuary holy, and His presence is promised to those who worship Him
sincerely (Matt. 18:20; John 4:23–24).
It is further suggested by this study that the work of the man of
lawlessness and his usurpation of God’s prerogatives must be understood
through the context of similar apocalyptic prophecies. The understanding
rendered to the sanctuary in Daniel accrues synonymously to 2
Thessalonians 2. Though the work of the man of lawlessness—like the
little horn of Daniel—is manifested on earth, its ultimate target is the
heavenly sanctuary and God, who dwells there.
It can thus be deduced that 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4 must be understood
within the framework of the end-time judgment; just as God will
pronounce His ultimate judgment on both the righteous and unrighteous, at
His appearance He will pronounce the Antichrist’s ultimate judgment. The
revelation of the man of lawlessness should serve as an indicator of the
coming judgment that awaits all, including the man of lawlessness who
attempts to counterfeit Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary.
Based on the eschatological implication of the judgment and the work of
the man of lawlessness, “the temple of God” can be understood as the
heavenly sanctuary, which stands in a dynamic and interrelated
relationship to the earthly sanctuary, the church. The work of the man of
lawlessness, though carried out within the temporal sphere of the earth,
relates to the heavenly temple and its work of salvation and judgment.
The good news that Paul gave to the Thessalonians is still relevant and
applicable to us today. Satan and all his emmisaries will be annihiliated
once and for all despite their seeming proclivity to dominance. Ellen White
enunciated, “In the annals of human history, the growth of nations, the rise
and fall of empires, appear as if dependent on the will and prowess of man;
the shaping of events seems, to a great degree, to be determined by his
power, ambition, or caprice. But in the word of God the curtain is drawn
aside, and we behold, above, behind, and through all the play and
counterplay of human interest and power and passions, the agencies of the
All-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own
will.”73 Scripture is clear that despite the insurmountable wit and prowess
of the man of lawlessness, his ultimate destiny is certain; God Himself will
destroy him at the eschaton (2 Thess. 2:8–9), and thus his present work is
not only limited but also a temporary stunt designed to destabilize and
instill fear in the minds of God’s chosen. The book of 2 Thessalonians
assures the believer of God’s ultimate control over the affairs of this
universe; He will bring everyone, even the man of lawlessness, and every
deed into judgment in His own time. Although God’s temple and its
ministration are under attack, their vindication will come coinciding with
the parousia. As the true possessor of the temple He will one day reveal
through His just judgments, thus enabling all creation to declare “Great
and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are
Your ways, O King of the saints” (Rev. 15:3).
11
ATONEMENT AND INAUGURATION AT THE
HEAVENLY SANCTUARY: A WIDER
PERSPECTIVE TO JESUS’S ASCENSION IN
HEBREWS
FELIX H. CORTEZ

A majority of scholars hold that the author of Hebrews uses Day of

Atonement imagery to describe Jesus’s ascension and that a
typological relationship exists between them.1 Edgar V. McKnight and
Christopher Church clearly summarize this view:

In Hebrews, the ritual of the Day of Atonement

metaphorically describes Jesus’ work of salvation as a Day
of Atonement ceremony performed in heaven (Heb 6–9).
Jesus is the high priest of a heavenly sanctuary. He enters
into the most holy place with his own blood to achieve
eternal redemption for the people.2

Most scholars consider that Hebrews structures the description of

Jesus’s ascension in three stages that correspond to the Day of Atonement
ritual: (1) the passion and death of Jesus correspond to the immolation of
the victim (Heb. 9:13, 14); (2) the ascension to heaven corresponds to the
entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies (vv. 11–12); and (3)
Jesus’s purification of believers corresponds to the purification of the
heavenly sanctuary (v. 23).3 Some add a fourth stage: Jesus’s second
coming corresponds to the exit of the high priest from the Holy of Holies
on the Day of Atonement (v. 28).4 Thus, Emile Guers calls Hebrews “[le]
divin commentaire” of Leviticus 16,5 and Timo Eskola refers to the cultic
argument of Hebrews as a “Christological pesher on the cultic text of
Leviticus (16:15).”6
However, the issue is not as straightforward as it seems. Harold
W. Attridge has correctly warned, “The application of the model of the
Yom Kippur ritual to the death of Christ in Hebrews is a complex and
subtle hermeneutical effort.”7 First it is important to recognize that the Day
of Atonement is not the dominant motif, either in the general argument of
the letter or its central section. It is explicitly referred to in three passages
in the central section: Hebrews 9:6–7, 24–25; and 10:1–4.8 Nevertheless,
Scullion—who wrote a traditio-historical study of the Day of Atonement
—rightly reminds us that “the key to this central section is not Yom
Kippur itself, but the connection that the author makes between the cult
and the new covenant.”9 Thus, Hebrews describes Jesus mainly as the
Mediator of a new covenant (7:22; 8:6; 9:15) and refers to His sacrifice
primarily as the “blood of the covenant” (10:29; cf. 12:24; 13:20).10 This is
especially evident in that Hebrews emphasizes the cultic image of the
sprinkling of Jesus’s blood in heaven—but not in the context of the Day of
Atonement.11 Instead, it describes this sprinkling as part of the
inauguration of the new covenant (10:19, 29; 12:24; 13:20; cf. 9:15–23).
In fact, it is the blood ritual for the ratification of the Mosaic covenant,
not the blood ritual of the Day of Atonement, that provides the cultic
image to present Jesus’s death and entrance in the heavenly sanctuary as
providing forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:15–23).12
Thus, Loader was correct in warning us that the peculiarity of the Day
of Atonement “must not be stressed so much, that it is described as the
essential theme or predominant thought of this section.”13 The examples
mentioned at the beginning of this chapter show that it is difficult to
escape the temptation of overemphasizing the role of the Day of
Atonement in the argument of Hebrews. In fact, despite his own warning
against this mistake, Loader has been critiqued by Harold Attridge for the
same reason:

In his discussion of the high priestly act of Christ, Loader—

while noting the rich texture of Hebrews—concentrates
primarily on the Yom Kippur typology. While this is
certainly an important element of the author’s complex
argument in chapter 9, it is not clearly the dominant one.
Rather, what seems to ultimately control the development
of his theme is the notion that Christ’s death is primarily a
covenant sacrifice, a theme to which Loader gives
insufficient attention.14
 I want to suggest a perspective different from a Day of Atonement
typology that may better explain Hebrews’s exposition of Jesus’s
ascension and ministry in heaven. This perspective has three main
premises:

1. Hebrews conceives Jesus’s ascension to heaven as the

inauguration of His office as “Son” at the “right hand of God”
(Heb. 1:2–3, 13; 10:12–13; cf. 8:1–2; 12:1–2; cf. 4:14–16). In
this sense the title Son—or Son of God—is eminently used in
Hebrews as a royal title.
2. Hebrews understands the title Son as the fulfillment of the
promise made to David, which is applied to Jesus explicitly in
Hebrews 1:5: “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son” (cf. 2
Sam. 7:14).
3. All other achievements related to Jesus’s ascension (i.e., the
provision of rest, the institution of a new priesthood, the
inauguration of the new covenant, the cleansing of sin, the
reform of the cult) are a function of, or derive from, the Son’s
installation as King.

In summary, I suggest that the common Christian belief that Jesus is the
Messiah, the Son of David—through whom God has fulfilled the promises
made to David on behalf of his people—functions as a subtext of this early
Christian work and provides an integrating element to the different aspects
of its argument.
This chapter is divided into two parts. First I will briefly analyze the
argument that Hebrews relates to the notion of Jesus’s sonship. In the
second part I will compare Hebrews’s notion of the sonship of Jesus to (1)
the rule of the sons of David in monarchic Israel and (2) the expectations
regarding the eschatological Son of David in the biblical prophets.

JESUS AS SON IN HEBREWS

It is clear from the beginning of the letter to the Hebrews that the title son
plays a fundamental role in its argument. In the introduction (1:1–4) the
author divides the history of salvation into two ages: (1) the “long ago” in
which God revealed Himself “in many and various ways by the prophets”
and (2) “these last days” in which He “has spoken to us by a Son” (vv. 1–
2). Thus, the present age in which the readers of Hebrews found
themselves was characterized by the revelation in the Son.
Hagner opines that “[Son] is clearly the central Christological
designation of Hebrews.”15 In this regard Marie E. Isaacs correctly notes
an important fact: “For the author of Hebrews, Jesus’ primary status is not
that of Melchizedekian high priest but son of God. . . In many ways Jesus’
work may be compared with that of his biblical predecessors, namely
Moses and the high priest, but in each case it is his sonship which is used
to highlight the contrast between his status and theirs.”16

THE SON IS ENTHRONED AS KING

The notion that Jesus the Son is King over the cosmos is emphasized
throughout Hebrews, which asserts five times that Jesus sat down “at the
right hand” of God (8:1; cf. 1:3, 13; 10:12–13; 12:2). In fact, the letter
concludes by affirming this notion when it refers to Jesus as “the great
shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20; cf. Ps. 78:71; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24;
Matt. 2:6; 26:31 [par. Mark 14:27]).17
Hebrews 1–3 focuses on the notion of the Son as King. After a
spectacular introduction, this section begins with a description of the
enthronement of the Son in a catena of seven Old Testament quotations in
1:5–14. This catena is grammatically arranged in three sentences.18 Each
introduces an aspect of the enthronement ceremony of the Son: (1) God
adopts Jesus as His royal Son (v. 5); (2) God presents the Son to the
heavenly court (who make obeisance), presents the royal symbols (throne,
scepter, anointment), and proclaims the eternal rule of the Son (vv. 6–12);
and finally (3) God enthrones the Son, marking the actual conferral of
power (v. 13).19
Important for this study is that Hebrews seems to build upon the
common Christian notion that God has fulfilled in Jesus the promises He
had made to David regarding his son.20 Second Samuel 7 contains four
promises to David, which later are referred to as God’s covenant with
David (2 Sam. 23:5; Pss. 89:3, passim; 132:11–12): (1) a great name (2
Sam. 7:9); (2) a place for Israel (land or temple; v. 10); (3) rest from his
enemies (v. 11); and (4) a son whose throne/kingdom will be established
forever, who will build a temple for God, and who will be adopted by God
(vv. 12–16).
Hebrews applies this promise to Jesus, the Son. God has appointed Jesus
“heir of all things” (Heb. 1:2; cf. Ps. 2:8), given Him a great “name” (Heb.
1:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:9), adopted Him as His own Son (Heb. 1:5; cf. 2 Sam.
7:14; Ps. 2:7),21 established His throne forever (Heb. 1:8–12; cf. 2 Sam.
7:13–16), and sat Him at His “right hand” (Heb. 1:13–14; cf. Ps. 110:1).22
Furthermore, Hebrews 4 suggests that Jesus leads the people into the rest
of God, and Hebrews 3:3–4 may suggest that Jesus is the builder of the
house of God—though not absolutely and independently, but under God
(8:2).23 Note, however, that Hebrews does not seek to prove the point of
Jesus’s Davidic sonship; rather, Hebrews assumes it and builds an
argument upon it, although the Davidic promises seem to function as a
subtext more than as a part of the argument. The Son accomplishes other
things as well.

THE SON IS APPOINTED HIGH PRIEST FOREVER

Hebrews 3–7 focuses on the appointment of Jesus as High Priest of the
heavenly sanctuary. The sonship of Jesus and His High Priesthood are
intimately connected.

So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high

priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him, “You
are my Son, today I have begotten you”; as he says also in
another place, “You are a priest forever, according to the
order of Melchizedek” (5:5–6).

The quotation of Psalm 2:7 in this context is a deliberate attempt to

connect the notions of sonship and priesthood.24 Thus, Hebrews argues that
Jesus’s status as Son made Him not only ruler of the universe when He sat
at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1), but also High Priest forever
“according to the order of Melchizedek.” Both aspects of Hebrews’s
Christology are intimately related.

THE SON MEDIATES A NEW COVENANT

Hebrews 8–10 focus on Jesus as Mediator of the new covenant, which is
intimately connected to His appointment as heavenly High Priest. Hebrews
argues that this appointment requires a change in the law of priesthood,
which required that the high priesthood belong to the children of Aaron in
the tribe of Levi. The appointment of Jesus, who was a descendent of
Judah, is evidence that this law had been abolished (7:12–19). This change
is considered by the author to announce the inauguration of a new
covenant.25

THE SON CLEANSES THE HEART FROM SIN

Hebrews 9:15–23 compares Jesus’s death to the sacrifice offered by Moses
for the ratification of the first covenant. Moses’s ratification of the
covenant is understood as a complex event that included the sacrifice of
oxen, described in Exodus 24, and the anointing and inauguration of the
sanctuary (Exod. 40; Lev. 8–9; Num. 7). Hebrews argues explicitly that
Jesus’s sacrifice fulfills two functions: it mediates a new covenant and it
redeems from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (9:15).
Jesus sacrifice is also understood as a complex event that included His
death on the cross (v. 15) and His entrance into the heavenly sanctuary to
cleanse it and, by implication, to inaugurate it (v. 23).
Jesus’s death and inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary mark the
fulfillment of the promise of the new covenant: “I will be merciful toward
their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more” (Heb. 8:12; cf.
10:17). Thus, Hebrews concludes that Jesus “has appeared once for all at
the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:26).

THE SON REFORMS THE CULT

The effectiveness of the sacrifice of the Son to cleanse the believers has
another consequence. It makes the repetition of animal sacrifices
unnecessary. Hebrews emphasizes time and again that Jesus offered
Himself “once for all” (7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10). Since Jesus’s sacrifice
provides true cleansing with no more consciousness of sin (10:2), Hebrews
concludes that “where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any
offering for sin” (10:18). Therefore, Jesus’s sacrifice and inauguration of
the new covenant includes the reform of the cult from many sacrifices to
one sacrifice. Now believers are exhorted to offer spiritual sacrifices of
praise and good works as their worship to God (13:9–16; cf. 12:28).

SYNOPSIS
Hebrews depicts Jesus’s ascension to heaven as the inauguration of His
office as Son at the “right hand of God” (10:12–13; cf. 1:3, 13; 4:14–16;
8:1–2; 12:1–2). The identity of Jesus as Son is related to several important
aspects of the argument of Hebrews:

1. The catena of 1:5–14 describes the enthronement of the Son as

ruler over the universe.
2. The Son is the ideal Helper or Leader for those who are being
tempted and who suffer in their journey to God’s rest (4:14–16).
3. Jesus was appointed “priest forever, according to the order of
Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6; quoting Ps. 110:4).
4. The Son is Mediator of the new covenant (7:22; cf. 6:4; 10:29).
5. The Son cleanses the conscience from sin (9:26).
6. The Son has reformed the cult by abolishing the sacrifices (9:9–
10; 10:1–9).

THE RULE OF THE RIGHTEOUS SON OF DAVID IN

THE HEBREW BIBLE
Righteous Davidic Kings in Monarchic Israel
A cursory study of the rule of the righteous sons of David shows intriguing
parallels to the achievements of Jesus as Son in the letter to the Hebrews.
The books 1 and 2 Kings consider that only three kings of Judah did what
was “right in the sight of the Lord” as their “father David” had done (1
Kings 15:11). They are Asa (1 Kings 15:11), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:3), and
Josiah (2 Kings 22:2).26
A brief analysis of the actions of these righteous sons of David in the
Hebrew Bible shows that their rules followed a fairly consistent pattern,
which reached its most perfect expression in the reigns of Hezekiah and
Josiah. At this moment it is possible for us only to enumerate their actions
and provide the references. Seven main elements comprise this pattern:

1. After ascending to the throne, the righteous Davidic king would

renew the covenant between God and the nation.27
2. He would cleanse the land from spurious forms of worship.28
3. The king would build or repair the temple and then consecrate
it.29
4. The king would reform the cult through ordinances that secured
a better service for the worshipers, and he would reorganize or
reestablish the cultic function of the priests and Levites.30
 5. The king would either reign over “all Israel” or promote its
reunification.31
6. God would give Israel “rest” by defeating the enemies of the
king.32
7. In several cases a faithful priest would rise alongside the Davidic
king.33

Davidic Expectations in the Prophets

These seven main elements that comprised the pattern of the rule of
righteous Davidic kings are alluded to as well in the oracles of the
prophets concerning the Davidic ruler God would raise in the future. In
Isaiah, the exilic prophets, and the postexilic prophets, these elements are
elevated to an eschatological dimension:

1. Righteous kings promoted the renewal of the nation’s covenant

with God; the eschatological king of Ezekiel 37:26–27 will
mediate a new “covenant of peace,” “an everlasting covenant”
between God and the nation (cf. Isa. 55:3).
2. Righteous kings cleansed the land from idolatry; the
eschatological king “will save them from all the apostasies into
which they have fallen, and will cleanse them” and forgive them
(Ezek. 37:23; cf. Isa. 55:7).
3. Righteous kings repaired the temple; the eschatological king
“shall build the temple of the LORD” (Zech. 6:13; cf. Ezek.
37:26, 28).
4. Righteous kings reformed the cult by modifying the laws of the
sacrifices and reorganizing the priesthood; the eschatological
fulfillment implicates the writing of the Law in the heart of the
nation so that “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the
LORD” (Isa. 11:9; cf. Ezek. 37:24; Hos. 3:5; Zech. 12:10; also
related are Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:26–27).
5. Righteous kings attempted to reunite Israel by means of the cult;
the eschatological king, however, will “gather the dispersed of
Judah [and Ephraim] from the four corners of the earth” (Isa.
11:10–13; cf. Amos 9:11–12; Hos. 3:5; Ezek. 37:16–22; Mic.
5:3).
6. God defended the righteous kings from their enemies and
provided rest for the land; the eschatological king “shall strike
the earth with the rod of his mouth,” and even the natural order
 will be transformed so that no one will “hurt or destroy on all my
holy mountain” (Isa. 11:3–9; cf. Isa. 9:5–7; Mic. 5:4–5).
7. Finally, the figure of a faithful priest often appeared alongside
righteous kings; alongside the eschatological king “there shall be
a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the
two of them” (Zech. 6:13; cf. Jer. 33:16–26; Hos. 3:4–5).

Davidic Expectations in Early Judaism

The Early Judaism period attests to the diversification of the messianic
hope in general and the Davidic hope in particular.34 Among those who
clung to the hope of the fulfillment of the Davidic promises, the prophets
mentioned above continued to have significance. The author of Psalms of
Solomon 17 expects that the hoped-for Davidic king—almost a divine
figure—will mediate the renewal of the covenant, gather the Jews from the
land of their exile, cleanse the nation from sin, and bring righteousness and
holiness to them.35
The Qumran covenanters expected the fulfillment of the Davidic
covenant in the last days as well (4Q504; 4Q252; 4Q174; 4Q161; 4Q285;
probably 4Q246). The Branch of David is an eschatological figure that will
lead the forces of the Sons of Light to victory against their eschatological
enemies (the Kittim). It is interesting that this figure appears alongside the
“sons of Zadok,” the priests, but has a subordinate role to them. In fact,
they oversee his activities. It is significant, however, that in the document
4Q174 (Florilegium), the hope for the restoration of the throne to the
Davidic line is one of several expectations for the “last days.” The other
expectations are the building of the sanctuary of the Lord—which is
intriguingly described as “a temple of man” (I, 1–6), the provision of rest
from the sons of Belial (I, 7–9), and the restoration of a righteous
priesthood from the line of Zadok (I, 14–19; quoting Ezek. 44:10 in line
16).

Synopsis
The chart below summarizes, then, the similarities between the rule of
righteous Davidic kings and the rule of the Son in Hebrews.

Achievements of the Davidic Implications of the

Righteous Rulers Enthronement of Jesus as
Son
Renewal of the covenant between
God and the nation (2 Chron. 29)
Cleansing of the land from spurious
forms of worship (2 Kings 23:1–25)
The building or repairing of the
temple is followed by its consecration
through cleansing (2 Chron. 6–7; 34)
Reform of the cult, which included
(a) the centralization of the sacrifices
at Jerusalem as disposed in Deut.
12:4–7 and (b) new stipulations
regarding the priestly and Levitical
courses as revealed to David (1
Chron. 28:11–19)
Reunification of Israel
“Rest” from enemies (2 Sam. 7:1)
The emergence of a faithful priest
Mediation of a new covenant
(Heb. 8–10)
Cleansing of the conscience
(9:14) and removal of sin by
the interiorization of God’s law
in believers (9:24–10:10)
God builds the temple (3:3–4;
8:2);
Jesus consecrates the heavenly
sanctuary with better sacrifices
(9:23)
Substitution of the Levitical
priesthood with a new High
Priest according to the order of
Melchizedek (Heb. 5–7).
Substitution of animal
sacrifices with the “once for
all” sacrifice of Christ (10:10).
Inauguration of a new spiritual
worship for believers (12:28–
29; 13:10–16)
God establishes a new
covenant with the house of
Israel and the house of Judah
(Heb. 8:8)
Availability of God’s rest (3:7–
4:16)
Jesus is a faithful High Priest
over the house of God (3:1–6)
 Of the seven aspects of the rule of righteous Davidic kings, Jesus fulfills
six of them. It seems that the notion that Jesus is the righteous King of the
Davidic expectations constitutes an important subtext of the argument of
Hebrews.

CONCLUSION
I have pointed out that a majority of scholars hold that the author of
Hebrews uses Day of Atonement imagery to describe Jesus’s ascension to
heaven and that a typological relationship exists between them. This study
suggests, however, that Hebrews describes Jesus as the Davidic son—a
Heavenly King–High Priest who ascends to heaven to inaugurate His
eternal rule, provide rest to His people, and inaugurate a new covenant.
This new covenant involves the inauguration of a heavenly temple and the
reformation of the cult and the priesthood. Thus, the author of Hebrews
celebrates that God has fulfilled in Jesus all that He had promised in the
Davidic covenant.
This helps us to understand better the general argument of the epistle.
The author seeks through carefully crafted arguments, compelling logic,
and moving examples to strengthen the sagging faith of Christians who
courageously suffered in the past through public shaming, persecution, and
financial loss but have now begun to drift away from Christ and are even
in danger of blatant unbelief. In this context, the author exhorts the
believers: “Let us hold fast to our confession” (Heb. 4:14; cf. 3:1; 10:23).
The confession to which he refers was probably a confession similar to the
description of the gospel in Romans 1:3–4: “the gospel concerning his
Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was
declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by
resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (cf. Rom. 8:34). Based
on this Christian notion of the Davidic messianic identity of Jesus, the
author exhorts the readers, “Do not . . . abandon that confidence of yours”
(Heb. 10:35). Instead, the believers should follow the Son “crowned with
honor and glory” whom God has appointed the archēgos (prince) of their
salvation (2:6–10). “Therefore [the author concludes], since we are
receiving a kingdom [I would specify “a Davidic kingdom”] that cannot be
shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable
worship with reverence and awe” (12:28).
Other scholars believe that the Day of Atonement is used in Hebrews to
explain Jesus’s ascension—but not His death—as a sacrifice,36 or that “the
intent of the apostolic writer is not to show that Calvary is the antitype of
the Day of Atonement, but that Calvary is the antitype of all the sacrifices
of the OT.”37 The Day of Atonement was important for early Christians
(Acts 27:9; Barn. 7:3–11) and may have been used in other New
Testament writings besides Hebrews to describe and interpret Jesus’s
death on the cross (e.g., Matt. 27:15–23; John 1:29; 17:19; Rom. 3:25–26;
Gal. 3:10, 13; 1 Pet. 2:22–24; 1 John 2:2, 4:10; Rev. 8:1–5; 11:15–19;
15:1–8).38
Ancient Jewish interpretation of the psalm is varied, however. Some
scholars have detected allusions to Psalm 110 in the description of the
enthronement of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch (45:1, 3; 51:3; 52:1–7; 55:4;
61:8; this section has been dated to 105–64 BC). T. Job 33:3 (first century
BC or AD) applied Psalm 110 to Job, who is described as king of a
heavenly kingdom. 11QMelchizedek (second half of the first century BC
or the first half of the first century AD) does not refer clearly to Psalm 110.
It describes, however, Melchizedek as a heavenly eschatological warrior
and savior. It is difficult to think that any Jew acquainted with both
passages would fail to make the connection. It is probable that 1
Maccabees 14:41 alludes to Psalm 110:4 and applies it to Hasmonean
rulers. A messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 appears frequently in
rabbinic writings after ca. AD 250.39
12
SANCTUARY, PRIESTHOOD, SACRIFICE,
AND COVENANT IN THE BOOK OF
HEBREWS
KIM PAPAIOANNOU

A ny discussion of the heavenly sanctuary and its ritual would be

incomplete without a discussion of the book of Hebrews, the New
Testament book that deals most extensively with the concept. Hebrews
discusses at length the heavenly, perfect, high-priestly ministry of Jesus,
contrasting it with the inadequate, temporary ministry of human priests.
The book does this in the context of the heavenly and earthly sanctuaries
and in the process covers the efficacy of the death of Jesus. This is
understood in terms of sacrifice and contrasted with the inefficacy of the
sacrifices of animals. Closely related is the concept of covenant, which
also plays a prominent role in Hebrews.
This chapter will explore the above themes in the following manner.
First it will discuss the ritual context of the epistle to help determine the
problem the author was trying to address. Then it will discuss the concepts
of sanctuary, priesthood, sacrifice, and covenant.
The outline of Hebrews is clearly delineated and can be summarized as
follows: (a) 1:1–4: Christ’s superiority to the prophets; (b) 1:5–2:18:
Christ’s superiority to the angels; (c) 3:1–4:13: Christ’s superiority to
Moses; (d) 4:14–7:28: Christ’s superiority to Aaron; (e) 8:1–10:18: the
superiority of the new covenant; (f) 10:19–12:29: paraenesis; and (g) 13:1–
25: conclusion.

THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED IN HEBREWS

Hebrews, like other epistles, was written to address a specific problem.
What was this problem? One theory is that of Wallace, who suggests that
Hebrews was written in part “to warn Jewish Christians against apostasy to
Judaism.”1 In other words, the epistle is a polemic against falling back into
the Jewish faith.
Such an assertion confuses more than it clarifies. Early Christians were
often of Jewish background or had been associated with the synagogue as
God-fearers (Acts 13:16; 16:14; 17:17). They continued to worship in
synagogues until as late as the end of the first century (13:5; 18:4, 26;
19:8; James 2:2; Rev. 2:9). They used the Old Testament as their Scripture
(1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Tim. 3:16; James 2:8) and kept the Sabbath (Matt. 24:20;
Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42–44), the Ten Commandments (1 Cor. 7:19; James
2:10–11), and other Jewish laws (1 Cor. 9:9). They attended the annual
feasts (Acts 20:16), met regularly in the temple (2:46), and were
considered a sect of Judaism (24:5).2 Moreover, Hebrews contains no
negative commentary against the laws of Israel. Neither is there any record
of friction between believers and Jewish leaders over rabbinic hălākâ.
Given such a context, in what sense were Jewish Christians in danger of
apostatizing to Judaism? Wallace’s assertion is not convincing.
The real danger addressed in Hebrews was not apostasy to Judaism but a
return to the temple and its sacrificial ritual, which is not difficult to
understand. The temple had been the central focus of Israel’s spiritual
existence for fifteen hundred years, ever since Moses first built the
tabernacle in the wilderness.
But for the writer of Hebrews, new realities had dawned, making such
an attraction inappropriate. The death and resurrection of Jesus had called
into question the need for the temple ceremonial services. Shadow had met
reality, and what had seemed so foundational had now become defunct.
Hebrews is not an attempt to prevent Christians from falling back into
Judaism; it’s an endeavor to wean them away from Israel’s ritual context
by highlighting the earthly temple’s inadequacy3 and drawing them into
Christ’s heavenly sanctuary ministry.4 This is noted by the author himself,
who declares: “Now the point [kephalaion] in what we are saying is this:
we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the
throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true
tent that the Lord set up, not man” (Heb. 8:1–2).5 The Greek kephalaion
literally means “that which belongs to the head”6 and has the meaning of
“main point” or “summary.”7 Steadman observes: “The terrible problem
which human sin presents can be solved by one, and only one, remedy—
the death of Jesus. This is the central theme of the epistle, to which the
writer returns many times.”8 The main point the author is developing is the
heavenly sanctuary ministry of Jesus.9
THE RITUAL CONTEXT
The inadequacy of the earthly sanctuary system and the superiority of
Christ are most fully developed in the central part of Hebrews, but even in
the introductory and paraenetic/concluding sections ritual elements play a
prominent role.
For example, the author begins by declaring the superiority of the Son
over the prophets. One thing that entitles the Son to sit at the right of the
Father is that he has made “purification for sins” (Heb. 1:3), katharismon
tōn hamartōn.10 The phrase is temple centered11 and probably draws from
Exodus 30:10 (cf. Job 7:21), while katharismos is used primarily in ritual
contexts (Exod. 29:36; 30:10; Lev. 14:32; 15:13; 1 Chron. 23:28; Neh.
12:45; Mark 1:44; Luke 2:22; 5:14; John 2:6).12 Moreover, Christ is the
apaugasma, the “radiance” or “reflection”13 of the glory of God (Heb. 1:3).
The word apaugasma is a hapax legomenon: it appears only once in the
Bible. Doxa, “glory,” of which Christ is the radiance/reflection, is a
common word to describe (1) the glory of God as it appeared in the
sanctuary (Exod. 29:43; 40:34, 35; Lev. 9:6, 23; Num. 14:10) and (2) other
aspects of the sanctuary service (Exod. 28:2, 40; 33:5). Apaugasma can be
seen as the reflection of God’s sanctuary glory.
In his discussion of the superiority of Christ over the angels, the author
again uses ritual language. In it he uses the adjective leitourgika (Heb.
1:14) and the noun leitourgous (v. 7) when referencing angels. The
adjective appears only here in the New Testament, but it also appears six
times in the LXX—always in a temple-related context (Exod. 31:10;
39:12; Num. 4:12, 26; 7:5; 2 Chron. 24:14). The evidence for the noun is
less clear-cut,14 but the ritual use is still dominant (Ezra 7:24; 10:39 [LXX
v. 40]; Isa. 61:6; Heb. 8:2). Buchanan observes: “In biblical terms . . . the
word is almost always employed in relationship to the service of the priests
in the temple.”15 Hebrews 1:7 is itself a quotation from Psalm 104 (LXX
103), where the heavenly temple is not explicitly mentioned but the
heavenly majesty of God is presented in language elsewhere used of the
temple. In extra-biblical Jewish writings, angels were often depicted as
priests serving in the heavenly realms. In biblical writings such imagery is
uncommon, but the heavenly residence of God was understood to be a
heavenly temple/sanctuary, making the realm’s description in sanctuary
and priestly terms not appear out of place.
The paraenesis and conclusion sections also abound with ritual
language. The paraenesis begins with the statement, “We have the
confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19),
where the “holy places” refer to the heavenly sanctuary and the blood of
Jesus in his sacrificial offering on the cross. Other references to the
heavenly sanctuary include: (1) the veil (v. 20); (2) the house of God
(v. 21); (3) perhaps the heavenly city that the patriarchs awaited (11:10,
16); and (4) the contrast between the presence of God on Mount Sinai
(12:18–21), which functioned as a temple of God (Exod. 15:17), and the
heavenly Mount Zion/Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22–24), which is the seat of
God’s throne. The throne is (1) surrounded by innumerable angels (v. 22);
(2) where the saints have been perfected (v. 23); and (3) the locus for the
ministration of a new and higher covenant based on the blood of Jesus
(v. 24).
Clearly, temple ritual not only forms the core argument of the book but
also appears in the introduction and paraenesis/conclusion, enveloping the
main argument into a sanctuary-ritual context. The problem the author of
Hebrews addresses is not a lapse into Judaism, but how Jewish Christians
—once attached to the Jerusalem temple and its ritual—should look
towards the heavenly sanctuary and priestly ministry of Jesus.
In highlighting the superiority of the heavenly ministry, Hebrews
expounds on a number of juxtapositions between the heavenly and earthly
realities. The first we will look at is between the heavenly and earthly
sanctuaries.

EARTHLY SANCTUARY AND HEAVENLY

SANCTUARY
The juxtaposition between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries is
developed mostly in Hebrews 8 and 9. The existence of a heavenly
sanctuary is taken for granted: “we have such a high priest, one who is
seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister
in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man” (8:1–2).16
“When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,
then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that
is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by
means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood,
thus securing an eternal redemption”17 (9:11–12). The author expounds on
this, knowing that his readers are well aware of its existence and at least
partly cognizant of its significance.
The heavenly sanctuary was not built with human hands (ou
cheiropoiētou) but by the Lord and therefore is “not of this creation” (Heb.
9:11). By contrast, the earthly was built by human beings (8:2; 9:24). As
such, the heavenly is “greater and more perfect” (9:11).
The heavenly is called tēs skēnēs tēs alēthinēs, “the true tent” (Heb.
8:2).18 When an articular noun is qualified by another articular genitive
noun, the use is monadic: there is only one true sanctuary—the one in
heaven. This implies that the earthly was not true in the fullest sense of the
word but was rather a more shadowy and transient reality. McKnight
rightly observes that the contrast is not between a true and a false
sanctuary but between what is true (the heavenly) and what was symbolic
and imperfect (the earthly).19
This thought is enhanced through the use of five words to describe the
earthly: hypodeigma (Heb. 8:5), skia, (8:5), kosmikon (9:1), parabolē
(9:9), and antitypa (v. 24). Hypodeigma signifies a copy, type, or example.
Most English translations prefer to translate it as “copy” (e.g., ESV, NAB,
NASB, NIV) because it was built according to the model shown to Moses
on Mount Sinai (8:5). “Example” could also serve well, indicating that its
function would be of limited duration. Heil sees a negative connotation in
“example,” since the same word is used of the wilderness generation who
failed to show faith (4:11).20 McKnight observes that the earthly sanctuary
being built on the pattern shown to Moses (Exod. 25) was a positive
connotation because it showed that the sanctuary did not originate in
Moses’s mind but in God’s. “For Hebrews, the use of Exodus 25 is
pejorative. The earthly sanctuary is only a shadow of the real sanctuary.”21
Skia signifies a “shadow” and in this context carries two meanings. The
earthly was a shadow because it replicated the heavenly original (Heb. 8:5:
“See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown
you on the mountain”), just like a shadow is a reflection of a more
substantial reality. But the earthly was also a shadow because it was
transient.
The concept of the earthly sanctuary as a shadow is not platonic as some
have wrongly assumed.22 Plato did envisage earthly, physical realities to be
mere shadows of invisible, immaterial, philosophical, and intellectual
realities existing in the realm of ideas. But the concept of the sanctuary and
its services as shadows of something greater was common in the ANE and
thoroughly biblical. Whereas in platonic thought the true realities were
immaterial concepts reached by the intellect, for Hebrews the heavenly
realities are real and tangible.23
Kosmikon is an adjective from the noun kosmos, “world,” and signifies
that which is of this world. In Titus 2:12 it is used in a negative sense:
“worldly passions.” In Hebrews there is no negative moral sense, but it
signifies the earthly nature of the earthly sanctuary and therefore its
imperfection and limitations.
Parabolē signifies a “parable,” “symbol” (e.g., NASB, NJB), “figure”
(KJV), or “illustration” (NIV). Parabolē, is a compound word and literally
means “to place something next to something else”24—as an illustration, a
comparison, or analogy25—or “to explain something.” In that sense, the
heavenly sanctuary is the original and the earthly was constructed as a
parallel illustration to demonstrate on earth how God operates in heaven.
Antitypa is a copy, counterpart, or figure pointing to something26—a
“mere” copy, as Heil puts it.27 As such, all five words used of the earthly
sanctuary highlight its shadowy and transient nature. That five different
words are used indicates an effort to underline this transience; the author
wants to leave no doubt in the mind of the reader.
Not only the sanctuary but also its apartments and furnishings were
modeled after the heavenly. Thus, as Hebrews 8:5 notes, Moses was told
to “make everything [panta] according to the pattern” shown to him on the
mountain (cf. Exod. 25:8–27:21).28
Given their transient nature, the whole earthly sanctuary and its services
were to be of significance only “until the time of the new order
[diorthōseōs]” (Heb. 9:10). They had an expiration date, so to speak. The
word diorthōseōs signifies the establishment of a new order.29 The earthly
sanctuary and its services were to be significant until the new order,
inaugurated by the sacrifice of Jesus, was established.30 Daniel 9:24 points
to this transition when it declares that, in the closing stages of the seventy-
week period, a “most holy place” would be anointed: the sanctuary in
heaven.31

EARTHLY PRIESTHOOD AND HEAVENLY

PRIESTHOOD
Sanctuaries require a priestly ministry. Priests from the line of Levi,
descendants of Aaron (Heb. 5:4; 7:5, 9, 11), served in the earthly
sanctuary. As humans, they were “beset with weakness” (5:2) since they
were also sinful and required to offer sacrifices32 for their own sins just as
they did for the rest of the people (v. 3). Earthly priests ministered
regularly in the Holy Place (9:6), and the high priest could only minister in
the Most Holy Place once a year—and not without blood (v. 7), lest he die
(Lev. 16:2).
By contrast, in the heavenly sanctuary the High Priest is none less than
Jesus Christ (Heb. 2:17). He is merciful and faithful, provides true
atonement for sin, and attained this exalted position through His
incarnation (v. 17), during which He suffered and was tempted like other
humans but remained without sin (4:15; 7:26).33 While human priests were
sons of Aaron, Jesus is the Son of God (5:5). And while human high
priests barely dared to go into the shadowy, typological throne of God in
the earthly sanctuary, Jesus sat next to the real, heavenly throne of God
(8:1).
Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20;
7:11, 15, 17). Space does not permit a full discussion of the significance of
this statement, but a key thought is that the Melchizedek priesthood was
different and higher than the Levitical because Levi—through his great-
grandfather Abraham—paid tithe to Melchizedek, acknowledging his
superiority (7:9–10).
Moreover, there is a sense of heavenly origin for this priesthood. The
author declares that Melchizedek was “without father or mother or
genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3).
Melchizedek means “king of righteousness” or “justice,”34 and he was the
king of Salem (Gen. 14:18). “Salem,” depending on how it is pointed,
could mean either “completed, paid in full,” or “peace,”35 with the
Masoretic text opting for the former and the writer of Hebrews opting for
the latter.36 Some have understood this to mean that Melchizedek was the
preincarnate Jesus appearing to Abraham.37 Such a theophany is not
impossible given that Abraham received a theophany on another occasion
when heavenly visitors stopped by his tent on their way to destroy Sodom
and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:1–33). The Genesis account does not provide
sufficient evidence to fully identify Melchizedek, but from the viewpoint
of Hebrews it is unlikely.
For Hebrews, Melchizedek seems to be a human person. First, he is
described as “king of Salem,” whereby Salem is more likely to be a
toponym rather than a characteristic, even though the writer later renders
“king of Salem” as “king of peace” (7:2). Second, Melchizedek is
“resembling” (aphōmoiōmenos) “the Son of God” (v. 3), and Jesus was
priest in the “likeness” (homoiotēta) of Melchizedek (v. 15). These suggest
that the two individuals are not the same but that one is a symbol of the
other. Third, Jesus is a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (5:6, 10;
6:20; 7:11, 17), but he is not Melchizedek. It is not Melchizedek who was
to become enthroned in heaven, but Jesus as a High Priest after the order
of Melchizedek. There seems to be a distinction between Melchizedek as a
person, and Jesus as a priest in the order of Melchizedek. The promise that
a priest would come after the order of Melchizedek had already been given
in Psalm 110:4, and now in Jesus it finds fulfillment. The statement
“without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days
nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3), referring to Melchizedek, should therefore not
be understood to imply that Melchizedek had no father or mother but
rather that he was a symbol of the divine Son, who had none.
Not least is the contrast between life and death. Earthly priests are
described as “mortal men” (Heb. 7:8). This compares unfavorably with
Christ, who “lives” (Greek ze, v. 8). The mortality of Levitical priests
meant that they had to be replaced whenever they died. So there were
many of them: “the former priests were many in number” (v. 23; cf. v. 20).
By contrast, Christ is alive and lives forever, which means that He can also
be a priest forever—a point that Hebrews 7 repeats five times (vv. 3, 17,
21, 24, 28).

EARTHLY SACRIFICES AND THE SACRIFICE OF

JESUS
In the earthly sanctuary, sacrifices of animals (Heb. 5:1) were offered on a
daily basis (v. 3; 7:27). Sacrifices were the main task to which priests were
appointed (8:3). The blood of sacrifices served also to sprinkle the book of
the covenant (9:19), the people of the covenant (v. 19), the sanctuary, and
its vessels (v. 21). Through blood, atonement was made for human sin.38
Earthly sacrifices had a problem. Like the sanctuary itself, they were
shadowy (Heb. 10:1).39 The blood of animals cannot cleanse sin (vv. 4,
11), and sacrifices being constantly repeated indicated that the problem of
sin had not found full resolution (vv. 1–3).40 Indeed, since every
defilement needs blood to be cleansed (9:22), and the blood of animals
cannot cleanse sin, this indicates that earthly sacrifices were only shadows,
just like the earthly sanctuary itself.
The sacrifice of Jesus is superior, was offered once, and is sufficient to
deal with the problem of sin (Heb. 9:12). “By a single offering he has
perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (10:14).41 In light of
Jesus’s sacrifice, God promises not to remember human sin any longer
(v. 17). This assurance of forgiveness offers believers the privilege of
boldly approaching the throne of God (4:16).
OLD COVENANT AND NEW COVENANT
We now come to a ritual dimension not often understood clearly: the
concept of covenant. Many Christians understand the old and new
covenants as a juxtaposition of law and grace: the old covenant was one of
law, whereby a person kept the Ten Commandments and other
epexegetical laws to be saved; the new covenant offers salvation freely
through faith in the saving sacrifice of Jesus. This outlook is badly skewed.
Law played an important part in the old covenant. The Ten
Commandments defined the moral framework of God’s governance, and
other laws in the Pentateuch were usually a practical application of the
principles outlined in the Ten Commandments in the specific Sitz im Leben
of Israel in the wilderness.
Before we consider this arrangement redundant on the assumption that
the sacrifice of Jesus supposedly makes us immune to the need for
obedience, we should hear the words of Hebrews about law and the new
covenant: “I [God] will put my laws into their minds, and write them on
their hearts” (8:10).
The new covenant does not envisage an abrogation or change of the
law42—only a change of location from the tablets of stone to the heart.
This is also probably reflected in Hebrews 7:12, where the author speaks
of nomou metathesis, literally “a change of location of the law,” not “a
change in the law,” as the ESV and other translations infer. Paul further
informs this new-covenant transition by making the parallel of “tablets of
stone” and “tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor. 3:3), indicating that what is
written in the heart under the new covenant is the Ten Commandments.
The notion of the Decalogue being written on the heart is from the Old
Testament (Pss. 37:31; 40:8; Isa. 51:7), but it would become a reality in
fullness only on the sacrifice of Jesus.
The change from the old covenant to the new is in its ritual
dimensions.43 A covenant is about relationships, with a marriage being
both the most common type of covenant in the Bible and a symbol of
God’s relationship to his people.
A covenant between God and humanity is about bringing a holy God
into a close relationship with sinful humanity. But since God’s holiness
and humanity’s sinfulness cannot coexist in proximity (Isa. 59:2; Heb.
12:29), the covenant had to find a way to deal with human sinfulness. The
old covenant used the blood of animals: (1) it was inaugurated with blood
(Heb. 9:18); (2) the book of the covenant and the people of the covenant
(v. 19)—as well as the sanctuary and its utensils (v. 21)—were sprinkled
with blood; and (3) purification was attained with blood (v. 22). Hahn
notes that the book of Hebrews takes more interest in the concept of
covenant than does any other New Testament book (Hebrews contains
seventeen out of the thirty-three New Testament occurrences of covenant).
He observes that Hebrews places emphasis on the covenant “as a cultic
and liturgical institution.”44
Hebrews 8 declares the old covenant faulty or blameworthy (v. 7), not
because there was anything wrong with it, but because the people were
sinful (vv. 8–9). Since the blood of the animals cannot cleanse sin (10:4,
11), the old covenant could not bring a holy God and sinful humanity into
full covenant union. The problem was with human sin, not the covenant.
But the old covenant could not resolve this problem and therefore was
inadequate.
By contrast, as noted above, the blood of the sacrifice of Jesus does
cleanse sin effectively and can establish union between God and humanity
on a firm foundation. Because of this, the author makes this truly amazing
statement: “Therefore he [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant . . .
since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions
committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15, emphasis mine).
The author is saying that the sins committed during the Old Testament
were forgiven—not through the animal sacrifices, but through the sacrifice
of Jesus to which the sacrifices pointed. The forgiveness Abraham, Moses,
David, and the rest of the saints of the Old Testament received was given
in anticipation of the sacrifice of Jesus. They were forgiven under the
blood of the new covenant. This is why part of the promise of the new
covenant was that God would not remember the sins of his people any
longer (Heb. 8:12; 10:17). The new covenant has replaced the ineffective
blood of animals with the purifying blood of Jesus.
The difference between the old and new covenants is not grace versus
law; it was the grace of the shadows versus the grace of the heavenly ritual
realities (cf. John 1:16: “from his [Jesus’s] fullness we have all received,
grace upon grace,” literally, “grace in place of grace”).

ABOUT TO VANISH AWAY

The old covenant encapsulated all that was shadowy and insufficient:
earthly sanctuary, earthly sinful priesthood, earthly inadequate sacrifices.
These could not provide forgiveness and salvation. To those tempted to
cling to these, Hebrews offers a twofold warning.
First, to cling to the shadows means to reject the reality. After
highlighting the superiority of the High Priesthood of Jesus over the
Levitical order (Heb. 5:1–14), Hebrews offers a warning to those who fall
away (6:6). What this falling away refers to is not spelled out. Buchanan
suggests that the implication is that the sacrifice of Jesus cleanses sins only
once.45 A person who has been forgiven but then lapses back into a life of
sin would therefore be beyond repentance. That is a possible reading, but it
is negated by statements elsewhere in Scripture about believers who may
fall and be reinstated.46 Steadman understands the warning to be aimed
primarily at Jews who have intellectually understood the gospel and have
received some of the blessings of heaven but have not really believed. By
refusing to believe and by going back to their previous Jewish life, they are
placing themselves beyond repentance. But this explanation makes little
sense given that the recipients of the warning clearly have experienced a
saving faith in Christ (6:1–5).
Given the tone of the whole epistle and the emphasis on the inadequacy
of the Jerusalem temple system of priests and sacrifices, it seems that this
temple system is in view. The recipients of the warning were believers
who had accepted the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf but were lapsing
into offering sacrifices in the temple. This is hinted at by the words used
elsewhere in a ritual context, such as teleiotēta (Heb. 6:1). See also the
cognate adjective teleioteras (9:11), which is used for the heavenly
sanctuary, and the cognate verb teleioō, which is used for the system of
sacrifices and the sacrifice of Jesus (5:9; 7:19, 28; 9:9; 10:1, 14; cf. 11:40;
12:23). The participle geusamenous is used twice (6:4, 5), and it could
refer to participation in the Lord’s Supper, which is a symbol of the
sacrifice of Jesus. Moreover, the word translated “fall away” is not the
usual aphistamai/apostasia (from whence “apostasy”) but the rare (only
here) parapiptō. While the former means to “fall away,” parapiptō (a
compound word made of the verb piptō, “to fall,” and the preposition
para, “next to”) may have the slightly different nuance that the falling is
not just a falling off a path but a falling into something parallel or cognate.
It seems likely that the “falling away” here referred to Christians who had
accepted the sacrifice of Christ but were lapsing back into the Old
Testament system of sacrifices—of which the sacrifice of Christ was the
fulfillment. Those who fall back to the shadows of old covenant ritual “are
crucifying once again the Son of God” (6:6), since in practice they are
declaring his sacrifice to be insufficient.
 In Heb. 13:10 the author declares that believers “have an altar from
which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.” The altar for
believers refers to the sacrifice of Jesus commemorated in the Lord’s
Supper. Of that altar, “those who serve the tent”—meaning those who still
cling to the earthly sanctuary ritual—“have no right to eat.” In other
words, faith in the sacrifice of Jesus is totally incompatible with any
participation in the rituals of the sanctuary of the old covenant.
Second, Hebrews declares that the old covenant with its earthly
sanctuary, priesthood, and sacrifice, was “obsolete” and “ready to vanish
away” (8:13). This is no doubt a prophecy about the destruction of the
Jerusalem temple and the physical end to sacrifices and priestly ministry.47
The word translated “vanish away,” aphanismos, suggests not just
destruction—as happened in Jerusalem—but something that disappears,
possibly never to appear again (Deut. 7:2; 1 Kings 13:34; Mic. 1:7). This
text should be brought to bear on popular Christian expectations for the
rebuilding of a temple in Jerusalem and the restitution of sacrifices and the
priesthood.

CONCLUSION
This study has developed the following points. First, Hebrews operates on
a distinctly ritual context. It is not addressed to believers who were in
danger of falling back into Judaism; it was referring to the temple and its
rituals. Thus Hebrews needs to be understood from a distinctly ritual
perspective.
Second, Hebrews has a clear conception of a heavenly sanctuary,
priesthood, and sacrifice, which are juxtaposed with the earthly sanctuary,
priesthood, and sacrifices. While the earthly was shadowy, imperfect,
unable to deal with the problem of human sin, and only temporary, the
heavenly deals with sin thoroughly and completely and is the only basis of
salvation.
Third, the contrast between the old and new covenants is not a contrast
between grace and law but between grace and grace: the grace offered
through the earthly sanctuary, priesthood, and sacrifice of the old covenant
and the grace that flows from the heavenly sanctuary, priesthood, and
sacrifice. The Ten Commandments remain constant throughout the
transition and, if anything, receive a higher position of authority in the new
covenant by being placed in the heart of believers.
 Finally, participation in the earthly temple ritual is incompatible with
faith in Jesus; it is nothing less than a rejection of him. The earthly
sanctuary ritual was about to disappear in AD 70, not be reconstituted.
Edgar McKnight refers repeatedly to the heavenly sanctuary but then
brings in Plato’s dualism, which in turn influenced Philo and (indirectly)
Hebrews. “A parallel exists between Philo and Hebrews,” McKnight
writes. He understands Philo’s view (and Hebrews’s?) to have been that
“the ultimately real counterpart of the earthly temple is found to be a
variety of spiritual and ethical realities: wisdom, virtue, the human soul, or
the ‘powers’ of God.”48 However, if the heavenly sanctuary is thus
spiritualized, how about the remainder of Hebrews’s ritual language—the
high-priestly ministry of Jesus, his sacrifice, the new covenant? Platonic
thought cannot provide a valid framework for understanding the ritual
context of Hebrews.
Gordon is closer to the truth when he observes: “To the extent that
Hebrews envisages an actual heavenly sanctuary with a terrestrial
counterpart the comparison could be said to lean towards Platonic
idealism, but the concept of a heavenly temple is so clearly present in the
Old Testament that the author’s dependence upon non-biblical categories
would require further demonstration.”49
13
THE “HOUSE OF GOD” OF 1 PETER 4:17 AS
REFERENCE TO THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE
LUIS IVÁN MARTÍNEZ-TOLEDO

hoti ho kairos tou arxasthai to krima apo tou oikou tou theou ei de prōton aph’ hēmōn
ti to telos tōn apeithountōn tō tou theou euangeliō.

For the time [has come] for the judgment to begin from the house of God; and if it
begins with us, what will be the end for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1
Pet. 4:17)1

D iscussions concerning a possible archetypal heavenly temple—the

true habitation of God—have focused on (1) the use of a model for
the construction of the earthly temple (Exod. 25:40); (2) imagery and
motifs in the Hebrew Bible;2 (3) scattered references in the New
Testament, especially in Hebrews and Revelation;3 and (recently) (4)
heavenly temple imagery in Paul’s writing and John’s gospel,4 or even in
the philosophical base of the thought.5 But Peter’s epistles have not yet had
a direct bearing on the discussion.
This chapter will explore the possibility that the expression apo tou
oikou tou theou, “at the house of God,” in 1 Peter 4:17 references a
heavenly temple. Towards that aim I will first examine the temple imagery
in 2:1–10, since it informs Peter’s language in 4:17.6 Then we will turn our
attention to chapter 4:17 and, after examining the literary context, discuss
the temple Peter had in mind—whether spiritual (the church), physical-
heavenly, or both. We will then look at the judgment associated with the
temple.

TEMPLE IMAGERY IN 1 PETER 2:1–10

In 1 Peter 2:1–10, Peter uses the image of a building in which a “living
stone,” lithon zōnta, is rejected by men but chosen by God (v. 4). Peter
also mentions a “cornerstone,” lithon akrogōniaion (v. 6). Both titles,
“living stone” and “cornerstone,” refer to Jesus. Peter’s language parallels
Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, and Ephesians 2:20.
Ultimately the language draws from Isaiah 28:16 and the salvation promise
that God would establish a strong foundation in Zion (cf. Ps. 118:22).
Then, by the use of the conjunction hos, “like,” Peter compares Jesus with
believers, whom he also calls “living stones” (1 Pet. 2:5). The plural
“stones” refers to believers individually, not corporately. All the stones
together form a “spiritual house,” oikos pneumatikos (v. 5).7 Believers are
also a “holy priesthood” and offer “spiritual sacrifices” (v. 5). The
references to a house, building stones, the priesthood, and sacrifices are
clearly temple imagery.
In verse 7 Jesus becomes the “capstone,” kephalēn gōnias.8 The switch
from “cornerstone” to “capstone” seems to emphasize the preeminence of
the stone’s position at the top (kephalēn) of the finished building rather
than as its foundation (at the corner). In Matthew 21:42 Jesus makes the
same transition using a rejected building stone that becomes the most
visible stone, the capstone. If Jesus is the capstone, believers are secondary
stones that follow the capstone to complete the house, the spiritual temple.
In 1 Peter 2:8 the capstone becomes a rock of “offense” or “stumbling”
(lithos proskommatos). The word comes from Isaiah 8:14 where the
sanctuary is in view: “And he [the Lord of hosts] will become a sanctuary
and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a
trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The role of the rejected
stone that becomes a capstone is that of judgment; just as the stone was
rejected, so was Jesus, but He is now glorified at the right hand of God (1
Pet. 3:22), the capstone of God’s spiritual temple.
The temple language of 1 Peter 2:1–10 probably functions as a mild
polemic against the Jerusalem temple,9 which formed the central core of
the Jewish faith. The leadership of Israel rejected Jesus, “the living stone.”
In contrast, God considered the rejected stone precious and chose it as the
foundation of His temple (v. 4). In turn, the stone became a stone of
“stumbling” and caused those who rejected it to fall (v. 8), implying that
God rejected the temple and the leadership of Israel. The “Living Stone”
with its many following “living stones” form the “spiritual house,” which
has replaced the physical house of cold, dead stones. This is also indicated
by “spiritual sacrifices” in verse 5 and the reference to all believers as a
“royal priesthood” (v. 9).
First Peter 1:10–12 explains that the sufferings of Christ were
anticipated by the prophets, who ministered not for their own time but for
the time in which Peter and his audience lived. In other words, Jesus
fulfilled the prophecies by His blood, being the true sacrificial Lamb
“foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1:20) as “a lamb without
blemish or spot” (v. 19). In light of this, the earthly sanctuary has lost its
ceremonial significance; there is no longer need for sacrifices. The
recipients of Peter’s letter are the chosen, to be sprinkled with the blood of
Jesus (v. 2), and they reside as aliens scattered on the earth (v. 1).
The priesthood of believers and the motif that they constitute a spiritual
temple reflect greater realities. According to 2:5 the priesthood of
believers can only be understood through the high priesthood of Jesus,
who is now in heaven (3:22). The spiritual sacrifices include good deeds
toward God and fellow believers.10 They must be understood as mirroring
the great sacrifice of Jesus, who offered Himself voluntarily for the
salvation of humanity through a life without sin: a perfect sacrifice
pleasant to God and replacing the imperfect deeds of believers.11 The
believers as a spiritual temple could also be understood as reflecting the
greater reality of the archetypal habitation of God, the heavenly temple.12
The “spiritual sacrifices” of believers, though performed on earth, ascend
to heaven and are presented by Jesus to God, euprosdektous [tō] theō dia
Iēsou christou (2:5). Thus 2:1–10 sets the heavenly temple reality as
background for its further use in 4:17. By sharing the illustration of the
spiritual house, the two passages also share the imagery of the heavenly
temple as background.

1 PETER 4:17: THE LITERARY CONTEXT

We now turn our attention to the literary context of 4:17, the main
“temple” text under examination. Peter’s epistle is addressed to believers
in the diaspora (1:1), both Jews13 and Gentiles (2:9–10), and assumes they
have a good knowledge of the Old Testament.14 The epistle also applies
Old Testament prophecies to Jesus. The prophesied salvation of the “grace
that was to be yours” (1:10) has finally arrived. Even if the focus of these
prophecies was unclear to the Old Testament writers, such was not the
case for the Holy Spirit, who predicted Jesus’s sufferings and the glory
that would follow (v. 11). The words “sufferings” and “glory” appear
repeatedly in Peter’s letter15 and are apparently a tension that he wanted to
resolve. Peter sees no contradiction between the two terms. For him,
present sufferings can produce future glory (e.g., 1:7; 4:13). The sufferings
that believers might face is not a strange problem, and through them
believers share in the sufferings of Jesus. The good news is that they will
also share in His glory. Their position as special people of God is
highlighted. Since they stand in a special relation to God as chosen people,
their behavior must also be special. A significant portion of 1 Peter tackles
how to live that special life. Another element that provides hope in the
midst of suffering is the coming of Jesus to judge and reward,16 at which
time believers will receive comfort and unbelievers will receive their due
reward (4:12–19).
Turning to the immediate context, the use of the vocative agapētoi,
“beloved” (v. 12), after amēn (v. 11) marks the beginning of the pericope,
while the conjunction hōste in verse 19 introduces Peter’s concluding
statement and the end of the pericope. The change of subject in 5:1 to
presbyterous, “elders,” marks the beginning of another pericope.
Therefore, the limits of our pericope are 4:12 and 19.
The theme is the fire of trials (peirasmos, “God’s examination of man,”
“test,” “trial”)17 experienced by the agapētoi, “the beloved ones.” There
are two kinds of suffering: one for shame (v. 15) and the other in the name
of Jesus (v. 14) as Christians (v. 16). The latter type does not cause
shame18 but glorifies God and shows that the Spirit of God lives in
believers (v. 14). The pericope concludes that those who suffer because of
Jesus must entrust their lives to the faithful Creator (v. 19).
Considering the latter frame and the context of the pericope, the
apparently independent clause of verse 17 that begins with hoti and speaks
of the coming judgment introduces an explanation of the reason suffering
believers should glorify God.19 The context for hoti is the imperative
doxazetō, “glorify.” The essence of Peter’s statement is that believers can
glorify God even in the midst of suffering because the judgment is about to
begin.

1 PETER 4:17: THE HOUSE OF GOD AS A SPIRITUAL

HOUSE
1 Peter 4:17 states that the judgment will begin, apo tou oikou tou theou,
“from/with the house of God.” The translation of the preposition apo is
crucial. If it is used in a spatial sense to indicate “separation” or “source”
as is common, the judgment (krima) will begin from the “house of God,”20
a specific location. Given that the “house of God” is a common term for
the temple, the judgment would begin from the temple of God. Which
temple? It could not be the one in Jerusalem since, for Christians, it had
already been superseded; neither could it be the spiritual temple of the
believers since judgment cannot have its source in them or in any other
human.21 The possibility that the “house of God” is a reference to God’s
heavenly temple harmonizes with biblical and extra biblical cosmology.22
Most translations, however, prefer to translate apo tou oikou tou theou in
light of the verb archō, “begin,” to indicate sequence: judgment will begin
“with”23 or “at24 the house of God,” that is, with God’s people who
constitute God’s household, a “spiritual temple.” Judgment will then
proceed to those who do not obey the gospel of God (4:17).25
The strongest support for this latter option is a string of texts where the
verb archō (“to begin”) followed by apo suggests sequence: Judges 20:31;
Ezekiel 9:6; Matthew 20:8; Luke 14:18; 23:5; 24:27, 47; John 8:9; Acts
1:22; 8:35; 10:37. Nevertheless, though sequence is implied, could the
source also be indicated? From the above list this is true in at least three of
the texts. In Luke 14:18 both sequence and source are implied. The context
is the parable of the great banquet (14:16–24). Sequence is in view since
the invitees offer excuses one after the other. When the master calls, they
“begin to” (ērxanto apo) decline; source is also implied since the excuses
come “from” the invitees.
Soon after His resurrection Jesus expounds on the Old Testament
scripture to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:27). He
begins His exposition “with” (arxamenos apo) Moses and the Prophets
(sequence); the study of scripture also comes “from” them (source). It
would appear that, at least in this text, source dominates sequence. Since
Moses and the Prophets make up two of the three major segments of the
Hebrew Bible, sequence is hardly in view. In Acts 8:35, in his meeting
with the Ethiopian, Philip “begins” his study “with” (arxamenos apo) the
Isaiah servant passage (sequence) but also bases his exposition on the
passage (source). Therefore the sequential sense does not exclude source.
In favor of sequence it could also be argued that, in biblical Greek,
when oikos appears in the genitive and the intent is to indicate source, the
preposition ek is usually used (e.g., ex oikou kyriou; Ps. 117:26;26 2 Kings
11:19). Though less common, apo can provide the same sense of origin, as
in Ezra 10:6: apo tou oikou tou theou (cf. Nah. 1:6; Joel 2:20; Ps.
18:8[17:9]).
Furthermore, Peter uses the term oikos only once more (2:5). There
oikos is modified by the adjective pneumatikos, a “spiritual house,” which
is a clear reference to believers.27 If 4:17 also uses oikos as a reference to
believers, the judgment could not be from them (source); rather, it begins
with them (sequence). But is this the only or primary meaning Peter had in
mind? Could Peter also have had in mind God’s heavenly residence?

1 PETER 4:17: THE “HOUSE OF GOD” AS THE

HEAVENLY TEMPLE
Three pieces of evidence are in favor of seeing the “house of God” as a
reference to a physical temple from whence judgment emanates. First, it
was noted in the discussion on believers as a “spiritual temple” (2:1–10)
that this view makes sense in light of the heavenly realities, the heavenly
high priesthood of Jesus, and His once-and-for-all sacrifice. Given that a
temple was understood to be the home of deity, it would not be arguable
that believers are the only temple of God. They are only a temple insofar
as they are the home of God’s presence on earth.
Second, moving to language and syntax, the specific Greek construction
oikos (in any case) plus tou theou (in genitive case) is used eighty-four
times in the LXX and New Testament, and every time it refers to a
physical temple28—mostly the temple of God29 and only twice of other
deities.30 The level of consistency is high and should not be easily
discounted. If Peter uses the phrase as it is used elsewhere, we must
conclude that God’s heavenly temple is in view.
Third, the Old Testament background also points to a literal, heavenly
temple. Two texts seem to have influenced 1 Peter 4:17: Ezekiel 9:6 and
Jeremiah 25:29–30.31 In Ezekiel 9:6 the idea of judgment coming from the
temple is clear. In 9:2 a group of executors is standing by the bronze altar,
having “entered” (eisēlthosan) a place called a “house” (v. 3) where the
cherubim and the glory of God are—clearly it is the “house of God,” the
temple.
Which temple? Since the judgment falls upon Jerusalem, it is fairly
evident that the Jerusalem temple is at least partly in view. Thus the six
men who execute judgment come to the temple through the “upper gate”
(Ezek. 9:2) and are sent “through the city” (vv. 4–5). However, the
language of the broader vision suggests that judgment ultimately derives
from God’s heavenly habitation, the heavenly temple. In Ezekiel 10:1 the
prophet beholds the throne of God, which is sapphire in appearance—a
gemstone elsewhere associated with God’s heavenly habitation (Exod.
24:10; Ezek. 1:26; 28:13; Rev. 21:19). The language used throughout
Ezekiel 10 reminds of the language of the heavenly throne in 1:15–28. In
Ezekiel’s vision there seems to be a close relationship between God’s
heavenly throne and the earthly temple in Jerusalem.
The judgment in Ezekiel takes the form of slaughter and begins apo tōn
agiōn mou, “from my Holy [Place],” referring to the temple (9:6).32 The
first to face the judgment will be the people in the temple: “so they began
with the elders who were before the house” (v. 6). The double use is clear.
The judgment is “sourced” or flows out from the temple, and the first
people affected are in the temple.33
The second text, Jeremiah 25:29–30 (LXX 32:29–30), has a similar
outlook. The same verb, archō, is used as in 1 Peter 4:17. God begins to
kakōsai (“harm”) in Jerusalem, the city where His name is called.
Although the term judgment does not appear, the term katharsis has the
sense of judicial absolution34 and is applied in question form to the kings
of the north and Babylon (Jer. 25:29): “and shall you be completely free
from punishment [katharsei]” (NASB). The answer comes quickly: “You
will not be free from punishment” (NASB).35 The destruction begins with
the holy city (sequence), but the sentence or judgment comes from the
temple (source): “You, therefore, shall prophesy against them all these
words, and say to them: ‘The LORD will roar from on high, and from his
holy habitation utter his voice’” (MT Jer. 25:30; LXX 32:30). The word in
the MT for “habitation” is māʿôn,36 “dwelling place.”37 Sometimes the
LXX translates it as hagiasma, “sanctuary,”38 or oikos, “house.”39 Here the
LXX renders it apo tou hagiou autou,40 which is syntactically and
semantically similar to the apo tou oikou tou theou of 1 Peter 4:17.41
Jeremiah 25:3042 is especially pertinent because the judgment does not
come from the Jerusalem temple but from God’s holy house “on high”
(aph’ hypsēlou), from the heavenly temple. Clearly Jeremiah pictures
judgment as being sourced from God’s heavenly temple.
The above parallels underline the common biblical motif that the
judgment is sourced from God’s temple and that the temple is heavenly.
While this is not explicitly stated, three facts indicate that 1 Peter 4:17 is
best understood as also referring to the heavenly temple: (1) the close
parallel between heavenly and earthly realities noted in the temple
language in 2:1–10; (2) the choice of the phrase “house of God,” which
always depicts a literal temple; and now (3) the clear heavenly temple
imagery of the two Old Testament texts that 4:17 utilizes.
Even though the Jerusalem temple was still standing when 1 Peter was
written43 and was frequented by believers, it was already superseded by
greater realities, as noted above. Judgment could only come from God’s
heavenly habitation.
 Summarizing the discussion so far, grammatically, syntactically, and
contextually apo tou oikou tou theou in 1 Peter 4:17 (in harmony with
Ezek. 9:6 and Jer. 25:29–30) can be translated as indicating sequence,
source, or—most likely—both. The judgment in view originates in the
heavenly temple of God and is first directed to the people of God, God’s
“spiritual temple” on earth, and then to unbelievers.

THE JUDGMENT
What kind of judgment does 1 Peter 4:17 have in view? The Greek krima
can be understood as (1) an administrative decree,44 often with an
unfavorable sense like condemnation or punishment; (2) the function of a
judge, judgment, or judging; or (3) a legal action or process lawsuit.45
Since this judgment falls on both the righteous and the wicked, the act of
judgment, rather than the verdict, is in view.46 The result of this judgment
is salvation for the righteous and condemnation for the wicked: “what will
become of the ungodly and the sinner?” (v. 18).
The comparison with the sufferings of Christ (4:13) links with 2:21–23
and 4:1–5, which also speak of judgment. First Peter 2:21–23 focuses on
endurance (hypomenō, v. 20), and 4:1–5 focuses on the reason for the
suffering of believers. In both passages the same contrast appears as in
4:14–17: whether believers are suffering for doing good or for doing evil
(4:15, 16; cf. 2:20).47 If they are suffering for doing good, they can entrust
(paradidōmi in 2:23 and paratithēmi in 4:19)48 themselves to the
judgment. In this context the judgment is a legal process that reveals the
reasons for the suffering of the people of God, and—more importantly—
results in an administrative decree49 confirming their salvation (sōzō in
4:18 and 3:2 and zaō in 2:24). The outcome will be different for
unbelievers50 (inferred in 2:23; 3:20; 4:4, 5, 17, 18).51
The krima comes from the heavenly temple of God, a concept familiar
to the Jewish mind. It begins with those who frequent the precincts of
God’s temple (i.e., believers, the spiritual temple), the hēmōn of 4:17, and
expands to include those who do not believe. The former receive a
pronouncement of salvation and life; the latter meet their end.
The judgment will take place in the eschaton, but Peter uses this concept
in a twofold way. The expression eschatou tōn chronōn, “in the last times”
(1 Pet. 1:20),52 points to when the Old Testament prophecies will be
fulfilled. For Peter, the lapse between his time and the second coming of
Jesus was not clear (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:20; compare with 2 Pet. 3:8–9). For him
this eschatos could include both his time and the time of the second
coming, but there is a difference.
When Peter uses the word kairos (1 Pet. 1:5) he refers to the second
coming, whereas when he uses chronōn he refers to his own time (e.g., 1
Pet. 1:20). In verse 5 kairos53 is used with the adjective eschatos. In verse
11 the word is qualified with tina ē poion, and in 5:6 it is used adverbially
(en kairō),54 giving the same eschatological sense.55 That an eschatological
judgment is in view is also evident by the references in 1:17, 2:23, and 4:5,
where the judgment is still future.

CONCLUSION
Believers in the time of Peter needed to trust in the justice of God despite
the persecution they were suffering because of their faith. Peter applies the
prophecies of the Old Testament to Jesus and indicates that they have an
eschatological dimension. Their sufferings are not strange; the Old
Testament prophets had already written about this. Jesus was the example
of suffering, and those who share the same experience shall also share in
His glory in the judgment, where the truth will be revealed.
In this context Peter argues that the time for the judgment to begin is at
hand. He draws imagery for the judgment from the Old Testament, and he
highlights the “house of God” as the source. This expression is a title for
the temple, where the judgment comes. Knowing the source of the
judgment brings confidence to believers.
Believers are a temple. Jesus is both the foundation stone and the
capstone; believers are living stones. But there is another temple, a
heavenly one: the house of God in heaven. Which temple is Peter referring
to when he mentions that the judgment will begin in the temple? The
literary context of the letter, the logical argument of the pericope, the use
of the Old Testament background, and the syntactical construction suggest
that we should interpret the “house of God” in 1 Peter 4:17 as a reference
to the heavenly temple, where the final judgment will come from.
Through the reference to the temple and the judgment, Peter strengthens
both the hope of believers under suffering and their faith in Him who
judges righteously. Peter points out the proximity of that moment and the
fact that believers will be vindicated in this heavenly temple judgment.
14
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY IN
REVELATION: CONTEXT AND
SIGNIFICANCE
RABACH ODEK

T he book of Revelation1 is replete with sanctuary references, language,

and imagery.2 These references and allusions have been viewed from
different perspectives: the socioreligious context of the first century,3 the
church-temple motif of the New Testament,4 the context of the Hebrew
cultus,5 and the literary structure of Revelation.6 Each of these perspectives
has merit.7 However, because of the pattern of occurrence and the context
of the sanctuary references in Revelation, a study from the literary
structure and cultic context is preferred in this chapter.
This study looks at the references to the sanctuary in Revelation from
the basis of introductory scenes.8 References and allusions to the sanctuary
are mainly located in these sections. There are other references to the
sanctuary outside these sections; however, these could be viewed in the
context of the introductory scenes.9 This study observes how the cluster of
sanctuary references and allusions in the introductory scenes is reflected in
the subsequent sections and ultimately reflects on the function of the
sanctuary motif in Revelation.

INTRODUCTORY SCENE ONE: REVELATION 1:12–20

In this scene the descriptions of the location and of Jesus have sanctuary
imagery. The golden lampstands and the clothing of the Son of Man have a
sanctuary connotation. The lampstands allude to the sanctuary ministry
(Exod. 25:37, 31; Zech. 4:2). The context of this first vision is the Hebrew
cultus, but there are differences of opinion as to whether the background is
the Holy Place in the earthly tabernacle,10 the ten-branch lampstand of
Solomon’s temple,11 or an allusion to the lampstands in Zechariah 4.12 It is
possibly the ministration of Jesus in the Holy Place. Christ’s statement
about the lampstands as “seven stars” and the angels of seven churches
(Rev. 1:20) suggests that Zechariah 4 could also be a possible background.
The ministry of Jesus in the sanctuary as it translates to His church is the
focus of this first vision.
The description of Jesus is both priestly and kingly.13 His place among
the lampstands points to a priestly role. The vision of Him “in the middle
of” (en mesō, Rev. 1:13), the lampstands is symbolically significant,
connecting the vision and the messages to the seven churches. The opening
formula tade legei and the description of Jesus throughout Revelation 2–3
express the presence of Jesus in each of the seven churches.14 There is an
intimate connection between the heavenly royal-priest and the earthly
churches. The venue of the first vision can be described as having a
heaven-earth dimension.15 The resurrected Lord ministering in the
heavenly sanctuary is among His people in the midst of the candlesticks
and walks among them (Rev. 1:13; 2:1). The vision and the subsequent
section have a strong concentration of references to Christ’s death and
resurrection (Rev. 1:5, 17, 18). These images are related to the feast of
Passover.16

INTRODUCTORY SCENE TWO: REVELATION 4–5

There are no explicit sanctuary references in this section. Nevertheless,
sanctuary imagery pervades the passage. The twenty-four elders
correspond to the twenty-four classes of priests and the Levites who
oversaw the service in the postexilic temple.17 The living beings
correspond to the cherubim associated with the inner temple (Exod. 25:18–
20; 1 Kings 6:23–26; Ezek. 1; 10). Their imagery as the lion, eagle, calf,
and man parallel the banners that surrounded the encampment of the
Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 2). The lamb points to the sacrificial
lambs in the Old Testament sanctuary services (Exod. 12:3–5; Lev. 3:7;
4:32; 5:6). The golden bowls, incense, and prayers are associated with
morning and evening prayer in the Hebrew sanctuary system (Exod.
29:38–42).
There is a consensus about the sanctuary imagery of Revelation 4–5, but
there are contentions on its cultic background. Suggestions include the
Day of Atonement,18 an inauguration service,19 or a ministry in the Holy
Place.20 According to Stefanovic, the key to unlocking Revelation 4–5 is
3:21, which he argues points to the enthronement of Jesus.21 The lamb in
chapter 5 combines the images of priest and king; it is the imagery of royal
enthronement and temple inauguration.22 Jesus is presented in between, en
mesō, the throne (5:6). His enthronement and inauguration impacts the
subsequent section of the seven seals (6:1–8:1).
The seven seals are opened in the context of the introductory scene
(Rev. 4–5).23 The order of the results after the opening of the seals—war,
famine, pestilence, persecution—parallel the covenant curses in the
Pentateuch and their execution in the Babylonian exile.24 There are also
parallels between the opening of the seven seals and the Olivet discourse.25
The events of the seven seals describe the experience of God’s people
between the first century and Jesus’s second coming.26 The statements
“and behold a door standing open in heaven,” idou thyra ēneōgmenē (4:1)
and “I saw between [en mesō] the throne . . . a Lamb standing” (5:6)
highlight Christ’s role and the sanctuary theme. There are parallels
between the expression “a door standing open in heaven,” Christ’s
standing posture in chapters 4–5, and the experience of the first Christian
martyr, Stephen. At his death, Stephen beheld the heavens open and the
Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56).27 The seals
depict Christ as present and at work with His people during the time of
their affliction. The venue of the sanctuary in this section is heaven.
The throne room scene of Revelation 4–5 could be associated with the
feast of Pentecost. The celebration in 5:9, 10 alludes to the language in
Exodus 19: 5, 6.28 The Jewish liturgy included the reading of Exodus 19
and Ezekiel 1.29 The inauguration of Jesus after His ascension to heaven is
connected with the celebration of Pentecost.30

INTRODUCTORY SCENE THREE: REVELATION 8:2–6

No explicit reference to the sanctuary is made in the third introductory
scene. However, this section refers to the sanctuary furnishings and
services: the incense, altar, golden censers, and trumpets. The incense and
the golden censers correspond to the artifacts and elements of the daily
service of worship in the earthly sanctuary (Exod. 29:38–42; 30:1, 3, 7).31
The relationship between the third introductory section (Rev. 8:2–6) and
the rest of the section of the seven trumpets (8:7–11:18) is depicted in the
use of the incense and the trumpets. The incense represents the prayers and
intercession of the saints.32 The trumpets symbolize God’s intervention in
redemption and judgment.33 The themes of judgment and mediation occur
in the whole section. The element of mediation in the incense merges with
the judgment that will fall upon the rejecters of the earthly mediation.34
The central figure in this scene, “another angel,” could be a reference to
Jesus. The expression “another angel came and stood at the altar,” aggelos
ēlthen kai estathē epi tou thysiastēriou, reveals the ministry of the
sanctuary envisioned in the subsequent section and connects this section
with the others. The word standing, implied and expressed in the first three
introductory sections, could mean service and ministry to the saints in
affliction or judgment upon the rejecters of mercy. The venue of the
sanctuary is heavenly. The trumpets correspond to the Feast of Trumpets.35

INTRODUCTORY SCENE FOUR: REVELATION 11:19

The fourth introductory scene explicitly refers to the heavenly sanctuary.
The phrases “the temple of God which is in heaven” and “the ark of His
covenant” are used. The background to this section corresponds to the
earthly ministry in the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement.36 The
seven-trumpets section precedes this introductory scene, and there is
reference to judgment in the immediate context (11:18).37 From this
passage onward the word judgment appears frequently, as opposed to only
one prior instance.38 The section ends with a judgment scene from the
heavenly sanctuary (14:15–17).
In the subsequent section (Rev. 12–14) the key features of the ark of the
covenant, the law of God, and the mercy seat are discussed. The struggle
between the remnant and the dragon is mainly about the law of God and
the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 14:12). The war against God’s people and
His sanctuary, and blasphemy towards God’s sanctuary (13:6) are central
in this section. The expression “and the temple of God which is in heaven”
and the description “flashes of lightening and sounds and peals of thunder
and an earthquake and a great hailstorm” (11:19) parallel Revelation 4–5.
There is no ministering figure or any mention of angels or Jesus. However,
the linguistic parallels with the second introductory scene (chs. 4–5) could
imply a related ministry and the same target group. It seems that when
ministry to the saints is the focus of the sanctuary the door stands open,
accompanied by great optical and audio phenomena from heaven. The
venue in this introductory scene is heaven. The references to the inner
section of the sanctuary and to judgment (11:18–19) point to the feast of
the Day of Atonement.
INTRODUCTORY SCENE FIVE: REVELATION 15:5–8
The sanctuary is referred to as “the temple of the tabernacle of testimony
in heaven” (15:5) in this introductory section. The venue of the sanctuary
is heaven. However, there are no references to the artifacts or services as
in the previous sections.39 The angels come out of the temple; after they
have been given the censers, the temple is filled with smoke and no one
can enter. This sanctuary scene alludes to Exodus 40:34–35. Some observe
a cessation of sanctuary ministry here as in Ezekiel 10.
The section following this introductory scene deals with preparation for
the rewards and punishment.40 The section immediately following (ch. 16)
deals with the plagues. The cessation of the heavenly sanctuary ministry
impacts earth. The angels appear with plagues on the rejecters of God’s
mercy. The activities following can be viewed in the background of the
annual sanctuary service, the Day of Atonement.41

INTRODUCTORY SCENE SIX: REVELATION 19:1–10

This introductory scene mentions worship, the Lamb, and the throne. It has
close linguistic parallels to Revelation 4–5, but the furnishings and other
elements of the earthly sanctuary are not present. The section that follows
(19:11–21) is transitional, depicting the parousia, millennium, and
judgment (ch. 20).
The cry of the saints for vindication (6:9–11) finds its fulfillment in
19:2: “He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants.” The emphasis in
Revelation 19 is not on the slain Lamb as in chapter 5 but on the marriage
supper of the Lamb (19:7–10). John hears a loud voice in heaven (19:1),
showing that the venue for this introductory scene is heaven. The events
described as taking place after this section can be viewed as occurring
during the antitypical Day of Atonement.42

INTRODUCTORY SCENE SEVEN: REVELATION 21:1–6

The descent of the holy city Jerusalem is the main feature of this section.
The word skēnē is used for the sanctuary (21:3). This use of skēnē
corresponds to its use during the initial construction of the tabernacle
(Exod. 25:8). In Exodus the purpose of the establishment of the sanctuary
is expressed in the clause “that I may dwell among them.” This purpose is
accomplished in Revelation, as expressed in the statement “and He will
dwell among them” (21:3).
The whole section (21:1–22:5) gives details and description of the New
Jerusalem. There are several parallels between this section and the first
introductory scene (1:12–20) with its subsequent section (chs. 2–3). The
dwellers of the New Jerusalem are those who overcame, a theme that
recurs in Revelation 2–3.43 The tree of life mentioned in 2:7 is described in
22:1–3. The writing of names on the pillars, foundation, gates, and in the
Book of Life in chapters 2–4 correspond to the writing of names in chapter
21. Therefore, the anticipation and the promises given in chapters 2–3 find
their fulfillment in 21:6–22:5. In the first introductory scene, the venue of
the sanctuary has heaven/earth dimensions; this is also true of the seventh
introductory scene. The events here parallel the activities of the Feast of
Tabernacles. The reference “the tabernacle of God is among men” in 21:3
also alludes to it (Lev. 23:33–37). Finally, the water imagery of the Feast
of Tabernacles finds correspondence in the final chapters of Revelation
(22:1, 17).

FEASTS, RITUALS, AND VENUES IN THE

INTRODUCTORY SCENES: A SCHEMA44
1. Revelation 1:12–20 (Passover feast) Heaven/Earth (Christ en
mesō)
2. Revelation 4–5 (Inauguration-Pentecost) Heaven (The Lamb
standing en mesō, an open door)
3. Revelation 8:2–5 (Intercession-Feast of Trumpets) Heaven (An
angel standing at the altar)
4. Revelation 11:19 (Judgment-Day of Atonement) Heaven (Open
door; ark of the covenant)
5. Revelation 15:5–8 (Cessation) Heaven (Temple in heaven open,
angels come out)
6. Revelation 19:1–10 (Inauguration) Heaven (Marriage of the
Lamb ready)
7. Revelation 21:1–22:5 (Feast of Tabernacles) Heaven/Earth (God
skēnōsei met autōn)

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SANCTUARY

REFERENCES
Sanctuary references in Revelation’s introductory scenes depict its literary
unity. These sanctuary scenes also show an orientation of the two halves of
the book based on the Hebrew cultus: the first on the daily services and the
second on the annual services. The structural movement of the sanctuary
venues envelops Revelation in a heaven/earth–heaven–heaven/earth
structure. This is further explained below.

SANCTUARY REFERENCES AND LITERARY UNITY IN

REVELATION
The sanctuary references, imagery, and allusions in the introductory scenes
progress based on the sanctuary services and annual feasts. The venues of
these introductory scenes also envelop the book of Revelation into a
heaven/earth–heaven–heaven/earth structure. Such a structural
phenomenon presupposes a certain focus from a single author. No last
word can be said about the structure of Revelation, but the sevenfold
structure is prominent.45 The seven sanctuary introductory scenes parallel
this feature. This commonality points to the unity of the work.
The cultic background observed in the introductory scenes is a
characteristic Johannine feature, used especially in the gospel of John,
which is cast on the background of Jewish rituals and festivals.46 This
feature in Revelation confirms the apostle John’s authorship. The
sevenfold sanctuary introductory scenes cover the whole of the book of
Revelation. This suggests that the whole book should be read as an
apocalyptic, prophetic work. Though some parts are more epistolary and
others more prophetic, the prophetic aspect runs throughout. The first
introductory scene (1:12–20) is connected to the letters to the seven
churches in chapters 2–3. The last introductory scene (21:1–22:5) is also
linked to the epilogue (22:6–20). Thus the epistolary sections should be
read in the context of this linkage.

THE SANCTUARY AS PROPHECY IN REVELATION

The fourth introductory scene divides the book of Revelation into two
cultic halves.47 The first half involves the activities of the daily services,
while the second involves the activities of the annual service.48 The
artifacts and the services in the first three introductory scenes portray the
daily services.49 In the fourth scene John sees the Most Holy Place with the
ark of the covenant. This suggests an annual service. From the fourth scene
on, Revelation shifts to the antitypical Day of Atonement.50 This
corresponds with its historical and eschatological aspects.51 The
eschatological section (chs. 15–22) falls with the annual service (11:19–
20:15) of the antitypical Day of Atonement.

HEAVEN/EARTH–HEAVEN–HEAVEN/EARTH
ENVELOPE
The horizontal movement of the introductory scenes presents an envelope
structure of heaven/earth–heaven–heaven/earth of the sanctuary venues in
Revelation. God’s immanence is depicted in scenes one and seven.52 This
is demonstrated by the phrases en mesō (1:13) and skēnōsei met autōn
(21:3). In the first introductory scene Christ identifies Himself with His
church. The phrase “in the middle” (1:13) could be understood
metaphorically as Christ in the midst of His churches, supporting them
during the time of persecution and trials. This picture is emphasized by
other expressions, such as “in His right hand He held seven stars” (1:16;
2:1; 3:1) and “the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands”
(2:1). Christ is with His church, serving as Pastor and Priest: tending it,
encouraging it, and purifying it.53 As the remnant Jews from the
Babylonian exile were encouraged by Zechariah’s vision of the
lampstands, so are Christians in Revelation. The last scene is a description
of the fulfillment of God’s purpose for the sanctuary. God dwelling with
His people becomes the grand climax of the sanctuary motif. The theme of
dwelling is implied in the prologue (1:4–8), alluded to in 1:13, anticipated
in the heavenly venues of the sanctuary (introductory scenes two through
six), and is fulfilled at the end (21:1–22:5).
Introductory scenes two through six indicate transcendence.54
Nevertheless, the activities of the sanctuary in heaven are intended for
saints on earth. In these introductory scenes immanence is expressed in the
phrases “in between,” “a door standing open,” “open door,” and
“standing” in connection with the saints. The “open door” and Christ
“standing” parallel Stephen’s vision at his death. Christ is standing for His
people in affliction. Their cry under the altar is heard (6:10–11), and they
will be rewarded and worship God in His temple (7:14–16). The shift from
the earthly to the heavenly venues involves the overcomers being
welcomed to the throne of God (3:21). In the heavenly venues (the second
through sixth scenes), the throne is mainly a cultic center. The heavenly
venues therefore present a throne in the context of the sanctuary in
anticipation of the throne being shared by those who overcome (7:15;55
14:4–5). This translates into reality and fulfillment in the seventh scene.

CONCLUSION
The references to the sanctuary in Revelation occur mainly in the
“introductory scenes.” These indicate that the book should be read as a
unit. The use of the daily and annual services and feasts as the background
indicates the significance of the sanctuary motif in the prophecies. The
cultic context reveals a connection between the eschatological section and
the antitypical Day of Atonement. The venues of the introductory scenes
depict an heaven/earth–heaven–heaven/earth pattern. This movement
shows that the sanctuary motif in Revelation is about God’s intention to
dwell with His people. This intention is expressed in the first and seventh
scenes and is anticipated in the second through sixth scenes. The impact of
the introductory sanctuary scenes on their subsequent sections show God’s
desire to achieve His ultimate aim of dwelling with His people now (in
their midst, as among the lampstands), in the course of history (with a door
open, standing for them), and ultimately among them in the new earth.
15
THE MEASUREMENT MOTIF IN
REVELATION 11:1–2
LAUREȚIU FLORENTIN MOȚ

R evelation 11:1–2 is part of a larger passage (vv. 1–14) labeled “the

most confusing section in the entire book.”1 The verses are in the
middle of an interlude that splits the sixth trumpet into two parts (10:1–
11:14). Representing a climactic point in the seven trumpets, 11:1–2
describes the command to (1) measure the temple, the altar, and the ones
worshipping in the temple and (2) not measure the outer court. The image
of measuring is found throughout the Bible applied to fields,2 buildings,3
cultic objects,4 and (rarely) to human beings5—but never to humans in a
temple context. What is the significance of this measurement in 11:1–2?
To answer this question, this chapter will (1) explore the identity of the
temple; (2) investigate the Old Testament background; (3) analyze the
instrument of measuring; (4) review the objects measured; (5) discuss the
timing of the action; (6) explore the meaning of the measurement in the
context of judgment; and (7) discuss the significance of measurement.6

THE IDENTITY OF THE TEMPLE

The first important issue regarding 11:1–2 is the identity of the temple that
is measured.7 There are five views on which temple is referred to: (1) the
temple in Jerusalem;8 (2) a supposed future, eschatological, rebuilt temple
in Jerusalem;9 (3) the church;10 (4) the heavenly temple;11 and (5) a
nonhistorical temple depicted purely for the purposes of the vision.12
The third option seems to be immediately unlikely; if the temple is
already symbolic of the church, the separate mention of the worshippers in
the temple seems redundant. The fifth option follows an idealistic
approach and is not fully congruent with the nature of the apocalyptic
genre, which is characterized by a strong emphasis on heavenly
cosmology. Therefore it should not be entertained. We are left with two
options: the temple is either the earthly temple (historical or
eschatological) or the heavenly.
Aune13 lists arguments in favor of the earthly first-century Jerusalem
temple. The most important are as follows: (1) the measuring probably
signifies protection, and the heavenly temple and its worshippers need no
protection; (2) John is on earth—not in heaven—when he receives the
command to measure; (3) the symbolic language of the passage is
generally understood to refer to earthly events and does not leave room for
the heavenly temple; (4) 11:1–2 depicts the divisions of the temple of
Herod, and, in light of verses 7–9, the location is Jerusalem; and (5) the
outer court that is left unmeasured cannot be in heaven since it is taken
over by the Gentiles for forty-two months.
The first argument is valid only if the measurement exclusively means
protection. But as will be pointed out later, it can also signify delimitation
between two categories. Regarding the second argument, the place where
John is physically present does not impact his prophetic journey. He can
be in heaven (4:2), in the wilderness (17:3), or on a high mountain (21:10)
while still physically on Patmos. In Revelation 7 John beholds four angels
in the four corners of the earth (7:1), but soon thereafter he has a vision of
heaven (v. 9). There is an ongoing interplay between scenes of earth and
visions of heaven, with the transitions not always clearly stated. Based on
this, 11:1–2 could be either in heaven or on earth.
As to the third argument, the manner in which symbolic language is
interpreted by commentators is not proof of the author’s original intent.
The identity of the temple needs to be contextually established. Regarding
the last two points, it is true that John describes the temple according to the
divisions of the temple of Herod, but this by no means suggests that this is
the temple in view. That the outer court is not measured may confirm that
it is not part of the heavenly abode; it is here on earth.
The suggestion that the temple is the heavenly temple seems more
plausible, and I will argue as such. Aune14 gives at least three important
arguments to this effect, and I will add three more. First, if the book of
Revelation was written towards the end of the first century, as the majority
of commentators believe, the Jerusalem temple had already been in ruins
for nearly three decades. A command to measure it would be meaningless.
Collins observes that Revelation “has no positive interest in the historical
earthly temple elsewhere in the book. . . . The lack of a temple probably
reflects the destruction of the historical temple, as well as the attitude that
no restoration of the temple is necessary.”15
 Second, Aune—reflecting Josephus—suggests that 11:1–2 separates the
outer court from the temple and the altar in a cosmic sense, in which the
Most Holy Place is in heaven while other parts of the temple are on the
earth. Third, the expression used to describe the worshippers, tous
proskynountas, uses language that elsewhere depicts the heavenly worship
of God (e.g., Rev. 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 14:7; 19:14).
Fourth, elsewhere in Revelation the word naos refers exclusively to the
temple of God, which is located in heaven (3:12; 7:15; 11:19; 14:15, 17;
15:5–6, 8; 16:1, 17). Four of these occurrences clearly specify that the
temple described is “in heaven” (en tō ouranō, 11:19; 14:17; 15:5; cf.
3:12). Another two mentions are from the immediate context of the
heavenly temple passages and obviously allude to the same (14:17; 15:6).
In 16:17 (cf. 7:15) the sanctuary is the palace of God’s throne, which in
Revelation is located in heaven (4:2–6, 9–10; 5:1, 6, 7, 11, 13). It would be
hard to maintain that, contrary to the normal usage in the book, in 11:1–2
the earthly temple is depicted.
Fifth, in looking at the two witnesses who may be symbolic of God’s
people or God’s word,16 we notice a shift of locus running through their
story. They are first pictured as standing before the Lord, presumably in
heaven (11:4). Then they are killed after they finish their testimony on
earth (v. 7), are resurrected three-and-a-half days later (vv. 9–11), and
ascend to heaven (v. 12). Because the two witnesses are painted in
symbolic language,17 their death, resurrection, and ascension are also
symbolic. God’s people, although harassed and persecuted to death here on
earth, have never been completely extinguished. The resurrection is to be
viewed as a recovery after the attack of the beast. Their journey begins and
ends in heaven, and this fits well with the idea that the heavenly temple is
in view.
The sixth argument is based on the contrast between the people of God
and the inhabitants of the earth. This does not by itself mean that the
faithful are depicted as being in heaven. But while the expression hoi en
autois skēnountes (12:12) has been interpreted as a reference to heavenly
beings,18 the same expression also hints at saints.19 The verb skēnoō (“I
dwell, I make a tent”)20 appears only five times in the New Testament:
once in John (1:14) and four times in Revelation (7:15; 12:12; 13:6;
21:3).21 Two of these four (Rev. 7:15; 21:3) involve human beings in the
literal heavenly temple after the eschaton (cf. 21:3).
In contrast, when John speaks about the earth dwellers he uses the more
common verb kaitoikeō (“I inhabit, I dwell”).22 God’s people, though still
on earth, dwell and worship symbolically in heaven; this is versus the
inhabitants of the earth who worship the beast and the dragon (13:4). As
Beale puts it, “possibly the ‘worshipers’ in Revelation 11:1 are to be
identified as members of the heavenly court, though they still live on
earth.”23 For Chilton “the fact that Christ our High Priest is in this
sanctuary means that we, although still on earth, already participate in its
worship (10:19ff.; 12:22ff.).”24 If that is the case and the temple in 11:1–2
is the heavenly, then the measurement has to do with that sanctuary.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

Two Old Testament backgrounds are usually assumed for Revelation
11:1–2: Ezekiel 40–42 and Zechariah 2:1–5. Regarding Ezekiel, fourteen
years after the temple had been leveled to the ground (40:1) Ezekiel was
taken in a vision from Babylon to Israel. He saw a temple resembling a
city (v. 2). In the vision a man appeared at the gates of the temple holding
two instruments of measuring: a cord and a reed (v. 3). With the reed25 he
measured the exterior walls, gates, auxiliary rooms, outer and inner
courts,26 windows, and porticoes. The altar of sacrifice is mentioned, but
there is nothing said of it being measured until Ezekiel 43:13. Beginning
with chapter 41, the focus is the temple building. Here the man measures
the jambs, doors, walls, two apartments of the temple, auxiliary rooms,
windows, porticoes, and the altar of incense. When he finishes taking
account of the interior, he goes out and measures the wall, which encircles
the house/temple. The significance of that wall was “to separate the holy
from the common” (42:20).27
The spiritual purpose of this measuring exercise is revealed in Ezekiel
43:10–11: “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that
they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection, and if
they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of
the temple—its arrangement, its exits and entrances—its whole design and
all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may
be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.” The Israelites, who
no longer had a temple since the one in Jerusalem had been destroyed,
were to understand that there was a new temple that God had designed for
them. They were to enjoy it only on the basis of their repentance. But if
they adhered to their idolatry, God’s plan for a new temple would not be
fulfilled.
More differences exist between Ezekiel and John than parallels.28
Ezekiel emphasizes the description of the temple complex and its
regulations, while John stresses the action of the measuring. The purpose
in Revelation is not to motivate, as it is in Ezekiel. Revelation also has no
detailed description of the heavenly edifice. But I see a connection
between the two contexts. God expected the contemporaries of Ezekiel to
attune their religious life according to the ideal temple revealed to them, in
contrast to the earthly temple of their recent past in which sin was
committed underhandedly (cf. Ezek. 9). Likewise, in Revelation the
measurements of the New Jerusalem (though not specifically the temple)
are given in numbers that have strong spiritual overtones (21:12, 14, 16,
17, 21).29
Strand has analyzed both Ezekiel 40–42 and Zechariah 2:1–5 and
likewise finds more differences than similarities between them and
Revelation 11:1–2. He maintains that the only common element between
the first two passages and Revelation is the measuring instrument: the
reed.30 Otherwise there are striking differences. In Zechariah, Jerusalem is
to be measured—not the temple, the altar, and the worshippers, as in
Revelation. Moreover, in Revelation the measuring is only an intention
that does not seem to be realized.31 The rebuilt Jerusalem will be without
walls, but YHWH will be a wall of fire for her (Zech. 2:5). In Ezekiel the
temple and the altar are measured, but the worshippers are not. Contrary to
John, the outer court is measured.
For these reasons Strand proposes a new background in which all three
elements—temple, altar, worshippers—are atoned for: Leviticus 16 and
the Day of Atonement.32 Paulien acknowledges that Strand might be right:
“While these ideas may not all have been in John’s mind, they seem a
reasonable extension of the exegetical meaning.”33 Aune, by contrast, is
skeptical: “Such an allusion, however, is impossibly subtle and not entirely
correspondent, since Lev 16:13 names not just the temple, the altar, and
the worshipers but rather the sanctuary, the tent of meeting, the altar, the
priests, and all the people of the assembly.”34 Aune’s objection
notwithstanding, Strand’s view is the only one that includes the altar, the
temple, and the worshippers. As such, it stands as a plausible background.
The mentioning of the forty-two months and the 1,260 days (three-and-
a-half years) in Revelation 11:2–3 recalls another Old Testament
background: the vision of Daniel 7–8.35 The boasting words the little horn
will speak against the Most High and the saints in Daniel 7:25 during the
three-and-a-half years are paralleled by the daring accomplishments of the
same little horn against the host of heaven, their prince’s sacerdotal
ministration, and the prince’s place of service in heaven (8:10–12). Daniel
8:10 names the host of heaven by the word stars, hakkôkābîm, which can
be understood as a symbol for the righteous wise (12:3) or God’s faithful
people. When 8:10 states that the little horn “trampled on them,”
wattirməsêm, the LXX uses the word sympateō (“I tread together, I
trample underfoot”), a cognate of pateō,36 which is used in Revelation 11:2
regarding the Gentiles crushing the holy city.37 Daniel 8:12 states that
God’s people would be delivered into the hands of the little horn. It is clear
that in 7:25 and 8:10–12 the same picture is described.
Both chapters display how this aggression of the little horn will be dealt
with. Daniel 7:26 reads: “But the court will sit, and his power will be taken
away and completely destroyed forever.” The key phrase is the Aramaic
wədînah (“and the judgment court will sit”) as a reference back to verse
10, where the judgment is displayed as a judicial process according to the
books of record. As a result of this judgment, God will vindicate His
temple and His people.
Based on the time relationship, Bauckham sees Revelation 11:1–2 as a
further elaboration on Daniel 8:13–14.38 In verse 13 an ardent question is
asked: “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision
concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the
surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s
people?” The answer comes back: “It will take 2,300 evenings and
mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated” (v. 14). The
everlasting dominion of God as a result of the judgment of Daniel 7–8
recalls His indisputable authority after the eschaton. Therefore, the
judgment necessarily precedes the eschaton.
A complete Old Testament background of Revelation 11:1–2 imagery
goes beyond Ezekiel 40–42 and Zechariah 2:1–5 to Leviticus 16 and
Daniel 7–8. The last two pericopes in Daniel provide the context of the
conflict between good and evil within a temple setting and the resolution
of this conflict through divine judgment.

THE INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT

(KALAMOS/RHABDOS)
For many writers who understand the temple as a symbol of the church,
the measuring rod symbolizes the gospel.39 To Martin Luther, Revelation
pictured the popes who measured the church with their laws and
regulations.40 Later Reformers applied the imagery of Revelation 11:1–2 to
the New Testament as the basis for the reforms against Roman Catholic
teachings and practices.41
It is important to understand the instrument with which the measurement
of the temple, altar, and human beings is to be accomplished. John uses the
word kalamos, which—among other meanings42—is used as an instrument
of measurement in both the Old Testament (Ezek. 40:3, 5–8; 41:8; 42:12,
16–20) and the New (Rev. 11:1; 21:1–16). It references the plant “arundo
donax which grows along the Jordan Valley, also known as the ‘giant
reed’ of Mediterranean lands.”43 Revelation 11:1 does not use kalamos on
its own, but elaborates the description with the words homoios rhabdō
(“like a measuring rod”),44 which may suggest a further function.45
Two passages contain a rhabdos used to measure: Leviticus 27:32 and
Ezekiel 20:37. More often, rhabdos is a token of rulership46 or of the rod
used by shepherds in tending to the needs of their flocks.47 The comparison
of the reed with a rod in 11:1–2 is probably meant to draw attention to a
pastoral symbol.48 In Revelation, Christ is the Lamb/Shepherd in whose
hands a staff can be a symbol of gentle leading (7:17) or of indisputable
power and authority (the iron rod in 12:5; 19:15; cf. 2:27).
Ezekiel 20:37–38 makes use of the metaphor of the measurement,
stating that God will apply to his people the skillfulness of the shepherd
counting his flock. The purpose is to divide between the faithful and the
dissidents. The latter will be scattered beyond the borders of Israel and not
come back.

THE OBJECTS MEASURED

In Revelation 11:1–2 three things are measured: the temple, the altar, and
the worshippers. By contrast, the outer court is not measured. The
expression “temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers”49 gives an
important clue as to the significance of the act of measurement. This triple
reference appears elsewhere in two contexts: the inauguration of the
sanctuary (Exod. 29:44) and the cleansing ritual of the Day of Atonement
(Lev. 16:33)—with both possibly in view in Ezekiel 45:19–20 (cf. the
LXX), where the triplet of temple, altar, and worshippers again appears.50
It is likely that Revelation 11:1–2 has in view the Day of Atonement. This
feast was celebrated by Israel in the seventh month on the tenth (last) day
of the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24–28; 25:9). Likewise, in the sequence
of the visions of Revelation, the measurement of 11:1–2 falls on the verge
of the sounding of the seventh (last) trumpet.
 Occurrences where human beings are measured with a rod are very few.
While measuring a building is feasible and common practice, measuring
human beings appears puzzling. Among the meanings of the word metreō,
Liddell and Scott list “to count.”51 Although this usage is less common, it
is attested and probably reflects what John was expected to do with the
worshipers.
Leviticus 27:32 and Jeremiah 33:12–13 present the real-life custom of
shepherds letting their animals pass under their rods as a way to count
them, and Ezekiel 20:37 applies this symbolically to human beings. The
purpose of the enterprise was twofold. The first purpose was to count the
animals at the end of the day to find out if any had been lost (cf. Matt.
18:12–13; Luke 15:4; John 10:28–29; 17:11–12; 18:9). The second
purpose was to divide them for different uses. In Leviticus 27:32, for
example, the flock would pass under the rod so that a tenth could be set
aside as a tithe to be given to the Lord.
The language of the tithe is present in Revelation 11:13. After the
measurement of the temple, the altar and its worshippers (vv. 1–2), the
ascension of the two witnesses (v. 12), and the preaching of God’s chosen
people (10:11; cf. 11:3), a tenth of the great city figuratively called Sodom
and Egypt (11:8) is leveled to the ground. The people are killed (11:13), as
if they had been dedicated to the Lord and could not be ransomed (Lev.
27:29; cf. Josh. 7:1). They stand in contrast with the 144,000 who are
ransomed from humankind as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb (Rev.
14:4). Likely the measurement motif placed some people under the
protective seal of God and some outside the seal—and thus subject to the
wrath unleashed after the sealing (7:1–3).
In contrast to the temple, the altar, and the worshippers being measured,
in Revelation 11:1–2 the outer court is not measured. The expression “the
outer court” is a reference to the Court of the Gentiles, an important part of
the second temple.52 The Court of the Gentiles surrounded the sacred area
of the temple and was the only place Gentiles could enter. This was also
the place where the money changers did their business (Matt. 21:12; Mark
11:15; Luke 19:45) and the merchants sold whatever was needed for the
sacrifices. At the end of the outer court was a soreg (“a stone lattice
work”), “to which were attached plaques written in Greek and Latin
forbidding Gentiles to pass that point on pain of death.”53 Revelation 11:2
indicates that the outer court would be given over to the Gentiles. The term
Gentile54 stands here in opposition to the holy city55 or—to point to another
motif from Revelation—to the 144,000 who are presented as coming from
the twelve tribes of Israel (7:4–8).
John was told not to measure the outer court. The wording in Revelation
11:2 is tēn aulēn tēn exōthen tou naou, ekbale exōthen, kai mē autēn
metrēsēs (“do not measure the outer court of the temple; cast it out”). Here
is a play on words: the outer court is to be cast out. Taken literally, this
makes no sense. The outer court was already “out” in relation to the most
sacred temple areas, so how could it be cast out? And how can a court be
cast out? The action has a deeper meaning. The verb ekballō (“I cast out”)
is used most often with reference to casting out demons,56 but it also has a
more significant and pertinent usage referencing casting out from a sacred
or religious domain: (1) the expulsion of the unfaithful Jews from the
kingdom of heaven, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are with the faithful
Jews (Matt. 8:12; cf. 22:13; 25:30; Luke 13:28); (2) Jesus expelling the
money changers from the outer court of the temple (Matt. 21:12; Mark
11:15; Luke 19:45; John 2:15); (3) the banishment of Satan from heaven in
the context of Jesus’s death (John 12:31; cf. Luke 10:18); and (4) the
casting out of rebellious brothers from the fellowship of the church (3 John
1:10; cf. John 9:34–35).
Revelation 11:2 suggests that the outer court is to be completely
excluded from the sacred temple area, meaning that the Gentiles would no
longer enjoy sanctuary privileges, which would be henceforth limited to
the holy people of God. “The ideas underlying metrēson and ekbale are
here essentially opposed.”57 To be measured means to be included; to not
be measured means to be excluded and cast out.

THE TIMING OF THE MEASUREMENT

The outer court is not measured, and it is given over to the Gentiles for
forty-two months. This period has been understood in various ways. Some
identify the temple with the Christians who were preserved in the Great
Jewish War in AD 67–70, in contrast to the outer court being the unfaithful
Jews—many of whom perished.58 The forty-two months have also been
understood as an indeterminate period within the New Testament era59 and
a short60 or long61 period of persecution.
The forty-two months of persecution in Revelation 11:2 are identical to
the 1,260 days of prophetic activity in verse 3. Revelation 10:8–11 depicts
John as eating a little scroll and then receiving the command to prophesy
“again” (palin).62 This adverb refers not to John but to what he represents:
the proclaiming people of God symbolized first by the two witnesses63 and
later by the three angels in 14:6–12.64 The testimony of the two witnesses
(11:3–6) is brutally attacked by the beast at the end of the forty-two
months. Therefore the word “again” applies to the three angels who
proclaim their message after this period, as the two witnesses are
rehabilitated.
The symbolic action in Revelation 11:1–2 precedes the actual preaching
on the part of God’s people, described later in 14:6–12. Essentially the
actions and words are two sides of the same coin. The meaning of
measurement in 11:1–2 is replicated or, better, explained in the message in
14:6–12. Therefore, the measurement and God’s judgment are related.

“TO MEASURE” IN THE CONTEXT OF JUDGMENT

There are strong reasons to conclude that the altar (thysiastērion) in
Revelation 11:1, though not pinpointed, is the altar of sacrifice.65
Thysiastērion appears eight times in Revelation, six of which clearly refer
to the altar of incense.66 In the remaining two passages—6:9 and 11:1—
thysiastērion refers to the altar of burnt offering. The relation between
these last two passages is not only linguistic but also thematic. In the fifth
trumpet the faithful dead, symbolized by the blood of a sacrifice poured
out under the altar, call “out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord,
holy and true, until you judge (krineis) the inhabitants of the earth and
avenge (ekdikeis) our blood?’” (6:10). The inquiry points to two actions:
judgment and revenge on the enemies.
The answer comes in three steps. The immediate reply is to wait a little
longer (chronon mikron, 6:11). A second hint comes with the proclamation
“the hour of his judgment has come” (hoti ēlthen hē hōra tēs kriseōs autou,
14:7). Thus, the first action requested by the martyrs—judgment—is
announced as taking place before the avenging wrath of God (cf. 14:19).
His last response to their petition is that, by the time the seventh angel
blows his trumpet, “there will be no more delay (chronos)” (10:7).67 Since
the judgment is before the revenge and is already set in motion before the
seventh trumpet sounds, “no more delay” refers to the second part of the
martyrs’ supplication—revenge. It will not be delayed any longer by the
judgment. Structurally, the interlude of the sixth trumpet functions as a
postponement of the seventh trumpet, as Aune rightly observes.68 Thus, the
judgment itself is not preparatory for the revenge, but is delaying the
revenge of the last trumpet.
The faithful dead receive white garments (Rev. 6:11). This metaphor
signifies worthiness (3:4–5).69 By this gift they have been justified in their
conflict with the inhabitants of the world. When 11:1 mentions the
measuring of the altar of sacrifice, it points back to the faithful dead70 of
6:9–11, who are demarcated from the ones who “trampled” on them.
Further hints related to measuring as judgment appear in the reference to
measuring those who worship in the temple. The Greek phrase tous
proskynountas en autō (“those worshipping in it,” 11:1) does not
immediately pinpoint to what the pronoun autō alludes.71 The dative of the
pronoun used can be either masculine, when it would be referring to the
masculine noun naos, or neuter, when it would be referring to the
thysiastērion. Since we identified the altar as the one of burnt offerings,
semantically there would be little difference whether we translate the
Greek as “those worshipping in the temple” or “those worshipping by the
altar.” Both possibilities point to the same category: those who worship
God in His holy precincts and are distinct from those in the outer court.72
Because they are measured while worshipping in the temple, their
measurement/evaluation is to take place before the judgment of Revelation
15:8, which states: “And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory
of God and from his power, and no one could enter the temple until the
seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.” By the time the seven
bowls will be poured out on earth, the measurement of the true
worshippers should be finished. Paulien says: “The sixth trumpet is the
period of earth’s history that comes just before the close of human
probation, as a careful study of Rev 10:7 indicates.”73 In this context, the
measurement of those worshipping in the heavenly temple is equivalent to
the time preparatory to the closing of human probation.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEASUREMENT IN

REVELATION 11:1–2
For most commentators the measurement symbolizes God’s preservation74
or protection75 in times of trouble—whether historical,76 eschatological,77
or both.78 It aims to sustain faith and hope.79 Walvoord and Zuck maintain
that the measurement of the temple implies divine evaluation of the
worshippers in it.80 In contrast, on syntactical grounds Jauhiainen
considers the measurement as “a device that draws a line of demarcation”
between two groups: the faithful symbolized by the temple, which is
measured, and the outer court, symbolizing the unfaithful.81
It was argued above that the measurement in Revelation 11:1–2
corresponds to the message “the hour of his [God’s] judgment has come”
(14:6–12). John symbolizes the church after the cessation of the 1,260
days. The church was to preach that message of judgment. The temple in
view is the heavenly, while the altar and the worshippers are metaphors for
the totality of God’s people (the faithful dead and the faithful living) being
measured in that process of judgment. The work of judgment functions as
a delay of the divine revenge to be unleashed in the seventh trumpet.
Having the full Old Testament background in view, we can now perceive
the concrete significance of the action in 11:1–2.
The measurement of the temple does not take place in isolation but
together with the altar of sacrifice and the worshippers. Consequently, the
heavenly temple under measure makes sense only in the context of Yom
Kippur, where the same three categories had atonement made for them (cf.
Lev. 16:33). Also consider the background of Daniel 7–8, where the
heavenly sanctuary is under attack and then vindicated in the judgment
preceding the consummation of all things.
Taking the altar of sacrifice as metonymy of the faithful dead associated
with it in the fifth seal passage, the measurement of the altar refers to the
faithful dead who are set apart and numbered with the saved. On the other
hand, those worshipping in the temple are a symbol of those who are the
living faithful. Their measurement signifies inclusion for salvation, which
is contrasted with the exclusion of the (not measured/counted) Gentiles for
damnation. Of course, if measurement means separation within the context
of the judgment, it also conveys evaluation for that purpose.

CONCLUSION
Revelation 11:1–2 paints John as given a reed, like a rod, for measuring
the temple, the altar, and the worshippers in the temple. I identified the
temple with the heavenly sanctuary. Its measurement is a token of
delimitation between what is holy and what is not, all within the context of
Yom Kippur. The Danielic background of 11:1–2 shows that the temple,
reviled by the hostile power of the little horn, is to be vindicated. The
measuring of the temple and casting out (not measuring) of the outer court
correspond to this vindication.
The reed like a staff, which John is to measure with, is a pastoral symbol
telling the reader that those numbered are like the flock counted by its
shepherd. As to the categories that “pass under the rod,” these are the dead
associated with the altar of burnt offerings and the living symbolically
worshipping in heaven. The timing of the measurement is definitely after
the 1,260 days and prior to the consummation of all things or the second
coming of Christ. The function of this action is assessment to delimitate
between genuine and false, worthy and unworthy, persecuted and
oppressors, and those who will live and those who will be damned.
Plenty of interpreters take the temple in a literal sense as the temple in
Jerusalem, either in a preterist perspective or as a futurist-dispensationalist.
I have not included these views for the sake of space, but I will object to
one of the most current errors in this interpretation. While the temple, the
altar, and the holy city are taken literally, the worshippers are not
understood to be priests as the expression “in it [temple]” would require,
but thought to be Jews in general.82
For Kenneth Strand, the two witnesses are “one entity” or “unit” and
stand for the Old Testament and New Testament as a whole.83 In brief,
Strand’s understanding on the identity of the two witnesses relates to “the
word of God” and “the testimony of Jesus Christ,” two expressions that
have much in common with the Gospel of John. They represent two
aspects of God’s self-revealing—in our categories of thinking—in the Old
Testament and New Testament.84 The two witnesses as symbolic of God’s
people is only a secondary and derived option. Thus God’s people can be
in the symbol of the two witnesses as the ones bearing witness to the word
which is not self-proclaimed.
One year later, Strand published another article in which he discussed
the background of Zechariah 4 as influencing the meaning of the two
witnesses in Revelation 11. He advocated that “in the Apocalypse a
symbolic representation derived from Zechariah has been varied and
utilized in another scripturally relevant way. Whereas in Zechariah the one
lampstand refers to Zerubbabel, in Revelation the two lampstands refer to
God’s word in its twofold aspect of OT prophetic forecast and NT
confirmatory proclamation.”85
But how are we to understand those instances in which such clear details
are missing? Fortunately, in Revelation 11:1 we have an important
specification. Although we don’t find issues like bronze-gold, sacrifices-
incense, etc., the altar appears together with the word for the temple
building (naos). Every time the two words are joined without significant
details, thysiastērion stands for the altar of sacrifice (2 Chron. 8:12; 15:8;
Ezek. 8:16; Matt. 23:35). Charles thinks similarly: “In the case of the two
altars in the earthly Temple, thysiastērion, when it is used without any
additional defining phrase or attribute, means the altar of burnt-
offering.”86 The altar of incense is logically contained in the temple, and
there is no need for it to be measured separately.
Some argue the same based on the altar in relation to the worshippers.
“The reference to worshipers suggests this is the bronze altar in the
courtyard, not the incense altar in the Holy Place, since only the priests
were permitted inside the Holy Place (cf. Luke 1:8–10).”87 Sometimes this
becomes confusing, compelling the interpreter to take the worshippers as
priests only. However, the worshippers cannot stand for the priests only,
albeit the faithful are presented by John as priests (Rev. 1:5; 5:11; etc.).
When the Bible testifies of a priest being in the temple, his activity is
expressed not by the verb “to worship,” but by “to serve” (hierateuō, Luke
1:8).
Although BDAG sees it as Jerusalem, it identifies the altar as “the altar
of burnt offering in the inner forecourt of the temple.”88
16
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY UNDER
ATTACK: THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE
SKĒNĒ
RICHARD APELLES SABUIN

SANCTUARY IN REVELATION

T he concept of a heavenly sanctuary in Revelation is evident from the

occurrence of two words: naos and skēnē. Naos, “temple,” occurs in
its various forms sixteen times (Rev. 3:12; 7:15; 11:1, 2, 19;2 14:15, 17;
15:5, 6, 8;2 16:1, 17; 21:222); skēnē, “sanctuary, tabernacle,” appears three
times (13:6; 15:5; 21:3). Since the temple in Jerusalem was already
destroyed when Revelation was written, this suggests that these references
refer not to the earthly temple in Jerusalem but to the heavenly sanctuary.1
Their context also suggests that the temple or tabernacle is connected to
the heavenly realm, as is briefly described below.
Naos first appears in Revelation 3:12. Here the possessive phrase tou
theou mou, “of My God,”2 is repeated four times, referring to “the temple
of my God,” “the name of My God,” “the city of My God,” and the new
Jerusalem coming down from heaven “from My God.” Evidently, the
temple is connected to the new Jerusalem coming out of heaven, which
could suggest that the locus of the temple is heaven. What is only a
suggestion here becomes clear in other passages.
In Revelation 7:15 a great multitude is described as standing before the
throne of God and serving Him day and night in His naos. Here the throne
is connected to the temple. The great multitude is (eisin) before the throne
of God and is at the same time in His temple serving (latreuousin) Him.
Since the locus of the throne is in heaven (4:2), the locus of the temple is
also in heaven.
Although it requires more justification to see the naos of Revelation
11:1, 2 as the heavenly temple, verse 19 is clearly a heavenly reference.
John writes, ho naos tou theou ho en tō ouranō, “the temple of God which
is in heaven.” This introduces the vision that begins in 12:1. Thus the
vision of the central part of Revelation (chs. 12–14) should be seen in the
context of the heavenly sanctuary.3 In this light, naos in 14:17 refers to the
heavenly sanctuary because it presents exactly the same phrase as 11:19:
“the temple which is in heaven.”
The next mention of naos (Rev. 15:5) says, ho naos tēs skēnēs tou
martyriou en tō ouranō, “the temple of the tabernacle of testimony in
heaven.” The grammatical construction suggests that the temple is part of
the tabernacle of testimony. Therefore, this text also talks about a heavenly
sanctuary. Sequentially, verses 6 and 8 present the same naos described in
verse 5—the heavenly sanctuary. The context for these texts is the seven
last plagues introduced in chapter 15, which are elaborated on in chapter
16. Thus, the word naos in 16:1, 17 is the naos presented in 15:5—the
heavenly sanctuary.
The last occurrence of naos is in Revelation 21:22. After seeing the
temple many times in his visions, John did not see a temple here because
God and the Lamb are the temple. The interpretation of this text is not
simple. However, two things are clear from the context. First, the setting is
after the millennium, while all other occurrences of naos are before it.
Second, although John did not see a temple building, there is a temple: the
Lord God and the Lamb.
The word skēnē, “sanctuary, tabernacle,” occurs only three times (Rev.
13:6; 15:5; and 21:3). In 13:6 skēnē is an object of the blasphemy of the
sea beast: “It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name
and his dwelling place (skēnē) and those who live in heaven” (NIV). The
phrase tous en tō ouranō skēnountas, “those who dwell in heaven,” is
similar to the phrase hoi en autois skēnountes, “you who dwell in them
[heavens]” (12:12). The contrast between heaven and earth is obvious:
“rejoice, O heavens. . . . Woe to the earth.” That 12:12 and 13:6 are both in
the context of the great controversy between good and evil suggests a
parallel between them. This parallel indicates that the skēnē and those who
dwell in it (13:6) are located in heaven. The word skēnē appears again in
15:5, where the text hints that this is a heavenly skēnē. In 21:3 skēnē is
mentioned after the descent of the new Jerusalem (v. 2). Although the
locus of this skēnē is on the new earth, it is from heaven and is thus a
heavenly skēnē.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SKĒNĒ AND NAOS
Seeing the connection between skēnē and naos would help in
understanding whether or not they refer to the same thing and can be used
interchangeably. The two words occur together in Revelation 15:5. In
addition, naos appears with the verb skēnoō (7:15), and skēnē also appears
with its cognate verb skēnoō (13:6). The phrase ho naos tēs skēnēs tou
martyriou en tō ouranō (15:5) indicates that naos and skēnē are in heaven
and closely connected with each other. Four possible connections are
indicated by the genitive construction: (1) the naos is part of the skēnē;4 (2)
the naos contains the skēnē;5 (3) the naos is made of the skēnē;6 or (4) the
naos is the skēnē.7 Whatever the connection, the naos cannot be
disassociated from the skēnē. When one talks about naos, the skēnē should
be in view, and vice versa.
Whenever naos is presented, a description indicates that it is a concrete
object: (1) it has pillars (Rev. 3:12); (2) it is a place to stay in (3:12; 7:15);
(3) it is measurable (11:1, 2); (4) it can be opened (11:19; 15:5); (5) other
objects and beings are in it (11:19; 14:15, 17; 15:6; 16:1, 17); and (6) it is
an edifice one can enter or come out of (15:8). Obviously, the thronos of
God is in the naos (7:15; 16:17), to which all praises and honors go (4; 5;
7:9–11; 19:4, 5), to which all prayers ascend (8:3), from which God reigns
and the judgment comes (6:16; 7:17; 16:17; 20:11, 12), and which lasts
forever (22:3).
In Revelation 7:15 the words naos, skēnē (in its cognate verb), and
thronos appear together: “For this reason, they are before the throne of
God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on
the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.” This text presents all
three nouns closely and directly connected with God: tou thronou tou
theou, “the throne of God,” tō naō tou theou, “the temple of God”; and
skēnōsei, “He [the one sitting on the throne] will tabernacle.” It seems that
God sitting on the thronos in the naos makes that naos a skēnē; whatever
the words’ connection, God is the focus, center, and highlight in this
picture.
In the new heaven and the new earth, skēnē, naos, and thronos remain
because of God. When the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven, “the
tabernacle of God [ho thronos tou theou] is among men, and He will dwell
[skēnōsei] among them” (Rev. 21:3). Although John did not see a temple
in that city, “the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple [ho
theos . . . naos autēs estin]” (21:22). Also, the throne of God (ho thronos
tou theou) and the Lamb will be in the temple. While the heavenly
sanctuary is a major theme in Revelation, God remains the central focus.
Whoever deals with the sanctuary deals with God; any attack against the
sanctuary is an attack against God. Through this framework this study
discusses the blasphemy against the skēnē (13:6).

WORSHIP THEME IN REVELATION 12–14

The blasphemy of the sea beast against the skēnē is situated in the context
of Revelation 12–14, which is seen as the central part of the book.8 This
section presents the “great controversy between Christ and Satan”9 and
contains an account of the great battle between good and evil that begins in
heaven, comes down to earth, and ends in great victory.10 This section also
presents the “thematic key” in the structure of Revelation.11 It is
considered “the most substantial parenthesis in the Revelation.”12 Along
with 12–14, 11:19–15:4 can be seen as part of the central piece in
Revelation’s chiastic structure.13 Revelation 11:19 mentions the temple of
God opening to introduce the vision beginning in 12:1. Finally, 15:1–4
presents the song of victory of those who conquer the beast (ch. 13) and is
a celebration after the great harvest of the earth (14:14–20).
Revelation 12–14 pictures the great conflict between the dragon and
Michael (12:3, 7). The dragon is also called “the devil and Satan, who
deceives the whole world” (v. 9). On the dragon’s side are his angels
(vv. 4, 7), the beast from the sea (13:1–8), the beast from the earth (vv. 11–
14a), and the image of the sea beast (vv. 14b–17). On Michael’s side are
God’s angels (12:7), the holy woman (vv. 1, 6, 13, 17), and the three
angels (14:6–13).
The central verses (11:19–15:4) may be structured into three main parts:

A. The Great Conflict: From Heaven to Earth (11:19–13:18)

B. The Eschatological Victory (14:1–5)
A1. The Great Conflict: From Earth to Heaven (14:6–15:4)

Part A describes how the conflict begins in heaven and continues on the
earth. Part A1 presents the continuation of the conflict on the earth and its
victorious end in heaven. In between the two parts is the eschatological
victory (Part B).
In the conflict in heaven, the dragon is overcome and thrown with his
angels to the earth (12:4, 9). On the earth the dragon continues his attack.
He makes war against the male child (12:4), the woman (vv. 13–16), and
the remnant of her seed (v. 17). Then the dragon hands over his power to
the sea beast (12:17; 13:1), who exercises it (vv. 1–8). The dragon also
works through the earth beast, who erects the image of the sea beast
(vv. 11–18).
The main theme in Part A is worship. The verb proskyneō, “to worship,
bow down, kneel,” occurs five times (13:4,2 8, 12, 15). The dragon puts
forth all his efforts to gain worship. This includes (1) war against Michael
(12:7–9); (2) war against the “male child” (vv. 4, 5); (3) war against the
woman (vv. 6, 13–16); and (4) war against the remnant of the woman’s
seed (v. 17)—one continuous battle to gain worship from its beginnings in
heaven until after the 1,260 prophetic days.
The dragon’s efforts through the sea beast include giving it power
(13:1–4), blaspheming the name of God (v. 6), and persecuting the saints
(v. 7). His efforts through the earth beast include performing miracles
(vv. 13, 14) and forbidding people to buy or sell without the mark of the
beast (vv. 16, 17). The focus of these efforts seems to be making people
worship the dragon, and since the dragon gives his power to the sea beast,
it also becomes the object of worship (v. 4). Interestingly, Revelation does
not say that the earth beast is worshipped; it “exercises all the authority of
the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell
in it to worship the first beast” (v. 12). Here the second beast only
functions as an executor of the sea beast’s power. It is the first beast who,
together with the dragon, receives worship.
The sea beast receives three things from the dragon: his power, his
throne, and his great authority (13:2). This is reminiscent of how God
granted Jesus to sit on His throne (3:21; chs. 4, 5), when all the creatures
praised Him, saying: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power
and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing”
(5:12). Jesus Himself says, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven
and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). The sea beast receiving the power, throne, and
authority from the dragon seems to exactly imitate Christ receiving the
power, throne, and authority from God the Father. This contrasting parallel
confirms that the sea beast plays the role of the antichrist and is the
antichrist himself. Behind this antichrist is the dragon, who gave him
power; before the antichrist is the earth beast, who later executes the
antichrist’s power. In other words, the antichrist will work with the dragon
in the background and the earth beast in the foreground.
All the dragon’s efforts bring his expected result: except for the woman
and the remnant of her seed (12:6; 14–17), the entire world “worshiped the
dragon” (13:4), “and they worshipped the beast” (v. 4), and “all who dwell
on the earth will worship him [the sea beast]” (v. 8).
The sea beast performs its works for forty-two months (13:5), or 1,260
days (12:6). This time is also mentioned in 11:3 as the period during which
the two witnesses—clothed in sackcloth—prophesy to the inhabitants of
the earth (vv. 1–6).14 This suggests that all of the references to the 1,260
days (11:3; 13:5) refer to the same time, when the saints are persecuted
(13:5), the two witnesses prophesy to “peoples and tribes and tongues and
nations” (11:9), and the woman is protected from the dragon’s wrath
(12:6). This is the picture of the great conflict that begins in heaven and
continues on earth as depicted in Part A above (11:19–13:18).
Part B seems to interrupt the flow of the apocalyptic narrative. It does
not continue chronologically from Part A. While the conflict continues in
14:6 with the messages of the three angels, 14:1–5 presents the end result:
the victory of the Lamb with those who have been following Him
faithfully. Being at the center of the structure, 14:1–5 provides a guarantee
of victory in Jesus Christ. It also seems to parallel 15:1–4. Both passages
mention a group of people playing harps and singing a new song (14:2, 3;
cf. 15:3–4). Therefore, 14:1–5 pictures the final victory of Jesus Christ and
His people taking place at the second coming and onward (14:14–15:4).
Next, Part A1 (14:6–15:4) presents the great conflict from another
perspective and in a new stage. In Part A, Satan seems to dominate the
conflict, but the scene changes in Part A1. Here the dragon, his sea beast,
and those who worship the beast receive a threat of judgment. The conflict
continues on the earth (14:6–20), ending with the harvest on the earth
(vv. 14–20) and a great victory celebrated in heaven (15:1–4).
A detailed explanation about the first angel is given in 14:6, 7: (1) he is
flying in the midst of heaven; (2) he has the eternal gospel; (3) he has a
message for those who dwell upon the earth of every nation, tribe,
language, and people; and (4) he speaks in a loud voice. The second and
the third angels are not described in such detail. This suggests that the
second and third angels also fly in the midst of heaven, holding the eternal
gospel and bringing the message to those who dwell upon the earth of
every nation, tribe, language, and people, and that they also speak in loud
voices. This means that the whole package of the messages of the three
angels is the eternal gospel.
Worship is a theme in the three angels’ messages.15 Just as the word
proskyneō, “to worship,” occurs significantly in the section of the three
beasts (11:19–13:8), it also appears three times (vv. 7, 9, 11) in the section
of the three angels (14:6–13). In light of the worship theme, the messages
brought by the three angels contain elements that counteract the work of
the three beasts, as shown in the table below:

THE THREE BEASTS THE THREE ANGELS

Authority given “over every tribe “Having an eternal gospel to

and people and tongue and preach to those who live on the
nation. . . . All who dwell on the earth, and to every nation and tribe
earth will worship him” (13:7, 8) and tongue and people” (14:6)

“Cause as many as do not worship “If anyone worships the beast and
the image of the beast to be his image, . . . he also will drink of
killed” (13:15) the wine of the wrath of God”
(14:9–10)

The above table demonstrates that the messages of the three angels
counteract the work of the three beasts. The target of the three beasts is
“every tribe and people and tongue and nation” (13:7) who are the
inhabitants of the earth (v. 8), particularly the saints (v. 7): “the rest of her
children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony
of Jesus” (12:17). In counteracting the dragon and his allies, the three
angels also preach the eternal gospel to “those who live on the earth, and
to every nation and tribe and tongue and people” (14:6): “Fear God, and
give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him
who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters” (v. 7).
The messages of the three angels contain both imperative and
conditional sentences. This is evident in the first and third messages. The
first message reads: “Fear God, and give Him glory . . . worship Him”
(14:7). The third message reads: “If anyone worships the beast and his
image, . . . he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God” (vv. 9–10).
In the first message the imperative is given, and in the third message the
condition is given. The verb proskyneō links the two. The first message
gives the imperative to fear, to give glory, and to worship God, and the
third message gives the threat of judgment if the people continue
worshiping the beast. The call to fear and to give glory to God is addressed
to those who dwell on the earth (tous kathēmenous epi tēs gēs). This is a
similar phrase to “the inhabitants of the earth,” which uses the verb
katoikeō instead of kathēmai. In Revelation the verb katoikeō is uniquely
used to describe the inhabitants of the earth who are the target of God’s
judgments. The verb kathēmai, “to sit, to stay, to live,” is not used for a
specific subject. It may be used either to describe good heavenly beings or
even bad earthly beings.16 It is used only once to describe the inhabitants
of the earth (14:6). According to the contrast provided by the table above,
the earth dwellers in 13:7, 8 are the same as the earth dwellers in 14:6.
While in 13:7, 8 they come to worship the beast, in 14:6, 7 they are called
to worship the God of heaven.17

THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE TABERNACLE OF

GOD
In his effort to gain worship from the inhabitants of the earth, the sea beast
“opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name
and His tabernacle” (13:6). The grammatical construction of the text
suggests that the target of the blasphemy is God.18 It is accomplished by
blaspheming God’s name and His tabernacle, including those who dwell in
heaven. After being cast out of heaven, this is the most that the dragon can
do. He blasphemes through the sea beast, since he has given the beast “his
power and his throne and great authority” (v. 2). With this power, throne,
and authority the beast blasphemes God—His name and His tabernacle.
How?
It seems that the target of the blasphemy is God Himself. Revelation
12–14 present several components related to God, beginning with the
opening of the “temple of God” (11:19).19 In the context of the opening of
this temple, elements related to God are presented: the power of God, the
kingdom of God, and the authority of His anointed one (12:10); the
commandments of God (12:17; 14:12); the name of God; and the
tabernacle of God (13:6). All of these elements are targets of Satan’s
attack. 12:7–9 does not mention the cause of the war in heaven. It simply
says that Satan and his angels are defeated and hurled down to the earth.
However, verse 10 clarifies that the power, the kingdom, and the authority
of God are confirmed because (hoti) Satan has been cast down. This
implies that the power and the kingdom of God and the authority of Christ
were the target of Satan’s attack.
In 12:17 Satan continues attacking God by making war against the
remnant of the woman’s seed—the church.20 This remnant would have not
been the target of Satan’s anger if it did not bear characteristics that are
related to God: those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to
the testimony of Jesus.” Satan also attacks God by blaspheming God’s
name and His tabernacle.
The introduction to chapters 12–14 indicates that the temple in heaven
was opened and the ark of the covenant appeared in the temple. The Old
Testament testifies that the ark of the covenant contains the two stone
tablets of the Decalogue (Deut. 10:3–5), and that “there was nothing in the
ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb” (1
Kings 8:9). Therefore, the narrative of the great conflict within the literary
context of the opening of the temple and the appearing of the ark of the
covenant suggests that the blasphemy to the tabernacle and the name of
God is also a blasphemy to His Decalogue.21
John, the author of Revelation, includes in his gospel the Jews’
understanding of blasphemy, which is important because Revelation is
loaded with Jewish elements. When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy,
they said, “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33).
Simply defined, blasphemy is an act of equalizing or claiming oneself to
be God. In attacking the Decalogue, Satan through the sea beast is
blaspheming God.
Richard Lehmann sees the connection between the activities of the little
horn of Daniel 7 and those of the sea beast of Revelation 13: “As in
Daniel, the action of the little horn ends in the war that it wages against the
saints (Dan 7:21–22, 25), so in Revelation it is the same for the sea beast
that utters blasphemies and makes war against the saints (Rev 13:1–10).”22
The saints are not necessarily the ultimate target of the war in Daniel 7.
Verse 25 highlights the activities of the little horn: (1) to speak out against
the Most High, (2) to wear down the saints of the Highest One, and (3) to
change times and law. Since the target of the war is the Most High, it
should also be the times and law of the Most High.
Gerald A. Klingbeil, in his article on the Sabbath in the Decalogue,
suggests that the fourth commandment is “the only commandment which
is time oriented, i.e., ‘not every day, but only every seventh day.’”23 This
being the case, the attack to the skēnē is related to the attack on God’s
commandments, particularly the fourth one. This seems to be the best way
for Satan to attack God.
An allusion to the Sabbath commandment is found in the eternal gospel
described in Revelation 14:6, 7:24 “Fear God, and give Him glory, because
the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven
and the earth and sea and springs of waters.” The place of this reference to
Sabbath at the central piece of Revelation highlights the significance of
this institution in the great battle between good and evil.

SABBATH: A COUNTERATTACK AGAINST THE

SATANIC TRINITY
The message of the first angel references the Sabbath, since the phrase
“Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea” (Rev. 14:7) resembles
the phrase “the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea” (Exod.
20:11), which is part of the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue. That
this statement is the closest Old Testament allusion to the phrase in
Revelation 14:7 confirms that the fourth commandment is in view.
The connection of Revelation 14:7 with the Sabbath commandment is
not a strange idea in the context of the central part of Revelation (chs. 12–
14). The remnant (12:17), which is the saints (13:7; cf. 14:12), are
characterized as people who “keep the commandments of God” (12:17).
Even in the context of the three angels’ messages “obedience to the
commandments of God” is highlighted as a characteristic of the saints
(14:12). It is therefore exegetically sound to conclude that the phrase “who
made the heaven and the earth and sea” references the Sabbath
commandment.
The three angels’ messages also presents a contrast between those who
worship the beast and its image and the saints of God. On one hand, those
who worship the beast and its image “have no rest [anapausin] day and
night” (14:11). On the other hand, the saints—those who die in the Lord
—“may rest [anapaēsontai] from their labors” (v. 13).25 Rest in this
context does not merely mean death. The Old Testament indicated what
would happen if the Israelites were unfaithful to God: “Among those
nations you shall find no rest [anapausei], and there will be no resting
place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a
trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul” (Deut. 28:65). The
wicked will never have what the saints have. Jesus promises to those who
come to Him, “I will give you rest [anapausō]” (Matt. 11:28).
Interestingly, Matthew continues with two consecutive narratives related
to the Sabbath: the disciples picking heads of grain on the Sabbath (12:1–
8), and Jesus healing on the Sabbath (vv. 9–14). This connection is
supported by the LXX use of the word anapausis, “rest, relief, ceasing,
stopping,” in parallel with the word sabbaton.26 The word anapausis can
even refer to the weekly Sabbath (Exod. 16:23; Lev. 23:3). Therefore, it is
evident that the call to worship God proclaimed by the first angel is a call
to acknowledge the Creator by observing the Sabbath.
What is the significance of the Sabbath or the fourth commandment in
the context of the war between good and evil (Rev. 11:9–15:4)? Note that
the four natural elements (heaven, earth, sea, and springs of water) in 14:7
have one-to-one correspondence with the activities of the three beasts:
(11:9–13:18). The dragon is presented as having his original place in
heaven. Defeated in battle, “there was no longer a place found for them in
heaven” (12:8); he “swept away a third of the stars of heaven” (v. 4). In
response to the casting down of the dragon to the earth, a song is sung:
“rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the
sea, because the devil has come down to you” (v. 12). While the dragon
comes from heaven, God is the creator of heaven, indicating that God is
greater and higher than the dragon.
The dragon then gives his authority to the beast coming out of the sea
(13:1, 2). Although this beast receives power, throne, and authority from
the dragon, God is greater than this beast because He is the one who made
the sea. Another beast comes out from the earth (v. 11), but God is the one
who made the earth. The dragon tries to sweep away the woman by
pouring out “water like a river” from his mouth, but he is not the source of
water (12:15); God is the source and the creator of springs of water.
The connections above demonstrate the importance of Sabbath
observance (the fourth commandment) emphasized in Revelation 14:7.
God is higher and has more authority than the dragon, the sea beast, and
the earth beast. The fourth commandment plays a key role in counteracting
the efforts of the three beasts to gain worship from the world. This single
commandment holds the necessary components for standing against the
three beasts. First, it presents the only object of worship as God, which
goes against the call to worship the dragon and the beasts. Then the fourth
commandment states why God deserves worship—He is the Creator. It
places God above all others, including the three beasts. Next it highlights
the universal territory of God’s reign: the heaven, the sea, the earth, and
the rivers.27
Following his defeat, the dragon and his angels have no place in heaven
(12:8). Revelation 12:12 indicates that the only territory of the dragon is
the earth and the sea, from which the other beasts come out. While the
territory of the three beasts is limited, God’s territory covers the whole
universe. All the dragon and the sea beast can do is “to blaspheme His
name and His tabernacle” (13:6). It is the only way the dragon and the sea
beast can touch heaven. The earth beast tries to convince his subject (the
earth) that he has the authority of heaven by making fire “come down out
of heaven to the earth in the presence of men” (v. 13). However, the three
beasts have power neither on nor from nor toward heaven. Sabbath
observance, as alluded to in 14:7, reminds all men of this.
As noted above, the allusion to Sabbath observance in 14:7 is presented
with three imperatives: phobēthēte, “start fearing”; dote autō doxan, “start
giving glory”; and proskynēsate, “start worshipping.” These are the only
imperatives in the central part of Revelation. These imperatives are
followed by a long, imperative-conditional sentence (vv. 9–11), which
could be summed up as follows: Start worshipping God. If you continue to
worship the beast, then you receive the wrath of God. This motif of
imperative followed by a conditional sentence has become the central
message to the seven churches.28 For example, to the church at Ephesus the
message is, “Repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming
to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you
repent” (2:5).29 Take the message to the church of Pergamum: “Therefore
repent; or else [ei de mē, “but if not”] I am coming to you quickly, and I
will make war against them with the sword of My mouth” (v. 16). The
obvious occurrence of this pattern in the three angels’ messages suggests
that the call to fear, glorify, and worship God (14:7) is an indispensable
imperative. In the context of the great controversy, when Sabbath
observance becomes the main issue, the call to repentance is a call from
not observing the Sabbath to observing it as the essence of worshipping the
true God.

CONCLUSION
To sum up, the book of Revelation has an obvious sanctuary motif. The
central part of the book also highlights the great controversy between the
dragon and God—the three beasts and the three angels—in the context of
the opening of the temple in heaven and the appearing of the ark of the
covenant. God’s Decalogue—the only object found in the ark of the
covenant—has been and will be the focus of the sea beast in its effort of
attacking God. The parallel between Revelation 13 and Daniel 7 confirms
that the Sabbath commandment is the central issue: the little horn, which is
the sea beast, attempts to change the Sabbath commandment.
Since Revelation 14:7 alludes to the fourth commandment, this suggests
that the Sabbath message directly counteracts the efforts of the three beasts
to gain worship from the inhabitants of the earth. Targeting the same group
of people, the three angels’ messages call all nations, people, tribes, and
tongues to abandon the false worship manifested in observing the false
Sabbath and to practice the true worship manifested in observing the true
Sabbath. Shortly before the second coming of Jesus, the earth beast will
exercise the power of the sea beast by demanding—through many ways,
including economy boycott and even the threat of death—the entire world
to worship the beast and his image. At the same time the three angels will
proclaim the call to worship God the Creator, and Sabbath observance will
be the testing determinant that separates those who worship the beast and
his image and receive the mark of the beast from those who worship God
and have His name written on their foreheads.
The central part of Revelation ends in 15:1–4, which describes those
who have overcome the beast, his image, and the number of his name
(v. 2). They stand on the sea of glass singing the song of Moses, which is
also the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord
God, the Almighty; righteous and true are Your ways, King of the
nations!” (v. 3). Then the song continues: “Who will not fear, O Lord, and
glorify Your name? For You alone are holy; for all the nations will come
and worship before You, for Your righteous acts have been revealed”
(v. 4, emphasis added). In this stanza the three verbs from the message of
the first angel are repeated in the same order: fear, glorify, and worship.30
Since these three verbs are used to allude to Sabbath observance in 14:7,
their occurrence in 15:4 must also somehow relate to the Sabbath. At the
very least, those who sing this song are those who rejected worshipping
the beast by accepting and observing the false Sabbath. They are the
people who, with the cost of their lives, opted to worship God by accepting
and observing the true Sabbath. They overcame evil “because of the blood
of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not
love their life even when faced with death.” (12:11). They not only
worship on the Sabbath; they worship with the Sabbath. They observe the
Sabbath not simply by ceasing from their work on that day, but by fearing
God, giving glory to His name, and worshiping Him in the true sense of
these three verbs.
IV
Early Jewish Literature
17
THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN
NONCANONICAL APOCALYPTIC
LITERATURE
IOANNIS GIANTZAKLIDIS

A common feature in many apocalyptic books is a heavenly ascent

where the assumed author is taken to heaven and visits God’s throne.
The majority of these apocalypses graphically describe the heavenly
realms. The most common depiction of heaven and God’s dwelling place
is a temple. This paper will review five noncanonical, Jewish, apocalyptic
works1—Jubilees,2 the Animal Apocalypse, the Testament of Levi, the
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (or simply Songs),3 and 2 Baruch—
endeavoring to demonstrate that apocalyptic Judaism commonly believed
that God dwelled in a heavenly temple where services regularly took place
that mirrored the earthly services. We will omit the Book of Watchers
since another chapter deals with it in detail (see chapter 18, “The Heavenly
Temple in the Book of Watchers”).
These apocalypses span a considerable time frame. The first four are
dated during the last two centuries BC when the temple of Jerusalem was
still the main center of worship in Palestine. Second Baruch, by contrast,
antedates the fall of Jerusalem and tries to make sense of the catastrophic
events of AD 70 and the loss of the temple. Despite the different times of
composition and the different attitudes their authors may have had towards
the priesthood and Jerusalem, the underlying theme is a firm belief in the
existence of an archetypal temple in heaven.
None of these books are included in the canon, and with the exception
of some Christian interpolations, none are Christian. We should be careful
though not to uncritically dismiss their value; they reflect how segments of
Jewish society understood the cosmos and interpreted the Bible, especially
the prophetic sections of the Old Testament, from which they drew most of
their material. As such, they are invaluable in helping us understand the
theological milieu in which Jesus and the apostles ministered. We do not
study them as inspired books but as a window to see more clearly the
world of Judaism at the turn of the era.
Since the average reader may be unfamiliar with Jewish apocalyptic,
some introductory comments for each book are in order. We will try to
establish a date of composition and, when necessary, summarize the
contents. Next, we will draw our attention to their descriptions of heaven.
Particular attention will be paid to how the books understood the function
of the heavenly temple.

JUBILEES
The book of Jubilees contains the retelling of the story of Genesis 1 to
Exodus 24.4 It begins with Moses going to Mount Sinai to receive the law
(1:1). There God reveals to Moses what was “in the beginning and what
will occur in the (future).” Moses is ordered to write these revelations in a
book (1:4, 5). Despite the few future predictions (e.g., 1:8–18, 22–25), the
majority of the book looks back on past events. The story is told to Moses
by an “angel of the presence” (1:27), who recounts events from creation
until the time Moses ascended Mount Sinai. The angel draws his
information from the tablets of the divisions of years (1:29). A typical
feature in the telling of the story is the book’s “chronological framework,
which divides history into weeks and jubilee years, dating events in the
Israelite history to specific times in these cycles.”5
When trying to establish a date for Jubilees a variety of factors should
be taken into account. First, external evidence firmly establishes a date
before 100 BC. The CD, dated to about 100 BC, explicitly cites Jubilees
(CD 16:3).6 The earliest manuscript of Jubilees, 4Q216, pushes this date
further back because it is dated on paleographical grounds to the last
quarter of the second century BC.7
When it comes to establishing a terminus a quo date, the basic
supposition is that the work cannot be earlier than the latest events it refers
to. Thus, scholars turn to the book itself for evidence. Internal evidence
points towards that day when Hellenistic reforms clashed with Jewish
traditions. Nickelsburg notes two issues particularly helpful in dating:
nakedness (3:31) and circumcision (15:14).8 In 175 BC a gymnasium was
introduced in Jerusalem where athletes performed naked (1 Macc. 1:14; 2
Macc. 4:9, 12–15) while also attempting to hide their circumcision (1
Macc. 1:15). It is likely that the polemic of the author of Jubilees against
nakedness (3:31) and uncircumcision (15:14) was triggered by these
events.9 Nickelsburg is unwilling to press for a later date because he sees
no reference in Jubilees to Antiochus’s pollution of the temple.
Nickelsburg observes that it would be highly unlikely that a book written
in the aftermath of these events would not make mention of them.10 Others,
however, assume that Jacob’s fights with the Amorites and the Edomites in
chs. 34 and 38 refer to Judas Maccabeus’s defeat of the Edomites in 1
Maccabees 5:3; 7:39–50.11 If this assumption is correct it would push the
date of the book to after the wars of 161 BC.12
Wintermute opts for a date before 140 BC. He notes that a significant
characteristic of Jubilees is that, although the author was one of the
spiritual fathers of the Qumran sect, its contents do not reflect any
significant break with the larger national body.13 This would suggest a date
for the book before the sect isolated itself. We do not know precisely when
the Qumran community chose to live in isolation, but the split probably
occurred during the appointment of either Jonathan or Simon as high
priest. The latter of these was Simon, who was recognized as high priest
by the people in 140 BC (1 Macc. 14:34–39), suggesting a date before
this.14 For the purpose of our study, the broad period in which the book
was written is more important than the precise date. Perhaps it is wise to
leave the time of composition open from somewhere between the
Hellenistic reforms at around 168 BC to the selection of Simon as high
priest in 140 BC.15
It is difficult to classify the genre of Jubilees. Collins rightly observes
that the manner of revelation is distinctly apocalyptic16 (i.e., an angel
reveals to Moses historical events and their theological significance), but
the content itself has little apocalyptic or eschatological material.17 Collins
includes the book in his list of historical apocalypses but qualifies that the
book has strong affinities with other genres.18 Despite the fact that Jubilees
does not include a typical heavenly tour, it still contains elements showing
that its author believed in the existence of a heavenly sanctuary where
services were taking place.
In Jubilees 8:18, as Noah divides the land among his children and gives
Shem his portion, he remembers a blessing he had spoken that the Lord
would dwell in Shem’s dwelling place. The angel guide then explains to
Moses that Noah knew that “the garden of Eden was the holy of holies and
the dwelling of the Lord” (8:19). The garden of Eden is also associated
with Mount Sinai “in the midst of the desert” and with Mount Zion “in the
midst of the navel of the earth.” These three places are called “holy
places,” which is the traditional designation of the temple.19 Mount Zion
was the place where Solomon built the temple; Mount Sinai was the place
where Moses was shown the heavenly temple and where God dwelt while
He gave Moses the law (Exod. 25:8–9). Eden in particular is called the
Holy of Holies, suggesting that this was the place of God’s throne. The
implication is clear. The place where God dwells is a temple. In Eden the
Holy of Holies is the place of His throne.
It can be argued that Eden was on earth and thus not a representation of
a heavenly reality. But this proposition cannot be sustained in Jubilees.
Although Eden was formed on the third day of creation (2:7), at the end of
the first Jubilee Adam and his wife left the garden (3:32) and apparently
did not return. From then on, the place became unreachable to humans.
Several later apocalyptic works entertain the notion that Eden was moved
to heaven.20 The author of Jubilees does not quite follow this idea. For
Jubilees, Eden is still on earth (4:26), but the garden is not accessible to
human beings.21 Even the waters of the flood that covered the earth and
every tall mountain (5:26) did not come upon the land of Eden (4:24). The
only instance in which a human revisited it was when Enoch was “taken
from among the children of men,” a phrase indicating a journey to an
otherworldly reality (4:23), which is in line with Genesis 5:24 and the
tradition of 1 Enoch 70. So, although according to Jubilees Eden was
located on earth, it was a sacred place inaccessible to humans, functioning
as God’s heavenly temple.
The previous conclusion is also verified by Enoch’s function in Eden.
Enoch is not merely a scribe (4:23) but also a priest who offers incense to
God.22 Incense offering is clearly a priestly function. This shows that the
author of Jubilees considered Enoch to be a participant in a heavenly
liturgy. He is not the only one who ministers in this otherworldly temple.
In a couple of instances, Jubilees infers that the angels also minister there
as priests (30:18; 31:14). The context is Levi’s election to the priesthood.
Both instances reveal close ties with the Testament of Levi, an apocalyptic
work with a strong relationship to the testaments genre. In Jubilees 30:1,
after Simeon and Levi have avenged the shame of their sister Dinah, Levi
is chosen for the priesthood and the Levitical orders. In this passage the
angel of the presence says to Moses:

And the seed of Levi was chosen for the priesthood and
Levitical (orders) to minister before the LORD always just as
we do. And Levi and his sons will be blessed forever
because he was zealous to do righteousness and judgment
 and vengeance against all who rose up against Israel.

The passage clearly shows that the author of Jubilees believed that the
ministry of priests in the temple was a reflection of the ministry of angels
in heaven. In fact it is the ministry of angels in the heavenly temple that
gives legitimacy to the ministry of the earthly priests. It is not that the
angels minister like the priests on earth, but rather that the priests on earth
are to minister as the angels in heaven. The heavenly ministry, and by
extension the heavenly temple, is the prototype for the earthly one.
The same ideas are repeated in the next chapter. Jacob visits his father
Isaac with two of his sons, Levi and Judah. Miraculously, Isaac’s
blindness, which previously helped Jacob deceive his father and receive
the blessing due to Esau, is lifted (31:9). Isaac sees the resemblance the
boys have with Jacob and, under the influence of a “spirit of prophecy,”
takes Levi in his right hand and Judah in his left and gives them blessings.
The blessing on Levi is related to his priesthood. Isaac blesses his
grandson, saying, “May he draw you and your seed near to him from all
flesh to serve in his sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy
ones” (31:14). For the second time the ministry of the earthly priests is
compared to the ministry of the angels of the presence. Once again, the
seniority of the heavenly priesthood is assumed and the ministry of the
earthly priests said to mirror the ministry in heaven.23 Jubilees does not
explain what the ministry of the angels in heaven entails, though it seems
that its author believed that the angels performed sacrifices. Jubilees 6:18
reads: “And all of this feast [i.e., the Feast of Weeks] was celebrated in
heaven from the day of creation until the days of Noah, twenty-six jubilees
and five weeks of years.” Gray remarks that Jubilees implies a sacrificial
cult in heaven. He also observes that these heavenly sacrifices continued in
heaven “after the purpose of God that they should be offered on earth had
been achieved.”24 Clearly the author believed that God dwells in a
heavenly temple where He is ministered to by angels, even though the
author did not describe a typical heavenly tour. This ministry of the angels
was mirrored in the ministry of the priests on earth and superior since it
was established before the earthly temple and priesthood. In line with other
apocalyptic works,25 Jubilees allows for exceptional individuals (i.e.,
Enoch) to take part in that ministry and serve in that temple.26

THE ANIMAL APOCALYPSE (1 ENOCH 85–90)

The Animal Apocalypse is the second vision of the Book of Dreams (1 En.
83–90), which is part of the collection of books that came to be known as 1
Enoch. The Book of Dreams contains two visions that are recounted in
chapters 83–90. The first given to Enoch is a dream vision of the cosmic
destruction wrought by the flood. The second is the Animal Apocalypse.
Although the two visions may come from the same author, they are neither
parallel nor complimentary to each other, and Collins rightly regards them
as distinct compositions.27 Only the Animal Apocalypse is significant for
the purpose of our study. On internal grounds this apocalypse can safely be
dated to the Maccabean war,28 which appears to be the final recorded
history of the book and the primary interest of the author (1 En. 90:6–
39).29 The Animal Apocalypse contains an allegorical history of the world
from creation to the establishment of the messianic kingdom.30 Collins
claims that the Animal Apocalypse does not contain a heavenly journey
and classifies it as a “historical apocalypse.”31 Though there is no detailed
journey to heaven, there are two brief descriptions of heavenly ascents. In
1 Enoch 89:52 Elijah is taken to heaven, while in chapter 87 four angels32
seize Enoch and take him to a high place (v. 3). The former will only be
touched on briefly since there is no discussion of a temple, though one is
assumed. The latter is more pertinent. From the vantage of this high place,
Enoch is shown a high tower above the earth. The position of this tower
suggests that it is in another world, possibly in heaven. It will become
obvious from the consistent symbolism of this vision that the tower refers
to the heavenly sanctuary.
As the author narrates the apocalypse, the meaning of several symbols
used repeatedly becomes apparent. The early patriarchs are described as
bulls (e.g., Adam, Abel, Cain; 1 En. 85:3). Their color is representative of
their character. The pure ones (e.g., Adam, Seth) are white; Cain is black.
The red color of Abel’s bull (1 En. 85:4) represents his violent death at the
hands of Cain33 or Abel’s sacrifice, which involved the shedding of
blood.34 In line with other apocalyptic books, the descent of the Watchers
and their mingling with humans is symbolized with stars falling from the
sky (86:3).35 This unholy union does not result in the birth of more cattle
but rather in the birth of unclean animals such as elephants, camels, and
donkeys that attack and eat the bovids (vv. 4–6).
The angels in the vision are represented as humans (87:2). When Noah
—who is a snow-white bull—learns secrets from the angels, he is
transformed into a person (89:1). This transformation no doubt represents
the elevation of Noah to an angel-like status.36 After the flood, Noah’s
wicked descendants are represented as all kinds of wild animals, mostly
predators and scavengers (v. 10). It seems clear that, according to the
author, unclean animals represent the wicked. Abraham and Isaac are also
bulls, but Jacob is a sheep. Collins suggests that the change in symbolism
underlines the transition from the patriarchal age to the history of Israel.37
Still, the symbolism retains its principle, since sheep are clean animals.38
A more complicated question on the symbolism concerns the seventy
shepherds. They are entrusted with the safekeeping of the sheep after the
fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians (89:59). Charles convincingly argues
that the shepherds are angels.39 The house symbolizes the tabernacle
erected by Moses in the desert (v. 36).40 Later the same symbolism
portrays Jerusalem (v. 50).41 When the story describes the building of the
temple by Solomon, it refers to it as a tall and “great tower” (v. 50), while
the second temple is “called the high tower” (v. 73). In line with other
books of his time, the author considered the second temple polluted; this is
obvious because he says that in this temple they set a table with impure
and polluted bread (v. 73).
This brief survey shows the author’s rather consistent use of symbols,
with temples referred to as high or great towers. Consequently, when
angels seize Enoch and show him a high tower above the earth (87:3), the
natural interpretation is that he is shown the heavenly temple.42
Chronologically, chapter 87—which describes Enoch’s ascent—is before
the flood (ch. 89) and after the sin of the Watchers (ch. 86). This time
frame fits that of the Book of Watchers, in which Enoch travels to heaven
to mediate on behalf of the Watchers. As is argued in “The Heavenly
Temple in the Book of Watchers” of the present volume, Enoch was
admitted into the heavenly temple in that ascent (14:8–25). Thus it seems
likely that the author of the Animal Apocalypse utilized the heavenly
ascent of Enoch in the Watcher tradition to shape his own description of
Enoch’s ascent to the heavenly temple.
Usually commentators point out that the lodging of Enoch in the high
tower aims to give him a vantage point from where he can view
panoramically the history of the world.43 This is certainly true; the author
draws from biblical precedent, in which God’s prophets were often taken
to vantage points to be shown revelations (e.g., Ezek. 40:2). But it is not
only the tower’s height that makes it conducive to revelation. This place
being a sanctuary also amplifies its position as an ideal place for Enoch to
be given these revelations. In Psalm 102:19 the heavenly temple is the
platform from where God looks down on the earth, and in 73:16–17 the
temple again is a place where revelation and understanding are given.
Therefore, Enoch’s relocation provides him with the ideal place to receive
revelations, not only in an elevated location but also in the place from
where God Himself observes the earth.
It is likely that the men who assist Enoch in his ascent also function as
priests in the heavenly temple; maybe they are some of the seven
archangels of Jewish tradition. Archangels were commonly depicted
serving as priests in God’s heavenly temple.44 Their snow-white
appearance (87:2) may indicate their purity or their status as holy ones (cf.
Dan. 7:9). According to Nickelsburg, the white color of angels’ garments
might also connote their status as priests in the heavenly sanctuary since
white was typically the color of priestly garments.45 It is evident then that
the author of the Animal Apocalypse, like the author of Jubilees, held the
idea that angels minister in the heavenly temple as priests.
It is possible that Enoch was placed in the heavenly temple for other
reasons as well. The temple was a place of safety. Even though Jews did
not consider the temple a place of asylum in the manner Greeks did,
Exodus 21:13–14 indicates that unintentional killers could flee there or
other designated places for safety.46 In contrast, intentional killers were to
be, if necessary, dragged even from the altar and executed.47 The story of
Solomon and Adonijah illustrates this principle (1 Kings 1:49–53).48
Enoch’s placement in the temple may thus also be understood as an
attempt of God to bring him to safety. The verses before Enoch’s
ascension describe vividly how the offspring of the Watchers bit,
swallowed, gored, and ate the cattle, which became fearful and frightened
(1 En. 86:5–6; 87:1). The same motif is repeated in 89:52 when Elijah is
taken up to heaven. The sheep that went astray persecuted one sheep
(Elijah), but he escaped. In 89:52, when the sheep wanted to kill Elijah, the
Lord rescued him and caused him to ascend. Unlike Enoch’s ascent, which
is described in apocalyptic terms with angels raising Enoch to a high
tower, Elijah’s ascent is simply stated. The passage does not specifically
claim that Elijah was transferred to the high tower (i.e., heavenly temple);
it does mention, however, that he was taken up to the same place where
Enoch had been (v. 52). Nickelsburg observes that Elijah’s ascent to
heaven parallels that of Enoch.49 So the context of Enoch’s and Elijah’s
ascensions to heaven is protection from those who wanted to harm God’s
people—them in particular. When both prophets arrived in the refuge of
the tower, they escaped all persecution.
To sum up, the Animal Apocalypse contains two brief ascents to
heaven. The first one is Enoch’s (87:2–4) and the other one is Elijah’s
(89:52); only Enoch’s is described in apocalyptic terms. Both prophets are
taken to the heavenly temple where their security is ensured. From the
height and safety of the temple Enoch is able to receive revelation and
review the history of the world until the establishment of the messianic
kingdom.

THE TESTAMENT OF LEVI

The Testament of Levi claims to contain the last words of Levi to his
children just before he died. The document is part of the Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs, a collection of books modeled after Jacob’s last
prophetic words to his children in Genesis 49. The question of the original
language of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is complicated. There
are Greek, Armenian, Slavonic, Hebrew,50 and Aramaic51 manuscripts and
fragments. The Armenian and Slavonic versions appear to be secondary
witnesses derived from the Greek.52 Charles believed that the testaments
were originally written in Hebrew.53 He based his case on the grounds that
Hebrew idioms underline the Greek text and that awkward, unintelligible
passages can be explained by reconstructing the supposedly original
Hebrew. Kee disagrees. First, he points out that the Semitic idioms can be
explained as deriving from the language of the Septuagint. Second, he
notes that the mistranslation theory of a Hebrew original is purely
hypothetical.54 Charles’s arguments are also offset by the fact that there are
occurrences of puns on Greek words that would be unintelligible in
another language.55 It is generally accepted that the Hebrew manuscripts
are late and cannot represent an original Hebrew text since they have only
occasional and fragmentary verbal parallels with the Greek testaments.56
The Aramaic manuscripts found in Cairo Genizah and at Qumran also
show a different version than most of the Greek texts, with the exception
of a Greek manuscript that was found at the monastery of Koutloumousiou
on Mount Athos.
It appears that during the Second Temple period there was a broad and
free tradition linked with the twelve patriarchs.57 The texts were written
and rewritten several times, and this loose tradition is exhibited in that
there are only occasional verbal points of contact between the Greek,
Hebrew, and Aramaic testaments. Kee attempts to solve the peculiarities of
this document with the proposal that it was “written originally in Greek,
with Hebrew and Aramaic testaments serving loosely as models.”58 For the
purpose of this work we will be dealing with the Greek version of the
Testament of Levi since it is the more complete one.
The Testament of Levi in its present form shows clear evidence of a
Christian redactor. Kee claims that there are no more than twelve Christian
interpolations; these occur in the latter part of the testaments and are easily
identifiable since they are not in harmony with the surrounding text.59 On
the other hand, de Jonge vigorously defended a Christian authorship for
the testament, arguing that it made use of a large number of Jewish
traditions.60 Kee’s position appears to be more plausible. It is easier to see
a Christian redactor making few additions to an original Jewish work than
a Christian author making a heavy use of Jewish sources. In the Testament
of Levi in particular it is difficult to understand the interest of a Christian
author in the priesthood of Levi and his use of Jewish sources to excuse
Levi’s behavior in Shechem.
The question of date depends heavily on one’s understanding of the
composition of the book. Those who claim Christian authorship obviously
date the book later than those who understand it as an essentially Jewish
work with a few Christian interpolations. Charles observes that in the
Testament of Reuben 6:10–12 the author combines the roles of priest,
king, and warrior. The combination obviously points directly to the
Maccabean high priests.61 In the Testament of Levi 18:2 some understand
the new priest to be John Hyrcanus, which would indicate a date for the
Testament of Levi in John Hyrcanus’s reign between 137–107 BC.62 The
Christian interpolations are clearly later, and according to Kee they seem
to have affinities with Johannine thought. He dates them to the early
second century AD.63 Papaioannou envisions a much later date.64 The
material that refers to the heavenly temple in the Testament of Levi 2–5 is
probably of Jewish origin and thus should be safely dated to the second
century BC, perhaps a few years later than the previous books we have
examined.65
The testament begins with Levi’s heavenly ascent. While Levi is
contemplating and troubled about the sin in the world, he falls asleep. In
his sleep he sees himself seated on a great mountain (2:5). Then the
heavens open and a voice invites him to ascent. Levi ascends through two
heavens and is told that there will be one more heaven, which would be
“more lustrous and beyond compare” (v. 9). The numbering of the heavens
depends on which manuscript one uses. α appears to speak of three
heavens,66 and Kee follows the reading of this manuscript since it involves
less expansion on the original story.67 On the other hand, β, Αβ, and S1
mention seven heavens. If the α manuscript is the correct reading, the three
heavens may be representations of the three compartments of the heavenly
sanctuary: court, Holy Place, and Most Holy Place.
Himmelfarb, following de Jonge’s lead, reckons that the reference to
“heaven” in the singular in the Testament of Levi 5:1 is probably “a
remnant of the Aramaic vision that contained only a single heaven.”68 But
this is not the only possible explanation for the mentioning of heaven in
the singular in chapter 5. In 2:7 Levi had already entered the first heaven
and saw the second one. Although the text does not specifically say that
Levi entered the second heaven, the fact that he describes it suggests that
he entered it (v. 8). However, Levi did not describe the third heaven,
precisely because he had not yet entered it; the angel informs Levi that the
third heaven is going to be “more lustrous and beyond compare.” This
means that when 5:1 describes Levi entering heaven through its gates, the
text simply describes the patriarch making the last part of his heavenly
journey into the third heaven.
Whatever the significance of the previous heavens, Levi’s entrance to
the heaven in 5:1 is an entrance to the Most Holy Place. Levi was told in
3:4 that the great glory (hē megalē doxa) dwells there and that this place is
superior to all holiness. The designation of God as “glory” (Hebrew kābôd;
LXX doxa) was common among Old Testament books, which often
referred to God’s presence in the temple as “glory” (e.g., Exod. 29:43;
40:34; Lev. 9:23; Num. 20:6; 1 Kings 8:11; Ezek. 10:4). Levi’s angelus
interpres also explains to him that the archangels minister and offer
sacrifices before God on behalf of the righteous for their sins of ignorance
(3:5). In harmony with other apocalyptic works, the sacrifices in heaven do
not involve the killing of animals but are bloodless (v. 6)69 and produce a
pleasing aroma before God.70
Levi enters heaven when the angel opens its gates (5:1). There Levi sees
God seated upon the throne. The scene is different than any other ascent
scenes to God’s throne. Levi does not respond with fear or trembling,71 he
does not make any remarks of his unworthiness to meet God,72 and he does
not fall prostrate.73 Himmelfarb proposes two explanations for Levi’s lack
of proper reaction before God’s throne. The first is that Levi feels
comfortable in the heavenly temple because, after all, he is the founder of
the priestly line.74 Unlike the others who have visited God’s temple, Levi
is the first priest, the founder of the priesthood, and therefore feels at home
in the heavenly temple. The other explanation is that Levi’s lack of
reaction to the heavenly throne is an “indication of the transformed
significance of the priesthood for the author of the Greek T. Levi.”75 So
while the author may consider the information about priests and temples
relevant, their meanings have been transformed and details that were
considered important by other authors are immaterial to him.
Himmelfarb seems to favor the second interpretation, though it seems to
me that the first is more plausible. If Levi had shown any feelings of fear
or unworthiness, some readers could have misconstrued these as signs of
his unworthiness for the priesthood. But the purpose of the author is the
exact opposite; Levi is very worthy for the priesthood. First, the author
shows that Levi is concerned with acts of injustice and that he grieves
because of those who commit them (2:3–4). Thus he is established as a
deeply moral man. Next, through the ascent to heaven, the author shows
that Levi’s actions at Shechem were sanctioned by God (5:3). While the
incident made Jacob angry and sorrowful (6:6), heaven rewards Levi with
the priestly investiture for him and his offspring (8:2–17). As the narrative
proceeds, Jacob also sees a vision, accepts the priesthood of Levi, and pays
him tithes.76 Jacob’s reversal confirms his previous error and demonstrates
once more Levi’s innocence. It is clear that the progression of the narrative
has as its goal to dispel any doubts of Levi’s worthiness to be a priest.77
These doubts could have been fostered by Genesis 49:5. Any inclusion of
unworthiness or feelings of inadequacy on the part of Levi while in God’s
presence might have had a negative effect on the overall purpose of the
author. The result is clear: Levi was chosen by God to be His priest, and
there should be no question as to Levi’s fitness for this task.
There is yet another way by which the author seeks to highlight Levi’s
merit to be a priest in God’s presence. Unlike other Jewish apocalypses, in
the Testament of Levi the hero is admitted into the presence of God (5:1–
2) before he receives investiture (ch. 8).78 This reversal of the normal
process further suggests that Levi did not need the investiture to become
legible to meet God in His heavenly temple; he is legible simply by being
Levi, the first priest and the progenitor of the priesthood. It is more logical
to explain Levi’s lack of fear before God as intentionally crafted to draw
attention to his worthiness to be the father of the priesthood.
The Testament of Levi is also in agreement with the other books we
have surveyed so far. Heaven has/is a temple, and God is seated in the
Most Holy Place of this temple. The angels minister before God and offer
bloodless sacrifices on behalf of the righteous. Whereas in other Jewish
apocalyptic literature the individuals entering God’s temple feel
inadequate in His presence and need to receive investiture to become
priests before they encounter Him, Levi is directly admitted to heaven and
shows no sign of fear or unworthiness. As the first priest, Levi feels at
home in God’s temple. In his audition with God, Levi is told that he is
given the priesthood. Later, in another vision (ch. 8), he is dressed by
seven men79 in the clothes of the priesthood and becomes a priest.
Heavenly visions inform Jacob that Levi should be a priest, and
subsequently Jacob also accepts Levi’s priesthood. It is clear that Levi’s
priesthood is ordained by God, and although the author may have had
some criticism against the priests of his time (see T. Levi 9:9), he had no
questions about Levi’s role as the first priest.

THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE

The Songs is one of the Dead Sea documents found at Qumran, and it
consists of thirteen separate compositions for each of thirteen Sabbaths.
Newsom, who edited the critical edition, believed that only the first
thirteen Sabbaths of the year were intended;80 however, it seems that the
quarter was simply thought of as a calendar unit and that the Songs were
intended to be repeated every quarter.81 There is no internal evidence from
the Songs by which we can establish a date for its composition. The text is
preserved in fragments from eight manuscripts in Cave 4, dated
paleographically to the late Hasmonean and early Herodian periods.82 The
end of another scroll was found in the Q11 cave written in Herodian script.
Finally, a large fragment was discovered in Masada that was written in
fully developed Herodian script. The oldest of these manuscripts is 4Q400
and is dated paleographically to 75–50 BC.83
As with most documents found at Qumran, one must ask whether the
Songs are a product of the community or a composition that was simply
copied and preserved in the Qumran libraries. The answer is not simple,
since a manuscript has been found in Masada outside Qumran84 and little if
any terminology in the Songs can be pointed to as characteristically
sectarian. Collins seems to disagree and argues that either the Songs were
a sectarian composition or at least originated from “circles that were
highly congenial to the sect.”85 He bases his conclusion on the grounds that
the Songs have numerous parallels to sectarian scrolls like the Instruction
on the Two Spirits, 4QBerakot, and the Hodayot.86 Additionally, the
technical function of the māśkîl points to a sectarian origin of the work.87
The presence of a manuscript in Masada cannot be considered as
conclusive evidence that the Songs originated outside the Qumran area. It
is possible that the manuscript was carried there by members of the
Qumran community seeking refuge in Masada.
The surviving manuscripts are very fragmentary, so it is difficult to
formulate a clear picture of their contents. For example, we have no
fragment that can be assigned with a degree of certainty to the third Song,
and only a small piece probably belongs to the fourth.88 Despite the
scarcity of evidence, Newsom proposes that the Songs follow a distinct
pattern that can be discerned through the existing fragments. She points
out that a composition of thirteen songs has the seventh Song as its center.
This song’s centrality is highlighted because in the surrounding songs
(Songs six and eight) the number seven figures prominently in references
to “seven priesthoods, seven councils, seven precincts, seven dəbîrîm,
seven chief princes, seven deputy princes, seven psalms, seven words,
etc.”89 This stylistic detail divides the Songs into three parts. The first part
consists of the first five songs; the middle part contains Songs six, seven,
and eight; and the last part contains Songs nine through thirteen.
The first part is highly informational and didactic in nature. Although
references to the heavenly temple are scarce and less descriptive than in
the latter songs, they are still present. The first Song phrases several
concerns with the purity and holiness of those who stand before God’s
presence. This purity suggests a priestly ministry for the angels. Besides
purity, the song claims specific functions for the angels that are typically
considered to be priestly. These functions include propitiation of God’s
goodwill for the repentant and execution of God’s jealous vengeance.90
This first part of the Songs also contains the only references to the human
priesthood. Newsom proposes that the Songs begin with a strong
consciousness of the human community and increasingly become more
absorbed with the heavenly temple in the latter part of the work.91
The middle part has distinctly different content and style than the
previous songs. It focuses on the angelic praise of God.92 Stylistically, it is
replete with formulaic repetitions and is preoccupied with sevenfold
sequences.93 The numbered elements provoke the participation of the
audience as the songs describe the sequence that has been formally
announced.94 Newsom notes a climax when the heavenly temple itself
participates in the worship in which even the structures and the markəbōt
(divine chariots) burst into praise.95 The last part varies distinctly from the
first part, but it resembles closely the second half of the seventh Song. Its
emphasis is on the “structures, features and beings of the heavenly
sanctuary”—particularly their acts of worship.96 The affinities of the last
five songs with the second part of the seventh Song underline this song’s
significance as a pivotal and programmatic song in the structure of the
whole work.
The last five songs appear to move systematically through the various
parts of the temple, describing them in vivid and graphic detail from the
outer parts to the Most Holy Place.97 Additionally, the angels that minister
before the divine throne/chariot are mentioned.98 Of interest is that the last
song does not describe God’s throne in the Most Holy Place but rather the
angelic host’s sacrificial service and priestly garments. According to
Newsom, this is a clear indication that the subject of the work is not really
God but the angelic priesthood and the heavenly temple.99 This idea is also
supported by the fact that the words of praise are not told in the songs (at
least in the extant parts) and that—with the exception of the first two
Songs—there are no second-person addresses to God. The effect of this is
to “direct attention to the angels who praise rather than to the God who is
praised.”100
The heavenly temple is described with many different terms in the
Songs. One of the common designations is māʿôn.101 The word is used in
the Old Testament to designate both the earthly temple of God102 and His
heavenly dwelling.103 Its primary meaning is “dwelling,” and it is used in
the Songs to refer to the dwelling of God and the angels.104 Another term
used is mabnît.105 It refers to a building or structure, and the term is
possibly related to tabnît, although the latter means “likeness” or
“pattern.”106 Mabnît is not found in the Old Testament, but tabnît (LXX
paradeigma) appears in Exodus 25:9 where God orders Moses to make a
tabernacle according to the pattern of the tent he saw on the mountain.107 A
common word that is used to describe the tabernacle in the Old Testament
is miškān.108 This word also appears in the Songs.109 Another common Old
Testament term for the sanctuary is qōdeš.110 In the Songs the word
appears as qds (qōdeš in Masoretic)111 and means “holy place.”112 It
frequently appears in the phrase qōdeš qādāšîm, but it is not clear whether
the phrase refers to the Most Holy Place (cf. Ezek. 45:3) or if it is simply a
superlative genitive (cf. Exod. 29:37). Miqdāš is yet another term that is
used frequently to describe the sanctuary in the Songs. The term appears
frequently in the Pentateuch,113 but it is also the primary term for the
temple in Ezekiel 40–48.114 The term hêkāl, which is used to denote both
the notion of “temple” and “palace,” is also found in the Songs.115 It is
common in 1 Kings 6–7 and also in Ezekiel 41. Newsom observes that the
context of 11QShirShabb 1–2–9 7 suggests that the term does not simply
describe the Holy Place of the temple in contrast to the Most Holy Place
but rather the sanctuary as a whole.116 The common term in the Songs for
the Most Holy Place of the heavenly temple is dəbîr.117 The term is found
in the Old Testament in 1 Kings 8:6, 2 Chronicles 5:7, and Psalm 28:2.
In addition to describing heaven in the words frequently used for the
temple/tabernacle in the Old Testament, the Songs mention several
architectural features of the temple, such as its gates, portals, and
vestibules. Most of the Songs’s terminology appears to depend on Ezekiel
40–48.118 For example, references to gates and portals of the temple
(4Q405 23 I, 7–8) are common in the Old Testament on their own but only
Ezekiel 40:11, 38, 40; 46:3 include both terms together (petaḥ hašʿar).119
The vestibule, ʾûlām (LXX ailam), is mentioned in both the Songs and
Ezekiel 40:7; 46:2, 8. Other architectural features are the “corners,” pinnôt,
a reference to the corners of the altar in Ezekiel 43:20; 45:19 and in 4Q403
1 I, 41 the corners of the building itself. The pillars of the temple
(ʿammudîm) are found in 4Q403 1 I, 41 and in Ezekiel 40:49. Lastly, the
walls of the temple, qîrôt, are found in 4Q403 1 I, 43 and in Ezekiel 41:5.
When it comes to the furnishings of the temple, Newsom observes that
the only clear technical term that is used is pārōket, the term for the curtain
that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.120 The curtain was
part of the tabernacle (Exod. 26:31–33), but according to 1 Kings 6:31 it
was replaced with a wooden partition in Solomon’s temple.121 The second
temple had a curtain.122 Additionally the expression “divine footstool”
(hădōm ragəlāyw)123 is used, which was commonly associated with the
ark.124 Following Ezekiel 1 and 10, the Songs frequently describe the
throne of God as a chariot (merkābâ). This chariot is located in the Most
Holy Place.125 Interestingly the Songs make reference to several chariots
(markəbōt).126
The Songs also allude to priestly vestments. The thirteenth Song in
particular describes the garments of the seven angelic high priests. Exodus
frequently uses the word ḥošen to describe the breastplate of the high
priest.127 On the breastplate was a set of twelve gems, and upon each was
engraved the name of one of the twelve tribes (Exod. 28:21). The
thirteenth Song mentions the breastplate in 11QShirShabb 8–7 4 and in the
next line the words “multicolored like wo[ven work . . .] purely blended
dyed garments.”128 The next line also includes the word ephod. Newsom
considers it very likely that the passage refers to the breastplate and the
figures or patterns (ṣûrôt) of the engravings on the stones.129 Ephod is a
technical term that refers to garments exclusively worn by the high priest
(e.g., Exod. 28:1–43).130 This implies that “the head of each of the angelic
priesthoods functioned as a high priest.”131 It is also probable that the
waistband worn by the high priest is described in 4Q405 23 II, 10 by the
word ḥēšeḇ.
The problem with ḥēšeḇ is that, besides the waistband of the ephod, it
can also refer to “ingenious”132 or “woven work.” Newsom chooses the
second interpretation and translates the text as “their crafted (garments) are
purely blended, an artistry of woven work. These are the chiefs of those
wondrously arrayed for service.”133 Newsom opts for “woven work” rather
than “waistband” because she considers it unlikely that the waistband of
the angels’ garments would be singled out for mention.134 One should note
though that the text is fragmentary and the context of the mention of the
ḥēšeḇ is otherwise missing. As such, it is possible that the description of
other articles of priestly clothing were mentioned. Additionally, although
the waistband appears to be a minor part in the high priest’s garments,
twice in the book of Revelation it plays a prominent part in the description
of Jesus. In Revelation 1:13, besides the long robe extending to Jesus’s
feet, the only other article of His clothes that is described is His golden
waistband.135 Likewise, the angels that come out of the heavenly temple in
15:6 wear linen clothes and golden waistbands. Finally, in the Apocalypse
of Zephaniah, when the angel Eremiel is described, the only article of his
clothing that is described is his golden waistband (Apoc. Zeph. 6:12).136 It
seems therefore that it was common for ancient writers to describe only
part of the priestly clothes with the waistband featuring prominently in this
description.
There are further references to the temple and its ritual. Newsom
translates the phrase tāhôr as “purely blended.”137 It is taken from Exodus
30:35, where it refers to the special blending of incense that was used
exclusively in the tabernacle. Verse 38 includes a strict prohibition against
the replication of the incense for common use, revealing its holy nature.
The context of this phrase in the Songs is always connected to the
heavenly temple and the Most Holy Place in particular.138
The Songs contain three direct references to offerings and sacrifices.
First, the phrase trwmt lswn (4Q400 2 7) refers to the offering of praise.
According to Koehler and Baumgartner,139 trmmt was a technical term for
a particular offering. In this case it appears that the offering referred to the
songs of praise offered by the community.140 Second, the very title “Songs
of the Sabbath Sacrifice” is a reference to the temple sacrificial ritual.
Third, there is sacrificial terminology in the first part of the thirteenth
song.141 The text reads, “for the sacrifice of the holy ones . . . the odor of
their offerings . . . and the odor of their drink offerings . . .”142 In line with
other apocalyptic books, the emphasis of the heavenly sacrificial
references is on the aroma of the sacrifices and not on blood
manipulation.143
From the above observations Newsom draws several conclusions. First,
heaven is rarely described in general terms. Nearly all the expressions
describe a heavenly building in language and terminology that is mostly
drawn from the earthly temple.144 Details of the temple, such as the
architectural features or furnishings that are found in priestly texts
(particularly in Ezek. 40–48), are also commonly applied to the heavenly
temple. Furthermore, the image of a temple in heaven is also preserved in
the ministry of angels in a manner that mirrors the ministry of earthly
priests. The high-priestly vestments of the angels are described as well as
the fact that they perform bloodless sacrifices.
A curious problem in the Songs is the existence of seven sanctuaries or
dəbîrîm and the existence of presumably seven markəbōt (chariot thrones)
—one for each dəbîr. The problem is heightened because these plural
terms are found alongside singular terms.145 The solution that one
sanctuary is hierarchically higher than the others seems possible in some
texts like 4Q405 15 II-16, 3, 5, but it is unlikely in others where the same
phrases occur “in overlapping texts both as singular and as plural (e.g.,
4Q403 1 ii 19; 4Q405 8–9 3).”146 While not discounting the possibility that
one sanctuary is exalted above the others, Newsom proposes that more
likely we are dealing with plurals of majesty and possibly with “intentional
violations of ordinary syntax and meaning in a text which is attempting to
communicate something of the elusive transcendence of heavenly
reality.”147
What was the purpose of the Songs? Schiffman suggested that the Songs
were a speculative exercise about the cult performed in heaven. He
proposed that the Songs are not based on mystical experience but rather on
biblical exegesis.148 Maier began his theory for the function of the Songs
from the distinct circumstances of the Qumran community. He concluded
that, as the community felt it could not participate in the cult of the
Jerusalem temple, the heavenly temple functioned for them as a suitable
replacement.149 Newsom believes that the Songs had the purpose of
cultivating “a mystical communion with the angels.”150 Whereas Maier
believes that the physical displacement of the community from the temple
cult made it necessary for them to seek a replacement, Newsom claims that
it was not the cultic aspect that needed promotion but rather the
experiential validation of the community’s claims. As time passed, the
priests of the community found themselves in an awkward situation in
which they claimed to represent the true priesthood but were not in a
position to offer to members of their community any religious experience.
The Songs provided an argument to authenticate the claims of the
community. They provided a mystical experience by which the worshipers
could participate in heaven’s worship.151
Collins correctly observes that these proposals need not be mutually
exclusive. The exegetical element in the Songs is indisputable, and as we
have seen, the scrolls draw repeatedly from priestly texts, especially from
Ezekiel. But exegesis is not incompatible with the experiential dimension
of religion. Rowland has demonstrated that meditation on Genesis 1 and
Ezekiel 1 was common, and many who attempted to expound the chariot
vision of Ezekiel did so in the hope of receiving a vision themselves.152
Moreover, Collins argues that a “replacement cult would be more effective
if it were experienced imaginatively.”153 All these theories are compatible
with our basic premise: that the works we have examined share the faith in
a functioning heavenly temple. Whether it was the goal to participate in
the divine liturgy (Newsom), the necessary alternative to the impure cult in
Jerusalem (Maier), or even just a spiritual exercise in which the individual
contemplated heavenly realities (Schiffman), all theories require the firm
belief of the community in the heavenly sanctuary.
As we mentioned in the introduction the Songs are not, strictly
speaking, an apocalyptic work. Although their subject matter portrays a
heavenly reality, the description of this reality is not made in the form of a
traditional, apocalyptic, heavenly ascent. The descriptions of the
visionaries are not in the first or third person but rather follow calls to
praise.154 The Songs share a passionate interest in the heavenly world, and
this interest is clearly more intense and developed than the interest of the
earlier apocalypses. Likewise intense is the Songs’s interest in angels and
their cultic activity in heaven. This intensity makes Collins suppose that
the Songs represent more than a replacement for the cult of Jerusalem
considered invalid by the Qumran sect. He proposes that the sect would
expect the heavenly liturgy to continue whether the Jerusalem temple cult
was defiled or not.155
Our survey of the Songs has shown the intense interest of the Qumran
community in the heavenly worship. In this worship the heavenly temple
and the angels that minister therein play a central role. The heavenly
temple is not conceived as a vague shadow of the earthly one but as a
prototype that corresponds even in minor details with the earthly temple. If
Collin’s synthesis of the function of the Songs is correct, the document
was evidently more than an exposition of biblical texts and a replacement
cult for the community. It also functioned as a means for the community to
experience the heavenly worship. In this capacity the Songs is the first
extra-biblical document that not only acknowledges the existence of a
functioning heavenly temple but also actively seeks to engage its audience
to participate in heaven’s worship. Having reviewed four works written
while the Jerusalem temple was still standing, we will next investigate an
apocalypse from a different era that faced a different set of problems—not
a defiled priesthood, but the lack of a temple.

2 BARUCH
After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, a body of literature emerged
from Palestine attempting to make sense of the catastrophic events that led
to the loss of the temple.156 The temple had been the principal symbol of
Jewish identity157 and the center for all cultic activity. After the loss of the
temple several questions sprang up in Jewish minds. Had God abandoned
Israel? What brought Israel to this predicament? Would Israel ever be
restored to its past glory? Were the prophecies about the Messiah going to
be fulfilled? Was God just in punishing Israel while other nations
prospered? These questions on theodicy were central to books such as 2
Baruch, 4 Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. Their authors chose the
apocalyptic medium to communicate their message as God’s revelations to
His people.
The author of 2 Baruch chose to write as if it was during the first
destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC. This catastrophe
provided the perfect context. Setting his book in a time where the
prophetic voice was well documented would mean that fewer questions
would be asked concerning the divine inspiration the book claims for
itself. Furthermore, the events that led to the destruction of Jerusalem were
similar to those that led to its destruction in AD 70, and thus the same set
of questions would naturally arise from both. By addressing hypothetical
questions of the generation of the 586 BC destruction, 2 Baruch was
actually answering the questions of contemporaries without needing to
explicitly reveal firsthand knowledge of the second destruction of
Jerusalem. Still, at times the author’s knowledge of the destruction of the
second temple appears in prophecies about the future (32:2–4). The
appropriateness of the specific time period is also evident in that the author
of 4 Ezra places his book in the same era.158
Second Baruch is generally dated after the AD 70 destruction of
Jerusalem and before the Bar Kokhba revolt.159 Klijn, based on the fact
that the theology of 2 Baruch appears to be more developed than that of 4
Ezra, dates it after 4 Ezra to the first two decades of the second century.160
Collins cautiously concurs. He believes that the two books are somehow
connected with each other, and that the author of 2 Baruch possibly took
issue with 4 Ezra’s skepticism and lack of affirmation of divine justice.
Collins concludes that it is easier to see why 2 Baruch should respond to 4
Ezra rather than vice versa.161
Second Baruch has survived in the Syriac. In the heading, the Syriac
document states that it was translated from the Greek. This statement is
proven by the finding of a Greek fragment of 2 Baruch among the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri.162 The Greek version appears to be translated from
the Hebrew. In some cases where the Syriac text is problematic, the
problems are resolved if the text is translated back into Hebrew.
Additionally, a restored Hebrew text appears to contain several plays on
words. This strengthens the idea that behind the Greek text was a Hebrew
original.163
Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch contains several apocalyptic parts united by a
narrative describing Baruch’s transformation.164 He turns from a mourner
grieving the fate of Jerusalem to a consoler of his people.165 The book
begins with God’s decree against Jerusalem and its people (2 Bar. 1:4; see
also 4:1). On hearing this news, Baruch petitions God and intercedes on
behalf of the city and its inhabitants (3:1–9). His intercession is
communicated through a series of questions concerning the consequences
of Jerusalem’s fall. Specifically, Baruch questions the effect such a
destruction would have on God’s reputation,166 the fate of God’s promises
to Moses, and the future of the cosmos. Baruch is sincerely concerned that
the destruction of Israel would mean a disruption in the order of the
universe and a return to the primordial chaos (v. 7).
God’s answer is threefold: (1) the city is to be delivered to destruction
but only for a time; (2) the people likewise are to be chastened for a time;
and finally, (3) God will not forget the world (4:1). Essentially God limits
the universal dimensions Baruch assumed and asserts the punishment’s
temporary nature.167 God then questions the authenticity of the city and the
temple. He asks: “Do you think that this is the city of which I said: ‘On the
palms of my hand I have carved you?’” (v. 2). The implied answer to His
rhetorical question is “No.” This suggests that Baruch’s previous
lamentations for “his mother” Jerusalem168 had simply missed the mark. It
is not the earthly Jerusalem that matters but the heavenly ideal.
Proceeding on the same line of argument, God emphatically denies the
notion that the temple is “this building that is in your midst now” (v. 3).
He explains that the true temple is with Him and was “already prepared”
from the moment He decided to create paradise.169 Effectively God
explains to Baruch that the actual temple is the heavenly one and that it
was built before the creation of the world.170 Like Jerusalem, the heavenly
ideal is the original and the temple that actually matters, whereas the
earthly one is but a shadow of that original. The seniority of the heavenly
temple over the earthly (for which it served as a model), makes it of
greater significance and value.
According to 2 Baruch the heavenly temple belongs to a realm without
sin. Adam, who saw that temple, is specifically said to have seen it before
he had sinned. After he sinned the temple was taken away from him (v. 3),
for he was defiled. Although sinful humanity171 is denied access to the
heavenly temple, certain individuals have been allowed to see it. Abraham
was the first to see it after the fall (v. 4). The occasion was the night when
God confirmed to Abraham His covenant (Gen. 15:17–21). The text in
Genesis does not mention anything about a temple. Pseudo-Philo, a work
that bears a strong relationship to 2 Baruch172 and probably predates it,173
maintains that God, in the vision in question, showed Abraham “the place
of fire where the deeds of those doing wickedness against me will be
expiated” and the “torches of fire by which the just who have believed in
me will be enlightened” (23:6).
Moses also is said to have seen the heavenly temple on Mount Sinai (2
Bar. 4:5) as well as the “likeness” of all its vessels. This suggests an exact
correspondence between the heavenly and earthly temples, a concept not
always found in apocalyptic literature, where the parallel is often more
loose.174 Although 2 Baruch speaks of Moses seeing the “likeness” of the
sanctuary, it is evident from the context that Moses saw the actual
heavenly temple just as Abraham did before him.175 The description is
probably an exposition on Exodus 25:9, 40, which means that 2 Baruch
understood the tabnît of Exodus to refer to an actual structure.176
Second Baruch may shed light on other apocalyptic references that place
the heavenly temple in paradise or on Mount Sinai (e.g., Jubilees 8:19–21).
It claims that the temple was shown to Moses on Mount Sinai but that it is
now preserved with God in paradise (2 Bar. 4:5–6). We argued previously
that the temple mentioned in those passages was the heavenly temple even
though both Mount Sinai and paradise were located on earth. Second
Baruch verifies our conclusions. Both of these two locations represent
heavenly realms. Sinai is a gateway to heaven by which Moses is shown
the heavenly temple, and paradise is a place in God’s safekeeping and thus
in heaven. Besides the similarities we should also note the differences.
Jubilees considered the garden of Eden itself as the sanctuary, whereas 2
Baruch considers the heavenly temple to be a distinct structure from the
garden of Eden or paradise. The preservation of the temple in paradise
probably implies God’s efforts to keep the temple’s purity away from
sinful human access, just like access to the garden of Eden was restricted
after the fall (see Gen. 3:24).
The heavenly temple is not mentioned specifically after chapter 4. We
are told that it will be revealed later, presumably at an eschatological
climax, but the texts that deal with the final restoration do not mention the
heavenly temple. Second Baruch 32 addresses the elders and reveals to
them what will take place in the future. After a brief time the temple will
be rebuilt, but it will be destroyed again (32:3). So far Baruch’s predictions
about the future are given in the form of vaticinia ex eventu—history in the
form of prophecy. In verse 4, however, the author dares to speculate about
the future. He expects that the temple “will be renewed in glory and
perfected into eternity.” This prediction is brief and vague. It probably
suggests the rebuilding of the temple yet again, but it is also possible that it
predicts a future establishment of the heavenly temple on Mount Zion.
Although the latter idea sounds interesting and seems to be envisaged in
the book of Revelation with the coming of the New Jerusalem portrayed as
a temple city, Baruch simply does not provide enough evidence to
formulate a coherent picture about his eschatology.
Collins proposes that Baruch’s confused eschatology is the result of
using two distinct strands of tradition: one optimistic that expects the
rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and another pessimistic that looks
for “the end of this world and a judgment beyond.”177 In the first tradition
the earthly temple is of greater importance; this is why the first temple’s
vessels have been stored for safekeeping inside the earth:178 they will be
used in a future, restored Jerusalem (6:8–9). In the second tradition the
heavenly takes precedence over the earthly and a restored Jerusalem and
temple are not necessary since the originals are intact in heaven (4:2–3).
Collins interprets the temple in 32:4 to be the rebuilding of a yet another
earthly temple, but he also notes that since this eschatological restoration is
not imminent for the author, “the heavenly Jerusalem and temple are
ultimately more important.”179 In attempting to make sense of both these
theories, Collins proposes that they really don’t contradict each other but
rather do what apocalypses are supposed to do: not formulate doctrine but
suggest a future hope by means of symbols.180
To sum up, the author of 2 Baruch also believed in the concept of a
heavenly temple. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the
book describes God drawing the author’s attention to the heavenly ideals.
God assures him that the structures that He has preserved in heaven are the
real prototypes. They were created by God and are much older than their
earthly counterparts. In fact, they were prepared from the moment God
decided to create paradise. Among the few individuals who have seen this
temple are Abraham and Moses. Second Baruch refers to Moses’s
experience on Mount Sinai, where the prophet was shown the heavenly
temple and its vessels and subsequently built the tabernacle. It is clear that
the author of 2 Baruch believed that Moses was shown the heavenly
temple itself and not a mere blueprint.

CONCLUSION
This survey began by examining Jewish apocalyptic documents dated in
the Maccabean era and ended with 2 Baruch, which comes from the
aftermath of the destruction of the second temple. We noted that these
documents consistently uphold a belief in the heavenly temple, in which
services take place and angels minister as priests. Selected documents—
such as the Testament of Levi and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice—
envisioned bloodless sacrifices regularly taking place in heaven, with
special emphasis given to the aroma of the sacrifice.
In the Testament of Levi and the Animal Apocalypse we noted that,
despite the profound respect they held for Levi’s priesthood, the authors
viewed the second temple as polluted and impure.181 One can thus
mistakenly conclude that this was the sole reason why the apocalyptic
works turned their attention to the heavenly ideal. However, Jubilees gives
no negative picture for the second temple in Jerusalem. There is no
indication that the author felt excluded from the cult.
Charles considered the author’s stance to be pro-establishment.182
Wintermute regards the author to have belonged to a priestly family
because of his interest in “the origin of festivals, the determination of
sacred times, and his incessant concern for ritual details.”183 In Jubilees,
Levi is given a higher status than the rest of the sons of Jacob, even higher
than that of Judah (Jub. 31:12–29).184 Thus we can conclude that at least
for the author of Jubilees the emphasis on the angelic ministry in the
heavenly sanctuary was not a necessity arising from the polluted
priesthood of the temple on earth but a commonly held belief. The
reappearance of the heavenly temple in 2 Baruch, a book that does not
make any specific attacks against the priesthood, reinforces this
conclusion. Those who were unable to worship in the temple in Jerusalem
(whatever the reason) could look to the heavenly temple, but the belief in
its existence did not depend on the view that the earthly priesthood or
temple was impure. The belief in the existence of the heavenly temple
appears to be independent of the views of the priesthood.
Another general observation should be made: none of the works we
have surveyed make an attempt to prove their belief in the heavenly temple
and its ministry. All the apocalypses mention it incidentally and
axiomatically accept its existence. This reveals that the belief in the
heavenly temple must have been common and not under dispute.
The Songs is far more concerned about the heavenly temple than the rest
of the books we have surveyed. It is evident that the Qumran community
not only firmly believed in the existence of the heavenly temple but also
incorporated this belief into their religious experience. For them the
heavenly temple was much more than a heavenly ideal. It was a real
temple that aided the community’s religious, experiential dimension.
This survey described the views of several apocalyptic authors
concerning the heavenly temple. We have concentrated in the period from
the second century BC to the early second century AD. From this period
only the more explicit references to the heavenly temple were selected.
Space limitations have not permitted an exhaustive study of the subject.
Further study is warranted for other apocalypses, such as the Apocalypse
of Abraham. From this research, though, a specific area of further inquiry
surfaces. How do these findings compare to the apocalyptic books of the
Bible? What are the similarities and the differences in the descriptions of
the heavenly temple and its services? Additional research could establish
an answer to these questions. Nevertheless, this study determined that the
reviewed apocalyptic books firmly believe in the existence of a
functioning heavenly temple whose services mirrored the services of the
earthly one.
18
THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE IN THE BOOK OF
WATCHERS
IOANNIS GIANTZAKLIDIS

I t is safe to claim that 1 Enoch was one of the most influential

intertestamental literary works1 read by both Jews and early Christians,2
who found in it affinities to Jude and possibly Revelation.3 Even the
Gnostics, despite their strong prejudice against the Old Testament and its
Creator, utilized Enochic traditions in both the elaboration of their myths
and in the production of their literature.4
The omission of 1 Enoch from the biblical canon is not an oversight.
Despite its claims, the book was not written by Enoch, the seventh from
Adam, but by a variety of authors who assumed Enoch’s identity and
wrote as if they were the patriarch. It is easy to dismiss the reading of such
a book, simply labeling it as uninspired, fictional writing. However, I
believe we stand to gain by carefully studying it—not as an inspired
document that would reveal theological truths, but as a literary product that
reflects the theological outlook of a milieu of which we have only a
fragmentary picture.
Here I will concentrate on the Book of Watchers, which is the first book
of 1 Enoch. After going through some background information concerning
its composition and its dating, I will examine Enoch’s heavenly journey
that commences in 14:8. Particular attention will be paid to the author’s
portrayal of heaven as a temple. It will be argued not only that Enoch
viewed the dwelling place of God as a temple where services took place,
but also that the images therein allude to Leviticus 16 and the Day of
Atonement. The relationship of Enoch’s vision to Daniel’s vision in the
Daniel 7 will also be considered. It will be proposed that the picture of a
real heavenly temple, where services took place that paralleled the services
in the earthly temple, was a familiar theme of the Jewish writings around
the time of Jesus.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The first book of Enoch is a composite work surviving in its totality only
in the Ethiopic language. It consists of five books written at different times
by different authors:5 (1) the Book of Watchers (chs. 1–36), a mythological
interpretation of the corruption before the Flood; (2) the Similitudes or
Parables of Enoch (chs. 37–71); (3) the Astronomical Book or Book of
Heavenly Luminaries (chs. 72–82); (4) the Book of Dreams (chs. 83–90);
and (5) the Epistle of Enoch (chs. 91–108). Embedded in the Epistle
(91:11–17; 93:1–10) is the Apocalypse of Weeks, which stands out as a
distinct unit.6
With the exception of the Similitudes, fragments of all the books have
been found in Qumran in Aramaic. This finding gives credence to the
theory that Aramaic is the original language of 1 Enoch. An alternative,
not yet disproved, is that the book was composed in two languages,
Hebrew and Aramaic, much like the canonical book of Daniel.7
The question of the date of 1 Enoch is complicated. Any attempt to date
it must take into account evidence from the earlier manuscripts, possible
usage of the work in other literature that is firmly dated by a reasonable
consensus, and internal evidence from the book itself. An additional
obstacle is that 1 Enoch’s books were not written by the same author and,
therefore, not at the same time. For the purpose of this study we are mainly
interested in the Book of Watchers and will attempt to date only this work.
The Book of Watchers is one of the earliest in the Enochic corpus,
preceded only by the Astronomical Book. The Book of Watchers appears
to have been written before the Maccabean revolt. Milik dates the earliest
manuscript (through orthography8) to the first half of the second century
BC.9 Since the original composition is presumably older than the
fragments we possess, and since the Book of Watchers shows signs of
multiple stages in its composition, it is reasonable to assume that the work
was extant in some form in the third century BC.10
I would hesitate to push the date further back, as Barker appears to do.
She claims double standards between the dating of Enoch and the
canonical books: “Nobody would date a biblical text by that [manuscript]
method. . . . We have to start with open minds, and ask when 1 Enoch
might have been written, where the ideas originated, and who cherished
them sufficiently to preserve and transmit them.”11 For the Book of
Watchers she proposes that after the Jews returned from the exile, the new
priesthood was viewed as neither pure nor acceptable; thus the Book of
Watchers, with its tradition of the fallen angels, is an attempt to comment
on these corruptions.12 While this may be a background for the book, there
is no need to suppose that it was composed very early, during the time of
the Persian Empire. The Qumran community also had problems with the
priesthood, and they lived in isolation until the destruction of the temple.
Problems with the priesthood do not warrant an early date for the book.
The time when such “ideas were originated”13 need not be the time of the
book’s composition. The book could have been written many years later
when such ideas concerning the priesthood in Jerusalem were flourishing.
Furthermore, internal evidence betrays Greek influence best explained if
the book is dated after the coming of the Hellenistic era in Palestine. The
two traditions intertwined14 in the myth of the Watchers, that of Azaz’el
and Semyaz, can be traced to Greek mythology. In the Azaz’el tradition
the primary sin of the fallen angels is improper revelation (8:1–4), whereas
in the Semyaz tradition the sin of the angels is intermarriage with human
beings that produced violent giants (chs. 6–7). Nickelsburg argues that the
Azaz’el material is an adaptation of the myth of Prometheus.15 By stealing
the fire and giving it to the people, Prometheus rebelled against Zeus.
According to the Aeschylus tragedy, Prometheus Bound, Prometheus was
responsible for teaching man the mining of copper, iron, silver, and gold—
apparently a development on the idea of the theft of fire.16 Prometheus
concludes one of his speeches to the chorus by submitting that he
bestowed to man every art he possessed “pasai technai brotoisin ek
Promētheōs.”17
The intercourse of angelic or divine beings with mortals is unknown in
the Hebrew scriptures18 but has abundant attestation in Greek mythology
(cf. the myth of Europa).19 Io’s affair with Zeus, as told in Prometheus
Bound, is closer to the Semyaz tradition. First, the passage is found in the
same tragedy that—according to Nickelsburg—contained echoes of the
Azaz’el tradition. Second, it describes in detail the affair of a woman (Io)
with a heavenly being (Zeus) and its disastrous consequences for
humanity. Third, the moral of the story as given by the chorus is a caution
against such affairs. After Io leaves the scene, the chorus takes the lead
and advises against marriage outside one’s class: “Of equal with equal in
wedlock.”20 Then the chorus continues:

Never, O kindly powers,

Behold me the partner of Zeus;
Never may one of the gods
 Descend from the skies for my love.21

As far as the violence that scourged the earth in the Semyaz tradition,
Nickelsburg understands it as representing the wars of the Diadochoi
(323–302 BC).22 If Nickelsburg’s theory is correct, this too places the
composition of the Book of Watchers in the Hellenistic era.
It seems likely that in the Book of Watchers the Genesis account was
reinterpreted under Greek influence to produce the myths of Semyaz and
Azaz’el.23 It is reasonable to place the date of composition in the
Hellenistic period when Judaism came into closer contact with the Greek
world. Thus, there is no reason to insist on a date earlier than the late
fourth or early third century, which seems to be the general consensus of
scholars.24
The setting of the Book of Watchers is unclear. It is generally accepted
that the story of the fallen angels is an allegory of some crisis in the
Hellenistic age. Emphasizing the violence that pollutes the earth after the
sin of the Watchers, Nickelsburg suggested that the fallen angels represent
the Hellenistic kings who succeeded Alexander the Great and the wars
among them.25 An alternative view focuses on the sexual nature of
Semyaz’s sin. It cites as support the Testament of Levi and the CD from
Qumran to propose an attack against the Jerusalem priesthood, which was
seen as impure by the author of the Book of Watchers. These proposals are
not mutually exclusive, and Nickelsburg also sees a polemic against the
priesthood in chapters 12–16.26 Later this position will be further
evaluated.

SUMMARY OF THE BOOK OF WATCHERS

The first five chapters constitute the introduction to the rest of the book
(chs. 6–36). The author, by alluding to Deuteronomy 33:1 (Moses’s
blessing) and Numbers 24:3–4 (one of Balaam’s oracles), attempts to align
himself with the tradition of the prophets and claims the heavenly visions
and auditions as the authority for the following revelations.27 Chapters 6–
11 introduce the story of the Watchers. Chapters 6–7 tell the story of how
Semyaz and his angels descended from heaven and had intercourse with
women. The product of their union was a race of giants that brought evil to
the world and to humans. Chapter 8 contains an apparently separate
account of the sin of the Watchers. There Azaz’el led other Watchers to
teach people forbidden knowledge. This also ends in human desperation.
The scene changes in chapter 9: from the sky, Michael, Surafel, and
Gabriel (Michael, Uriel, Rafael, and Gabriel according to the Greek
manuscript Ga28 and the C29 manuscript in Ethiopic) observe the bloodshed
upon the earth and bring it to God’s attention. Chapters 10–11 follow
God’s response in the form of a message to the son of Lamech30
concerning the coming destruction of the world by the flood. God also
commands the binding of the evil angels’ leaders and their collaborators
till their judgment, and He promises restoration and an earth clean from
pollution.
Chapters 12–16 focus on Enoch and his intercession in the heavenly
temple for the fallen angels. The unfallen Watchers (angels) call Enoch to
pronounce judgment on the sinful Watchers. Upon communication of this
judgment, fear and guilt take over the sinful angels. They beg Enoch to
intercede for them before God, and Enoch writes their petitions in order to
mediate on their behalf. In a vision he is taken up to heaven, where he
enters God’s heavenly palace. The description of the throne of God
appears strikingly similar to the throne of God in Daniel 7:9–10. In chapter
16 Enoch receives God’s final and irrevocable rejection of the fallen
Watchers, which concludes this major section of the book.
The subsequent chapters include Enoch’s trips to the furthermost parts
of the earth where, among other things, the places for the eschatological
punishment of the Watchers are revealed. It has been noted that Enoch’s
trips in chapters 17–36 lack parallels with the otherworldly journeys of
other apocalypses. Enoch does not follow an ascent through a set number
of heavens.31 Newsom proposes that the Mesopotamian method of
diplomacy, in which a king displays his power by his treasures, is helpful
for understanding the rationale of the tour.32 So God’s display of His
splendor intends to astonish and intimidate. The correspondence with Job
38 has also been noted. Both stories share common phraseology:
foundations and cornerstone of the earth (Job 38:4, 6; cf. 1 En. 18:1, 2) and
storehouses of elements of nature (Job 38:22; cf. 1 En. 18:1), which are
reserved for the day of battle (Job 38:23; cf. 1 En. 17:3). Moreover, as
Newsom points out, the rhetorical questions meant to show Job’s
ignorance (e.g., Job 38:4, 5, 8) in Enoch’s case can be answered with a
“Yes.”33 Enoch is portrayed as a man who has been in the utmost secret
places of God and thus possesses knowledge beyond what is normally
allotted to human beings.34 The purpose of this trip is to convince the
Watchers of the reality of their judgment. Their place of punishment has
already been prepared. Though judgment is not imminent in Enoch as in
other apocalypses, it is a certain reality.
THE PORTRAYAL OF HEAVEN AS TEMPLE IN
ENOCH’S ASCENT
Enoch’s visionary ascent to heaven is portrayed in chapters 14‒16. Natural
phenomena such as clouds, fog, courses of stars, lightning, and winds
called for and caused his ascent. Upon entering heaven, Enoch approached
a wall. The Greek text adds the word oikodomēs in 14:9, which suggests
that he approached a heavenly structure. It is described as being made of
marble and tongues of fire; the sight had a frightening effect on Enoch.
Next, he came into another structure built of white marble, with inner
walls like mosaics of white marble, a floor of crystal, and a “ceiling like
the paths of the stars and lightnings” (14:11). Between the floor and the
ceiling stood fiery cherubim and their “heaven of water.” In addition, fire
surrounded the walls and its gates (14:12). The house that Enoch entered
was concurrently hot like fire and cold like ice, but empty. Fear overcame
the prophet, and in his vision he saw a second, greater structure built with
tongues of fire. This structure was more glorious than the first, so that the
prophet could not express its greatness (vv. 15‒16), and it was described in
similar terms: a floor of fire, lightning above, the path of stars, and a
ceiling of flaming fire (v. 17).
The similarity of the descriptions leads the reader to assume that the
superiority of the second structure was in what it contained: the throne of
God (v. 18). The appearance of the throne was like crystal; its wheels were
like the shining sun. The Ethiopic text seems to include the voice of
cherubim apparently heard by the prophet. The Greek text (Ga) reads “oros
cheroubin.” As it stands, the phrase means “mountain of cherubim” and
does not make much sense.35 If, however, the correct spelling of the word
is horos rather than oros, the meaning could be “boundary,” “landmark,”
or “marking stone of cherubim.”36 If the Ethiopic text is correct, it would
imply that there are living cherubim around the throne. On the other hand,
if the previously proposed reconstruction of the Greek text is correct, it
implies some sort of a statue that would stand as a landmark or stele close
to the divine throne.37 This would parallel the cherubim statues that
overshadowed the mercy seat (Exod. 25:18). Both images are in line with
the idea that the throne of God is surrounded by cherubim.
The glory of God was seated upon the throne, and under it flowed
streams of fire (1 En. 14:19). God is not described, but His garment is
brighter than the sun and whiter than snow. No one could see His face,
stand in His presence, or move away from His presence. God raised Enoch
and brought him to the gate. Enoch continued to look down, but God
raised him up and delivered His message (v. 25).
The throne scene of 1 Enoch 14 shows remarkable similarities with
Daniel 7, which may imply dependence of one on the other.38 Both scenes
describe the throne of God with wheels (1 En. 14:18; Dan. 7:9, Theodotion
and Hebrew text) that are either shining (Enoch) or burning with fire
(Daniel). Under the throne flowed streams of flaming fire (1 En. 14:19;
Dan. 7:10). Before God stood myriads of myriads of angels39 (1 En. 14:22;
Dan. 7:10). God’s garments are portrayed as whiter than snow (1 En.
14:20; Dan. 7:9), and in Greek texts of both the LXX and 1 Enoch the
word that describes God’s garment is the less-common peribolaion. It
refers to a garment that is thrown around or to a covering.40 This is not the
most common word to describe a garment, but it is used thirteen times in
the Bible,41 in contrast with endyma (used 22 times), stolē (108 times), and
himation (283 times). However, since neither 1 Enoch nor Daniel was
originally written in Greek, this last parallelism may only indicate that the
translator of the more recent work saw a relationship between the two
books.
There is little doubt that heaven in 1 Enoch is portrayed as a heavenly
temple. For Nickelsburg the very fact that it is described as a “house” in
14:10 points in this direction, since “the ‘house’ of the deity is by
definition a temple.”42 In addition, 12:4 and 15:3 refer to heaven as
hagiasma and hagion. Both words are used to describe temples.43
Himmelfarb also notes the description of heaven as a multichambered
structure. In the Ethiopic text Enoch approaches a wall and enters two
structures. In the Greek text, as noted above, Enoch first enters a building
of hailstones and fire (14:9) and passes through a building comprised of
two chambers. The description of the Greek text closely resembles the
description of the first and the second temples. Both temples had, in
addition to the two cultic places (the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place),
an outer chamber—the vestibule—also called ailam.44
The description of the materials from which the temple is made is
paradoxical. The building is described as being made of hailstones, snow,
and ice surrounded by fire. Since such a building cannot exist on earth, the
author’s point seems to be that what is impossible with man on earth is
possible in God’s presence in heaven.45 Himmelfarb cautions that although
these opposing elements could only coexist in heaven, the earthly
sanctuary was also described in similar terms by Josephus. He claims that
the rising sun “reflected back a very fiery splendor” but also that the
temple “appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance,
like a mountain covered with snow.”46 Himmelfarb is aware that the
description by Josephus is centuries later than the Book of Watchers.
However, she maintains that this description may have had ancient roots
and draws from earlier praises of the temple.47
Cherubim are mentioned twice in Enoch’s description (14:11, 18). The
cherubim in 14:11 should not be confused with the ones before the throne
of God and most likely should be identified with the images of the
cherubim woven in the hangings of the tabernacle (Exod. 26:1, 31; 36:8,
35) or engraved on the walls of the first temple (1 Kings 6:29; 2 Chron.
3:7) and Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. 41:17–18).48
Rowland observes that besides the division of heaven into two parts
(three according to Himmelfarb, if we include the vestibule) that
corresponds to the division of the temple into its two main sections, there
are no other indications to suppose a close dependence on the layout and
furniture of the earthly temple. He interprets the lack of interest in cultic
objects as an indication that the chapter did not originate within priestly
circles.49 Rowland’s skepticism is misplaced. First, we saw that cherubim
are mentioned in the Most Holy Place, either as voices of living ones,
according to the Ethiopic text, or possibly as statues, according to the
suggested reconstruction of the Greek text. Second, the lack of a mention
of cultic objects can be interpreted in another way. Heavenly temples of
later apocalypses are also characterized by a lack of cultic terminology and
by little correspondence of detail with the earthly temple.50 The description
of the temple in the ShirShabb, which seems to portray the eschatological
temple of Ezekiel 40–48, is also eclectic and “reproduces only the broad
outlines of the earthly one.”51 According to Newsom and Himmelfarb, the
loose correspondence of the heavenly temple to the earthly is because of
the belief that the heavenly temple was far superior to the earthly; it was
considered impossible for the correspondence between the sanctuaries to
be exact.52 Thus, in this point the apocalyptic tradition departs from the
Torah, which presupposed perfect correspondence between the heavenly
temple and the earthly sanctuary that Moses made in the desert (Exod.
25:8, 9; cf. Heb. 8:5).
Although in 1 Enoch the heavenly temple does not reflect the earthly in
all its cultic details, there are clear cultic references in the description of
the service of the angels who function as priests in the Book of Watchers.
The word used to describe the approach of the angels to the throne of God
in 14:23 is eggizō. The word has technical, cultic connotations in several
Old Testament passages.53 Ezekiel 44:13 reads, “kai ouk eggiousi pros me
tou hierateuein moi.” Again in Ezekiel 45:4 we read, “estai tois eggizousi
leitourgein tō kyriō.” In both cases the verb eggizō is used as a technical
term to describe the service of priests in the temple. In 1 Enoch 14:23 we
read that the angels “neither go far away at night nor move away from
him.” This is also reminiscent of cultic language. According to Josephus,
the tribe of Levi was to serve “God night and day, as Moses had enjoined
them.”54 Luke 2:37 portrays the worship of Anna in the temple with the
term “night and day.”55 Although admittedly Anna was not functioning as
a priest, the term is associated with temple worship.
We can draw further inferences about the function of the angels as
priests from God’s response to Enoch. In 1 Enoch 15:2 God declares that
part of the ministry of the angels is intercession on behalf of men.
Intercession is the work of a priest.56 Next, God denounces the Watchers
because they defiled themselves with “women and with the blood of the
flesh begotten children . . . [and] have lusted with the blood of the people,
like them producing blood and flesh which die and perish.” It is unlikely
that the reference to blood is menstrual, as Suter maintains,57 despite the
fact that such defilement could have parallels with both the Damascus
Covenant58 and the Psalms of Solomon.59 In these two documents the
menstrual blood in question does not involve priests but ordinary people
and as such does not serve as the best parallel. More plausibly,
Himmelfarb proposes that the blood is that of virginity.60 Perhaps the best
parallel is with Ezra. After the return from exile, priests intermarried with
neighboring nations to establish better relationships. This intermarriage
was the subject of Ezra’s attack, since it threatened not only the
composition of Israel as a holy people but also the purity of the temple.61
The language of the prayer of Ezra may have influenced the wording of 1
Enoch. The Watchers are ashamed to lift up their eyes to heaven (1 En.
13:4–5), and Ezra in his prayer of confession declares, “I am ashamed and
blush to lift my face to thee, my God” (Ezra 9:6 RSV). Enoch and Ezra
enjoy the same status as scribes (1 En. 12:3; Ezra 7:6, 11). It is plausible
that the best parallel example to the story of the Watchers also involves
priests polluting the temple by intermarriage.62
Besides portraying the angels as priests ministering in the temple
worship, 1 Enoch confirms that heaven is depicted as a temple. As already
noted, the scene of the throne resembles Daniel 7. In both cases God’s
garment is white and compared to snow. In Daniel 7 God’s hair is also
white. The white color seems to be related to the symbolism of white in
judgment scenes.63 Judgment is obviously the theme of Daniel 7,64 but it is
also the theme of 1 Enoch. The Watchers through Enoch attempt to appeal
their first condemnation and hope for forgiveness. Enoch is the mediator of
their appeal.
Himmelfarb goes a step further and ties the whiteness of God’s clothes
in 1 Enoch with the heavenly temple, judgment, and the Day of
Atonement. She suggests that, for the regulations concerning the garments
of priests and the articles of the temple, the underlying principle was the
more important the object, the more magnificent its craftsmanship.65 The
clothes of the high priest were comprised of four elaborate layers of wool
and linen. An exception to this rule was when the high priest entered the
Holy of Holies once a year at the Day of Atonement. Then he wore plain
linen (bad).66 This linen was not to be confused with the fine linen (šēš)
the clothes of the ordinary priests were made of nor the undergarments the
high priest wore when serving other days at the temple. Plain linen was
used for the breeches of the ordinary priests (Exod. 28:42) and the
garments they wore when they removed the ashes from the altar (Lev. 6:3).
Yet the garments of the high priest for the solemn Day of Atonement were
made of this plain linen.67 The Bible does not comment on the garments’
color, but plain linen is off-white. The question is whether that color was
considered to be white. Commenting on the Day of Atonement, the
Mishnah specifically describes the clothes of the high priest as white: “He
went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. They
brought him white garments; he put them on and sanctified his hands and
his feet.”68 After examining the color of the clothes of the priests and the
high priests, Sanders also arrives at the conclusion that on special
occasions, such as the Day of Atonement, they wore white.69 He proposes
that “white was even more special than the ordinary priestly garb, and it
probably represented special purity.”70
According to Himmelfarb the white garments of God in 1 Enoch mirror
the white clothes of the high priest when he entered the Holy of Holies on
the Day of Atonement.71 To support this idea she also points out that the
Holy of Holies is where God is enthroned in the heavenly temple. In
addition, it is not without precedent to describe God as wearing clothes
similar to those of the high priest; she notes that Enoch “is far more
restrained than the rabbis, who did not hesitate to describe God’s prayer
shawl and phylacteries.”72
Her point gains strength when she shows other occasions in which
God’s garments reflected the clothes of the high priest when he officiated
in the temple. In Ezekiel 1:26‒28 God is portrayed as surrounded by a
rainbow. John borrows this form of describing God in Revelation 4:3, and
in 10:1 he describes the mighty angel with a rainbow over his head. This
image of the warrior God comes to be understood in relation to the
wardrobe of the high priest—and specifically the clothes he wears when he
officiates daily in the temple.73 The letter of Aristeas, which describes the
clothing of the high priest, gives a description similar to Ezekiel’s
description of God.74 Furthermore, Joshua ben Sira, when describing the
high priest Simeon, portrays him in similar terms and specifically like the
“rainbow gleaming in glorious clouds” (Sir. 50:7 RSV).75 Lastly, the
Qumran community also seems to have seen the relationship between the
priestly garments and the appearance of God. The thirteenth Sabbath Song
describes the clothes of the angelic priests. The colors are described using
the language of the biblical instructions for the dress of the high priest.76 In
the twelfth song the glory of God seated on the chariot throne is described.
It is portrayed in terms associated with the angelic priests, “which in turn
are drawn from the biblical instructions for the clothing of human
priests.”77 The above shows that when God’s appearance or garments are
portrayed with a rainbow, it is intentional, so that His clothes will reflect
the clothes of the high priest. Thus, it appears reasonable to assume that
the white garments of God in 1 Enoch mirror the white clothes of the high
priest on the Day of Atonement.
Himmelfarb considers the white garments as portraying purity rather
than justice, as they appear to do in Daniel. However, her argument holds
more force when we note that the Day of Atonement was a day of
judgment; the people were hoping that atonement or forgiveness would be
given for their offences committed during the prior year.78 In that context
the white of the high priest’s clothes is not only a reference to purity but
also to justice, much like the white clothes in Daniel.
Her position that the clothes of God in 1 Enoch reflect the high priest’s
clothes on the Day of Atonement is further strengthened if we consider the
allusions to Leviticus 16 in the Book of Watchers. First, the name of the
angel that transmitted forbidden knowledge to the humans is Azaz’el in the
Ethiopic manuscript and Azaēl in the Greek. The name is similar to the
Hebrew Azazel, which is translated apopompaios in the LXX. Hartley
suggests that in later intertestamental literature Azazel was the name of the
principal evil spirit, and he acknowledges that the references of 1 Enoch
8:1; 9:6; 10:4‒8; 13:1‒2; 54:5; 55:4; 69:2 taken from the Book of
Watchers and the Similitudes are related to Leviticus 16.79
Second, Azaz’el in 1 Enoch is punished by being bound hand and foot
and thrown in the desert of Doudael. Then the angel Raphael is supposed
to bury Azaz’el with sharp stones. Characteristically, it is said that on
Azaz’el should be written all sins.80 In Leviticus the goat that was for
Azazel was taken before Aaron. The high priest would confess the sins of
the people and transfer them to the goat, who was led to the desert to
wander until its death. In both cases the sins seem to be transferred to a
being named Azazel doomed to die in the desert. The parallelism seems to
be stronger in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, where the desert is described
as being rough, hard, and rocky and the goat is said to “bear upon him all
their sins into a desert place.”81
Third, the Book of Watchers also seems to be using language
reminiscent of Leviticus 16. In 1 Enoch 10:20 we read: “kai su
katharioson tēn gēn apo pasēs akatharsias kai apo pasēs adikias kai apo
pasēs hamartias kai asebeias, kai pasas tas akatharsias kai tas ginomenas
epi tēs gēs exaleipson.” In Leviticus 16 the result of the expiation by the
Day of Atonement would be to “eixilasetai to hagion apo tōn akatharsiōn
tōn huiōn Israēl kai apo tōn autōn peri pasōn tōn hamartiōn” (v. 16). A
few verses later (v. 21), Leviticus declares that the goat carries “pasas tas
adikias autōn kai pasas tas hamartias autōn.” The Enoch reference
reproduces the words akatharsia, hamartia, and adikia, and the adjective
pasa qualifies the last two nouns in the same way that the references in
Leviticus do.
Finally, the references share the same backdrop: the temple. In the Book
of Watchers, as we have seen, the heavenly temple figures prominently.
After their sin the Watchers petitioned Enoch to intercede on their behalf.
Enoch ascended to heaven and was admitted to its innermost part, the
throne of God. In Leviticus, the ritual of the Day of Atonement also has
the temple or the sanctuary as its backdrop. It is also important to note that
the high priest ministered in the Most Holy Place before God’s presence
only in this ritual. The table below summarizes the affinities between 1
Enoch and Leviticus 16.

1 Enoch Leviticus 16

Demonic Azaz’el in Ethiopic; Azazel in Hebrew

figure Azael in Greek

Common apo pasēs akatharsias apo tōn akatharsiōn

words to apo pasēs adikias kai apo pasas tas adikias autōn kai
 describe pasēs hamartias pasas tas hamartias
the
cleansing
of sin

Thematic Sins are written on Azael. Sins are confessed and laid
parallels upon (epitithēmi) the goat that
is for Azazel.

Azael is thrown in the The goat is led to the desert

desert and sharp rocks are and left alone to die. Tg. Ps.-J.
placed on top of him. on Lev. 16:10 describes the
desert as hard, rough, and
rocky.

The The Watchers seek The people of Israel receive

greater forgiveness and send a
context mediator—Enoch—to
of the God. Enoch’s mediation
story takes place in the
heavenly temple in the
Most Holy Place.
atonement for their sins. The
high priest atones for the
people in the earthly temple. In
this ritual alone the high priest
enters the Most Holy Place.

CONCLUSION
First Enoch was a very influential early apocalyptic work. The scene of the
divine chariot throne is hailed by most scholars as the first extra-biblical
merkābâ vision. Our fragmentary knowledge of the period makes the
situation surrounding the writing of the book unclear. It appears that the
book aims to be a critique of the established priesthood. The sins of the
priests could have been illegitimate marriages, which apparently led the
author to understand them as a defilement of the temple itself. The author
felt strongly about this sin. So in the author’s imaginary setting in heaven,
even though the Watchers would seek forgiveness, God would not be
willing to grant it.82 The author is not simply content with the initial
condemnation of the Watchers; he represents them as contrite, admitting
their wickedness by their own mouths, and making them require the
intercession of Enoch.
 Enoch’s intercession occurs during a heavenly journey. When he arrives
in heaven he enters a building whose description matches that of the
temple. The angels there minister before God in similar ways and using the
same language as the priests do in the temple. Enoch enters the Most Holy
Place, where God is seated wearing white clothes. Enoch’s intercession for
the angels fails because God rejects their final plea. If our conclusions are
correct and the author deliberately evoked language from the Day of
Atonement, the implication is that there is no hope for the fallen angels.
The purpose of the ritual performed on the Day of Atonement is to remove
all sins from the high priest, his family, the whole community, and the
sanctuary, where all the sins had accumulated during the past year. As
such it was the culmination of the whole cultic activity of the past year.
The rejection of the Watchers in the context of the rituals performed on the
Day of Atonement clearly declared to them that there was no chance for
forgiveness. Indeed, after Enoch’s trip to God’s throne the angels do not
seek forgiveness anymore. Their fate is sealed. The book ends with
Enoch’s tour to the ends of the earth and the places of the angels’
punishment. Since the last appeal of the Watchers is rejected, the only
thing that is left for them is their condemnation.
Enoch, in line with other apocalypticists, borrows from various
traditions to describe his visions and heavenly journeys. It is very possible
that Enoch drew from ancient Greek mythology to describe the sin of
Azaz’el and Semyaz. The violence that flooded the earth as the result of
the Watchers’ sin may be a description of the multiple wars between the
Diadochoi of Alexander the Great. But Enoch does not seem to have
turned his back on his own heritage. It is probable that Enoch borrowed
elements for his throne vision from Daniel 7. The connection has been
noted by many scholars; since the relationship between the two texts
appears to be so strong, most scholars believe that one quoted from the
other.83
It is also significant that Enoch portrayed the heavenly throne in the
context of judgment and particularly the Day of Atonement, which may be
more pronounced in the Book of Watchers than in Daniel 7. This suggests
that Enoch possibly understood that the judgment scene in Daniel 7 was
also in the context of the Day of Atonement. As was pointed out in the
introduction, the Book of Watchers is not a canonical work, and therefore
its message does not carry the theological weight of the Bible. However,
the book represents the writings of a Jewish man who lived around the
third century BC. This man, who spoke the same language as Daniel and
appreciated Daniel’s background much better than we, described a
functional heavenly sanctuary in his book. When he borrowed the
judgment scene from Daniel 7, he did so in the context of Leviticus 16,
which suggests that he understood the vision of Daniel 7 in terms of the
Day of Atonement.
19
THE TESTAMENT OF LEVI AND THE
DECLINE OF HEAVENLY TEMPLE
IMAGERY
KIM PAPAIOANNOU

T he heavenly temple is a prominent motif, not only in the Bible but in

numerous extra-biblical writings. While such writings are not
considered inspired and do not have the theological validity of the Bible,
they are nonetheless useful in that they offer a glimpse into the theological
mindset of Jews and Christians two thousand years ago. As such, they are
valuable sources of information.
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a document that purports to
contain the final words of the twelve sons of Jacob to their descendants.1
The Testament genre is inspired by Genesis 49:1–33, when Jacob gathers
his twelve sons just before he dies, recounts the past, admonishes them to
righteous living, and prophesies the future.2 With minor variations, the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs follows the same model; the title
“Testaments” is somewhat of a misnomer, as the testaments are not wills
or testaments in the normal sense of the term but rather parting words or
farewell speeches.3
In its current form the document is Christian and was composed in
Greek. Most extant Greek manuscripts are medieval, with the earliest, MS
547, dating from the seventh century.4 Armenian and Slavonic manuscripts
are translations from the Greek. Aramaic fragments of a work that shows
parallels with the Testament of Levi were discovered at the Cairo Genizah.
These were supplemented by fragments found at Qumran, and a Greek
translation of the Aramaic was discovered at the monastery of
Koutloumousiou at Mount Athos. The Aramaic text varies considerably
from the Greek, prompting scholars to name it the Aramaic Levi
Document to distinguish it from the Greek Testament of Levi.5
The discovery of the Aramaic text, especially the Qumran findings, has
intensified a debate as to possible Jewish influences on the present Greek
of the Testament of Levi. Views range from Kee, who argues for a Jewish
Aramaic Vorlage with minimal Christian redaction,6 to Hollander7 and de
Jonge,8 who maintain that the Christian elements of the Testament of Levi
are substantial and ingrained in the structure of the book.9 While they do
not deny a strong Jewish influence, possibly from works like the Aramaic
Levi Document, the present Testament of Levi is not simply a translation
but a complete reworking of Jewish motifs into a Christian context. The
fragmentary nature of the Aramaic manuscripts does not allow for detailed
comparison; therefore, conclusions on this issue remain tentative.10
Perhaps the strongest indicator of Jewish origin is the prominent position
Levi and, by implication, the Levitical priesthood hold. Such an outlook
would be unlikely in a Christian context. Conversely, Christian elements
are also pronounced, as will be discussed below. The question of origins is
likely to remain one of unresolved debate until further evidence comes to
light.
Of the twelve Testaments, the Testament of Levi plays a prominent role.
Both Levi and Judah receive praise throughout the Testaments as the
progenitors of the priestly and kingly lines, respectively. More importantly
for our purposes, the Testament of Levi is the only one of the twelve
Testaments that contains a detailed, apocalyptic, heavenly ascent
culminating in a visionary visit to the heavenly temple, where Levi is
invested with the priesthood. The Aramaic Levi Document also contained
a divine investiture, but unfortunately the text breaks off before its
description, with the result that we cannot know whether the heavenly
ascent of the Testament of Levi parallels what the Aramaic Levi
Document originally contained.11
Within the Testament of Levi we will focus our attention on three
passages. The first describes Levi’s ascent into the heavenly temple and
the presence of God. It is the most topographically descriptive and covers
Testament of Levi 2:5–5:2. The second covers Testament of Levi 8:1–19
and narrates a second visionary visit to the heavenly temple that takes
place seventy days after the first. Topographical details are missing, but
the passage is important in its description of Levi’s investiture into the
priesthood and its prophecies concerning the future. The third passage is
Testament of Levi 18:5–7. There is no heavenly ascent involved; rather the
heavenly temple becomes the venue from which sanctification flows out
onto a new priest who comes to replace the Levitical line. This chapter will
discuss these three passages and offer observations on the importance of
the heavenly temple in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic. One of the
reasons this document holds interest in the study of the heavenly temple is
that it evidences a gradual decline of interest in the heavenly temple in the
Christian sections. This will be discussed in the conclusion.

LEVI’S FIRST ASCENT INTO THE HEAVENLY

TEMPLE (TESTAMENT OF LEVI 2:5–5:2)
The first ascent of Levi contains the richest topographical descriptions.
Perhaps the most obvious feature is the presence of mountains. Before he
even begins his ascent, Levi finds himself on a high mountain (v. 5). There
he hears the voice of God inviting him to heaven (v. 6). Ascending
mountains signifies an intentional desire to come close to God. Abraham
climbed Mount Moriah to fulfill God’s call to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22:2,
14);12 Moses met God on the “mountain of God,”13 where he received the
call to liberate Israel (Exod. 3:1); God appeared to Israel on Mount Sinai
shortly after the Exodus from Egypt (19:11–24), and there also Moses
spoke to God and received the Law (24:1–18); Aaron and Moses died on
mountaintops in the presence of the Lord (Num. 20:22–29; Deut. 34:1–6);
at Mount Carmel Elijah was victorious over the prophets of Baal (1 Kings
18:19–40); and Solomon built the temple that was considered God’s house
on earth on a mountain in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6:1–38). Ezekiel is taken in
vision to a high mountain and beholds the temple (Ezek. 40:2), as did
John, who beholds not a temple but the New Jerusalem shaped like the
Holy of Holies (Rev. 21:10). Indeed, before Levi finds himself on the high
mountain he has been yearning in his heart for a revelation from God: “I
kept grieving over the race of the sons of men, and I prayed to the Lord
that I might be delivered” (2:4). While in vision on the mountain he
receives the invitation to visit the heavenly realms.
But it is not only on earth that mountains can signify divine presence.
As he visits the heavenly realms Levi goes through three heavens.14 In the
second heaven he sees a “measureless height” (2:8). The second heaven is
the prelude to entry to God’s heavenly temple located in the third heaven.
The concept of God’s dwelling place being on the top of a mountain
reflects the geography of Jerusalem and has its roots in biblical apocalyptic
visions. Before his fall, the king of Tyre was a guardian cherub in the
garden of Eden on the mountain of God (Ezek. 28:1–20). In the Lucifer
cycle of Isaiah 14:3–25, God’s throne is “on high” on the “mount of
assembly,” above the clouds of heaven (v. 13). In the heavenly temple
vision of Isaiah 6:1–13, God’s throne is “high and lifted up” (v. 1).
Mountains appear often in the cosmology of 1 Enoch (17:1–8; 24:1–6;
52:1–9; cf. 87:3), though they are surprisingly absent from the description
of Enoch’s visit to the heavenly temple (14:15–25). In 3 Enoch 1:1–12,
4:6–7, and 5:5, the heavenly temple is located in a “heavenly height” at the
center of seven concentric palaces. Mountains appear in celestial
geography twice in Revelation: in 14:1 the 144,000 stand on a heavenly
Mount Zion, and so does John in 21:10 as he beholds celestial Jerusalem
descending from heaven to earth.
Levi’s journey begins with an invitation as he stands in vision on a high
mountain. The invitation is introduced by the double use of his name,
“Levi, Levi, enter!” (2:7). This could indicate Christian influence, because
the double appellative is a common feature of address by Jesus.15
However, there are also clear Jewish precedents leaving the question of
influence open.16
In the Testament of Levi there are three heavens, and Levi visits them
all. Levi’s visit may as such be reminiscent of Paul’s visit to the third
heaven, where “he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not
utter” (2 Cor. 12:4), clearly an indication that Paul had reached the very
throne room of God. In the Apocalypse of Moses 37:5 and 40:1–2, an
early work dated in the first century AD,17 the third heaven is the location
of paradise. More commonly though, especially in later apocalyptic and
rabbinic writings, the number of heavens increases to seven or more.18 A
dependence on 2 Corinthians 12:4 could be argued for, though more likely
the Testament of Levi simply follows the earlier, less-elaborate depictions
of a three-tiered heaven.
As he enters the heavenly realms, Levi is met by a number of sights. In
the first heaven he sees “much water suspended” (2:7) as well as “fire,
snow and ice” (3:2). This suggests that the first heaven functions as a
storing place for the elements of nature. Klawans sees a parallel to Ezekiel
1:4, 13, 22, 27 and 1 Enoch 14:13.19 Collins points to biblical20 and early
Jewish tradition21 as well as Babylonian mythology22 as likely
backgrounds.23 The fact that these elements are stored “ready for the day
determined by God’s righteous judgment” (3:3) suggests that the writer
looks back to the destruction wrought through the waters of the flood as
well as forward to the eschatological judgment and destruction by fire,
motifs common to Jewish and Christian sources.24
The three heavens are ordered according to their importance. On the
lowest heaven dwell angelic spirits whose work is to mete out God’s
judgments on sinners (3:2). Angelic beings also dwell in the second
heaven, and their work is to carry out God’s judgment, but their focus is
more on the final judgment, Beliar, and his spirits rather than on humanity
(2:3).
The third heaven is described in more detail. Levi pictures a vast
heavenly complex structured like the temple of Jerusalem and containing
multiple gates (5:1). At the heart is the throne of God located in the Holy
of Holies (3:4; 5:1). Similar motifs appear in 1 Enoch 14:19; 25:3, 7; 47:3;
102:3 and derive from Isaiah’s ascent in Isaiah 6:1–13. The throne of God
is surrounded by lesser thrones and authorities. Levi does not state who
sits upon them. Apocalyptic authors know of angelic thrones25 as well as
thrones for glorified humanity,26 though the later appear more prominently
as a Christian motif.27 The phrase “thrones and authorities” strongly
suggests an allusion to Colossians 1:16,28 in which case those who sit on
these thrones are heavenly beings rather than glorified humans. They
might represent either a superior class of angels or the archangels whom
Levi saw (3:5), who minister and communicate God’s commands to lower
classes of angels dwelling in the lower heavens (v. 7).
Beyond their work as ministers of God’s commands, the angels offer
“propitiatory sacrifices” for “all the sins of ignorance of the righteous
ones” (3:5), and these sacrifices are “a rational and bloodless oblation,” a
“pleasing odor” to the Lord (v. 6). The language carries echoes of Romans
12:1. However, the context is decidedly different. Whereas in Romans the
language of sacrifice is part of Paul’s admonition to believers to live a
transformed life unconformed to the world, in Levi the bloodless sacrifices
serve to forgive sins. The concept of repeated propitiatory sacrifices
appears hard to reconcile with the Christian view of the uniqueness of
Christ’s sacrifice, and it is probably an awkward remnant of a Jewish
original.29 The sacrifice of Jesus is mentioned in 4:4 in the form of a
prophecy, where through the compassion of His Son who will be killed by
the descendants of Levi, the Lord will visit the nations forever.
The first ascent concludes with a brief interview before the heavenly
throne and a promise that the priesthood will be given to Levi because of
his revenge upon the people of Shechem for their treatment of Dinah.

LEVI’S SECOND ASCENT AND INVESTITURE OF THE

PRIESTHOOD (TESTAMENT OF LEVI 8:1–19)
Levi’s first vision of the heavenly temple is followed seventy days later by
a second visionary ascent (8:1–19). This time Levi does not describe the
sights and activities but rather his initiation into the priesthood. Seven men
lead out in the ceremony in the presence of God. Their identity is not
defined. Kee speculates that they may be angels,30 though the absence of
the word angels could suggest that Levi draws from the heavenly elders
who appear repeatedly around the heavenly throne in Revelation.31 The
first heavenly being anoints Levi with holy oil and gives him a staff (8:4);
the second washes him with water, gives him bread and holy wine, and
dresses him with a “holy and glorious vestment” (8:5); the third dresses
him with a linen ephod (8:6); the fourth places around him a purple girdle
(8:7); the fifth gives him a branch of rich olive wood (8:8); the sixth places
a wreath on his head (8:9); the seventh places a diadem on his head and
fills his hands with incense that he might be a priest before God (8:10).
The investiture loosely follows the one prescribed in Exodus 28:1–
29:8.32 The breastplate and the Urim and Thummim that formed such an
important part of the Aaronic high-priestly attire (Exod. 28:30) are
surprisingly absent. By contrast, a staff is mentioned (8:4). No staff is
mentioned in the Exodus ceremony, nor was it a necessary accessory of
the priestly office. Aaron’s staff plays a prominent role in the Exodus
account and was placed within the tabernacle, but it was used even before
his initiation into the priesthood. It is possible that Levi’s staff does not
reflect back to Aaron’s but to the crosier carried by prelates. Furthermore,
while unleavened wafers are mentioned in the Exodus investiture, there is
no mention of bread and wine given to the priests, as is given to Levi. Kee
surmises that they reflect on Melchizedek, who in his priestly capacity
offered bread and wine to Abraham and his companions upon their return
from the defeat of the Mesopotamian kings (Gen. 14:18).33 Such an
association would suggest a Christian outlook given the prominent role of
Melchizedek in the high-priestly role of Jesus in Hebrews. More
importantly, one should not fail to also see the Eucharistic elements central
to the Christian concept of priesthood. Indeed, Levi’s posterity “will share
among themselves the Lord’s table” (8:16).
The climax of the investiture ceremony is the announcement of three
future offices “as a sign of the Lord who is coming” (8:11). The first and
more important office is not defined. The other two are named. One is the
priesthood and the other is kingship, which will come through the tribe of
Judah. But in a clear reference to Jesus, out of Judah will come a “new
priesthood” which will receive a “new name” and be “in accord with the
gentile model and for all the nations” (8:14). Kee somewhat surprisingly
sees here an allusion to the Hasmonean kings, who in addition to kingship
appropriated the priesthood.34 However, it is obvious that something
grander is in view. Indeed, the remaining of the chapter is replete with
messianic allusions.
The presence of the new Priest is described as “beloved”—a clear
allusion to Synoptic and Petrine theophanies35 and a word which in
Ephesians 1:6 is used almost as a messianic title. The new Priest will be as
“a prophet of the Most High” (8:14), a quotation from Acts 3:22 which in
turn is a messianic application of Deuteronomy 18:15. He will be a
descendant of Abraham, an assertion that would appear redundant in a
Jewish context but which makes perfect sense if understood as an allusion
to Matthew 1:1. In Him will Israel find its fulfillment and will have a share
in the Lord’s table (8:16), a reference that better fits the Eucharistic table
than any Jewish precedent. In light of such strong Christian language, the
unnamed and more glorious of the three offices should be understood as
the messianic. The Testament of Levi 8:1–19 therefore functions as a
prolonged oracle to the Messiah, who will combine the offices of Messiah,
High Priest, and King. It is clearly Christian in origin.

THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE AND THE BAPTISM OF

JESUS (TESTAMENT OF LEVI 18:5–7)
The Testament of Levi 18:5–7 contains the final reference to the heavenly
temple. This chapter is an oracle about a “new priest” (18:2) whose
priesthood will last from “generation to generation forever” and who will
be followed by no successor (18:8).
The chapter is replete with Christian imagery.36 The new priest’s star
“shall rise in heaven” (18:3). The language draws originally from Numbers
24:17. While some faint parallels can be found in Qumran,37 the closest
parallel seems to be the star of Bethlehem.38 De Jonge notes that there is
no statement that the new Priest will come from the tribe of Levi, in
contrast to the Testament of Judah 24:1, where the future king is from
Judah’s “seed.” Combining the two testimonies, de Jonge sees a reference
to Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah.39 The Testament of Levi 18:6–7
is a clear allusion to Jesus’s baptism. Kee considers the words “in the
water,” which conclude 18:7 and sharpen the baptism allusion, as
secondary. But even without these words there are references to the
opening of the heavens (18:6), the Father’s voice (18:6), and the Spirit of
understanding and sanctification resting upon the new Priest (18:7)—all
referencing the Gospels’ baptismal accounts. More importantly, “the
nations shall be multiplied in knowledge on the earth” (cf. Ezek. 36:23;
Isa. 19:23–25) and “illumined by the grace of the Lord” as a result of His
priesthood (18:9), while “Israel shall be diminished by her ignorance and
darkened by her grief” (18:9–10). Such words could only come by the pen
of a (Gentile?) Christian. Furthermore, the new Priest’s followers will
trample on evil spirits (18:12), an allusion to Luke 10:19, where believers
are promised that they will trample on snakes and the power of the enemy.
The followers will also find rest forever with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
(18:14), an echo of the Synoptic heavenly banquet where the patriarchs
appear to preside.40
The reference to the heavenly temple appears in 18:5–7 in the middle of
this clear description of the baptism of Jesus.41 The Father’s voice does not
simply come from heaven, as in the Synoptic Gospels,42 but from “the
temple of glory” (18:6). Furthermore, the angels of “the Lord’s presence”
are mentioned, possibly an allusion to 1 Timothy 5:21,43 Revelation 14:10,
and Luke 1:19 (though see also Isa. 63:9), and are obviously the same
beings as the archangels that in Testament of Levi 3:5 stand in the
presence of God.

CONCLUSION
Of the three passages that mention the heavenly temple, the first is the
most elaborate and topographically descriptive. The three heavens, the
gates of heaven, the throne of God in the Holy of Holies, the surrounding
thrones, and the classes of angels all work together to paint a vivid picture
of a real place where God dwells and from whence the cosmos is directed.
Of the three passages, it is the one with the least discernible Christian
influence. Apart from the possible allusion to Romans 12:1, the brief
messianic prophecy of 4:4, and possibly the double address “Levi, Levi,”
there is nothing that could be described as decidedly Christian.
Theologically, Levi’s ascent to the heavenly temple and initiation into
the priesthood must be understood in the context of his primacy in the
ordering of Israel. Throughout the Testaments the other brothers point to
Judah—and especially Levi—as the sources of Israel’s future salvation.44
While several of the brothers, including Judah, confess to their past
mistakes, Levi appears to be blameless. The one negative deed in which
the Genesis account implicates him, namely the slaying of the Shechemites
(Gen. 34:1–31; 49:5–7), appears in the Testament of Levi appears in a
positive light. Indeed, Levi’s vengeance is a result of a direct command
from an angel (5:3) and prepares the way for his initiation into the
priesthood.45 His ascent to heaven has no parallel in the experiences of the
other brothers, which highlights that Levi—and the priesthood bestowed
upon him—is of higher importance than anything else in Israel—even
higher than the gift of kingship given to Judah. Such a high view of the
Levitical priesthood appears incompatible with a Christian outlook46 and
suggests that the initial heavenly scene originated in a Jewish context and
appears here with only minimal Christian glosses.
The second heavenly ascent in Testament of Levi 8:1–19 is less
descriptive and shows evidence of more thorough Christian redaction. The
heavenly temple is not specifically mentioned but only assumed. The only
picture we have is of the seven “men” who lead out in the initiation of
Levi into the priesthood. And while the process of initiation is based
loosely on Exodus 28:41–29:9, there are references to Christian priesthood
in the bread and wine and possibly the staff as well as clear messianic
allusions to Jesus in the form of the triple office—Messiah, Priest, King—
the new priesthood, and the Lord’s table. It would appear that this ascent
also originated in a Jewish context and functioned complementarily to the
initial ascent to highlight the superiority of the Levitical priesthood over
any other institution in Israel.47 However, it has been heavily redacted by a
Christian editor to point away from the Levitical priesthood towards a
more universal and Christian priesthood that officiates not in temple
sacrifices but at the Lord’s table. The emphasis moves away from the
structure of the temple and its cultus to a more universal Christian
priesthood without geographical bounds.
The third mention of the heavenly temple is devoid of detailed
descriptions and references to cultus. The mention of “angels of the Lord’s
presence,” while in this context implying a heavenly throne and
corresponding structures, appears to draw from Christian texts where a
heavenly temple may be assumed but is not prominent. The temple appears
here in a text that is Christian through and through, and it is obviously an
expansion of the Synoptic baptismal account where no heavenly temple is
mentioned. The detail has been added to validate the priestly role of Jesus.
If the Levitical priesthood is initiated at the temple in heaven, the superior
priesthood of Jesus should likewise draw its authority from no less an
important source.
The three passages in the Testament of Levi that entail a heavenly
temple suggest a pattern. In a Jewish context the existence of a real
heavenly temple, where the throne of God is located and where heavenly
ceremonies take place, is a prominent theme. In no way is it antagonistic to
an earthly temple in Jerusalem. Rather, it adds meaning, validity, and
authority to the processes and cultus that take place on earth. Such
depictions are common throughout early Jewish literature.48
By contrast, the Christian editor sees less value in heavenly temple
topography. The existence of a heavenly temple is by no means
problematic. Indeed, its existence is explicitly stated or assumed
throughout the New Testament,49 and the editors of the Testament of Levi
assimilate the Jewish, heavenly temple material in their stride. But it
appears that the physicality of a heavenly temple, its details, and its cultus
are beginning to fade, to lose their grip on the mind. Their existence might
be assumed and indeed be theologically useful in certain circumstances,
but the emphasis is shifting away towards new realities that do not focus
on buildings and sacrifice but sacramental realities. Indeed, in later
Christian writings interest in the heavenly temple disappears almost
completely.
What caused such a shift? An answer to this question would require
additional extensive studies in their own right. But I will endeavor here to
suggest two possible reasons. First, for Christians the Jerusalem temple
was seen as representing a shadowy reality, a type that had met its
fulfillment (e.g., Matt. 23:38; 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). While
early believers frequented the temple courts for worship and ministry, the
priestly and sacrificial ceremonies were seen as replaced by the priestly
role of Jesus and His once-and-for-all sacrifice (e.g., Heb. 9:28). While the
redundancy of the Jerusalem temple directed the attention of the writers of
Hebrews and Revelation to the heavenly temple (e.g., Heb. 8:2; 9:11; Rev.
7:15; 11:1–2, 9; 14:15, 17; 15:5–8; 16:1), there was a concurrent tendency
in the earthly realm to see believers as a temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 6:19; 2
Cor. 6:16)—a spiritual one (Eph. 2:21–22; 1 Pet. 2:5). This latter trend
eventually became dominant. While it stood, the literal temple in
Jerusalem was a physical reminder of the heavenly archetype seen by
Moses (Exod. 25:40); the destruction of the temple and the spiritualization
of the concept in seeing believers as a temple, eventually made the
existence of a heavenly archetype less pervasive.
Second and much more important was the increasing influence of
Neoplatonic philosophy in the late classical and early medieval centuries.
Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy glorified the immaterial idea over
and against the literal and the physical, which were considered to be mere
shadows. Such an outlook contributed to the rejection of human pleasure
as sinful and a concomitant emphasis on asceticism, the growth of
monasticism, and eventually the gradual rejection of marriage for the
clergy. In such a philosophical context, belief in a literal heaven and a
literal temple simply did not fit.
Other factors may have contributed, but it is clear that belief in the
existence of a heavenly temple, the heavenly house of God from which the
universe is ruled—such a prominent role in biblical and early Jewish
apocalyptic—eventually lost its grip in the minds of Christians. The
Testament of Levi is, I believe, an example of this fading away of a once-
prominent concept, containing both a vivid, heavenly-temple picture from
the early Jewish source and a faint echo visible in the work of the Christian
redactor.
It is my view that a renewed study of biblical, heavenly topography and
cosmology can greatly benefit contemporary spirituality. Christianity
stands to gain by rediscovering such a vivid portrayal of heavenly realities.
20
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY IN RABBINIC
LITERATURE
ALEXANDER BOLOTNIKOV AND LEONARDO G. NUNES

T he concept of temple influences Christian dogma and even church

design. For example, structural similarities between the Eastern
Orthodox churches and the Jerusalem temple are emphasized as evidence
of the church’s role as the spiritual Jerusalem on earth.1 Many cathedrals in
the Western tradition follow the same pattern in their design. The famous
cathedral in Worms, Germany has a replica of the ark of the covenant in its
sanctuary. Even in Protestant culture the worship hall is traditionally called
a sanctuary, which harkens back to the sanctuary of Israel. While the
concept of the church as a temple or sanctuary might be widespread, there
is little thought of a heavenly archetype in heaven. Clear references to a
heavenly sanctuary (e.g., Heb. 9:11) are spiritualized and interpreted with
a platonic approach to ideals.
In studying the heavenly sanctuary/temple motif in the book of
Hebrews, it is possible to hold a variety of opinions. On the one hand,
some (especially older) critical-historical scholars see a connection
between Hebrews’s description of the heavenly sanctuary/temple and the
philosophical thought of the Greek-speaking diaspora represented by Philo
of Alexandria.2 For Harold W. Attridge, although “there is no single strand
of Judaism that provides a clear and simple matrix within which to
understand the thought of our author or his text,”3 throughout his
commentary he regularly indicates that “there are undeniable parallels that
suggest that Philo and our author are indebted to similar traditions of
Greek-speaking and thinking Judaism.”4
The Greek-speaking and thinking Judaism, or Hellenistic Judaism, is the
combination of Greek thought and the needs of Jewish interpretive praxis:5
the effort to harmonize the Holy Scriptures with Greek philosophy.6 From
this combination emerges the allegorical method developed by Philo of
Alexandria, which drew especially from Platonic/Pythagorean and Stoic
philosophy, showing obvious kinship with Middle Platonism.7
Therefore, when Attridge refers to the correspondence of the earthly and
heavenly sanctuary/temple in the book of Hebrews, he uses the word
allegory. He says that Philo “understands this correspondence within the
framework of his Platonic metaphysics,”8 and even though “the
correspondence between earthly and ‘heavenly’ sanctuaries in Hebrews
does not appear to be as complex as it is in Philo . . . yet there are
significant parallels between Philo and Hebrews in the structure of their
treatment, parallels that point to their common Hellenistic Jewish
background.”9 For Attridge, the language and function of the earthly-
heavenly dichotomy is strikingly similar in both Philo and Hebrews. What
is most transcendent is also most real in a psychological and moral sense.
As a corollary, the interior reality that the heavenly sanctuary/temple
symbolizes is not a principle or virtue generally available to humankind
but a relationship made possible by Christ.10 The heavenly
sanctuary/temple has a spiritualized sense.
On the other hand, some scholars support a much more literal
interpretation for the sanctuary/temple in their desire to safeguard the
objectivity of Christ’s work there.11 For William Johnsson, “it is becoming
more and more clear that many Jewish groups believed in a realistic
heavenly sanctuary and liturgy.”12
One area in the discussion of the sanctuary/temple that has not been
properly explored is the contribution of rabbinic literature. While
substantially later than the New Testament in its time of composition,
rabbinic literature is nonetheless relevant to biblical studies because it
records traditions from as early as the first century BC. It is a valuable
resource that helps us understand the Jewish mindset at the turn of the era
and the background for understanding apostolic theology.

SCOPE OF RESEARCH
When dealing with rabbinic literature one must be aware of the historical
period during which the main rabbinic documents were composed. The
composition of rabbinic writings began after the destruction of the temple
in AD 70, probably around the beginning of the second century. By the
seventh century the major rabbinic documents, such as the Mishnah,
Tosefta, Midrashim, and both Talmuds, had been composed.13
When studying the heavenly temple in rabbinic literature, it is important
to be aware of the two trends in the development of rabbinic Judaism: the
classical and the mystical. The earliest documents of the mystical trend are
believed to have appeared in the sixth through eighth centuries.14 Among
the first documents, the Hêkalôt literature occupies a significant place.
According to Sholem, Hêkalôt mystics clearly represented a Jewish spin of
Neoplatonist philosophy. Most of the Hêkalôt works did not survive but
are heavily quoted in the Sēfer Yəṣîra.15 While the Hebrew word hêkal
means “temple” and is used in the Hebrew Bible to designate both the
earthly and heavenly temples,16 in Jewish mysticism the Hêkalôt are used
to designate a milepost on the way of the soul towards the throne of the
Almighty. As such, the Hêkalôt do not have a direct bearing on our search
and will not be examined.
Instead, the focus of our investigation will be the discussion of the
heavenly temple in classical rabbinic documents. There has been scarce
research on this subject over the years. The most detailed investigation was
done by Avigdor Aftovitzer in 1930.17 In his article Aftovitzer presents the
ʾaggādôt18 about the heavenly temple found in both classical and mystical
rabbinic sources. More helpful research was published by Luis Ginzberg in
1968.19 He offers a brief overview of many classical rabbinic sources that
mention and discuss the sanctuary in heaven. Among more than thirty
different texts Ginzberg refers to, three deserve special consideration and
analysis. They are found in the homiletical mišrāšîm20 Tanḥumaʾ
Yəlammədēnnû21 and Bamidbār Rabbâ.22 Even though it is assumed that
these midrāšîm23 were compiled in the fourth century AD,24 some citations
can be traced to earlier sources and traditions that reach to the first century.

TanḥûmaʾNāsōʾ 11
TanḥûmaʾNāsōʾ 11 is part of the exposition of the text from Numbers 7:1,
which in turn is part of the Pārāšat Nāsōʾ (Num. 4:21–7:89). The text
wayəhî bəyôm kalôt mōšeh, “in the day when Moses finished,” refers to
Moses finishing the sanctuary, to which Tanḥûmaʾ comments as follows:
“Teach us our Rabbi: how many things preceded Creation? Thus did our
Rabbis teach us: Seven things were created before the world was created,
and they are the Throne of Glory, the Torah, the Temple, the Patriarchs,
Israel, and the Name of the Messiah.”25
A tradition presented in that homily occurs in many other midrāšîm as
part of a traditional dārāš26 type exegetical exercise to determine what was
created (i.e., “conceived”27), planned before the heaven and earth were
made.28 In the next paragraph Tanḥûmaʾ presents a proof text for each of
the seven things that the sages believed were planned before creation.
Regarding the temple, they presented the following reasoning: “As to the
temple, it is stated, ‘kisēʾkābôd mārôm mēriʾšôn məqôm miqdāšēnû
oh/The throne of Glory is high from the beginning, the place (i.e.,
foundation) of our sanctuary (Jer. 17:12).’” In other words, the statement
mēriʾšôn gave the rabbis the right to claim that the throne of God existed
forever, a thought that would be seen as obvious to a believing mind. In
addition, sages clearly saw the parallelism between the phrases kisēʾkābôd
mārôm mēriʾšôn and məqôm miqdāšēnû. This meant that the divine throne
in heaven existed before creation. The parallel phrase “place of our
sanctuary” indicated that the sanctuary was the place where the throne of
God was located, and since the throne existed before creation, so did the
sanctuary. In this text we therefore see some valuable insights in rabbinic
thought on the heavenly temple—it is the location of the throne of God, is
located in heaven, and has existed since before the creation of the world.29
The homily in TanḥûmaʾNāsōʾ 11 continues by elaborating on the verse
from Jeremiah:

Come and see, then the Holy One Blessed be He told Moses
to tell Israel to make for him a Sanctuary [miškān], He told
Moses, “Moses, behold My Sanctuary is already built up
above [bənāʾ ʿēlāʾ]” as it is stated “The throne of Glory is
high from the beginning” and the Temple [hêkal] is built
there, as it is stated “but the Lord is in His Holy Temple
[hêkal], let all the world be silent before him” (Hab. 2:20).
And the Throne of Glory is built there as it is stated “The
Lord established His Throne in Heaven” (Ps. 103:19 and
similarly Isaiah said “I saw My Lord sitting on the throne
high and lofty and the edges of his garment filled the
Temple.” But for the sake of My love for you I am leaving
the Temple of above [bêt ha-miqdāš haʿelyôn] and I am
descending to dwell among the sons of Israel, as it is
written “They shall make a Sanctuary for me, so that I may
dwell among them (Ex. 25:8).30

This section of the Tanḥûmaʾ underlines two important points. First, it

indicates that in classical Rabbinic Judaism there was a clear association
between the sanctuary that Moses built and the sanctuary in heaven, which
had existed before the world was created. Second, it suggests that—for the
rabbis—what Moses saw on the mountain was not just a blueprint but an
actual structure.

Bamidbār Rabbâ 15:9

The second important homily we will consider is a short one found in
Numbers Rabbah. It represents a short sermonette (Aramic petiḥtâ), where
a preacher takes a verse from the kətûbîm (Writings) and ties it together
with the pericope of the scriptural text. The pericope text of this petiḥtâ is
taken from Numbers 8:2: “Bəhaʿălōtəkā et hannērōt el mûl pənê hamənôrâ
yāʾîrû šibəʿat hannērôt,” “When you light the candles seven lamps shall
give light in front of the menorah.” The Hebrew expression mûl pənê
hamənôrâ presented a difficulty for the sages. They did not understand the
function of the prepositional phrase el mûl pənê and thus sought (dārāš)
for its meaning. The sermonette appears to present one of the explanations
of this syntactical phenomenon.

Israel said, “O send Your light and Your truth; let them lead
me” (Ps. 63:3). Great is the light of the Holy One Blessed
be He! The sun and the moon light up the world. But
whence do they derive their radiance? They snatch a few
sparks from the celestial light, as it is stated “The sun and
the moon . . . at the light of Your arrows as they go, at the
shining of Your glittering spear” (Hab. 3:1). Transcendent
is the light on high, for only a hundredth part of it was
given to all mankind as it says “He knows what [māh] is the
darkness” (Dan 2:22). Therefore “I have made the sun and
the moon, they shall give you light,” as it is stated “and God
set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light” (Gen.
1:17). “The seven lamps shall give light in front of the
menorah” (Num. 8:2). It is said “In the light of the king’s
countenance is life” (Prov. 16:15). R. Jacob the son of
R. Yose noted “the light from heaven was withheld from
the wicked and given to Israel, seeing that the Holy One,
Blessed be He, was constrained to dwell with mortals in the
light of the menorah, since he said to them. ‘The seven
lamps would give the light in front of the menorah.’”

This homily provides a typical example of rabbinic midrashic exegesis.

The key verse is taken from Daniel 11:22, and the word māh (“what”) is
midrashized with the word məʾâ (“hundred”). Because the text looked
obscure to the rabbis, they took the verses from this chapter for the word
play and drew implications out of that. The implication was that the seven-
candle menorah in the temple had seven lamps in front of it, which
represented the lights of the heavenly abode.31

TanḥûmaʾNāsō 18
The last text we will explore is another homily that expounds on Numbers
7:1 mentioned above. Now the question is asked regarding the last words
of the biblical text: “wayəhî bəyôm kalôt mōšeh.” Rabbis do not
understand the role of the direct object marker et. The homily attempts to
resolve this difficulty.
Rabbi Shimon said, “At the time when the Holy One, Blessed be He,
told Israel to make the Sanctuary, He (God) hinted that the angels too
should make a Sanctuary in heaven. As it is stated, ‘when Moses finished
erecting [ʾēt] the Sanctuary.’ The Torah usually does not use the word ʾēt
in this case. What does the Scripture teach here when it uses ʾēt? This
means that it alludes to the Heavenly Sanctuary.”
While this homily does not explain why the direct object marker alludes
to the heavenly sanctuary, the next homily clarifies the matter. The next
section of the Midrāš TanḥûmaʾNāsō 19, which comments on the next
biblical verses in the same parasha, equates the construction of the
sanctuary with the creation of the world. It quotes Genesis 1:1: “ʾēt
haššamayîm wəʾēt hāʾāreṣ” (“heaven and earth”); in other words, in the
mind of the rabbis the occurrence of the direct-object marker in the phrase
“heaven and earth” hints that when Moses completed the sanctuary (ʾēt
hammiškān) on earth, the sanctuary in heaven must have been completed.
It may appear from this text that Tanḥûmaʾ implies that the heavenly
sanctuary was completed at the same time as the earthly one, which
contradicts the conclusion of the homily in Tanḥuma ʾNāsō 11. This is not
the case. In rabbinic literature apparent anachronisms are typical. Many
researchers in this subject conclude that rabbinic Hebrew lacks the sense
of time, so many such statements appear anachronistic. On the other hand,
Ginzberg notes that in later medieval midrāšîm the idea became popular
that the temple was built in heaven in place of the destroyed Jerusalem
temple.

CONCLUSION
The passages from the midrāšîm cited in this study represent only a few of
the key examples of the early rabbinic texts32 that explicitly talk about the
existence of the sanctuary in heaven, whose replica was built on earth by
Moses and later by Solomon. The theme of the heavenly sanctuary also
appears in the later medieval compilations of midrāšîm, which are not
considered in this chapter.33 All of these references indicate that in
classical rabbinic sources the temple in heaven presents a concrete—not
abstract—reality. Based on this, many modern commentators agree that, in
the Jewish mind, the earthly sanctuary was built in accordance with the
pattern of the heavenly one. Commenting on the text in Amos 9:6,
“habbôneh baššāmayîm maʿălôtô,” “the One who builds His upper
chambers in the heavens,” David Noel Freedman points out that the earthly
temple is built after the pattern of the heavenly sanctuary.34 We can
conclude therefore that the concept of a heavenly temple with earthly
parallels—in which the earthly sanctuary/temple was considered a copy
and shadow of the heavenly—is well established in rabbinic literature.
EPILOGUE
KIM PAPAIOANNOU

T his project on the heavenly temple/sanctuary was born one lovely

spring morning in 2010 on the campus of the Asia Adventist
Theological Seminary in the Philippines. It began after a time of personal
and theological contemplation during a talk with my good friend and
colleague Richard Sabuin. Since that morning, a number of bright and
capable minds came together, worked long hours, and eventually produced
the papers that comprise this volume. “So what?” one might wonder.
“What is the significance of this study? What has it demonstrated, and how
does it impact the scholar—and believer—in the twenty-first century?” I
would like to highlight the following:
First, the most obvious contribution of this study to biblical theology is
to demonstrate that belief in a heavenly temple/sanctuary was widespread
—and perhaps taken for granted—in the biblical worldview and beyond.
This is evident by the widespread references to the heavenly
temple/sanctuary in different genres of biblical literature and the wide
chronological spread of these earliest writings: from the Old Testament to
John and Revelation in the New Testament. The texts examined here
constitute only a sample; many more could have been discussed.
Moreover, the fact that (1) there are more references to the heavenly
temple in the book of Psalms than anywhere else and (2) Psalms was the
hymnbook of ancient believers highlights the reality that belief in the
heavenly temple motif was not limited to the vivid imagery of biblical
apocalyptic or prophecy; it was an integral part of the daily faith
experience of Israel and the early church.
Second, this study has underlined the point that temple rituals on earth
were believed to be reflections or representations of what goes on in
heaven, a kind of earthly shadow reflecting heavenly realities. In light of
this, the ritual understanding and interpretation of the death of Jesus on the
cross, as well as other aspects of the Christian faith which are at times
described in ritual terms, can be best understood against the backdrop of
the Hebrew sanctuary and its services. The Hebrew sanctuary system is
rarely studied in depth or appreciated by Christians. Rediscovering its
meaning may help believers understand the significance of the death of
Jesus on the cross.
 Third, on a more practical note, the influence of Greek philosophy on
Christian theology throughout the centuries has resulted in an over-
spiritualization of heavenly realities. The idea of the saved playing harps
on white clouds for eternity might be a humorous caricature, but heaven is
perceived in overly spiritualized and totally nonmaterial forms. I recall a
lecture by a well-respected, British Old Testament scholar who, after a
question on the nature of heaven and eternal life, responded that in biblical
terms eternal life was described as an idealized variation of the life we
now know. While it has not been the aim of this volume to discuss the
nature of heaven, the fact that the Bible’s authors described God’s
heavenly residence as an idealized and glorious archetype—of which the
earthly sanctuary/temple was but a model—indicates that for them
heavenly realities were real and substantial. Perhaps we stand to gain by
perceiving heaven in more concrete ways.
The findings of this collection of papers are not totally novel. But in an
academic context the concept of a heavenly temple/sanctuary has been
little researched. Only limited bibliography exists, and it is fairly recent.
Yet the Hebrew ritual system based on the sanctuary and later the temple
was foundational to Israel’s self-understanding. And the concept of
sacrifice embedded in the sanctuary system in turn became the vehicle
through which Christians understood the death of Jesus on the cross. Given
this importance of sanctuary and sacrifice, any study which deepens an
understanding of them can be a contribution to understanding biblical
theology. This collection of papers does that, and hopefully it will receive
its due attention in the scholarly community and will stimulate further
study. Understanding the sanctuary system means better understanding the
plan of salvation, and it is our hope and confidence that this volume will
be a valid contribution.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Alfredo G. Agustin Jr., PhD is associate professor of New Testament

and dean of the School of Religious Studies at Asia-Pacific International
University in Muak Lek, Saraburi, Thailand. He holds a PhD in Religion
from the Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies with an
emphasis in the New Testament. He has authored the book The
Interpretation of the Concept Hades Described in Luke 16:19–31: The
Rich Man and Lazarus in the Light of the Historical-Grammatical Method.
Alexander Bolotnikov, PhD is professor of biblical studies at Zaoksky
Theological Seminary and director of the Shalom Learning Center, an
educational institution of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He holds a
PhD in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from the Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion. He was a contributor in the New Russian
Bible translation and has published articles and books in Russian and
English.
Elias Brasil de Souza, PhD is the director of the Biblical Research
Institute at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He holds a
PhD in Old Testament Exegesis and Theology from Andrews University.
He has authored and edited several scholarly articles and books including
Toward a Theology of the Heavenly Sanctuary in the Hebrew Bible.
Felix H. Cortez, PhD is associate professor of New Testament
Literature at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews
University. He holds a PhD in New Testament Studies from Andrews
University. He has published numerous articles and book chapters, and is
also the author of the book ¿Sabías qué . . . ?: Relatos y anécdotas para
jóvenes.
Patrick Etoughé Anani, PhD is rector at Cosendai University,
Cameroon. He holds a PhD in Religion from the Adventist International
Institute of Advanced Studies with an emphasis in the Old Testament. He
is the author of eight books, including Clés pour Déchiffrerl’appareil
critique de la Biblia Hébraïca Stuttgartensia and Introduction à la critique
textuelle et à la Massorah, as well as several articles.
Ioannis Giantzaklidis, MTh is a pastor in Turku, Finland, and
previously served ten years as a missionary in Cyprus. He is a Doctor of
Theology candidate at the University of Helsinki. His dissertation is
entitled “The Fate of the Nations in the Book of Revelation.” He is also a
regular contributor to the Nykyaika Christian magazine.
Luis Iván Martínez-Toledo, PhD is a professor of New Testament at
Linda Vista University, Mexico, where he manages the Theological
Research Center. He holds a PhD in Religion from the Adventist
International Institute of Advanced Studies with an emphasis in the New
Testament. He has written academic articles and books including The
Naked State of Human Being: The Meaning of Gymnos in 1 Corinthians
5:3 and Its Theological Implications.
Carlos Elías Mora, ThD is professor of Old Testament and chair of the
Biblical Studies department at the Adventist International Institute of
Advanced Studies. He holds a ThD from Universidad Adventista Del
Plata. He has published in book and article form, including the monograph
Dios defiende a su pueblo: Commentario exegético de Daniel 10 as 12.
Laurețiu Florentin Moț, PhD is professor of New Testament and dean
of the Adventist Theological Institute in Cernica, Romania. He is also the
Andrews University MAR program coordinator for the Cernica extension
site. He holds a PhD in the New Testament from the Adventist
International Institute of Advanced Studies and has authored a monograph
entitled Morphological and Syntactical Irregularities in the Book of
Revelation along with more than fifteen scholarly articles.
Leonardo G. Nunes is dean of the Latin American Adventist
Theological Seminary, Brazil. Previously he served for ten years as a
church pastor and eleven years as a professor. He is a ThD candidate at
Andrews University. His dissertation title is “Function and Nature of the
Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple in the NT: A Motif Study.”
Rabach Odek, PhD is chair of the Department of Theology and
Religious Studies at the University of Eastern Africa, Kenya. He holds a
PhD in Religion with an emphasis in the New Testament from the
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies. He has written
numerous journal articles and the book I Am Coming Soon: Understanding
Imminence in Revelation.
Kim Papaioannou, PhD has served as church minister and/or educator
for twenty years. He holds a PhD in Theology from Durham University,
England, with an emphasis in the New Testament. He has written
extensively on issues of biblical theology and practice, including the
monograph The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus.
Mario Phillip, PhD is a departmental director in the Grenada
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and has served as professor of
biblical languages at the University of the Southern Caribbean, Trinidad.
He holds a PhD in Religion with an emphasis in the New Testament from
the Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies. He has authored
numerous articles, as well as the book Postmodernism, Secularism and the
Mission of Adventism: Adventism in Grenada as a Case Study.
Felix Poniatowski, PhD currently occupies the position of VP for
Academics in the Ukrainian Institute of Arts and Science. He holds a PhD
in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in the Old Testament from the
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies. His publications are
mostly in Russian. His dissertation was titled Analysis of the Golden Calf
Incident (Exodus 32:1–10) and Its Impact on the Sinai Covenant in the
Pentateuchal Text.
Richard Apelles Sabuin, PhD is Education, Sabbath School, and
Personal Ministries Director for the Northern Asia-Pacific Division of
Seventh-day Adventists. He holds a PhD in Religion from the Adventist
International Institute of Advanced Studies. He has authored numerous
articles as well as the book Repentance in the Book of Revelation: The
Significance of Repentance from the First Century A.D. to the Eschaton.
David Tasker, PhD is a senior lecturer at Avondale College of Higher
Education, Australia. He has also served as a church pastor, administrator,
and academic in five countries and four universities. He holds a PhD in
Old Testament Exegesis and Theology from Andrews University. His
authored works include the monograph Ancient Near Eastern Literature
and the Hebrew Scriptures about the Fatherhood of God.
SCRIPTURE INDEX

Genesis
1 268, 290
1:1 337
1:17 337
2:22 51
3:8 159
5:24 271
11:1–9 135
12:1–3 35
12:6–12 34
12:7 36
12:8 34, 36
12:17 80
13:3 34
13:18 36
14:18 196, 324
15:17–21 294
18:1–33 197
18:20–21 45
20:11 34
22:2 320
22:2–3 34
22:14 320
26:6–7 34
26:25 36
28:7 35
28:10–22 135
28:11 33–35
28:11–22 31–33
28:17 32, 35
28:19 34
30:25 34
32:25 80
33:20 36
34:1–31 327
35:1 36
35:1–7 34
35:3 36
35:7 35–36
35:9–12 35
35:14 35
37:10 87
49 277
49:1–33 317
49:5 281
49:5–7 327

Exodus
2:10 68
3:1 320
12:3–5 219
15:1–18 31, 36, 135
15:6 149
15:11 36
15:13 36
15:13–17 37
15:17 36, 44, 124, 192
15:25 45
16:23 260
18:8 69
19 220
19:5–6 220
19:11–24 320
19:16–19 37
20:11 259
21:13–14 276
22:23 45
22:27 45
23:22 167
24 181, 268
24:1–18 320
24:6 81
24:9–11 31, 37, 135
24:10 37, 212
24:11 38
24:14 38
24:15 38
24:16–18 38
25 39, 52, 194
25:8 31, 38, 44, 51, 144, 223, 336
25:8–9 105, 135, 270, 308
25:9 10, 38–39, 43, 49, 51–52, 105, 169, 285, 294
25:18 306
25:18–20 219
25:20–21 2
25:30 99
25:31 218
25:32–34 135
25:37 135
25:40 10, 31, 39, 49, 52, 105, 135, 205, 294, 329
26:1 308
26:31 308
26:31–33 286
27:8 52
27:20 99, 104
28:1–43 287
28:1–29:8 323
28:2 192
28:21 287
28:30 324
28:36‒38 87
28:40 192
28:41–29:9 327
28:42 310
29:1‒9 83
29:4 192
29:36 191
29:37 80, 285
29:38 99
29:38–42 219, 221
29:43 192, 280
29:44 238
30:1 221
30:3 221
30:7 221
30:7–8 104
30:8 99, 104
30:10 191
30:35 288
30:38 288
31:10 192
33:3 40
33:5 192
33:12–34:7 57
33:18 52
33:20 77
34:6–7 57
34:20 45
36:8 308
36:35 308
39:12 192
40 182
40:9 102
40:34 192, 280
40:34–35 222
40:35 192

Leviticus
1:5 81
1:5‒6 82
1:9 82
1:11 81
1:11‒15 82
1:15 82
1:16 82
1:16‒18 82
3:2 81
3:7 219
3:8 81
3:13 81
4 81
4:32 219
5:6 219
6:3 310
6:10 103
6:13 104
6:18 80
6:27 80
7:2 81
8–9 182
8:1‒36 83
8:19 81
9:6 192
9:22–24 39
9:23 192, 280
11:11 103
11:13 103
11:43 103
14:32 191
15:13 191
15:31 77
16 141, 176, 235–236,
300, 312–313, 315
16:1‒34 83
16:2 196
16:4 84, 103
16:10 314
16:12 80–81
16:13 235
16:15 176
16:16 84
16:19 84
16:21 84
16:21–23 141
16:23–24 84
16:23–32 103
16:29 73
16:30 84–85
16:32 84
16:32–34 84
16:33 238, 246
17:6 81
20:3 51
20:25 103
21:12 141
23:3 260
23:24–28 239
23:33–37 224
23:34 84
25:9 239
27:29 239
27:32 238–239

Numbers
2 219
3:4 141
4:7 104
4:12 192
4:21–7:89 334
4:26 192
7 182
7:1 334, 337
7:5 192
8:2 336–337
11:17 48
11:25 48
11:26 48
12:8 50
14:10 192
16:18 81
16:22 49
16:46 81, 159
16:46–47 80–81
16:47 81
17:8–9 159
18:1 87
20:6 280
20:16 45
20:22–29 320
24:3–4 303
24:17 325
27:16 49
28:3 104
28:6 104
29:7 73
35:25 102

Deuteronomy
4:16 38
4:16–18 49
6:15 40
7:2 202
10:3–5 258
12:1–26:15 40
12:4–7 186
12:11 39
14:23 39
16:2 39
16:6 39
16:11 39
16:16 45
18:15 324
26:2 39
26:7 45
26:15 31, 39–40, 46, 135
28:65 260
29:17 103
33:1 303
34:1–6 320
Joshua
1:9 46
4:5 159
4:7 159
4:24 168
7:6 159
18:1 45
19:51 45
20:2 159
22:25 168
22:28 38, 49
24:26 45
24:33 168
24:35 168

Judges
4:5 102
13:22 77
20:31 210

Ruth
2:16 87

1 Samuel
1:9 47
3:3 47
9:16 45
10:17 45

2 Samuel
6:6 141
7 180
7:1 186
7:9 180
7:10 180
7:11 180
7:14 178
8:10 167
22:7 43, 45–46
23:5 180

1 Kings
1:49–53 276
2:19 149
6–7 286
6:1–38 320
6:12–13 44
6:23–26 219
6:29 308
6:31 286
7:50 47
8:6 286
8:9 258
8:11 280
8:13 151
8:16 45
8:22 46
8:27 45
8:30 44
8:39 44, 151
8:43 44, 151
8:49 44, 151
8:54 46
9:3 44
11:5 103
11:7 103
13:6 159
13:34 202
15:11 183
18:19–40 320
19:5 80
19:6 80
19:11 48
22:17–23 76
22:19–23 43
22:21 48

2 Kings
3:15 48
15:5 80
16:10 38, 49
18:3 183
18:16 47
22:2 183
23:1–25 186
23:4 43, 47
23:13 103
24:13 47

1 Chronicles
8:5 52
9:23 146
9:24 52
16:40 48
21:14 47
21:18–30 47
21:29–30 47
22:1 47
22:3 47
22:14 47
23:28 191
28 3, 43–44, 47, 52–53
28:11 38, 52
28:11–12 52
28:11–19 186
28:12 48–49
28:18 52
28:19 48, 52
28:40 52
29:2–4 47
29:29–30 47

2 Chronicles
3:7 308
5:7 286
6–7 186
6:30 44
6:33 44
6:39 44
7:1–10 46
8:12 247
15:8 247
18:20 48
20:8 46
24:14 192
26:18 46
29 186
29:2 46
29:21 46
29:25–30 46
30:8 46
30:16 46
30:27 46
32:23 167
34 186
36:15 46
36:17 46

Ezra
3:3 83
3:4 84
3:6 84
3:10 83
7:6 310
7:24 192
9:6 310
10:39 192

Nehemiah
12:45 191

Esther
8:11 167

Job
1–2 76
1:9 168
28:25 48
30:15 48
38 305
38:4 305
38:6 305
38:22 305
38:23 305

Psalms
2:1–2 57
2:3–5 57
2:4 57
2:6 57
2:6–10 57
2:7 181
2:10 57
2:11 57
2:11–14 57
2:14 57
2:15 57
2:15–19 57
2:19 57
2:19–22 58
2:20–22 57
3:4 63
7:9 69
7:11 69
7:11–13 70
8:1 65
8:5 65
8:9 65
9 62
9:7 62, 72
9:11 62
9:12 62
9:14 62
9:20 62
10 60
10:1–4 60
10:7–11 60
10:16 59–60
11 58
11:4 45, 47, 57–58, 156, 173
14 69
14:1 67
14:2 67
14:7 67, 69
15 63
15:1 63
18 68
18:6 45–46, 68
18:7–15 68
18:9 69, 73
18:15 69, 88
18:16 68, 73
18:29–45 68
18:46–50 68
20:6 149
23:6 130
28:2 286
33:9 68
33:10 68
33:13 67
33:14 67
33:16 159
33:18–19 68
37:5 167
37:31 199
40:8 199
43 63
43:3 63
44:3 149
47 60
47:7–8 60
47:8 60, 72
48 63
48:1 63
48:2 63
50:4 70
50:6 70
50:6–15 70
50:7 70
50:10 70
50:11 70
50:15 70
50:16 70
50:16–22 70
50:23 70
53 69
53:2 67
53:6 69
57:1 65
57:3 69
57:5 65, 118
57:6 118
57:11 65
57:12 118
58 70
58:1 70
58:6 70
58:8 70
58:9 70
58:11 70
60 64
60:6 64
63:3 336
68 64
68:3–4 64
68:5 64
68:8 64
68:15 64
68:17 64
68:24 64
68:29 64
68:30 88
69:9 128
71:16 167
73:16–17 275
73:24 118
75 71
75:2 71
75:3 71
75:4 71
75:6 71
75:7 70
76 71
76:3 71
76:6 88
76:8 71
76:9 71
78:69 51
80 61, 68
80:1 61
80:6 61
80:12 61
80:14 61, 68
80:16 61, 88
80:19 61
82 67, 71
82:1 66
82:2–4 73
82:3–4 71
82:8 71
85 68
85:4 68
85:6 68
85:10 63
85:11 68
85:13 63
89 62
89:3 180
89:5 66
89:7 62, 66
89:12 63
89:13 149
89:14 62, 72
89:15 62
92 59
92:4–5 59
92:6–9 59
92:8 59
92:15 59
93 60
93:1 59
93:2 59–60
93:3 60
95–99 60
96:6 63
96:10 71
96:13 71
97 59
97:1 59
97:2 59
97:3–5 59
98 71
98:2 71
98:9 71–72
99 61
99:1 61
99:6 61
99:9 61
102 62, 67
102:12 67
102:13 67
102:19 44, 67, 275
102:25–26 67
102:28 67
103:19 57, 336
104 192
104:7 88
108 64
108:5 65, 72, 118
108:7 64
110 188
110:1 181
110:4 188, 197
113:4 65, 118
113:5 65, 67, 72
113:5–6 65
113:6 67, 72
113:7–8 65
113:9 65
115 59, 62
115:3 59
115:4–7 59
115:12–18 59
115:15 59
119 59
119:89 59
123 59
123:1 58
132:5 34
132:11–12 180
135 62
135:13 61
135:21 62
144 69
144:5 69
144:7 69
144:12–14 69
148 66
148:1 65–66
148:7 66
150 66
150:1 65

Proverbs
16:15 337
31:29 167

Ecclesiastes
1:6 48
5:16 48
8:8 48
11:5 48

Isaiah
1:3 82
1:11‒15 76, 79
1:15 82
2:6–3:26 76
3:8 78
5:1‒30 76
6 76, 81, 85, 88
6:1 76, 118, 321
6:1–3 173
6:1–4 76
6:1–5 126
6:1–8 96
6:1–13 75, 125, 321–322
6:2‒3 76
6:5 76–77
6:6‒7 76
6:7 76
6:9–13 76
8:14 206
11:3–9 185
11:4 79
11:9 184
11:10–13 184
14:3–25 320
14:13 321
14:13–14 167
18:14 168
19:23–25 326
28:16 206
29:13 79, 168
41:10 149
44:28 47
45:1 149
48:13 149
51:7 199
57:3‒4 78
59:2 199
59:2‒3 79
61:1 48
61:6 192
63:9 326
63:15 75
64:6 48
66:1 118
66:1–6 75
66:3 103
66:6 47, 167
66:15 88
66:22 124

Jeremiah
4:1 103
10 92
10:1–10 92
10:1–12 92
10:11 92
10:12 92
10:12–16 92
10:16 92
14:7 79
14:20 79
17:12 75, 335
25:29 213
25:29–30 212, 214
25:30 75, 213
29:27 87
33:12–13 239
49:36 48

Lamentations
3:50 75
5:16 79

Ezekiel
1 219–220, 287, 290
1:3 48
1:4 322
1:12 48
1:13 322
1:15–28 212
1:20 48
1:22 322
1:26 37, 212
1:26‒28 311
1:27 322
3:14 48
3:22 48
5:2 48
8:1 48
8:16 247
9 235
9:2 212
9:2–3 103
9:3 212
9:4–5 212
9:6 210, 212, 214
9:11 103
10 212, 219, 222, 287
10:1 212
10:1–12 96
10:2 103
10:4 280
10:6–7 103
11:18 103
11:21 103
20:37 238–239
20:37–38 238
21:14 235
28:1–20 320
28:2 167
28:13 212
28:13–14 75
36:23 326
37:9 49
37:23 184
37:26–27 184
40–42 233, 235–236
40–48 286, 289, 308
40:1 233
40:2 234, 275, 320
40:3 234, 237
40:5–8 237
40:7 286
40:8 286
40:11 286
40:38 286
40:49 286
41 234, 286
41:5 286
41:8 237
41:17–18 308
41:40 286
42:12 237
42:16–20 237
42:20 234
43:10–11 234
43:13 234
43:20 286
44:13 309
44:17 103
45:3 285
45:4 309
45:19 286
45:19–20 238
46:2 286
46:3 286

Daniel
1 93–94
1:1–2:4 93, 104
1:2 93–95, 98, 104
1:21 93
2 64, 97
2:4–7:28 93, 104
2:22 336
5:1–2 94
5:2 95, 104
5:2–3 104
5:3 104
7 4, 95, 97–98, 164, 170, 258, 262, 306, 310, 315
7–8 235–236, 246
7–11 160–161, 164
7–12 93
7:2–8 95, 164
7:2–9 96
7:8 162–163
7:9 95, 172, 276, 306
7:9–10 96, 101, 164, 304
7:9–12 98
7:9–13 96
7:9–14 95
7:10 95, 101–102, 125, 236, 306
7:11–12 95, 164
7:13–14 96, 164
7:14 102
7:20 162
7:21–22 258
7:22 96
7:25 162, 171–172, 236, 258
7:26 163, 172, 236
7:27 164
8 98–101, 164, 170
8–9 97
8–12 93
8:1–12:13 93, 98
8:3–9 96
8:3–12 100
8:4 172
8:8 172
8:9–14 95
8:10 99, 162, 236
8:10–12 98–100, 103, 236
8:10–14 96, 98
8:11 100, 162–163
8:11–12 99
8:11–13 103
8:11–14 100, 172
8:12 99–100, 162, 236
8:12–14 100
8:13 103, 236
8:13–14 96, 100, 236
8:14 xiii, 100, 163, 236
8:17 100
8:19 100
8:23 163–164
8:25 162–163, 172
8:27 100
9 100–101
9:5 79
9:8 79
9:11 79
9:15 79
9:16 94
9:16–17 95, 104
9:17 94
9:24 94, 98, 101–102, 195
9:25–27 95, 104
9:26 94
9:27 102
10 94
10–12 97
10:1 94
10:1–3 95, 104
10:5 103
11:5 103
11:7 103
11:12 162–163
11:22 337
11:31 103, 163
11:36 162
11:37 162
12:1 102
12:1–2 98, 102
12:2 102
12:3 236
12:11 103

Joel
3:6–16 96

Amos
9:6 51

Jonah
1:3 159
1:9 168
1:10 159
2:7 75

Micah
1:2 47, 75
1:2‒3 75
1:7 202

Nahum
1:4 88
3:6 103

Habakkuk
2:20 47, 75, 336
3:1 336

Zephaniah
6:12 288

Haggai
1:1 83
2:10‒14 87
2:13‒14 85
3:13‒14 87

Zechariah
1:7 83
2:1–5 233, 235–236
2:5 235
2:13 75–76
2:13–3:10 76
2:17 159
3 84–88, 96
3:1 159, 167
3:1‒8 83, 85
3:1‒10 75
3:2 76, 85–86, 88
3:3 76, 83, 86
3:3–5 76
3:4 76, 83–84, 86
3:4–5 76
3:6–7 76
3:6–8 83
3:9 83–84
3:10 83
4 218, 247
4:2 218
6:13 184–185
9:7 103

Matthew
1:1 325
8:12 240
11:28 260
12:1–8 260
12:6 126
12:9–14 260
15:9 168
18:12–13 239
18:20 173
20:8 210
21:12 240
21:42 206
23:2 170
23:16–17 168
23:16–22 126
23:21 168
23:21–22 126
23:35 168, 247
23:38 101, 328
24:1 133
24:20 190
26:61 168
26:64 119, 170
27:5 168
27:40 126, 168
27:51 101, 126, 168, 328
28:18 254

Mark
1:44 191
7:7 168
10:37 119
11:15 240
12:10 206
13:1 133
14:32 119
14:58 126, 146–147
15:38 328
16:19 119

Luke
1–8 111
1:1 111
1:1–4 110, 112, 114
1:5–2:52 114, 116
1:8 248
1:9 168
1:19 326
1:21–22 168
2:22 191
2:37 309
3:1–4:13 114
3:6 111, 117
3:21 112
3:22 112
4:1–11 116
4:1–13 116
4:14–9:50 114
4:16–30 112
4:31–8:56 112
5–7 112
5:14 191
5:17–26 112
5:29–6:11 112
7:1–10 112
7:11–17 112
7:30 110
7:36–50 112
9:51–56 113
9:51–19:48 114, 116
9:57–10:12 113
10:19 326
10:25–41 113
11:1–13 113
11:14–32 113
11:37–12:34 113
12:35–59 113
13:1–9 113
13:10–20 113
13:17 167
13:22–35 113
13:32 113
14:1–11 113
14:12–15:32 113
14:16–24 210
14:18 210
15:4 239
16:1–8 113
16:9–31 113
16:16 113
17:11–37 113
18:1–14 113
18:18–30 113
18:35–19:9 113
19:10 113
19:28–48 113
19:45 240
20:1–21:38 114
20:17 206
21:15 167
22:1–23:56 114
22:55 148
22:69 119
23:5 210
23:45 168, 328
23:56 190
23:56–24:44 114
24:27 210
24:45–24:53 115
24:47 210
24:53 116

John
1:29 119, 126
1:32–33 132
2:6 191
2:14–21 130
2:15 240
2:16 128
2:16–17 129
2:17 128
2:19 132, 147
2:19–21 126–127, 129, 168
3:36 132
4:21–23 130
4:23–24 173
5:38 132
6:27 132
6:56 132
8:5 132
8:9 210
8:16 132
8:20 129
8:20–36 130
8:23 130
8:24–30 130
8:29 130
8:31 132
8:34 130
8:34–35 132
8:35 123, 129, 131–132
10:28–29 239
10:33 258
12:31 240
12:46 132
14–15 127
14:1–3 165
14:1–4 123
14:2 123, 129, 131–132
14:4 134
14:10 132
14:15 171
14:23 131–132
14:24 132
15:4–9 132
15:10 171
17:11–12 239
17:12 171
18:9 239
18:20 127

Acts
1–12 111
1:1 114
1:1–2 115
1:1–5 112
1:3 116
1:3–26 115–116
1:5 116
1:8 114
1:14 112
1:22 210
1:24 112
2:1 116
2:1–7:60 115
2:1–13 112
2:14–40 112
2:21 116
2:23 1, 110
2:26–27 116
2:33 119, 149
2:41–12:17 112
2:46 190
3–11 112
3:1–4:4 116
3:1–10 112
3:19–20 159
3:22 324
4:1–8:3 112
4:11 206
4:28 110
5:12–32 116
5:31 119
5:38 110
5:42 116
6:12 117
6:13 117
6:13–14 116
7 116–117
7:44–50 116
7:48 118, 146
7:48–49 117
7:49 118
7:55 118–119
7:55–56 118, 120, 126
7:56 118, 220
7:60 116
8:1–11:18 115
8:35 210
9:36–43 112
10 112
10:37 210
11:1–18 112
11:19–28:31 115
13:5 190
13:16 190
13:36 110
13:42–44 190
13:43 168
13:50 168
16:14 168, 190
17:4 168
17:17 168, 190
17:23 168
17:24 147, 168
18:4 190
18:7 168
18:13 168
18:26 190
19:8 190
19:27 168
19:48 116
20:16 190
20:27 110
21:2 118
23:11 114
24:5 190
24:53 116
26 190
27:9 187
28:14 114
28:28 111
28:31 116

Romans
1:3–4 187
3:25 1
6:5 148
6:8 148
8:34 119–120, 149
9:22 171
12:1 323, 326
12:1–2 2
14:19 138

1 Corinthians
1:10–4:21 137
1:10–17 137
1:18–3:4 137
1:18–4:13 137
3 137, 141
3:5–4:5 137
3:6–9 141
3:9–16 150
3:10–15 141
3:11 138
3:16 137–142, 144, 168
3:16–17 126, 136–137, 139, 165, 329
3:17 137, 139–141, 144, 168
4:6–13 137
4:14–21 137
5:1 138, 143
6:18 143
6:19 126, 136–138, 142–144, 165, 168, 329
7:1 190
7:19 190
9:9 190
9:13 136, 138
14:3 138
14:5 138
15 146
15:40 149
15:49 149
16:9 167

2 Corinthians
3:3 199
5:1 145–147
5:1–2 136
5:1–4 137, 145–147
5:4 136, 145
5:10 136–137
6:1 144
6:16 2, 126, 137, 144, 165, 329
6:19 168
10:8 138
12:4 133, 321
12:7 133
12:19 138

Galatians
4:24–26 165
4:26 150
5:17 167

Ephesians
1:6 324
1:20 119, 148–149
1:20–21 150
2 148–149
2:4–6 152
2:6 137, 147–149, 151
2:12–13 150
2:19 136, 150, 152
2:19–22 137, 147, 150, 165
2:20 150, 152, 206
2:20–22 150
2:21 126, 136, 138, 150, 168
2:21–22 329
4:12 138
4:16 138
4:29 138
5:2 1

Philippians
1:28 167, 171
2:10 150
3:19 171

Colossians
1:16 322
2:12 148
3:1 119, 148, 170

1 Thessalonians
4:13 157
4:13–5:11 157

2 Thessalonians
1:4 158
1:5–12 158
1:6 158
1:6–12 158
1:9–10 159
2 161
2:1 169–170
2:1–2 157
2:1–12 155, 157, 159–160, 164, 169–170, 172
2:2 169
2:2–3 170
2:3 155, 158, 160–162, 169–172
2:3–4 173
2:4 136, 155–156, 158, 161–164, 167–170, 172–173
2:4–9 167
2:5 138, 158
2:5–12 158
2:6 169, 172
2:6–7 155, 158, 167, 170–172
2:7 169–172
2:8 163, 167, 169, 172
2:8–9 174
2:8–12 170
2:9 158, 164, 167
2:9–10 163, 172
2:10–12 167
2:11 158, 164
2:11–12 158
2:12 163
2:13–15 158
2:16–17 158
3:1–5 158
3:6–15 158
3:16–18 158

1 Timothy
5:18 190
5:21 326
6:9 171

2 Timothy
3:16 190
4:18 150

Titus
2:12 195

Hebrews
1–3 179
1:1–2 179
1:1–2:4 92
1:1–4 179, 189
1:2 119, 180
1:2–3 178
1:3 119, 191
1:4 180
1:5 178, 180
1:5–2:18 189
1:5–14 179, 182
1:6–12 180
1:7 192
1:8–12 180
1:13 170, 178, 180
1:13–14 180
1:14 192
2:4–7:28 92
2:6–10 187
2:17 196
3–7 181
3:1–6 186
3:1–4:13 189
3:3–4 180, 186
3:7–4:16 186
4 180
4:11 194
4:14 187
4:14–16 126, 182
4:14–7:28 189
4:15 196
4:16 126, 150, 198
5–7 186
5:1 198
5:1–14 201
5:2 196
5:3 196, 198
5:4 196
5:5 196
5:5–6 181
5:6 182, 196–197
5:9 201
5:10 196–197
6–9 175
6:1 201
6:1–5 201
6:4 201
6:5 201
6:6 201–202
6:19 135
6:20 196–197
7 197
7:1–10:18 135
7:2 197
7:3 196–197
7:5 196
7:8 197
7:9 196
7:9–10 196
7:11 196–197
7:12 199
7:12–19 181
7:15 196–197
7:17 196–197
7:19 201
7:21 197
7:22 177, 182
7:23 197
7:24 197
7:25 119, 149
7:26 196
7:27 182, 198
7:28 197, 201
8 193, 200
8–9 135, 165
8–10 181, 186
8:1 119, 169–170, 179, 196
8:1–2 xiii, 125, 191, 193
8:1–10:18 189
8:1–12:13 92
8:2 52, 169, 180, 186, 192–193, 329
8:3 198
8:5 126, 149, 194, 195
8:6 177
8:7 200
8:8 186
8:8–9 200
8:10 199
8:12 182, 200
8:13 202
9 193
9:1 126, 194
9:1–12 126
9:6 196
9:6–7 177
9:7 196
9:9 194, 201
9:9–10 182
9:10 195
9:11 126, 147, 193, 201, 329, 331
9:11–12 175, 193
9:12 182, 198
9:12–16 180
9:13 175
9:14 175, 186
9:15 177, 182, 200
9:15–23 177, 181
9:18 200
9:19 198, 200
9:21 102, 198, 200
9:22 198, 200
9:23 175, 182
9:24 147, 159, 169, 193, 194
9:24–25 177
9:24–10:10 186
9:26 182
9:28 176, 329
10:1 198, 201
10:1–3 198
10:1–4 177
10:1–9 182
10:2 182
10:4 198, 200
10:10 182, 186
10:11 198, 200
10:12 170
10:12–13 178, 182
10:14 198, 201
10:17 198, 200
10:18 182
10:19 41, 177, 192
10:19–12:29 189
10:20 192
10:21 192
10:29 177
10:35 187
11:10 192
11:16 192
12:2 119, 170
12:18–21 192
12:22 192
12:22–24 192
12:23 192
12:24 177, 192
12:28 187
12:28–29 186
12:29 199
13:1–25 189
13:9–16 182
13:10 202
13:10–16 186
13:20 177, 179

James
2:2 190
2:8 190
2:10–11 190

1 Peter
1:1 207–208
1:2 207
1:5 215
1:10 208
1:10–12 207
1:11 208
1:17 215
1:19 207
1:20 207, 215
2:1–10 138, 205–208, 211, 213
2:4 206–207
2:5 165, 206–208, 211, 329
2:6 206
2:7 206
2:8 206–207
2:9 165, 207
2:9–10 208
2:20 214
2:21–23 214
2:23 214–215
2:24 214
3:2 214
3:20 215
3:22 207
4:1–5 214
4:4 215
4:5 215
4:11 209
4:12 209
4:12–19 208
4:13 214
4:14 209
4:14–17 214
4:15 209
4:15–16 214
4:16 209
4:17 205–206, 208–216
4:18 214–215
4:19 209, 214
5:1 209
5:6 215

1 John
2:2 1
2:3–4 171
2:4 171
3:4 171
3:22 171
3:24 171
5:2–3 171

3 John
1:10 240

Revelation
1:3 171
1:4–8 226
1:5 219, 248
1:10–20 125
1:12–20 218, 223–225
1:13 219, 226, 288
1:14 233
1:16 226
1:17 219
1:18 219
1:20 218
2–3 219, 223, 225
2–4 223
2:1 219, 226
2:5 262
2:7 223
2:9 133, 190
2:16 262
3:1 226
3:4–5 243
3:12 2, 126, 135, 168, 232, 249, 251
3:21 149, 170, 220, 227, 254
4 254
4–5 118, 219–220, 222–224, 251
4:1 220
4:1–5:14 125–126
4:2 231, 249
4:2–3 170
4:2–6 232
4:3 311
4:4 149
4:9–10 170, 232
4:10 232
5 220, 223, 251, 254
5:1 170, 232
5:6 220, 232
5:6–7 119
5:7 170, 232
5:9 220
5:10 220
5:11 149, 232, 248
5:12 254
5:13 170, 232
5:14 232
6:1–8:1 220
6:9 242
6:9–11 223, 243
6:10 243
6:10–11 226
6:11 243
6:16 251
7 231
7:1 231
7:1–3 239
7:4–8 240
7:9 231
7:9–11 251
7:10 170
7:11 232
7:14–16 226
7:15 135, 168, 170, 227, 232–233, 249, 251–252, 329
7:17 238, 251
8:1–5 125
8:2–5 118, 224
8:2–6 221
8:3 126, 251
8:7–11:18 221
10:1 311
10:1–11:14 229
10:7 243–244
10:8–11 241
10:11 239
10:19 233
11 247
11:1 156, 233, 237, 242–243, 247
11:1–2 135, 168, 229, 231–233, 235–239, 242, 244–246, 249–251
11:1–6 254
11:1–14 229
11:2 236, 240–241
11:2–3 235
11:3 254
11:3–6 242
11:4 232
11:7 232
11:7–9 231
11:8 239
11:9 254, 329
11:9–11 232
11:9–13:18 260
11:9–15:4 260
11:12 232, 239
11:13 239
11:16 170
11:18 221
11:18–19 222
11:19 xiii, 118, 125, 133, 135, 168, 221–222, 224, 232, 249–251, 253, 257
11:19–13:8 255
11:19–13:18 253–254
11:19–15:4 253
11:19–20:15 226
12–14 222, 250, 252–253, 257–259
12:1 250, 253
12:3 253
12:4 253, 260
12:5 238, 253
12:6 253, 254
12:7 253
12:7–9 253, 257
12:8 261
12:9 253
12:10 86, 257
12:11 263
12:12 233, 251, 260–261
12:13 253
12:13–16 253
12:14–17 254
12:15 260
12:17 171, 222, 253, 256–259
13 253, 258, 262
13:1 253
13:1–2 260
13:1–4 253
13:1–8 253
13:1–10 258
13:2 254, 257
13:4 233, 253–254
13:5 254
13:6 222, 233, 249–253, 257, 261
13:7 253, 256–257, 259
13:7–8 257
13:8 253–254, 256–257, 260
13:11 260
13:11–14 253
13:11–18 253
13:12 253–254
13:13 254, 261
13:14 254
13:14–17 253
13:15 253, 256
13:16 254
13:17 254
14:1 321
14:1–5 253, 255
14:2 255
14:3 255
14:4 239
14:4–5 227
14:6 170, 255–257
14:6–7 257, 259
14:6–12 242, 245
14:6–13 253, 255
14:6–20 255
14:6–15:4 253, 255
14:7 232, 243, 255–256, 259–263
14:9 255
14:9–10 256
14:9–11 261
14:10 326
14:11 255, 259
14:12 171, 222, 257, 259
14:13 260
14:14–16 170
14:14–20 253, 255
14:14–15:4 255
14:15 135, 168, 232, 249, 251, 329
14:15–17 222
14:15–19 125
14:17 135, 168, 232, 249–251, 329
14:19 243
15 250
15–22 226
15:1–4 253, 255, 262
15:2 262
15:3 263
15:4 263
15:5 222, 232, 249–251
15:5–6 135, 168, 232
15:5–7 118
15:5–8 125, 222, 224, 329
15:6 232, 249–251, 288
15:8 118, 135, 168, 232, 244, 249–251
16 222, 250
16:1 125, 135, 168, 232, 249–251, 329
16:17 125–126, 135, 168, 232, 249–251
17:1 170
17:3 231
19 223
19:1 223
19:1–10 223
19:2 223
19:4–5 251
19:7–10 223
19:11–21 223
19:14 232
19:15 238
20 223
20:4 170
20:11 170
20:11–12 251
21 223
21–22:5 223
21:1–6 223
21:1–16 237
21:1–22:5 224–226
21:1–27 125
21:2 251
21:3 2, 223–224, 226, 233, 249–252
21:6–22:5 223
21:10 231, 320–321
21:11 118
21:12 235
21:12–22 133
21:15 170
21:16 133
21:16–17 235
21:19 212
21:21 235
21:22 135, 168, 249–250, 252
21:23 118
22:1–3 223
22:3 251
22:6–20 225
22:17 224
NONCANONICAL LITERATURE INDEX

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN LITERATURE

Baal Cycle 22–24, 60
Book of the Dead 27
Coffin Texts 26–27
Enuma Elish 14–15, 60
Eršemma 12
Gudea Cylinders 10–11
Laws of Hammurabi 13–14
Mursilis Hymn and Prayer tothe Sun-goddess of Arinna 17
Pyramid Texts 25–26
The Song of Ullikummi 16–17
The Story of Aqhat 18–21

DEUTEROCANONICAL WORKS

1 Maccabees
1:14 269
1:15 269
5:3 269
7:39–50 269
14:7 167
14:34–39 270
14:41 188

2 Maccabees
4:9 269
4:12–15 269
5:23 167
10:26 167

3 Maccabees
7:9 167

Sirach
48:13 167
50:7 311
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Apocalypse of Moses
37:5 321
40:1–2 321

Apocalypse of Zephaniah
6:12 288

2 Baruch
1:4 293
3:1–9 293
3:7 293
4 295
4:1 293
4:2 293
4:2–3 296
4:3 293–294
4:3–6 124
4:4 294
4:5 294
4:5–6 295
6:8–9 296
32 295
32:2–4 292
32:3 295
32:4 295–296

1 Enoch
1–36 300
4:6–7 321
5:5 321
6–7 302–303
6–11 303
6–36 303
8 304
8:1 312
8:1–4 301
9 304
9:6 312
10–11 304
10:4‒8 312
10:8 312
10:16 313
10:20 313
10:21 313
12–16 304
12:3 310
12:4 307
13:1‒2 312
13:4–5 310
14‒16 305
14 306
14:8 299
14:8–25 125, 275
14:9 133, 305, 307
14:10 133, 307
14:11 133, 305, 308
14:12 305
14:13 322
14:15‒16 305
14:15–19 133
14:15–25 321
14:17 305
14:18 306, 308
14:19 306, 322
14:20 306
14:22 306
14:23 308–309
14:25 306
15:2 309
15:3 307
16 304
17–36 304
17:1–8 321
17:3 305
18:1 305
18:1–2 305
24:1–6 321
24:1–25:3 124
25:3 322
25:7 322
37–71 300
45:1 188
45:3 188
47:1–4 125
47:3 322
51:3 188
52:1–7 188
54:5 312
55:4 188, 312
61:8 188
69:2 312
70 271
72–82 300
83–90 273, 300
85–90 273
85:3 273
85:4 274
86 275
86:3 274
86:4–6 274
86:5–6 276
87 273, 275
87:1 276
87:2 274, 276
87:2–4 276
87:3 273, 275
89 275
89:1 274
89:10 274
89:36 274
89:50 275
89:52 273, 276
89:59 274
89:73 275
90:6–39 273
90:28–29 124
91–108 300
91:11–17 300
93:1–10 300

3 Enoch
1:1–2 133
1:1–12 125
1:1–12 321
1:7 134
4:6–7 125
5:3 134
5:5 125

4 Ezra
9:26–10:59 125
Jubilees
1:1 268
1:4 268
1:5 268
1:8–18 268
1:22–25 268
1:27 268
1:27–29 124
1:29 268
2:7 271
3:31 269
3:32 271
4:23 271
4:24 271
4:26 271
5:26 271
6:18 272
8:18 270
8:19 270
8:19–21 295
15:14 269
30:1 271
30:18 271
31:9 272
31:12–29 297
31:14 271, 272
34 269
38 269

Psalms of Solomon
8:12 309
17 185

Pseudo–Philo
23:6 294

Sibylline Oracles
5:414–33 124

Testament of Job
33:3 188

Testament of Moses
40:1–2 321
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Levi 4, 124, 133, 267, 271, 277–278, 281, 296–297, 303, 317–319, 321, 329
2–5 279
2:3 322
2:3–4 281
2:4 320
2:5 279, 320
2:5–5:2 124, 319
2:6 320
2:7 279, 321
2:8 279, 320
2:9 279
3:2 321–322
3:3 322
3:4 280, 322
3:5 280, 322, 326
3:6 280, 322
3:7 322
4:4 323, 326
5 279
5:1 279–280, 322
5:1–2 281
5:3 281, 327
6:6 281
8 281–282
8:1–19 124, 319, 323, 325, 327
8:2–17 281
8:4 323, 324
8:5 323
8:6 323
8:7 323
8:8 323
8:9 323
8:10 323
8:11 324
8:14 324
8:16 324–325
9:9 282
18:2 278, 325
18:3 325
18:5–7 319, 325, 326
18:5–9 124
18:6 325–326
18:6–7 325
18:7 325–326
18:8 325
18:9 326
18:9–10 326
18:12 326
18:14 326

Testament of Judah
24:1 325

Testament of Reuben
6:10–12 278

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

CD (Damascus Document)
CD–A VI, 11–14 166
CD–A XI, 17–21 166
CD IV, 1 166
1Q32 166
2Q24 166
4Q174 124

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

4Q400–407; 11Q ShirShabb 267, 282–291

4Q400 1 I, 4 286
4Q400 1 I, 13 286
4Q400 1 I, 14 285
4Q400 2 5 285
4Q400 2 6 285
4Q400 2 7 288
4Q403 1 I, 41 285
4Q403 1 II, 2 287
4Q403 1 II, 10 285
4Q403 1 II, 11 285–286
4Q403 1 II, 13 286
4Q403 1 II, 14 286
4Q403 1 II, 14–15 287
4Q403 1 II, 15 286
4Q403 1 II, 16 286
4Q403 1 II, 19 289
4Q 404 5 6 285
4Q405 6 7 285
4Q405 7 7 286
4Q405 8–9 3 285, 289
4Q405 14–15 I 285
4Q405 14–15 I, 7 286
4Q405 15 II–16, 3 289
4Q405 15 II–16, 5 289
4Q405 19 3–4 288
4Q405 20 II–21 287
4Q405 22 7 285
4Q405 22 11 288
4Q405 23 II, 10 287–288
4Q405 94 2 288
11QShirShabb 2–1–9 7 285–286
11Q ShirShabb 7–8 5 287
11QShirShabb 8–7 2 288–289
11QShirShabb 8–7 3 288–289
11QShirShabb 8–7 4 287
11QShirShabb 8–7 5 288
4Q554 166
4Q554a 166
4Q555 166
5Q15 166
11Q18 166

QS (Community Rule)
1QS III, 20–22 166
1QS IX, 3–6 166
1QS IX, 14 166
1QS VIII, 4b–10 166
4QS VII, 6 166

ANCIENT JEWISH WRITERS

Jewish Antiquities
3.6.4 124
3.6.5 124
7:14.7 §367 309

Jewish War
5. 222–23 307

RABBINIC WORKS
Bamidbār Rabbâ 334, 336
Midrāš TanḥûmaʾNāsō 19 337
Mishnah, Berakoth 143
Pārāšat Nāsōʾ 334
TanḥûmaʾNāsōʾ 11 334–335, 338
TanḥûmaʾNāsō 18 337
Sēfer Yəṣîra 333
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 32, 313
NOTES

Chapter 1

1. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old

Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 113; Niels-Erik Andreasen, “The
Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament,” in The Sanctuary and the
Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold
V. Wallenkamf and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC: The General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1981), 67–86; Margaret Barker,
On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 24; Ronald E. Clements, God and Temple
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 68; Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain
in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1972), 177; David Lemoine Eiler, “The Origin of Zion as a Theological
Symbol in Ancient Israel” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary,
1968), 139–40; Alfred Jeremias, The Babylonian Conception of Heaven
and Hell (London: D. Nutt, 1902), 40–41; Arvid S. Kapelrud, “Temple
Building: A Task for Gods and Kings,” Orientalia 32 (1963): 56–58; Geo
Widengren, “Aspetti Simbolici dei Templi e Luoghi di Culto del Vicino
Oriente Antico,” Numen 7 (1960): 3–4.
2. See Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography,
Mesopotamian Civilizations 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998),
223–362. The concept of “heavens” turns out to be more complex and
elusive than one might suppose at first glance. For example, Sumerian
incantation texts reveal a tradition of seven heavens and seven earths. In
addition, a three-storied universe with a netherworld, dry land, and heaven
—each with its deities and sanctuaries/temples—seems presupposed.
3. E.g., Diane M. Sharon, “A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple
Hymn: Ezekiel 40–48 and Gudea,” JANESCU 24 (1996), 99–109; Richard
E. Averbeck, “Ritual Formula, Textual Frame, and Thematic Echoes in the
Cylinders of Gudea,” in Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons:
Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birthday, ed. Mark
W. Chavalas, Gordon D. Young, and Richard E. Averbeck (Bethesda, MD:
CDL, 1997), 39–93. The Gudea Cylinders, royal inscriptions belonging to
the genre of temple hymns, were written about 2125 BC to commemorate
Gudea, king of Lagash, building a temple to the god Ningirsu (ibid.).
4. Dietz Otto Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, The Royal Inscriptions of
Mesopotamia, Early Periods 3 no. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1997), 71–72.
5. See Victor A. Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of Building the
Tabernacle,” JAOS 105 (January–March 1985): 21–30; Hurowitz, “I Have
Built You an Exalted House”: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of
Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1992).
6. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, 71–72; this is corroborated by other
translations: “He had a bent arm (and held) a tablet of lapis lazuli in his
hand, (and) was drawing the plans for a temple (or ‘house’).” E. Jan
Wilson, The Cylinders of Gudea: Transliteration, Translation, and Index,
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 244 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1996), 28; cf. Adam Falkenstein and Wolfram von Soden,
Sumerische und Akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (Zürich: Artemis-Verlag,
1953), 142.
7. For a detailed discussion of tabnît, see Richard M. Davidson,
Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures,
Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation, series 2 (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 367–88.
8. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, 95.
9. Wilson, Cylinders of Gudea, 49–51n4.
10. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, 69: “(A i 11) I will render Eninnu
most influential in heaven and on earth”; ibid., 74: “(A ix 11–15) The
heavens tremble before my House, the Eninnu, founded in heaven, whose
powers are the greatest, surpassing all others, before the House whose
owner looks out over a great distance, (tremble) as before the roaring
Thunderbird.” See ibid., 75: “(A ix 16) the fierce halo (of the house)
reaches up to heaven”; ibid., 80: “(A xvii 18–19) To the house whose halo
reaches to heaven, whose powers embrace heaven and earth”; ibid., 82:
“(A xxi 15–16) He sat down beside the door frames: ‘Huge house
embracing heavens’”; ibid.: “(A xxi 23–25) The house looked up like a
mountain range between heaven and earth”; ibid., 101: “(B xxiv 14)
Eninnu is joined both to heaven and earth”; ibid.: “(B xxiv 9–10) O House
that reaches to heaven like a great mountain, whose awe and aura are shed
over the land.”
 11. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, 86, A xxvii 1–2.
12. Barbara Wootten Snyder, “Combat Myth in the Apocalypse: The
Liturgy of the Day of the Lord and the Dedication of the Heavenly Temple
(Revelation)” (PhD diss., University of California Berkeley, 1991), 119.
According to Snyder, the key elements of temple theology in the Gudea
Cylinders are as follows: (1) the temple is to be built by a king; (2) the
king is shown the plan of the temple by a deity; (3) the temple displays
significant cosmic connotations; (4) the temple grows up between heaven
and earth; and (5) the construction of the temple brings about fertility.
13. Daniel David Reisman, “Two Neo-Sumerian Royal Hymns” (PhD
diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1969), 172.
14. According to Sjöberg, the expression “lofty place” (ki-mah) refers to
the sanctuary of Eninnu. E. Sjöberg, Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der
Sumerischen Überlieferung, vol. 1 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell,
1960), 59.
15. The texts known as Eršemma consist of laments addressed to the
gods. These texts derive from tablets dating to the Old Babylonian period
(2000–1600 BC), though they might have been composed much earlier.
See Mark E. Cohen, ed., Sumerian Hymnology: The Eršemma, Hebrew
Union College Annual Supplements 2 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College
Press, 1981), 1.
16. Ibid., 68.
17. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 53
(hereafter ANET). These words are repeated almost verbatim in lines 172–
75 and 302–4.
18. S. N. Kramer, the translator, opens the possibility that “perhaps,
however, the two lines refer to Ninshubur’s making the rounds of the gods
in Nippur, Ur, and Eridu; if so, ‘shrine’ and ‘house’ (lines 35, 36) should
read ‘shrines’ and ‘houses,’ and ‘rush about’ might perhaps be read ‘make
the rounds’” (ANET, 53n14).
19. Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual
and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. (Philadelphia:
American Philosophical Society, 1944), 59.
20. Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor
(Atlanta: Scholars 1997), 77 (ii 22–31).
21. Cf. Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and J. N. Postgate, eds., A
Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 2nd rev. ed. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2000), 379.
22. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of
Scripture, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003), 1:398–99 (hereafter COS)
(Tablet IV, lines 143–46).
23. B. Landsberger and J. V. Kinnier Wilson propose the following
translation for line 145: “The large abode, Esharra, which he had created,
the heavens, He made Anu, Enlil and Ea occupy (as) their holy districts.”
“The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Eliš,” JANESCU 20 (1961): 176n120. If this
suggestion is correct, “heaven” would be understood as syntactically in
apposition to Esharra and not as a reference to the locus of a sanctuary.
When the passage is examined against its immediate grammatical context,
one notes that the ancient worldview of a threefold division of the cosmos
into the underworld (Apsu), earth, and heaven seems to form the passage’s
conceptual background. Since the text speaks of a sanctuary in the Apsu
(or the Apsu as a sanctuary) and the sanctuary of Esharra (the earthly one),
it is reasonable to suppose that a third sanctuary would be located in
heaven—or that heaven itself is in view.
24. Note that Apsu was the name of the primeval monster killed by Ea
(Enki), which was fashioned into a place of sanctuaries. COS, 1:391–2
(lines 69–79).
25. COS, 1:402 (V 109–13).
26. ANET, 69.
27. Jeremias, Babylonian Conception, 40–41.
28. The Italian text reads: “La sala dei destini di Esagila è quindi in
simbolo e una cópia della sala celeste Upšukkinnaku, e il re terrestre, che
qui in essa viene installato e di cui viene deciso il destino, è un’immagine,
un tam.šil-ili di Marduk, re degli dèi.” Geo Widengren, “Aspetti Simbolici
dei Templi e Luoghi di Culto del Vicino Oriente Antico,” Numen 7 (1960):
3–4. This reminds one of the “image of the beast” referred to in Rev.
13:14, 15.
29. Tessub was the “supreme Storm God” and “reigning king of the
gods according to Hurrian theology.” Harry A. Hoffner Jr., Hittite Myths
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 113.
30. Ibid., 58.
31. Cf. Hans G. Gütterbock, “Hittite Mythology,” in Mythologies of the
Ancient World, ed. Samuel Noah Krammer (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1961), 25.
32. ANET, 123. Hoffner (Hittite Myths, 59) translates it as, “In the sky
above it meets temples and (their) kuntarra-shrines.”
33. Hans Gustav Güterbock, ed., The Song of Ullikummi: Revised Text
of the Hittite Version of a Hurrian Myth (New Haven, CT: American
Schools of Oriental Research, 1952), 45.
34. Hoffner, Hittite Myths, 64.
35. Güterbock, The Song of Ullikummi, 49.
36. Hoffner, Hittite Myths, 65.
37. Ibid., 111.
38. Ibid., 56.
39. Ibid., 63.
40. Ibid., 64–65.
41. Itamar Singer, Hittite Prayers, Writings from the Ancient World 11
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 51 (A I 29’–ii 2’).
42. ANET, 398.
43. Houwink ten Cate, “The Sun God of Heaven and the Hittite King,”
in Effigies Dei: Essays on the History of Religions, Studies in the History
of Religion 51 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 23. The assembly of the gods conveys
a notion of judgment and may be related to the heavenly sanctuary/temple
motif. Although one cannot be certain about the specific spot where this
assembly would convene, the overall ANE evidence allows for the
possibility that the heavenly temple might be one of its loci.
44. ten Cate, “The Sun God,” 21.
45. Gary Beckman, “The Hittite Assembly,” JAOS 102 (1982): 102–
442.
46. ten Cate, “The Sun God,” 19.
47. Johann Tischler, Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar (Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1983), 407,
635–36, respectively. The connection between heavenly and earthly
assemblies suggests a correspondence between the heavenly
sanctuary/temple of the deity and the earthly sanctuary/temple (or the
palace of the king, for that matter). Note that the Sumerian logogram É
(from É.GAL: lit. “large house,” i.e., “temple/palace”) is also used in
Hittite, as noted in the terms Ékarimmi-/Ékarimma- (“temple”) and Ékuntara
(“sanctuary”).
48. Simon B. Parker, ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Writings from the
Ancient World 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 62 (KTU 1.17 VI 46–
49). The locution “Father of Years” reminds one of the expression
“Ancient of Days” in Dan. 7:9–10.
49. Ibid., 53 (KTU 1.17 I 31–32).
50. Cf. Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2002), 51 (RS24.266, lines 6, 14 [obv.]). Although
archaeological excavations have not yet identified a sanctuary/temple
belonging to El, several ritual texts have attested to the existence of a
sanctuary to this deity in the ancient city of Ugarit.
51. Clifford translates ḏd as “tent” based on the parallelism of Ugaritic
poetry. “The word is probably plural, as frequently in housing terms in
Ugaritic. The usual translation is ‘area’ or ‘mountain.’ While there is no
extra-Ugaritic evidence for ḏd as ‘tent,’ the intra-Ugaritic evidence is
strong. ḏd appears five times in the cliché for El’s dwelling, reprinted in
the text. A rigid parallelism is the rule in the cliché: mabbikū [source] //
‘apīkū [pool]; naharāmi [“two rivers”] // tihām(ā)tāmi [double-deep]; ‘ilu
[El] //milku ‘abū šanīma [king, Father of Years]; tagliyu [roll back] //
tabu’u [enter]. ḏd should therefore be parallel to qarašu, ‘tent frame,
tent.’” Richard J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of
Meeting,” CBQ 33 (1971): 222n4. Clifford (ibid.) notes another proof of
this parallelism in lines 51–52 of the story of Aqhat: agrtn.bat.bḏdk
[pǵt]/bat.b<a>hlm. “The woman we hired is come to our camp, [ ] is
come to our tents.” Cf. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 77 (KTU 1.19
IV 51–52).
52. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 177.
53. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 76.
54. Ibid. (KTU 1.19 IV 22–25).
55. Cf. David Wright, Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting,
Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 200–203.
56. John M. Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,”
in Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George
E. Mendenhall, ed. E. A. Spina, H. B. Huffmon, and A. R. W. Green
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 214.
57. Cf. F. Løkkegaard, “The House of Baal,” Acta Orientalia 22 (1955).
58. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 116 (KTU 1.3 V 7–12).
59. It has been suggested that “this idiom of seven concentric
boundaries surrounding a god’s shrine appears to establish its central
location; it corresponds to the notion of seven barriers in the underworld of
both Egyptian and Mesopotamian tradition. It may also be compared to the
seven boundaries represented architecturally in Egyptian temples, most
clearly at Edfu. The image of the god here resided in the innermost
chamber (the shrine-box) of the building. A similar symbolism, though
perhaps not so explicitly developed, probably lies behind the construction
of the temples at Ugarit.” Nicholas Wyatt, “The Religion of Ugarit: An
Overview,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, ed. Wilfried G. E. Watson
and Nicolas Wyatt (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 533. Cf. Margerite Yon,
“Sanctuaires d’Ougarit,” in Temples et Sanctuaires: Séminaire de
Recherche sous la Direction de G. Roux, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient
7 (Lyon: GIS-Maison de l’Orient, 1984), 37–50.
60. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 127 (KTU 1.4 IV 20–24).
61. Cf. Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, VT Supplement 2
(Leiden: Brill, 1955), 92–104.
62. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 50–51. Cf. Conrad E. l’Heureux,
Rank among the Gods El, Ba’al, and the Repha’im, ed. Frank M. Cross,
HSM 21 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 26–28.
63. El also held a prominent position in the ancient South Arabic
religion, as noted by Ulf Oldenburg, “Above the Stars of El: El in Ancient
South Arabic Religion,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
82, no. 2 (1970): 187–208.
64. Cf. the Kirta epic: 20, ša.ydk / šmm.dbḥ.lṯr / abk.il [“Raise your
hands toward the sky. Sacrifice to Bull El, your Father”] (KTU 1.14:2:22–
24). The biblical expressions “El most high” (ʾēl ʿelyōn) and “the stars of
El” (kōkbê-ʾēl) lend additional weight to the contention that Ugaritic
mythology most probably conceived of El’s dwelling as located in heaven
(or in some mythical place functionally equivalent to heaven).
65. J. L. Gibson, “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle,” Orientalia
53 (1984): 210.
66. Clifford, “The Tent of El,” 223.
67. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 129 (KTU 1.4 V 6–9).
68. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 106.
69. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 133–34 (KTU 1.4 VI 16–38).
70. Marjo Christina Annete Korpel, Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and
Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990), 375.
71. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 132 (KTU 1.4 V 56–57).
72. Ibid., 136 (KTU 1.4 VII 17–20).
73. Ibid.
 74. KTU 1.101:3ff; KTU 1:4 VII 59ff. (restored on the basis of KTU
1.8: II.13). Cf. Korpel, Rift in the Clouds, 375n76.
75. That Baal is a storm god indicates that he is a celestial deity;
therefore, his mythical temple is located in heaven.
76. Fritz Stoltz, ed., Funktionen und Bedeutungsbereiche des
ugaritischen Ba‘alsmythus, Funktionen und Leistungen des Mythos
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).
77. N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 2nd ed., BibSem 53
(London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 106n147.
78. Norman Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious
Cultures (New York: Bookman Associates, 1964), 77. This has been
understood as the opening of the clouds through which the rain would fall.
Gaster made the interesting suggestion that this incident reflects a
rainmaking ceremony at the Baal temple of Ugarit, in which the windows
of the temple roof were opened “to simulate the opening of the windows of
heaven.” Theodor H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the
Ancient Near East, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 195. Note
that Gaster’s view is based on a ritual interpretation of the Baal cycle that
has been criticized by several scholars. For a summary of these criticisms,
see Mark Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” Ugarit-Forschungen 18
(1986): 317. A brief sampling of suggestions may be instructive: (1) U.
Cassuto argued that Baal refused the window because he feared Mot
would enter through it. Biblical and Oriental Studies: Bible and Ancient
Oriental Texts (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 2:135; (2) Johannes C. de Moor
suggested that the window represented the coming of the rains. The
Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Baʻlu, According to the Version
of Ilimilku (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker, 1971), 162–63. (3) For
L. Fisher, the building of Baal’s house and window represented the
creation of the universe. “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament,” VT
15 (1965): 313–24. For a summary of these and other views, see Smith,
“Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 313–39.
79. Cf. Claude F. A. Schaeffer, The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-
Ugarit (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 66ff.
80. Løkkegaard, “The House of Baal,” 17.
81. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 137 (KTU 1.4 VII 42–44).
82. Løkkegaard, “The House of Baal,” 17.
83. Richard J. Clifford, “Cosmogonies in Ugaritic Texts and in the
Bible,” Orientalia 53 (1984): 197.
 84. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 137 (KTU 1.4 VII 40–50).
85. Cf. Raymond Oliver Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 243–84, Utterance 106; Erik Hornung,
Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John
Baines (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), 227; Samuel A. B.
Mercer, “Heaven, and How to Get There in the Pyramid Texts,” in The
Pyramid Texts, ed. Samuel A. B. Mercer (New York: Longmans Green,
1952), 1–6. It is generally assumed that the earliest home of the gods in
Egyptian thought is the sky, where the home of the blessed is also located.
86. Cf. Daegeuk Nam, “The ‘Throne of God’ Motif in the Hebrew
Bible” (ThD diss., Andrews University, 1989), 104n1. Egyptian texts use a
variety of words to convey the concept of a sanctuary/temple, as can be
perceived by the translations. Terms such as mansion, shrine, broad hall,
castle, and house are used to convey the heavenly-sanctuary/temple motif,
a phenomenon also noted by Nam in his study of the throne motif in the
Egyptian texts.
87. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 172, Utterance 485.
88. Ibid., 91–92, Utterance 302.
89. Cf. Vincent Arieh Tobin, Theological Principles of Egyptian
Religion (New York: Lang, 1989), 89–124.
90. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 96, Utterance 309.
91. Ibid., 68, Utterance 258.
92. Raymond Oliver Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts
(Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1973), 2:134, Spell 492.
93. Ibid., 2:137, Spell 498.
94. Ibid., 3:96, Spell 985.
95. Ibid., 1:265, Spell 335, Part II.
96. Ibid., 2:208, Spell 625.
97. Ibid., 3:11, Spell 820.
98. Ibid., 2:138, Spell 499.
99. Ibid., 2:225, Spell 651.
100. Ibid., 3:9, Spell 818.
101. Thomas George Allen, The Book of the Dead or Going Forth by
Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter as
Expressed in Their Own Terms, SAOC 37 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago, 1974), 103, Spell 127:1.
 102. Ibid., 369.
103. COS, 2:25.
104. Ibid., 27.
105. Ibid.
106. Cf. George Hart, A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), 65–66; B. van de Walle,
“L’Ennéade d’Héliopolis dans les Textes des Pyramids—Excursus II,” in
Mercer, The Pyramid Texts, 4:6–18. The Ennead consisted of the sun-god
creator and his descendants. In the Pyramid Texts, however, the two
Enneads represent all the gods of Egypt. The Ennead is also portrayed as a
judgment council in both mythology and historical inscriptions.
107. Cf. COS, 1:35.
108. Ibid.
109. ANET, 17. Note that in “The Great Hymn to Osiris” the Ennead
gathers in the hall of Geb, a chthonic deity. Cf. COS, 1:42.

Chapter 2

1. In this chapter, the terms heavenly temple and heavenly sanctuary are
used interchangeably.
2. The garden of Eden was also perceived as a kind of sanctuary, but it
was not located in heaven. Some scholars also see a reference in the story
of Babel in Gen. 11. See, for instance, Elias Brasil de Souza, “The
Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Function and
Relationship to the Earthly Counterpart” (PhD diss., Andrews University,
2005), 83–101.
3. Gen. Rab. 68:12.
4. Tg. Ps.-J. 28:17. For the interpretation of the throne of glory as a
celestial entity, see Andrei A. Orlov, From Apocalypticism to Merkabah
Mysticism: Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, JSJSup 114 (Leiden:
Brill, 2007), 407.
5. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
(New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 377.
6. De Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 121–22.
7. Michael Oblath, “‘To Sleep, Perchance to Dream . . .’: What Jacob
Saw at Bethel (Genesis 28:10–22),” JSOT 95 (September 2001): 117–26.
 8. Ibid., 122–24.
9. Cornelis Houtman, “What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel:
Some Remarks on Genesis 28:10–22,” VT 27, no. 3 (July 1977): 340.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 347.
12. De Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 115.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Houtman, “What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel,” 345.
16. De Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 117.
17. Gen. 28:11 (three times), 16, 17, 19.
18. Houtman, “What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel,” 345;
Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), 197; Susan Ackerman,
“The Deception of Isaac, Jacob’s Dream at Bethel, and Incubation on an
Animal Skin,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. Saul M. Olyan
and Gary A. Anderson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 115; Claus
Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), 454.
19. The following texts are usually cited: Gen. 12:6; Deut. 12:2; 1 Sam.
7:16; 1 Kings 8:30; 1 Chron. 16:27; Ps. 132:5; Isa. 26:21; 66:1; Hos. 5:15;
Mic. 1:2–3. In all of these cases the immediate context indicates what kind
of sacred place is implied: the heavenly sanctuary, the earthly temple, the
pagan high places, or another one, so the reader cannot be confused.
However, when hammāqôm is introduced in Gen. 28:11, nothing in the
immediate context suggests that it is a sacred place; only later in verse 17
is the reader informed that the place is special.
20. As Houtman observed, “In any case, from the story in its present
shape it is not possible to draw the conclusion that Jacob knowingly visited
a cult place” (“What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel,” 346).
21. Gen. 12:8; 13:3.
22. Rabbis identified the place as Jerusalem. Rashi says: “Scripture does
not mention which place, but [it means] the place mentioned elsewhere,
which is Mount Moriah, concerning which it is said (Gen 22:4): ‘And he
saw the place from afar.’” See Chumash With Rashi,
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8223/showrashi/true; see also
Tg. Ps.-J. 28:11. Kugel indicates that “the fact that the Bible itself
identifies the locale of Jacob’s dream as the ‘house of God’ and the
‘gateway of heaven’ (Gen 28:17) was sufficient to bring early interpreters
to overlook the toponyms ‘Bethel’ and ‘Luz’ in the narrative (Gen 28:19)
and claim that in fact Jacob dreamt his dream on the future site of David’s
temple.” James Kugel, “The Ladder of Jacob,” HTR 88, no. 2 (April
1995): 216.
23. Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the
Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis, JSOTSup 288 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1999), 109.
24. Ibid.
25. The Hebrew word for house (bāyit) could have two meanings: (1)
house, dwelling, or building; and (2) family, dynasty. See Gerald H.
Wilson, “ ,” NIDOTTE, 655–57. It is evident that only the first meaning
can be applied to the current text.
26. Menahem Haran emphasizes that there was an essential difference
between a house of God and an altar: “A house of God, as the name
implies, was a building, a roofed structure, while an altar was found only
in the open. The two institutions differed even in function: since the
temple was considered to be a dwelling-place, it was equipped with
furnishings and accessories which symbolized the divine presence in that
house. On an altar, on the other hand, virtually nothing but sacrifices could
be offered up.” “Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the
Bible,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, ed. Avraham Biran
(Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew
Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), 31–32.
27. See the first chapter in this volume: “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the
Ancient Near Eastern Literature.”
28. Benedikt Otzen, “Heavenly Visions in Early Judaism: Origin and
Function,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life
and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström, ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R.
Spencer, JSOTSup 31 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 199.
29. All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from
the NASB.
30. De Souza rightly argues that verse 11 also speaks about the heavenly
sanctuary. He translates the noun (which normally means “God” or
“god”) as “heavenly beings,” which is justified by the context. The whole
verse looks as follows: “Who is like you among the heavenly beings, O
YHWH? Who is like you, majestic in the sanctuary, awesome in praises,
working wonders?” See “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 124–37.
 31. Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1991), 80.
32. Ibid.
33. David N. Freedman, “Temple Without Hands,” in Temples and High
Places in Biblical Times, ed. Avraham Biran (Jerusalem, Israel: Nelson
Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College—
Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), 28.
34. Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of
Exodus,” AUSS 24, no. 2 (Summer 1986): 127–45.
35. Cornelis Houtman, Exodus, trans. Sierd Woudstra, HCOT (Leuven:
Peeters, 2000), 3:294.
36. Ibid.
37. Enhanced BDB (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000),
125.
38. Houtman, Exodus, 3:322, 345.
39. De Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 171; Richard M. Davidson,
“Typological Structures in the Old and New Testaments” (PhD diss.,
Andrews University, 1981), 359–60.
40. De Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 171; Davidson, “Typological
Structures in the Old and New Testaments,” 360. Davidson discusses the
LXX version of Exodus 25:40, where the word τύπος is used for the
translation of the Hebrew tabnît.
41. De Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 173.
42. Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (Chicago: Regnery,
1953), 38–39.
43. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996), xiii.
44. De Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary,” 181. De Souza builds his
argument on other examples of apposition where the second element is
used for the clarification of the first.
45. After the book of Deuteronomy, theophanies shown to the whole
congregation become very rare. Only once is the glory of the Lord
mentioned appearing to a big audience: when the ark of the covenant was
brought into Solomon’s newly built temple (1 Kings 8:10–11).

Chapter 3
 1. Any emphasis in the quotes is added by the author.
2. Siegfried Wagner, “ ,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. Mark E. Biddle
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson: 1997), 2:166–81.
3. See Kim Sanglae, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple in the Hebrew
Bible” (PhD Diss., University of Sheffield, 2002), 80–81.
4. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the KJV unless otherwise
specified.
5. Cf. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), ed. Johann Jakob Stam,
trans. M. E. J. Richardson (1994), s.v. “ ”; David J. A. Clines, ed.,
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH; 1993), 2:541; P. Kyle McCarter, II
Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary,
AB, vol. 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 465; M. Dahood, Psalms 1–50,
AB, vol. 16 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 106; A. A. Anderson, The
Book of Psalms 1–72 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 1:156.
6. Richard M. Davidson, “Typology in the Scripture: A Study of
Hermeneutical Τυπος Structures” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1981),
373–74. He classifies the various views regarding what tabnît may mean in
its relation with Exod. 25:9. The term may connote six different
classifications: (1) a miniature model or Vorbild of the earthly sanctuary,
(2) a Vorbild or form of an architect’s plans of the earthly sanctuary, (3) a
Nachbild in the form of a miniature model of the heavenly sanctuary that
is the “prototype” of the earthly sanctuary, (4) a Nachbild of the heavenly
sanctuary which connotes the architect’s plan as a Vorbild of the earthly
sanctuary, (5) the heavenly sanctuary itself as the original or Urbild of the
earthly sanctuary, and (6) no propositional facts as the Vorbild for the
earthly sanctuary. This categorization is taken from the German edition of
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds., Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti libros (Leiden: Brill, 1958), s.v. “ ,” as (1) “prototype” or
Urbild in Exod. 25:9, 40; (2) “copy” or Abbild in Deut. 4:10–18; Josh.
22:28; (3) “model” or Modell in 2 Kings 16:10; Ps. 144:12; 1 Chron.
28:11, 12, 18; (4) “image” or Bild in Isa. 44:13; Ezek. 8:10; Ps. 106:20; (5)
“likeness” or Etwas wie in Ezek. 8:3; 10:8; and (6) “architect’s plan” or
Bauplan in 1 Chron. 28:19.
7. Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near
Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallet
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 179.
 8. Alberto R. Trayer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly
Judgment: From the Pentateuch to Revelation (Siloam Springs, AR:
Creation Enterprise, 1992), 273. According to Koehler and Baumgartner
(HALOT, s.v. “ ”), the expression is equivalent to bêtekā in Psalm 36:8.
9. This theme appears fifty times exclusively in the historical books. See
Judg. 1:26; Ruth 4:11; 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2; 5:17, 19; 8:16ff., 43f., 48;
9:3; 16:24; 18:32; 2 Kings 21:4; 1 Chron. 22:5, 7f., 10, 19; 28:3; 29:16; 2
Chron. 1:18; 2:3; 6:5, 7ff., 33f., 38; 20:8; 33:4; Neh. 6:1 (cf. the other
thirteen occurrences: Gen. 4:17; 11:4; 12:8; 26:25; 33:17; Exod. 17:15;
Num. 32:38; Jer. 12:16; Amos 9:6; Zech. 6:12).
10. Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A.
Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 190.
11. Josh. 2:11; 1 Kings 8:30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49; 22:19; 2 Chron.
6:21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 39; 7:14; 18:18; 30:27; Neh. 1:4; 9:27, 28.
12. Jacob M. Mayer says, “Hezekiah appears like a second Solomon.” II
Chronicles, AB, vol. 13 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 179.
13. Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Syntax
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 110.
14. HALOT, s.v. “ .”
15. See Elias Brasil de Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif
in the Hebrew Bible: Functions and Relationship to the Earthly
Counterparts” (PhD diss., Andrew University, 2005), 184. “Look down,
from your Holy place, from the heaven,” is an apposition that without
doubt also refers to the heavenly dwelling of God, not as heaven itself but
as a temple located in heaven (cf. Targ.,“look from the dwelling place of
your Holiness, from heaven”).
16. Ekallum, “palace,” is a loan word from the Sumerian E-Gal, which
stands for “building.” See Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas
Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2000), s.v. “êkallu(m)”; Réne Labat and Florence Malbran-Labat, Manuel
d’épigraphie Akkadienn: Signes, syllabaire, idéogrammes (Paris:
Geuthner, 1988), 315.
17. It is difficult to say with precision who the author was. Some
commentators have proposed a wide variety of dates within 539–180 BC.
Historical criticism has tended to pull back the dating to the Greek period,
down to 165 BC. See Robert North, “Theology of the Chronicler,” JBL 82
(1963): 369–81. Yet the ending of the book would place its terminus a quo
in the late fifth century BC, which agrees with the period most in favor
with biblical scholars. See R. L. Braun, “1 Chronicles,” HBC, 342. He
suggests a date around 350–300 BC.
18. J. A. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles, NAC, 23. Scholars concur that the
chronicler made intentional changes. See Ralph W. Klein, Textual
Criticism of the Old Testament: From Septuagint to Qumran
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 71.
19. See V. A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple
Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic
Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 25. Hurowitz notes
a tendency of reworking and expanding earlier stories, mostly for
answering questions such as “where did David take the plan for building
God’s temple?”
20. Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological
Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 535.
21. Franck B. Holbrook, “The Israelite Sanctuary,” in The Sanctuary
and Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies 30, no. 4,
ed. Arnold V. Wallekampf and W. Richard Lesher (Washington: Review
& Herald, 1981). Holbrook says, “‘From the hand of the Lord concerning
it’ (v 19) is a translator’s conjecture. The Hebrew reads: ‘from the hand of
the Lord upon me.’”
22. Ibid.
23. But see the translation “breath” (NASB, RSV, NET), which shows
that the concept of “wind” and “spirit” are closely related.
24. Exod. 25:9bis, 40; Deut. 4:16, 17bis, 18bis; Josh. 22:28; 2 Kings 16:10;
1 Chron. 28:11, 12, 18, 19; Pss. 106:20; 144:12; Isa. 44:13; Ezek. 8:3, 10;
10:8.
25. The LXX uses three different words for tabnît: paradeigma,
“model” (Exod. 25:9; 1 Chron. 28:11, 12, 18, 19). The same word is
translated by dedeigmenon, “made known” (Exod. 25:40); homoiōma,
“representation” (Deut. 4:16, 17, 18; Josh. 22:28; 2 Kings 16:10; Pss.
106:20; 143:12 [H 144:12]; Ezek. 8:3; 10:8); eidōlon, “idol as an image.”
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Languages (London: Xpress
Reprints, 1996), 152. Barr points to the platonic argument as an
interpretative error based on linguistic evidence.
26. E.g., Mishnah Menahoth 29a and Rashi, Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth, trans. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silberman (New
York: Hebrew Publishing, 1900), 2: 76–82. Moses was shown a model of
the tabernacle and its furnishings. Traditional exegetes ascribed a didactic
function to the tabnît, holding that it was necessary to help Moses
understand the complex instructions. To be sure, the model conceived by
these commentators was one of all sorts of fire, yet despite its miraculous
substance, it was envisaged as a teaching model. S. E. Loewenstamm
(Encyclopaedia Miqra’it, V, col. 534, “Miskdn”) cites an incident from the
Atrahasis myth in which Ea draws a boat for Atrahasis (who claims to
have had no experience in boat making) as a parallel to the didactic
function of the tabnît. See W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-Hasis:
The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969): 128 DT 42
(W) 14–15: “Draw the design on the ground that I may see [the design]
and [build] the boat.” See Hurowitz, I Have Built You An Exalted House,
168.
27. V. Aptowitzer, “The Heavenly Temple in the Agada,” Tarbiz 2
(1931): 137–53, 257–87; L. Goppelt, “TWICK,” TDNT, 8:246–59. These
scholars have popularized this view: P. M. Cross, “The Priestly
Tabernacle,” BA 10 (1947): 45–68; B. A. Levine, “The Descriptive
Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85 (1965): 307–18; R. E.
Friedman, “The Tabernacle in the Temple,” BA 43 (1980): 241–48.
28. So does U. Cassuto in its interpretation of Exodus 25:9; V. A.
Hurowitz (I Have Built You an Exalted House, 169) contends that the
biblical meaning of tabnît is a mere replica without any corresponding
heavenly model; however, the divine counterpart would not be based
solely on the word study but also on the reason of the involvement of the
divine figure.
29. Siegfried Wagner, “ ,” TDOT, 2:179.
30. See J. L. Sagarin, Hebrew Noun Patterns (Mishqalim): Morphology,
Semantics, and Lexicon (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 129n165, 142,
81–82.
31. HALOT, s.v. “ .”
32. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “ ,” NIDOTTE, 4:644.
33. Koehler and Baumgartner (HALOT, s.v. “ ”) suggest that in hiphil
the term may indicate that God may “let someone see something, or show
someone.”
34. Ibid.
35. G. R. Osborne, “Linguistics Concerns,” ISBE, 4:931.
36. See K. L. Schmidt, “Jerusalem als Urbild u. Abbild,” ErJb. 18
(1950), 207–48.
Chapter 4

1. BDB, HALOT. See, for example, Ps. 45:16; Dan. 1:4; 1 Kings 21:1.
2. See Pss. 9:4, 7–8; 35:23; 89:14; 97:2.
3. Roy Adams, The Sanctuary: Understanding the Heart of Adventist
Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1993), 33. In 1863
P. Fairbairn stated that there was no hint in the Old Testament of the
cosmological nature of the sanctuary, and this view seems to have
persisted. The Typology of Scripture (New York: Tibbals, 1863), 220,
quoted in G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical
Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, ed. D. A. Carson, New Studies in
Biblical Theology 17 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 50.
4. Adams, Sanctuary, 33.
5. Psalms which feature God as King and Judge include 47, 50, 82, 93,
96, 97, 98, 99. George A. F. Knight, Psalms, The Daily Study Bible 2
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1983), 368.
6. These include Pss. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 33, 43, 47, 48, 50,
53, 57, 58, 60, 68, 75, 76, 80, 82, 85, 89, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103,
108, 113, 115, 119, 123, 135, 144, 148, and 150.
7. All biblical references, unless otherwise stated, are from the NJKV.
8. Artur Weiser, The Psalms, Old Testament Library, ed. G. E. Wright
et al., trans. H. Hartwell (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1962),
112.
9. Timothy M. Willis, “‘So Great Is His Steadfast Love’: A Rhetorical
Analysis of Psalm 103,” BibOR 72 (1991): 534.
10. Ibid., 535. Although Gunkel suggested a three-part structure for the
psalm early in the twentieth century (Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A
Form–Critical Introduction [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967], 210), many
alternatives have been offered. See Willis, “A Rhetorical Analysis of
Psalm 103,” 21. A detailed examination of semantic parallelism indicates
special affinities between Pss. 1–5 and 19–22 and between 6–19 and 17–
18. See Paul E. Dion, “Psalm 103: A Meditation on the ‘Ways’ of the
Lord,” Eglise et Theologie 21.1 (1990): 22.
11. Willis, “Rhetorical Analysis of Psalm 103,” 534.
12. For an exegetical analysis of the link between Ps. 103:8 and Exod.
34:6, see Josef Scharbert, “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex 34,6f und
seiner Parallelen,” BibOR 38 (1957): 130–50.
 13. Willis, “Rhetorical Analysis of Psalm 103,” 537.
14. Weiser, Psalms, 154.
15. Ibid., 156.
16. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965),
328–29, quoted in Beale, The Temple, 50.
17. Beale, The Temple, 50.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 32–47. Josephus, Ant. 3.123, 146, 147, 180, 181, 183–184;
J. W. 5.212–214, 217.
20. Weiser, Psalms, 632.
21. Ibid., 619.
22. Mark K. George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, ed. Benjamin
D. Sommer, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 2 (Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2009), 91.
23. Weiser, Psalms, 617.
24. Ibid., 378.
25. The figure of the divine shepherd is common in ANE literature and
refers to the political leadership of the gods; e.g., the Sumerian god Enlil is
described as “the shepherd upon whom you gaze (favorably)” and “Enlil,
the worthy shepherd, ever on the move.” Samuel Noah Kramer, History
Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 92.
26. Exod. 25:22; 37:9; 1 Sam. 4:4; 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chron. 13:6;
Pss. 80:1; 99:1; Isa. 37:16; Ezek. 10:1, 2, 14; Isa. 6:1, 2; Rev. 4:6–8.
27. Beale, The Temple, 35.
28. Weiser, Psalms, 641.
29. Beale, The Temple, 63.
30. Weiser, Psalms, 654.
31. The national lament psalm may have either an individual or a
national focus—the so-called “I-psalm” or “we-lament”; see Sigmund
Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 1:225. The lament is directed at God, in the
discouraged belief that He has forgotten His covenant with David. See
ibid., 1:198. Mowinckel suggests that among the national psalms of
lamentation, including Ps. 89, there is a group that gives a general
description of distress or disaster brought about by the enemy upon the
land (Pss. 44, 74, 89); ibid., 1:219.
32. Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1:70–71. Goulder suggests
that there are a number of different genres through the psalm: verses 1–18
are a hymn (except v. 3f.), 19–37 and verse 3f. are citations of the Davidic
covenant, 38–45 constitute a lament, 46–51 are an appeal, and verse 52 is a
doxology probably intended for the whole of book III. Michael D.
Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, JSOTSup 20 (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1982), 212.
33. Pss. 85:10–11; 89:14.
34. Goulder, Psalms of the Sons of Korah, 225. As evidence of this
suggestion, Goulder cites the example of Solomon’s throne with a lion on
each side (1 Kings 10:19) and Ezekiel’s vision of a throne-like chariot
borne by four living creatures—a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle. Note
that in Ps. 89 this description is followed by an account of shouting and
celebration (vv. 16–17).
35. Weiser, Psalms, 381.
36. Knight, Psalms, 116.
37. André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (London: SPCK, 1979), 124,
in Beale, The Temple, 145–54.
38. The commonly suggested emendation “riding on the clouds” is
creative but not justified. The chiasmic parallel is “when you marched
through the wilderness” (v. 7). Note also v. 33, “to the one riding through
the ancient heaven of heavens.”
39. One of the duties of a “faithful” son was to rescue his father’s
“smoke” from the underworld. See, for example, M. Dietrich, O. Loretz,
and J. Sanmartìn, eds., The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras
Von Hani and Other Places (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995); 4. CAT 1.17.
Column I. 27–28, in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. Simon Parker,
Writings from the Ancient World 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 53; 4.
CAT 1.17. Column II. 1–2 in Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 55. The
“life” of the dead was depicted as departing through the nostrils “like a
breath,” “like a sneeze,” or “like smoke” before going to the realm of the
dead. See 5. CAT 1.18. Column IV. 24–26, 36–37 in Parker, Ugaritic
Narrative Poetry, 66.
40. Weiser, Psalms, 841.
41. Knight, Psalms, 2:54.
42. Ibid., 55.
 43. See, for example, 7. CAT 1.1. Column III (CAT col. IV) of the Baal
Cycle in Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 88–90.
44. Weiser, Psalms, 558.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., 165.
48. Beale, The Temple, 136n.
49. Weiser, Psalms, 293.
50. Ibid., 707.
51. Ibid., 574.
52. Ibid., 189.
53. Ibid., 395.
54. Ibid.
55. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 82.
56. In verse 3 the context is deliverance on earth, while in verse 8 the
action comes from heaven.
57. Weiser, Psalms, 630.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid., 639.
60. Although the wilderness sanctuary only displayed two cherubim (on
the “mercy seat”—the cover of the ark of the covenant), in Solomon’s
temple there were four: the two on the mercy seat and a large cherubim in
each back corner of the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:23–28).
61. Immediately following this praise, a prayer begins for God to deal
with the injustice brought upon them by their enemies (vv. 7–10).

Chapter 5

1. See discussion in Min Suc Kee, “The Heavenly Council and Its Type-
Scene,” JSOT 31, no. 3 (2007): 259–73; see also Edwin C. Kingsbury,
“Prophets and the Council of Yahweh,” JBL 83, no. 3 (1964): 279–86.
2. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NASB.
3. From the immediate context it is not clear what the prophet means by
the expression “the throne of glory.” It could be in Jerusalem, as in Jer.
14:21, or it could be the heavenly throne.
4. Although the phrase “from heaven” does not necessarily mean “from
a heavenly sanctuary,” parallel texts support this point of view.
Lamentations is a prolonged prayer, and in 3:50 Jeremiah anticipates
God’s answer, which usually comes from God’s temple (Isa. 63:15; Jon.
2:7).
5. The expression “holy mountain” usually means “Zion” or
“Jerusalem” (Pss. 2:6; 48:1; Isa. 27:13; 56:7; Dan. 9:16, 20). In this case,
however, the prophet uses celestial language. The enumeration of precious
stones also suggests sanctuary language (cf. Ps. 3:4).
6. These two visions are also classified as heavenly council scenes (cf. 1
Kings. 22:17–23; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6). It’s essential that these passages are
saturated with ritual language.
7. George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 103. See
also Rolf Knierim, “Vocation of Isaiah,” VT 18, no. 1 (1968): 51.
8. E.g., H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991), 260–63; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24
(Dallas: Word, 2002), 72.
9. The vision clearly indicates that the temple where the prophet saw
God was not in the land of Israel. God and the temple are holy, whereas
the people of Israel are unclean and the land is doomed to devastation. See
Willem A. M. Beuken, “The Manifestation of Yahweh and the
Commission of Isaiah: Isaiah 6 Read Against the Background of Isaiah 1,”
CTJ 39 (2004): 74. Christoph O. Schroeder also points out that “the whole
vision of Isaiah 6 stands in an abysmal contrast to the people’s challenge
in 5:19, where they assume to be in control of reality and see YHWH as
just a powerless figure dependent on their plan.” History, Justice, and the
Agency of God: A Hermeneutical and Exegetical Investigation on Isaiah
and Psalms, BibInt 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 70.
10. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their
Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” HUCA 60 (1989): 44.
11. Ibid. Hurowitz cites the views of various commentators on the
meaning of the expression “unclean lips.” These can be divided in two
groups. The scholars of one group believe that Isaiah’s sin was somehow
related to the act of speech or an act of the mouth. For example, Gray
asserts that in spite of being in God’s presence, Isaiah was unable to call to
God (Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah,
108). Buber relates Isaiah’s uncleanness to the uncleanness of King
Uzziah: “as the king is unclean, so is Israel, and so too is Israel’s son
Isaiah; his lips and the lips of the people he feels to be specially unclean in
consideration of the contact with God and the world, because through them
the unclean breath is spread abroad, and at this moment is even mingled
with the temple air saturated with holy smoke.” M. Buber, The Prophetic
Faith, trans. Carlyle Witton-Davies (New York, Harper & Row, 1960),
130. Another group of scholars believe that uncleanness of lips represents
moral impurity. Thus Oswalt argues that lips are merely a means through
which the human heart and will can be expressed. Therefore, unclean lips
indicate that a man’s heart does not belong to God. John N. Oswalt, The
Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986),
183. Kaufmann also believes that the expression “unclean lips” means that
a man is morally defiled. Y. Kaufmann, Toledot HaEmunah HaYisre’elit
(Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1952), 3:206. Cited in Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s
Impure Lips,” 44.
12. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips,” 58.
13. Ibid., 54.
14. Kaiser suggested the same idea even without analyzing ANE texts.
See Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1983),
129.
15. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips,” 75.
16. In this chapter the book of Isaiah is treated in its canonical form. As
B. W. Anderson has observed, “Today scholars are beginning to move
from analysis to synthesis in the interpretation of the Book of Isaiah. The
established practice of separating the book into several discrete parts, each
of which is viewed in isolation from the whole, is giving way to
exploratory efforts to understand the overall unity and the theological
dynamic of the Isaiah tradition.” “The Apocalyptic Rendering of the Isaiah
Tradition,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism:
Essays in Tribute to Howard Clarke Kee, ed. J. Neusner (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988), 17. Regarding the canonical reading of the book of Isaiah,
see also Rolf Rendtorff, “The Book of Isaiah: A Complex Unity:
Synchronic and Diachronic Reading,” in New Visions of Isaiah,
ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Roy F. Melugin, JSOTSup 214 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1996), 32–49; Brevard Childs, Introduction to the
Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 325–35.
17. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 130.
 18. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 174.
19. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah,
108; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and
Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 78.
20. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1‒39, 174.
21. The same word is translated as “stone pavement” in Ezek. 40:17ff.;
42:3; 2 Chron. 7:3; Esther 1:6. This word was also a woman’s name,
which probably meant a “shining stone” (cf. Rizpah, daughter of Saul, 2
Sam. 3:7). This word is translated as “stone” by Carl Friedrich Keil and
Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2002), 7:128, and Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:249–50.
22. E.g., Exod. 40:5; Lev. 4:7, 18; 16:12, 18.
23. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 174. Young and Keil
and Delitzsch also argue the same; see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on
the Old Testament, 7:128, and Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:250.
24. Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), 104.
Milgrom also argues that the sacrificial altar is in view in Leviticus 16:12
because only that altar always had a perpetual fire. Jacob Milgrom,
Leviticus 1–16, AB, 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1025.
25. Timothy R. Ashley points out that the censer mentioned in this verse
should be the same as in Lev. 16:12. The Book of Numbers, NICOT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 327. Therefore, it is possible to argue
that both cases are identical.
26. The question which inevitably arises in connection with these
considerations concerns the nature of sacrifice in the heavenly temple.
Animal sacrifices are never mentioned as taking place in heaven. From a
Christian perspective, and according to Heb. 10:10, the only sacrifice that
can purify the heavenly sanctuary is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself.
It can hardly be assumed that any other sacrifice would be offered in
heaven or could be brought into the heavenly temple. However, the vision
of Isaiah took place seven hundred years before Jesus’s sacrifice, and we
should not presume a Christological understanding of his vision.
We should remember that the events described in Isaiah 6 took place in
a vision. In spite of the fact that the vision is accurately dated by reference
to the year of King Uzziah’s death, it does not mean that the time “inside
the vision” is the same as “outside.” It is difficult to speculate about time
in heaven. That Isaiah saw the vision many years before Jesus’s sacrifice
does not rule out the possibility that he was purified on the basis of this
sacrifice or at least that the vision is a symbol of things that were to take
place in the future. E.g., see the comments in John T. Willis, Isaiah, The
Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament (Austin: Sweet
Publishing, 1980), 142.
27. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 174.
28. Ephraim Stern, “The Persian Empire and the Political and Social
History of Palestine in the Persian Period,” in CHJ, vol. 1, ed. W. D.
Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008), 71.
29. The description of the historical background can be found in
F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 9–16.
30. David L. Peterson, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (London: SCM Press,
1985), 199.
31. Mark J. Boda, “Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King
in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” JHebS 3, no. 10 (2001); available at
http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_22.pdf.
32. Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, AB
25b (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 221.
33. Peterson, Haggai and Zechariah 1‒8, 201.
34. Ibid., 200.
35. Ibid., 199.
36. Carroll Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope: A Commentary on the
Books of Haggai and Zechariah, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988),
78. See also Kenneth L. Barker, Zechariah, The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1985), 624; Peterson, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 195, 199.
37. Peterson, Haggai and Zechariah 1‒8, 199.
38. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 183.
39. Barker, Zechariah, 623.
40. Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction
and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 113;
Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 191.
41. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 113; George L. Klein,
Zechariah, NAC 21B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishing, 2008),
136; Ralph L. Smith, Zechariah, WBC 32 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 199.
42. Barker, Zechariah, 623.
43. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1‒8, 191.
44. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 185.
45. Ibid.
46. Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi, Interpretation: A Bible
Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 121.
47. William Lee Holladay and Ludwig Kohler, A Concise Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1971), s.v. “tsô‘im.”
48. Ibn Ezra, cited by A. Cohen, The Twelve Prophets (Brooklyn:
Soncino, 1948), 280.
49. Klein, Zechariah, 138.
50. Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 188.
51. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 114.
52. L. Tiemeyer, “The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3),” in The Book of
Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2003), 1. Cited by Klein, Zechariah, 138.
53. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 195; see also Klein,
Zechariah, 139.
54. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 193. But Petersen himself
acknowledges that this metaphor is complex and its precise meaning
unclear. Scholars see two possible allusions: the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah (Amos 4:11) or the Exodus (Deut. 4:20, Jer. 11:4).
55. A. Caquot, TDOT, s.v. “gāʿar,” 3:50.
56. Ibid., 51. See also A. A. Macintosh, “A Consideration of Hebrew
gāʿar,” VT 19 (1969): 471–79.
57. Caquot, TDOT, 3:51, 52.
58. S. C. Reif, “A Note on gāʿar,” VT 21 (1971): 243.

Chapter 6

1. The sanctuary in Dan. 8 has been studied and written on extensively,

and thus cannot be sufficiently covered in this overview. The reader is
encouraged to refer to sources such as the following for more in-depth
analysis on this topic: Merling Alomia, Daniel: El Profeta Mesianico,
vol. 2 (Lima, Peru: UPeU Ediciones Theologika); Richard M. Davidson,
“The Meaning of Nişdaq in Daniel 8:14,” JATS 7/1 (Spring 1996): 107–
119; Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel (Washington, DC: Review &
Herald, 2000); Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Little Horn, the Heavenly
Sanctuary and the Time of the End: A Study of Daniel 8:9–14,” in
Symposium on Daniel, Daniel & Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2
(Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1986); Samuel Núñez, The Vision of
Daniel 8: Interpretations from 1700 to 1900 (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 1989); Gerhard Pfandl, “Daniel’s ‘Time of the
End,’” JATS 7/1 (Spring 1996): 141–158; Martin T. Pröbstle, “A
Linguistic Analysis of Daniel 8:11, 12,” JATS 7/1 (Spring 1996): 81–106;
Martin T. Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text Oriented Analysis of Daniel
8:9–14,” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2006; Angel M. Rodriguez,
“Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel 8:9–14” in Symposium on
Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series,
vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 527–549; S. J.
Schwantes, “Ereb Boqer of Dan 8:14 Re-examined,” AUSS 16 (1978):
375–85; William Shea, Daniel (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005); William
Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel & Revelation
Committee Series, vol. 1 (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1983);
William Shea, “Spatial Dimensions in the Visions of Daniel 8,” in
Symposium on Daniel, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2
(Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1986); William Shea, “Unity of
Daniel,” in Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2 (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald,
1986); Zdravko Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise (Nampa, ID:
Pacific Press, 2007); Alberto Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the
Heavenly Judgment (Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises, 1992);
Winfried Vogel, “Cultic Motifs and Themes in the book of Daniel,” JATS
7/1 (Spring 1996): 21–50.
2. Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible,
StBibLit (New York: Lang, 2009), 66, 67.
3. The only verse in Aramaic in the book of Jeremiah is 10:11, and it is
also the only complete Aramaic verse in the Old Testament outside of Ezra
and Daniel. Therefore, this particular use of the Aramaic for Jeremiah is
more than a coincidence or an extrapolation; it is a rhetorical use with a
specific purpose.
4. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible, 67.
5. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NKJV unless otherwise
specified. All emphasis in quotations are added.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Cyrus plays an important role in the book of Daniel. He is mentioned
in chapter 10, not only in the reference to his third year (10:1, 2) but also
in relation to Michael (10:13). Wiseman suggests that Darius the Mede is
the same person as Cyrus. It is evident that this Persian king played an
important role in those days because he issued the decree for the return of
the Jewish people to their homeland (2 Chron. 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4).
9. It is interesting that God’s people are in trouble in chapter 1. The
same idea appears in 7:21, 25 where the little horn persecutes them. The
same power also persecutes them in 8:24. The concern of the prophet in
Dan. 9 is for his people (vv. 4–19), as is the case in 10:3–5, 14. Chapter 7
foresees the restoration of the saints of the Most High. Dan. 11:32–35 talks
about the persecution that God’s people face under the vile person (11:21).
Finally, 12:1–3 detail the final crisis when God’s people are delivered and
glorified.
10. The prophecy of Dan. 9:24–27 about the seventy weeks is
understood to be 490 days (70 weeks x 7 days = 490 days). These
prophetic days are considered literal years; it means 490 years from 457
BC to AD 34. For more explanation and details, see Frank B. Holbrook,
ed., 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, Daniel & Revelation
Committee Series, vol. 3 (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1986), 3–
139; C. M. Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 1 (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1981),
194–202; Merling Alomia, Daniel: El Profeta Mesianico, vol. 2 (Lima,
Peru: UPeU Ediciones Theologika), 342–80.
11. Maxwell, God Cares, 267–69; William Shea, Daniel (Nampa, ID:
Pacific Press, 2005), 231, 232; Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel
(Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 2000), 158, 159; Zdravko
Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2007),
376, 377.
12. E.g., Jacques Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 3–6; William Shea, “Unity
of Daniel,” in Symposium on Daniel, Daniel & Revelation Committee
Series, vol. 2 (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1986), 248. The main
issues of the book are present in chapter 7: the four world kingdoms
(vv. 2–7), the little horn (v. 8); the saints of God in persecution (vv. 21,
25); the scene of judgment and God as the Judge (vv. 9, 10) and the Son of
Man (v. 13) who receives the kingdom of God (v. 14). These themes are
enlarged in the last chapters of the book (8–12). David Dorsey gives
highlights, but not details, about the structure of Daniel (The Literary
Structure of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999],
259–62).
13. For a detailed explanation of this movement, see Shea, “Unity of
Daniel,” 200–203.
14. For an argument on heaven being not a metaphysical place but real
and physical, see Alberto Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly
Judgment (Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises, 1992), 372–78.
15. See William Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation,
Daniel & Revelation Committee Series, vol. 1 (Hagerstown, MD: Review
& Herald, 1983), 144–49.
16. Alomia, Daniel: El Profeta Mesianico, 218–34; Shea, Selected
Studies, 147–52. The tabernacle and its services, especially the Day of
Atonement and its typology with the judgment, is the best biblical example
of the judgment connected with the sanctuary. See Treiyer, The Day of
Atonement, 301–64.
17. Shea gave eleven general connections between these two chapters
(“Unity of Daniel,” 187).
18. Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Little Horn, the Heavenly Sanctuary and the
Time of the End: A Study of Daniel 8:9–14,” in Symposium on Daniel,
458, 459.
19. Aramaic was the lingua franca in the ANE from the eighth to the
second centuries BC. Some scholars have suggested that the Aramaic
section was for the Gentiles because the prophecy in Dan. 7 presents wild
animals (lion, bear, leopard, and beast) in contrast to Dan. 8, which has
clean animals (ram and male goat). This idea confirms the proposal that
the Aramaic piece is developed more fully in the last part of the book.
20. For the links between Dan. 8 and Leviticus, see Doukhan, Secrets of
Daniel, 126–33; Shea, Daniel, 188–94.
21. See William Shea, “Spatial Dimensions in the Visions of Daniel 8,”
in Symposium on Daniel, Daniel & Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2
(Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1986), 510–26. For an evaluation of
the priestly activity in Dan. 8, see also Treiyer, The Day of the Atonement,
349–51. Louis Hartman connects 8:1–12 with a heavenly realm and with
the Most High (The Book of Daniel, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1978],
236). John Goldingay admits that the connection is with God, but he
suggests that the heavenly army is the Jewish people in the days of
Antiochus (Daniel, WBC, vol. 30 [Dallas: Word, 1989], 209, 210). On the
other hand, Lucas sees a link with the struggles between the God of Israel
and other gods. Even though he applies the prophecy to the days of
Antiochus, the references to heavenly issues evidences a vertical
dimension (Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, ApOTC, D. W. Baker and Gordon
Wenham, eds. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002], 214–17).
See also Tremper Longman III, Daniel, The New Application
Commentary, Terry Muck et al., eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999),
202–04; Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise, 305.
22. Shea, “Spatial Dimensions,” 513. See also Alomia, Daniel: El
Profeta Mesianico, 275.
23. Shea (“Unity of Daniel,” 196–98) gives six reasons for the
orientation of Daniel 8 around the sanctuary: (1) the use of sacrificial
animals (the ram and the goat); (2) the reference of the four horns pointing
to the four winds, which recalls the four horns of the sanctuary altars
(Exod. 27:2; 30:2); (3) the sanctuary is explicitly referred to three times in
this prophecy (in 8:11, 13 and 14); (4) the references to the tāmîd; (5) the
evening-morning as “sanctuary days” (the phrase evening-morning is not
common and has a special connection with the sanctuary); and (6) the
characterization of the two conversing angels in 8:13 as “holy ones.” This
is an uncommon way to refer to angels in the Old Testament. They
resemble the two cherubim who were modelled as standing on the ark of
the covenant.
24. Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 226, 227; Goldingay, Daniel, 210–12;
Lucas, Daniel, 214–17; James Montgomery Boice, Daniel: An
Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989), 90, 91.
25. See Hasel, “The Little Horn,” 378–420.
26. Shea, “Unity of Daniel,” 196–98.
27. Ibid., 198.
28. “The expression hatāmîd (the daily offering) . . . is a regular term in
MH [Middle Hebrew] for the whole offering sacrificed every morning and
evening. . . . Other passages speak of the daily grain offering . . . and the
daily (Presence) bread.” Goldingay, Daniel, 211. See also Shea, “Spatial
Dimensions,” 514; S. J. Schwantes, “Ereb Boqer of Dan 8:14 Re-
examined,” AUSS 16 (1978): 375–85; Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the
Wise, 323.
29. See Hasel, “The Little Horn,” 416–25; Maxwell, God Cares, 161–
72.
30. Treiyer, The Day of the Atonement, 352–54.
31. Shea, “Spatial Dimensions,” 515; Selected Studies, 46, 47.
32. Shea, “Spatial Dimensions,” 525.
33. Hasel, “The Little Horn,” 415.
34. For a study on the meaning of qōdeš in Dan. 8, see ibid., 444–48.
35. Ibid., 454. This section (448–61) gives a good revision of 8:14 and
its expressions.
36. “There are two sanctuaries in Scripture! The earthly (Ex 25:9,40)
and the heavenly (Heb 8: 1–6). The Old Testament sanctuary was
destroyed in AD 70. Yet even at that time it was not ‘His sanctuary’
anymore (Mt 23:37–39; 27:50–51). The only sanctuary functioning as ‘His
sanctuary’ at the time of the little horn . . . was the heavenly sanctuary.”
Gerhard Pfandl, Syllabus for OTST 572/672/872 “The Book of Daniel”
(International Institute of Advanced Studies, Silang, Cavite, Philippines,
2008), 102, 103.
37. Hasel, “The Little Horn,” 458. On this work of cleaning or purifying
the heavenly sanctuary, see also Treiyer, The Day of Atonement, 354, 355.
38. Treiyer, The Day of Atonement, 355.
39. Different scholars relate this expression with the sanctuary.
Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 244: Goldingay, Daniel, 260; Stephen R.
Mille, Daniel, The New American Commentary, vol. 18, E. Ray
Clendenen et al., eds. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 261, 262;
Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise, 355.
40. “If the ‘most holy’ mentioned in verse 24 refers to a sanctuary, the
question of which sanctuary arises. It could not be the tabernacle or
Solomon’s temple. They were already in the past history by the time this
prophecy was given. It could not be the second temple built in Jerusalem.
That temple was dedicated for use upon the completion of its construction
in 515 B.C. (Ezra 6:15–18). The only temple this ‘most holy’ can belong
to is the heavenly sanctuary mentioned in the NT books of Hebrews and
Revelation.” William Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27,” in The
Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Daniel &
Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3 (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald,
1986), 82–83.
41. Ibid., 115.
42. Angel Manuel Rodriguez points out: “His standing is directly
associated with several important events mentioned in the context. Briefly
stated they are the announcement of a time of great anguish, the
deliverance of God’s people, the book of life, the resurrection, and the
handing out of rewards to both righteous and wicked. The list of
eschatological events indicates that the setting of the scene is that of the
court of law. In other words, the verb ʿāmad in this case implies standing
up in a court setting and points to a judicial activity. This usage of the verb
is well attested in the OT (e.g., Ps 130:3; Isa 3:13; 50:8; Jer 49:19; Ezek
44:24). Judges usually sat during the proceedings (e.g., Prov 20:8; Isa
16:5). Daniel 7:9 describes the divine judge as sitting down at the moment
the judgment was to begin. There are cases in which God is described as
rising to pronounce judgment (e.g., Ps 76:8–9). In Dan 12:1 we witness the
conclusion of the eschatological judicial activity and Michael stands on
behalf of his people to announce the verdict. His standing up is directly
connected to judicial proceedings during which the heavenly book of life
was used and the verdict of eternal life or eternal perdition was
announced.” “Dan 12: Translation and Interpretation,” unpublished
manuscript, 6.
43. Treiyer, The Day of the Atonement, 354.
44. See Treiyer, The Day of the Atonement, 348, 349. This heavenly
being is described with similar words in Revelation 1:12–16. This scene is
also connected with the sanctuary. The lamps of the seven churches
remind of the holy place in the tabernacle.
45. “The fact that in Dan 8:11 the term tāmîd is used in a context in
which cultic language is being used suggests that tāmîd must be
understood as a cultic term, expressing sanctuary theology.” Rodriguez,
“Dan 12: Translation and Interpretation,” 41.

Chapter 7

1. See Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A

Literary Interpretation, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Luke
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 1–12. In addition, Charles Talbert
underscores and synthesizes more than half a century of scholars’ literary
analyses of Luke–Acts in Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological
Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 15.
2. James Dawsey, “The Literary Unity of Luke–Acts: Questions of Style
—A Task for Literary Critics,” NTS 35 (1989): 48. Cf. Robert C.
Tannehill, “Israel in Luke–Acts: A Tragic Story,” JBL 104, no. 1 (1985):
69. Although a few still try to challenge the unity of Luke–Acts, there is
such a clear majority in its favor that this study accepts it without further
elaboration.
3. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An
Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 220.
4. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th rev. ed. (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 106.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1970), 52.
7. Ibid., 19.
8. Joseph Fitzmyer stresses that the aim of Luke–Acts is expressed in
Luke 1:4, a view recognized by many scholars today. Luke I–IX, AB,
vol. 28 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 9. For example, Luke’s
usual reference to time and historical events in his gospel account may
reflect his purpose in writing an orderly or chronological account (1:5, 26;
2:1–3; 3:1–2).
9. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NASB unless otherwise
specified.
10. Though Luke clearly states his purpose in the prologue, some
scholars see secondary purposes. See Robert Stein, Luke: An Exegetical
and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, NAC, vol. 24 (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1992), 35–44.
11. Johnson, The Writings, 219.
12. John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke–Acts (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1–3.
13. Ibid., 1.
14. Ibid.
15. He further notes, “The whole divine economy of salvation is
designated by the term boulē. (Luke 7:30; Acts 20:27; and, in reference to
Christ only, Acts 2:23; 4:28; 5:38).” Helmut Flender, St. Luke: Theologian
of Redemptive History, trans. Reginald H. and Ilse Fuller (London: SPCK,
1967), 143.
16. Joseph Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching
(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989), 59–61. Cf. Walter A. Elwell, and
Robert Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and
Theological Survey, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 105.
Hans Conzelmann originally proposed the idea of “salvation history” in
Luke–Acts. See Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York:
Harper & Row, 1961), 137–69.
17. Guy Nave Jr., The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke–Acts
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 25. As Luke describes
Jesus’s ministry, he wants to stress that the gospel of salvation should be
preached to all kinds of people (4:18). He also wants to show that, in the
ministry of Jesus, the plan of God is the salvation of all flesh. Salvation
does not only involve the spiritual restoration of humanity but also the
restoration of the society where the rich care for the needs of their less-
fortunate neighbors in the community of faith (chaps. 14; 16). This was
God’s original plan for Israel (Exod. 22:22, 25; Isa. 58:7), and He wants to
emphasize this once again to the New Israel.
18. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts, 1–12.
19. For example, Mary “appears at the beginning of each volume, the
apostles work wonders remarkably similar to those of Jesus, and Paul’s
final journey to suffering resembles Jesus’s journey to suffering.” Johnson,
The Writings, 220.
20. Talbert, Reading Luke, 15–16. For the rest of the literary parallels
between Luke and Acts, see ibid., 16–143.
21. Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 164–65.
22. Kenneth Bailey’s structure of Luke’s travel narrative seems evident
in the literary and thematic contexts.
23. This is just a summary of his proposed structure. Only the portions
that deal with humility are shown. For the detailed literary structure of the
travel narrative, see Kenneth Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary–
Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, combined ed. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983), 80–82. Talbert also sees a chiastic structure. He
proposes that it runs from Luke 10:21–18:30. See Talbert, Reading Luke,
51–52.
24. Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 168.
25. This is proposed based on the idea that there is a geographical–
structural pattern in Luke–Acts.
26. In the Old Testament, salvation also begins in Jerusalem/Zion (Isa.
46:13) and will reach the ends of the earth (Isa. 49:6). Walter Liefeld
suggests that “the central theme in the writings of Luke is that Jesus offers
salvation to men.” “Luke,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank
E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 811. Cf. Marshall,
Historian and Theologian, 116.
27. Cyprian Robert Hutcheon, “‘God with Us’: The Temple in Luke–
Acts,” SVTQ 44 (2000): 3, accessed December 4, 2007, Academic Search
Premier database.
28. Ibid., 4.
29. J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple and the New Age in Luke–
Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), 1, accessed October 17,
2010, Google Scholar.
30. In the Old Testament imagery, in addition to the familiar belief that
God dwells with His people in the Jerusalem temple/ sanctuary (Pss. 5:7;
48:9; 65:4; 68:29; 79:1; 138:2), He was also sometimes seen in His temple
in heaven (Ps. 11:4).
31. Cf. Davidson Razafiarivony, “The Meaning of the Temple in
Stephen’s Speech,” (master’s thesis, Adventist International Institute of
Advanced Studies, 1996), 122.
32. Chance, Jerusalem, 1.
33. Sweeney notes that Bruce (New Testament History [Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1971], 222) talks of Stephen’s “polemic against the
Temple order,” while Marshall (Acts [Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press,
1980], 130) speaks of Stephen’s “sharp criticism of the actual temple.”
Longenecker (The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 9 of The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 229–
31) also characterizes this portion as “a vigorous denunciation of the
Jerusalem temple and the type of mentality that would hold to it as the
apex of revealed religion” and as an “anti-temple polemic” (345–46). See
also Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1971), 285, 290; Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles,
Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 56. Dunn’s reconstruction in
Partings of the Ways of the “parting” between temple-centered Judaism
and (particularly Hellenistic) Christianity with respect to the temple is
largely predicated on this interpretation (see J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings
of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance For
the Character of Christianity [Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991], 63–71). The
same is true of Barnett’s recent work, Jesus and the Rise of Christianity
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 219–21. James P.
Sweeney, “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2–53): Is It Anti-Temple as
Frequently Alleged?” TJ 23 (2002): 198–99, accessed October 27, 2010,
Ebscohost.com.
34. E. Earle Ellis also recognizes the salvation–historical nature of
Stephen’s language, noting that “Stephen interprets ‘hand-made things’
(cheiropoiētois; Acts 7:48) by his quotation of Isa 66:2: ‘My hand made
(hē cheir mou epoiēsen) all these things’ (Acts 7:50).” He further notes:
“In this way [Stephen] expands the reference beyond the tabernacle and
temple to include the whole present creation.” “Isaiah and the
Eschatological Temple,” in Christ and the Future in New Testament
History, NovTSup 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 6, quoted in Sweeney,
“Stephen’s Speech,” 204–5.
35. Cf. Daniel 6:10.
36. John Kilgallen also pointed out that, when he analyzed Stephen’s
speech, “the central thought and main purpose of the speech is to show that
the salvific presence of God is not tied down to the temple dwelling (of
Jerusalem).” Stephen’s Speech, Analecta Biblica (Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1976), 17–18, accessed October 17, 2010, Google Scholar. Bo
Reicke also asserts that “God’s revelation was never limited to the Holy
Land or Holy place (the Temple).” Glaube und leben und Urgemeinde,
Abh.z.Th. Des A.u.N.T. 32 (Zurich: Zwingli, 1957), 133–34. Quoted in
Kilgallen, Stephen’s Speech, 18.
37. Exod. 40:34–35; Lev. 9:23; Num. 14:10; 16:19, 42; 20:6; 1 Sam.
4:22; Pss. 26:8; 29:9; 63:2; Ezek. 43:5; 44:4; cf., Heb. 9:5.
38. In the book of Ezekiel it was already mentioned that the “glory of
the LORD” departed from the earthly temple in Jerusalem (10:3–4, 18–19).
39. The implicit ones are Heb. 1:3, Matt. 19:28, and John 17:5.
40. The passages that allude to the “glory of God” in the heavenly
temple (in the NT) are John 12:4 and 17:5.
41. In the first century AD this imagery was usually associated with
prestige or power, especially of persons with royal authority. It was a place
of honor for the Messiah or God. BDAG, s.v. “dexios.”
42. Cf. Heb. 10:12.
43. Sweeney also argues, “Similarly in Heb 9:11, there is a clear
contrast between the qualitatively greater and more perfect tent into which
Christ entered as high priest that was not handmade, that is, not part of this
creation (tēs meizonos kai teleioteros skēnēs ou cheiropoiētou, tout’ estin
ou tautēs tēs ktiseōs). It is further described in 9:24 as ‘heaven itself’
(auton ton ouranon). The theological understanding reflected in these
passages is once again salvation–historical in orientation, reflecting a
contrast between the new and old orders or covenants.” “Stephen’s
Speech,” 205.
44. Alwyn P. Salom also asserts that “the contexts of a number of the
‘right hand of God’ passages are cultic in nature.” “Sanctuary Theology,”
in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank Holbrook, Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series, (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research
Institute, 1989), 4:210. On the other hand, F. F. Bruce suggests that “a
standing posture is mentioned here because the Son of man at God’s right
hand is not only viewed as king and priest, but also—and this is most
relevant to Stephen’s special situation—as a witness.” The Book of Acts,
NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 168.

Chapter 8

1. See Leon Morris, Expository Reflections on the Gospel of John

(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1914), 491–92; John Charles Ryle,
Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1976),
55–59.
2. J. Vernon McGee, John (Pasadena, CA: Thru the Bible Books, 1976),
240–42; Bruce Milne, The Message of John (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), 210–11; Ryle, Expository Thoughts, 59–63.
3. Cf. 2Q24; 5Q15.
4. As earthly palace: of Ahab—1 Kings 21:1; of the king of Babylon—2
Kings 20:18. As heavenly palace: Mic. 1:2. As temple: the Lord’s temple
in Shiloh—1 Sam. 1:9; in Jerusalem—2 Kings 18:16; Isa. 44:28. William
L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 79.
5. 3 Bar. 1:1–8.
6. William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1980), 537–38, 545–52, 589–626.
7. Bible texts are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.
8. 4QDibHam 1–2 IV; 4Q405 20 II, 21–22; 11Q20 1 1–26; 11Q19 15–
16, 29–31, 52.1–21; 46.1–18; 11Q20 11 21–26; 1QS VIII,.4ff.; V, 5ff.;
IX,.3ff.; CD 3 19A; 2 10; 13B; 4Q511 35 2–3; 11Q19 35 1–15.
9. Matt. 16:18; Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 10:4.
10. John 2:14, 15; 5:14; 7:14, 28; 8:2, 20, 59; 10:23; 11:56; 18:20.
 11. See how the Jews respect their temple: Matt. 24:1; Acts 21:28; Cf.
Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 336–75.
12. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991), 180.
13. Dan. 1:2; 1 Esd. 1:51; 2:7; 5:44; 2 Macc. 8:33; 4 Macc. 6:30; Mark
16:8; 1 Cor. 9:13; 2 Tim. 3:15.
14. See Siegfried H. Horn, SDABD (Washington, DC: Review &
Herald, 1979), s.v. “Temple,” 8:1071.
15. John 2:16 (twice), 17.
16. John 2:17; 7:53.
17. Carson maintains that “there is no evidence that the animal
merchants and money-changers, or the priestly authorities who allowed
them to use the outer court were corrupt companions in graft” (The Gospel
According to John, 178–79). See also F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John:
Introduction, Exposition, Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 74.
While this may be true on the basis of the text of John, the Synoptic
Gospels clearly indicate—in addition to the desecration of the temple—
unethical business practices as indicated by the accusation that they had
turned the temple into a “den of robbers” (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke
19:46). Moreover, Carson notes that there is probably an allusion here to
Mal. 3:1, 3, which contains a promise that the Lord would come to His
temple and purify the Levites. Carson also acknowledges that this is an
indication that the text of Malachi is “a denunciation of worship that was
not pure,” but he fails to note that there is no reason the impurity could not
also affect the business practices carried on in the temple with the approval
of the temple authorities (The Gospel According to John, 179).
18. E.g., Matt. 9:6, 7; Mark 2:11; Luke 1:23; Acts 2:2; 19:16; Rom.
16:5; 1 Cor. 11:34; 14:35.
19. E.g., Matt. 10:6; Luke 1:27; Acts 2:36; 7:42; 11:14; 16:15, 31; 1
Tim. 3:4–5; Heb. 3:6.
20. See Matt. 5:16, 45, 48; 6:4, 6, 9, 15, 18, 26; 7:11, 21; 10:29; John
4:21, 23, 53.
21. See John 1:49; 5:19–23; 10:36–38; 11:4; 12:23; 17:1; 20:31.
22. Carson is of the opinion that the switch in tense is intentional since
“with other New Testament writers, however, John detects in the
experiences of David a prophetic paradigm that anticipates what must take
place in the life of ‘great David’s greater Son’” (The Gospel According to
John, 180).
23. See J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to
St. John (London: Black, 1968), 117.
24. J. Goetzmann, NIDNTT, 247.
25. Matt. 10:12–13; 12:25; John 4:53; 1 Cor. 16:15.
26. Matt. 10:6; 15:24; Luke 1:27, 33, 69; 2:4; 10:5; 11:7 (two times);
19:9; Acts 2:36; 7:10, 42, 46; 10:2; 11:14; 16:15, 31; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16; 1
Tim. 5:4; 2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19; Titus 1:11; Heb. 3:2, 5, 6 (two times); 8:6
(two times), 10; 11:7.
27. See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An
Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1978), 341. The “above” refers to the heavenly world, and
the “below” to the earthly realm, as indicated by the next phrase, which
mentions “the world.”
28. Ben Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth
Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 177.
29. Gary Burge, “Gospel of John,” in Bible Knowledge Background
Commentary: John, Hebrews–Revelation, ed. Craig Evans, Isobel A. H.
Combes, and Daniel M. Gurtner (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook
Communications Ministries, 2005), 88. Burge understands “house” instead
as God’s household. But, as pointed out, the choice of oikia instead of
oikos likely indicates a house instead of a household. Moreover, the verb
menei ties this pericope to John 14, where God’s heavenly residence is in
view.
30. The dwelling could be understood as referring to the hope that
David would always have access to the house of God on earth, the
sanctuary. But that could hardly be the reality he envisioned, especially
during times he was persecuted. The reference to the house of God could
better be understood as a reference to the heavenly temple. David knew
that even if he could not access the earthly tabernacle, his prayers could
always ascend to God’s heavenly temple. He hoped that he would
experience “goodness and mercy” in this life and then the privilege to
dwell in the heavenly house of God forever in the age to come.
31. Barrett indicates that the reference to the Father’s house is a
reference to the temple and compares it with Luke 2:49 and John 8:35. He
does not quite call it the “heavenly temple” and seems to understand God’s
habitation, and therefore the reference, as pointing to the whole of heaven
(The Gospel According to St. John, 456). However, the use of oikia, suits
better a specific locale and edifice than the realm of heaven as a whole.
Burge calls it “the heavenly dwelling where he [God] lives” and compares
with Heb. 12:22 and Rev. 21:9–22:5, references to the heavenly Jerusalem
(“Gospel of John,” 126).
32. Witherington wonders whether the reference to the return of Jesus
refers to (a) His “return” from death through resurrection, (b) the parousia,
or (c) His supposed coming to believers at death (John’s Wisdom, 249).
The first option is untenable. At death Jesus did not ascend to the Father
(or anywhere else), as is indicated by His words to Mary in John 20:17.
The last option also faces major theological problems. In biblical theology,
the believers come into the presence of God at the parousia, not at death
(e.g., Matt. 24:31; 1 Thess. 4:13–18; 2 Thess. 1:6–10; Rev. 1:7). This
leaves the parousia as the only tenable option. That the parousia is in
mind is indicated by the plural hymas, which suggests that Jesus would
come for His disciples as a group, not individually. See also Burge,
“Gospel of John,” 126, who clearly prefers the parousia, or second
coming.
33. ASV, DV, NKJV, YLT. The rendition “many mansions” stems from
Tyndale, but in Old English the word mansion meant dwelling place, not
necessarily a palatial dwelling. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According
to John, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 618–19.
34. ESV, NIV, NLT, RSV. Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 249.
35. Darby.
36. NAB, NASB, NAV, NRSV.
37. NJB.
38. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 456.
39. Cf. ibid.
40. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 284.
41. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnasus, Ant. rom. 1.41.1; Diodorus Siculus,
Bibliot. Histor. XVI 7.1.8; Philo, Abr. 2.237.2; Philo, Aet. 116.3; Vettius
Valens, Anthol. 4.12.5; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. II 6.28.6.
42. In nonbiblical Greek literature the word sometimes has the meaning
of temporary stopping places. From this concept Origen drew his false
notion that the mansions were halting places in the soul’s journey to God.
See Princ. ii. 11.6.
43. E.g., Eph. 2:19–22; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 3:12; cf. 2 Cor. 5:1.
 44. P66, A, C3, D, and other manuscripts read kai hopou [egō] hypagō
oidate kai tēn hodon oidate, signifying that heavenly realities will meet or
even exceed the expectations of the disciples. Even with the critically
preferable kai hopou [egō] hypagō oidate tēn hodon, the verb oidate
relates to tēn hodon, and is so translated by most translations (e.g., ASV,
ESV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, RSV). But it could also be related
to hypagō if a second kai is assumed, again implying that the disciples
know not only the way but the place (KJV, NKJV, GNT, KJV, NKJV,
NLT).

Chapter 9

1. Richard M. Davidson, “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old

Testament,” TMs (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Heritage Center, 1981),
1–29; Frank Holbrook, “The Israelite Sanctuary,” in The Sanctuary and
the Atonement: Biblical Theological and Historical Studies, ed. Frank
Holbrook (Silver Springs, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 3–36.
2. Felix H. Cortez, “From the Holy to the Most Holy Place: The Period
of Hebrews 9:6–10 and the Day of Atonement as a Metaphor of
Transition,” JBL 125, no. 3 (2006): 527–47. See also George W. MacRae,
“Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia
12 (1978): 179–99; Walter E. Brook, “The Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice
in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 89, no. 2 (June 1970): 205–14;
William Johnson, “The Heavenly Sanctuary—Figurative or Real?” in
Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Springs,
MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 36–51, 113–19; Alwyn P. Salom,
“Sanctuary Theology,” in Holbrook, Issues in the Book of Hebrews, 205–
17; see also M. L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1948), 317–416; G. J. Steyn, “On Earth as It Is in
Heaven: The Heavenly Sanctuary Motif in Hebrews 8:5 and Its Textual
Connection with the ‘Shadowy Copy’ of LXX Exodus 25:40,” HTS
Theological Studies 67, no. 1 (2011): 1–6; Richard M. Davidson, “Christ’s
Entry ‘Within the Veil’ in Hebrews 6:19–20: The Old Testament
Background,” AUSS 39, no. 2 (2001): 175–90.
3. Richard M. Davidson, “Sanctuary Typology,” in Symposium on the
Revelation I, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Springs, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1992), 99–130; Samuele Bacchiocchi, “The Heavenly
Sanctuary: Real Or Symbolic?” Endtime Issues 103 (September 2003): 4–
5; Shirley J. Case, “The Book of Revelation II,” The Biblical World 50,
no. 4 (October 1917): 257–63.
4. James Sweeney, “Jesus, Paul, and the Temple: An Exploration of
Some Patterns of Continuity,” JETS 46, no. 4 (2003): 608. Also, James D.
Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
721.
5. Richard Hays’s Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). “Intertextuality” means “[that]
discourse depends upon, builds upon, modifies, and reacts to prior
discourses and the prior use of words, concepts, and ideas. . . . every text
finds its place within the context of an ongoing discourse about whatever
issues it discusses or any ideas that it is building on, responding to, or
reacting against.” For a basic introduction to issues of intertextuality and
influence, see the introduction to Udo J. Hebel, ed., Intertextuality,
Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of Critical
Studies, Bibliographies and Indexes in World Literature 18 (New York:
Greenwood, 1989); Thais E. Morgan, “Is There an Intertext in This Text?
Literary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intertextuality,” American
Journal of Semiotics 3, no. 4 (1985): 1–40; Jay Clayton and Eric
Rothstein, “Figures in the Corpus: Theories of Influence and
Intertextuality,” in Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, ed. Jay
Clayton and Eric Rothstein (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1991), 3–36.
6. E.g., 1 En. 14:1–24; 24:1–25:4; 71:5–6; 83–90; Jub. 1:24–29; T. Levi
5; Tob. 14:5, 6; 12:12, 15; 3 En. 45; T. Levi 5:1, 2; 4QDibHama 1–2 IV,
2–1–12; 4Q403 1 II, 10–16; 11QTa XXIX, 3–8; XLV, 12–14; XLVII, 4;
LIII, 9–10; LVI, 5; 11QTa; 11QTb; 11QTc; 1Q14 (1QpMic), 1–5; 4Q381;
4QNon-Canonical Psalms B 24, 7–9; 4Q403 1 I, 41–44; 4Q403 1 II, 18–
29; 4Q405 19–22; 1Q14 (1QpMic) 1–5; 4Q381; 4QNon-Canonical Psalms
B 24, 7–9; 4Q403 1 I, 41–44; 4Q403 1 II, 18–29; 4Q405 19–22. Cf. 3 Bar.
11–16; T. Job 17:4; T. Benj. 9:2; T. Sol. 1:3–5; 21:4; Tob. 13:1–18; 4Q271
(4QDf) 5 I, 15–17 (CD–A XI, 3–XII, 7); 11QTaxxix 7–10; 11QTa II–
XXIX; XXX–LI, 10; LI, 11–LVI, 17.
7. Jub. 33:20; 4 Ezra 13:36; 9:38–10:4; 10:8, 25–27, 44–45; 1 Macc.
2:17; CD–A VI, 11–14; CD–A XI, 17–21; VII, 3–4; V, 11; 1QS VIII, 4;
1QS V, 5; CD III, 19; CD II, 10–13.
8. 2 Bar. 4:2–7; 59:1; 68:1; 32:2–4; 4:1–7; 6:1–9; 7:1; 80:1–7; Jub.
23:21; 1 En. 89: 72–73; 90:28–29; 91:13; 89:50, 72–73; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52–
54; Tob. 13:1–10; 14:5–7; T. Mos. 1:5, 9; 2:1, 4, 8–9; 4 Ezra 9:26–10:59;
4Q174 (4QFlor) II, 1–13; cf. 1QM II, 1–9; 1QH VI, 15; 4QFlorilegium I,
1–13; 11QTem XXIX, 7–10. Cf. Jub. 16:18; 1QS ix 4–6; 1QS xi 7–9; CD-
A iv 2–4; 4Q511 xxxv 2–4; 1QH ix 12–19; 1QH xiv 1–36; 4Q174
(4QFlor) 1 i 21, 2; 4Q212 (4QEngar) IV, 1–10; 11Q19 (11QTa) III–
XLVII; 1Q32; 2Q24; 4Q554; 4Q554a; Q555; 5Q15; 11Q18.
9. 1 En. 10:2–22; 90:16–38; 14:19; 25:3, 7; 47:3; 102:3; 4QpPsa III, 13–
27; CD–A I, 11; 4QDa XX, 29–34; 4Q400 1 I, 13; 4Q403 1 II; 4Q405 8–9.
See 4Q176a, b (4Q176, 19–21) 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 33, 51, 53 I 1–9; 4Q405
20 II, 7–8, 21–22; 4Q403 1 II, 10–16.
10. T. Jos. 20:2; T. Sim. 5:3; T. Naph. 2:6; T. Iss. 6:1; 7:7; T. Reu. 2:1;
T. Levi 18:12; CD–Av (4Q266 3 II; 4Q267 2; 6Q15 2, 3) 6–7; CD–A VI
(4Q266 3 II; 4Q267 2; 4Q269 4 II; 6Q15 3, 4) 8–20; CD–A VI (4Q266 3
II; 4Q267 2; 4Q269 4 II; 6Q15 3, 4) 1–21; CD–A XII (4Q266 9 II; 4Q271
5 I), 1–23. Cf. Sib. Or. 3:63–68; T. Dan 5:10; Sib. Or. 3:73; 4 Ezra 10:21–
23; Jub. 23:17–18, 20–21; 1 En. 7:1; 9:8; 10:11; 12:4; 15:2, 4; Pss. Sol.
1:18; 2:1–28:1–13.
11. H. Preisker, “ναός,” TDNT, ed. G. Friedrich and G. Kittel, trans. G.
W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:882–83. The LXX uses
naos to refer to the earthly temple, the heavenly temple, and—in some
instances—the sphere within the temple where God’s presence is
manifested. According to BDAG, naos can be a place or structure
specifically associated with or set apart for deity.
12. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NASB unless otherwise
specified.
13. A. F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, The IVP New Testament Commentary
Series, vol. 7 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 72–78.
14. Aristotle, Poetics, trans. W. Hamilton Fyce, Loeb Classical Library
199 (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1995), 23.21.6–14.
15. Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric, Loeb Classical Library 193 (Harvard:
Harvard University Press, 1926), Book III 11.12-13, 22.359.
16. Stephen Fai, “Body/Temple Metaphor: Early Christian
Reconciliation with Roman Architecture” (PhD diss., University of
Ottawa, 2006), 23–24.
17. Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Mood and Tenses in the New
Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 80, 81.
18. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New Century Bible Commentary,
ed. M. Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971). Conzelmann agrees that
the focus of Paul is on God’s dwelling (cf. Hans Conzelmann, 1
Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1975).
19. Archibald Robertson and Alford Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC, 2nd
ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1971).
20. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook
to the Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. D. Douglas Bannerman, ed. W. P.
Dickson, 5th ed., Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament (New
York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890), 100ff.
21. Nijay K. Gupta, “Which Body Is a Temple (1 Corinthians 6:19)?
Paul beyond the Individual/Communal Divide,” The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 72 (2010): 520–36.
22. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996),
392–93.
23. A. T. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (New
York: C. Scribners’s Sons, 1911), 66. A similar idea can also be found in
Plato, Crat. 405. According to Robertson, since believers are God’s
temples they must guard against desecrating their bodies and, by
implication, God’s temple.
24. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second
Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 146.
25. For more on the rule itself, see the seminal article in which the rule
was espoused, E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in
the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933): 12–21.
26. Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns,” JBL 92
(1973): 76ff. Harner’s assertion was further validated by C. Kuehne, “A
Postscript to Colwell’s Rule and John 1:1,” Journal of Theology 15 (1975):
22.
27. Paul S. Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate
Nominative in John” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975).
28. Nigel Turner, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, vol. 3,
Syntax, ed. J. H. Moulton (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1963), 174, 175, 184; see
also H. P. V. Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1938), 56.
29. Cleon Rogers Jr. and Cleon Rogers III, The New Linguistic and
Exegetical Keys to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998),
353; see also Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 690.
30. Steven E. Runge, The Lexham High Definition New Testament:
Introduction (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), s.v.
“metacomment.” See also Steven E. Runge, The Lexham Discourse Greek
New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), s.v “1
Cor. 3:16.”
31. The idea of danger and its concomitant relationship with holiness is
replete throughout the Old Testament. See Num. 4:5, 15, 19, 20; 1 Sam.
6:20; 2 Sam. 6:7; Lev. 10:6; 16:2, 13.
32. Sweeney, “Jesus, Paul, and the Temple,” 609–13. Sweeney makes
an interesting observation with respect to Paul’s metaphoric language in 1
Cor. 3:9–17. He sees a direct parallel and continuity between Jesus’s and
Paul’s attitudes toward the temple. Thus Jesus’s act of choosing twelve
disciples corresponds to the ministers at Corinth, while the Corinthian
church is reflective of the new community inaugurated by Jesus (Matt.
16:13–18; Gal. 2:7–8). Ibid., 614–19.
33. Bruce E. Hollenbach, “Two Constraints on Subordination in New
Testament Greek,” in Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation,
ed. Bruce Moore (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1985), 1–2.
34. Paul is not alone in this. Extra-biblical writings reveal that other
authors share a similar focus. See Epistle of Barnabas 4:11; 6:15; 10:7;
19:4; Herm. Mand. 4 1:1, 5; Herm. Mand. 8 1:3; Herm. Sim. 6 5:5; Did.
2:2; 3:3; Sir. 23:17, 23.
35. Cf. Gal. 5:19; Eph. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21.
36. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to
the Corinthians, 146ff.
37. W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in Romans through Galatians,
vol. 10 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).
38. Robert G. Bratcher, A Translator’s Guide to Paul’s First Letter to
the Corinthians (London: United Bible Societies, 1982), cited in Ronald L.
Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9 (Dallas, TX: Sil
International, 2008), 246.
39. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 146.
40. A. T. Robertson, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament in Light
of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1934), 1158–60.
 41. Herbert Danby, trans., The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew
with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1993), 9, 10.
42. Cf. David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of 2 Corinthians, 2nd
ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2008), 241. The concept of believers
constituting the temple is common in Scripture (e.g., Lev. 2:11; 2 Sam.
7:8; Isa. 43:6; 52:11; Jer. 31:9; Ezek. 20:34; Amos 3:13; John 14:23; Acts
18:4; 19:9).
43. P. W. Comfort, “Temple,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters,
ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 923–24.
44. The book of Hebrews uses skēnē extensively for the heavenly
sanctuary (Heb. 8:2, 5; 9:2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 21). If we assume Paul as the
author of Hebrews, it could suggest that by using skēnos/naos
metaphorically in reference to the believer, he is presumably using a
heavenly reality to explicate his theological dogma on the qualitative
aspects of the believer’s life.
45. Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2003), “skēnos.”
46. 1 Cor. 11:22; 16:15; 2 Cor. 5:1 (two times); Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:13;
2 Tim. 2:20; 3:6.
47. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 127.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., 94–99.
50. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to
the Corinthians, 996.
51. Ibid., 113.
52. The remaining two, Eph. 2:11 and Col. 2:11, refer to human
circumcision of the flesh and the circumcision of the heart, which is not
done with human hands.
53. Nichol, SDABC, 6:995.
54. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Waco, TX: Word Books,
1990), 105.
55. Francis Foulkers, Ephesians, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1978),
73.
56. Leroy Bartel, Prison Epistles: Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians and
Philippians (Springfield, MO: Global University, 2006), 77.
57. Of the six usages of the verb sygkathizō in the LXX (cf. Gen. 15:11;
Exod. 18:13, Num. 22:27; Jer. 16:18; 1 Esd. 9:7, 16) and the two uses in
Philo (Her. 243, 247), there is strong element of the literality attached to
the act of seating.
58. Thomas R. Y. Neufeld, Ephesians, Believers Church Bible
Commentary (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2001), 95.
59. For more on Christ sitting at the right hand of God, see Acts 2:33,
34; 5:31; 7:55; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22.
60. Robertson, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 586–89.
61. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 372.
62. Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New
Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 140–43. Robert
G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the
Ephesians (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 34–35.
63. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (Columbus, OH:
Lutheran, 1937), 400–401.
64. T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles
to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (New York: Scribner’s Sons,
1909), 50.
65. David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC, vol. 52A (Dallas: Word,
2002), 288–92.
66. Cf. P. H. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” in
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and
D. G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 418. According
to Towner, “Membership of a household in Roman culture meant identity,
refuge and protection, giving the security that comes with a sense of
belonging.”
67. T. R. Y. Neufeld, Ephesians, Believer’s Commentary (Scottdale,
PA: Herald Press, 2001), 132ff.
68. Cf. Lincoln, Ephesians, 154; Joachim Jeremias, “ἀκρογωνιαίοj,”
TDNT, 1:791–93; ibid., 4:268ff; F. F. Bruce, “New Wine in Old
Wineskins: The Corner Stone,” ExpTim 84, no. 8 (1972–73), 232; 1QS
5.6; 8.4, 5.
69. R. J. McKelvey, “Christ the Cornerstone,” NTS 8 (1961–62), 352–
59; idem, The New Temple (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), 195–
204.
70. Bruce, “New Wine in Old Wineskins,” 231–35.
71. Mark Bonnington, “New Temples in Corinth: Paul’s Use of Temple
Imagery in the Ethics of the Corinthian Correspondence,” in Heaven on
Earth, ed. T. D. Alexander and S. J. Gathercole (Carlisle: Paternoster,
2004), 152.
72. David Peterson, “The New Temple: Christology and Ecclesiology in
Ephesians and 1 Peter,” in Alexander and Gathercole, Heaven on Earth,
170.
73. Cf. 1QS 11:7–8.
74. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 219ff.

Chapter 10

1. According to Vincent Paul, this passage possesses three essential

traits of the apocalyptic genre: historical dualism, universal cosmic
expectation, and the imminent end of the world. “Apocalyptic Paul?” CBQ
47, no. 4 (1985): 665; see also L. Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), 32–70; W. Schmithals, The Apocalyptic Movements:
Introduction and Interpretation (New York: Abingdon, 1975), 29–49;
J. Collins, “Towards the Morphology of a Genre: Introduction,” Semeia 14
(1979): 2–19.
2. Hans K. Larondelle, How to Understand the End-time Prophecies of
the Bible: The Biblical Contextual Approach (Sarasota, FL: First
Impressions, 1997), 68; see also Leon Morris, The First and Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 223–24.
Calvin infers that, although the temple represents the church, it is only the
church under the domain of the papacy; on the contrary, Giblin thinks it is
a spiritual church. Charles Homer Giblin, The Threat to Faith: An
Exegetical and Theological Reexamination of 2 Thessalonians 2 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 76–80. McKelvey spiritualizes the
temple to represent Christ and the Christian church. R. J. McKelvey, The
New Temple: The Church in the New Testament, Oxford Theological
Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 43–45. Cf. Kim
Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 127–28.
3. Herschel Hobbs, “1–2 Thessalonians,” The Broadman Bible
Commentary, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1969),
292; J. Forestell, “The Letters to the Thessalonians,” JBC, ed. R. E. Brown
(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969), 234; Charles Wanamaker, The
Epistle to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 247–49.
Milligan believes it refers to the first-century Jerusalem temple in the time
of Paul. George Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians
(Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980), 99. F. F. Bruce, “1 and 2
Thessalonians,” The New Bible Commentary, ed. D. Guthrie (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1163. Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2
Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006), 218; Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the
Thessalonians, AB, vol. 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 420; James
D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making, vol 2
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 71; Kenneth Grayston, The Letters of
Paul to the Philippians and to the Thessalonians (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1967), 101–2; B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological
Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1968), 472.
Some understand the language of the temple to be pointing to the
Jerusalem temple but with an emphasis on Nero’s usurption of divine
prerogatives: e.g., Gary Demarest, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus,
The Communicator’s Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1984), 120 J. Stuart
Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine
of Our Lord’s Second Coming (1887; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1983), 181–84 (citation refers to the 1983 edition).
4. Robert L. Thomas, “2 Thessalonians,” in Ephesians through
Philemon, vol. 11 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), 322; D. Edmond
Hiebert, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 337–39. Cf.
Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 223–24. Morris sees the temple as a material
building where apostasy will be epitomized. Cf. J. F. Walvoord, The
Thessalonian Epistles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 124–26.
5. Richard H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon
(Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1946), 410–11. Lord Bishop advocates
that, though it refers to the “Holies of Holies,” it only refers
metaphorically to Christians (both individually and corporately). “2
Thessalonians,” in Romans to Philemon, vol. 10 of The Bible
Commentary, ed. F. C. Cook (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978), 736.
 6. Orchard cautions that this prophecy must be understood
apocalyptically and not literally. According to him, Paul is definitely
alluding to Matt. 24; Dan. 7:25; 11:36. Dom Bernard Orchard, “1 and 2
Thessalonians,” in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,
ed. Reginald C. Fuller (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 1208.
7. Richard believes that “the temple of God” should be viewed as
referring to God’s power and the work of the lawless man as symbolic of
human aspirations to divinity. Earl J. Richard, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,
Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 328–29.
8. According to Rolston, the phrases “the temple of God” and “man of
lawlessness” are borrowed, unfulfilled, first-century rhetoric that Paul used
to convey the message of a delayed parousia. He thus postulates that
Christians should not look for a future fulfilment but rather to the
consummation of this age. Holmes Rolston, The First and Second Letters
of Paul to the Thessalonians, the First and Second Letters of Paul to
Timothy, the First and Second Letters of Paul to Titus, the Letter of Paul to
Philemon, Layman’s Bible Commentary, vol. 23 (Atlanta: John Knox,
1963), 45–46.
9. William Neil, The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, The Moffat
New Testament Commentary (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1965), 164.
Neil, although stating that 2 Thess. 2:4 points to heaven, has not shown the
basis for his position through either an exegetical or a theological study.
10. John C. Callow, A Semantic and Structural Analysis of 2
Thessalonians (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 60.
11. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, 329.
12. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical
Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2004), 278.
13. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the KJV unless otherwise
specified.
14. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary 45
(Dallas, TX: Word, 1982), 95.
15. Nestle-Aland, NovT Graece, 27d. (Stuttgart: Bibelgesellschaft,
1993), 539.
16. Some argue that the letter referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is 1
Thessalonians, since sections of it might have caused some
misunderstanding. See James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1912), 247; I. Howard. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, The
New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983),
187; Wolfgang Trilling, Der Zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher,
Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), 77.
Wannamaker believes that 2 Thessalonians stemmed from the reports
Timothy brought back upon his first visit concerning the believers, their
deceased, and the relation of both to the parousia. See Charles A.
Wannamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the
Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 240–41.
17. Hiebert, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 309–16; Bruce, 1 and 2
Thessalonians, 148–57.
18. The verb antapodounai is also used in Luke 14:14; Rom. 12:19; and
Heb. 10:30, referring to God’s eschatological recompense.
19. See R. Jewett, The Thessalonians Correspondence: Pauline
Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 104–5. This
group was also addressed in 1 Thess. 5:14; it seems that issues at stake in
both epistles were related to the ataktoi in one way or another. More will
be said about this group in the background study.
20. See Bruce, “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” 1163; Hiebert, 1 and 2
Thessalonians, 383–87.
21. Mark Powell, Introduction to the New Testament: A Historical,
Literary, and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009),
387–93. He sees the judgment motif present in 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:16; and
also in Rom. 1:18; 2:5–8; 12:19.
22. See Isa. 6:1–13; 66:1–6; Jer. 25:30; Jon. 2:7; Mic. 1:2–3; Hab. 2:20;
Zech. 2:13.
23. Cf. 2 Kings 13:4; 22:19; 2 Chron. 33:12; Dan. 9:3, 13.
24. Cf. Pss. 20:10; 96:5, 13; 1 Pet. 3:12.
25. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New
Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); Dodd, The Old Testament in
the New (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
26. Henry Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (New
York: Ktav, 1968), 404; see also C. S. Lewis, The Literary Impact of the
Authorized Version (London: Athlone Press, 1950), 15.
27. Bruce, New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11–17.
 28. See Robert L. Thomas, “2 Thessalonians,” in Ephesians through
Philemon, vol. 11 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), 321–22. He sees Dan.
9:26, 27; 11:31, 36, 37; 12:11 as the most likely antecedent; see also
Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 167–68; Richard, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,
328–29; D. G. Barnhouse, Thessalonians: An Expositional Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 99; William Hendriksen, Exposition of
1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Testament Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1955), 176; Nichol purports a concomitant relationship
between 2 Thess. 2:3, 4; Dan. 7–11; and Rev. 13. Francis Nichol, ed.,
Philippians to Revelation, vol. 7 of SDABC (Washington, D. C.: Review
& Herald, 1957), 270–71; C. Auberlen and C. Riggenbach, The Two
Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1868),
127–28.
29. Vincent Miceli, The Antichrist (New York: Roman Catholic Books,
1981), 38–43. Some scholars see merit in ascribing Antiochus Epiphanes
to Ezek. 39:1–8; Joel 2:1–3, 30–33; Zech. 14:1–5; Mal. 4:5–6; David
Ewert, “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” The Evangelical Commentary on the
Bible, ed. A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 1090–91.
30. Richard, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 327, 350; Grayston, The Letters of
Paul, 101; Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 168; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “The
Slaying of Satan’s Superman and the Sure Salvation of the Saints,” CTJ 41
(2006): 81; John R. W. Stott, The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1991), 162–63; Thomas, “2
Thessalonians,” 322. Thomas includes Nero and Diocletian. L. J. Lietaert
Peerbolte, The Antecedent of the Antichrist: A Tradition-Historical Study
of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents (Leiden:
Brill, 1996), 78. Peerbolte postulates that several figures qualify for the
designation of man of sin; in addition to Antiochus, he cites Pompey,
Caligula, and Titus as possible alternatives. Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin,
128. Riddlebarger adopts a historicist approach to 2 Thess. 2:1–12 in that
he understands the temple of God as referring metaphorically to the
church. However, the Antichrist he sees as an individual that is futuristic
though having partial fulfillments in other personages of the past.
31. W. F. Peters, “A Difficult Passage in St. Paul: 2 Thess. 2:1–12”
Africa Ecclesial Review 7, no. 3 (1965): 202; Giblin, The Threat to Faith,
66. According to Best it can refer to a dreadful, futuristic opponent of
Christ. Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986), 285.
 32. S.v. “Man of Sin” (2 Thess. 2:4), in Nichols, Philippians to
Revelation, 269–71. The man of lawlessness of 2 Thess. 2:4 is seen as a
metonymy for the little horn of Dan. 7:8, 19–26, and the sea beast of Rev.
13:1–18. According to Barnes, the phrase “man of sin” refers to a
succession of popes and the character associated with them. Albert Barnes,
Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, Titus, and to Philemon
(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1859), 93–94. In the reckoning of Lenski
(The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles, 409), the man of lawlessness is
worse than any pagan (Pharaoh, Roman emperors, Antiochus Epiphanes)
since he exalts himself above God; Lenski suggests that only the papacy
fits this garb.
33. Stott, The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 165–66.
34. Callow, A Semantic and Structural Analysis of 2 Thessalonians, 60.
35. John A. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistles of
Paul to the Thessalonians (London: Macmillan, 1877), 348. Eadie argues
that the man of lawlessness cannot be the papacy since it involves a
succession of individuals when Paul means a single entity; Eadie cites
patristic material. According to Eadie, the fact that an abstract term was
not used militates against the appellation being a system. Nonetheless, he
acknowledges some papal claims as “wanton blasphemies” and concedes
that the character of the man of lawlessness “typifies” and “embodies” the
papacy. Yet he still contends that the man of lawlessness cannot be fully
ascribed to it. Eadie will have to rationalize the following statements made
without any disclaimer concerning the papacy: “[The pontiff] holds, as a
mortal God, the place of Christ on earth, and cannot be judged by a general
council”; “the Greatest and Best God”; “is not a man”; “none, except God,
is like the pope, either in heaven or on earth”; “who occupies the place, not
of a mere man, but of the true God”; “the pope holds the place of the true
God”; “God on earth”; and “the pope can do nearly all that God can do.”
For more, see Samuel Edgar, The Variations of Popery (New York:
Holman & Gray, 1848), 153–58. If these attributions to the papacy do not
tantamount to one who epitomizes lawlessness, what will? The
overwhelming evidence speaks to the contrary of Eadie’s position, both
from within the camp of Catholicism (Gregory I, John Bishop of
Constantinople, Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans, and Pope John XV) as well
as its dissenters (Waldensians, the Hussites, and the followers of Wycliffe,
Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Beza, Bullinger, Cranmer,
Ridley, and Latimer, among others).
36. Weima, “The Slaying of Satan’s Superman,” 83.
 37. George G. Findlay, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, with
Introduction, Notes, and Maps (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1898), 143.
38. The KJV will be the used in this comparison unless otherwise stated.
Regarding the statement “he will intend to make alterations in times and in
law” in Dan. 7:25b (NASB), see Hendriksen, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 176.
Regarding the phrase “eyes of a man” in Dan. 7:8, the act of seeing in the
book of Daniel is always accompanied by a corresponding behavior in
accordance with what the eyes are fixated upon (Dan. 8:3; 9:18; 10:5). In
Dan. 7–8 the actions of seeing and speaking blasphemous words are
closely related, emanating from the anti-God figure (7:8, 20, 25). This
figure engages in the same deceptive work as the man of lawlessness,
evidence to their synonymity. In light of the conceptual congruence that
Dan. 7–8, 11 shares with 2 Thess. 2:1–12 relative to their historical
personages and theological and eschatological framework, the judgment
occuring in both contexts is understood to be existing in the sanctuary.
39. William H. Shea, “Unity of Daniel,” in Symposium on Daniel, ed.
Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986),
177–79. Cf. Etoughe A. Patrick, “Transgression, Abomination, and the
Related Destruction in Dan 8 and 9” (master’s thesis, Adventist
International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2006), 53.
40. Shea, “Unity of Daniel,” 198–99.
41. C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 1: The Message of Daniel for
You and Your Family (Boise, ID: Pacific, 1985), 327; S. N. Haskel, The
Story of the Seer of Patmos (Nashville: Southern Publishing, 1905), 232;
L. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, DC: Review
& Herald, 1954), 299, 319, 520. The beast of Rev. 13 is understood to
represent the same power as Dan. 7:25 and—by extension—2 Thess. 2:4.
Interestingly, like Dan. 7 and 8, the apocalyptic prophecy in Rev. 13 first
moves heavenward before descending to earth; the leopard-bodied beast
begins by blaspheming the name of God, His sanctuary, and those who
dwell in heaven. Then the beast makes war with God’s people on earth.
The parallel between 2 Thess. 2 and Rev. 13 makes it even more likely that
the former should be interpreted within a similar contextual framework
with reference to the antichrist personage and his aspersion on the
heavenly sanctuary. Additionally, Rev. 12–14 revolves around the issue of
worship, to which 1 Thess. 2:4 also alludes.
42. Rev. 3:12; 7:15; 11:1–2, 19; 14:15, 17; 15:5, 6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22.
43. Kim Papaioannou, “The Heavenly Temple in the Gospel of John,”
Ministry (April 2105), 20–23.
44. Stephen M. Bryan, “The Eschatological Temple in John 14,” BBR
15, no. 2 (2005) 195–98. See also Brooke F. Westcott, The Gospel
According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes
(London: Murray, 1908), 167.
45. See Mario Phillip, “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Thessalonians’
Apocalypse: Explicating Their Innertextuality and Intertextuality within
the Pauline Corpus” (PhD diss., Adventist International Institute of
Advanced Studies, 2013), 128–79, 200–228.
46. Other metaphorical motifs denoting the church as the house of God
or pillars thereof can be found in 1 Pet. 4:17; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:1–6; and
Gal. 2:9.
47. See 2:4; cf. Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 29:17.
48. Andrea Spatafora, From the Temple of God to God as the Temple: A
Biblical Theological Study of the Temple in the Book of Revelation (Rome:
Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1997), 123.
49. See Phillip, “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Thessalonians’
Apocalypse,” 406–80.
50. See CD–A VI, 11–14; CD–A XI, 17–21; see also Bertil Gärtner, The
Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A
Comparative Study on Temple Symbolism of the Quran Texts and the New
Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 16–46.
51. 1QS VIII, 4b–10; Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English,
4th ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 80; cf. Jer. 1:10; 18:9; 24:6:
31:8. The priests of the community were thought to be men of “supreme
holiness” (CD IV, 1; cf. Ezek. 44:15).
52. See 1QS IX, 3–6; 1QS III, 20–22; 1QS IX, 14.
53. 4QS VII, 6; cf. McKelvey, The New Temple, 37–40. The prevailing
sentiment at Qumran, and by extension within Judaism, was that the
eschatological temple was nothing other than the heavenly temple
descending upon the earth; as such, their belief in an eschatological temple
was based on the presupposition of its heavenly reality.
54. See 1Q32; 2Q24; 4Q554; 4Q554a, 4Q555; 5Q15; 11Q18.
55. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Word
Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 222.
56. Cf. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 3:15; 4:15, 43; Let. Aris. 1:266; Liv. Pro. 3:20; 3
Macc. 7:9. Another semantic nuance can be found in the cognate
antikrinomai, “to contend or rebuke” (cf. Job 9:32; 11:3).
57. Other semantic nuances from cognates include hypergontos and
hyperagan, “exceedingly” (2 Macc. 7:20; 10:34); hyperagō, “preeminent”
(1 Macc. 6:43); hyperanetos, “to be praised exceedingly” (Dan. 3:28),
hyperallomai, “to leap into prominence” (Sir. 38:33).
58. The adjective sebastos is used in Acts 25:21, 25; 27:1 to denote the
emperor as one worthy of respect.
59. A few scattered extra-biblical references can be found in Wis. 14:20;
15:20; Bel. 1:27.
60. BDAG, s.v. “sebasma.”
61. Ibid.
62. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1996), vol. 2, s.v. “sebasma.” Also, James
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains:
Greek New Testament (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997),
s.v. “sebasma”; Horst R. Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical
Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), vol. 3,
s.v. “sebasma.”
63. J. Gwyn Griffiths, “2 Thessalonians 2:4,” Expository Times 52
(1940–41): 38.
64. H. Preisker, “naos,” in TDNT, 4:882–83. The LXX uses the noun
naos to refer primarily to either the heavenly (2 Sam. 22:7; Pss. 11:4; 18:6)
or the earthly (1 Sam. 1:9; 2 Chron. 4:22; Hag. 2:9; Zech. 8:9; Jon. 2:7)
temple.
65. Robert E. Smith, “Recognizing Prominent Features in the Greek
New Testament,” in Selected Technical Articles Relating to Translation,
ed. Bruce Moore (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1985), 19.
In 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:16; 2 Cor. 6:19; and Eph. 2:21 Paul uses naos to refer
to the community of believers, the church. Believers are God’s temple in
that they emulate in their lives the fruit of the Spirit made possible by His
indwelling.
66. Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulations: A Biblical
Examination of Post-Tribulationism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973),
117–18. Gundry agrees that the article here delineates a special or well-
known apostasy, which is led by the Antichrist against God.
67. Giblin, The Threat to Faith, 70. Giblin sees ho anthrōpos tēs
anomias as denoting an anti-God figure par excellence.
68. G. K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, IVP New Testament Commentary
Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 209.
69. Moses Stuart, A Treatise on the Syntax of the New Testament Dialect
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1835), 47, 48.
70. Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in
the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 764.
71. Roger D. Aus, “God’s Plan and God’s Power: Isaiah 66 and the
Restraining Factors of 2 Thess 2:6–7,” Journal of Biblical Literature 96
(1977): 549–53.
72. Richard C. Blight, An Exegetical Summary of 1 & 2 Thessalonians,
2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2008), 216.
73. Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings (1917; repr., Mountain View,
CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1943), 499.

Chapter 11

1. E.g., “Nel mistero della sua morte e risurrezione Cristo ha quindi

realizzato in pienezza tutti gli effetti che l’at si proponeva con il suo
complesso sistema sacrificale e con i solenni riti del Giorno
dell’Espiazione” (“In the mystery of his death and resurrection Christ has,
therefore, carried out in fullness to all intents and purposes what the OT
intended with its complex sacrificial system and with the solemn rite of the
Day of Atonement”); Fulvio Di Giovambattista, Il Giorno dell’Espiazione
nella Lettera agli Ebrei, Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia (Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 2000), 199.
2. Edgar V. McKnight and Christopher Church, Hebrews–James,
SHBC, 115. Marie Isaacs agrees, “In his book, The Epistle of Priesthood,
2nd ed. . . . Alexander Nairne suggested that the main message of Hebrews
was, ‘Think of our Lord as a priest, and I will make you understand.’ We
need to be more precise than that, however. It is not to priests in general,
but to ancient Judaism’s high priest in particular, and even more
particularly, to his part in the Day of Atonement ritual, that our author
turns his thought.” “Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” HeyJ 38
(1997): 55.
3. Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the
Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspective (St.
Meinard, IN.: Grail, 1960), 170–202. Also (I cite only the more recent
examples), Christian A. Eberhart, “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors
in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights,
ed. Gabriella Gelardini, BibInt 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 62–64; Susan
Haber, “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus: The Re-Vision of Covenant
and Cult in Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28
(2005): 117–24; Donald A. Hagner, “The Son of God as Unique High
Priest: The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Contours of
Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, McMaster
New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 259–60; Craig
R. Koester, “God’s Purposes and Christ’s Saving Work According to
Hebrews,” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on
Soteriology, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, NovTSup 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2005),
373; Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, “Does the Cultic
Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on
Some Basic Problems,” in Gelardini, Hebrews, 13; McKnight and Church,
Hebrews–James, 115; Kenneth L. Schenck, Understanding the Book of
Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2003), 14–15, 72; Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on
Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to
the Fifth Century (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 225, 180–97; Daniel
J. Brege, “Eucharistic Overtones Created by Sacrificial Concepts in the
Epistle to the Hebrews,” CTQ 66 (2002): 66–70; Norman H. Young, “The
Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement? The Old Testament
Background to Hebrews 6:19–20 Revisited,” AUSS 40 (2002): 61–68;
Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18:
A Symphony in Three Movements,” BBR 11 (2001): 188, 192; David A.
DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on
the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 291; Di
Giovambattista, Il Giorno dell’Espiazione nella Lettera agli Ebrei, 196.
4. E.g., Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 423.
Against, William G. Johnsson, “Day of Atonement Allusions,” in Issues in
the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation
Committee Series 4 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute,
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1989), 115. César
Augusto Franco Martínez has challenged the view that this passage refers
to the parousia, arguing that it refers to the “revelación del Resucitado, de
la que sólo los que le acogen como Salvador son beneficiarios”
(“revelation of the Risen One, of which only those who embrace him as
Savior are beneficiaries”), Jesucristo, su personay su obra, en la Carta a
los Hebreos: Lengua y cristología en Heb 2, 9–10; 5, 1–10; 4, 14 y 9, 27–
28, Studia Semitica Novi Testamenti 1 (Madrid: Ciudad Nueva, 1992),
383.
5. Quoted by F. Dunkel, “Expiation et Jour des Expiations dans L’épître
aux Hebreux,” RRef 33, no. 2 (1982): 63. Gelardini has recently suggested
that Hebrews is an ancient synagogue homily for Tisha be-Av, the most
important day of mourning in Jewish tradition that is intimately related to
the Day of Atonement. These two days are the only ones in the liturgical
year in which the most rigorous fasting is required. “Hebrews, an Ancient
Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological
Interpretation,” in Gelardini, Hebrews, 107–27.
6. Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism
and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT 142 (2001), 357.
7. Harold W. Attridge, “The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,” HTR
79 (1986): 9.
8. For a brief evaluation of the allusions to the Day of Atonement
identified by Hebrews’ scholars, see Johnsson, “Day of Atonement
Allusions,” in Holbrook, Issues in the Book of Hebrews, 112–15. It is
alluded to—perhaps—in several others (Heb. 1:3; 3:2, 5, 6; 2:11, 14–15;
4:14, 5:3; 6:19–20; 9:5, 23, 28; 13:9–16).
9. James P. Scullion, A Traditio-historical Study of the Day of
Atonement (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press,
1990), 252.
10. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NRSV.
11. See William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, WBC 47b (Dallas: Word,
1991), 223. The high point of the ritual of the Day of Atonement came
when the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices upon and in front
of the mercy seat to purify the sanctuary (Lev. 16:15–16). Interestingly,
Hebrews departs from the language of the LXX to describe the
manipulation of blood by the high priest on the Day of Atonement: the
blood is not “sprinkled” on the sanctuary but “offered” (9:7). See Lane,
Hebrews 9–13, 223. Also Darrell J. Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the
Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical,
1993), 70.
12. M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, SBLDS,
no. 142 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 246; Haber, “From Priestly
Torah to Christ Cultus,” 109–10.
 13. Review of William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine
traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des
Hebräerbriefes, JBL 103 (1984): 304.
14. Ibid. (emphasis his).
15. Hagner, “The Son of God as Unique High Priest,” 249.
16. Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTSup 73 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 178.
17. For a discussion of the royal connotations in the description of Jesus
as the great Shepherd of the sheep, see Hagner, “The Son of God as
Unique High Priest,” 263–65.
18. The sources of the seven quotations are the following: Heb. 1:5
quotes Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:14 (par. 1 Chron. 17:13). Heb. 1:6–12 quotes
(a form not directly attested of) Deut. 32:43b LXX, Pss. 104:4 (103:4
LXX); 45:6–7 (44:6–7 LXX); and 102:25–27 (101:26–28 LXX). (We
cannot be certain of the source of the quotation of Heb. 1:6. Beyond Deut.
32:43b LXX, other possibilities are Ps. 96:7 LXX, Odes Sol. 2:43b, and
4QDeut 32:43. Odes Sol. 2:43b is the closest text, but manuscript evidence
suggests that this reading is not older than the fifth century AD and is the
result of Christian editing. For an analysis of the different solutions to the
problem, see Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als
Schriftausleger, Biblische Untersuchungen 4 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968),
53. Heb. 1:13 quotes Ps. 110:1 (109:1 LXX).
19. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the
Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 108–10; F. Laub,
Bekenntnis und Auslegung, Die paränetische Funktion der Christologie im
Hebräerbrief, in Biblische Un- tersuchungen 15 (Regensburg: Pustet,
1980), 56; Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966), 116–17.
20. This notion appears in pre-Pauline and Pauline formulations in Rom.
1:3 and 2 Tim. 2:8. See also Mark 12:35–37 and par.; Luke 1:32, 69; Acts
13:33–34; Rev. 5:5; 22:16. See Eduard Lohse, “υἱός Δαυιδ,” TDNT 8:482–
8.
21. See G. B. Caird, “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age:
Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. W. C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press, 1984), 1:76; Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews:
Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle, Paternoster
Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2005), 111–20.
See also Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Psalm 45:6–7 and Its Christological
Contribution to Hebrews,” TJ 22 (2001): 3–21.
22. Ps. 110 was understood as messianic in the New Testament (Matt.
22:42–45 [par. Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44]; Matt. 26:64 [par. Mark
14:62; Luke 22:69]; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34–35; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25;
Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1).
23. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 203.
24. This is confirmed by the fact that sonship plays an important role in
the “perfecting” of Jesus as High Priest in Heb. 5:8–10. In 7:28 the author
connects the appointment of Jesus as High Priest with His being perfected
as Son.
25. According to Hebrews, the law of the priesthood through Levi had
been abolished because it was weak and ineffective (7:18). It was
ineffective because it did not perfect the people; it did not provide true
cleansing and access to God (7:18–19). Even the high priests were subject
to weaknesses and needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins (v. 27). The
law was weak because its high priests were mortal and therefore many in
number (7:23–25). The new covenant appoints a Son who lives forever
and is sinless. Therefore, it is effective because it provides access to God.
The Son “is able for all time to save those who approach God through him,
since he always lives to make intercession for them” (7:25).
26. The books of Chronicles refer only to Hezekiah and Josiah in these
terms (2 Chron. 29:2; 34:2). Other Davidic kings received qualified praise.
First Kings 22:43 and 2 Kings 15:34 consider that Jehoshaphat and Jotham
(respectively) did “what was right in the sight of the LORD,” but there is no
mention that they followed the example of their “father David.” Solomon
(1 Kings 3:3 [see, though, 11:4]) and Joash (2 Kings 12:2; cf. 14:3) also
receive qualified praise.
27. This includes the five righteous sons: Solomon (1 Kings 8:14–26,
56–58, 61; 2 Chron. 5:7–10); Asa (15:10–14); Joash (2 Kings 11:17; 2
Chron. 23:16); Hezekiah (29:10); and Josiah (2 Kings 23:1–3; 2 Chron.
34:29–33).
28. Again, this includes four righteous sons: Asa (1 Kings 15:12–13; 2
Chron. 14:3, 5; 15:8); Joash (2 Kings 11:18; 2 Chron. 23:17); Hezekiah
(31:1); and Josiah (2 Kings 23:4–20; 2 Chron. 34:3–7). Similarly,
Solomon cleanses the land from blood guilt (1 Kings 2).
29. This includes five sons. Solomon built the temple and consecrated it
(1 Kings 5–8; 2 Chron. 2–7). Asa repaired the altar and brought votive
offerings to the temple (2 Chron. 15:8; cf. 1 Kings 15:15; 2 Chron. 15:18),
and Joash repaired the temple (2 Kings 12:1–16; 2 Chron. 24:4–14).
Hezekiah and Josiah both repaired the temple and cleansed the temple to
reconsecrate it (2 Kings 22:3–7; 2 Chron. 29; 2; 34:8–13).
30. This includes four sons. The changes ordained by David to the
organization of priests and Levites were implemented by Solomon (2
Chron. 8:14–15) and reinstated by Joash (23:17–19), Hezekiah (31:2), and
Josiah (35:1–16).
31. This includes four kings. Solomon reigned over “all Israel” (1 Kings
4:1; 2 Chron. 1:2–3). Joash (2 Chron. 24:5), Hezekiah (2 Chron. 30:5–18),
and Josiah (2 Chron. 34:5–7) promoted the reunification of Israel through
the cult.
32. This is mentioned in the rule of three sons: Solomon, as a result of
the victories of David (1 Kings 5:4; 8:56; cf. 2 Sam. 8:1–14); Asa, who
defeats Zerah the Ethiopian (2 Chron. 14:1, 6; 15:15); and Hezekiah, who
defeats Sennacherib (32:22).
33. This happens in the rule of three kings: Solomon is anointed with
Zadok (1 Chron. 29:22; cf. 1 Kings 2:26–27); Joash with Jehoiada (2
Kings 12:2; 2 Chron. 24:2, 14, 16); Josiah with Hilkiah (2 Kings 22:4–7; 2
Chron. 34:9–14).
34. Some, like Josephus, renounced a Davidic hope. For others, the
Davidic covenant was part of a glorious past that continued to live on in
the heroics of contemporary rulers (1 Macc. 2:57) or they considered its
functions taken over by the current priesthood (Sir.). A third group still
clung to the Davidic covenant as a source of eschatological hope
promising a holy and righteous ruler to restore Israel (Pss. Sol. 17), a
military figure to lead in the war against eschatological enemies (Qumran),
or a figure to pronounce judgment but whose function was only temporary
(4 Ezra). This reflects the fragmentary nature of early Judaism.
35. Expectations regarding the priests and the temple are notoriously
absent, however.
36. Ina Willi-Plein, “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of
Old Testament Exegesis,” in Gelardini, Hebrews: Contemporary Methods
—New Insights, 28; Joseph Moingt, “La fin du sacrifice,” LumVie 43, no. 2
(1994): 24–25.
 37. William G. Johnsson, “Defilement/Purification and Hebrews 9:23,”
in Holbrook, Issues in the Book of Hebrews, 80.
38. See Ben Ezra, Impact of Yom Kippur, 145–257. Regarding John
17:19, see Douglas Farrow, “Ascension and Atonement,” The Theology of
Reconciliation (ed. Colin E. Gunton; London: T & T Clark, 2003), 71. For
references to Revelation, see G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the
Revelation of Saint John the Divine, BNTC, ed. Henry Chadwick
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 103–11, 140–46; Farrow, “Ascension
and Atonement,” 90–91. Jon Paulien accepts that Revelation 11:15–19
points to the Day of Atonement but considers that 8:1–5 and 15:1–8 refer
to the inauguration (and de-inauguration) of the sanctuary. “The Role of
the Hebrew Cultus, Sanctuary, and Temple in the Plot and Structure of the
Book of Revelation,” AUSS 33 (1995): 252–53.
39. See David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early
Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1973), 19–33. For the
use of other Davidic (Zion) traditions in the catena, see Son, Zion
Symbolism in Hebrews, 111–24.

Chapter 12

1. Daniel B. Wallace, “Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,”

Bible.org, June 28, 2004, https://bible.org/seriespage/hebrews-
introduction-argument-and-outline.
2. Gerd Theissen, A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion (London:
SCM, 2003), 31: “I want to claim that in all that he said, Jesus remained
within the framework of Judaism.”
3. Buchanan notes the centrality of “Jesus’ sacrifice as an atonement
offering,” in the epistle. To believers who might be tempted to offer
sacrifices, “the author’s response was that Jesus’ sacrifice was once-for-
all.” George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews, AB 36 (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1972), 266.
4. Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, “Does the Cultic
Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on
Some Basic Problems,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New
Insights, ed. Gabriela Gelardini (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 14. They note that
“no other document of the New Testament seems to make a more
comprehensive use of sacrificial metaphors with regard to the death of
Jesus than Hebrews.” Eberhart likewise: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is the
only writing of the New Testament extensively employing sacrificial
images and metaphors.” Christian A. Eberhart, “Characteristics of
Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” in Gelardini, Hebrews: Contemporary
Methods, 37.
5. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the ESV unless otherwise
specified.
6. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 132.
7. Cf. LSJ, s.v.
8. Ray C. Steadman, Hebrews, The New Testament Commentary Series
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 3.
9. Eberhart, “Characteristics,” 60. “This statement [Heb. 10:11] prepares
the exclusive claim that only Christ’s sacrifice is valid.”
10. Buchanan (To the Hebrews, 8) understands the purification in view
to relate to Jesus’s own person: “purification for [his] sins.” Variant (and
probably later, interpretative) readings stress that the purification was for
the sins of others, giving an atoning meaning to the sacrifice of Jesus,
which Buchanan believes is not in the original. Buchanan is wrong. The
use of the verb form katharizō, cognate to katharismon, is used in Hebrews
repeatedly and consistently for the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus
(Heb. 9:14, 22, 23; 10:2).
11. John Paul Heil, Hebrews, Chiastic Structures and Audience
Response, CBQMS 46 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of
America, 2010), 31. Heil sees the phrase as signifying the making of
expiation.
12. LSJ, s.v.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid. It seems that in secular contexts the noun implies secular
ministry, while in religious contexts ritual ministry is more in view.
15. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 19.
16. Robert P. Gordon, Hebrews (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008),
109. Gordon pointedly observes: “The assumption behind v. 2 is that the
Jewish sanctuaries were the earthly counterparts of the real and permanent
shrine of God in heaven. Seen in this light, the Mosaic tabernacle was only
a ‘sketch and shadow’ of the heavenly archetype (v. 5).”
17. Stedman is of the opinion that the church is the “true tent” in heaven
described in Hebrews. Ray C. Stedman, Hebrews, The New Testament
Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 33, 50.
He admits that this is “difficult” to grasp, and he also admits that an actual
heavenly temple is depicted in texts like Rev. 4–5. But Stedman affirms
that in Hebrews the “true tent” is the church, going so far as to say that
“what Moses saw on the mountain was the human person as we are meant
to be” (54). Stedman’s approach is too farfetched. It is true that temple
language is at times applied to the church (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor.
6:16; Eph. 2:21; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 3:12). A “temple” is the dwelling place
of deity, and since God dwells among his people, the church constitutes a
type of temple. But such usage is only metaphorical and secondary. The
Father and the Son’s true dwelling place is in heaven, and their heavenly
habitation is the true “temple” or “sanctuary.”
18. There seems to be a parallel here with an LXX reading of Num.
24:6, where the Lord pitches tents. Gordon (Hebrews, 109) notes that this
would highlight the heavenly sanctuary’s permanence in contrast to that of
the earthly.
19. McKnight, “Hebrews,” 182.
20. Heil, Hebrews, Chiastic Structures, 197: “The negativity of this
earthly ‘pattern’ is implicitly present now as the audience hear about those
who offer worship in a mere earthly ‘pattern’ (hypodeigmati) and shadow
of the heavenly things (8:5a).”
21. McKnight, “Hebrews,” 182.
22. Ibid., 184. He writes: “The use of the term ‘shadow’ for elements of
the material world is Platonic” and cites The Republic 7.515 A–B.
Similarity of terminology does not imply similarity of outlook. The
concept of earthly shadows versus heavenly realities can better be
explained within a biblical framework and worldview.
23. See Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 134–35.
24. Cf. LSJ, s.v.; BDAG, s.v.
25. Heil, Hebrews, Chiastic Structures, 223.
26. BDAG, s.v.
27. Heil, Hebrews, Chiastic Structures, 251.
28. Gordon (Hebrews, 111): “The inclusion of the word ‘everything’ in
the quotation from Exodus underlines the fact that in all respects the
tabernacle was derivative from, and subordinate to, the heavenly
exemplar.”
 29. Cf. BDAG, s.v.
30. Buchanan (To the Hebrews, 146) mistakenly understands the “time
of reformation” or the “time of making straight” as the end of the present
evil age and compares it with Acts 3:21. But the context is different. Acts
3:21 speaks of Christ’s ascension to heaven, where he waits for the time to
restore everything as prophesied by the “holy prophets long ago.” Heb.
9:9–10 speaks about the “gift and sacrifices” of the earthly temple service,
which “cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper.” These were
replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus, who by dying once secured “eternal
redemption” (9:12). So the time of reformation in Hebrews is not the end
of the age but the point at which the sacrifice of Christ secured this
redemption. Heil (Hebrews, Chiastic Structures, 226) describes it as “the
time that has now definitively arrived (9:9a) for the audience, as the time
in which the old ‘first’ covenant is being replaced by the new covenant
promised by God (8:13).”
31. For a fuller discussion, see “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Book of
Daniel” by Carlos Elías Mora, chapter 6 of this volume.
32. The word for “offer,” prospherō, is used nineteen times in Hebrews.
The meaning is to “bring something,” but in the LXX and NT it is often
used of gifts and sacrifices in the temple. See Buchanan, To the Hebrews,
93–94; Eberhart, “Characteristics,” 38; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to
the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1989), 14.
33. Eberhart (“Characteristics,” 56): “Hebrews 7 explores the image of
Christ as the holy and blameless high priest. As such, he appears in
opposition to the human high priest, who is still defiled by sin and will
always be so. While the human high priest therefore needs to offer . . .
many sacrifices for himself, Christ has offered himself once.”
34. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 118.
35. Ibid.
36. Gordon (Hebrews, 100) observes that it was common at the time to
understand the place-name Salem as denoting “peace.”
37. E.g., William M. Templeton, Understanding Genesis (Maitland, FL:
Xulon Press, 2010), 210; cf. Douglas Welker Kennard, Messiah Jesus:
Christology in His Day and Ours (New York: Land, 2008), 358. In extra-
biblical Jewish thinking, there was speculation as to the identity of
Melchizedek, with the fragmentary Qumran 11Q13 scroll ascribing him
quasi-messianic status (see Gordon, Hebrews, 100).
 38. Hartmut Gese, “Die Sόhne,” Zur biblischen Theologie:
Alttestamentliche Vortrδge (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 95–99.
Eberhart (“Characteristics,” 41–42) pointedly observes that after the
inauguration of the covenant in Exod. 24, Moses and the elders see God
but do not die because they had been sprinkled with the blood of the
covenant. By contrast, Jacob Milgrom has argued that the aim of sacrifices
was to cleanse not personal sin but the defilement brought upon the
sanctuary. The views are not mutually exclusive. Blood cleansed
individual, corporate, and sanctuary sin in the sense that human sin defiles
the sanctuary where humans entered and ministered. Leviticus 1–16: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York:
Doubleday, 1991), 254.
39. Gordon, Hebrews, 128. Gordon correctly notes a parallel with Col.
2:17 (both of which share a ritual framework) but draws a wrong
conclusion when he states that “the Old Testament system of law was
founded on the Levitical priesthood the failure of the latter, which the
writer sought to demonstrate in ch. 9, would have implications for the
whole superstructure” and it is therefore a “shadow.” Gordon is right in
that, in Hebrews, Israel’s temple ritual is seen as a shadow. However, her
moral, legal framework, as exemplified in the Ten Commandments,
continues unaffected and indeed strengthened (Heb. 8:10–11).
40. Buchanan (To the Hebrews, 163) notes that Hebrews ties the
concept of perfection to sacrifices. “The law . . . can never . . . make
perfect those who draw near” (Heb. 10:1; cf. 9:9).
41. Ibid., 166, “sanctified . . . to perpetuity.”
42. Ibid., 123. Buchanan understands the law in question to be “either
Leviticus or, more likely, the entire Pentateuch.”
43. Scott W. Hahn, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη
[diathēkē] in Heb 9:15–22,” in Gelardini, Hebrews: Contemporary
Methods, 67. Hahn pointedly notes that ancient covenants—even those
outside the Bible—had two dimensions: legal and ritual. “The two aspects
of the covenant, legal and liturgical, are inextricably bound in a reciprocal
relationship. On the one hand, cultic acts (i.e., sacrificial rites) establish the
covenant (Heb 9:18–21, 23), and also renew it (Heb 9:7; 10:3). On the
other hand, the covenantal law provides the legal framework for the cult,
determining the suitable persons, materials, acts, and occasions for
worship (Heb 7:11–28; 9:1–5). Thus, the liturgy mediates the covenant,
while covenant law regulates the liturgy.”
44. Hahn, “Covenant, Cult,” 65, emphasis his. Hahn is right in
highlighting the cultic dimension of covenant, but wrong in assuming that
Hebrews is unique in this respect. The cultic dimension of covenant is
evident from the moment it was established with Abraham (Gen. 15:9–21),
to the blood of the covenant sprinkled on the altar and the people in
Exod. 24, to the Passover cup as the “blood of the covenant” in the gospels
(Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). Covenant and sanctuary ritual are
inseparable throughout Scripture, but Hahn is correct in that Hebrews
especially highlights the ritual dimension.
45. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 108.
46. E.g., Prov. 24:16; Isa. 1:26; 60:10; Jer. 3:12–14; 15:19; 33:10–16;
Ezek. 20:44; Hos. 2:14–20, 23; 11:8; Rom. 9:25.
47. Gordon (Hebrews, 113) notes that “It would be a strangely
disinterested comment by an otherwise interested party if it were not also a
comment on the imminent fate of the Jerusalem cultus.”
48. Edgar McKnight, “Hebrews” in Hebrews–James (Macon, GA:
Smyth & Helwys, 2004), 184.
49. Robert P. Gordon, Hebrews (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008),
111.

Chapter 13

1. My translation; other Bible quotations in this chapter are taken from

the ESV.
2. E.g., Elias Brasil de Souza, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif
in the Hebrew Bible: Function and Relationship to the Earthly
Counterparts” (PhD diss., Andrews University, April 2005).
3. E.g., Heb. 8:1–2; 9:11; Rev. 3:12; 7:15; 11:1, 2, 19; 14:15, 17; 15:5,
6, 8; 16:1, 17.
4. E.g., Eph. 2:19–21; Gal. 4:26; 2 Cor. 5:1. See Richard L. Pratt, “An
Urgent Ministry, 2 Corinthians 5:1–6:2,” IIIM Magazine Online 4, no. 9
(March 4–10, 2002): 610; 2 Cor. 12:2–4; John 17 (cf. John 14:1–3);
William Hamblin, “‘I Have Revealed Your Name’: The Hidden Temple in
John 17” (paper, Brigham Young University, August 2011). John develops
the idea of the “Father’s House” in John 17 as a reference to the throne of
God in heaven and His temple there.
5. See Fernando L. Canale, “Philosophical Foundations and the Biblical
Sanctuary,” AUSS 36, no. 2 (Autumn 1998): 183–206.
 6. Karen H. Jobes also sees the close relationship between “house of
God” here and “living stones” in 2:5. See Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 290. Cf. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter,
WBC 49 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 270.
7. The idea of stones in a building can be seen in the explanation given
by Peter in the following verse (v. 6), which starts with the subordinating
conjunction dioti (“because”) introducing an explanation to indicate why
something just stated can be reasonably considered as valid (see the
definition in BDAG, 251). See the same use in 1 Pet. 1:16, 24. Daniel
Wallace calls it the adverbial causal conjunction (Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics—Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996], 674). Peter then compares these living stones with the
cornerstone in a scripture passage applied directly to Jesus, the Messiah
(see also vv. 7, 8).
8. The same phrase is used in Matt. 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, and
Acts 4:11 with the same application to Jesus.
9. This polemic can be inferred by the judgment context of the passage
(2:6–8) and the parallel references (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17;
Acts 4:11); cf. Matt. 21:43, 45; Mark 12:12, and Luke 20:19. In Isa. 28:16
—the OT context—the judgment from God over Jerusalem comes through
the cornerstone put in Zion.
10. Rom. 12:1; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15–16. The concept of sacrifice
is closely tied to priesthood (Heb. 5:1). The fact that spiritual sacrifices are
accompanied by the adjective euarestos, “acceptable” (Rom. 12:1; Phil.
4:18); the verb euaresteō, “are pleasing” (Heb. 13:15–16); or the adjective
euprosdektos, “acceptable” (1 Pet. 2:5) indicates that—like Abel’s
sacrifice (Gen. 4:4)—these spiritual sacrifices are more acceptable to God
than the now-defunct sacrifices of the Jerusalem temple.
11. 1 Pet. 2:21–24; cf. 1 Pet. 2:5; 2 Cor. 5:2; Heb. 4:15; 9:28.
12. Cf. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; John 2:21.
13. David Arthur deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament:
Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2004), 841.
14. E.g., see the multiple references and allusions to the OT: 1 Pet. 1:16
(Lev. 11:44, 45; 19:2); 1:24, 25 (Isa. 40:6–9); 2:3 (Ps. 34:8); 2:6 (Isa.
28:16); 2:7 (Ps. 118:22); 2:8 (Isa. 8:14, 15); 2:9 (Exod. 19:5, 6; Deut. 4:20;
7:6, etc.); 2:22 (Isa. 53:9); 2:24 (Isa. 53:5); 2:25 (Isa. 53:6); 3:12 (Ps.
34:12–16); 3:20 (Gen. 6:17, 24); 4:18 (Prov. 11:31); and 5:5 (Prov. 3:34).
 15. pathēma: 1 Pet. 1:11; 4:13; 5:1, 9; paschō: 1 Pet. 2:19, 20, 21, 23;
3:14, 17, 18; 4:1, 15, 19; 5:10; doxazō: 1 Pet. 1:8; 2:12; 4:11, 16; doxa: 1
Pet. 1:7, 11, 21, 24; 4:11, 13, 14; 5:1, 4, 10; and kleos: 1 Pet. 2:20.
16. 1 Pet. 1:4, 5; 2:23; 3:12; 4:2, 5, 7; 4:13, 17; 5:4.
17. See Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller,
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New
Testament Library, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 305. The
word peirasmos is also used in 1:6. Suffering can work as temptations to
leave the faith.
18. Peter uses a double imperative: “let him not be ashamed” and
“glorify God.” See M. S. Mills, 1 Peter: A Study Guide to the First Epistle
by Peter (Dallas: 3E Ministries, 1997).
19. Here hoti functions as an adverbial conjunction to indicate cause.
See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 674. See also Paul
J. Achtemeier and Eldon Jay Epp, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter,
Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), s.v. “1 Peter 4:17.” Other
scholars think that this verse does not give the basis of verse 16 and
instead builds the argument that persecution gives opportunities to glorify
God. See J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of
Jude, BNTC (London: Black, 1969), 192; Leonhard Goppelt, Der Erste
Petrusbrief, KEK, ed. F. Hahn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1978); John E. Alsup, A Commentary on 1 Peter (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), 311.
20. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 107, 368. That is the
sense given also by Mills, 1 Peter, although Mills speaks about the “house
of God” as the people of God. In his view, the judgment will come from
the believers. See also Jobes, 1 Peter, 292.
21. Although there are references to the people of God in the role of
judges, such as Dan. 7:22; Matt. 19:28; 1 Cor. 6:12; Rev. 20:4; etc., the
judgment referenced in 1 Pet. 4:17 is the punishment of the unrighteous,
which is something that God Himself executes, not the saints. See Rom.
12:19 and Heb. 10:30.
22. See other chapters in this book and relevant Scriptural references, as
well as texts where judgment is clearly seen as coming from God’s throne
in the heavenly temple (e.g., Rev. 11:19; 15:6–16:1).
23. E.g., NAB, NASB, NIV, RSV.
24. E.g., ASV, ESV, KJV, NJB, NKJV.
25. The preposition apo has a partitive sense, which gives to the
following genitive (“house of God”) the role of being the first in a
sequence. See Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 107) for the
use of partitives. This sense is given by Mills, 1 Peter; Charles F. Pfeiffer
and Everett Falconer Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: New
Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), s.v. “1 Peter 4:17.”
26. This reference is in the LXX; in the MT and English versions it is
118:26.
27. Josh. 22:14; 1 Sam. 20:16; 2 Sam. 3:10; 1 Kings 2:31; Isa. 8:17.
28. The only possible exception in these eighty-four occurrences is Heb.
10:21, but even here the reference is more likely to the physical temple.
29. Eighty-two of these eighty-four occurrences refer to the temple of
God. Regarding 1 Pet. 4:17, without explanation Francis Nichol says it
refers to the church. SDABC (Washington, DC: Review & Herald
Publishing, 1978), s.v. “1 Peter 4:17.” For Ramsey Michaels, the
expression definitively refers to the church (1 Peter, 270). Achtemeier and
Epp (1 Peter, 316) argue that this expression, always referring to the
temple or sanctuary—not to the people of God—strongly points to the
metaphor of the temple being the people of God.
30. 2 Chron. 32:21; Amos 2:8.
31. For Michaels, though “Ezekiel’s phraseology is somewhat different”
from that of Peter’s, “the similarity of thought is unmistakable” (1 Peter,
271). Jobes (1 Peter, 291) further argues that Peter wrote this verse with
Jer. 29:25; Ezek. 9:5–6; Amos 3:2; Zech. 13:9; and Mal. 3:1–5 as his
background. Interestingly, Michaels and Jobes unanimously affirm that the
judgment concerns God’s people first, starting with the elders.
32. Michaels (1 Peter, 271) sees the construction arxasthai apo as a
literal reference to the physical temple in Ezek. 9:6 but as a metaphorical
reference to the people of God in 1 Pet. 4:17.
33. There is enough evidence to include the people of God in the
biblical conception of judgment. See Achtemeier and Epp, 1 Peter, 315.
34. A cleansing from guilt. See Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-
English Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 851. The word
katharsis is translated from the Hebrew (niqqāh) which means “to be
unpunished,” “free from guilt,” or “innocent.” Enhanced BDB (Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 667.
35. See also Jer. 49:12 and its relationship to 1 Pet. 4:17. Martin Luther,
Luther’s Works, vol. 30, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and
Helmut T. Lehmann, The Catholic Epistles (St. Louis: Concordia, 1999),
130.
36. E.g., KJV, NASB, ESV.
37. E.g., NIV, NLT.
38. E.g., 1 Chron. 22:19; 2 Chron. 36:15.
39. E.g., 1 Sam. 2:32.
40. Jer. 32:30 LXX.
41. In Ps. 26:8 məʿôn is paralleled with bêtekā, a clear reference to the
tabernacle of God. In 2 Chron. 30:27 the word refers to the sanctuary in
heaven, where God receives prayers.
42. Jer. 32:30 LXX.
43. Considering that 1 Pet. was probably written in the 60s (D. A.
Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New
Testament [Manila: OMF Literature, 1998], 424) and the destruction of the
temple happened in AD 70.
44. Krima can be the result of krinō: “evaluation,” “judgment,”
“verdict,” “sentence” (e.g., Luke 24:20).
45. Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New
Testament, 237.
46. For Spence, the beginning of the judgment is the persecution of
Christians. See The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Peter, ed. H. D. M. Spence-
Jones (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2004), 176.
Nevertheless, that persecution had already happened, whereas here the text
is speaking of something which was yet to begin. See also Edmund P.
Clowney, The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, The Bible
Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 195.
47. Cf. 3:17.
48. On the use of the word entrust, see D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A.
Motyer, and G. J. Wenham, Nuevo Comentario Bíblico: Siglo Veintiuno
(Miami: Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas, 2000), s.v. “1 Peter 4:17–19.”
49. E.g., 2:20; 3:12; 4:6.
50. In 4:17 the word some versions translate as “disobey” comes from
the same root used in 2:8 and 3:1, 20. The force of the word is contrary to
belief rather than disobedience. The relation with euaggeliō has the same
sense. Good news can be disbelieved more than disobeyed, although Mills
says that “early Christians saw disbelieving the gospel as the height of
rebellion against God, thus gross disobedience.” Mills, 1 Peter.
51. The idea of administrative decree with the sense of condemnation is
also present in the use of the word “end” (telos) in verse 17 and “to
appear” (phaneitai) in verse 18. They are in a conditional sentence
referencing the judgment just mentioned. On the thought in verse 18, see
Prov. 11:31 and Luke 23:3.
52. See also the use in Jude 1:18. In Dan. 10:14 the adjective is linked
with the word “day” and speaks about the last days (eschatou tōn
hēmerōn), while Gal. 4:4 applies to the coming of Jesus.
53. On the use of the term in this passage, see Michaels, 1 Peter, 270.
54. Achtemeier and Epp, 1 Peter.
55. David deSilva says that “Peter repeatedly brings the imminence of
the end to view” and points to 1 Pet. 1:5; 4:7, 17–19, which include the
text studied in this chapter (An Introduction to the New Testament, 853).

Chapter 14

1. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NASB unless otherwise

specified.
2. The two words naos and skēnē are used in the explicit references to
the temple/sanctuary in Revelation; the word naos, “temple,” in its various
forms appears sixteen times in 3:12; 7:15; 11:1, 2, 19;2 14:17; 15:5, 6, 8;2
16:1, 17; 21:22.2 The word skēnē, “sanctuary” or “tabernacle,” appears
three times in 13:6; 15:5; 21:3. Apart from these explicit references there
are allusions to the temple through references to the sanctuary artifacts and
services. The term sanctuary is used in this study for both naos (“temple”)
and skēnē (“sanctuary”).
3. Stevenson Gregory views the context of the temple in Revelation
from both the Jewish cultic influence and the Hellenistic environment of
Asia Minor. These multifaceted institutions and symbols have significant
overlap in the meaning of the temple. Power and Place: Temple and
Identity in the Book of Revelation (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 215, 217.
4. Andrew Spatafora, “From Temple of God to Temple as God”: A
Biblical and Theological Study of Temple in Revelation (Rome: Gregorian
University Press, 1997), 299–300.
5. John Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus, Sanctuary, and
Temple in the Plot and the Structure of the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 33,
no. 2 (1995): 247.
6. Kenneth A. Strand, “Victorious-Introduction Scenes,” in Symposium
on Revelation, Book 1, ed. Frank Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute of the Seventh-day Adventists, 1992), 51–72; Mervyn
Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 2, The Message of Revelation for You and Your
Family (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1985), 162–67.
7. See Richard Davidson on the merits of perceiving the sanctuary
references in Revelation from the context of Hebrew cultus, literary
structure, and ecclesiological fulfillment in the New Testament
(“Sanctuary Typology,” in Holbrook, Symposium on Revelation, 99–130).
See also Stevenson (Power and Place, 217), who argues for taking both
the Hellenistic and Jewish contexts because temples in both contexts
expressed mediation, unity, identity, access to divine power, justice,
mercy, and protection.
8. Strand (“Victorious-Introduction Scenes,” 51) observes eight
introduction scenes, but Paulien (“The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 248)
argues for seven. Paulien views Rev. 17–18 not as a distinct unit but an
elaboration of the fifth introduction scene (chs. 15–16). Seven sections
could be plausible because the number seven has parallels in Revelation in
the seven septets.
9. The references outside the introductory sections (Rev. 3:12; 7:15;
11:1, 2; 14:17; 16:1, 17) could be viewed from the main cluster sections.
E.g., Rev. 3:12 could be viewed in the context of the first introductory
scene (1:12–20); 7:15 from the introductory scene in 4–5; 14:15, 17 from
the third introductory scene in 11:19; and 16:1, 17 from the fifth
introductory scene in 15:1–10.
10. Maxwell (God Cares, 165) argues that the imagery of the
candlestick in this first vision corresponds to the ministry in the first
apartment of the earthly sanctuary because that is where the candlestick
was kept.
11. Paulien (“The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 249) views 1 Kings 7:48,
49 as the background for the candlestick imagery in the vision; Robert H.
Mounce, Revelation, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 57.
12. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2002), 86.
13. Some scholars, such as Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (Revelation:
Vision for a Just World, Proclamation Commentaries, ed. Gerhard Krodel
[Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 51) and Gregory K. Beale (The Book of
Revelation, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 211), view the scene
as depicting a priestly ruler. Others, like David Aune (Revelation 1–5,
WBC, vol. 52A [Dallas: Word, 1999], 122), Leon Morris (Revelation,
TNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 76), and Jurgen Roloff
(Revelation, A Continental Commentary, trans. John E. Alsup
[Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 36), argue that the wearer is an
important person but not necessarily a priest.
14. See Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14. The descriptions are drawn
mainly from the vision of Jesus in Rev. 1:12–20.
15. Just like Zech. 3–4 depicts a high-priestly ministry in heaven (ch. 3)
and its impact on earth through the reference of the candlesticks (ch. 4), so
here. The heavenly priesthood of the risen Jesus is impacting His people
on earth.
16. Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 258.
17. Leonard Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and
Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 70.
18. Robert Dean Davis, The Heavenly Court Judgment of Revelation 4–
5 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992), 62.
19. Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 25.
20. Maxwell (God Cares, 164–65) observes that the throne in this
passage is symbolic of the table of the bread of the presence and is thus a
ministry in the Holy Place.
21. Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the
Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press,
2002), 116.
22. Ibid.
23. See the statement “the Lamb broke” in Rev. 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12.
24. See Jon Paulien, “The Seven Seals in Context: A Study of Rev 4–6
—A Paper Presented to the Daniel and Revelation Committee” (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1990), 34.
25. Stevanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 215; Mounce, Revelation,
155; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 100.
26. Paulien, “The Seven Seals in Context,” 54.
27. The expressions “open door” and “standing” are also found in the
third (8:2–6) and fourth (11:19) scenes, while “was opened” is only found
in the fifth (15:5).
28. Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 259.
29. M. D. Goulder, “The Apocalypse and the Annual Cycle of
Prophecies,” NTS (1981): 355.
30. Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press, 1940), 38–39.
31. Maxwell, God Cares, 166; Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew
Cultus,” 251. There are some who view this scene as pointing to the Day
of Atonement because of its association with the trumpets. However, the
Feast of Trumpets was prior to the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:23–27).
32. Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 285.
33. Ibid., 276–77.
34. Davidson, “Sanctuary Typology,” 117.
35. The Feast of Trumpets summoned the Jews for the Day of
Atonement (Lev. 23:24–27; 29:1–10). The trumpets in Revelation point to
the coming antitypical Day of Atonement. The seventh trumpet (Rev.
11:18) makes the first clear reference to judgment, after which Revelation
has an increasing focus on judgment (14:7; 16:5; 17:1).
36. Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 253; Maxwell, God
Cares, 166.
37. Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 253.
38. The word krinō (6:10; 11:18; 16:5; 18:8; 18:20; 19:2, 11; 20:12, 13)
and the derivative nouns krima (17:1; 18:20; 20:4) and krisis (14:7; 16:7;
18:10; 19:2) show that the orientation from this section onwards is on
judgment.
39. It is instructive that from this point on, references to the temple do
not mention the sanctuary artifacts found in the preceding sections.
40. Maxwell, God Cares, 425.
41. Paulien (“The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 255–57) observes that
from the fourth introductory scene onwards Revelation shifts from the
daily services to the annual service and that there is a repeated focus on the
inner part of the sanctuary (naos) where the activities of the Day of
Atonement took place. See Rev. 11:19; 14:15, 17; 15:5, 6; 16:1, 17; 21:22.
42. Both the judgment theme in this section and the millennium parallel
the cessation of the ministry within the earthly sanctuary; these likewise
parallel the banishment of the Azazel goat, which represents the
confinement of Satan for one thousand years.
43. Rev. 2:11, 17, 24; 3:5, 12, 21.
44. The schema is adopted from Paulien (“The Role of the Hebrew
Cultus,” 255); items in italics are mine.
 45. Some Revelation scholars, such as E. R. Wendland (“(7 x 7) x 7: A
Structural and Thematic Outline of John’s Apocalypse,” Occasional
Papers in Translational and Text Linguistics 4 [1990]: 371–78) and
Elisabeth S. Fiorenza (The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgement
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 175–76), observe the sevenfold
overall structure of Revelation.
46. The Jewish festival and ritual settings of the various discourses and
narratives in the fourth gospel are commonly noted by commentators. Just
to mention a few: Gerald Wheaton, “The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s
Gospel” (PhD diss., University of St. Andrew, 2009), 10; Mary Coloe,
God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), 2, 130; Leon Morris, The
Gospel According to John, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995), 169; Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A
Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 114; D. A.
Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1991),
176; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2004), 104; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1998), 164–65; Gerald Borchert, John 1–11, NAC 25A
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 95–96, 230.
47. See Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus,” 255.
48. Ibid., 255–56.
49. The candlestick in the first introductory scene and the censers,
incense, and the altar in the third scene depict items associated with the
daily service.
50. The study is based on the assumption that references and allusions to
sanctuary services in Revelation correspond to the antitypical realities in
heaven. This understanding is influenced by the references in Heb. 8:5;
10:1 that the earthly sanctuary services were a “shadow” of the heavenly.
Revelation has imagery of sanctuary services in the context of the
heavenly venue.
51. See Kenneth Strand, “Foundational Principles of Interpretation,” in
Holbrook, Symposium on Revelation, 29–30.
52. Strand (“Victorious-Introduction Scenes,” 70–71) observes that
transcendence does not mean aloofness.
53. Maxwell, God Cares, 166.
54. Strand, “Victorious-Introduction Scenes,” 70–71.
55. Craig R. Koester observes this anticipation but envisions its
fulfillment in God’s tabernacle presence among the Christian community.
The ultimate eschatological tabernacle presence is not only symbolic of the
Christian church but God in reality dwelling with His people (The
Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental
Jewish Literature and the New Testament, CBQ Monograph Series 22
[Washington, DC: Catholic Association of America, 1989]).

Chapter 15

1. Joseph L. Trafton, Reading Revelation: A Literary and Theological

Commentary, Reading the New Testament series (Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys, 2005), 104.
2. Num. 34:7, 8, 10; 35:5; Ps. 16:6; Ezek. 45:1; 48:14; Amos 7:17; Mic.
2:4; Zech. 2:1.
3. Rev. 11:1; 21:15–17.
4. Ezek. 40:3, 5–8; 41:8; 42:12, 16–20.
5. 2 Sam. 8:2; cf. Ezek. 20:37, where the passing under a rod may
indicate measuring.
6. I will follow Strand’s and Paulien’s approach. Kenneth Strand,
“Foundational Principles of Interpretation,” in Symposium on Revelation:
Book 6, ed. Frank Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research
Institute, 1992), 3–34; Jon Paulien, “Interpreting Revelation’s
Symbolism,” in Holbrook, Symposium on Revelation, 73–98.
7. According to Utley, the temple motif draws from the Old Testament.
He holds that if Ezek. 40–48 is the background, then the temple is a literal,
end-time building in Jerusalem; if Zech. 2, then the New Jerusalem is
symbolized. He also says that if, on contextual grounds, the heavenly
temple is in view (cf. Rev. 7:15; 11:19; 15:58; Heb. 9:23), it functions as a
symbol for the church (cf. Rev. 7:9). Robert James Utley, Hope in Hard
Times—The Final Curtain: Revelation, Study Guide Commentary Series
12 (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2001), 81.
8. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Wheaton,
IL: Victor Books, 1996), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 10:1.” Wiersbe’s
argument stands on an early dating of Revelation (prior to AD 70).
9. Robert Jamieson, et al., A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on
the Old and New Testaments (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems,
1997), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:1.” Jamieson notes the distinction
between the temple and the worshipers and refuses to identify the temple
as the Judeo-Christian church. See also William MacDonald and Arthur
Farstad, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:1.”
10. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems, 1997), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:1.”
Robertson considers that “here ναός [naos] is on earth and yet not the
actual temple in Jerusalem (unless so interpreted). Perhaps here it is the
spiritual (3:12; II Thess. 2:4; I Cor. 3:16f.; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19ff.).” See
also D. A. Carson et al., eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century
Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), electronic ed., s.v.
“Rev. 11:1”; Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (New
York: Macmillan, 1907), 130. The strongest counterargument is linguistic:
why should the temple be understood symbolically here when elsewhere in
Revelation it is the literal, heavenly sanctuary? Amazingly, though Beale
noticed that ναός in Revelation points to either the heavenly temple or a
supposed future one, in 11:1–2 he takes the temple to be a synecdoche for
God’s people. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the
Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 562. Many pastristic fathers
subscribed to this view. For instance, Hippolytus saw the temple as the
church persecuted by the antichrist. The temple court is “the society of
unbelievers,” according to Andrew of Caesarea. The rod is symbolic of the
gospel, according to Judith Kovacs and Christopher Rowland, Revelation
through the Centuries: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (Maiden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 124.
11. Despite his dispensationalist interpretation of the temple in Rev.
11:1–2, Stallard admits that “the temple here could be the heavenly temple
so prominent elsewhere in Revelation.” Michael Stallard, “The Temple in
the Olivet Discourse and Other New Testament Texts: A Brief Evaluation
of Nondispensational Understandings of NT Temple Imagery,”
Conservative Theological Journal 9, no. 28 (2005), 386. “Ναός [naos] is
the only term used for the temple in this book (see on 3:12; 7:15) and
refers to the building itself rather than the whole temple area.” Grant
R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002),
410. Following this conclusion, Osborne sees it as the heavenly temple and
the altar as the altar for incense. But people are spiritually there, not
physically. In everyday life they are in the church, while physically
persecuted outside.
12. Thomas Ice, “Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled? Part 2:
The Book of Revelation,” Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 13
(2003), 309. Paralleling Ezekiel with John, Ice says that since the temple
was not in existence during Ezekiel’s lifetime, we don’t have to suppose
that it was different in John’s case.
13. David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16, WBC 52B (Dallas: Word, 2002),
596–97.
14. Ibid., 597.
15. Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1984), 67.
16. E.g., M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, Interpretation (Louisville: John
Knox, 1989), 142; The Pulpit Commentary: Revelation, ed. H. D. M.
Spence-Jones (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2004), 289;
Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund
Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1996), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:4.” Even if some
interpret the two witnesses as symbolic of the Scriptures (OT and NT),
there is room for the people, since the word never preaches itself without
heralds (cf. Rom. 10:14).
17. Consider the symbolic language throughout and that a literal
understanding is too reductionistic, making no sense in descriptions such
as “their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is
figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was
crucified. For three and a half days some from every people, tribe,
language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial”
(Rev. 11:8–9 NIV). For further details see Aune, Revelation 6–16, 603.
18. Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of Revelation 12–22, 2nd ed.
(Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 26.
19. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 666; R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book
Concern, 1935), 380–81. Cf. 1 En. 39:4–8.
20. Robert E. Van Voorst, Building Your New Testament Greek
Vocabulary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 61.
21. In Rev. 13:6 the beast coming out of the sea is presented as
blaspheming God—in particular His name, His tent, and those living
(skenountas) in His tent. This echoes the exploits of the little horn against
God, His people, and His temple (Dan. 8:10–11). The little horn, which is
a political symbol fighting against God and his people, is said to have the
sanctuary “overthrown”; cf. HALOT (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1,530. Though
God’s people in Daniel are not presented as dwelling in the heavenly
sanctuary, both the saints and God’s heavenly sanctuary are assailed, and
God responds through the vindication of His sanctuary and host (cf. Dan.
8:14), which makes Dan. 8:10–11 a background of Rev. 12:12. Having the
dragon defeated but still free to act out his plans, Rev. 12:12 is a sort of
foretaste of that final vindication delineated in Dan. 8:10–14.
22. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930), 338.
23. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 564.
24. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion
Press, 1990), 272. Cf. Eph. 2:6.
25. Throughout the chapters where he is presented as taking
measurements, the instrument used is only the reed.
26. In Rev. 11:1–2 the measurement ends with the inner court. What
goes beyond is unholy.
27. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NIV unless otherwise
specified.
28. Vogelgesang thinks that Ezekiel offers a better background for
Rev. 21 (the measurement of the New Jerusalem) than for Rev. 11:1–2.
Jeffrey Marshall Vogelgesang, “The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book
of Revelation” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1985), 41. He admits that
“In Rev. 11:1–2, the measuring signifying preservation from judgment
also approximates the purpose of sealing in Rev 7 and the marking of Ezek
9.” Ibid., 39.
29. Of interest is the usage of the number twelve, either as it is or in
combinations (12x12=144). Its extensive mention in the description of the
heavenly realities of the New Jerusalem calls attention to the twelve tribes
and the 144,000 group, which are spiritual categories in Revelation (see
7:4–8; 15:1–5).
30. Kenneth A. Strand, “An Overlooked Old Testament Background to
Rev. 11:1,” AUSS 22, no. 3 (Autumn 1984): 317–25, 320–21.
31. Nowhere in Revelation is the measuring reported as taking place.
But at least the order is not revoked, as in Zechariah.
32. Strand, “An Overlooked Old Testament Background to Rev. 11:1,”
322–23.
33. Jon Paulien, “1260 Days in Revelation,” in Christ, Salvation, and
the Eschaton: Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle (Berrien Springs,
MI: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 2009), 43.
34. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 604.
35. This period is found seven times in the Bible (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev.
11:2–3; 12:6, 12; 13:5). In all of the verses the war between the wicked
and the saints is the leitmotif. The war is not ended with the three-and-a-
half years, but this is an important period because of the history of this
combat. The war being mentioned seven times means that it is not only
worthy of our attention, but it is significant for understanding the whole
conflict. The two parties bear different names from text to text. Because
Rev. 11:1–2 deals with the temple’s language and concepts, the two
proxies are signified as Jews and Gentiles. They are the same two groups,
however: the evil king(dom), symbolized by the little horn of Daniel and
by the beast of Revelation, persecuting God’s people.
36. James Strong, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Ontario:
Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), electronic ed., s.v. “3961.”
37. Cf. Dan. 8:13.
38. Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1993), 267.
39. Kovacs and Rowland, Revelation through the Centuries, 124;
Rodney L. Petersen, Preaching in the Last Days (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993), 102; Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A
Parallel Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), s.v. “Rev. 11:1–
2.”
40. Rodney L. Petersen, Preaching in the Last Days (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993), 102.
41. Steve Gregg, Revelation, s.v. “Rev. 11:1–2.” Other reformers, like
Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75), David Pareus (1548–1622), and John Foxe
(1517–87) took the image of the measurement and the two witnesses as
means of expressing God rebuilding his church (ibid., 132, 166, 185). The
idea was perpetuated, and Thomas Goodwin (1600–80) “believed that the
restored temple (Rev. 11:1–2) would find itself established in a generally
unreformed place or era. The measuring of this temple implied a ‘second
reformation,’ a further purification and exclusion of its outer court
believed to signify carnal or false Christians” (ibid., 212). Here we already
observe a shift from the Roman church to the church in general. During a
second reformation, the church will be purged of unworthy members.
42. In the OT (LXX), kalamos has several functions: (1) a source of
fragrance (Exod. 30:33; Song of Sol. 4:14); (2) a writing instrument (Ps.
45:1); (3) the natural Phragmites communis (Ps. 67:31; Job 40:21; Isa.
19:6; 35:7); and (4) a metaphor for the weak (Isa. 42:3). In the NT kalamos
is used: (1) as the natural plant (Matt. 11:7; 27:48; Mark 15:36; Luke
7:24); (2) metaphorically for the weak (Matt. 12:20); and (3) ironically as
a parody of a scepter (Matt. 27:29–30; Mark 15:19).
43. J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation, and
Commentary (New Haven, MD: Yale University Press, 2008), 168.
44. Van Voorst, Building Your New Testament Greek Vocabulary, 74.
45. Some understand the resemblance of the reed with a rod in a
physical sense. The reed was “straight and strong like a rhabdos ‘rod’”
(see Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of Revelation 1–11, 2nd ed.
[Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008], 220). ANLEX takes this comparison
as a proof that the reed given to John was unknown in size. Timothy
Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the
Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library 4 (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 341.
46. Cf. Gen. 38:25; 47:31; Exod. 7:9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20; 8:1, 12, 13;
10:13; 14:16; 17:5, 9; Num. 17:17, 18, 20–25; 20:8, 9, 11; Judg. 5:14;
6:21; 2 Sam. 23:21; 1 Chron. 11:23; Pss. 45:6; 110:2; 125:3; Isa. 9:3;
10:15; 11:1; Jer. 48:17; Ezek. 19:11–12, 14; 37:19; Zech. 8:4; 11:7, 10, 14;
Heb. 1:8; 9:4; 11:21; Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15.
47. E.g., Gen. 30:37, 38, 39, 41; 32:11; Exod. 4:2, 4; 1 Sam. 17:43; Mic.
7:14.
48. Cf. John Peter Lange, et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures:
Revelation (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2008), 229. Lange
says: “The word ῥάβδος [rhabdos], rod, is coupled three times in the
Apocalypse with the adjective σιδηρᾶ [sidēra] (2:27; 12:5; 19:15). And in
the same places it is coupled also with the verb ποιμαίνειν [poimainein] to
tend, as a shepherd does. The idea is thus suggested of a pastoral staff.”
49. The action of measuring (metreō, “I measure”) is used regarding
“any space or distance with a measurer’s reed or rule.” Joseph Henry
Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (International
Bible Translators, 2000), CD-ROM, 3,447. BDAG testifies that there is a
sense of nonspatial measurement (evaluation) of humans (642).
50. “The cleansing at the beginning of the year has as its goal, as the
extensive ritual for the great Day of Atonement is able to show much more
fully, the cleansing of the sanctuary (and of the community) from the sin
which has accumulated throughout the year.” Walther Zimmerli, Frank
Moore Cross, and Klaus Baltzer, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of
the Prophet Ezekiel, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 482.
51. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1,122.
52. Safrai and Avi-Yonah define the court of the Israelites—in contrast
to that of the women—from the period of the second temple (Herod’s) as
“that portion of the Court of the Priests open to all male Jews.” Shmuel
Safrai and Michael Avi-Yonah, “The Temple Square” and “The Courts,”
Encyclopaedia Judaica, (Farmington Hills, MI: Keter Publishing House,
2007), 19:614. Safrai adds that “non-priests used to enter the Court of the
Priests only for the purpose of ‘laying their hands’ on the animal being
sacrificed, for its slaughtering, and in the waving of the portions of the
sacrificial animal (Kelim 1:8)” (ibid., 615).
53. Ibid., 614. Josephus confirms this: “there was a partition made of
stone all round, whose height was three cubits: its construction was very
elegant; upon it stood pillars, at equal distances from one another,
declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, that
‘no foreigner should go within that sanctuary;’ for that second [court of
the] temple was called ‘the Sanctuary.’” Flavius Josephus, The Works of
Josephus—Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston, vol. 5,
Wars (Peabody, MD: Hendrickson, 1996), 193–94.
54. Ethnos (“nation”) “is used in the singular, of the Jews, e.g., Luke
7:5; 23:2; John 11:48, 50–52; in the plural, of nations (Heb., gôyyîm) other
than Israel, e.g., Matt. 4:15; Rom. 3:29; 11:11; 15:10; Gal. 2:8;
occasionally it is used of Gentile converts in distinction from Jews, e.g.,
Rom. 11:13; 16:4; Gal. 2:12, 14; Eph. 3:1.” W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger,
and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and
New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 262.
55. Beyond any doubt, the trampling of a city means the trampling of its
inhabitants. “The holy city is the spiritual Jerusalem of the saints.” Simon
J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation, New Testament
Commentary, vol. 20 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 326.
56. E.g., Matt. 8:16, 31; 9:33–34; 10:1, 8; 12:24, 26–28; 17:19; Mark
1:34; 3:15; 6:13; 9:18, 28; Luke 9:40, 49; 11:14–15, 18–20; 13:32; etc.
57. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Revelation of St John, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 275.
58. Ralph E. Bass, Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of
Revelation (Greenville, SC: Living Hope Press, 2004), 264. See also
Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
2000), 188.
59. Wayne D. Mueller, Revelation, The People’s Bible (Milwaukee:
Northwestern, 1996), 110. See also Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of
Revelation, 327; Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary: Revelation
(Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1999), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:2”;
Christopher A. Davis, Revelation, College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin,
MO: College Press, 2000), 230. The strangeness of this conclusion is
brought forth when we ask how it is that this period is mentioned seven
times in the Bible: Would the sacred writers (Daniel and John) mention the
same period without purpose?
60. John R. Yeatts, Revelation, Believers Church Bible Commentary
(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2003), 192. De Ford agrees with him: “But
the texts most influential on this [Rev. 11:1] are Dan 8:13–14, predicting
that the sanctuary will be trampled for 2,300 evenings and mornings but
will then be restored to its proper condition, and 1 Macc 3:45, reporting
that ‘Jerusalem was uninhabited like a wilderness; not one of her children
went in or out.’” J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction,
Translation, and Commentary, 170.
61. Davis, Revelation, 231. In futurist perspective, Garland sees the
forty-two months as “the times of the Gentiles [which] can best be defined
as that long period of time from the Babylonian Empire to the Second
Coming of the Messiah during which time the Gentiles have dominion
over the City of Jerusalem. This does not rule out temporary Jewish
control of the city, but all such Jewish control will be temporary until the
Second Coming. Such temporary control was exercised during the
Maccabean Period (164–63 B.C.), the First Jewish Revolt against Rome
(A.D. 66–70), the Second Jewish Revolt (the Bar Cochba Revolt) against
Rome (A.D. 132–135), and since 1967 as a result of the Six Day War.”
Anthony C. Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the
Book of Revelation (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2006), electronic ed.,
s.v. “Rev. 11:2.”
62. Eating and proclaiming are related. The most obvious OT
background is Ezek. 2:9–3:1. There the prophet is urged to eat a scroll and
“go and speak to the people of Israel.” The idea is that the message of the
book is integrated into his whole being. It is part of him. Whatever he does
(3:26–27) or says (chs. 4–5) afterwards becomes the message. The same is
true with John. He is first prophesying by acts (measuring) and later by
words.
 63. Ford is right when he claims that “it would be impossible for people
of all nations to behold two literal corpses in the literal streets of literal
Jerusalem. The worldwide church is signified.” Desmond Ford, The Time
Is at Hand: An Introduction to the Book of Revelation (Bloomington, IN:
iUniverse, 2009), 20.
64. There are strong verbal, thematic, and structural parallels between
John, the two witnesses, and the proclamation in Rev. 14:6–12. Both John
and the witnesses are called to prophecy (prophēteusai, 10:11; 11:3).
Though another verb is used (euanggelisai, 14:6), the three angels’
vocation is the same. The target of the preaching is the same in Rev. 10:11
and 14:6–12: “every nation, tribe, language and people.” (Rev. 10:11 has
“kings” [basileusin] instead of “tribe” [phylēn]). Structurally, the
proclamations of the two witnesses and of the three angels is followed by
dramatic results (Rev. 11:13; 14:15–20).
65. The term employed by John is thysiastērion. After I searched every
single instance of the term in the OT, NT, and intertestamental literature, I
came to the following observations. Whenever thysiastērion appears, one
or more details from the immediate context indicate what particular altar
the author is pointing to. For instance, the mentioning of sacrifices, blood,
court, bronze, and animals in reference to the altar makes it clear that the
author has in mind the outside altar, to which sacrifices were brought. On
the other hand, when the altar appears together with elements like incense,
gold, or other things located in the sanctuary, it clearly refers to the altar of
incense inside the sanctuary building.
66. Rev. 8:3 (2 times), 5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7.
67. At the level of structure this order is correct because the seventh
trumpet, mentioned in 10:7, represents the consummation of all things,
while the proclamation of 14:7 is necessarily earlier.
68. David E. Aune, “Apocalypse Renewed: An Intertextual Reading of
the Apocalypse of John,” in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and
Politics in the Book of Revelation, ed. David L. Barr (Leiden: Brill, 2006),
55.
69. Note the expression hoti axioi eisin.
70. Thus, the altar of burnt offerings is used by metonymy to refer to
those “sacrificed” on it. It becomes a general term for the faithful dead.
71. BDF takes the pronoun as referring to the instrument of measuring.
Thus ἐν is instrumental, not spatial. Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and
Robert Walter Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961),
105. The personal pronoun it can be either masculine or neuter, and thus
can point either to the temple (masc.) or to the altar (neut.). If it refers to
the altar, it should be the altar of incense, taken to be “a metonymy for the
altar room,” meaning “in the altar room.” If it points to the temple, ἐν is
taken as spatial and should probably be understood to mean “in the
temple.” (See Trail, Exegetical Summary of Revelation 1–11, 222.) The
spatial sense of ἐν points to the more natural understanding of “the
temple.”
72. See Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in Hebrews through Revelation:
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 501.
73. Paulien, “1,260 Days in Revelation,” 26.
74. Yeatts sees a better option in interpreting the temple as symbolic for
the people of God and interpreting their measuring as an expression of
their protection. But he admits that “the image of measuring is used
symbolically in scripture more often for punishment than for preservation
(2 Sam. 8:2; 2 Kings 21:13; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 30:11; Lam. 2:8; Amos 7:7–9;
Zech. 2:1–12; 1 Enoch 41:1–2; 61:1–5)” (emphasis added). Yeatts,
Revelation, 190.
75. Dalrymple reads the καὶ after the word temple not as a normal
coordinating conjunction but epexegetically, explaining what temple
consists of: the altar and the worshippers. He takes the temple of God as
referring figuratively to God’s people, so only one entity is measured.
Inside the temple are two categories: the martyrs under the altar in Rev.
6:9–11 and the living saints, spoken of as the “worshippers.” Dalrymple
prefers to see the exact significance of the measuring as referring to God’s
protection. Rob Dalrymple, “The Use of καὶ in Revelation 11:1,” Biblica
87, no. 3 (2006): 387–94. Lenski agrees in principle, although he does not
argue on a grammatical basis. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s
Revelation, 328.
76. Bass, Back to the Future, 262.
77. Brown, Fitzmyer, and Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary,
480. According to them, since the temple in Jerusalem has finally been
destroyed the seer went beyond it, referring to the church as a temple (cf. 1
Cor. 3:16ff.; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19–21; 1 Pet. 2:5). Osborne says: “When
they [individual believers in the church, or temple] are ‘measured,’ they
are identified as belonging to God and under his protection.” (Revelation,
411). “The measuring of the Temple is the sealing of the people of God;
they are to be preserved in the terrible time of trial; but the rest are doomed
to destruction.” William Barclay, The Revelation of John, Daily Study
Bible Series (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2000), 2: 68. Beale, The
Book of Revelation, 559. A. J. P. Garrow, Revelation (London: Routledge,
1997), 73. Based on the parallel between the interlude of the seals and the
interlude of the trumpets, Swete considers the measuring of the sanctuary
to signify its preservation from destruction, thus symbolizing the sealing of
the 144,000 (The Apocalypse of St. John, 130). J. L. Resseguie, Revelation
Unsealed (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 94.
78. Boring, Revelation, 143. The protection is like a spiritual sealing,
not a physical exemption from suffering—or even death. Bruce B. Barton
and Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Life Application Bible Commentary
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2000), 117.
79. Spence-Jones, Revelation, 288. Tom Constable thinks that “this
measuring is probably an indication of God’s favor.” Tom Constable’s
Expository Notes on the Bible (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2003),
electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:1.”
80. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge
Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, vol. 2, New Testament
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 955. See also Bass: “This symbolic
measuring is to determine who ‘measures up’ to God’s standard.” Back to
the Future, 262. Roy E. Gingrich, The Book of Revelation (Memphis, TN:
Riverside Printing, 2001), 54. Fogle considers that “to measure the temple
of God under the New Covenant would equate to identifying the saints or,
in another sense, how much the saints of God had conformed to the image
of Jesus Christ.” Lerry W. Fogle, Revelation Explained (Plainfield, NJ:
Logos International, 1981), 210. For Keathley, “Here it [the measurement]
signifies that (a) this all belongs to God, the temple, the altar, and the
worship involved, and (b) that he was to measure or judge the value,
worth, and character of the standards of the temple and its worship and the
people therein.” J. Hampton Keathley III, Studies in Revelation (Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software, 2002), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:1.”
81. Marko Jauhiainen, “The Measuring of the Sanctuary Reconsidered
(Rev 11:1–2),” Biblica 84 no. 4 (2002), 507–26.
82. For one example, see Stewart Custer, From Patmos to Paradise: A
Commentary on Revelation (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 2004), 122.
83. Kenneth A. Strand, “The Two Witnesses of Rev. 11:3–12,” AUSS
19, no. 2 (Summer 1981): 127–35, 130–31.
 84. Ibid., 134.
85. Kenneth A. Strand, “The Two Olive Trees of Zechariah 4 and
Revelation 11,” AUSS 20, no. 3 (Autumn 1982): 257–61.
86. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of
St John, 277.
87. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word,
1997), electronic ed., s.v. “Rev. 11:1.”
88. BDAG, 366.

Chapter 16

1. See Frederick J. Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation to John,

New Testament in Context (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,
1998), 43: “Revelation was written after the destruction of the Jerusalem
temple by the Romans in 70 C.E.” See also Richard A. Sabuin, Repentance
in the Book of Revelation (Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller, 2010), 41–43.
He suggests that Revelation was written in AD 95 or 96 by the apostle
John.
2. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the NASB unless otherwise
specified.
3. Scholars differ in how they determine the beginning and the ending of
this passage. For example, Stefanovic suggests that Rev. 11:19–13:18 is
the center of the structure. This suggests that the two-witnesses unit (11:1–
13) parallels the end-time gospel (14:1–20). Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation
of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University Press, 2002), 37. Another scholar suggests 10:1–
15:4 as the center. Elisabeth S. Fiorenza, “Composition and Structure of
the Apocalypse,” CBQ 39 (1977): 364, as alluded in Stefanovic,
Revelation of Jesus Christ, 36. Other scholars present the chiastic structure
of Revelation without a central unit, such as Nils Wilhelm Lund, Studies in
the Book of Revelation (Chicago: Covenant Press, 1955), 27, quoted in
Kenneth A. Strand, Interpreting the Book of Revelation: Hermeneutical
Guidelines, with Brief Introduction to Literary Analysis, 2nd ed. (Naples,
FL: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1979), 76–77; Strand, Interpreting the Book of
Revelation, 51; C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 2, The Message of
Revelation for You and Your Family (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1985), 60–
61.
 4. The genitive could be considered as a partitive genitive, which
suggests that naos is part of skēnē. See the explanation about this function
in Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An
Intermediate Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 48. This is also
called a “Partitive Ablative” by James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery,
Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, 1979), 28.
5. Wallace, Basics of New Testament Syntax, 50, calls it a “Genitive of
Content.” It means skēnē is in the naos. This, in a sense, is the opposite of
a partitive genitive.
6. This is called a “Genitive of Material.” Ibid. In this sense, skēnē is the
substance of naos; without skēnē there is no naos.
7. The genitive of apposition makes this possible. Ibid., 52.
8. See footnote 2.
9. Stefanovic (Revelation of Jesus Christ, 37) titles the center of his
structure “Great Controversy between Christ and Satan.” It seems that
Stefanovic attempts to parallel the work of the two witnesses (11:1–13)
and the three angels’ messages (14:6–12) but takes out ch. 14 from his
proposed center of the structure (11:19–13:18).
10. Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-time Prophecies
of the Bible: The Biblical–Contextual Approach (Sarasota, FL: First
Impressions, 1997), 105.
11. Joel N. Musvosvi, “The Issue of Genre and Apocalypse Prophecy,”
Asia Adventist Seminary Studies 5 (2002): 54. He calls this passage
“Cosmic Conflict.” Later he includes 11:19 and 15:1–4 with chs. 12–14
and establishes 11:19–15:4 as the center of the chiastic structure.
12. G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 191.
13. So also Joel N. Musvosvi in his syllabus for NTST 670, “The Book
of Revelation” (Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies,
Philippines, 2004).
14. See Maxwell, God Cares, 327; Roy C. Naden, The Lamb among the
Beasts (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1996), 196.
15. See also William G. Johnsson, “The Saint’s End-Time Victory over
the Forces of Evil,” in Symposium on Revelation, ed. Frank B. Holbrook,
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1992), 2:35. Johnsson says, “The first angel issues a
call to worship God the Creator in the setting of the judgment hour; the
second declares and exposes the system of false worship; the third issues a
dire warning against the worship of the beast and its image.”
16. The verb kathēmai occurs thirty-three times in Revelation (4:2, 3, 4,
9, 10; 5:1, 7; 6:2, 4, 5, 8, 16; 7:15; 9:17; 11:16; 14:6, 14, 15, 16; 17:1, 3, 9,
15; 18:7; 19:4, 11, 18, 19, 21; 20:11; 21:5). It is not used for a specific
subject but to describe the “One sitting on the throne” (4:2; cf. 4:3, 10; 5:1,
7; 6:16; 7:15; 20:11; 21:5); the twenty-four elders who sit on the thrones
(4:4; 11:16); the one like a son of man who sits on the cloud (14:14, 16);
the horse riders of the seven seals (6:2, 4, 5, 8).
17. See also Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on
the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 240–41. He argues,
“The inhabitants of the earth are viewed in 14:6 not merely as worshippers
of the beast, but as hearers of the eternal Gospel which calls them to repent
and to worship God. They are the same people as those to whom 13:8
refers, but viewed positively rather than negatively.”
18. The phrase kai ēnoixen to stoma autou eis blasphēmias pros ton
theon, “and he opened his mouth for blasphemies against God,” suggests
that God is the single target of the blasphemies. The subsequent phrase
presents the infinitive blasphēmēsai followed by a series of accusative
nouns including God’s name, His tabernacle, and those dwelling in
heaven. This phrase elaborates how God is blasphemed.
19. William Shea, “The Controversy over the Commandments in the
Central Chiasm of Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 11, nos. 1–2 (2000): 217, says, “Rev 11:19 is the fourth sanctuary
scene and introduces the prophecy of Rev 12:1–15:4, the main prophecy in
the center of the book.”
20. Müller lists the various designations of the church in Revelation,
including the remnant in 12:17. Ekkehardt Müller, “Introduction to the
Ecclesiology of the Book of Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 12, no. 2 (Autumn 2001): 199–200.
21. For further study on the evidences that the Decalogue is the central
issue of conflict in Rev. 12–14, see William Shea, “The Controversy Over
the Commandments,” 217–31.
22. Richard Lehmann, “Relationships Between Daniel and Revelation,”
in Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, Daniel
and Revelation Committee Series (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference
of the Seventh-day Adventists, 1992), 1:140–41.
23. Gerald A. Klingbeil, “The Sabbath Law in the Decalogue(s):
Creation and Liberation as a Paradigm for Community,” Review Biblique
117, no. 4 (2010): 508.
24. Mathilde Frey, “Sabbath Theology in the Book of Revelation,” in
Toward a Theology of the Remnant, ed. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, Biblical
Research Institute Studies in Adventist Ecclesiology 1 (Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, 2009), 127–37. Frey sums up the scholars’
discussion on the Sabbath in the book of Revelation. She highlights the
statement of one of the scholars, Jon K. Paulien, who states that “there is
no direct allusion to the Old Testament in the book of Revelation that is
more certain than the allusion to the fourth commandment in Rev 14:7.”
Jon Paulien, “Revisiting the Sabbath in the Book of Revelation,” JATS 9
(1998): 183, in Frey, “Sabbath Theology,” 37.
25. So also Mathilde Frey, “The Theological Concept of Sabbath in the
Book of Revelation,” in “For You Have Strengthened Me”: Biblical and
Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His
Sixty-Fifth Birthday,” ed. Martin Pröbstle (St. Peter Am Hart, Austria:
Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007), 235. Frey refers to Robert
M. Johnston, “The Eschatological Sabbath in John’s Apocalypse: A
Reconsideration,” AUSS 25 (1987): 47.
26. Exod. 16:23; 23:12; 31:15; 35:2; Lev. 16:31; 23:3, 24, 39; 25:4.
27. According to Johannes Kovar, Rev. 10:6 also contains Sabbath
element in the phrase “who created heaven and the things in it, and the
earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it” (cf. Exod. 20:11).
It seems that heaven, earth, and sea are the three main natural element
representing the whole universe. “The Remnants and God’s
Commandments: Revelation 12:17,” in Rodriguez, Toward a Theology of
the Remnant, 120.
28. Richard Sabuin, “Repentance in the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss.,
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2006), 114–220.
29. Verse 5 is an imperatival sentence preceding a conditional clause.
The conditional clause is marked by ei de mē, “an elliptical condition” that
literarily means “but if not,” and protasis ean mē metanoēsēs, “if you do
not repent.” This is a third-class condition suggesting a possibility—or
even probability—that the audience will not repent. It suggests that the
three imperatives should be responded to positively to escape the removal
of the lampstand from its place. Ibid., 119.
30. The Greek words for these three verbs in both 14:7 and 15:4 are the
same: phobeomai, “to fear”; doxazō, “to glorify” (“to give glory” [14:7]);
and proskyneō, “to worship.”

Chapter 17

1. I will be using the term apocalyptic a bit loosely and including

Jubilees and the Songs which, though not considered purely apocalyptic,
have similarities with the apocalyptic genre.
2. Jubilees has strong affinities with other genres but will be discussed
here because it also has prominent apocalyptic features. See John
J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 5.
3. The manuscripts do not preserve a general title for the work. Strugnell
called them “Serek Šîrôt ‘Olat Haššabāt,” which is an adaptation of the
heading that introduces the individual sections. “The Angelic Liturgy at
Qumran—4QSerek Šîrôt ‘Olat Haššabāt,” VTSupp 7, Congress Volume:
Oxford 1959 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 318. Geza Vermes called them “Songs
for the Holocaust of the Sabbath”; The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in
English (London: Penguin, 2004), 329. For a title, I will be using
Newsom’s “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Carol Newsom, Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985). The Songs
are included because they describe a heavenly world typical of apocalyptic
books and “the experience of reading [the] text is similar to that of reading
an apocalypse of the ‘heavenly journey’ type,” Collins observes. John
J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge,
1997), 141.
4. The author positions his book in the situation from Exod. 24:12, 15–
18. See James VanderKam, “The Scriptural Setting of the Book of
Jubilees,” Dead Sea Discoveries 13, no. 1 (2006): 64.
5. George Nickelsburg, “The Bible Expanded and Rewritten” in Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period, Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984), 97.
6. “As for the exact determination of their times to which Israel turns a
blind eye, behold it is strictly defined in the Book of the Divisions of the
Times into their Jubilees and Weeks,” CD 16:2–4 in Vermes, The
Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 41. For dating the CD, see ibid., 127–28.
7. Ibid., 539. See also James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 18.
 8. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Expanded and Rewritten,” 101.
9. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 21. See also Collins, The
Apocalyptic Imagination, 81.
10. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Expanded and Rewritten,” 102–3.
11. So James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book
of Jubilees (Atlanta: Scholars, 1977), 283, in O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,”
in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. Charlesworth (New York:
Doubleday, 1985), 2:44.
12. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 44.
13. In fact, Wintermute cites Charles, who had noted the pro-
establishment stance of Jubilees and attributed its writing to a Pharisee
before their public breach with John Hyrcanus. R. H. Charles, The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 2
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 6, in Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 44.
14. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 44.
15. Collins (The Apocalyptic Imagination, 83–84) leaves the door open
for a later date somewhere between 100–120 BC. However, the
paleographical evidence of 4Q216, which dates the fragment of a copy to
the last quarter of the second century, makes his dating difficult to accept.
For dating 4Q216 see Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 539;
VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 18.
16. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 81.
17. John J. Collins, Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14
(Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1979), 32.
18. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 5.
19. E.g., Ps. 134:1–2; Jer. 51:51; Ezek. 5:1.
20. E.g., 2 Bar. 4:3; 2 En. 8:1; 3 En. 5:5. The latter reference could also
allude to a tradition that there were two gardens of Eden—one terrestrial
and one celestial. P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1:260.
2 Cor. 12:4 and Rev. 2:7 also place paradise in heaven.
21. Also, 1 En. 32:6 locates the garden of Eden on earth, in the far lands
of the East. In that reference the area is inaccessible to human beings.
According to Rowland, the transfer of Eden to heaven is a later
apocalyptic development. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in
Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982), 124.
22. Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian
Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 25.
23. “[The text] speaks of a correspondence or analogy between the
angelic service and that of the Levitical priests.” Newsom, Songs, 68.
24. George Buchanan Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory
and Practice (New York: Ktav, 1971), 158.
25. E.g., Apoc. Zeph. 8:3. After Zephaniah puts on angelic garments, he
is able to join the angels’ doxology and prayers. For Enoch and Levi, see
also Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 40.
26. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 25.
27. Collins, Apocalypse, 31.
28. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 67.
29. Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the
Book of Revelation (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 187.
30. Collins, Semeia 14, 31.
31. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 7, 68; Semeia 14, 31.
32. In Isaac’s translation there is one angel and then three others. Isaac,
“1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 1:63. In a footnote Isaac includes other manuscripts that
read “four came out of that place and three with them.” This means that
the total account of the angels in this other manuscript was seven. Isaac, “1
(Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 63n87b. Most understand these angels
to be the seven archangels of Jewish tradition (see Collins, Apocalypse,
31). The division between four and three may indicate the superiority of
the first four and the subordination of the other three (Matthew Black, The
Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch [Leiden: Brill, 1985], 260).
33. Black, The Book of Enoch, 257.
34. George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book
of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 372.
35. Ibid.
36. See Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 68.
37. Ibid.
38. For the use of unclean and predatory animals to symbolize the
wicked, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 377.
39. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 255. He argues that
they are angels for the following reason: (1) they exist contemporaneously
and receive their commission together (earthly rulers would rule
consecutively); (2) they are to protect the sheep and only allow a limited
number to be destroyed by the Gentiles (again, such function would not be
suitable for rulers of heathen nations); (3) they would have been
symbolized by animals if they were human; (4) since God was Israel’s
Shepherd, it is logical that He would commit the shepherding of Israel to
seventy of His angels; (5) in 89:61 the angel recording the deeds of the
shepherds is called “another,” indicating that the seventy are also angels;
(6) during judgment the seventy angels are classed with the fallen
Watchers (90:21–25); and (7) God speaks directly to them.
40. Because the symbol of the house designates the city of Jerusalem (1
En. 89:50), some propose that the house in 1 En. 89:36 refers to the desert
camp. Stevenson disagrees and proposes that the continuity is not in the
name of the symbol (i.e., house) but in both structures being built as places
of God’s presence (Power and Place, 188).
41. Stevenson, Power and Place, 190.
42. Black, The Book of Enoch, 261; J. T. Milik, Books of Enoch:
Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1976), 43. Charles (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 251) was of the
opinion that paradise is in view. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 374) holds that
the “high place” in 1 En. 87:3 is paradise and that from there Enoch was
able to see the great tower, which is the heavenly temple.
43. E.g., Black, The Book of Enoch, 261.
44. E.g., T. Levi 3:5.
45. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 374.
46. The place of refuge is not specifically designated as the temple in
Exod. 21:13, but the next verse may imply that the altar of the temple was
used. See also 1 Kings 2:29–34.
47. Stevenson, Power and Place, 162.
48. Compare also with the story of Joab, who was considered guilty; his
request for asylum in the temple was unsuccessful (1 Kings 2:29–34).
49. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 384.
50. Only contains fragments of the Testament of Judah and the complete
Testament of Naphtali.
51. Contains the Testament of Levi.
52. H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Charlesworth,
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:776.
53. R. Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1908), ix.
54. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 777.
55. Ibid. E.g., T. Levi 6:1: Kai hōs ērchomēn pros ton patera mou euron
aspida chalkēn dio kai to onoma tou orous Aspis.
56. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 776.
57. Ibid., 777.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs: A Study of
Their Text, Composition and Origin, 2nd ed. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975),
12. Kee describes de Jonge’s work as “earnest, learned, but an
unconvincing attempt to show the Christian origin of T12P” (“Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 781).
61. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 289.
62. Ibid., 283.
63. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 777.
64. Kim Papaioannou, “The Testament of Levi and the Decline of
Heavenly Temple Imagery,” chapter 19 of this present volume, sees
parallels between the investiture of Levi in T. Levi 8:1–19 and a fairly
developed concept of Christian priesthood. These Christian interpolations
would require a date of the fourth century at the earliest.
65. Collins is hesitant to fix a date on the T. Levi 2–5. He does,
however, admit that the passage is substantially Jewish, despite the
possible presence of Christian redactional elements (Apocalypse, 40). The
only possible Christian interpolation is found in T. Levi 2:11: “And
through you and Judah the Lord will be seen by men, saving in himself all
races of men” (author’s translation).
66. α refers to MS Baroccio 133 (Oxford: Bodleian Library, fourteenth
century). For the naming of all the manuscripts, see Charles, The Greek
Versions of the Testaments, ix–xiv; M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Leiden: Brill,
1978), xi–xxx.
67. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 789n3a. See page 779
for the threefold division of heavens in the Testament of Levi.
68. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 31–32.
69. Ibid., 33–36. Himmelfarb notes only two apocalyptic works that
refer to heavenly sacrifice: Revelation and 3 Baruch (ShirShabb is not
normally considered apocalyptic). She suggests that in both of these works
the sacrificial offering is the prayer or good deeds of the righteous (Ascent
to Heaven, 34).
70. E.g., 11QShirShabb 8–7, lines 2–3: “for the sacrifices of the holy
one . . . the odor of their offerings . . . and the odor of their drink offerings
according to the num[ber . . .] of purity with spirit of holi[ness]” (Newsom,
Songs, 371).
71. Cf. 1 En. 14:13.
72. Cf. Isa. 6:5.
73. Cf. 1 En. 14:14, 24.
74. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 32.
75. Ibid.
76. In the Aramaic Testament of Levi, Jacob’s actions resemble priestly
investiture since it says that after paying tithes Jacob dressed Levi up in
priestly garments and “filled his hand,” a phrase which means that he
consecrated him. Ibid., 37. For the text, see 4Q213b Bodleian Col. a, 19–
20, in Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1, 1Q1–4Q273 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 51.
77. Newsom, Songs, 70.
78. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 37. Although Himmelfarb notes that
Levi is admitted to heaven before his investiture, she does not argue that
this is an instance in which the author betrays his belief that Levi has the
right to be present in the heavenly sanctuary.
79. Probably the seven archangels. See Newsom, Songs, 71.
80. Ibid.
81. J. Maier, “Shîrê ‘Ôlat hash-Shabbat: Some Observations on Their
Calendric Implications and on Their Style,” in The Madrid Qumran
Congress, ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (Leiden: Brill,
1992), 544, in Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 136.
82. Newsom, Songs, 1. The fragments are 4Q400–407.
83. Ibid.
84. The manuscript in question is the one found in Masada. For text and
commentary, see Newsom, Songs, 167–84.
85. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 141–43. So also
George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the
Mishnah, 2nd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 153: “[The Songs]
could have originated prior to the formation of the Qumran community in
‘circles’ that were disaffected with the Jerusalem temple and priesthood
and that also gave rise to some of the Enochic literature and the priestly
Aramaic Levi Document.”
86. So also Strugnell, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran,” 318–19.
87. Newsom develops this argument (Songs, 3); she points out that a
nontechnical usage of mskil is inappropriate in 1QSb I, 1; III, 22; V, 20. In
these references the mskil bear the responsibility to bless the community,
the high priest, the other priests, and the prince of the congregation.
Originally Newsom argued that the Songs were the product of the Qumran
community (Songs, 4). However, she seemed to later change her mind
(“‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and
Its Interpreters, ed. W. H. Propp, B Halpern, and D. N. Freedman [Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns], 185). It should be noted that Newsom does not
appear to be dogmatic in her opinion. In fact, she says, “The question of
determining what is sectarian or nonsectarian literature from the Qumran
library cannot be a matter merely of dividing the manuscripts into two
separate piles with appropriate labels” (“‘Sectually Explicit,’” 185).
88. Newsom, Songs, 8.
89. Ibid., 13.
90. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 152.
91. Newsom, Songs, 14.
92. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 152.
93. Ibid.
94. Newsom, Songs, 15.
95. Ibid. 4Q403 1 1:30–46; 1 2:1–16.
96. Ibid.
97. Newsom, Songs, 16; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 152–53.
98. Newsom, Songs, 16.
99. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. See 4Q400 2 5; 4Q400 2 6; 4Q403 1 II, 19 = 4Q405 8–9 3; 4Q405
6 7 + 4Q404 5 6. Newsom, Songs, 39.
102. Ps. 26:8 (LXX 25:8) is translated as oikos.
103. Deut. 26:15 (LXX οἶκος [oikos]); 2 Chron. 30:27 (LXX
katoikētērion).
104. E.g., 4Q400 2 6: “and how shall our priesthood (be considered) in
their habitations?” Translated by Newsom, Songs, 111.
105. See 4Q403 1 I, 41; 4Q405 14–15 I, 6; 11QShirShabb 2–1–9 7.
106. Newsom, Songs, 40.
107. For the author of Hebrews, the tabnît or typos was clearly referring
to an actual structure (see Heb. 8:5).
108. For Old Testament usage, see Exod. 38:21; 39:32; Lev. 17:4; Num.
1:50; Josh. 22:19; 1 Chron. 6:32 (6:17 LXX); Pss. 26:8; 46:5, etc. The
references in the Psalms refer not to the tabernacle (tent structure) but to
the “solid” temple.
109. 4Q403 1 II, 10; 4Q405 22 7.
110. Exod. 28:29; 35:19; Ps. 68:25; Ezek. 41:21; 45:2, etc.
111. The original text in the relevant Qumran documents has no vowels,
so words have been transliterated without the vowels.
112. 4Q400 1 I, 14; 4Q403 1 II, 11.
113. E.g., Exod. 15:17; Lev. 16:3; 20:3; Num. 18:9; 19:20, etc.
114. E.g., Ezek. 44:9, 15, 16; 48:10.
115. 4Q400 1 I, 13; 11QShirShabb 2–1–9 7.
116. Newsom, Songs, 41.
117. 4Q400 1 I, 4; 4Q403 1 II, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16; 4Q405 7 7;4Q405 14–
15 I, 7; 4Q405 15 II-16 3, 4, 5, 6.
118. Newsom, Songs, 16, 42.
119. Ibid., 42.
120. E.g., 4Q405 15 II-16 3.
121. The chronicler suggested that the partition was a curtain, even in
Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 3:14). This, however, may be an attempt to
harmonize the account of Solomon’s temple with the instructions in
Exodus and remove any heretical additions Solomon may have added to
the temple. Josephus appears to mediate the two positions, suggesting a
curtain and a wooden partition. His position appears to harmonize 1 Kings
6:31 and 2 Chron. 3:14 (Ant., 8.3.72).
122. See Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45. Josephus also mentions
the curtain of Herod’s temple (J. W., 5.5.219).
123. E.g., 4Q403 1 II, 2.
124. See Ps. 132:7.
125. Newsom, Songs, 45.
 126. 4Q403 1 II, 14–15; 4Q405 20 II-21.
127. E.g., Exod. 25:7; 28:4; 29:5, etc.
128. 11Q ShirShabb 7–8 5. For the translation and restoration of the
text, see Newsom, Songs, 371.
129. Newsom, Songs, 46.
130. According to Dahl, there were two types of ephod. The simple one
was ordinarily worn by the priests or—on occasion—by a king (see 1 Sam.
2:18 for Samuel as a child wearing an ephod and 2 Sam. 6:14, where
David dances wearing only a linen ephod). The other type was far more
elaborate and was interwoven with threads of gold, blue, purple, scarlet,
and linen. George Dahl, “Problem of the Ephod,” AThR 34, no. 4 (October
1, 1952): 208. For the high-priestly garments, see also E. P. Sanders,
Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity
Press International, 1992), 99.
131. Newsom, Songs, 46.
132. BDB, Whitaker, “ .”
133. Newsom, Songs, 334.
134. Ibid.
135. One must note also the cultic context in Jesus’s appearance of
Revelation 1 since He walks among the seven lampstands. Gregory Beale,
The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 206.
136. The description of Eremiel relies heavily upon Dan. 10:5–6.
137. Newsom, Songs, 334.
138. Ibid., 47. The phrase appears in 4Q405 19 3–4; 4Q405 22 11;
4Q405 23 II, 10; 11QShirShabb 8–7 5.
139. HALOT, 1788.
140. Newsom, Songs, 111.
141. Ibid., 47. 11QShirShabb 8–7 2; 3; 4Q405 94 2.
142. Ibid., 371. 11QShirShabb 8–7 2; 3.
143. The absence of blood and the emphasis on the aroma of the
sacrifices was also noted in T. Levi 3:6. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven,
34–35.
144. Newsom, Songs, 47.
145. Ibid., 49.
146. Ibid.
 147. Ibid.
148. L. H. Schiffman, “Merkavah Speculation at Qumran: The 4Q
Serekh Shirot ‘Olat ha-Shabbat,” in Mystics, Philosophers, and
Politicians: Essays in Jewish Intellectual History in Honor of Alexander
Altmannn, ed. J. Reinharz and D. Swetschinski (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press), 18–19, in Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 140.
149. Maier, “Shîrê ‘Ôlat hash-Shabbat,” 553.
150. Newsom, Songs, 71.
151. Newsom, Songs, 71–72.
152. Rowland, Open Heaven, 276, 300. Admittedly Rowland’s findings
concern the rabbinic times, but the point is not bound by the era we study;
expounding the Scriptures and ecstatic experiences are not in opposition
with each other but can be complimentary.
153. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 140.
154. Newsom, Songs, 65; Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 141.
155. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 148.
156. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 195.
157. Stevenson, Power and Place, 177–78.
158. Note that pseudonymity had a different function in other
apocalyptic books. By writing a book under the name of Enoch or Shem
the purpose was not so much to connect two similar situations but rather to
“effectively remove [the book] from the time and place of the present.”
Collins, Apocalypse, 12.
159. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 212.
160. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in Charlesworth, The
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 617.
161. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 224. Some others attempt to
date the books from the fictional dates their authors give. Collins mentions
Bogaert, who suggests that Ezra’s thirtieth year and Baruch’s twenty-fifth
year refer to the years from the second destruction of Jerusalem. Collins,
however, based on the possible relationship between these books, proposes
that Baruch purposely dated his book five years earlier than that of Ezra in
order to give seniority to his writings. Collins, The Apocalyptic
Imagination, 224. If his suggestion is correct, this too suggests that
Baruch’s work is slightly later than that of 4 Ezra.
 162. The fragment appears to be 2 Bar. 12:1–14:2. From 2 Bar. 13,
verses 3–10 are missing. “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” The Online
Critical Pseudepigrapha, accessed December 12, 2015,
http://ocp.tyndale.ca/docs/text/2Bar.
163. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” 616.
164. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 277.
165. Ibid.
166. Baruch questions how God’s name will be remembered, how
people will speak of God’s deeds, or who will explain God’s laws.
167. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 278.
168. Also in 4 Ezra, the author calls Zion “the mother of us all” (10:7)
and portrays Jerusalem as a grieving widow who lost her son (see 10:25–
28).
169. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 216.
170. The notion that the heavenly temple preexisted the creation of the
world will also be a matter of rabbinic speculation later. Klijn, “2 (Syriac
Apocalypse of) Baruch,” 622n4b. The Babylonian Talmud reads: “Seven
things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The
Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the
Temple, and the name of the Messiah” (b. Pes. 54a).
171. In 2 Baruch, Adam is often portrayed as representing sinful
humanity. He brought sin (23:4) and darkness into this world (18:2; 56:5),
and he is contrasted with Moses, the lawgiver who brought light to Israel
(17:4).
172. For the relationship between 2 Baruch and Pseudo-Philo, see M. R.
James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (New York: Macmillan, 1917),
46–57, and D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in Charlesworth, The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, 302.
173. Harrington dates Pseudo-Philo before the destruction of the second
temple—probably at a date around the time of Jesus. Harrington, “Pseudo-
Philo,” 299.
174. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 16.
175. The text reads: “And again I showed it also to Moses on Mount
Sinai. . . .” (2 Bar. 4:5).
176. As Newsom (Songs, 60) points out, the tabnit does not necessarily
refer to a structure; it could simply refer to a pattern. However, 2 Bar. 4:5
understands it as an actual temple, as does Heb. 8:2, 5.
 177. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 214–15.
178. The earth is told to receive the vessels of the temple, open her
mouth, and swallow them up.
179. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 215.
180. Ibid.
181. E.g., T. Levi 9:9; 1 En. 89:73. See also Stevenson, Power and
Place, 189, 191.
182. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 6.
183. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 45.
184. Jub. 23:21; 30:15 may be the only references that appear to hint of
temple pollution. The context is the sins of the future generations,
fornication, and intermarriage with foreigners. While these sins are said to
pollute the temple, it is not evident that the author considered the
priesthood or the worship of the temple to be polluted and impure. It is
possible that the author simply described a common belief that the sins of
the people defiled God’s temple.

Chapter 18

1. Gabriele Boccaccini, Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a

Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1.
2. E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983),
1:9–10.
3. For a list of possible allusions, see Frederick Mazzaferri, The Genre
of the Book of Revelation from a Source Critical Perspective (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1989), 48, n104; the list includes 1 En. 14:15//Rev. 4:1; 1 En.
90:19//Rev. 6:4; 1 En. 18:13//Rev. 8:8; 1 En. 86:1//Rev. 9:1.
4. Birger Pearson, “Jewish sources in Gnostic Literature,” in Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael Stone (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984), 451.
5. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 6.
6. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans 1998), 43.
7. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 6.
8. Orthography refers to the study of the correct spelling of words
according to established usage.
9. J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran
Cave 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 22–23.
10. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 44.
11. Margaret Barker, The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and its
Influence on Christianity (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2005), 105.
12. Barker (ibid., 107) does not set a date for the Book of Watchers. She
guesses that it should be dated after the return of the exiles from Babylon.
The comment is vague, but the full context in which she says it creates the
impression that she holds a very early date after the return.
Characteristically, she says that Enoch “could be as old as anything in the
Old Testament,” ibid., 22.
13. Ibid., 105.
14. George Nickelsburg argues that the Semyaz tradition was older and
independent of the Azaz’el tradition because (1) the Azaz’el material
breaks the continuity of the text (8:1–3); (2) the stories seem to come to
separate and contradicting conclusions, i.e., whereas in the case of Semyaz
the angels and their children are the perpetrators of evil, in Azaz’el the
human beings are responsible; (3) God’s commissioning to His archangels
contains duplications in their functions (10:9//10:15; 10:7//10:16, 20); (4)
the portions where the angels are said to have taught their wives secrets
(7:1; 8:3; 9:8) seem to be insertions with no function in the process of the
Semyaz story. “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96, no. 3
(1977): 384–86. See also Paul Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 220.
15. Ibid., 399–400. The calling of the Giants as Titans in 9:9 may also
betray influence from the Greek mythology and the story of Titan
Prometheus, as well as binding as a form of punishment in 18:16.
16. Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, line 502, in The Prometheus Bound
of Aeschylus and the Fragments of the Prometheus Unbound with
Introduction and Notes by N. Wecklein, trans. F. D. Allen (Boston: Ginn &
Company, 1878). There is closer connection to the Chronographia of
Georgius Syncellus manuscript designated as Gs by Isaac; specifically
among the arts taught to men is the working of gold, “ta metalla tēs gēs kai
to chrusion pōs ergasōntai,” 1 En. 8:1 Gs.
17. Ibid., 506. The text means that “all the crafts [were given] to mortals
by Prometheus.”
18. A possible exception may be the Gen. 6:2 account. However, other
explanations for the sons of God are also probable. The phrase “sons of
God” is not exclusively attributed to angels or other nonhuman beings. See
Deut. 14:1; Hosea 1:10 (2:1 LXX); Matt. 5:9.
19. The myth of Europa was told by Moschus. See J. M. Edmonds,
Greek Bucolic Poets: Theocritus, Bion, Moschus (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1912), 128–32.
20. Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, line 890, in The Complete Greek
Drama, ed. Whitney Oates and Eugene O’Neill, trans. Paul Elmer More
(New York: Random House, 1938), 152. Christopher Rowland, The Open
Heaven (London: SPCK, 1982), 266.
21. Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, lines 894–97.
22. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth,” 396.
23. Later it will be argued that other influences also shaped the account
of the Watchers.
24. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 44; Christopher Rowland
dates it to 250 BC. The Open Heaven, 266; Isaac (“1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse
of) Enoch,” 7) dates chapters 12–16 as early pre-Maccabean and chapters
6–11 as late pre-Maccabean. Nickelsburg dates the Semyaz tradition to the
wars of the Diadochoi in 323–302 BC. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients
of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100, no. 4 (1981): 575.
25. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth,” 391.
26. Nickelsburg (“Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” 54) considers chapters 12–
16 to represent a separate redactional age. As these chapters portray the
visit of Enoch to the heavenly temple, it is fair to say that—according to
Nickelsburg—the main theme is a polemic against an impure priesthood.
27. George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the
Mishnah, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2005), 47.
28. Codex Panopolitanus: two eighth-century-or-later manuscripts that
contain 1 En. 1:1–32:6. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 6.
29. I follow Isaac’s naming of the Ethiopic manuscripts. The C
manuscript is EMML 2080 from the fifteenth or possibly fourteenth
century. The base text for his translation is the Kebran 9/II manuscript
designated as A, also from the fifteenth century. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic
Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 6.
30. Noah was the son of Lamech according to Gen. 5:28–29.
31. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 57.
32. Carol Newsom, “The Development of 1 Enoch 6–19: Cosmology
and Judgment,” CBQ 42 (1980): 324. As an example Newsom cites 2
Kings 20:13–15, where Hezekiah attempted to impress the Babylonian
ambassadors with his riches. When the prophet Isaiah rebuked the king,
Hezekiah’s surprise shows that such a display was “a customary practice
of Near Eastern diplomacy.” Newson continues by pointing out that the
royal background should not surprise us since apocalyptic literature
frequently derives features from royal tradition and the Semyaz narrative is
best understood in terms of a rebellion against the divine king. See ibid.,
325.
33. Ibid., 326.
34. Barker, The Lost Prophet, 24; Newsom, “The Development of 1
Enoch 6–19,” 326.
35. Michael Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the
Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, vol. 2, Introduction,
Translation and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978),
99.
36. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 200.
37. The idea of cherubim as boundaries is not without precedence. See
Gen. 3:24, where the task of a cherubim was to ban access to the tree of
life.
38. Characteristically, Rowland (The Open Heaven, 255) says: “Some of
these parallels can be explained by the common use of Old Testament
imagery, particularly the first chapter of Ezekiel, but this is hardly enough
to explain why in such sort space such agreement should be found.”
39. “myriai myriades—wəribô ribəbān.”
40. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek–English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1996), 1,369, s.v. “peribolaion.”
41. Exod. 22:26; Deut. 22:12; Judg. 8:26; Job 26:6; Pss. 101:27; 103:6;
Isa. 50:3; 59:17; Jer. 15:12; Ezek. 16:13; 27:7; 1 Cor. 11:15; Heb. 1:12.
42. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” 580 n19.
43. E.g., hagiasma: Exod. 15:17; 25:8; 1 Chron. 22:19; 28:10; 2 Chron.
20:8; 30:8; Amos 7:13; Dan. 9:17; 11:31 (Theodotion text); hagion: Exod.
15:13; Lev. 4:6; 10:18; 16:2; 21:23; Dan. 8:11, 14; 9:24.
44. See 1 Kings 6:3; Josephus, J. W., 5.207–19 in The Complete Works
of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988);
M Mid. 4:7. Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and
Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 14.
 45. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” 582.
46. Josephus, J. W., 5.222–23, emphasis mine.
47. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 15.
48. Ibid., 15.
49. Rowland, The Open Heaven, 220–21.
50. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 15.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid., 16; Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical
Edition (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 49.
53. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” 585 n37.
54. Josephus, Ant., 7.14.7 §367, in Whiston, The Complete Works of
Josephus, 299. The Greek text reads: “kai tois hiereysi douleuein kata
nukta kai hēmeran tō theō kathōs autois epesteile Mōsēs.”
55. “. . . latreuousa kai hēmeran.”
56. David Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family
Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 123.
57. Ibid., 119, 130.
58. “But lie with a woman who sees her bloody discharge,” CD V:6-7,
in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, trans. Geza Vermes
(London: Penguin, 2004), 132.
59. Pss. Sol. 8:12: “epatousan to thusiastērion kuriou apo pasēs
akatharsias kai en afedrō haimatos emianan tas thusias hōs bebēla.”
60. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 21.
61. Ibid.
62. The importance of the priesthood’s purity line is also mentioned by
Josephus, who claimed that even in the diaspora “wheresoever any body of
men of our nation do live; and even there exact catalogue of our priests’
marriages is kept.” Ag. Ap. 1.32.
63. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 18.
64. Dan. 7:10: “kritērion ekathise kai bibloi ēneōchthēsan.”
65. Himmelfarb, Ascend to Heaven, 18; see also Menahem Haran,
Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1995), 164.
66. Lev. 16:4.
67. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 18.
 68. Yoma 3:6; The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with
Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes, trans. Herbert Danby (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1933).
69. E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE–66CE (London:
SCM, 1992), 92–102.
70. Ibid., 98.
71. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 18.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid., 19.
74. “Letter of Aristeas 97–99,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 2:19; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 19.
75. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 19.
76. 4Q405 23 II, 7–10; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 20.
77. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 20.
78. Calum Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and
Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives (Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, 2006), 40.
79. John Hartley, Leviticus, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1992), 238.
80. 1 En. 10:8: “kai ērēmōhthē pasa hē gē afanistheisa en tois ergois tēs
didaskalias azaēl kai ep’ autō grapson tas hamartias pasas.”
81. Tg. Ps.-J.; Lev. 16; J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch (London: Longman, 1865), 198.
82. There is no evidence that the priesthood in the time of 1 Enoch ever
did seek such forgiveness.
83. See above (note 38). Rowland, however, assumes the priority of 1
Enoch.

Chapter 19

1. For the purposes of this chapter I will follow the translation of H. C.

Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1, Apocalyptic
Literature and Testaments (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).
2. G. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 232; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic
Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 127.
3. H. W. Hollander, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in
Outside the Old Testament, ed. M. de Jonge, Cambridge Commentaries on
Writings of the Jewish and Christian World: 200 BC to AD 200
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 4:71.
4. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 775.
5. Marinus de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and the Testament of
Levi,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Esther G. Chazon
and Michael E. Stone (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 71–90.
6. Kee holds that the original composition was in Greek. He minimizes
Christian interpolations to “not more than twelve” (“Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs,” 777). In contrast, R. H. Charles argued for a Hebrew
original dating from the second century BC, whose strong ethical
admonitions influenced not only the writers of the New Testament but
even the words of Jesus (The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
[Charleston, SC: Bibliolife, 2009], xvii). His view on the original language
no longer carries much influence, and a notion on substantial influence on
Jesus and the New Testament is highly unlikely.
7. Hollander, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 73–74.
Hollander considers the work “either as a Christian composition in which a
number of Jewish sources and traditions have been incorporated, or as a
Jewish document which was thoroughly Christianized so that it is
impossible to remove ‘Christian’ elements without affecting the whole”
(74). In his view it is a second-century attempt to convince Jews that they
were wrong in rejecting Jesus, but Hollander does not detect any anti-
Jewish bias. Rather, the Christian writer or redactor looks forward to the
salvation not only of the Gentiles but also of the people of Israel.
8. In contrast to Hollander, and on the basis of variants of T. Levi 19:1
—which include a plural first person pronoun—de Jonge thinks that not
only the writer but the readers were Christian (“Levi in Aramaic Levi and
the Testament of Levi,” 77, 89).
9. J. Charlesworth holds that the work is essentially Jewish, reworked
“infrequently” by Christians. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research
with Supplement, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7 (Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981), 212. A. Dupond-Summer (Le Testament de Lévi [xvii–xviii]
et la secte juive de l’ Alliance, Sem 4 [1952]: 33–53) and M. Philinenko
(Les interpolations chrétiennes des Testaments des Douze Patriarches et
les manuscrits de Qumran, Cahiers de la RHPR 35 [Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1960]) have argued for authorship by people
affiliated with Qumran but have gained few followers. For a good
discussion on the oscillation of views on origins until the 1970s, see
H. Dixon Slingerland, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical
History of Research, SBLMS 21 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977).
See also Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian
Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 30.
10. For a discussion of the relationship of the ALD and the T. Levi, see
Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, SBLEJL 9 (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1996). Kugler tried to reconstruct the ALD on the basis of the
available fragments and the T. Levi. Contrast with de Jonge, “Levi in
Aramaic Levi and the Testament of Levi,” 77–89. Himmelfarb (Ascent to
Heaven, 30) considers the ALD to be the “major source” for the T. Levi.
11. Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice and the Temple: Symbolism and
Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 132.
12. According to Gen. 22:2 the choice of Mount Moriah is made by
God, and it eventually becomes the location of the Jerusalem temple (2
Chron. 3:1).
13. Scripture in this chapter is taken from the ESV unless otherwise
specified.
14. In his critical edition Charles divided the manuscripts into two
families, which he named α and β. He considered the former as a better
family, freer from Christian interpolation, and based his critical edition
primarily—but not entirely—upon it, often oscillating between the two. By
contrast, M. de Jonge opted for β. Jonge, with H. W. Hollander, H. J. de
Jonge, and T. Korteweg, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A
Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti
Graece 1.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1978). α refers to three heavens whereas β refers
to seven. Adela Yarbro Collins, correctly in my opinion, considers the
three heavens as the earlier and more ancient concept, growing possibly
out of the šəmê haššāmayîm of the Hebrew Scriptures. Cosmology and
Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill, 2000),
26–28. She also notes that, though in some manuscripts seven heavens are
envisioned, only the three are described in any detail, confirming that the
seven heavens must be secondary. See also Himmelfarb, Ascent to
Heaven, 32–33.
 15. E.g., Luke 10:41; 22:31; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14. In all these instances
the double appellation introduces a gentle rebuke, something that does not
parallel the use in T. Levi 2:7. Nonetheless, the use is common enough to
function almost as a standardized form of address by Jesus in intimate
dialogue, something that would fit the context of the heavenly invitation to
Levi.
16. Gen. 22:11; Exod. 3:4; 1 Sam. 3:10.
17. So F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in
Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:94–95; M. D. Johnson, in
Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:252.
18. E.g., Mart. Isa. 7:1–9:18; 2 En. 22:1; 3 En. 17:1–3; 18:1–2; Jos.
Asen. 22:13; b. Hag. 12b; P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of)
Enoch,” in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:239–40.
19. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice and the Temple, 132.
20. Gen. 1:7 (cf. 7:11); Job 38:22.
21. Sir. 39:28–29.
22. Enuma Elish IV 139–40.
23. Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology, 27.
24. E.g., Apoc. Adam 3:1–3; 1 En. 6–16; 2 Bar. 56:15–16; 4 Ezra 3:9–
11; Sib. Or. 3.80–90; Apoc. El. 5:22–24.
25. Apoc. Zeph.; 3 En. 10:1; T. Adam 4:8; Apoc. El. 1:10.
26. Apoc. El. 1:8; T. Ab. 11:9; L. A. E. 39:2. In the Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:9–
12, Herod sits on a throne and is being punished by angels.
27. Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30.
28. Cf. Rev. 4:4; 11:16; 20:4.
29. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 33–34.
30. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 791.
31. Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:5–14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4. The numerical
discrepancy between the twenty-four elders in Revelation and the seven
“men” in the T. Levi can be explained in that Levi depicts an activity in
which only seven men actively participate.
32. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 791. Nickelsburg
(Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishna, 235) also points to
Jub. 32:1–9, where Levi’s ordination is also narrated, but the Jub. account
is very different from the T. Levi. While the former takes place on earth
(Jub. 32:2), the latter takes place in heaven (T. Levi 8:1); the former is
accompanied by tithe, libations, and burnt offerings (Jub. 32:4–8); the
latter is not. In the former Jacob leads out in the investiture (Jub. 32:3); in
the latter it is heavenly beings (T. Levi 8:2).
33. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 791.
34. Ibid.
35. Matt. 3:17; 12:18; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; cf. 2 Pet. 1:17.
See also Mark 12:6 and Luke 20:13, where the “beloved son” in the
parable of the evil vineyard keepers is clearly an allusion to Jesus.
36. Nickelsburg (Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishna,
237) nonetheless believes that there was an earlier Jewish section dealing
with the “new priest” on the basis of parallels with the prayer of Levi in
the ALD and the close connection to T. Levi 4:2–6. He also asserts that the
vesting of the roles of priest and king onto one person in T. Levi 18:2–3 is
Jewish. The latter assertion appears unwarranted given that throughout the
Testaments priesthood comes from Levi’s descendants and royalty from
the tribe of Judah; the two remain distinct. The mingling of the two must
be considered Christian. Nickelsburg admits that chapter 18 is “almost
certainly Christian,” as evidenced in that the chapter is “unmatched for its
attribution of superlatives to a human figure.” But it makes sense if the
“human figure” was understood to be Jesus.
37. CD 7 18–20; 1QPsJ 9–18; 1QM 9 6; 4QPBless 5 27.
38. Matt. 2:1. The star plays a dominant role in Matthew’s nativity
narrative. It prompts the visit of the wise men from the east, a highlight in
the portrayal of Jesus as a royal messiah. Luke 2:8–15 mentions not the
star but a host of heavenly angels, who announce the birth to a group of
shepherds.
39. De Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and the Testament of Levi,” 74.
40. Matt. 8:11; 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 13:28; 20:37.
41. Charlesworth (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with
Supplement, 212) limits the Christian sections in chapter 18 to verses 6–
14. Removing these verses would leave chapter 18 tattered, unlikely given
that the coming of a “new priest” is the highlight of Levi’s oracles (8:14;
16:3).
42. Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22.
43. 1 Tim. 5:21 does not mention the angel of the presence; rather, Paul
gives his charge “in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the
elect angels.”
 44. T. Reu. 6:7–12; T. Sim. 5:4–6; 7:1–3; T. Jud. 21:1–3; T. Iss. 5:7–8;
T. Dan 5:10–11; T. Naph. 5:1–8; T. Gad 8:1; T. Jos. 19:11.
45. Cf. Jub. 30:18. In Jub. the act of the two brothers in slaying the
Shechemites is considered a righteous act and appears connected to Levi’s
priesthood, though the one is not explicitly said to lead to the other. By
contrast, in the T. Levi the slaughter is commanded in the divine throne
room, and Levi’s investiture is a direct result of his obedience.
46. In Heb. 5:5, Jesus’s high-priestly office is superior because He has
received a call directly from God and in verse 9 was made perfect; in 7:1–
10 the office is superior because Abraham, the father and therefore
superior of Levi, offered his tithe to Melchizedek according to whose order
Jesus was made priest; in 7:11–22 Jesus is superior because He is the
mediator of a better covenant and offers perfection, something the
Levitical priesthood could never attain to; in 8:1–5 Jesus serves in the
heavenly temple, whereas the descendants of Levi served in the earthly
temple, which is but a type of the heavenly one.
47. Himmelfarb (Ascent to Heaven, 31) demonstrates that a second
ascent was part of the ALD, though its content is not available in the
extant manuscripts.
48. Cf. the relevant studies in this compilation.
49. Ibid.

Chapter 20

1. Cf. Aleksandr Men, Pravoslavnoe Bogosluzhenie: Tainstvo, Slovo I

Obraz (Moscow: Slovo, 1991).
2. E.g., James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924); Ernst
Käsemann, Das Wandernde Gottesvolk; Eine Untersuchung Zum
Hebräerbrief, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); Erich
Grässer, “Der Glaube Im Hebräerbrief,” Habilitationsschrift (Marburg:
N. G. Elwert, 1965); Franz Joseph Schierse, The Epistle to the Hebrews,
trans. Benen Fahy (London: Burns & Oates, 1969); Gerd Theissen,
Untersuchungen Zum Hebräerbrief, Studien Zum Neuen Testament 2
(Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1969); Ceslas Spicq, L’épître Aux
Hébreux, 2 vols., Sources Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1977); Jean Héring,
The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Epworth, 1970); Lala Kalyan Kumar
Dey, Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews
(Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975); Jean Daniélou, “La Symbolique Du
Temple de Jerusalem Chez Philon Et Josephe,” in Le Symbolisme
Cosmique Des Monuments Religieux, Orientale Roma XIV (Rome: Is.
M.E.O., 1957).
3. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia, ed. Helmut Koester (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1989), 29.
4. Ibid. Attridge makes 722 references to the name Philo in his
commentary.
5. Werner G. Jeanrond, “History of Biblical Hermeneutics,” in ABD,
436.
6. Hans Dieter Betz, s.v. “Hellenism,” in ABD, 129.
7. Peder Borgen, s.v. “Philo of Alexandria,” in ABD, 342.
8. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 223.
9. Ibid., 223–24.
10. Ibid., 222–24. For a wider explanation about Philo and the
sanctuary/temple, see Stuart Dunbar Robertson, The Account of the
Ancient Israelite Tabernacle and First Priesthood in the “Jewish
Antiquities” of Flavius Josephus (Ann Arbor, MI: Bell & Howell, 1992),
238–77.
11. E.g., Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel
& Revelation Committee Series 4 (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald,
1989); William G. Johnsson, “Defilement and Purgation in the Book of
Hebrews” (PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1973); R. Williamson,
“Platonism and Hebrews,” SJT 16, no. 4 (1963); Ronald Williamson, Philo
and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Geschichte Des Hellenistischen Judentums
4 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); Allan J. McNicol, “The Relationship of the Image
of the Highest Angel to the High Priest Concept in Hebrews” (PhD diss.,
Vanderbilt University, 1974).
12. William G. Johnsson, “The Heavenly Sanctuary—Figurative or
Real?,” in Holbrook, Issues in the Book of Hebrews, 50.
13. Cf. H. L. Strack and G. Stermberger, Introduction to the Talmud and
Midrash (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991); also Jacob Neusner, Introduction
to the Rabbinic Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1994). Neusner
particularly defines “a canon of the Judaism of the Dual Torah,” to which
many documents such as the targumim and pseudepigrapha are not
included. While the discussion on the full definition of the canon of Dual
Torah is beyond the scope of this presentation, we will follow this
definition throughout this chapter.
14. Gershom Sholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York:
Schocken Books, 1974).
15. The new academic translation of this document just came out.
Hershy Worch, Sefer Yetzirah: Chronicles of Desire—New
Hebrew/English Translation & Commentary (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 2010).
16. For example, s.v. “Psalm 18:6,” HALOT.
17. Avigdor Agtovitzer, “Byt hmkdš šl lmʿlh ʾl ph hgdh,” Tarbiz (1930):
139–53.
18. ʾAggādâ (from the hifil stem of the Heb. root NGD, “to tell”) is a
genre of rabbinic literature that deals with the exposition and interpretation
of scripture.
19. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 3, Bible Times and
Characters from the Exodus to the Death of Moses (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1968).
20. Homiletical or Aggadic Midrāšîm present the compilations of
rabbinic homilies that expound on Scripture through a special exegetical
method called dārāš (seeking, searching, exploring).
21. Tanḥûmaʾ Yəlammədēnnû is a collection of the homilies that
expound on the weekly Torah portions read in the synagogues in
accordance with the annual cycle of the Torah reading. A New Testament
reference to the existence of such a cycle can be found in Acts 13:15.
22. Bamidbār Rabbâ is a part of the collection of Mišrāšîm called
Midrāš Rabbâ. It presents a homiletical commentary on the selected verses
from the weekly Torah portions found in the book of Numbers.
23. Midrash is a compilation of Rabbinic homilies that deals with the
exegesis of the Torah text.
24. Cf. Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Mišraš.
25. Translation is based on J. Townsend’s edition of S. Buber’s
recension of the Midrash. Cf. Midrash Tanhima: Translated into English
with Introduction, Indices, and Brief Notes (S. Buber Recension), trans. J.
Townsend, 3 vols. (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV: 1989-2003), 2 vols. (Hoboken,
NJ: Ktav, 1989).
26. Dərash derives from the phrase “to interpret” and represents a
homiletical approach to the interpretation of the Torah used in rabbinic
Judaism. The method is often used in midrashic literature.
27. This is a commentary of S. Cassel in The Metsidah Midrash
Tanchumah, ed. Avraham Davis, trans. Reb S. Cassel, vol. 1, Bamidbar
(Monsey, NY: Eastern Books Press, 2005). Cf. next note.
28. A similar trend of thinking occurs in the New Testament: “Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8 KJV).
29. While S. Cassel may be correct in his comment on the Tanḥûma’s
statement “šbʿ dbrym brʾw dšlʾ nybrʾ hʿwlm” (“seven things were created
before the world was created”) in regards to Israel’s patriarchs and
repentance, we believe that this statement in regards to the throne of glory
and the sanctuary—as well as the Torah and the name of the Messiah—
should be not taken literally.
30. Translation is based on J. Townsend’s edition of S. Buber’s
recension of the Midrash. Cf. note 25.
31. In his comments on this passage of Bamidbār, Rabah Ginzberg cites
more parallel passages from other rabbinic sources that talk about the
temple menorah being lit straight from the heavenly sanctuary, where the
pattern—fashioned of fire—for the ark, the table, and the candlestick came
down from heaven to Moses so that he might make these vessels for the
sanctuary. Cf. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 6:65n338. Based on
these passages, we can conclude that the expression translated here as
“heavenly abode” should be understood as “heavenly temple.”
32. By “early rabbinic texts” we imply the documents from the tannaitic
(before AD 200) and amoraic (second through sixth centuries) periods.
33. Ginzberg particularly cites the Beth Ha-Midrash medieval
compilation of different scriptural commentaries, which talk about
Michael as the high priest of the heavenly sanctuary. However, due to the
fragmentary and complex nature of this particular rabbinic document, its
detailed investigation is beyond the scope of this article. The theme of the
heavenly temple occurs in many medieval midrāšîm. However, these
collections present the compilations of the earlier midrāšîm and medieval
Jewish commentaries. Due to the late dates of these documents, they
cannot be considered a part of the classical rabbinic literature and therefore
are excluded from this research.
34. Frances I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York:
Doubleday, 1989), 844–55.