NAS: Heb 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,
2 a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.
NKJV Heb 9:
7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance;
8 ¶ the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All [Holy of Holies] was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.
9 It was symbolic for the present time [Paul’s time] in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Last time I talked about the Lamb of God metaphor. Jesus is the LAMB of God who takes away the sin of the world. This has to do with the relationship between the Old Testament to the New Testament. And I compared that relationship to a metaphor –> figurative language that indicates a Spiritual fulfillment.
That relationship is one of PROMISE to FULFILLMENT. But that relationship is not Physical promise to physical fulfillment. No. It is ALSO NOT physical promise to Spiritual fulfillment. It is PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES where the promise of relief from those circumstances is phrased in what can sound like a physical fulfillment but is actually a SPIRITUAL PROMISE.
The chart would look like this:
PROMISE ——————————— > to —————————————– > FULFILLMENT
Physical Circumstances—————> Prompt a promise——————> For relief (return, restoration)
SPIRITUAL PROMISE—————-> in “physical” language———–> Remains a SPIRITUAL PROMISE
Above is the idea that the Temple/Tabernacle has the same metaphorical or figurative relationship between the OT and the NT. People are expecting a physical temple to be rebuilt when the Spritual Temple (the Body of Christ, the Church) IS that fulfillment. It is a matter of identifying and unpacking the figurative language such as metaphor. I am not going for precision in this little paper but the general idea: The Old Testament promises always looked forward to Spiritual Fulfillment in the NT.
IMAGES THAT PERTAIN TO THAT FULFILLMENT
TABERNACLE SPIRITUALTABERNACLE
a physical tent in the wilderness Jesus tabernacled among us [1] a type of Israel restore David’s fallen tent [2]
PRIESTHOOD SPIRITUAL PRIESTHOOD
Physical Priesthood (Zechariah) Jesus is our High Priest We (church) are all priests
G. K. Beale says:
“First, a ‘literal’hermeneutic’ is not the best way to describe a biblical hermeneutic. Perhaps a ‘literate hermeneutic’ that aspires to the broad literary meaning in the canonical context is a better way to put it. We should want to follow an interpretive method that aims to unravel the original intention of biblical authors [and as Beale mentions elswhere: God is also an original author], realizing that that intention may be multi-layered, without any of the layers contradicting the others. Such original intentions may have meaning more correspondent to physical reality (hence so-called ‘literal hermeneutic’) while others may refer to ‘literal’ spiritual realities.” [G. K. Beale, THE TEMPLE AND THE CHURCH’S MISSION, page 289]
What we had last week was Jesus as the Lamb of God where no one thought Jesus was a four footed animal. That is just silly. However, when we get to the Temple metaphor we cannot so easily discern that this reality is also fulfilled in a non-literal sense (as defined by Beale above, a LITERAL SPIRITUAL REALITY!). If it were easy to discern this fact there would not be any Dispensationalists who insist upon a rebuilt, earthly temple. But why is this the case?
Another verse to ponder that says the people of God are also the Temple of God:
1Peter 2:4-5 (NAS)
4 ¶ And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 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.
Recognizing Figurative Language3
Did you ever ask yourself how anyone could not “see” the spiritual nature of the Temple in the above verse when the word “spiritual house” is actually used? One reason is due to the way people process figurative language. I am not defending the hypothesis below to the exclusion of others. However, I think it is evidently true to some degree. And it fits well with my overall analysis. It is a Hypotheses to explain the way we process metaphor, here applied to parables but the process can be extended to many other things, such as the relationship of the OT to the NT. Remember that in those who recognize figurative language this process can be instantatnious.
The Extended Conceptual Base Hypothesis has 4 phases.
1) The problem recognition phase
2) The literal transformation phase
3) The figurative phase
4) The instantiation4 phase
This is somewhat similar to the Traditional View of “figurative understanding” according to the author. What it shares with the traditional view is“The view that figurative comprehension results from serial processes during which the literal meaning of a proverb is transformed to help construct a non-literal (say in our case a Spiritual) interpretation. (176)
Think of this in terms of a discussion with a Dispensationalist and it gets quite interesting. In Phase 1, the problem to be recognized in Problem Recognition is the fact that a LITERAL solution to the phrase is not a good solution. Last week the Dispy would see almost instantly that Jesus is not a literal LAMB in our example where Jesus is THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD. There is some disconnect. However, if one holds to a literal meaning one goes no farther in interpretation:
-“If the literal meaning is found to be appropriate, then further processing is stopped!"
Is this not what happens in Dispensational “thinking”? They INSIST that there is a LITERAL fulfillment so that further investigation is not necessary. They would not wait for a future four footed Messiah (LAMB), so that in that instance they recognize the metaphor and proceed on to further analysis. However, in terms of the TEMPLE they do NOT see it and they wait for a future physical fulfillment.
Back to the Extended Conceptual Base Hypothesis.
1) The problem recognition phase – the listener recognizes the discrepancy between the literal meaning of the proverb and its context.
It is recognized that the LAMB OF GOD is a metaphor and we go on to the next phase. But TEMPLE is in their estimation to be PHYSICALLY rebuilt so all processing stops.
2) The literal transformation phase – the literal meaning of the proverb is elaborated and recognized
A. It is recognized that the LAMB OF GOD refers to the Old Testament Sacrificial system. What the idea of LAMB had in the Temple in the OT is somehow being transferred to Jesus as the LAMB OF GODB. It is recognized that the Temple in the OT had a set of ideas that is being transferred to Jesus as the Temple and the people of God as the Temple. In what sense is it now a SPIRITUAL HOUSE?
3) The figurative phase – involves the creation of the so-called conceptual base, which constitutes the bases for building an analogical relationship between contrasting sets of ideas. Since the contrasting ideas cannot be reconciled on a literal basis, the conceptual base is necessarily abstract and general.
A. But WHAT ideas about the LAMB in the OT sacrificial system of Israel are being transferred? Since Jesus as the Lamb is TAKING AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD, it must be something about blood atonement, death, offering to God etc. These images and concepts and ideas taught from a physical reality standpoint so that we could grasp them are being used in a figurative manner to describe a reality we cannot grasp with our senses, a SPIRITUAL REALITY.B. But WHAT ideas about the LAMB in the OT sacrificial system of Israel are being transferred? Similarly, it is the place where God’s presence dwelt in Israel, It was the place where priests serve, it was the place of prayer and worship, it was the center of the culture, etc.
Again 1 Peter 2:5 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.
4) The instantiation phase – the conceptual base is extended to new events. I have used it for two separate (though related) revelations: Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world AND He is the Temple AND His people are the Temple. All are similar spiritual applications that need to be recognized as non-woodenly-literal.
Many of the passages pertaining to the Temple from the OT prophetic passages sound as if they are to be fulfilled in a physical sense. However, the NT fulfillment indicates that the fulfillment should be thought of in terms of figurative language.
The Temple in Hebrews: taken from G. K. Beale (Temple, pp.293-297)
NAS Heb 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,
2 a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.
Beale says,
“Before focusing on the temple, however, it is important to recall the main points of Hebrews within which the discussion of the temple occurs as a subordinate topic to the overriding concern of the book: who is Jesus in relation to the Old Testament epoch? The book begins by underscoring the absolute supremacy of Jesus over angels and humans (1:3-2:16). He is also greater than Moses (3:1-6), partly because Moses’ leadership did not result in the ultimate ‘rest’ for God’s people (3:7-19); likewise, Christ is greater than Joshua for the same reason (4:6-11). Jesus is the high priest par excellance (4: 14-5:10), and as such he is a priest in the ine of Melchizedek, a priestly order superior to that of the Levitical priesthood, offering up a superior sacrifice in comparison to the sacrifices of the old covenant (7:1-28). In fact, the Levitical priesthood, their temporary sacfifices, and the sanctuary in whic the priests served are but old covenant shadows of the new covenant in which Christ is the eternal high priest as well as the abiding sacrifice in an everlasting tabernacle (8:1-10:22).
In Beale’s analysis here, Christ is BETTER. And our contention is that Christ is BETTER due to the BETTER fulfillment, the SPIRITUAL fulfillment – a conclusion that Dr. Beale would agree with.
Heb 8:
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN."
Beale says,
The Heavenly sanctuary of Hebrews 8 is called the ‘true tabernacle’ because the earthly one was but a ‘copy and shadow of the heavenly’ one (8:5a). The gist of verse 5b confirms this: ‘ just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN (quoting Exodus 25:40). Hebrews informs us of something not clear in Exodus: the pattern that Moses saw on Sinai was apparently of the true heavenly tabernacle that was to come later with Christ and descend and eventually fill the whole earth. It was this eschatological sanctuary of which Moses was to make a small earthly model. This was the ‘true tabernacle’ because it was the ‘genuine article’, the ‘literal’ and real one. In contrast, the earthly tent was but ‘a copy and shadow’, a figurative portrayal of the literal heavenly one (so also Heb 9:24) that was “the greater and more perfect tabernacle’ (Heb 9:11). Heaven is viewed axiologically … as the ‘place’ of God’s presence, that transcends earth as the source of all reality and value” (quoting William Lane’s Hebrews commentary page 210-211). Axiology = the study of values [ontology and origin]
Think of these statements in terms of Typology. The OT shadows are called the “types” and the NT reality or fulfillment the “anti-type”. In metaphor we have called the OT types the VEHICLE and the NT fulfillment, or that which we want to shed light upon the TENOR. It makes it sound as if we are projecting into some unknown realm where things are not real, where we are SPIRITUALIZING. However, as the above analysis shows, the OT shadows, the physical realm, is created to teach us about the true reality, the heavenly reality, the spiritual reality. As Max King says, you can’t chickenize a chicken. In the same way you can’t SPIRITUALIZE that which was always intended to be the fulfillment, albeit in the Spiritual Realm.
Beale again:
It is important to underscore the ‘true’ nature of the new tabernacle in which Christ now dwells and the ‘figurative’ tabernacle that God dwelt in during Israel’s wilderness wanderings. Some Christian interpreters believe that what is literal can only be physical and what is non-literal must be non-physical. The author of Hebrews, however, gives precisely the opposite definition: the literal sanctuary is the heavenly one and the figurative sanctuary is the earthly. Hebrews 9:8-9 even refers to the old ‘tabernacle’ (precisely, the holy place) as a ‘symbol’ or ‘parable’ of the end-time tabernacle (e.g. in 9:11) in order to underscore that the former tabernacle was not ultimately the real one (Walker 1996:204). Part of the reason for this resides in the meaning of the author’s use of ‘true’ (alethinos). The reference to the tabernacle as ‘true’ in Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 connotes both 1) that which is ‘genuine’ or represents ‘the true state of affairs’ AND 2) prophetic typological fulfillment.
Beale then spends two full paragraphs proving from Scripture his definition of ‘true’ (page296). He then concludes and quotes Edmund Clowney (where we will close this talk).
Beale says,
Thus, we may say that the eschatological temple is ‘true’ not only in the sense of fulfillment but also in that, unlike the previous temples, it is the ultimate one that will remain forever. The former temple was not the ‘true one’, not only because it was a mere shadow of the one to come but because it would cease to exist [FOOTNOTE 8: A further reason for the eternal existence of the new temple in the new creation is that it will exist in the midst of God’s unfettered glory, whereas God’s special presence in the old cosmos was cordoned of in a back room of the old temple]. To believe that a physical temple will be built after the eschatological one has been inaugurated would be to return to the former ‘shadowy’ stage of temple existence. Once the end-time, eternal temple that corresponds to the reality of the heavenly one comes, it would be a strange reversal for God to commend a return to the shadows. To believe that Israel’s temple or one rebuilt by human hands would last forever is a false view because it mistakes the symbolic temple (Heb 9:8-10) for the real one (Heb 9:11).
And,
Edmund Clowney has underscored how crucial it is to comprehend that this perspective of the temple is not spiritualizing in our usual sense of the word, but the very opposite. In Christ is realization. It is not so much that Christ fulfills what the temple means; rather Christ is the meaning for which the Temple existed…Our reflection on the claims of Christ has already shown us that his use of the Old Testament is far from figurative. The situation is completely reversed. In the wisdom of God’s purpose the earlier revelation pints forward to the climax, when, in the fullness of time, god sent his own Son into the world.Christ is the true temple, the true light, the true manna, the true vine. The coming of the true supersedes the figurative. The veil of the temple made with hands is destroyed, for its symbolism is fulfilled.At the cross the actualization of the symbolism of sacrifice is particularly clear. It is not a figurative use of the OT language to say that Christ is the Lamb of God offered to make atonement for sin. The sin-offering at the temple altar is not being ‘spiritualized’ when we say it is fulfilled in Christ. Neither is the temple being ‘spiritualized’ when we say that in the resurrection the true temple was raised up. No earthly temple made with hands can ever again become the place of God’s dwelling.”
I praise God that the TRUE TEMPLE has been built, though it is being added to every day. It is the Church, the Body of Christ, where we Christians are stones of the temple and also priests serving in this Spiritual House that will last forever.
[1] John 1.14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt [to fix one’s tabernacle, have one’s tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle] among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[2] Amos 9:11 "In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be,
Acts 15:15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 "‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ 18 that have been known for ages.
[3] All of this is from this paper by Anna Cieslicka, COMPREHENSION AND INTERPRETATION OF PROVERBS, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 37, 2002 for Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan. The major strength of her presentation is the clarity with which she explains the competing views on interpretation. The two major views are, according to the author, the EXTENDED CONCEPTUAL BASE HYPOTHESIS (ECBH) and the CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR HYPOTHESIS. As usual I find a “both/and” approach can work here because I can allow for “apriori” categories in our minds as beings created in the image of God, and I need not stress over how such things could be present in “evolved” human beings.
[4] Main Entry: in·stan·ti·ate
Pronunciation: in-’stan (t) -shE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
: to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete instance <heroes instantiate ideals — W. J. Bennett> – in·stan·ti·a·tion /-"stan(t)-shE-’A-sh&n/ noun
{mos_fb_discuss:2}
