The Veil and the High Priestly Robes of the Incarnation: Understanding the Context of Heb 10:20

Mark A. Jennings
Marquette University, Milwaukee WI 53233

One of the most fleeting, yet alluring, statements in the entire epistle to the Hebrews is , ' ("through the veil, that is, his flesh") of Heb 10:2.1 Such a provoking statement leaves the reader with a litany of questions. In what sense is Christ's flesh related to the veil? What is the appropriate background for understanding this reference? How does the flesh-veil pairing function in the opening of this new living way that gives a believer access to God's presence? In answering these questions, the prevailing scholarly opinion has been that the author of Hebrews is working within the imagery of the Day of Atonement sacrifice, with the "flesh" of Heb 10:20 referring to Christ's sacrificial death on the cross.2 In general, the majority opinion regarding , ' is that the separation ("veil") between God and his people had ended by means of Christ's consummate sacrifice ("flesh") on the cross. This reference to Christ's 'This essay was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and benefited substantially from its discussion. I would specifically like to thank Eric F. Mason, Felix H. Cortez, and David M. Moffitt for their helpful (and challenging) insights. I am especially thankful to the "first reader'* of this essay, my professor Andrei A. Orlov, for his continual encouragement and guidance. 2 This viewpoint is supported by Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 443-44; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 335; Fred B. Craddock, "The Letter to the Hebrews," in The New Interpreter 's Bible in Twelve Volumes fed. Leander E. Keck et al; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 12:120; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 520; William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (WBC 47b; Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 284; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 285-87; Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews (SP 13; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1989), 210; Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 408; R. McL. Wilson, Hebrews (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 18990; Robert H. Smith, Hebrews (ACNT; Minneapolis: 1984), 129; F. F. Bruce, Hebrews (N1CNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., 1978), 247; Hugh Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (HNTC; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1964), 173; and James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924; repr., 1968), 143. 3 The four main arguments for the traditional understanding are: (1) The immediate context of Hebrews 10 is that of Christ's blood-letting. (2) The use of elsewhere in the epistle (Heb 6:19,9:3) seems to refer to the inner veil that the high priest entered once a year on the Day of Atonement. (3) The "blood of Jesus" in Heb 10:19 is parallel with the "his flesh" in Heb 10:20, so the latter must be part of the sacrificial imagery of the former. (4)

86

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

flesh and the veil has led some to wonder if the author of Hebrews is working within the tradition that Christ's death tore the veil of the Holy of Holies (Mark 15:38; Matt 27:51; Luke 23:45).4 This essay will show that this traditional understanding is significantly flawed. Contrary to the predominant view of the Day of Atonement as the appropriate background to the text, this essay will demonstrate that the author has in mind the inauguration of the Temple. It is against this background that Jesus' flesh as the veil should be seen, not as a reference to Christ passing through the inner veil to offer atonement by means of his death on the cross, but rather as a reference to his Incarnation. It was at his Incarnation that Christ, as the consummate eschatological high priest, passed through the veil that separated the heavens and the cosmos in order to inaugurate the way into the heavenly temple. In so doing, he took upon the high priestly robes that, like the veil, symbolized the material universe. These robes identifying Christ's role as the high priest of the cosmos are not of cloth, but rather are his very flesh. In Hebrews, the process of bringing the faithful into God's presence began at the Incarnation when Christ passed through the veil of the heaven and entered the material world. The coming of the Son into the world is what stands behind the author's words of "through the veil, that is his flesh." Difficulties with Traditional Understanding Indeed, it does seem at first glance that the author of Hebrews is continuing his discussion on how the Day of Atonement typologically explains the significance of Christ's eschatological priesthood. In the traditional understanding, it is argued that a parallelism is drawn between Heb 10:19 and 20. Since the "blood of Jesus" of Heb 10:19 refers to the means by which a believer has access to the holy place of God, so should "his flesh" in Heb 10:20 be understood as the means for Christ's passing through the veil. According to this argument, the parallelism between Heb 10:19 and 20 requires that both and [] be understood instrumental^.5 There is good reason to reject this widely accepted interpretation. First, to argue for an instrumental understanding of requires some awkward grammatical gymnastics.6 If the author intended to draw an instrumental parallelism with "his blood" in 10:19, one would have expected the author to use (or equivalent) in connection to Christ's flesh. But since the author used the to govern both as well as , most
The early Christian tradition frequently associated Christ's death with the subsequent nullification of the veil that separated the presence of God within the Holy of Holies from the rest of the world. 4 Jean Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock; London: Epworth, 1970), 91. See also: Moffatt, Hebrews, 143; and Wilson, Hebrews, 188. 5 So argue: Attridge, Hebrews, 287; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 521 ; Craddock, "Letter," 120; Koester, Hebrews. 433; Montefiore, Epistle, 174; Lane, Hebrews 9-13, 275; Mitchell, Hebrews, 211; and Wilson, Hebrews, 190. 6 See N. H. Young, " (Heb 10:20): Apposition, Dependent, or Explicative/* NTS20 (1973): 100-04, for a good discussion of the various grammatical arguments.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

87

scholars have argued that the changes its meaning from a locative one in the first instance to an instrumental one in the second instance. In order to argue that should be understood instrumentally (in keeping with ), one has to assume that the author chose to build two meanings off of a single (one meaning with veil, and a second one with flesh). It seems highly unlikely that the author would have expected the audience to notice such a subtlety. Granted, in Heb 9:11-12 the author used a locatively and then used a instrumentally later in the sentence. This would seem to establish a precedent for a movement from a locative to instrumental use of in quick succession. But unlike Heb 9:11-12, where the author writes twice, in Heb 10:20 the occurs only once. The author signaled that a change in meaning had occurred in Heb 9:11-12 by writing an additional . The lack of a second in Heb 10:20 indicates that the author had no such change in mind, and therefore saw no need to include an additional . Furthermore, the simple syntax of the passage supports reading as being in direct apposition with . The author's use of ' strongly supports an appositional reading. Throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, whenever the author uses this construction it is always used to designate apposition (Heb 2:14; 7:5; 9:11; 11:16; 13:15). Grammatically, the intention of the author is clear. The veil and the flesh of Jesus are considered to be the same. Any understanding of , ' must incorporate the grammar accordingly. The traditional argument that Christ's flesh is the means by which access to the sanctuary through the veil was accomplished (regardless of how that is explained) is not supported by the grammar.7 Many of those who support seeing Christ's flesh as the means by which Christ passed through the veil recognize the grammatical difficulties. Nevertheless, this argument is often made because scholars see working in tandem with to describe the sacrificial offering of Christ. Paul Ellingworth aptly sums up the reasoning behind those who argue for this supposed change in the author's use of in Heb 10:20, "There are difficulties on all sides; but it is probably better to suppose a change from one well-attested meaning of to another, rather than to give a meaning to which is unlikely in itself, or foreign to Hebrews or both."8 One does not have to take a "lesser of two evils" position regarding the grammar of Heb 10:20 and the presence of in the passage. While is certainly used in Hebrews as part of the sacrificial economy (Heb 9:7, 12-14, 18-22, 25; 10:29; 11:28; 13:11-12, 20), the same cannot be said about . Throughout the epistle, is primarily used with regard to the outer covering,

Brooke F. Westcott (The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays [London, 1892; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 320) argues that the antecedent of Christ's flesh is the . Westcott's attempts, like those of the traditional view, seem based more on theology than on the grammar. 8 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 521.

88

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

or skin, of human or beast. In other words, in Hebrews predominantly refers to the physical appearance (the "fleshiness") of a person. In Heb 2:14, refers to the outer portion of Christ's humanity (with blood being the inner portion). In Heb 5:7, is used to refer to Christ's time on earth as a human. In Heb 9:10 and 9:13, the reference is to the skin that is ceremonially washed. Here again in Heb 10:20, like Heb 2:14, it is the exterior part, the part seen by the world, that is in view. In Heb 12:9, indicates which parents are indicated, the human ones. Human parents are evident by their "fleshy" appearance, as opposed to the heavenly father who is characterized by his spiritual aspect. Notice that in none of these uses of is there any mention to the sacrifice given on the Day of Atonement or to Christ's sacrifice. Even in the two Hebrews 9 references where the scene is sacrificial, the is being affected by the sacrifice, not offered as the sacrifice. Since is not part of the author's vocabulary when presenting the beast/person being sacrificed, it seems unlikely that the author would change his style and import a sacrificial meaning into at Heb 10:20. This is further established by the fact that the author of Hebrews regularly employs (body) when referring to the beast/person being offered for sacrifice (10:5, 10; 13:11). If the author wanted to draw any sort of parallel structure between the blood of Jesus and the body of Jesus as being part of the same sacrifice, then one would have expected him to use and not . In his discussion on Heb 10:20, Ellingworth mistakenly cites Heb 10:5 as proof that the author had already presented as a reference to Christ's self-offering.9 is not used in Heb 10:5, however. The term used is . Ellingworth, like Attridge, incorrectly sees the two terms ( and ) as interchangeable within the epistle.10 But the author of Hebrews seems deliberately to be doing the exact opposite with "flesh" and "body" in the epistle. Thus, rather than affirming the traditional view, the very presence of in Heb 10:20 actually works against the claim that the "flesh" of Jesus represents Christ's atoning sacrifice.11 The long history of difficulty in trying to reconcile the relationship between Christ's flesh and the veil is the result of a steadfast commitment to viewing Heb 10:20 within the Day of Atonement construct, and thus viewing within this sacrificial system. Once freed from this imagery, the possibilities open up to allow one to see alternative views that do not require such semantic artistry or theological hand-wringing to explain how Christ's flesh and the veil can be viewed together. Alternative Setting: The Temple Inauguration In addition to the use of , the author employs other terminology that is in conflict with a Day of Atonement setting. Most notable is his use of the verb
Ellingworth, Hebrews, 520. Attridge, Hebrews, 287. 11 Of all the references, Heb 2:14 comes closest to carrying a sacrificial meaning. A sacrificial context should not be overly stressed in this verse. The pairing of "blood" and "flesh" has more to do with the weakness of humanity than Christ's sacrificial offering. See also Attridge, Hebrews, 92.
,0 9

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

89

in Heb 10:20. This term primarily means to bring about something 12 new, to dedicate or consecrate, to inaugurate. In the LXX, was not used in a general manner. The LXX interpreters primarily employed in passages about the inauguration or consecration of the temple and cultic minis1 tries. Although this term is frequently used in these cultic beginning ceremonies, it is never used in the LXX in reference to Day of Atonement rituals. Therefore, in Heb 10:20, when the author decides to talk about the "new and living way" now available for the faithful, he does not choose the language of Day of Atonement, but rather he chooses the language of cultic inaugura14 tion/consecration. Since blood, as a cleansing agent, is present both at the atonement sacrifice and the inauguration of the covenant between God and the people of Israel, which blood-use stands behind Heb 10:19-20? Not surprisingly, those holding to a traditional Day of Atonement setting argue that the blood of Heb 10:19 belongs to the perfect Day of Atonement sin sacrifice of Christ. For example, Attridge argues that the phrase, "explicitly recalls the instrument by which Christ entered the true heavenly sanctuary, the blood of his obedient selfsacrifice."15 The strongest evidence presented for this argument is that the preceding text (Heb 10:1-18) refers to this perfect, once-and-for-all sin-sacrifice.16 But Heb 10:19 introduces a new section (Heb 10:19-25) that summarizes the entire central section beginning with Heb 4:14. Therefore, limiting the force of the transitional of v. 19 to just the text immediately prior seems too restrictive.17 The numerous points of contact between Heb 10:19-25 and the preceding central section warrant seeing the of Heb 10:19 in reference to the entire central argument from Heb 4:14. Though often seen as an anchor to the traditional atonement view, the reference to Christ's blood in Heb 10:19 is more at home within the inauguration imagery. In Heb 9:7 (an obvious Day of Atonement setting), blood is "offered" () as an atoning sacrifice. Yet in covenant-inauguration settings (Heb 9:19, 21), the blood is "sprinkled" (). The depiction of the installation of the first covenant by the "sprinkling" of blood by Moses in Exod 24:8 most likely stands in the background of this passage. It is this act of "sprinkling" (as opposed to "offering") that anchors the blood of Heb 10:19

I2 Many of the commentators (e.g., Attridge, Hebrews, 285; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 518; and Koester, Hebrews, 418,443) recognize the inauguration/consecration quality of , but fail to appreciate its incongruity in a Day of Atonement setting. ,3 Deut 20:5, 1 Kgdms 11:14(1 Sam 11:14), 3 Kgdms 8:63 (1 Kgs 8:63), and 2 Chr 7:5, 15:8. See also 1 Mace 4:36, 54, 57, and 1 Mace 5:1. l4 The author is clearly working within this motif in Heb 9:18 as well where the old covenant (and by extension, the new covenant) is inaugurated () with blood. 15 Attridge, Hebrews, 285. ,6 Attridge. Hebrews, 283. ,7 I find William L. Lane's (Hebrews 1-8 [WBC 47a; Dallas: Word Books, 1991], xevi) outline of the structure of Hebrews quite convincing. ,8 Ellingworth (Hebrews, 515) presents a nice list of the various points of contact between Heb 10:19-25 and the preceding major section.

90

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

within an inauguration setting instead of within a Day of Atonement context. In Heb 10:22, the faithful are said to have had their hearts sprinkled. Though the agent is not mentioned (in Heb 10:22, the water is connected to the bodies, not the hearts, of the faithful), the reference to sprinkling most likely implies that blood of Heb 10:19 is the agent because both Heb 10:19 and 10:22 refer to the process of the faithful entering the presence of God (i.e., the inauguration of the new covenant). Therefore the blood of Christ which was mentioned in Heb 10:19 was not a blood that was offered in atoning sacrifice, but a blood that was 20 sprinkled, befitting cultic new beginnings. Freeing Christ's blood-letting from a "Day of Atonement" viewpoint also resolves one of the more troublesome inconsistencies involved in the tradi21 tional understanding of Heb 10.19-20. The end result of the Day of Atonement ritual was not the allowance of the people to follow the high priest and collectively enter into the presence of God. Rather, the result was God's bestowing of his forgiveness upon his people by means of the mediation of the high priest.22 In contrast, the inauguration of a temple was for the purpose of installing a place where the faithful can gather for worship. Therefore, the claim in Heb 10:19-20 that the entire people are now able to move into the sacred sanctuary further supports this argument that the author of Hebrews is working with imagery from the inauguration tradition, rather than from the Day of Atonement. If the blood of Heb 10:19 is not atonement blood, then how should the of 10:19 be understood? The term itself, , is a common LXX Koester (Hebrews, 444) rightly recognizes the "sprinkling" as a reference to the inauguration of the first covenant in Exod 24:8, but fails to connect it with the blood-letting of Heb 10:19. 20 Mark A. Peters ("Hebrews 10:19-25," Int 53 [1999]: 62-64) argues that the entire passage, including the exhortations, refers to the gathering of the assembly of believers. 21 Another difficulty is that the offering of Christ's blood as a means for purification occurred prior to his entrance into the Holy Place (Heb 1:3, 9:7). This is contrary to the process outlined in Leviticus 16 where the blood is given after Aaron enters into the Most Holies. For a good overview of these (and other) difficulties regarding the function of the Day of Atonement in Hebrews, see Felix Cortex, "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 (2006): 527-47. Cortez rightly shows how any attempt to press the Day of Atonement language too forcibly onto any text in Hebrews fails to appreciate how the author employs such imagery as a metaphor for conveying the change that has occurred from the old covenant to the new. Cortez makes a strong argument for showing how throughout Hebrews, the Day of Atonement is not employed as a typology for Christ's death, but rather as a parable depicting the movement from the old age to the new age. Similarly, Daniel Stkl Ben Ezra (The Impact ofYom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day ofAtonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century [WUNT 163; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003], 180-93), highlights how the author's use of Day of Atonement imagery throughout Hebrews is incomplete, often lacking central elements (193). As Stkl Ben Ezra aptly illustrates, the author's treatment of the Yom Kippur imagery is not amateurish, but is the result of his intentional choices to choose "those elements that suit his aims: to comfort the afflicted community..." (193-94). Given this high degree of fluidity regarding the Day of Atonement imagery throughout Hebrews, it would be unwise to assume that the author has exclusively depicted Christ's actions solely within a Day of Atonement typology. 22 Peter H. Leithart, "Womb of the World: Baptism and the Priesthood of the New Covenant in Hebrews 10:19-22/'JSNT 78 (2000): 49-65.
,9

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

91

designation for the entire sanctuary as a unit. For example, in Exod 26:33 LXX the comparison is made between the (sanctuary) and the (innermost sanctuary). The author of Hebrews seems to be following suit in Heb 9:3. This "sanctuary as a whole" meaning is also found in Heb 8:2 and 9:1. But in Heb 9:2, 8, 12, 25, and 13:11, likely refers to a more sacred place, the innermost chamber of the Jewish tabernacle/temple. So, which meaning is being used in Heb 10:19? At first glance, given the author's use of inauguration imagery in Heb 10:19-22, it would seem that the more general meaning stands behind Heb 10:19. Nevertheless, in Heb 10:19, it appears that the author is drawing upon both uses of . On the one hand, the faithful are able to enter into which would support a more general understanding of the term. Yet the faithful are not simply entering into any sanctuary. On the contrary, the faithful are entering into the very throne room of God (Heb 4:16), into God's presencewhich would also support the more restrictive meaning. In the earthly temple, the innermost chamber represented heaven, the dwelling of God, and the outer chambers belonged to the physical world. In declaring that the faithful can confidently enter into the in Heb 10:19, the author is not saying that the faithful can follow Christ into the inner chamber, but rather he is declaring that they can enter into what the inner chamber of the earthly sanctuary represented, namely God's heavenly dwelling place.24 The divisions and restrictions that characterize the earthly sanctuary (specifically the designation of a space where God restricted his presence) do not characterize the heavenly sanctuary.25 This is the message of Heb 10:19-22, and the eschatological reality that the faithful now enjoy. In Heb 10:19-22, the faithful are exhorted to approach heaven with assurance because, just as the high priests of the first covenant were ordained for the priesthood when Moses sprinkled them with blood (Exod 29:20-21; Lev 8:23-24, 30), so now those who are committed to Christ are similarly ordained, having being sprinkled with the sacrificial bloodthe very blood of the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 10:22).26 As a summary to the argument that he Lev 21:23; Ezek 7:24; Jer 51:51. Lane (Hebrews 1-8, 210-11) describes the author's concept of the heavenly realm quite well, "But, viewed axiologically, heaven, as the 'place' of God's presence, transcends earth as the source of all reality and value." 25 For a very thorough presentation of the importance of heaven in the theology of Hebrews, see Marie E. ssacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992). Issacs argues that Heb 9:11-12 implies that heaven itself has more than one compartment through which Christ had to pass (210). Attridge (Hebrews. 248), however, is more likely correct regarding these verses when he writes, "Hebrews will finally be concerned not so much with a realistically conceived heavenly journey made by Christ as with the significance of entry into the realm where God is truly worshiped." Likewise, Heb 10:19-20 is not concerned with the possible levels within heaven, as much as it is concerned with the qualitative difference between the heavenly sanctuary and its earthly copies (Heb 8:2, 5, 9:11, 24). 26 Leithart ("Womb," 55) points out how in the ordination rites of priests (Exod 29:4, 21; Lev 8:6, 30) one find the combination of water and blood. This combination of water and blood further roots Heb 10:19-22 into an inauguration setting.
24 23

92

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

has been making since Heb 4:14, the author of Hebrews chose to use inauguration language to highlight the radical character of the new covenant and the entry into the heavenly temple its high priest provided. In the new covenant, faithful humanity would be elevated to the position of high priest, with all its privileges of access.27 Christ's Flesh and the Veil of the Temple How does this background help us explain , 1 ? Specifically, how does this background factor into the author's choice to mention the veil? The primary benefit of this background, and the need to spend such a significant amount of time on it, is that it provides parameters by which to discern the correct interpretation of Heb 10:20. First, in order to be valid, an interpretation of this text must fit within this imagery of cultic new beginnings, including the text's primary focus on the heavenly temple. Second, the interpretation must respect the consistent non-sacrificial use of found elsewhere in the epistle. Third, and most important, an interpretation must adequately explain the appositional relationship between veil and flesh. The key to rightly understanding Heb 10:20 lies in the way the author of Hebrews uses to denote the skin that gives a person his or her appearance. As discussed previously, the general meaning of refers to the outer covering, the fleshiness of a person or beast. It is the skin that provides a person with an appearance. If the phrase is translated as "through the veil, which is his outward appearance," then the relationship becomes more apparent. In the economy of the temple, there was a mode of appearance that was the same as that of the veil of the templethe robes of the high priest.28 The symbols on the veil of the temple represented the material world of the universe, the cosmos. Philo, in QE 2.82-85, described how the various symbols of the temple/tabernacle were rooted in creation. For example, the fabrics of the veil of the temple reflected the four elements of the universe (earth, air, water, and fire).29 Josephus, in J. W. 5.212-214, depicted this curtain as presenting both the material universe and its living creatures, as well as the heavens. Philo describes the veil of the temple in terms of airy covering above the earth that separated the material world and the truly divine world {QE 2.91). The veil of the temple did not simply separate the outer rooms of the temple from the inner room; instead, with its intricate and fine adornments, it symbolically represented the 30 separation that existed between the dwelling place of God and his creation. In
Once again, one cannot simply assume that the presence of blood meant a Day of Atonement allusion. The author of Hebrews conceives of Christ's death on the cross in a myriad of ways. In Heb 10:19-22, Christ's blood is associated with the inauguration of a new covenant and the installation of a new priesthood. 28 For a good summary on the relationship between the high priestly robes and the temple see G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church 's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (NSBT; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 47-48. 29 Philo: QE 2.85; Moses 2.87-88. Josephus: J.W. 5.212-214; Ant. 3.183. 30 As Margaret Barker (The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy [London: T&T Clark, 2003], 188-89) aptly points out, this is certainly the logic behind Josephus description of the three parts of the temple in Ant. 3.181. According to Josephus, the

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

93

this act of separating, the veil was depicted as participating in both realms simultaneously. The veil was both a point of contact, as well as a means of division. The high priestly robes were also symbolically adorned (Exodus 28).31 Like the veil, the robes of high priest were of the same blue, purple, and scarlet material used to reflect the colors of the cosmos, while the jewels on the high priest's breast piece, like the jewels of the veil, signified the luminaries of the heavens.32 As they did with the veil, Philo and Josephus see a similar symbolic significance in the garments of the high priest.33 Again, Philo is informative regarding the significance of the high priestly robes. In Moses 2.135, Philo writes, "For, as he wears a vesture which represents the world . . . and so be in a sense transformed from a man into the nature of the world; and . . . be himself a little world, a microcosm" (Colson, LCL). There was an organic relationship between the cosmic symbolism of the robes of the high priest and the cosmic symbolism of the veil of the temple. Philo also connects the practices and garments of the earthly high priests with the practices and garments of the Logos. In Flight 108-110, Philo discusses how the Logos is the pattern upon which the earthly high priests receive their meaning. In this passage, Philo personifies the divine Logos as the high priest who, by virtue of his immunity to unrighteousness and his intimate union with God and Wisdom, is worthy to put on the high priestly garments. He describes this raiment of the divine Logos as being made up of the four elements of the universe. In this passage the earthly high priest's garments are identified with the heavenly Logos' clothing of creation itself. Likewise, in Dreams 1.215, Philo equates what the earthly high priest does and wears with that which the divine Logos does and wears. 4 For Philo, the high priestly garments could be considered a microcosm of the universe because the high priests were exhibiting symbolically what the Logos has done ultimately and universal-

iy.
In the Jewish traditions, the high priest symbolically wore the elements of the universe on his priestly robes when serving outside the veil in order to indicate his unity with the material world.35 When he was beyond the veil, though, in the inner chamber, he wore the white linen of the angels, thus inditwo outer parts, which were accessible to the people, were the land and the sea, but the inner chamber, which was marked off by the veil, was inaccessible, because it was heaven and heaven belonged only to God. 3 'As Barker (High Priest, 210) notes, only the high priest wore the vestments that shared the symbolism of the veil, the ordinary priests did not. 32 Beale (Temple, 39-40) shows how virtually every aspect of the high priest's garments was rooted in the imagery and design of the temple. ?Y\\\o\ Moses 2.117-126, 133-135, 143. Josephus: Ant. 3.180, 183-187. 34 In making this comparison Philo states that "the high priest is the outward, visible image, who offers prayers and sacrifices handed down from our fathers, to whom it has been committed to wear the aforesaid tunic, which is a copy and replica of the whole heaven, the intention being that the universe may join with man in the holy rites and men with the universe," (Philo, Dreams 1.215 [Colson, LCL]). 35 Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991), 113.

94

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

eating he was within the heavenly realm. The logic of the difference in vestments requires that some sort of transference occur when the high priest passes through the veil. So, for example, when the high priest leaves the presence of God, he passes through the veil that symbolically separates the material and the heavenly worlds. In this passing, the high priest takes upon the elements of the material world that are present in the veil. This movement into the material world is represented by the cosmological symbols on his priestly robes. But when the high priest passes from the material world into the heavenly place, these robes are out of place, requiring the high priest to put on the white linens. Philo, in Dreams 2.189, writes regarding Lev 16:17, "'For when the high priest enters the Holy of Holies he shall not be a man.' Who then, if he is not a man? A God? I will not say so. . . . (Y)et not a man either, but one contiguous with both extremes" (Colson, LCL). The direction of the passing through the veil determines the nature of the garments that are worn (and, for Philo, the nature of the priest himself). Therefore, given this sharing of the symbolism by the veil and the high priestly garments, the equation of Christ's flesh to the veil in Heb 10:20 begins to make sense. When Christ, as the heavenly high priest who eternally enjoyed being in the presence of God came from heaven to the earth in order to inaugurate the way to the heavenly temple, he passed through the cosmic veil that separated heaven from the cosmos.37 In so doing, Christ acquired for his garments the same material elements of the cosmos that were contained in the cosmic veil. In Heb 10:20, the author of Hebrews is not depicting Christ's journey through the veil into the presence of God, but rather his journey through the veil from the presence of God. It was in this passing that Christ (like Philo's Logos) put on the elements of the physical world. For the author of Hebrews, this high priestly clothing that Christ put on to indicate his presence in the material world was not made of cloth, nor of earth, fire, water, air; the high priestly robes he wore were his very flesh.38 In Heb 10:20, the author not only reminds
See Lev 16:4; Ezek 9:2; Dan 10:5; / Enoch 87:2; 2 Enoch 22:8, 10; and Philo, Dreams 1.217-18. 37 Eric F. Mason ( 'You are a Priest Forever ': Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews [STDJ 74; Leiden: Brill, 2008]) provides an excellent discussion on the heavenly high priest theme in Hebrews. Mason argues that the Melchizedekian traditions at Qumran provide one of the best sources for understanding Hebrews' conception of Jesus as high priest. This study did not engage with these traditions, however there may be some interesting overlaps between the author's emphasis on Christ's humanity and the presence of both angelic and mundane portraits of Melchizedek (Mason, Priest, 201) in the Qumran texts. For example, in Heb 5:7 the author describes Jesus' time on earth as the "days of hisflesh"(emphasis mine). In this passage, the author highlights Christ's conducting of priestly activities of offering prayers and petitions. Furthermore, this reference to Christ's days in the flesh comes during a discussion about Christ's priestly identity in the manner of Melchizedek. 38 Contra Stkl Ben Ezra (Yom Kippur, 193), who cites the absence of the high priest's changing of clothes in Hebrews as evidence that the author of Hebrews is not providing a complete Yom Kippur typology in his presentation of Christ as High Priest. Despite his correct observation that Hebrews is primarily set within an eschatological and apocalyptic framework, Stkl Ben Ezra misses the author's use of the cosmic significance of the high priest's clothing in his presentation of Christ as the consummate eschatological high priest.
36

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

95

his readers that their heavenly high priest became flesh, but he explains precisely how this becoming flesh occurredby passing through the cosmic veil that separated heaven and creation. Certainly the author of Hebrews' presentation of Christ goes further than Philo's depiction of the Logos. Though Philo will personify the Logos at times, the Logos essentially remains the thought or reason of God. But the author of Hebrews depicts Christ's coming as the actual event, as the moment when the eschatological high priest passed through the cosmic veil at his Incarnation, and so came to know what it meant to exist in the flesh. Christ's high priesthood is not like that of the earthly high priests who enter into the Holy of Holies only once a yearbut rather he is the heavenly high priest who eternally existed in heaven, and has come down to open up the way for all the faithful to gain entry into the true, heavenly sanctuary of God.39

Hebrews 4:14-16
The parallel with Heb 4:14-16 again proves quite helpful. As is commonly pointed out, there are numerous parallels between Heb 4:14-16 and Heb 10:1925. They serve as brackets for the entire central discussion regarding the eschatological significance of Christ's priesthood. In both passages, the faithful are exhorted to approach the heavenly space of God with assurance and confidence (Heb 4:16; 10:19). In both passages, the faithful are called to hold fast to their confessions (Heb 4:14; 10:23). And, not surprisingly, both passages cite the superiority of the priesthood of Christ as the grounds for these exhortations. Therefore, given these parallels, it is reasonable to allow these texts to aid in the interpretation of each other. In Heb 4:14-16, the superiority of Christ's priesthood rests on two factors: 1) Christ passed through the heavens; and 2) Christ sympathizes with the weaknesses of humanity, being tested in every way, yet remaining without sin. Christ's passage through the heavens in Heb 4:14 is typically understood as a reference to his movement from earth to heaven (Heb 1:3; 2:9; 8:1; 9:24).40 But the force of the passage in 4:14-16 is not simply that there is now a high priest in heaven who intercedes on behalf of the faithful, but rather that the heavenly high priest first came down (passed through the heavens) in order to sympathize with the weakness of humanity.41 Hebrews 4:14-16 introduces the critique the
Beale (Temple, 301) offers a very compelling suggestion that the imagery of veil and Christ's flesh in Heb 10:19-21 may also refer to the in-breaking of a new creation, where Christ comes as the last Adam to inaugurate a new world. 40 For example, Attridge (Hebrews, 139) states, "Christ's entry into the presence of God has not been described precisely as a 'passage through the heavens,' although the notion is implicit in earlier references to the exaltation." So also Lane (Hebrews 1-8, 103), Ellingworth (Hebrews, 266), Westcott (Epistle. 105), and Hughes (Hebrews, 170). 41 Kevin B. McCruden (Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews [BZNW 159; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 104) effectively describes the importance of this sympathetic quality of Christ's High Priesthood in Heb 4:14-16, 'This explicit link between Christ's status as a High Priest on the one hand, and his sympathetic stance in relation to the faithful on the other, highlights once more the preoccupation of the author [of Hebrews] with delineating Christ's character as deeply beneficent and philanthropic And while it is true that the author will later emphasize other characteristics of Christ's
39

96

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

author will make against the Levitical priesthood throughout the central section of Hebrews, namely, that it was composed of fallen humans. For the author of Hebrews, Christ's high priesthood is unique and superior among all Israel's priests in that it began in heaven, continued on earth, and finally persists eternally in heaven.42 Therefore, both at the beginning (Heb 4:14-16) and at the end (Heb 10:19-25) of Hebrews' discussion on the high priesthood of Christ, the author chose to remind his readers of the message of the prologue (Heb 1:14)that the Son of God, the heir of all things, the one through whom God created, the exact imprint of God's being came to earth to inaugurate the escha43 tological age and provide the way for the faithful to be in the presence of God. Conclusion This treatment of Heb 10:19-20 has ultimately been a discussion about movement. In determining the meaning of the , ' it has been necessary to understand the proper context of the passage. If the context is the Day of Atonement, then the flesh of Christ and its relationship to the veil must refer to his passing through the veil to present his eschatological self-offering for the purification of sins. Though such a reading is wrought with grammatical and terminological difficulties, it has been traditionally upheld since it seemed in keeping with what the author of Hebrews does elsewhere. If the context, however, is insteadas argued hereone of covenant and temple inauguration, then Christ's "flesh" need not refer to his sacrificial death. In a context of cultic new beginnings, the mention of Christ's flesh brings to the forefront the moment of Christ's Incarnation when he passed through the heavens, through that cosmic veil that separated heaven and the

Priesthood, such as its eternal status (7:24), it is crucial to see that Christ's mercy (2:17) and sympathy (4:15) are ihs first qualities that the author designates as constitutive of Christ's Priesthood. This suggests that Christ's Priesthood is marked above all else by its personal commitment and connection to the faithful" (emphasis mine). 42 Richard M. Davidson ("Christ's Entry 'Within the Veil' in Hebrews 6:19-20: the Old Testament Background," AUSS 39 [2001]: 176) rightly highlights the importance of Moses in both Heb 9:16-24 and Heb 10:20. Davidson points out that the dominant motif in both these texts is the comparison between the high priestly actions of Jesus with the priestly actions of Moses when he inaugurated thefirstsanctuary. Given the importance of the Moses imagery in the first part of the epistle, it is surprising that the priestly actions of Moses have not played a greater role in the overall interpretation of Hebrews. In another article in this issue of PRSt, David M. Moffitt ("Unveiling Jesus' Flesh: Reassessing Hebrews 10:20 and Its Context") presents an intriguing and persuasive argument regarding the significant role that the traditions of Moses might have played in the Christology of Hebrews. Moffitt's discussion on the importance of the ascension of Moses motif is most convincing in this regard. 43 Richard M. Davidson ("Christ's Entry," 181) points out that most of Hebrews 10 has been working within an inauguration motif. Hebrews 10:1-11 points to a time of transition between the first and second cultic systems. Hebrews 10:12 deals with the installation of Christ's high priestly mission. Hebrews 10:16 highlights the making of a new covenant. According to Davidson, with the installation of the new sanctuary in Heb 10:20, you have the fourfold beginning of a new sacrificial system.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

97

material world to inaugurate the eschatological age.44 In passing through the veil, Christ became the veil, that is, he participated simultaneously in both the heavenly realm and the earthly realm. Just as the earthly high priest was required to adorn himself with the symbols of the material universe when he moved from the inner chamber (heaven), through the veil, and into the outer world, so also Christ took upon material flesh when he passed through the veil, from the throne of grace into creation. This passing through the cosmic veil was manifested in the vestments that it formed, the vestments of the created order. The author of Hebrews reminds the church today that the eschatological age finds its root in Christmas, as much as it does in Easter.45

Moffitt presents an impressive study regarding the importance of Christ's ascension in the theology of Hebrews. Moffitt argues that the atoning moment of Hebrews was Christ's taking of his immortal body and blood before God in the heavenly tabernacle. His argument is quite persuasive and very useful for my understanding of Hebrews. At several points, our essays are in agreement (e.g., the denial that "flesh" in Heb 10:20 refers to Christ's sacrificial death, and the recognition that Christ's passing through the veil was a cosmic passing and not a poetic reference to the tearing of the Holy of Holies' curtain). But in addition to some minor points of difference between our essays (e.g., the grammatical analysis of Heb 10:20, and the author's use of "flesh" vs. "body"), our primary disagreement centers on movement. Moffitt argues that the climactic moment of Christ's return to heaven is behind Heb 10:20. Although Moffitt argues against the traditional viewpoint, he still maintains that the movement of the passage isfromearth, through the veil, into heaven. Where Moffitt seeks to emphasize Christ's ascension into heaven as the climactic moment (with Christ's time on earth primarily being one of testing that resulted in Christ's invitation to sit in the throne room of God), this essay sees the author of Hebrews equally emphasizing Christ's descent. Mofitt's essay effectively, and most persuasively, addresses the christological importance of Christ's standing, as the perfect human, in the sanctuary of God. But Moffitt's focus on Christ's ascension precludes him from exploring the intimate relationship that the veil itself had with Christ's flesh. In Heb 10:20, Christ's passing through the veil not only refers to the moment when Christ became flesh, but also to the means by which he acquired his flesh. 45 The author of Hebrews is not the only early Christian writer to connect the Incarnation of Christ with the veil of the Temple. In the Infancy Gospel ofJames, the story of Mary's work on the veil in the Temple is told. In this story, Mary was given the task of spinning the colors of the cosmos (gold, white, scarlet, blue, and purple). As she was spinning, the angel of the Lord appeared to Mary telling her of her future son, Jesus. It was while Mary was making the veil, that the proclamation of the birth was made.

44

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.